Anaheim City Council
March 24, 2026

ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2026
The regular meeting of January 13, 2026 was called to order at 4:31 P.M. in the Council Chamber of Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda, and related material were duly posted on January 8, 2026.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Carlos A. Leon, Ryan Balius, Norma Campos Kurtz, Kristen M. Maahs, and Natalie Meeks.

Council Member Natalie Rubalcava joined the meeting during Closed Session.

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 ITEM: None
CLOSED SESSION: At 4:32 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed to Closed Session for consideration of the following:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: Victor Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2025 01452393 CU-PO-NJC
At 5:06 p.m., Mayor Aitken reconvened the Anaheim City Council.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Carlos A. Leon, Ryan Balius, Natalie Rubalcava, Norma Campos Kurtz, Kristen M. Maahs, and Natalie Meeks
INVOCATION: Pastor Scott Rubin, Saddleback Church Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Leon shared that the flag represents a nation built by immigrants and governed by a Constitution that protects freedom, due process, and equal protection under the law. He added that at a time when families are living in fear and uncertainty, true unity means holding fast to the Constitution and the freedoms and rights it guarantees for everyone.

FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Carlos A. Leon
ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date):

Recognizing January 2026, as National Mentoring Month
Recognizing January 11, 2026, as Human Trafficking Awareness Day ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
ITEM # 26
City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearing): 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 Theresa Bass reported that a total of sixty-one (61) public comments were received electronically prior to 3:00 p.m. [A final total of sixty-five (65) public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. – See Appendix.

R. Joshua Collins spoke about ongoing homelessness in the community, noting that many individuals experiencing homelessness are seniors. He expressed concern about the impact of fines on low- income individuals and advocated for income-based fines to reduce financial burdens. He explained that fixed fines can affect low-income individuals and contribute to cycles of debt and instability. He urged the City Council to consider income-based penalties used in European countries and to continue to expand shelter and assistance for those in need.

Mark Richard Daniels expressed safety concerns about e-bikes on sidewalks, noting several close encounters he has experienced. He stated that many riders travel at high speeds past pedestrians.

He requested additional information about penalties for e-bikes on sidewalks and suggested increased enforcement and penalties.

Ruben Greg Soto spoke on the harmful impacts of alcohol and drugs. He cited biblical passages warning against substance use.

Mike Castner shared his personal experience with homelessness. He shared that he received financial assistance through a shelter and obtained housing. He reported that he began facing financial hardship after a shoulder injury, leading to unemployment. He stated that rent increases, combined with the inability to retroactively adjust rent during his period of unemployment, resulted in significant back rent and placed him at risk of losing his housing. He requested a greater understanding of the challenges faced by unhoused individuals experiencing or recovering from homelessness.

Vance Dizney criticized Tesla vehicles and their impacts on the environment. He stated that gas- powered cars are more ecologically efficient. He proposed a nuclear and automotive infrastructure concept.

Carina Munoz shared her support for the family of Albert Arzola. She shared that Anaheim Police Department (APD) has ranked ninth out of the 60 largest cities in the United States for officer- involved deaths during arrests. She requested that the unedited police footage and audio be released.

David Pulido spoke in support of the Arzola family. He called for justice regarding the shooting of Albert Arzola and requested the release of the full, unedited body camera video and audio from all officers involved. He disputed claims by the APD regarding the circumstances of the incident. He shared that Albert Arzola was a valued friend, dedicated worker, and beloved son and family member. He called for accountability from the officers involved and the release of the full, unedited footage.

Cecil Jordan Corkern expressed concern about subliminal messages in Disney content. He urged the City Council to get involved.

Wes Jones highlighted David Boyle from Vons for his recognition and community involvement. He mentioned that other individuals are deserving of recognition. He shared that he is involved with the People’s Homeless Task Force, noting that he and his wife have provided thousands of meals to City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

individuals experiencing homelessness. He condemned the officers involved in the shooting of Albert Arzola.

Art Castillo shared his experience working with the City and previous interactions with law enforcement. He raised concerns about transparency and trust in police investigations. He encouraged City leadership and the new Police Chief to engage with the community and work toward improved honesty, accountability, and relationships between law enforcement and the community.

Mike Robbins referenced the proposed sale of Angel Stadium and expressed concern regarding the valuation and negotiations related to the property. He referenced ongoing investigations and criticized the involvement of former and current City officials. He addressed housing needs in the City and emphasized the need for emergency services and fire protection resources to support new housing.

He urged the City to ensure adequate funding for public safety services and called for greater accountability regarding the Stadium negotiations.

Jeanine Robbins urged the City Council to address concerns about transparency and accountability in reference to allegations of corruption raised in recent news articles. She criticized current and past City leadership and called for the resignation or termination of certain City officials and employees.

She encouraged the City Council to prioritize residents’ concerns and take action to address alleged misconduct within the organization.

Christine Ediss requested the release of the full, unedited body camera footage from the officer involved shooting resulting in the death of Albert Arzola. She expressed concern that only a portion of the footage was released. She stated that the City has a responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability for constituents and the community. She shared that Albert was a recent Katella High School graduate with a promising future and love for the City. She urged the City Council to ensure transparency and accountability by providing the full, unedited video.

Stephanie M. addressed the City Council regarding concerns about transparency and accountability in City government related to the Angel Stadium negotiations. She referenced reports that certain City officials participated in a mock Council meeting regarding the Stadium. She stated that the actions undermine public trust and called for the resignations of Chief Communications Officer Mike Lyster, City Manager Jim Vanderpool, and Stephen Faessel. She urged the City Council to uphold its commitment to transparency and ethical governance.

Marc Herbert expressed concern that public participation is limited, referencing the limited number of comments submitted with the Housing Element. He shared that he submitted a letter to the City Council alleging six Brown Act violations and had not received a response. He raised questions about the December 15th community meeting regarding the death of Albert Arzola. He questioned why the meeting was not livestreamed, attendance by the City Council and Police Chief, and Police and City staff presence at La Palma Village.

Vern expressed support for the family and friends of Albert Arzola and expressed concern about the alleged harassment of the family by officers. He encouraged the new Police Chief to address the allegations. He voiced opposition to the Deer Canyon project due to fire safety concerns. He reported that Tenant United Anaheim is working to place a rent control measure on the November ballot that would limit annual rent increases to approximately 3%.

Sergio Pelayo requested the release of the full, unedited footage of the officer-involved shooting with Albert Arzola and the release of the autopsy report. He explained that there are many unanswered questions including the name of the officer involved.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Grace Arzola called for the release of the unedited police body camera footage related to the officer- involved shooting with Albert Arzola. She requested an independent investigation and the release of the autopsy report and officers’ names. She alleged instances of police harassment and misinformation affecting their family. She shared that she and the family would continue to attend meetings to seek justice and accountability.

Bryan Kaye expressed sympathy for the Arzola family and shared his personal experiences with the Anaheim Police Department. He raised concerns about alleged discriminatory language and behavior by officers. He requested accountability and reforms within the Police Department.

Kenneth Batiste raised concerns about the City’s financial obligations and alleged corruption. He criticized the City’s involvement with special interests and questioned public financing related to the Disneyland parking structure. He advocated for policy changes including rent control, stronger anti- corruption measures, and a proposed admissions tax on large venues.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Member Maahs highlighted the Miraloma Family Resource Center staff for their thoughtful programs and service to the community. She explained that staff coordinates and ensures that the center has food distributions. She added that other City staff have accompanied residents to find information when family and friends have been detained. She shared that on Christmas Eve, toys were delivered to children staying at a motel in District 5. She reported that the tradition began at the Police Department with resident Linda Newby connecting with families who stay in motels long-term.

She thanked District 5 residents who allowed toy collections at their locations, including Iguana’s Mexican Food, Hamburguesas Uruapan, and Stadium Pepz Pizza & Eatery. Council Member Maahs recognized the organization Bikers Against Child Abuse, which supports children who have experienced abuse. She shared that the organization consistently shows up for children, helping them feel safe through court cases and other situations. She reported that she joined a District 5 neighborhood to celebrate Three Kings Day. She thanked Yesenia Rojas for organizing the celebration and securing toys. She also thanked the Orange County Labor Federation for its donation of toys and Congressman Lou Correa for donating books. Council Member Maahs invited the public to a Community Resource Fair, held in collaboration with Council Member Kurtz, Katella High School, and South Junior High School, on Saturday, January 24th. She shared that the event would feature numerous community organizations, along with a car show, food vendors, and a sensory station designed for individuals with autism and their families.

Council Member Rubalcava highlighted K&A Café for hosting their Christmas Eve Community Brunch for their 17th year. She shared that despite the rain, 1,500 people received gifts and enjoyed a hot breakfast. She added that the event is an opportunity for the community to gather and give back, particularly during challenging times. She highlighted the City employees who attended the event, including the City Clerk’s Office. She noted that the City Clerk’s Office offers passport services. She added that the Fire Department and Housing and Community Development Department were in attendance and provided resources and information to the public. Council Member Rubalcava welcomed the first baby born in District 3 in 2026, Sebastian Alexander Lopez Perez, to a Housing and Community Development Commissioner representing District 3 and an employee for Congressman Lou Correa. She welcomed baby Sebastian Alexander Lopez Perez to District 3.

Council Member Rubalcava shared that she has had the honor and privilege of representing 50,000 residents in District 3 and addressing their needs. She outlined her priorities for the final year of her first term. She reported that she would continue to focus on safer neighborhoods and highlighted Chief Cid for his leadership and engagement with the community and sworn and non-sworn public safety officers. She shared that she would like to see improved response times and improved dispatch and follow-up experiences. Council Member Rubalcava reported that the City is planning City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

and developing a new fire station in District 3 that would serve the district and Districts 1 and 2. She shared that the fire station would provide better public safety for the community and first responder services. She added that she would prioritize traffic safety and shared concerns raised by residents.

She reported that she would work to advance workforce and attainable housing opportunities in the City and increase the use of skilled labor on housing development projects. Council Member Rubalcava reported that she is working with the Planning Department to develop a clear, predictable, and timely planning process. She shared additional priorities, including investment in gang intervention and prevention, reduction of theft and property crimes, and preservation of public parks and spaces. She added that she is interested in the continued funding of services for homeless outreach and prevention. She thanked her Council colleagues for their shared interest in the priorities.

Council Member Balius thanked the Public Works Department for the tour of the City yard and District 1 project updates. He shared that there was a water main break on Knott, repairs of six tree roots, 39 sidewalk ramps, 660 square feet of paving, 2,000 square feet of asphalt repair, 19 utility service repairs, and 612 patched potholes. He highlighted the new sidewalk in front of the Walmart parking lot on Beach Boulevard. He shared resident’s appreciation of the sidewalk and encouraged the public to visit. He highlighted Bharat and Ragini Patel and the YMCA for setting up a play space at Brookhurst Park featuring snow, a snowball toss, and sledding. He noted that over 1,000 kids stopped by with several mentioning they had never seen snow. Council Member Balius encouraged West Anaheim residents to attend the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) update on the North Basin Groundwater Cleanup at Brookhurst Park on January 29th from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Mayor Aitken addressed comments raised by speakers during public comment. She shared that during her first year in office, the City Council had adopted several transparency measures that could have prevented issues still being raised. She referenced the recent LA Times article regarding the City Manager and requested a Closed Session item to receive more information and consult with the City’s Ethics Officer and City Attorney. She emphasized the importance of earning and maintaining the public’s trust. She reported that during the Closed Session item, the Council would ask questions of the City Manager. She explained that due to the Brown Act and timeline to post the agenda, the Council was unable to discuss or agendize the item prior to the scheduled meeting. She requested time to address the issues and hopes to have answers at the next meeting.

CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE:

City Manager Jim Vanderpool provided an update on Angel Stadium. He reported that last month, as part of the ongoing stadium assessment, lab testing was underway and would be completed during the week. He shared that results are expected in four to six weeks and findings would be reviewed and analyzed. He reported that the City would hire an engineering firm for a final assessment, based on testing and results, with a final assessment expected around mid-2026.

CONSENT CALENDAR: At 6:27 p.m., the Consent Calendar was considered with Council Member Rubalcava pulling Item No. 12 for separate consideration.

MOTION: Council Member Kurtz moved to waive reading of the ordinances and resolutions and adopt the balance of the consent calendar as presented, in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations furnished each City Council Member, seconded by Council Member Meeks.

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

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

1. Receive and file minutes of the Cultural and Heritage Commission meeting of September 18, 2025; Library Board meeting of October 13, 2025; and the Public Utilities Board meeting of November 19, 2025.

2. Appoint an ex officio, non-voting member to the Parks and Recreation Commission, term to expire January 13, 2030 [Anaheim Union High School District, Dr. Jose Paolo Magcalas].

