Anaheim City Council
September 29, 2026

ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 2026
The regular meeting of August 25, 2026 was called to order at 2:31 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 August 20, 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: Interim City Manager Greg Garcia, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City Clerk Theresa Bass
ADDITIONS\DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
CLOSED SESSION: At 2:31 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed to closed session for consideration of the following:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director Name of Employee Organization: Anaheim Police Association

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: Sandy Jo v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2025-01526121-CU-PA-CJC
and

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case

3. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
(Subdivision (b) (1) of Section 54957 of the California Government Code) Title: City Manager

4. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director Position: City Manager
At 5:05 p.m., Mayor Aitken reconvened the Anaheim City Council.

INVOCATION: Pastor Scott Wiedensohler, Calvary Chapel East Anaheim ITEM # 14
City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Natalie Meeks
Council Member Meeks requested that, during the Pledge of Allegiance, to remember those who protect and preserve the country’s freedom, both domestically and abroad.

PRESENTATION: Recognizing the 2026 Student Exchange Participants from Anaheim’s Sister City of Mito, Japan.

Mayor Aitken stated that the City’s sister-city relationship with Mito is a cherished Anaheim tradition.

She reported that Mito is about 70 miles north of Tokyo, and December marks 50 years of friendship between the two cities. She shared that as Mayor, she has had the honor of visiting Mito as part of an official delegation and welcoming visiting Mito officials and greeting yearly exchange students. She recognized six students visiting from Mito as part of the summer exchange program. She stated that the program provides an opportunity for the students to experience the City’s history, culture, and much more. She shared that they spent the week touring Anaheim including City Hall and the Council Chamber, attending an Angels game, and visiting Disneyland, Cortinas, Northgate, and In-N-Out.

She thanked the students and the Anaheim families who welcomed them into their homes and the Sister City Commission and City staff who organized the trip and made it a memorable experience for the students.

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

Recognizing September 11, 2026, as Patriot Day
Recognizing September 15, 2026, as National Voter Registration Day Recognizing September 2026, as National Preparedness Month Deputy Fire Chief Grant Riley reported that National Preparedness Month is recognized each September to promote family and community disaster and emergency planning and encourage preparation for all emergencies. He stated that taking action before a disaster is the best thing for residents, families, and businesses to protect loved ones, property and the community. He encouraged taking simple steps to prepare, including knowing local hazards, registering for Anaheim Alert, preparing a disaster kit with at least 72 hours of essential supplies, and developing a family communication plan with safe evacuation routes. He stated that the City’s website included additional disaster preparedness information and how to register for Anaheim Alert.

Recognizing September 2026, as Hunger Action Month
Mark Lowry from the OC Hunger Alliance thanked the City for recognizing September as Hunger Action Month and for highlighting hunger and food insecurity. He stated that approximately 400,000 Orange County residents are considered poor, food insecure, or hungry under government standards. He explained that hunger in Anaheim is not primarily caused by a lack of available food, but by poverty and insufficient financial resources to meet basic household needs, including feeding families. He expressed appreciation for the City’s efforts to raise awareness of hunger and food insecurity.

Recognizing September 15 – October 15, 2026, as Hispanic Heritage Month At 5:17 p.m., Mayor Aitken called to order the Anaheim Public Financing Authority, Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority and Anaheim Housing Authority, in joint session with the City Council.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: City Clerk Theresa Bass announced that staff requested to withdraw Item No. 17 from consideration and staff would present the item at a later date.

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 in-person and remotely, notice of translation services, automated live captioning in the Webinar, and a brief decorum statement.

City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that a total of forty-two (42) public comments were received electronically prior to 3:30 p.m. [A final total of fifty (50) public comments were received electronically and distributed to the City Council].

Andrea Phelps shared her participation in several Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding proposed development projects. She emphasized that project considerations vary based on the needs of each Council district and the individual developments. She stated that local representatives and residents are better suited to identify neighborhood needs. She expressed opposition to Anaheim pursuing a Prohousing Designation. She explained that it could reduce local control over development decisions and increase State influence over housing density, parking, setbacks, open space, and other development standards. She expressed concerns about existing State requirements and variances that could result in reduced parking, setbacks, recreation space, and increased residential density. She stated that residents bear the impacts of the changes, including increased parking demand, traffic and noise, and reduced open space. She expressed concern that reducing public hearing requirements would limit public engagement and oversight, lowering development impact fees could reduce funding available for infrastructure and other City costs, and eliminating parking minimums could exacerbate parking problems. She urged the City Council to oppose the Prohousing Designation.

R. Joshua Collins advocated for additional resources for people experiencing homelessness, particularly affordable housing and safe parking programs. He highlighted the needs of seniors, individuals with disabilities, families, and mothers with children and noted that affordable housing is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain. He referenced safe parking programs in Los Angeles and Alameda County, that provide monitored overnight parking, basic amenities, security, and connections to supportive services. He encouraged the City to consider similar programs to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with a safe and stable place to stay while connecting them with available resources. He expressed support for rent control as a means of helping prevent homelessness and urged the Council to take action on safe parking and other homelessness solutions. He expressed support for the Arzola family and called for continued support and transparency regarding the incident.

Pat Mahoney, President of West Coast Arborists, thanked the City for considering a renewed contract with West Coast Arborists. He expressed appreciation for the more than 30 years of service to Anaheim and noted that the company is a 54-year old family-owned union company headquartered in Anaheim. He added that 86 employees live in Anaheim and are members of Laborers Local 652. He highlighted the company’s tree inventory and management technology used to track the condition, maintenance, history, and work performed on individual trees. He reported that the company maintains approximately 46,000 street trees, provides power-line clearance for approximately 36,000 trees, and maintains 7,000 park trees. He emphasized the role of the company’s employees and arborists, who work alongside City staff to maintain and improve Anaheim’s tree canopy. He thanked the City for its continued partnership.

Marina shared that her family operates the Mondragon Family Market at 407 East North Street in District 3. She spoke regarding Item No. 26 and stated that her family has operated the market since 1978, with family ties to Anaheim since the 1920’s, and emphasized the business's longstanding role City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

in the community. She requested that the Council consider how complaints are evaluated and the potential impact of repeated complaints on businesses. She stated that the market is a community gathering space that hosts quarterly free events with nonprofits, agencies, families, and volunteers.

She noted improvements to the property, including murals, an outdoor trash can, and plants, to beautify the area, deter vandalism, and improve cleanliness. She shared that the property has experienced nearly two years of repeated complaints and Code Enforcement activity. She requested a review of the property’s complaint and enforcement history, including the number of complaints received, how many resulted in verified violations, whether complaints had been submitted by the same individual, and how many City responses found no substantiated violations. She expressed concerns about connections between individuals who have complained and Code Enforcement and urged the city to distinguish between the volume of complaints and documented violations. She expressed concern that repeated complaints could be used to unfairly target a business, damage its reputation, and unnecessarily consume City resources. She requested that the Council maintain protections for neighborhoods while ensuring that the complaint process is not misused against businesses.

Ezrah spoke about his family’s history and the importance of Mondragon Family Market, which opened in 1978. He shared that his grandparents established the family’s businesses and that the Anaheim location remains the family’s only remaining market. He explained that the market is more than a business, emphasizing its role in helping neighbors, bringing families and community groups together, and hosting community events. He stated that his parents taught him and his siblings that they would be responsible for carrying on the family’s legacy and expressed pride in participating in the business and community activities. He asked the Council to help protect longstanding businesses like the Mondragon Market so that future generations can continue the family’s legacy and contribute to Anaheim’s history and community.

Shelly Robbins requested that the Council oppose Item No. 21 to prioritize life-safety considerations before approving developments. She referenced the City’s draft wildfire evacuation study, which modeled evacuation scenarios lasting more than 10 hours, including one exceeding 12 hours. She questioned whether Anaheim’s evacuation network can safely accommodate additional development under various wildfire conditions and expressed concern that the proposed Prohousing designation would increase housing capacity, expedite approvals, reduce certain development barriers, and allow more administrative approval with fewer discretionary hearings. She raised concerns regarding public participation for the item, explaining that some public comments were not identified in the item and requested an explanation for the discrepancy. She urged the Council to complete the wildfire evacuation analysis, reconcile the public record, and establish enforceable safety limits before approving additional development. She expressed support for affordable housing but suggested alternatives to new construction should be considered to assist people experiencing homelessness without compromising resident safety. She expressed continued support for the Arzola family.

Vern Nelson spoke regarding Item No. 26 and expressed concern that a chronic nuisance property ordinance could be used against longstanding local small businesses that are subject to repeated Code Enforcement complaints, particularly the Mondragon Family Market. He stated that the complaints are frivolous and alleged that the Code Enforcement process was being misused against the business. He highlighted the market’s contributions to the community and improvements and questioned whether the improvements should result in enforcement concerns. He urged Council Members to visit the Mondragon Family Market and consider the potential impacts of the ordinance on local businesses. He announced an upcoming Anaheim Democrats Club meeting featuring discussions on immigration enforcement and called for justice for Albert Arzola.

Tamara Hill expressed opposition to Item No. 21 and the proposed Prohousing designation. She explained that the designation involves State funding in exchange for changes to local housing City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

regulations and expressed concern that Anaheim would relinquish local decision-making authority.

She noted concerns about reduced local control, elimination of certain discretionary reviews and public hearings, expedited administrative review timelines, and incentives intended to reduce development and infrastructure costs. She explained that the provisions could limit opportunities for community input, reduce the role of residents in development decisions, and prioritize developer interests over existing zoning regulation and local preferences.

Doug Hill shared his opposition to Item No. 21 and the Prohousing designation and urged Council Members to review the proposal carefully. He expressed concern that the designation could reduce local control over development decisions and increase State influence over matters affecting Anaheim neighborhoods, including parking, housing density, and traffic congestion. He urged the Council to preserve its ability to represent the interests of local constituents in development decisions.

Andrew Winger expressed opposition to Item No. 21, the Prohousing designation. He emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility to modify innovative programs if adjustments are needed. He expressed concern that the designation could limit the City’s ability to pursue solutions that may fall outside the State’s housing policy requirements. He referenced a recent Planning Commission meeting involving a District 3 development with parking challenges noted by Planning Commissioners but ultimately approved. He stated that continued State restrictions have reduced local discretion and the proposed Prohousing designations would further limit Anaheim’s authority. He questioned linking homelessness funding to State housing policy requirements and noted that Anaheim had already demonstrated a commitment to housing, noting that the City had exceeded its Regional Housing Needs Assessment and State Prohousing score above the required threshold. He urged the Council to deny the designation.