3. Approve certificates recognizing Chain Reaction Music Venue for operating in the City of Anaheim for nearly 30 years; Randy Reyes for his years of service to the City of Anaheim; Toastmasters International, Anaheim Club 2, for their 100th Anniversary; Dr. Ash Hakhamian and his team for their efforts to stabilize and provide care for a critically injured dog; and David Boyle from Vons on his retirement and for his dedication and work portraying Santa Claus.

4. Authorize the issuance of Purchase Order No. 515-407201 to Mity-Lite, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $185,003.24 plus applicable sales tax, for the purchase of replacement dance floor panels for the Anaheim Convention Center; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all necessary contractual documents in accordance with Invitation for Bids No. 9869.

5. Approve the First Amendment to Agreement with KOA Corporation, increasing the not to exceed amount by $75,072 from $298,205.60 to $373,277.60, for civil engineering design services for the Citywide Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Gap Closure Project; and authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to execute the amendment and take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement.

6. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an Opioid Settlement Funding Professional Services Agreement, in substantial form, with the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of Arizona State University, in the amount of $163,720, to conduct a comprehensive research and evaluation study of Anaheim Fire and Rescue’s Advanced Provider Response Unit for a two year term commencing on February 1, 2026; authorize the Director of Housing and Community Development, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents necessary to implement, fund, and administer the agreement, provided that the maximum contract authority does not change; and authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the agreements, as determined by the City Attorney’s Office.

7. Approve a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Agreement with Taller San Jose Hope Builders dba Hope Builders, in an amount not to exceed $555,987, to assist local disadvantaged youth to prepare for joining the workforce for a term beginning July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027; and authorize the Director of Housing & Community Development Department, or designee, to execute and administer the agreement.

8. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve the First Amendment to Agreement with Townsend Public Affairs, increasing the term by an additional one-year optional renewal and increasing the total not to exceed amount by $90,000 from $270,000 to $360,000, for supplemental state advocacy services; and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to administer the agreement under the terms and conditions of the agreement.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

9. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve a Licensed Training Provider Agreement with The American National Red Cross, in an amount not to exceed $100,000, to allow Anaheim Fire & Rescue to utilize American Red Cross training materials and issue nationally recognized course certifications for a three year term; and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents, including any cost-neutral amendments and to take the necessary actions to implement, fund, and administer the agreement.

10. Approve First Amendments to five Professional Services Agreements removing the annual not to exceed limit of $500,000 with no change to the maximum contract compensation amount of $2,500,000 for as-needed plan check, permit processing, and inspection consulting services for the Planning and Building Department Building Services Division; and authorize the Director of Planning and Building to execute the amendments and related documents necessary to implement the amendments (CSG Consultants, Inc.; Scott Fazekas and Associates, Inc.; The Code Group Inc. dba VCA Code; TRB and Associates; and 4 Leaf, Inc.).

11. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Director of Public Works or designee to submit two improvement project grant applications to the Orange County Transportation Authority for funding under Project O - the Regional Capacity Program under Measure M2 on behalf of the City of Anaheim, and if awarded, authorize the acceptance of such grant on behalf of the City and amend the budget for the fiscal year accordingly [grant funds in a combined total of $840,000 with a required local match of $280,000].

13. Approve minutes of the City Council meeting of October 28, 2025.

BUSINESS CALENDAR:

12. ORDINANCE NO. 6618 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 6.103 (Nitrous Oxide) to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Public Health and Safety) to regulate the sale of Nitrous Oxide to prevent illegal and recreational use in order to protect public health and safety [includes determination that the proposed amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, and 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; introduced at the Council meeting of December 16, 2025].

ORDINANCE NO. 6619 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 6.105 (Kratom) to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Public Health and Safety) to regulate the sale, distribution, and possession of Kratom in order to protect public health and safety [includes determination that the proposed amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, and 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; introduced at the Council meeting of December 16, 2025].

ORDINANCE NO. 6620 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 6.44 (Nuisances) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety); Chapter

14.32 (Parking and Stopping) of Title 14 (Traffic); Chapters 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial Zones); 18.10 City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

(Industrial Zone); 18.12 (Mixed-Use Zone); 18.14 (Public and Special-Purpose Zones); 18.16 (Regulatory Permits); 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone); 18.36 (Types of Uses);

18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); 18.39 (Multiple-family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards); 18.40 (General Development Standards); 18.42 (Parking and Loading);

18.44 (Signs); 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits); 18.92 (Definitions); 18.114 (Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1) Zoning and Development Standards); 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and Development Standards); 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and Development Standards); 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; Adjustment No. 17 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1) Zoning and Development Standards; Adjustment No. 15 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and Development Standards; Adjustment No. 16 to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and Development Standards; Adjustment No. 10 to the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards; and determining that the proposed amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines under Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, and 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [Development Application No. 2025-00041: Annual Update Anaheim Municipal Code Titles 6 (Public Health and Safety), 14 (Traffic), and 18 (Zoning) Related to Code Streamlining and Improvements; introduced at the Council meeting of December 16, 2025].

Director of Planning and Building Heather Allen reported that the ordinances were introduced at the City Council at the December 16, 2025 Council meeting. She explained that staff proposed local regulations for nitrous oxide and kratom.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava thanked Director Allen and the team for their work on the item. She requested additional information on implementation and enforcement.

Director Allen explained that the ordinances become effective in 30 days. She added that during that time, Code Enforcement and the Police Department would conduct outreach to smoke shops and alcohol retailers. She added that staff would work with the Public Information Office (PIO) to distribute information to operators to inform them of the new regulations. She reported that criminal and civil penalties would be enforced.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director Allen stated that education to retailers would address marketing prohibition to youth. She stated that products found to be in violation of the regulations may be confiscated.

Council Member Rubalcava requested an update once communications with retailers have been completed, including the number of retailers and any citations issued.

Director Allen confirmed that staff would return in June with updates on nitrous oxide and kratom enforcement as part of the tobacco regulation updates.

Council Member Rubalcava thanked Planning staff, the Anaheim Police Department, and the City Manager for their work on the item.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6618 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 6.103 (Nitrous Oxide) to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Public Health and Safety) to regulate the sale of Nitrous Oxide to prevent illegal and recreational use in order to protect public health and safety [includes determination that the proposed amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, and 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; introduced at the Council meeting of December 16, 2025], ORDINANCE NO. 6619 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding Chapter 6.105 (Kratom) to Title 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Public Health and Safety) to regulate the sale, distribution, and possession of Kratom in order to protect public health and safety [includes determination that the proposed amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, and 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; introduced at the Council meeting of December 16, 2025]., and ORDINANCE NO. 6620 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 6.44 (Nuisances) of Title 6 (Public Health and Safety); Chapter 14.32 (Parking and Stopping) of Title 14 (Traffic); Chapters 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial Zones); 18.10 (Industrial Zone); 18.12 (Mixed-Use Zone); 18.14 (Public and Special-Purpose Zones); 18.16 (Regulatory Permits); 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone); 18.36 (Types of Uses); 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); 18.39 (Multiple-family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards);

18.40 (General Development Standards); 18.42 (Parking and Loading); 18.44 (Signs); 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits);

18.92 (Definitions); 18.114 (Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1) Zoning and Development Standards); 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and Development Standards); 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and Development Standards); 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; Adjustment No. 17 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1) Zoning and Development Standards; Adjustment No. 15 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and Development Standards; Adjustment No. 16 to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and Development Standards; Adjustment No. 10 to the Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards; and determining that the proposed amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines under Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, and 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [Development Application No. 2025-00041: Annual Update Anaheim Municipal Code Titles 6 (Public Health and Safety), 14 (Traffic), and 18 (Zoning) Related to Code Streamlining and Improvements; introduced at the Council meeting of December 16, 2025], seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Leon. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried. Ordinances adopted.

14. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM for exception to the 180-day wait period in compliance with Sections 7522.56 and 21224 of the California Government Code (appointment of Peggy Au, Controller, as a retired annuitant).

Director of Human Resources Linda Andal reported that, as required by the Pension Reform Act of 2013, which provides that a person who retires from a public employer may serve without reinstatement for up to 960 hours in a fiscal year. She stated that the retired person shall not be eligible to be employed for a period of 180 days following the date of retirement, unless an employer certifies the nature of employment. She added that the City Council must determine that the appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed position. She noted that compensation is within the City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

approved salary range, no additional benefits would be provided, and the annuitant would not accrue service credit or any additional rights or benefits. She reported that Peggy Au has over 35 years of experience in finance and auditing. She added that Ms. Au retired from the City on December 31, 2025 and was responsible for Citywide financial reporting and treasury activities, including compliance, single audit reporting, and transmission of cash flow estimates, and financial reporting set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. She reported that Ms. Au’s experience and skill would ensure that key deliverables and required reporting obligations are met during the recruitment process. She shared that the recruitment process was active with an expected date of selection occurring in March 2026. She added that Ms. Au would work in a limited capacity to meet reporting requirements, deadlines, and provide training to successive staff.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM for exception to the 180-day wait period in compliance with Sections 7522.56 and 21224 of the California Government Code (appointment of Peggy Au, Controller, as a retired annuitant), seconded by Council Member Kurtz.

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

15. Consider District 1 appointment to the Older Adults Commission to serve a term ending December 31, 2028.

Older Adults Commission
District 1 appointment: Bob B. Sanchez (December 31, 2028) (unscheduled vacancy)
NOMINATION: Council Member Balius nominated Bob B. Sanchez. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES – 0.

Nomination approved.

PUBLIC HEARING:

16. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2023-00043
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) NO. 358 AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 397

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-1 WITH ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18.108
(FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-1 (SP 90-1)

ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE

FINAL SITE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2025-00001
OWNER: OTR, an Ohio General Partnership, One California Street, Suite 2700, San Francisco, CA 94111
APPLICANT: Sean McEachern, Shea Properties Management Company, Inc., 130 Vantis Drive, Suite 200, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
PROJECT LOCATION: The project site consists of the entirety of the existing 85.7-acre Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan, generally located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road between Festival Drive and Roosevelt Road, in the City of Anaheim.

REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment; Amendment No.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

6 to Specific Plan No. 90-1, to amend the Specific Plan document and Chapter 18.108 (Festival Specific Plan No. 90-1 (SP 90-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; Final Site Plan; and a Development Agreement to establish a new Development Area (DA 5) within the existing boundaries of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan to accommodate residential uses in combination with the site’s existing commercial development. DA 5 would be created by reallocating land from the existing DA 2, reducing its size from approximately 48 acres to 31.8 acres. The resulting 16.2-acre area would form the new DA 5. All proposed development would be confined to DA 5, which encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 354-451-19 and 354-451-32. The proposed project includes the demolition of an approximately 62,676-square foot cinema within DA 5 to construct a 447-unit multiple-family residential community. The proposed multiple-family community would consist of a four-story residential building, wrapped around a five-level parking structure with one subterranean level. All residential units are single-story and include one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom options with private balconies or patios.

Project amenities include a clubhouse, two swimming pools, courtyards, a fitness center, and mail area. In addition to the project’s private amenities, the applicant is proposing an enclosed outdoor dog park along Festival Drive and bluff park along the north edge of the newly proposed DA 5, which would be open to the residents of the community and the general public.

The applicant requests the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to allow for the proposed residential uses and the creation of DA 5. The General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation within DA 5 from Regional Commercial to Mixed-Use Medium. The Mixed-Use Medium land use designation allows for residential development in either a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 dwelling units per acre, and the non-residential development at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35. The Specific Plan Amendment would amend the Specific Plan No. 90-1 document to allow for the mixed- use land uses on a total of 16.2 acres (DA 5) and includes other text and exhibit amendments related to signage, permitted uses, design guidelines, and development standards. The Specific Plan Amendment would also amend Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.108 (Festival Specific Plan No. 90-1 (SP 90-1) Zoning and Development Standards), to incorporate the proposed residential standards into DA 5 and other clarifying changes related to signage, permitted uses, and development standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council will consider certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 358, including the adoption of Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 397, and determine that FEIR No. 358 was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and FEIR No. 358 and MMP No. 397 are adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for the project, and no further environmental documentation needs to be prepared for the project.

ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

Approved Resolution No. PC2025-033 recommending the City Council certify a Final Environmental Impact Report No. 358, adopt findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 397 for the Anaheim Hills Festival Project and related actions; Resolution No. PC2025-034 recommending the City Council approve and adopt a proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment; Resolution No. PC2025-035 recommending that the City Council approve a Final Site Plan for the construction of 447 multiple-family units and make certain findings in connection therewith, as amended to add Condition of Approval No. 43 and renumber the Conditions of Approval to reflect the change; and Resolution No. PC2025-036 recommending City Council approve and adopt Development Agreement No. 2025-00001 by and between the City of Anaheim, and OTR, an Ohio Partnership. VOTE: 6-1 (Chairperson Walker and Commissioners Abdulrahman, Castro, Lieberman, Perez, and Tran-Martin voted yes; Commissioner Kelly City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

voted no) (Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 2025) [continued from the Council meeting of December 16, 2025, Public Hearing Item No. 20].

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (a) certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 358, (b) adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection therewith, and (c) adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 397 for the Anaheim Hills Festival Project and required and related discretionary actions (DEV2023-00043).

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim (DEV2023-00043).

ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting amendments to the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan No. 90-1 (SP 90-1) and Chapter 18.108 (Festival Specific Plan No. 90-1 (SP 90-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and amending Ordinance Nos. 5109 and 5110, as previously amended (Amendment No. 6 to the Festival Specific Plan; DEV2023-00043).

RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Final Site Plan for the construction of 447 multiple-family units and make certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2023-00043).

ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting Development Agreement No. 2025-00001 by and between the City of Anaheim and OTR, an Ohio Partnership, and making certain findings related thereto (DEV2023-00043).

Director of Planning and Building Heather Allen reported that the project is a request for a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment, including amendments to the Zoning Code, Final Site Plan, and Development Agreement to establish a new development area within the existing boundaries of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan to accommodate residential uses in combination with the existing commercial development. She added that the project includes demolition of the vacant movie theater building and the construction of 447 multiple-family units within the upper tier of the Festival Shopping Center. She noted that the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval at its November 17, 2025 meeting. She stated that the item was originally noticed for the December 16, 2025 meeting and continued to January 13, 2026.

Director Allen reported that the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan is located along the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, between Festival Drive and Roosevelt Road, and encompasses approximately 85.7 acres. She added that the Specific Plan was originally adopted in 1990 and has been amended five times. She stated that the Specific Plan is divided into different development areas, Development Areas 1-3 are commercial areas of the Specific Plan known as the Festival Shopping Center, and DA 4, is a senior residential community. She reported that the existing specific plan area is designated for Regional Commercial and Low-Medium Density Residential land uses in the General Plan. She added that the surrounding land uses include a business park to the north City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

across Santa Ana Canyon Road; a utility transmission corridor containing SCE power lines, undeveloped private parcels and the Deer Canyon Park Preserve to the west; office and institutional uses to the east across Roosevelt Road; and single-family residential to the south. She noted that the property is currently zoned SP 90-1 for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan. She added that existing zoning in the vicinity includes General Commercial, Transitional, Open Space, Low Intensity Office, and Single Family Residential.

Director Allen reported that the proposed project would establish a new Development Area, DA 5, within the existing boundaries of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan to accommodate residential uses in combination with the site's existing commercial development. DA 5, would be created by reallocating land from the existing DA 2, reducing its size from approximately 48 acres to 31.8 acres.

She added that all proposed development under the project would be confined to DA 5, and the overall exterior boundary of the Specific Plan would remain unchanged.

Director Allen reported that the project includes demolition of the vacant 1,880-seat cinema building within the proposed DA 5, for the development of a new 447-unit multiple-family residential community. She stated that the proposed multiple-family building would be four stories in height and wrapped around a six-level parking structure, for a total height of 57 feet. She added that the apartments include one, two, and three-bedroom options ranging in size from approximately 590 square feet to 1,500 square feet. She noted that a total of 10% or 45 units would be designated for moderate-income affordable units. She reported that each floor plan includes a private patio or balcony space. She shared that additional resident amenities include two indoor clubhouses, two swimming pools, a courtyard, co-work area, fitness center, and ride share lounge. She reported that the applicant is proposing a fenced dog park along the easterly portion of the site and bluff park along the north property line that would be privately owned and maintained, but open to residents of the new community and the general public. She noted that primary access into the development area would be provided from an existing driveway along Festival Drive, leading to a new entry court and roundabout near the multiple-family leasing office entrance. She added that a new resident-only driveway would also be provided along Festival Drive for direct access into the gated parking structure. All other driveways for the commercial center would remain the same.

Director Allen reported that the proposed multiple-family building includes a Mediterranean architectural style consistent with the Design Guidelines in the Specific Plan. She mentioned that the building would feature smooth white stucco, with wrought iron, decorative tile, stone accents, decorative metal siding, clay tile roof, varied roof planes, and recessed windows. She shared that sections of the building closest to Festival Drive would be three stories in height, while the remainder of the building would be four stories. She added that the multiple-family building would wrap around the six-level parking structure, screening it from public view. In response to public comments at the Planning Commission public hearing, she presented cross sections of Festival Drive, noting that the proposed multiple-family building is slightly taller than the existing cinema but shorter than the existing senior residential buildings due to differences in grade along Festival Drive.

Director Allen reported that the six-level parking structure would include parking for the residents, guests, and visitors of the commercial center. She noted that a total of 954 parking spaces would be available in the parking structure, which includes the gated, resident-restricted parking on the subterranean and upper levels of the parking structure. She explained that the first floor of the structure would be available to guests and patrons of the commercial center. A total of 329 surface parking spaces would be available in DA 5. She reported that a Parking Analysis prepared for the project demonstrates that adequate parking is available in DA 5 based on the mix of uses. She noted that the residential and commercial uses have differing peak hours: residential uses observe peaks in the evening hours between 7 p.m. and midnight, while commercial uses have a higher peak during mid-day. She added that as part of the analysis, a survey was also conducted at six existing City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

communities that are owned and managed by the project applicant with similar property characteristics. She shared that the survey found that the average occupied rate for the multiple- family units was 1.87 spaces per unit. She announced that the proposed project would provide 2.0 spaces per unit. She stated that reciprocal access and parking is also provided between Development Areas 1, 2, and 5. She noted that a condition of approval had been included requiring a Parking Management Plan to ensure a balance between parking for the residents, guest, and commercial patrons.

Director Allen reported that the Project requires an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designation of DA 5 from Regional Commercial to Mixed-Use Medium. She explained that the Mixed-Use Medium designation is intended to allow flexibility for parcels that could transition from strip commercial uses to residential or a mix of residential, commercial, and office development. She added that the designation allows for residential development in a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 36 dwelling units per acre, while the non-residential component of mixed-use development is permitted at a maximum floor area ratio, or FAR, of 0.35. She stated that the proposed residential portion of the project would result in a density of 27.4 dwelling units per acre, and the remaining commercial buildings in DA 5 would result in a FAR of 0.09, which is consistent with the proposed designation.

Director Allen reported that the applicant is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment to update the Anaheim Hill Festival Specific Plan document and the corresponding Chapter of the Zoning Code in their entirety. She added that it would be the sixth amendment to the Specific Plan and would establish a new development area, DA 5, within the existing boundaries to accommodate the proposed residential development in conjunction with the existing commercial development. She shared that the Specific Plan would include a new format that is consistent with newly adopted Specific Plans, would update various tables and exhibits, update the center monument sign designs, and establish new Design Guidelines that provide guiding principles for commercial and residential development and introduce a Mediterranean design influence.

Director Allen added that Chapter 18.108 of the Zoning Code would also be amended in its entirety to be consistent with other Code chapters in formatting, create new development standards for DA 5, update signage requirements for the commercial and residential uses, and create permitted use tables for the Specific Plan development areas. She noted that site development standards, such as building setbacks, landscape setbacks, and maximum heights for the existing development areas, would not change as part of the project. She stated that DA 5 is generally consistent with the Regional Commercial and Mixed-Use medium zones; however, the Specific Plan Amendment does include certain standards that would be tailored for the Project. She explained that those include changes to the multiple-family parking requirements for one-bedroom units, minimum floor area for one-bedroom units, maximum sign area for in-line tenants, and minor changes to permitted uses throughout the development areas.

Director Allen reported that a Final Site Plan is required for the review of the multiple-family development and associated improvements. She added that the Final Site Plan includes the site plan, floor plans, elevations, and landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the guiding principles and standards in the Specific Plan Amendment and draft Chapter 18.108. She added that the proposed project meets the development standards proposed under the amended Specific Plan.

Director Allen reported that the applicant requests approval of a development agreement between the City and the property owner, OTR, for an initial term of five years. She added that if a building permit for the residential building is issued by October 1, 2029 (which coincides with the RHNA reporting period for the current Housing Element Cycle), the City Manager may extend the time by an additional 5 years. She noted that the draft agreement also includes a Construction Phasing Exhibit City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

that addresses the phasing for the proposed residential project and associated improvements, along with upgrades to the Festival shopping center. She stated that the improvements to the center include new hardscape and landscape, updates to the building color scheme to be consistent with the new Mediterranean-style, improvements to outdoor gathering spaces, and enhancements to pedestrian connectivity throughout the development areas.

Director Allen reported that in response to community concerns expressed during the Planning Commission public hearing relating to the need for effective wildfire evacuation, the applicant has offered to provide a monetary contribution of $100,000 to the Anaheim Police Department to fund evacuation training and planning, and other related preparedness activities as deemed appropriate by the Chief of Police. She noted that additional public benefits include 10% moderate-income affordable units, a $100,000 contribution to Anaheim Fire and Rescue for fire protection enhancement, and the funding and installation of CCTV and emergency vehicle preemption devices at four intersections along Santa Ana Canyon to enhance emergency response in the vicinity.

Director Allen stated that the City, as Lead Agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR was presented at the July 14, 2025 Planning Commission workshop. She announced that during the 45-day public review period, the City received comments from four agencies and organizations, 9 individuals, and 5 commenters at the workshop. She added that comments and responses have been included in the Final EIR provided as part of the staff report. She reported that an EIR can include up to 20 topics, and the Project EIR includes an analysis of all the possible topics. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR identified that the project would have no effects related to Agricultural and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources. She shared that 18 topics were evaluated regarding the level of impact. She provided an overview of the eleven topics considered less than significant. She noted that six topics were deemed to have less than significant impacts with mitigation.

Director Allen reported that a Mitigation Monitoring Program, or MMP, was prepared for the project to reduce project impacts. She noted that the MMP includes mitigation measures, project design features, and regulatory compliance measures that the project would be required to comply with in order to reduce impacts. She shared that some measures include developer obligations for things like submittal of a Construction Fire Prevention Plan, Wildfire Evacuation and Awareness Plan, and Construction Management Plan.

Director Allen reported that Hazards and Wildfire impacts for the project are less than significant with mitigation. She stated that based on updates to the CAL FIRE Hazard Maps, 8.26 acres of DA 5 is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Very High Fire Zone). She added that the designation does not mean that an area is not safe for development, rather specific fire protection features that minimize structure vulnerability would be required, and specifically those that are specified in the California Building Code and California Fire Code. She stated that the proposed project is located within a developed area, would add new maintained landscaping, and would be subject to additional building construction standards to harden the building pursuant to the California Building Code.

Director Allen reported that an evacuation time analysis was prepared and determined that the worst- case scenario would involve a fire breaking out in the Deer Canyon Preserve, located directly to the west of the project site. She added that the evacuation analysis considered the existing condition in the surrounding area and the incremental increase in development with the proposed project. She stated that the analysis concluded that the increase that the proposed project would have over the existing shopping center condition with an active cinema use, would result in a potential extension of time to evacuate by approximately 7 minutes. She reported that, as previously described, the MMP includes requirements for a Construction Fire Prevention Plan, Wildfire Evacuation and Awareness City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Plan, and Construction Management Plan prior to the issuance of construction permits and certificate of occupancy for the multiple-family building. She added that the plans would identify fire safety measures and best practices during construction, ensure adequate circulation is provided during construction on-site and in the project vicinity, and overall evacuation awareness and emergency community alerts for residents and tenants within the commercial shopping center.

Director Allen reported that the Draft EIR found the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to transportation, specifically, the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, attributable to the project. She stated that the proposed project is located in an area of the City that is a high VMT-generating area. She reported that the majority of Anaheim Hills is shown as a higher generating VMT area than the Orange County average, due to the area consisting primarily of residential development with limited proximity to job centers and public transit. She added that the project includes 10% affordable units and a reduction in the City’s parking requirements for multiple- family developments, both of which are identified as VMT reduction strategies. She stated that there are no additional VMT reduction measures that would be feasible for the proposed project that would reduce the VMT threshold to a less than significant impact. She added that the project would continue to provide adequate emergency access to the site through the implementation of the construction and evacuation awareness plans. She stated that even with the implementation of mitigation measures and the project design features, impacts related to transportation would remain significant and unavoidable.

Director Allen reported that due to the significant unavoidable impacts related to transportation, a Draft Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the Project. She explained that the document summarizes the significant impact, describes how it is to be mitigated, and discusses alternatives to the Project. She reported that the Statement of Overriding Considerations presents the justification for the significant impact related to the project that cannot or have not been mitigated or resolved. She added that it also states that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. She explained that the proposed benefits, including increasing the City’s housing supply, redevelopment of the underutilized site, economic and job benefits, robust on-site amenities, and sustainability override the significant and unavoidable impact.

Director Allen reported that the public review period for the Draft EIR lasted 45 days and during that time, the City received comments from 14 agencies and interested parties in addition to oral testimony from 5 individuals during the Planning Commission CEQA Workshop. She stated that of the 14 written public comments, 3 were from state and local agencies, while 11 were from organizations and individuals. She noted that all of the comments were reviewed, evaluated, and technical responses were prepared in the Final EIR.