Betty expressed concern regarding Item No. 21 and the proposed Prohousing designation, stating that the designation could reduce the ability of local officials and residents to influence zoning, housing density, and growth patterns. She questioned whether the same development standards would appropriately account for differences in geography and existing infrastructure among Anaheim neighborhoods. She raised concerns about potential impacts including increased parking demand, traffic congestion, and pressure on infrastructure. She cited potential wildfire and evacuation risks associated with higher-density development in high-fire severity areas and expressed concern that reduced developer funding could increase costs to the City. She urged the Council to retain local control over development decisions.

Lisa Sartor spoke about her housing challenges and stated that she has been waiting approximately 15 years for a housing voucher. She shared that she received a voucher promise in 2017 which was withdrawn after funding had been exhausted. She expressed concerns about how housing funds were administered and noted that approximately 350 families were affected. She shared that she was subsequently placed in housing where she had experienced abuse. She discussed challenges related to maintaining stable housing for her son, who experiences significant medical challenges.

She stated that she had obtained reasonable accommodation documentation from physicians supporting the need to remain in her existing family home and close to her support network. She noted that the family was required to leave the residence and the home was subsequently sold. She emphasized the difficulty of securing affordable and appropriate housing in Anaheim and described the impacts that housing instability has had on her family.

Mayor Aitken requested that Interim City Manager Garcia connect Ms. Sartor with Housing and Community Development Department staff.

Ms. Sartor shared her difficulties with filing formal complaints related to her housing assistance experience. She explained that she was offered the option to file a complaint or City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

receive assistance through City Net. She stated that she has not received a response to her prior concerns. She expressed concerns about discrimination within the housing system.

Mayor Aitken acknowledged Ms. Sartor’s concerns and referred her to Housing and Community Development Department staff.

Laura Hernandez (Remote) spoke on behalf of LaDonna DiCamillo, Regional Director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, regarding Item No. 22. She stated that the Authority had only recently become aware of the proposed plans for Lot B at OCVIBE. She noted that the Authority submitted a letter requesting that the Council consider potential impacts to future high-speed rail plans in the area. She stated that proposed clarifications and provisions affecting Parcel 5A, Lot B could adversely affect the future High-Speed Rail project if they allow land uses not reflected in the existing OCVIBE planning documents and environmental clearance. She expressed concern that changes to the planned use of the parcel could affect the ability to provide shared use of the ARTIC station platforms for future high-speed rail and passenger rail services. She requested that the City Council review the City’s commitments under the 2020 Memorandum of Understanding with the Authority, consider the long-term implications for connecting the high-speed rail with ARTIC and other regional transit, and refrain from approving the item while the parties work toward a mutually beneficial approach.

Cecil Jordan Corkern discussed financial difficulties and the challenges of saving money for household expenses. He referenced an upcoming Disney performance at the Honda Center on October 1
st
. He expressed concern over content in Disney media and suggested that federal authorities should be involved in addressing the issue.

Viridiana Cortes expressed concern about ongoing activity near Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard in District 1, particularly around the CVS Pharmacy and a nearby bus stop. She stated that while driving her children to school, she has repeatedly observed inappropriate behavior. She expressed concerns regarding homelessness, loitering, and littering in the area. She stated that she had submitted photographs documenting the conditions. She requested increased enforcement of public indecency and loitering laws, additional attention to homelessness and trash near the CVS and bus stop, and measures to improve safety near Beach Boulevard and the Orange Avenue corridor.

Mayor Aitken encouraged the resident to report future incidents through Anaheim Anytime to assist Police Department staff with identifying areas generating repeated calls for service and potential hotspots. She added that Ms. Cortes can follow up with her or Council Member Balius.

David Garcia expressed support for his wife, Elia Renteria, who is running for City Council Member for District 3. He shared his personal experience growing up in a low-income, first-generation family and credited community programs, resources, and individuals who provided support in helping him become a working professional and contributing member of the Anaheim community. He emphasized the importance of ensuring working families have accessible resources and representation, noting that navigating multiple City departments, applications, and service providers can be difficult for residents working multiple jobs and managing family responsibilities. He highlighted his wife’s years of service to the community through the City, community centers, Police Departments, nonprofits, and food banks. He stated that community participation and representation strengthen democracy and help ensure residents’ voices are heard.

Elia Renteria shared that she is a candidate for City Council for District 3. She referenced her more than 20 years of experience working with the City of Anaheim, including at the Youth Center and Anaheim Police Department. She described her work supporting working families and families experiencing abuse and emphasized the importance of affordable youth programs, safe spaces for City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

children, prevention, and accessible community resources. She advocated for greater communitybased representation and engagement, stating that Council Members should regularly be present in neighborhoods, parks, apartment communities, small businesses, and senior centers. She called for a City Council that listens and is responsive to residents. She highlighted Anaheim’s nonprofits, service clubs, businesses, schools, and community organizations. She stated that while programs such as food distributions and backpack giveaways provide important assistance, the City should address the underlying needs that lead families to rely on those services. She identified affordable housing, youth programs and childcare, job opportunities, small-business support, a designated senior center, and accessible City services as areas requiring policy attention. She called for leadership that is present, responsive, and connected to Anaheim residents.