Director Allen shared that all 14 comments and associated responses have been documented in the Final EIR, Section 2. She noted that the Final EIR includes in Section 3, clarifications and revisions to the Draft EIR text, tables, and figures generated from responses to comments. She noted that the edits are provided to clarify and amplify the Draft EIR. None of the information contained in Sections 2 or 3 of 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 stated that in addition to the comments received during the public review of the EIR, staff received letters in support and opposition of the project, which were included as an attachment to the staff report. She reported that staff received two letters from law firms on the day of the Planning Commission meeting, stating that the environmental document prepared for the project is inadequate and fails to support its findings with substantial evidence. She explained that the letters included similar comments and concerns to comments submitted during the public review City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

period and responded to in the FEIR. She stated that responses to the letters were prepared and concluded that the FEIR is adequate for the proposed project and appropriately assigns mitigation measures that the project shall comply with.

Director Allen reported that following the Planning Commission public hearing, minor additions and amendments were included in the Draft Development Agreement and FEIR No. 358. She stated that the applicant has offered a monetary contribution to the Anaheim Police Department to fund training and other wildfire preparedness activities. She added that the Agreement was subsequently amended to include provisions for payment of the contributions and timing, clarifying that the monetary amount would increase based on a standard annual inflationary increase if paid after one year of the effective date of the Agreement. She reported that Condition of Approval No. 29 was added to the Final Site Plan Resolution stating that the payment of monetary contributions shall be done prior to issuance of building permits. She mentioned that the Affordable Housing Impact Fee was inadvertently included as an applicable impact fee for the project and was removed from Exhibit D of the Agreement. She shared that the proposed project application was submitted prior to the effective date of October 2024 and is therefore not subject to this impact fee. She added that minor typographical edits were clarified in the project FEIR No. 358 to clarify the existing maximum density of the senior residential community and note that the project would not conflict with existing habitat conservation plans. She noted that the changes were minor in nature and do not represent new project impacts or information that would cause a recirculation of the EIR.

Director Allen concluded that the proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding area and would provide for the redevelopment of an underutilized area of the Festival shopping center.

She added that the project would allow for the introduction of residential uses in the Festival center and would provide new design guidelines that would encourage high-quality commercial improvements to the rest of the Specific Plan area. She stated that project impacts, with the exception of VMT-related impacts, were determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of measures included in the project MMP. The project includes a variety of public benefits and would assist the City in meeting the required RHNA housing units.

DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested the date of the latest Specific Plan update and the information on the previous amendments.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director Allen clarified that the Development Agreement provides discretion on negotiations for local hire requirements.

Mayor Aitken requested additional clarification on the Development Agreement extension and the process up to the October 1, 2029 cutoff date.

Director Allen explained that the five-year term encourages and incentivizes the development of housing units within the RHNA cycle. She noted that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) reviews the timing of building permits pulled. She added if the permits are pulled within the five years, the agreement term would be extended by five years.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen reported that if the permits were not pulled in time, the development approvals would remain; however, the benefits under the Development Agreement would no longer apply. She elaborated that if the Development Agreement lapsed, the City could amend DA-5, and the project could be subject to updated regulations or development standards.

Mayor Aitken inquired if the Development Agreement allows for extensions beyond 2029 if permits have not been pulled.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Director Allen explained that the extension is based on the execution of the permits. She added that the applicant can make a request to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider an amendment.

Mayor Aitken called for disclosure of any ex-parte communications.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon reported that he met with the lobbyist for the developer and the Carpenters Union. He added that he received numerous emails in support and against.

Council Member Kurtz announced that she met with the developer, the lobbyist for the developer, and the Carpenters Union. She added that she received emails for and against the project.

Council Member Meeks reported that she spoke with the developer, the Carpenters Union, and residents.

Council Member Rubalcava shared that she met with the Carpenters Union and received emails from the developer and residents.

Council Member Maahs reported that she met with the developer, the lobbyist, the Carpenters Union, and residents.

Council Member Balius announced that he met with the developer, the Carpenters Union, and residents.

Mayor Aitken reported that she met with the developer and their lobbyist. She added that she spoke to residents and received email communication in support and against the project. She shared that she also met with the Carpenters Union.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon’s previous question, Director Allen reported that the last amendment to the Specific Plan was February 2013 to permit the sale of beer and wine at service stations, subject to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. She stated that Amendment No. 4 was in February 2002 to allow secondary wall signage of in-line tenants that rear onto Anaheim Canyon Road; Amendment No. 3 in August 1998 to permit the senior citizens apartments in DA-4 at a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre; Amendment No. 2 in April 1997 to allow expansion of the existing theater, a revision of the Site Plan to redesignate 20,000 square feet of are for general retail construction of a 25,000 square foot health club and 10,000 square foot child-care facility, and an amendment to permit on-street parking on Festival Drive within the development area; and Amendment No. 1 in July 1992 to amend the conditions of approval.

At 7:06 p.m., Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing.

Sean McEachern, Vice President of Mixed-Use Development at Shea Properties Management Company, Inc., thanked staff for their work on the project. He reported that Shea Properties is a third- generation, family-owned and run real estate development company, headquartered in Orange County. He stated that Shea Properties is a leader in the development of dynamic mixed-use properties. He shared that the Anaheim Hills Festival shopping center was originally developed in the early 1990’s and has not undergone any comprehensive renovations. He added that the center is critical to the region but requires significant reinvestment to meet current tenant and consumer demands. He stated that the shopping center current generates approximately $3.75 million in sales tax revenue for the City and County, and the proposed project aims to reinvest in and strengthen this economic source.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Mr. McEachern stated that in response to the City’s 2021 Housing Element Update and District 6 housing needs, Shea Properties submitted a conceptual application proposing renovation of the shopping center alongside residential development. He provided an overview of the community engagement efforts beginning in 2021. He noted that the project team conducted surveys for District 6 residents, generating over 20,000 views and impressions, developed a project website, and created social media accounts. He added that they hosted over 20 focus groups with residents, presented at a District 6 community meeting, and to the Ebell Club of Anaheim. He noted that a network of over 600 stakeholders was built and used to send updates on the project. He shared that based on the community feedback, project adjustments were made, including reducing the number of units from 600 to 447 and retaining the 24 Hour Fitness, supported by a new long-term lease extension and planned remodel. He clarified that any proposed entitlements beyond the 447 units would require an individual application and a public process. He added that building heights along Festival Drive were reduced from four stories to three in response to neighborhood concerns.

Mr. McEachern reported that traffic and evacuation concerns were addressed by reducing the unit count and coordinating with the Anaheim Fire and Rescue Department. He shared that planned site improvements include widening and enhancing the existing stair connection between the upper and lower levels of the center. He added that the new parking garage would provide parking for retail and residential uses. He noted that the project would include a one-acre park and an enclosed dog park and would be public spaces but privately maintained. He stated that the project proposes the redevelopment of the existing site using current infrastructure and grades. He shared that the project revitalizes an aging shopping center, attracts new tenants, expands housing opportunities in District 6, supports the City’s goals, and improves quality of life and provides open space while maintaining local values. He added that the contemporary Mediterranean architectural design complements the Anaheim Hills character. He added that in response to community concerns about noise and lighting, no rooftop memories were proposed. He displayed renderings illustrating pedestrian connections between the upper deck, retail areas, and the residential guest parking entrance. He presented a rendering of the façade along Festival Drive and highlighted design changes made in response to community feedback, including lowering portions of the building to three stories, increasing setbacks, and adding landscaping to create green space along the street. He shared that the design utilizes existing topography to keep the first level below Festival Drive and minimize visual impacts. He reported that the proposed building height is comparable to nearby development, including three- story residential buildings and a four-story hotel across Festival Drive.

Mr. McEachern reported that parking planning was a key component to the project. He stated that a parking demand study was completed to guide the upper-level design approach. He added that prior to construction, a parking management plan would be implemented to outline exact locations and enforcement for the retail-only parking, residential-guest parking, and the shared locations. He added that Shea Properties is proposing a completed parking analysis once the apartments reach 90% occupancy to evaluate usage and make adjustments to signage, enforcement, hours of restriction, and gate locations, if necessary.

Mr. McEachern reported that the residential parking ratio is 2.0 spaces per unit, slightly below the City Code requirement of 2.15, but higher than the industry standard recommendation of 1.4 spaces per unit. He added that retail and restaurant parking on the upper level would meet city code requirements, with a shared parking analysis reducing the total by 12 spaces. He explained that customers near Wood Ranch restaurant would primarily use on-grade parking and the first level of the parking structure. He noted that the parking demand study evaluates peak parking utilization times and ensures sufficient parking is available. He added that the structure includes 335 additional parking spaces above Code requirements. He stated that the topography and location ensure that no off-site street parking or neighborhood parking would occur.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Mr. McEachern reported that Shea Properties completed a thorough evacuation analysis and fire protection plan with Dudek. He noted that the proposed apartment project would take the place of a vacant movie theater. He added that the City is replacing one intensive use with an alternative use.

He stated that the new project has specific design features that would aid evacuation procedures, including resident emergency notification systems. CCTV cameras at four key intersections along San Antonio Drive (Festival Drive, Festival Center, Roosevelt Road, and Weir Canyon), and emergency vehicle traffic signal preemption systems that automatically prioritize emergency vehicles during evacuations or emergency response.

Mr. McEachern shared that the project would contribute $100,000 to Anaheim Fire & Rescue to help fund local wildlife mitigation efforts and $100,000 to the Anaheim Police Department to fund local evacuation training. He added that the project team would continue coordinating with Anaheim Fire & Rescue and other agencies during the design, plan check, and construction process. He reported that the building would be designed for wildfire resilience. He noted that redeveloping a currently vacant building can reduce potential safety risks associated with unused properties.

Mr. McEachern reported that traffic impacts were analyzed through a comprehensive traffic and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) study. He shared that the analysis found that the project exceeds the City’s adopted VMT per service population threshold and therefore results in a significant unavoidable impact. He noted that most residential projects exceeding 24 apartment units or 12 single-family homes would trigger a similar threshold. He stated that the project’s cumulative VMT impact was determined to be less than significant. He reported that compared to previously active movie theater use on the site, the project is expected to generate 36 fewer PM peak-hour trips and nearly 600 fewer total daily two-way trips.

Mr. McEachern emphasized that the proposal is a comprehensive plan combining residential development with the renovation and revitalization of the existing shopping center. He stated that if approved, the project would include repairs, repainting, and reinvestment throughout the center.

Improvements would include enhanced connections between the upper and lower levels, new public plazas with seating areas, improved pedestrian circulation, and upgraded landscaping and lighting.

He introduced Vestar, the current managers of the Festival Center, who are assisting with the retail planning and will lead the shopping center renovation. He shared that Vestar brings national experience in retail property management and has historical knowledge of the center. He noted that the redevelopment would unlock funding for a major shopping center renovation and implement a long-term vision outlined in the specific plan, including expanded outdoor dining areas, unique retail spaces, and better-sized retail configurations. He reported that a lease modification had been negotiated with Hobby Lobby that would return more than square feet of space, allowing for the addition of smaller in-line retail shops facing the main drive aisle and improving an existing blank façade. He added that the project also provides flexibility to add limited new retail and restaurant space in the future if market demand supports it.

Mr. McEachern reported that project approval would result in significant reinvestment in the shopping center and provide new housing opportunities in District 6. He noted that multifamily housing can provide an entry point for new residents and support the long-term vitality of retail tenants. He stated that without project approval, the future of the center is less certain, and the theater site could be redeveloped in ways that may not include the same community benefits.

Mr. McEachern stated that they received letters of support from community members and organizations including Influence Church, Peralta Hills Homeowners Association (HOA), Royal Ridges HOA, the Orange Council Business Council, and People for Housing Orange County. He shared that Shea Properties has been in discussions with the Carpenters Union since October 2025 and has provided a memorandum of understanding offer covering specific trades. He expressed City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

willingness to continue working towards an agreement that maintains project feasibility.

Mr. McEachern concluded by emphasizing the financial complexity of the project, noting that the extensive site improvements and shopping center revitalization add significant costs that do not directly generate returns but are necessary to achieve the project’s community benefits. He noted that the Development Agreement includes a timeline requiring the project to begin by October 2029, which the developer described as a relatively short timeframe to complete design, permitting, contracting, and construction planning while navigating economic cycles. He reiterated Shea Properties' commitment to delivering the project and its associated public benefits.

Shelly Robbins addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed Festival Shopping Center development, raising concerns about the accuracy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), particularly the traffic analysis. She explained that the traffic study was conducted on a Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., which did not capture the community’s actual peak traffic conditions that often extend beyond 6:00 p.m. due to commuter traffic, after-school programs, and evening activities. She added that the study did not evaluate several key commuter routes and intersections used by regional traffic traveling between Anaheim Hills and surrounding areas, including corridors connecting to the State Route 91. She expressed concern that traffic patterns related to commuters traveling from neighboring communities, including those accessing routes through Santa Ana Canyon, Weir Canyon, and other local corridors, were not fully captured in the analysis. She raised additional concerns about the EIR’s comparison between traffic generated by the former Edwards theater and the proposed residential project. The speaker argued that the theater had experienced declining attendance in recent years and that its parking capacity did not reflect typical usage levels, suggesting the comparison overstated the baseline traffic conditions. She expressed concerns regarding wildfire evacuation safety, noting personal experiences with past wildfire evacuations in the area. She explained that the community already experiences lengthy evacuation times during emergencies and expressed concern that additional development could further strain evacuation routes. She shared that no additional infrastructure improvements have been made since the Council previously denied another nearby development proposal due to evacuation and safety concerns. She urged the Council to reconsider the project based on concerns about traffic impacts, evacuation safety, and the adequacy of the environmental review. She acknowledged the applicant’s proposed public safety measures, including the installation of cameras and financial contributions of $100,000 each to Anaheim Fire & Rescue and the Anaheim Police Department, but questioned if the contributions would result in meaningful long-term safety improvements given the potential risks associated with wildfire evacuation in the area. She shared that she is supportive of new development; however, she urged that infrastructure improvements be addressed before additional housing is approved. She referenced the Deer Canyon project that was denied based on public safety concerns and noted the proposed project’s proximity to Deer Canyon. She requested that the City Council consider the public safety concerns associated with the project.

Joni Gaynor spoke in opposition to the project, expressing concerns about public safety, infrastructure capacity, wildfire evacuation conditions, and echoing the previous speaker’s comments.

She shared that she is not opposed to development; however, she opposes the proposed density and location of the project. She stated that the roads are already heavily congested during evening hours and described an incident where a fire truck was delayed in traffic for approximately 35 minutes while responding to a traffic accident. She expressed concern that the additional units would further strain traffic. She shared her experiences during evacuations, particularly during the Canyon 2 fire, stating that it took over two hours to travel a short distance during evacuation due to severe congestion. She expressed concern that additional residential development could increase evacuation challenges.

She questioned the feasibility of proposed evacuation planning measures including shelter-in-place.

She shared her experience during the Lahaina fire and requested that the City Council consider the evacuation danger in Anaheim Hills. She shared that the community has supported previous housing City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

developments with direct freeway access, multiple evacuation routes, and transit options. She requested clarification regarding helicopter availability, fire station staffing levels, and the builder’s comments on project approval. She urged the City Council to oppose the project for the residents' safety.

Phil Hotsenpiller, Pastor at Influence Church, shared his support for the project. He acknowledged evacuation concerns but reiterated his support for the project. He stated that the church has approximately 3,500 members and employs 51 staff. He shared that many of the employees have difficulty finding housing in the area. He added that the Festival shopping center is aging and would benefit from renovation.

Betty Farnsworth spoke in opposition to the project and expressed concerns about public safety, wildfire risk, and evacuation capacity. She clarified that Influence Church is not connected or located near the Festival shopping center. She acknowledged that the shopping center could benefit from revitalization; however, the proposed project would exacerbate existing evacuation and traffic challenges. She shared her experiences evacuating, including during the Canyon 2 Fire, noting that thousands of acres burned and numerous structures were damaged or destroyed, and expressed concern that traffic conditions have increased significantly since that time without corresponding infrastructure improvements. She raised concerns about limited ingress and egress routes in the Anaheim Hills area, noting existing heavy congestion. She recommended that additional housing development not proceed until new infrastructure improvements are completed. She acknowledged the City’s efforts related to wildfire preparedness programs but expressed concern that evacuation procedures have not been fully tested during an emergency scenario. She urged the City Council to prioritize public safety and infrastructure improvements before approving additional residential development in the area.

Keith Foelsch expressed opposition to the project and expressed concerns about increasing traffic congestion and insufficient infrastructure in the area. He acknowledged the need for housing and economic development but stated that infrastructure improvements have not kept pace with population growth. He expressed concern that wildfire risks and evacuation challenges remain significant and questioned the project’s studies' estimated evacuation time. He questioned whether the financial contributions toward Police and Fire would address the area’s needs. He shared his personal experience during a previous evacuation where family members were caught in gridlock near the Festival Center. He urged the City Council to consider evacuation capacity and infrastructure limitations before approving new developments.

John L. Mazzarella spoke in opposition to the project and echoed the concerns raised by previous speakers regarding wildfire evacuation and traffic congestion. He referenced the hours of evacuation during the Canyon 2 Fire. He challenged the developer’s traffic comparison between the former theater use and the proposed residential units, arguing that commercial uses could be closed during red flag warnings, while residents would still need to evacuate during emergencies. He expressed concern that the addition of hundreds of residential vehicles could worsen evacuation conditions during a wildfire event. He acknowledged the City’s obligations to meet state housing requirements but stated that infrastructure improvements should occur before approving additional housing in the area. He suggested improvements such as new connections or roadway infrastructure, including the proposed Fairmont connector. He added that the former theater site could be reused for commercial purposes rather than a residential development. He urged the City Council to prioritize public safety and evacuation capacity and oppose the project.

Charles Hill shared his opposition to the project and shared his experiences during wildfires and wind events. He described evacuation challenges and significant traffic congestion during the Canyon 2 Fire. He expressed concern about evacuation routes, particularly along Santa Ana Canyon Road. He City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

mentioned potential infrastructure improvements regarding a Fairview connector, noting that the improvements have not been implemented. He added that homeowner's insurance premiums are increasing while coverage is decreasing. He raised concerns about the scale of the proposed development and the potential impacts of construction and increased traffic on nearby residents, including seniors living in the area. He urged the City Council to oppose the project.

Mark Fortezzo expressed his opposition to the proposed project. He shared that as a resident of over 40 years, he has observed significant increases in traffic and regional growth over time. He noted that traffic congestion has increased substantially due to development in surrounding communities and l commuter traffic using the State Route 91 freeway. He stated that Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road are already heavily congested throughout the day and expressed concern that additional development could further worsen traffic conditions. He shared his personal experience during the Canyon 2 Fire, noting evacuation difficulties and limited roadway access. He suggested that the City Council partner with other agencies, such as Caltrans and the State, on infrastructure improvements. He suggested focusing on commercial revitalization at the shopping center rather than additional development.

Anita Hynds spoke in opposition to the development. She expressed concern that the project would replace family-oriented spaces with high-density apartments with limited outdoor space. She shared that similar developments have resulted in increased use of public parks due to limited on-site recreational space. She expressed concern about the potential impacts on neighborhood quality of life issues, traffic increases, and public safety concerns. She urged the City Council to reject the proposed development and expressed opposition to the role of developers pursuing similar projects.

G. Price expressed concerns about wildfire evacuation safety related to the project. She referenced the City’s 2004 General Plan, noting that it included policies calling for the development of evacuation standards and alternative evacuation routes for constrained neighborhoods. She added that despite past wildfire events, evacuation infrastructure improvements have not been implemented. She referenced the proposed project’s evacuation analysis, expressing concern about the estimated three-hour evacuation time. She questioned why the City does not have an established threshold for determining when increases in evacuation time become significant. She cited recent wildfire events, including the Palisades Fire, and emphasized concerns about evacuation capacity to prioritize public safety and deny the proposed project.

Linda Hurley addressed the City Council in opposition to the project, citing public safety concerns related to wildfire risk and evacuation capacity. She noted that the area is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by CAL FIRE. She referenced the City Council’s previous decision to deny the Hills Preserve project based on environmental review findings regarding evacuation times. She noted that the proposed project is less than a mile away and would rely on the same evacuation routes, raising similar concerns about limited ingress and egress during wildfire emergencies. She raised additional concerns regarding the adequacy of evacuation modeling, potential increases in vehicle trips associated with new residential units, and the lack of completed or guaranteed infrastructure improvements such as secondary evacuation routes. She noted that State law allows the denial of a project if there is a specific unmitigable threat to public safety within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Linda Merrell expressed concerns about wildfire risks and evacuation limitations in the area, in opposition to the project. She stated that insurers are increasingly unwilling to provide coverage in high wildfire risk areas. She referenced concerns raised by the Fire Department and the independent analyses regarding evacuation challenges during major wildfire events. She shared her personal experience living in Anaheim Hills, describing previous wildfires and the difficulty of evacuating during high-wind conditions and heavy traffic. She urged the City Council to oppose the project.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

John A. Gillespie expressed concern about the impacts the project would have on evacuations and gridlock. He urged the City Council to consider those factors when evaluating the project.

Irma Ramirez expressed support for the project noting that there had been little development in District 6. She stated that the project would help bring greater district equity and new opportunities to the area. She encouraged the City Council to support the project.

Michelle Michael Bohen commented on the updates in the Anaheim Hills area since she became a resident in 1985. She shared that she has observed ongoing traffic congestion in the area and that streets are heavily impacted by commuter traffic. She described personal evacuation experiences during the Canyon 2 Fire, including travel times of over 30 minutes for one mile. She noted challenges related to assisting family members and navigating congested roads during the emergency. She mentioned the unpredictability of wildfire evacuation routes and the limitations of existing road infrastructure in the area. She urged the City Council to consider roadway improvements and evacuation capacity before approving additional development.

Jimmy Elrod, representing the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, due to the developer declining to commit to responsible labor standards on portions of construction. He shared the union’s concerns noting requests were made for the developer to commit to using a skilled and trained workforce for certain portions of construction, including the parking structure and drywall work, but the developer declined. He shared that materials regarding prior construction defect settlements involving the applicant had been submitted to the Council for consideration. He urged the City Council to request a condition of responsible labor standards or deny the project.

Christina Kelley expressed her support for the project but expressed concerns about the project’s labor standards. She shared that the developer had not committed to using responsible contractors for portions of the project, including the parking structure and drywall work. She urged the City Council to require responsible labor standards as a condition of project approval to benefit local workers.

Chase Preciado, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), requested that the City Council deny the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and instead require preparation of a revised Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. He explained that the FEIR mitigation measures are deficient and fail to analyze the project’s indoor air quality impacts. He added that for the project’s fire and evacuation safety impacts, the EIR’s mitigation measures related to wildfire and evacuation safety rely on plans that would be developed after project approval. He added that the FEIR defers review of geotechnical compliance until the building permit stage rather than before project approval. He expressed concern that transportation impacts were not fully mitigated and potential indoor air quality impact associated with carcinogenic formaldehyde emission exposure to residents. He urged the City Council to deny the FEIR and require preparation of a revised EIR.

Karen Lynch shared her personal experience during multiple wildfire events, including the Canyon 2 Fire. She shared evacuation challenges including heavy traffic and extended travel times for short distances. She noted that she supports housing development; however, she expressed concern about approving additional residential development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. She urged the City Council to prioritize improving evacuation routes and safety infrastructure before approving new development in the area.

Aaron Barajas expressed support for the project and thanked residents for their participation. He acknowledged community concerns regarding wildfire safety, evacuation, and infrastructure City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

improvements. He added that while infrastructure and safety improvements are important, development in Anaheim Hills is likely to occur over time and suggested the Festival site is an appropriate location for future growth. He noted that some commercial businesses in the area have struggled due to limited local patronage and stated that redevelopment could help revitalize the site.

Alex Mesko expressed concerns about traffic congestion and evacuation safety related to the proposed project. He stated that the traffic in the Anaheim Hills area has increased significantly, particularly due to commuters diverting from the 91 freeway, resulting in heavy congestion on local streets. He noted that roads including Serrano Avenue, Canyon Rim Road, La Palma Avenue, and nearby corridors, frequently experience significant traffic backups, making it difficult to travel during peak hours. He expressed concern that the addition of the residential units could introduce a substantial number of additional vehicles, which could worsen existing congestion and create safety risks during emergency evacuations. He shared that he is not opposed to development or housing but urged the City Council to consider delaying the project until infrastructure and roadway improvement have been implemented to accommodate additional traffic.

Stephanie M. spoke in opposition to the project, citing wildfire risks, public safety, and long-term land use change concerns. She stated that the project site is located in an area with high wildfire susceptibility, limited evacuation routes, and constrained emergency response capacity. She reported that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies wildfire exposure risks and expressed concern that adding residential development could increase population exposure, traffic congestion during evacuations, and demands on fire and emergency services. She raised concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of the site which could allow additional residential development across the larger property in the future without further public hearings. She criticized the proposed parking reductions and questioned the transportation data used. She urged the City Council to deny the project.

Marc Herbert shared concerns about meeting procedures that may conflict with Council rules or public comment requirements and encouraged media organizations to review the matter. He raised questions regarding fire protection resources and infrastructure, including staffing and equipment associated with Anaheim Fire Station 10 and the planned opening of Anaheim Fire Station 12. He inquired whether transferring resources from Station 10 could affect fire protection services in Anaheim Hills and inquired about the timeline and cost of ordering replacement fire engines. He raised additional questions regarding future fire station development, City budget priorities and infrastructure projects.