Mike Robbins expressed concern regarding allegations of Anaheim Police Department overtime and time-card fraud, emphasizing that potential individual misconduct should be distinguished from broader system or management deficiencies. He questioned statements made about the allegations and stated that inaccurate time reporting or improper approval of overtime would involve individual responsibility. He referenced a prior audit requested by the former Chief of Police and questioned the audit’s determination. He raised concerns regarding Chief Cid’s relationship with the Anaheim Police Association’s presidents and whether the relationship affects the independence of decisions regarding the overtime. He questioned the roles of former City Manager Jim Vanderpool and the Human Resources Director in reviewing the matter and called for greater transparency regarding the amount of overtime paid and any potential financial losses to the City. He urged the City Council to consider an independent investigation examining time-card entries, approval processes, and individual responsibility.

Tom Fielder raised concerns regarding the appointment of Luis Martinez as Deputy Chief of the Police Department. He referenced a prior civil case regarding a 2010 shooting in Culver City which determine the use of excessive force and awarded a total judgment of $8.825 million to the individual’s family. He questioned the vetting process for the appointment, his oversight of the Operations Bureau and Professional Standards, and the relationship between Deputy Chief Martinez and Chief Cid. He called for transparency regarding recruitment, vetting, and the selection process.

Marc Herbert stated that the City has not provided a response regarding the prior month’s waterpressure failure. He referenced the pending police shooting investigation involving Albert Arzola and suggested providing updates through Council Communications and the City Manager’s Update. He commented on an August 2025 low-chlorine incident involving Well 69, explaining that City employees identified a closed isolation valve following maintenance as a contributing factor and that certain alarms and automatic shutdown protections did not operate as expected. He questioned who accepted the wells into service, who verified the SCADA programming and safety systems, and why concerns regarding the shutdown setting remained unresolved. He alleged that employees who raised concerns about the water system faced disciplinary action and that employees had alerted management to issues before the July water-pressure failure which affected Disneyland, Angel Stadium, City Hall, businesses, and residents. He urged the City to investigate whether the earlier warnings and reported system deficiencies were connected to the July incident and called for greater accountability and transparency regarding the City’s water system operations.

G. Price raised continued concerns regarding Anaheim’s water system, citing employee reports of water-quality issues, excessive flushing, operational failures, and management concerns. She stated that the concerns had been raised publicly since March and referenced several changes in the Water Division, including management reassignments, retirements, resignations, and departures. She noted that in April, Public Utilities staff stated that Anaheim’s water was safe and emphasized that on July 28, 2026, water service was disrupted at Disneyland, City Hall, Angel Stadium, and throughout portions of the community. She questioned why the City had not conducted an independent City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

investigation into employees’ allegations and the July 28th incident. She also questioned the State Division of Water’s conclusion that there were no findings and inquired whether whistleblowers had been interviewed and whether investigators had received complete information. She urged the City Council to exercise greater oversight, interview employees who raised concerns, and provide residents with answers regarding the water system and turnover in the Water Division.

Stephanie Mercadante expressed concern regarding the management and oversight of the Water Division in Anaheim Public Utilities. She cited allegations from employees involving workplace conduct, harassment, retaliation, intimidation, unsafe practices, and management decisions. She referenced claims of disrespectful treatment of employees, workplace safety concerns, inappropriate use of City resources, alleged impairment while working, damage to underground utilities, and operational decisions that contribute to water-quality concerns and excessive flushing. She referenced the City’s reported flushing of more than 10 million gallons of water in late 2025 and questioned management’s response to employee concerns. She stated that the repeated allegations involving employees under the same leadership structure warranted an independent investigation.

She concluded by criticizing that the matter was declared closed and noted that the unresolved concerns could result in greater costs and consequences for taxpayers.

Jeanine Robbins questioned whether City policies are being applied consistently to employees and Human Resources (HR) personnel. She stated that HR is responsible for enforcing City policies, investigating employee complaints, and administering discipline. She alleged that complaints involving HR management have been ignored or minimized. She cited Administrative Regulation No. 217, concerning the City’s drug-free workplace policy, and alleged that the Employee Relations Manager was in violation of the policy. She stated that Administrative Regulation No. 243 requires supervisors and managers who receive employee complaints to report them promptly. She questioned why the Human Resources Director and the City had not ordered an independent investigation into the conduct of HR leadership. She urged the Council to ensure that City policies are enforced consistently and expressed support for Albert Arzola’s family.

Mayor Aitken reminded speakers that City employees are individuals and expressed support for the City’s staff and cautioned against personal attacks.

Oralia Neria, a Disneyland Resort Ambassador, provided an update on recent Resort activities and community initiatives. She noted that in July, Disneyland reinstated its Anaheim resident ticket offer with tickets starting at $70 and available for purchase through September 24, 2026 for visits through October 8, 2026. She highlighted the Resort’s workforce development efforts, including the AIME Summer Mentorship Program, which hosted 22 Anaheim Union High School District students for a six-week program featuring departmental overviews, job shadowing, career workshops, collaborative projects, and presentations to Disney executives. She added that the Resort hosted the CHOC Walk in the Park, which drew more than 7,000 participants and raised over $3 million for children’s health and well-being. She shared that Disney cast members participated in back-to-school supply drives, including a distribution at Orange Grove Elementary School. She noted the return of D2: The Ultimate Disney Fan Event to Anaheim, featuring exhibits, panels, shopping experiences, celebrity appearances, and presentations at the Convention Center and Honda Center. She thanked Council Members and City staff who attended the groundbreaking ceremony for Disneyland’s East Parking Facility.

Denise Barnes, Chair of the Older Adults Commission, thanked Council Members who have attended commission meetings and engaged with discussions regarding the needs of Anaheim’s older adult population. She requested that the City include a line item in the upcoming budget for a standalone senior center, noting that seniors live on fixed incomes while facing increasing costs for groceries, taxes, and insurance. She emphasized the importance of prioritizing senior services alongside the City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

City’s tourism-related investments and stated that a dedicated senior facility could improve access to funding. She referenced research conducted for a Commission presentation. She stated that standalone facilities may be better positioned to qualify for State, federal, and philanthropic funding, including programs administered through the California Department of Aging and Older Americans Act Title III, because such funding may require dedicated space, service reporting, and specialized licensing. She shared that the Commission would provide additional information to the Council and urged the City to move forward with a dedicated senior center.

Frances Noteboom advocated for the development of a standalone senior center or senior complex in Anaheim, emphasizing the growing demand for programs and services for residents age 60 or older.

She highlighted the popularity of activities at the Downtown Community Center, including a Tai Chi class with over 40 participants and additional individuals on the waiting list. She noted that existing rooms and classes are consistently at capacity. She explained that a senior center is an important gathering place that supports social connections, active lifestyles, and quality of life for older adults.

She suggested that a new facility could also provide opportunities to integrate seniors from Miraloma and Ponderosa into broader senior programming. She referenced visits to senior centers in Buena Park, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, which included features and services including senior cafés, fitness facilities, health screenings, technology-equipped rooms, meeting and rental spaces, shade structures, tax assistance, case management, and nutrition services. She emphasized that the proposed center should be a vibrant, welcoming community for older adults and urged the Council to consider including a standalone senior center for the City’s Strategic Plan.

Paul Hyek encouraged the City Council to visit standalone senior centers in Costa Mesa and Cypress to observe amenities and services, including computer access and technology assistance for seniors.

He expressed concern regarding services for people experiencing homelessness, including meal programs. She referenced Meals on Wheels and programs currently operating through local shelters.

He advocated for increased bus and transportation options for seniors.

Ruben Greg Soto shared his personal experiences with law enforcement. He referenced prior arrests and court proceedings in Anaheim, Riverside, and Corona. He questioned the fairness of the criminal justice system and expressed a desire to pursue justice, truth, and restitution.

Art Castillo expressed concern regarding Code Enforcement and small businesses. He referenced conversations with business owners and apartment managers regarding complaints and alleged instructions to submit complaints. He urged the Council to protect small businesses while continuing to enforce legitimate violations consistently and fairly. He expressed concerns about interactions between police officers and youth, including students traveling to and from school. He alleged that some youth have been stopped and questioned and expressed concern about possible retaliation against families and youth who have previously spoken out. He urged the City Council to investigate the concerns and hold officers accountable over any misconduct.

Irene Rose, President of the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club, spoke about the positive impact of senior centers on the community. She stated that many older adults experience social isolation, lack family support, and may have limited transportation options, which can contribute to depression and other challenges. She emphasized that senior centers provide opportunities for older adults to socialize, develop friendships, remain active, and support one another. She explained that the senior community is a network where members check on one another and identify when assistance is needed. She urged the Council to consider the needs of Anaheim’s growing senior population and expand the available square footage and activities at senior facilities including consideration of a flagship senior center for the City.

Donna Acevedo Nelson shared that she and her family have experienced ongoing harassment involving obscene and sexually explicit mailings sent to them, public officials, and others, and said an City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Anaheim Police Department investigation was opened but later closed. She requested that any evidence related to case be forwarded to her, added to her case file, the investigation be reopened, and that Internal Affairs review the handling of the original investigation. She alleged that personal and political relationships may have affected the handling of the matter and called for an additional investigation.

Mazatl Tepehyolotzin shared personal and family experiences related to racism and discrimination.

He discussed the history and experiences of Indigenous and Chicano communities in Anaheim and Orange County and expressed support for efforts to obtain federal recognition for local Indigenous tribes. He urged the Mayor and City Council to support removing the Colonists' name from Anaheim High School, noting ongoing community efforts and a petition. He also referenced recent State legislation addressing mascot names and requested that City leadership encourage the Anaheim Union High School District to change Anaheim High School’s mascot name.

Anonymous 5 (Card No. 7744) stated that Anaheim Convention Center Duty Managers were not included when eligible employees joined the union in 2024 and were denied a mid-contract union membership and pay increase. He explained that Duty Managers have not received a raise in 10 years and have significant responsibilities during Convention Center events. He cited the City’s employee merit system guidelines regarding uniform classification and compensation for positions with similar duties and responsibilities. He stated that a reclassification study has delayed their requested pay increase for approximately two years and questioned why a separate event-services position was reclassified to a director position within days. He requested that the City investigate the duty managers’ compensation, the status of funds budgeted for their raises, and whether other City employees have gone without raises for an extended period.

Grace Arzola requested accountability regarding the death of her nephew Albert Arzola, stating that nine months had passed without the identity of the second officer involved and their body-worn camera footage being disclosed. She stated that Officer Nathan Garcia used excessive force and that the City had previously settled a lawsuit involving Officer Garcia. She explained that her nephew’s death could have been prevented if he was terminated for the earlier incident. She called for the release of the police overtime audit and criticized the City’s response to other community concerns, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity and complaints involving Mondragon Family Market and Code Enforcement complaints.