Andrew Winger urged the City Council to deny the project due to wildfire evacuation safety. He stated that during a previous wildfire evacuation, his family experienced significant delays, including approximately two and a half hours of traffic congestion on Nohl Ranch Road. He expressed concern that rezoning the site from commercial to residential would increase the number of residents attempting to evacuate simultaneously during wildfire emergencies. He referenced the Deer Canyon project and the Council’s denial of the project. He stated that evacuation times in the area are estimated to be several hours and expressed concern that additional development could increase delays. He urged the City Council to postpone the project until evacuation infrastructure improvements are completed or retain the existing commercial zoning for the property.

Andrea Phelps spoke in opposition to the projects and raised concerns regarding wildlife evacuation assumptions and parking impacts. She stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes a worst-case wildfire evacuation scenario involving a fire originating in the Deer Canyon area and estimates an additional evacuation delay of approximately seven minutes. She argued that historically, wildfires in the area are often driven by Santa Ana winds and typically move from east to west, which could result in different evacuation patterns than those described in the analysis. She expressed concern that the estimated seven-minute delay would be added to an already lengthy City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

evacuation time and that most residents would likely need to evacuate westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road, which is already heavily congested. She expressed concern about the project’s parking plan, including limited dedicated parking spaces for residents and potential conflicts between residential and commercial parking. She stated that the limited parking availability could discourage patronage of existing businesses at the shopping center and urged the Council not to approve the project as currently proposed.

Diego R. expressed support for the project. He noted that the project would address an imbalance between local job growth and limited housing availability. He stated that the development would provide additional housing options in a community where most existing housing consists of single- family homes or larger multifamily properties, which can be difficult for younger residents to afford. He added that the project would diversify housing opportunities, allowing residents at different stages of life to remain in the community. He highlighted the economic benefits of mixed-use development, including increased sales tax revenue, support for local businesses through increased foot traffic, and reduced vehicle miles traveled due to proximity to retail and services. He urged the City Council to approve the project.

Dharma Truong expressed support for the project. She stated that limited multifamily housing options in the City have made it difficult for young adults to find attainable housing, noting that most nearby housing consists of unaffordable single-family homes. She added that the e project would diversify housing opportunities, help reduce overcrowding, and support the City’s housing goals. She noted that the infill development near existing commercial uses could increase economic activity, reduce vehicle emissions, and provide younger residents with an opportunity to remain in the community.

She urged the City Council to approve the project.

Dave Vadodaria, former Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissioner, acknowledged the complexity of the project and the need for progress but expressed concern about increasing density in Anaheim Hills due to existing challenges with emergency access and evacuation during fires. He echoed concerns raised by residents regarding public safety and evacuation constraints and stated that adding more residential development in the area may not be appropriate. He suggested reconsidering the project or exploring alternative uses for the site, such as preserving the Festival Center as a long-term community or historic space. He urged the City Council to deny the project.

Doug Hill spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to wildfire risk and evacuation concerns. He described his previous evacuation experiences during the wildfires in 2008 and 2017, noting significant traffic congestion and extended evacuation times along Santa Ana Canyon Road, which the speaker identified as a primary evacuation route for the area. He stated that the area is designated as a Very High Fire Severity Zone and expressed concern that additional residential development would increase population density and place more residents at risk during emergencies.

He noted that traffic in the area has increased in recent years and argued that existing infrastructure is insufficient to support additional housing. He urged the City Council to prioritize infrastructure improvements, such as additional evacuation routes or roadway improvements, before approving new dense residential development in the area.

William Ward shared his opposition to the project. He stated the project entitlements would add significant value but noted that the developer has not committed to responsible labor standards for certain portions of the construction, including the parking structure and drywall work. He urged the City Council to require stronger commitments to fair wages, skilled labor, and local hiring before approving the project. He added that the proposed number of moderate-income units would sufficiently address the area’s housing affordability challenges.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Jamie H. Kim expressed support for the project. She highlighted the developer’s long operational history and emphasized the potential economic benefits of the project. She shared that the developer is not responsible for the traffic or evacuation concerns mentioned. She noted that the development could increase property tax revenue, which could help support public services such as education, public safety, and infrastructure. She stated that the project includes financial contributions that could assist the City and Fire Department. She suggested that redevelopment of the site could help retain existing businesses and revitalize the Anaheim Festival Center, creating a more active and attractive destination for residents and families. She urged the City Council to approve the project.

Jim commented on the City Council’s communications with the developer and Carpenters Union compared to the residents. He shared his personal experience with evacuations and emphasized ongoing traffic and infrastructure challenges in Anaheim Hills. He stated that roadway infrastructure has seen little expansion since the late 1990s and that existing evacuation routes, particularly along Santa Ana Canyon Road and surrounding intersections, already experience significant congestion.

He expressed concern that additional development would add to existing traffic and evacuation challenges and urged the City Council to prioritize infrastructure improvements before approving new development in the area.

Yesenia Rojas expressed concern about issues affecting the local immigrant community. She thanked City Manager Jim Vanderpool for responding to a prior request and requested a meeting with the Mayor to discuss community concerns. She stated that she represents members of the Guanajuato community in Anaheim and noted that many residents have reached out seeking guidance regarding challenges facing immigrant families. She emphasized the importance of collaboration between City leadership and community members to address these concerns and protect local families. She thanked Council Member Maahs for her engagement with the community and encouraged the City Council to continue working with residents to develop solutions that support Anaheim’s diverse communities.

Mayor Aitken invited the applicant to provide any closing comments.

Mr. McEachern noted that any public comments focused on concerns related to wildfire risk and evacuation. He stated that the project team included fire protection professionals from Dudek, who prepared the project’s fire safety analysis and have extensive experience in California. He added that if the project is approved, the project would not be occupied for several years and that coordination with public safety agencies and continued development of emergency planning measures, including the “Know Your Way” evacuation planning efforts, would occur during that time. He introduced the Dudek team to provide additional information regarding the fire protection analysis and to respond to comments raised during public testimony. He noted that the team would respond to comments submitted by SAFER r regarding the environmental review.

Doug Nichols with Dudek shared that he has more than 30 years of experience in fire prevention and fire protection and that the Dudek team prepared the project’s Fire Protection Plan and Evacuation Travel Time Analysis. He explained that the Fire Protection Plan evaluates the overall fire environment, applicable hazards, and compliance with state and local fire and building codes. He added that the analysis also identifies required safety measures to be incorporated into the project and stated that the proposed project complies with applicable codes. He noted that the evacuation analysis evaluated several scenarios, including existing conditions without the project, existing conditions with the cinema operating, and conditions with the proposed project. He shared that the modeling assumed evening evacuation conditions with peak traffic and according to the analysis, evacuation under existing conditions was estimated at approximately 2 hours and 51 minutes. He stated that if the cinema was included, evacuation time was estimated at approximately 2 hours and 58 minutes, and with the proposed project, the estimate was approximately 3 hours and 5 minutes.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

He reported that the analysis considered both the most likely fire scenario in Deer Canyon and a worst-case scenario involving Santa Ana wind-driven fires from the northeast. He shared that the study was prepared consistent with City guidance and reviewed by the City’s Fire, Police, and Public Works Traffic Division. He noted that the City has implemented the “Know Your Way” evacuation planning program and that additional wildfire protection measures are required for development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. He concluded that emergency evacuation decisions are managed by public safety officials based on conditions at the time of an incident.

Andrew Fogg with Cox, Castle & Nicholson, representing Shea Properties, responded to comments made by SAFER and the Carpenters Union. He reported that similar comments had been submitted to the Planning Commission and that written responses addressing those concerns were provided.

He referenced the comments regarding indoor air quality and formaldehyde exposure and disputed the claims. He noted that the project site was identified in the City’s certified Housing Element as suitable for residential development, with an estimated capacity of approximately 600 units. He added that federal law limits the City’s ability to require the use of union labor as a condition of project approval.

City Clerk Bass reported that a total of fifty-three (53) public comments were received electronically regarding Public Hearing Item No. 16. [A final total of fifty-eight (58) public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. – See Appendix.

At 9:37 p.m., Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing.

Council Member Rubalcava requested additional information on the Fire Department’s recommendation for the project.

Fire Marshal Lindsey Young shared that Chief Russell was unable to attend the meeting due to traveling to Washington, D.C. to provide testimony to Congress on HR 4038, the Wildfire and Preparedness Act. She reported that the Fire Department had been involved in reviewing the project throughout the planning process, including during the pre-development and environmental review stages. She emphasized that resident safety is the Department’s primary concern and acknowledged that adding vehicles during an emergency evacuation is not ideal; however, based on the Department’s review, the project was found to be consistent with applicable City standards. She stated that the Fire Department supports the findings presented and affirmed that the Department is prepared to continue protecting residents and responding to emergencies regardless of the Council’s decision on the project.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Fire Marshal Young reported that the $100,000 contribution could be used for several items, including investments in technology, weed abatement, and fuel modification efforts. She noted that the funds could be used as seed money to support grant opportunities or other wildfire mitigation initiatives. She added that the funds could be used for applying fire-resistant or environmentally friendly materials along evacuation routes and enhancing vegetation clearance beyond existing requirements along evacuation roadways. She added that the Department would continue evaluating the most effective uses for the funds as planning progresses.

Council Member Rubalcava requested clarification on the difference between the proposed project and the Deer Canyon (SALT development) project, noting the Fire Chief’s opposition to the project for safety reasons.

Fire Marshal Young stated that while the two projects are located in close proximity and comparisons may be understandable, each project is evaluated individually based on its specific circumstances.

She noted that the current proposal is an infill project compared to Deer Canyon. She emphasized City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

that the Fire Department evaluates each project on its own merits and considers the totality of information presented during the review process.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Fire Marshal Young shared that staff discussed several potential uses for the proposed funding contribution and selected an amount that would allow flexibility to support multiple wildfire mitigation or safety initiatives. She noted that the amount was intended to provide sufficient resources for potential projects while also allowing the department to adapt if needs change or new technologies or solutions become available in the future.

Mayor Aitken inquired if the money is restricted for use in District 6.

Fire Marshal Young explained that the funds would be provided as a community benefit and would be used toward wildfire mitigation efforts in District 6.

Council Member Meeks requested additional information on improvements to the City’s wildfire and evacuation planning since 2017. She referenced enhancements such as expanded fire monitoring, including camera systems, improved emergency response coordination, and the implementation of the “Know Your Way” evacuation plan.

Fire Marshal Young acknowledged residents’ concerns about evacuation experiences, emphasizing personal understanding as a 20-year fire service veteran who has experienced evacuation firsthand.

She highlighted the department’s commitment to continuous improvement, noting lessons learned from the Canyon 2 incident. She shared that key improvements include the development of the “Know Your Way” program to enhance evacuation planning, training, and coordination among multiple agencies. She added that coordination with neighboring jurisdictions, such as the City of Orange, has been strengthened to improve traffic flow and evacuation routes. She noted that the Canyon 2 evacuation scale was overly large, leading to unnecessary displacement and increased congestion. She shared that future efforts would aim for more precise evacuation zones while maintaining safety. She reported that additional challenges included allowing incoming traffic during evacuations, which worsened conditions; this has been identified for improvement. She shared that the department is enhancing interagency coordination and proactive planning, particularly given the area’s designation as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

In response to Council Member Balius, Fire Marshal Young explained a full-scale evacuation with Know Your Way had been considered; however, it would require closure of major infrastructure, such as the 91 Freeway, in coordination with Caltrans, which has been denied. She shared that despite that, the department has conducted multiple trainings, tabletop exercises, and planning efforts to evaluate and improve the Know Your Way program. She emphasized that evacuation planning must remain flexible due to the dynamic nature of emergencies.

Council Member Balius inquired if a similar fire event occurred, utilizing the Know Your Way zoning system, what zones would be evacuated.

Fire Marshal Young explained that evacuation decisions depend on the specific emergency conditions. She reported that for a typical scenario similar to the Canyon 2 fire (moving east to west), evacuation modeling focused on Zones 1, 2, and 3, and would not necessarily include Zone 8 (the project area), as doing so could unnecessarily increase traffic congestion on roadways.

Council Member Balius confirmed that under the same conditions, Zones 1, 2, and 3 may not be subject to evacuations. Fire Marshal Young clarified that any critically impacted zones would be evacuated.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

In response to Council Member Balius, Fire Marshal Young highlighted key public safety enhancements included in the Development Agreement, including the installation of Opticom technology at four intersections to provide emergency vehicle preemption. She shared that the system allows approaching emergency vehicles to trigger green lights, improving response times and increasing safety by stopping cross traffic. She reported that additional contributions include funding support, as well as a strong emphasis on community education and outreach. She noted the importance of helping residents prepare evacuation plans in advance to reduce stress and improve safety during emergencies, and affirmed the department’s commitment to supporting the community in these efforts.