Pearl Arzola called for justice and transparency regarding the death of her brother, Albert Arzola. She stated her family continued to seek accountability for the incident. She criticized Council Member Rubalcava for not posting about ICE activity and posting images of Officer Garcia. She expressed concerns about City priorities, including investment in a Porsche dealership rather than senior citizen services. She suggested that City employees undergo periodic drug testing.

Sergio Pelayo advocated for justice and transparency regarding the death of Albert Arzola. He stated that the family has not received sufficient information about the incident. He raised concerns regarding the lack of audio and body-worn camera footage. He noted that the officer involved had previously been involved in another incident and that the City had settled a recent lawsuit, and questioned why Garcia remained employed. He expressed concerns about alleged racial disparities in policing, the treatment of the Arzola family, and the delay in providing answers to the family.

Christine Lopez Ediss stated that the Police Review Board lacks meaningful authority to ensure transparency and accountability. She shared that residents’ questions are screened by the City officials and that the Board primarily serves as a forum for Police Department updates on equipment, technology, and policies. She requested information on changes to leadership to explain how individual officers are held accountable. She advocated for removing negative images and mascots City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

associated with a history of mistreatment, emphasizing the importance of supporting youth and fostering a sense of belonging. She called for justice for Albert Arzola.

Alberto Arzola requested the return of his personal property that was taken from him. He called for information regarding the death of his son Albert Arzola, including the identity of the second officer involved and audio from the incident. He expressed frustration with the lack of information regarding the incident and urged the City to provide answers to the family.

Rosie Camacho criticized the City’s response to the death of Albert Arzola and called for the termination of the officer involved. She criticized Council Member Rubalcava for posting a picture of the officer and urged her to be more present and engaged with constituents. She expressed frustration over the lack of information provided to the Arzola family and raised concerns regarding senior services, youth programs, school needs, recreational facilities, wildfire evacuation planning, and the City’s investment in Flock cameras. She requested that Council Members spend more time in their districts and criticized the City’s response to complaints involving the Mondragon Family Market.

Kenneth Batiste criticized federal government policies and stated that corruption and corporate influence were contributing to problems at the local level. He expressed concerns about immigration enforcement and the use of federal resources. He questioned U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts and criticized corporate political spending. He raised concerns regarding the Disney Way parking area, noting that residents paid for the facility and suggested renaming the street. He questioned the circumstances of a recent employee demonstration on Harbor Boulevard.

Leslie Lopez (Remote) spoke regarding the death of her cousin Albert Arzola and requested greater transparency and accountability from the Anaheim Police Department and City officials. She questioned Council Member Rubalcava’s posting of Officer Nathan Garcia and requested that any prior use-of-force history and related settlements be disclosed when he is publicly representing the Police Department. She raised questions about the lack of body-worn camera footage, department policies regarding camera activation and firearm deployment, and what training, evaluation, counseling, or disciplinary actions Officer Garcia received following the incident. She questioned why Officer Garcia returned to active duty and emphasized the impact the death had on her family.

Duane Roberts (Remote) criticized the U.S. electoral system, stating that winner-take-all, singlemember districts, and gerrymandering have historically contributed to the exclusion and dilution of minority communities’ voting power. He explained that a recent Supreme Court decision concerning the Voting Rights Act is evidence of longstanding structural issues. He added that restoring the Act would not address any underlying problems with the electoral system. He advocated for replacing single-member districts with proportional representation, where legislative seats are allocated according to the percentage of votes received.

Ariana Avalos; #642 (Remote) spoke in support of justice for her cousin, Albert Arzola, and called for police reform and improved training in Anaheim. She alleged that the officer involved previously harassed members of lower-income and minority communities and questioned the circumstances surrounding Arzola’s death. She questioned inconsistencies in the details of the incident, the source of video showing the graffiti, and whether evidence was forensically linked to Albert. She advocated for education rather than incarceration and efforts to address the school-to-prison pipeline, and criticized City leadership for its handling of the matter.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Member Kurtz thanked CHIRLA (The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights) for coming to neighborhoods in District 4 to meet with residents and talk about their rights in the immigration process, how they can move forward, and how they can seek protection. She thanked Director of Public Works Rudy Emami and the Public Works Department for removing palm trees on Katella Avenue near Harbor. She noted that it is the beginning of work that would be completed on Katella, increasing lanes, and installing new sewers. She thanked Public Works for working with the business community, including large and small hotels, and small businesses, to notify them of the impacts of the work and to develop a plan that would not impact them negatively. Council Member Kurtz highlighted the rehabilitation of Boysen Park. She thanked Congressman Lou Correa, the Parks team, staff, and a third-grade class from Roosevelt Elementary who participated in the groundbreaking. Council Member Kurtz thanked the Older Adults Commissioners who provided public comments to advocate for a dedicated senior center. She provided an update for Olive Street residents awaiting information about a potential walkway and bike path, stating that initial information is available and a community meeting will be scheduled in the coming weeks. Council Member Kurtz recognized two winners of a recent art contest focused on how youth can impact their community and the legacy of the United Farm Workers. She noted that one winner’s artwork featured flags representing different countries and conveyed the message that, despite different backgrounds, people are fundamentally alike and share the same humanity. She thanked the young artists, staff, and Council Members who supported the contest.

Council Member Maahs highlighted Wheelchair Softball at Pioneer Park. She announced that they would be playing almost every Saturday with a $5 entry. She noted that all are welcome regardless of ability. She shared a note that she had received from a parent highlighting the impact the accessible field has had on her child’s life and the ability for the child to experience freedom and independence.

She acknowledged the Angels Foundation, which provided financial assistance for the field and the City staff who maintain it. Council Member Maahs highlighted the park clean-up at Rio Vista Park.

She noted that residents from West Anaheim, commissioners, and Riverside residents joined the clean-up efforts. She announced that the next clean-up would be held on Saturday, September 25th at Miraloma Family Resource Center. She noted that everyone is welcome to participate and supplies would be provided. Council Member Maahs highlighted a group of parent leaders from Ponderosa who host parent and me classes at the Miraloma Family Resource Center. She shared that the group had worked together for a year on common goals and came together for the shared goal of uplifting their neighborhood. She featured a community garden that the parents had raised money for and recognized their leadership. Council Member Maahs announced that the City offers Anaheim Senior Wheels trips that provide free transportation to the senior center for older adults to enjoy. She added that trips to social activities, recreational activities, shopping, and medical appointments are available for $2 and within a 10-mile radius of an Anaheim home. She shared that for needs outside of the radius, OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority) has access buses that are available. She announced that her team would be scheduling a workshop to inform people on how to use the system. She added that participants would be provided a 30-day bus pass.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon thanked the City Attorney’s Office for the opportunity to sit in on several cases through Anaheim’s ACCESS (Anaheim Collaborative Court Evaluating Strategies and Solutions) Program. He explained that ACCESS provides a different approach to difficult cases that come through the justice system, particularly those involving individuals experiencing homelessness and other underlying challenges, which bring accountability together with treatment services and a path towards stability. He shared that he attended the graduation of an individual who had spent years unhoused and struggled with substance abuse. He noted that the individual is now housed and has celebrated a year of sobriety. He highlighted the process and the reinforcement of how much work goes into each case. He thanked Chief Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Contini, the City Attorney’s City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Office, and Judge Geller. He recognized the City Attorney’s Office for their vision to push the model forward and rethink the use of the justice system to address homelessness. Mayor Pro Tem Leon announced that he visited Legacy Farms, one of the largest employers located in District 2. He noted that the farm produces more than 500 million pounds of produce that moves through the company.

He added that they supply major brands and restaurants across the county. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet with the Legacy Farm team and learn more about their business, operations, and the workforce. Mayor Pro Tem Leon highlighted a recent District 2 community meeting where residents would have the opportunity to discuss concerns in their neighborhood. He thanked the Police Department, Code Enforcement, Public Utilities, and City staff who addressed questions from the public.

Council Member Rubalcava thanked members of the public for participating in the democratic process. She highlighted the importance of tree trimming in District 3 and noted that the contractor West Coast Arborist provides tree-trimming services throughout the City and emphasized the importance of its union workforce. She stated that Anaheim has approximately 40,000 neighborhood trees and 326 tree varieties, making tree maintenance a significant priority. She highlighted the City's tree-trimming transparency process, which allows residents to view when trees in their neighborhoods are scheduled for trimming. She added that with assistance from Public Works, the tree-trimming budget was increased by $350,000, allowing for additional tree maintenance opportunities throughout the City. Council Member Rubalcava thanked the Community Services Department and the Anaheim Police Department Youth Engagement Team, who partnered with her at an event in the Glen Neighbors community to bring school supplies to kids. Council Member Rubalcava highlighted a new District 3 business, Crab N Spice, that recently opened. She shared that they offered free meals to the first 50 people and held a raffle for Bruno Mars tickets. Council Member Rubalcava requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of Anthony Deloya. She stated that he was an asset to the Anaheim Police Department as a non-sworn officer. She thanked Hilgenfeld Mortuary, who are helping the family through the process, along with the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association. She read his obituary honoring Mr. Deloya, who passed away on August 20, 2026. She stated that he was a sixyear member of the Anaheim Police Department and a graduate of Cal State Fullerton. She added that he would be remembered as a compassionate, hardworking, humble, and dedicated individual who was deeply committed to his family, friends, and community. She shared that he will be leaving a legacy of courage and kindness and will be greatly missed and remembered by his loved ones. She announced that visitations would be held at Hilgenfeld Mortuary on September 10th, and the funeral would be held at St. Boniface Church on September 11th.

Council Member Balius thanked Ms. Cortes, who spoke during public comments to address issues on Beach Boulevard. He reported that Senate Bill (SB) 357 removed loitering as a citable offense. He explained that Assembly Bill (AB) 63 would allow Police Department’s to issue citations for loitering.

He encouraged the public to write letters to State representatives requesting support of AB 63. He reported that there have been 39 arrests on Beach Boulevard in July and acknowledged ongoing issues in the area. He stated that City staff are working to address the problems but expressed the view that they may persist until some of the existing hotels are converted to residential uses. He shared his intention to help facilitate the sale and conversion of certain hotels and noted that a nuisance-related agenda item was placed on the meeting agenda to address these concerns. Council Member Balius highlighted the removal of power lines on Beach Boulevard. He thanked the Public Utilities Department for facilitating the process and reported that removal of the communication lines would take approximately 12 months.