Council Member Maahs requested clarification on reports of fire engines being removed from Anaheim Hills and whether those resources would be replaced within the anticipated four-year timeframe for the project.

Deputy Chief of Operations Grant Riley clarified that Engine 12, currently stationed in Anaheim Hills, was temporarily placed following receipt of a SAFER grant. He reported that once Station 12 is completed, Engine 12 will relocate to that station. He explained that a replacement unit, Engine 10, will be deployed to Anaheim Hills to maintain the current level of fire service in the Canyon area.

In response to Council Member Maahs, Deputy Chief Riley reported that the Quick Reaction Force (QRF), previously a public-private partnership with Orange County Fire, is no longer under contract.

He explained that the QRF consisted of multiple resources, including three Type 1 helicopters, a mobile retardant base, and an aerial coordination helicopter. He added that while the mobile retardant base is no longer available, the helicopters and air support resources remain accessible upon request, though the ordering process has changed and the equipment is now based in Van Nuys.

Council Member Maahs asked whether additional opportunities exist to improve communication and increase public awareness of the Know Your Way program, regardless of the project’s approval, and inquired about further actions beyond drills to better prepare residents.

Deputy Chief Riley emphasized that public education is a key component of emergency preparedness and evacuation planning. He explained that the Know Your Way program is a collaborative effort with the police department, which leads evacuation operations, supported by ongoing joint training. He highlighted the use of technology, including alert systems such as I Am Alert, to notify residents within specific zones. He noted that outreach efforts include distributing informational materials, such as cards with QR codes, to increase public awareness and encourage residents to sign up for emergency alerts.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon, Fire Marshal Young stated that the Fire Department is actively involved throughout the planning and development process, led by the Planning and Development section within the Community Risk Reduction Division. She reported that all project plans must comply with current California Fire Code, NFPA standards, and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) requirements due to the site’s location in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. She explained that staff would review and approve plans to ensure compliance and will conduct inspections after construction to verify that all fire protection systems, fuel modification measures, and related requirements are properly implemented.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested clarification on the fire safety standards and how the requirements differ from those applied to a typical residential home.

Fire Marshal Young referenced the adoption of the California 2025 Fire Code, effective January 1, 2026. She reported that projects located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone are permitted but City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

must meet enhanced safety requirements beyond standard residential construction. She noted that features include non-combustible materials, enclosed eaves, dual-pane windows, defensible space and fuel modification measures, fire sprinklers, and adequate fire department access.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon, Fire Marshal Young explained that enhanced fire safety requirements include non-combustible exterior materials, specific fire-rated roofing, upgraded windows and doors, and overall “home hardening” measures. She noted that the standards also extend beyond the structure to include vegetation management, such as approved plant lists adopted after the Canyon 2 Fire, restrictions on high-risk plants, and required fuel modification plans with designated irrigation zones. She emphasized that fire safety considerations apply to both the building and its surrounding environment.

Council Member Kurtz inquired whether existing homes and vegetation, including eucalyptus trees, are subject to mandated upgrades to meet current fire safety standards, or if such improvements are only required during new construction or remodeling.

Fire Marshal Young explained that current fire safety codes are not applied retroactively to existing homes due to the burden it would place on homeowners; properties are allowed to comply with the standards in place at the time of construction. She noted that requirements such as maintaining defensible space are enforced in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to reduce fire risk. She added that the Department has a dedicated Wildfire Mitigation Specialist who can provide free home assessments and recommendations to help residents improve fire safety.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Fire Marshal Young clarified that while most fire safety upgrades are not required retroactively, certain measures—such as chimney spark arrestors—are mandated for existing homes in high fire hazard areas due to their significant impact on fire prevention.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Fire Marshal Young shared that while eucalyptus trees are not recommended for new planting due to fire risk, some existing trees are protected and not subject to removal. She reported that the City continues ongoing efforts to manage vegetation in accessible areas, including regular combustible brush reduction in open spaces and along evacuation routes, in coordination with the Parks Department.

Council Member Meeks shared that safety was a priority for her when she was elected into office, particularly wildfire safety. She added that she has worked with staff to address concerns and make improvements to evacuation responses. She acknowledged residents’ concerns and highlighted improvements made to prevent past issues such as traffic conflicts and bottlenecks. She requested updates from Public Works on traffic modeling efforts for evacuation planning.

Traffic Engineer Rafael Cobian reported that the City secured a CAL FIRE grant to conduct evacuation traffic modeling for Anaheim Hills. He shared that multiple scenarios were analyzed, including worst-case conditions, typical fire patterns (e.g., east-to-west spread), and variables such as time of day and occupancy levels. He shared that the modeling helps identify optimal evacuation strategies, including which zones to evacuate first, appropriate routes, and how to phase evacuations to avoid congestion. He noted that a key lesson from the Canyon 2 fire was the need for more targeted and controlled evacuations rather than large-scale, simultaneous evacuations. He reported that the City implemented a zone-based evacuation system to allow for more precise and manageable responses. He emphasized that emergency management remains highly dynamic, with real-time decisions made based on evolving conditions, and that the modeling provides valuable tools and options to guide those decisions.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

In response to Council Member Meeks, Traffic Engineer Cobian explained that the environmental analysis was conducted using a conservative approach, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, assuming large-scale evacuations across Anaheim Hills and multiple overlapping scenarios. He added that it results in longer projected evacuation times due to cumulative impacts from multiple zones evacuating simultaneously. He noted that in practice, fire behavior in the area is relatively predictable, allowing for more strategic and phased evacuations by zone. He referenced three-hour evacuation timeframe represents a conservative estimate based on worst-case, stacked conditions rather than typical real-world scenarios.

Council Member Meeks requested additional information on coordination efforts with local schools to ensure safe student evacuations during emergencies, in addition to interagency coordination with Caltrans and neighboring cities to prevent conflicting traffic flows.

Traffic Engineer Cobian reported extensive post-incident evaluation efforts following the Canyon 2 fire, including multi-agency coordination meetings with Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, neighboring cities, law enforcement, and school districts. He shared that the discussions included key areas for improvement, such as preventing freeway traffic from exiting into evacuation areas and avoiding conflicting evacuation routes between jurisdictions. He stated that enhancements include revised coordination with schools to ensure student evacuation and reunification sites are located outside evacuation zones, and pre-staging of buses during high-risk conditions. He shared that Public Works plays a proactive role by preemptively closing key roadways to preserve outbound capacity and prevent incoming traffic from congesting evacuation routes. He emphasized the numerous lessons learned have been implemented to improve evacuation efficiency, coordination, and public safety in future incidents.

Council Member Meeks noted that congestion is largely driven by regional cut-through traffic from nearby freeways rather than local infrastructure capacity. She highlighted the ongoing coordination with OCTA, Caltrans, and toll road agencies, and requested an update on planned traffic improvements along the 91 and 241 corridors expected within the next four years.

Traffic Engineer Cobian acknowledged that traffic congestion in Anaheim Hills is significantly impacted by cut-through traffic, often driven by navigation apps routing drivers through residential streets to save time. He shared that while local infrastructure is designed to handle community traffic, this external traffic contributes to congestion on key corridors such as Santa Ana Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. He highlighted ongoing regional coordination efforts and noted a major planned improvement: the 241/91 direct connector project. He reported that the project aims to reduce congestion and cut-through traffic by improving freeway-to-toll road connectivity, and is strongly supported as it is expected to benefit the local community. He confirmed that construction would begin in 2027 and be completed in 2029. He noted that OCTA is undertaking a major project to widen segments of the 91 Freeway, which is expected to increase regional capacity and help reduce cut-through traffic on local roads such as Santa Ana Canyon Road. He added that while the projects are led by outside agencies, the City remains actively involved as a stakeholder, working closely with Caltrans, OCTA, and the toll authority to ensure the improvements benefit the local community.

In response to Council Member Meeks, Traffic Engineer Cobian confirmed that the Fairmont emergency connector can be funded by the toll revenue from the 91 Express Lanes. He shared that the project would provide enhanced freeway access, particularly benefiting northbound travel and helping reduce congestion at key interchanges such as Imperial Highway by serving commuters from neighboring communities. He reported that it may also include a multi-use bridge connecting Santa Ana Canyon Road to the Fairmont area, designed for everyday pedestrian and bicycle use, but adaptable during emergencies to function as an additional evacuation route. He noted ongoing City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

coordination with OCTA and the City of Yorba Linda to explore opportunities to advance the project timeline.

Council Member Kurtz commented on the impacts of navigation apps directing traffic onto local residential streets, noting concerns from residents across the City. She expressed concern regarding comments about project feasibility and workforce costs, questioning whether a less-skilled or lesser- trained workforce would be used for construction. She requested clarification on how construction quality and compliance with safety standards would be ensured for future residents.

Mr. McEachern responded that contractor selection is based on a competitive bidding process that evaluates qualifications, safety records, past performance, and reliability—not solely the lowest bid.

He emphasized that an internal construction management team oversees contractor selection to ensure projects are completed safely and to high standards, and noted an intention to work with skilled trade groups on certain aspects of the project. He emphasized that construction projects are completed by experienced subcontractors with long-standing track records and established training programs to develop skilled workers. He noted that large-scale projects involve substantial on-site staffing and are completed efficiently, with safety identified as the top priority.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Mr. McEachern confirmed that studio apartments would not be developed on the property. He reported that one-bedroom apartments beginning at 560 square feet would be included. He confirmed the apartments range from one to three bedrooms.

Council Member Kurtz inquired about the parking allotted for three-bedroom apartments.

Mr. McEachern confirmed that 3.0 spaces are allocated for three-bedroom apartments, consistent with the City’s Code.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Director Allen clarified that the project is not a designated candidate site within the Housing Element. She stated that while candidate sites often require rezoning to meet housing obligations, this project was instead categorized as a “pipeline project” due to having an active application at the time, and is included in a separate inventory of such projects.

Council Member Kurtz requested clarification on reporting requirements to the State if the project is denied.

Director Allen explained that the City currently maintains a surplus of housing units based on Housing Element calculations required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), including inventory from both pipeline and candidate sites. She reported that as projects are developed, the City tracks remaining capacity, and if it falls below required levels, the “no net loss” provision would require identification of additional sites to meet housing obligations. She noted that, regardless of Housing Element status, state law imposes additional considerations and constraints when evaluating potential denial of housing development projects.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Director Allen confirmed that a substitution site would not be required if there is enough capacity Citywide to continue to meet the City’s obligation.

Council Member Rubalcava requested clarification on the Memorandum of Understanding to the Carpenters.

Mr. McEachern reported that the developer awarded the drywall scope to the Carpenters Union. He clarified that contractor selection is not based solely on the lowest bid. He stated that while bids within a certain range may be considered, the final selection is based on multiple factors, including qualifications and other criteria, rather than price alone.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Council Member Rubalcava emphasized the importance of construction quality and noted that, unlike public agencies, private developers are not required to select the lowest bidder. She expressed concern about past projects by other developers that experienced issues due to use of less skilled labor, and questioned whether the proposed bidding criteria and negotiations with labor groups would ensure a high-quality outcome.

Mr. McEachern clarified that the MOU includes specific qualification criteria for bidders, and not all submitted bids would be considered eligible, as only those meeting defined standards would qualify.

Council Member Rubalcava emphasized priorities related to public safety and equitable housing distribution. She raised concerns about the developer’s proposed MOU with labor groups, urging stronger commitments to the use of a skilled and trained workforce, particularly for critical construction elements. She encouraged the developer to negotiate in good faith with labor representatives and reconsider the terms of the agreement, noting that the Council has discretion to include such requirements in the development agreement.

In response to Council Member Meeks, Director Allen confirmed that the project includes 447 units in a mixed-use area.

Council Member Meeks referenced the Housing Element’s identification of up to 600 potential units and expressed appreciation for preserving existing community amenities such as the 24-Hour Fitness center and daycare. She requested information on whether the proposal could be expanded without further Council review and approval.

Director Allen confirmed that additional development beyond the proposed entitlements would require its own review process.

Council Member Balius requested clarification on whether the proposed zoning change under consideration applies solely to the specific project site within the General Plan or if it would extend to other locations as well.

Director Allen clarified that the request involves creating Development Area 5, which would replace the existing cinema with a 447-unit apartment complex. She noted that existing uses, including the fitness center, daycare, and other commercial uses on the upper bluff, would remain. She shared that the proposal includes a zoning change to allow mixed-use development in that area, but the only immediate change under consideration is the conversion of the cinema site to residential use.

In response to Council Member Balius, Director Allen confirmed that a Builders' Remedy would not apply if the project was denied because of the City’s certified Housing Element.

Council Member Balius referenced public comments that raised concerns about a prior project involving the developer, including reported litigation from residents related to construction issues. He requested clarification on the concerns.

Mr. McEachern shared that he has not seen the comments referenced.

Council Member Kurtz expressed support for the project, referencing prior support for similar developments and noting ongoing growth in District 4. She emphasized continued concerns regarding fire safety, particularly in areas with limited access, and expressed interest in working with the Fire Department to improve safety measures in District 4. She highlighted the City’s work in supporting worker protections, citing the adoption of the hotel worker safety ordinance requiring panic City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

buttons as an example of the Council’s commitment to worker safety. She reiterated the importance of maintaining high safety and construction quality standards for all development in the City, emphasizing the need to protect both residents and workers. She noted that similar high standards are applied to affordable housing projects and questioned why they should not apply to all housing.

Mayor Aitken inquired if any other sites in District 6 were submitted to HCD.

Director Allen noted that the project was identified as a pipeline site within the City’s housing inventory, with only a limited number of similar sites. She referenced that previously identified candidate sites, including locations in the canyon area, were removed from consideration.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen clarified that the majority of District 6 sites that were eligible candidate sites were located north of the 91 freeway.

Mayor Aitken requested clarification on the likelihood of development on candidate sites and what efforts the City is making to promote those sites to developers as alternatives to locations within high fire hazard areas.

Director Allen reported that following certification of the Housing Element, the City has made candidate sites available for residential and mixed-use development through General Plan amendments. She shared that the City is preparing to release mapping resources to the public and developers to highlight these sites. She noted that developers are generally aware of these opportunities and that the City is actively promoting candidate sites through Housing Element programs to encourage both market-rate and affordable housing development.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen reported that since 2018, the City has issued 488 permits in District 6. She noted that the Link OC project comprised 406 permits. She added that there was a single-family attached project with 28 units and the Racquet Club with 54 units. She shared that during the same five-year period, District 5 had 1,543; District 4 had 1,224; District 3 had 773; District 2 had 325; and District 1 had 412.

Mayor Aitken requested data on the number of housing units built in Anaheim Hills/East Anaheim.

She noted significant growth over time and expressed interest in reviewing objective data to assess that narrative. She inquired how the original master-planned community framework for Anaheim Hills relates to current development decisions, specifically whether it has any binding authority or if zoning and planning designations can be modified over time.

Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill explained that the area was originally designated as agricultural preserve land under county jurisdiction until the early 1970s, when portions were released to allow for development while preserving open space and recreational areas. She reported that following annexation by the City, the planning authority shifted to the City, which implemented zoning and specific plans consistent with the broader master-planned framework. She noted that while the master plan provides overarching guidance, zoning and specific plans ultimately govern land use decisions. She stated that the proposed project requires amendments to the specific plan (zoning) to allow residential use.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill explained that certain areas within the master-planned community are protected by deed restrictions requiring their use for recreational or open space purposes. She stated that the restrictions remain enforceable, functioning similarly to conservation easements, and help ensure that designated areas are preserved.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen explained that the proposed Specific Plan includes a modification to parking standards for one-bedroom units only. She stated that the project meets existing parking requirements for two- and three-bedroom units, while proposing a reduced standard for one-bedroom units, 1.75 spaces per unit instead of the City’s standard of 2 spaces per unit.

Mayor Aitken noted that the proposal includes a reduction in minimum unit size—from the City’s standard of 700 square feet to approximately 580 square feet—and asked what community benefits or concessions the City would receive in exchange for allowing deviations from standard code requirements.

Director Allen reported that the community benefits included in the Development Agreement in exchange for proposed deviations from standard requirements. She noted that the benefits include publicly accessible open space areas, provision of 10% moderate-income housing units (45 units), and phased improvements to the commercial center, including enhanced connectivity and new gathering spaces. She shared that additional benefits include financial contributions to police and fire services, installation of CCTV, and emergency vehicle preemption infrastructure. She added that the agreement requires timely construction or building permit issuance to ensure the units count toward the current housing cycle.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen clarified that the production of high-quality jobs applied to investments in the retail center and not construction jobs for the project.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Mr. McEachern clarified that the jobs would include property management and construction, in addition to retail work.

Mayor Aitken inquired whether construction workers would be paid prevailing wages and how the developer would ensure that all workers, including subcontractors, are paid above minimum wage.

Mr. McEachern confirmed the workers would not be paid the prevailing wage. He shared that the developer would ensure that each subcontractor is paid above minimum wage, noting that the developer has visibility with subcontractor wage payments.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Mr. McEachern explained that the developer hires a general subcontractor who employs subcontractors with benefits. He stated that while not all labor on the project would be prevailing wage or union-based due to cost considerations, they work with experienced, long-standing subcontractors, many of whom are affiliated with trade organizations. He emphasized a commitment to using qualified and reputable workers.

Mayor Aitken expressed concern about the developer's claims on the labor component. She emphasized the lack of measurable metrics to ensure delivery of stated public benefits, particularly in relation to zoning and specific plan changes being requested. She raised concerns about the uncertainty of projected economic benefits and requested information on applicable development impact fees, including park fees and required contributions to police and fire services under current standards.

Director Allen explained that under the Development Agreement, the applicant would be required to pay all applicable Citywide development fees at the rates in effect at the time permits are issued, such as the park dwelling fee. She noted that existing Police and Fire impact fees currently apply only to specific areas (e.g., the Platinum Triangle), and if expanded Citywide in the future, they would not apply retroactively to the project.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen clarified that there are currently no applicable police or fire impact fees for this project, as such fees are limited to the Platinum Triangle area. She reported that the Development Agreement specifies that the project would only be required to pay fees that are in effect Citywide at the time of permitting, and would not be subject to any future police or fire impact fees adopted after project approval.

Council Member Rubalcava proposed amending the Development Agreement to require the use of skilled and trained workers, including prevailing wage requirements for the parking structure, to ensure construction quality and workforce standards regardless of future project ownership. She emphasized the importance of creating well-paying jobs and supporting workforce initiatives, noting concerns that retail and property management positions may not provide sufficient economic benefit.

She inquired whether the recently adopted housing in-lieu fees would apply to the project, given its inclusion of some affordable units but not full qualification under RHNA affordable housing criteria.

Director Allen explained that the project is not subject to the recently adopted affordable housing in- lieu fee ordinance because it was submitted as an active application prior to the ordinance’s effective date. She reported that the project is not required to pay those fees, though the applicant is providing a voluntary contribution related to moderate-income units.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that the housing incentive ordinance was adopted to apply prospectively and not retroactively. She explained that the project application was filed in 2023—prior to the ordinance’s effective date in October 2024—it is not subject to those requirements. She confirmed if the project is denied, a new application would be required.

Council Member Rubalcava proposed amending the Development Agreement proposed amending the development agreement to include requirements for a skilled and trained workforce as well as local hire provisions. She expressed concern about traffic impacts and emphasized the importance of employing local workers to reduce regional commuting. She shared her support of Council Member Kurtz and Mayor Aitken’s direction.

Mayor Aitken raised concerns about accountability for subcontractors, citing past experiences where workers were underpaid or improperly compensated despite involvement of reputable contractors.

She emphasized the need for stronger oversight to ensure worker protections, safety, and fair labor practices. She expressed additional concerns included ensuring quality equipment and safe working conditions, as well as preventing exploitation of workers. She expressed her support for local hire provisions to ensure economic benefits remain within the community rather than going to out-of-area workers.

Mr. Fogg clarified that “skilled and trained workforce” has a specific legal definition under state law, tied to apprenticeship program participation and associated administrative requirements, which can significantly increase project costs. He distinguished this from local hire and prevailing wage requirements, noting they are separate considerations. He stated that federal preemption limits the City’s ability to impose certain labor requirements, such as union or prevailing wage mandates, on private development projects.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested additional information on the requirements.

Mr. Fogg referenced legal authority regarding labor requirements, including the Boston Harbor case, explaining that project labor agreements and union labor requirements may be permitted when a public agency acts in a proprietary role (e.g., as a project owner). He added that such requirements City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

are limited when applied to private development, as legal constraints—under federal labor law—affect the City’s ability to mandate these provisions.

Council Member Rubalcava acknowledged legal concerns raised regarding labor requirements but emphasized the City’s discretion in decision-making.

Mr. Fogg reiterated that the City’s authority is limited by federal law. He explained that a development agreement is a voluntary, bilateral contract between the City and the developer, requiring mutual consent. He reported that conditions cannot be unilaterally imposed by the City without the developer’s agreement. He noted that the development agreement could be withdrawn, allowing the project to proceed solely under a specific plan amendment, with the agreement serving as an exchange of vested rights for mutually agreed-upon benefits.

Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill advised that the proposed changes to the Development Agreement constitute revisions to a bilateral contract, which the developer is not obligated to accept. She noted that the housing development project itself remains subject to Council action, and that state housing laws limit the City’s ability to deny such projects without specific findings. She recommended that the parties consider whether mutually agreeable amendments to the development agreement can be reached, while emphasizing that the development agreement and project approval are separate actions governed by different legal standards.

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to continue the item.

DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken inquired whether continuing the item to further evaluate potential revisions to the Development Agreement would require a new public hearing.

Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that the public hearing has already been closed and does not need to be reopened if the item is continued. She noted that the Council has discretion to reopen the hearing if new information arises. She noted that a continuation would allow staff to return with updated recommendations, including potential alternative findings for disapproval in compliance with current housing laws, while confirming that a full and complete public hearing has already been conducted.

City Attorney Fabela advised continuing the item to allow for discussions on alternatives.

Council Member Meeks explained that the project is the replacement of an existing, unused theater and not an expansion of residential use into other commercial areas. She stressed the importance of preserving remaining commercial uses within the center, which provide key community amenities.

She requested clarification on whether the specific plan sufficiently limits the approval to the proposed site only, or if additional measures—such as subdividing Development Area 5 into separate residential and commercial designations—are needed to ensure protection of the remaining commercial properties.

Council Member Balius requested estimated figures for applicable development impact fees, noting an approximate park fee of $2.5 million and inquiring about additional fees such as sanitation. He requested that staff estimate what Police and Fire impact fees—similar to those applied in the Platinum Triangle—would amount to if applied to this project.

Mayor Aitken supported Council Member Balius’ request and fee estimates if the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee was applied.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Leon emphasized the importance in ensuring construction quality, safety, and accountability. He highlighted the value of continued good-faith negotiations with the developer to support local workforce participation and achieve high standards for both construction and long-term performance.

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to continue the item, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Leon.

DISCUSSION: City Attorney Fabela noted Council meetings on January 27th and February 3rd. He reported that the continuation needs to be to a date certain.

Director Allen suggested the February 3rd meeting. Council Member Rubalcava expressed her support for a continuance to February 3rd.

Council Member Kurtz requested that, upon return of the item, staff provide an explanation of the City’s recently adopted ordinance related to contractor and subcontractor reporting requirements, including enforcement mechanisms such as the ability to halt construction if standards are not met, and how these provisions would apply to the project.

Mayor Aitken thanked City staff, Fire & Rescue, and Public Works for their preparation and presentations. She acknowledged Anaheim’s growth but expressed concern about adding housing in high fire hazard areas, particularly in District 6, given uncertainties around evacuation behavior and infrastructure improvements. She referenced past wildfire experiences and emphasized public safety concerns and requested additional information from staff on alternative housing sites in District 6 that are outside high fire risk zones.

MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to continue the item to February 3, 2026, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Leon. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Motion carried.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney Robert Fabela stated there was no reportable action.

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

Council Member Kurtz requested recognizing the Orange County Peloteros Baseball team, a traveling team of 12-year-old boys from Anaheim. The team has won back-to-back championship tournaments in the last month. They also raise money for donations by doing odd jobs to donate gifts to Anaheim Family Resource Centers for Christmas. The recognition is for their achievements in sports and community service.

Council Member Rubalcava requested to agendize a presentation for Chief of Police Cid to provide an overview of his future plans for public safety in his first 100 days. She referenced the City’s e-Bike Ordinance and the lack of enforcement, and the need for more education regarding e-bikes. She recommended that the City’s Public Information Office and Police Department partner with schools to educate students about e-Bike laws prior to enforcement and citations.

Council Member Meeks mentioned the successful education efforts at El Rancho Charter School when the school year started.

City Council Minutes of January 13, 2026

Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested a recognition for the California Highway Patrol team from Santa Ana for their regional “CHiPs For Kids” Toy Drive.

Council Member Maahs requested agendizing an item on removing blight and addressing billboards in Anaheim.

Mayor Aitken requested to agendize the Closed Session item she mentioned earlier in the meeting regarding the City Manager. She also requested to agendize the agreement between the Anaheim Firefighters Association (AFA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Mayor Aitken requested a memo or meeting with Fire staff to evaluate and propose standards and measures to make homes and new buildings Citywide more fire resistant and provide education on what the City is allowed to require.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Council, Mayor Aitken adjourned the City Council at 11:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Theresa Bass, CMC
City Clerk