Mayor Aitken thanked Congressman Lou Correa and Assemblymember Avelino Valencia for their support in securing funding to begin construction on the City’s ninth skate park at Boysen Park. She thanked City staff for selecting the park and ensuring Boysen Park remains a legacy park. Mayor Aitken reported her attendance at a Big City Mayors trip in Sacramento. She explained that Big City City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Mayors includes the 13 largest cities in California who advocate in a bipartisan manner for issues that affect the largest cities. She noted that they discussed Proposition 1, a housing bond that would help bridge the gap for housing. She added that the Big City Mayors were able to sit down with former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and local representatives including Assembly Members Sharon Quirk-Silva, Cottie Petrie-Norris, and Avelino Valencia. She shared that they discussed Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) funding and advocated for cities like Anaheim and how to use the funding. Mayor Aitken highlighted the groundbreaking of the new parking structure that would connect the back of Harbor Boulevard and hotels through a pedestrian bridge to a new landmark entrance for DisneylandForward. She noted that it had been more than a decade of planning. She added that the pedestrian bridge would improve safety for pedestrians and the Disneyland Resort would be paying for the structure. She thanked all of the union representatives who were present, City staff, and members of the business community.

CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE:

Interim City Manager Garcia provided updates on the Anaheim Tech Scholar Program, noting that eligible high school juniors and seniors may apply through September 28 for free laptops or tablets to support their pursuit of higher education. He explained that the program provides free laptops or tablets to students who are ready to continue their education in college. Interim City Manager Garcia announced a Career Expo at the Anaheim Convention Center on September 29, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., featuring more than 80 employers and opportunities for networking, career information, and on-the-spot interviews. Interim City Manager Garcia invited the community to celebrate the 130th anniversary of the Woelke-Stoffel House, built in 1896, on September 5 from 9:00 a.m. to noon at Founders Park. He shared that there would be a treasure hunt, refreshments, and appearances by descendants of Peter and Mary Stoffel.

At 7:58 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed the Anaheim City Council to address the Anaheim Public Financing Authority, Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority, and Anaheim Housing Authority agendas, and reconvened at 8:00 p.m.

CONSENT CALENDAR: At 8:00 p.m., the Consent Calendar was considered with Council Member Kurtz pulling Item Nos. 11, 21, and 22 and Council Member Maahs pulling Item No. 16 for separate consideration.

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

8. Receive and file minutes of the Library Board meeting of July 13, 2026.

9. Approve certificates recognizing Officer Angelica Mejia for her 31 years of service with the Anaheim Police Department; Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva for her 12 years of service to California’s 67th Assembly District; and Nadia Martinez of the Housing & Community Development Department for being honored as an Unsung Hero by United Way of Orange County.

10. Receive and file, with the possibility of discussion, the list of Professional Services Agreements authorized by the Interim City Manager for July 2026.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

12. Approve the issuance of a Purchase Order to L.N. Curtis & Sons, in an amount not to exceed $2,889,677.96, for replacement of the self-contained breathing apparatuses and related equipment used by Anaheim Fire & Rescue; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to complete this purchase using discounted pricing under Sourcewell Cooperative Agreement No. 011824-LNC.

13. Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and award Master Agreement Purchase Order No. 106-499267 to Golden Bell Products, Inc., in the amount of $364,000, for a two year term, with three one-year optional renewals (cumulative agreement amount not to exceed $1,038,570 over the potential five-year term, inclusive of an annual price adjustment of up to ten percent for each renewal term) for as-needed sewer manhole pest control services for the Public Works Department; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute the Master Agreement and related documents, and to exercise the renewal options as appropriate.

14. Approve Master Agreement Contract No. 106‑499019 with Carrier Global Corporation, dba Carrier Corporation, for as‑needed HVAC repair and maintenance services for an initial one‑year period, in an annual amount not to exceed $350,000 ($150,000 for the Anaheim Convention Center (ACC) and $200,000 for the Public Works Department) with one year optional renewals through November 1, 2028 or any extension periods agreed upon by Sourcewell and Carrier, with CPI based priced increases as applicable to the renewal periods (subject to available budget appropriations); authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all necessary contractual documents in accordance with Sourcewell Cooperative Agreement No. 080824‑CAR with Carrier, and to exercise optional renewals.

Ratify an increase of $55,000 to Master Agreement No. 106-497476 with Carrier Corporation, bringing the total not to exceed amount from $100,000 to $155,000, for critical HVAC repair expenses at the ACC for the service period of June 2024 to June 2025.

15. Approve the Second Amendment to Agreement with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for tree trimming and power line clearance services, increasing the annual not to exceed amount from $3,956,096 to $5,429,111 and a 10% contingency for extra work, for the current agreement term and the remaining four one-year optional renewal terms; authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute the amendment and related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the amended agreement.

17. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc., in the amount of $5,214,896.54, for the Citywide Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Gap Closure Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22300.

Item No. 17 was withdrawn by staff.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

18. Approve the Agreement for Sale of Property and Joint Escrow Instructions, in substantial form, with ATN Asset Holding Company, LLC, in the acquisition amount of $10,265,000, for the City’s acquisition and use of real property located at 1213 and 1227 S. Claudina Street (“Property”), authorize the Director of Public Works to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of Interest in Real Property attached to the Grant Deed and authorize the City Clerk, in accordance with the aforementioned Agreement, to cause said Certificate of Acceptance of Interest in Real Property to be released to the authorized escrow agent for the recording of the Grant Deed in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County; approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), in substantial form, with the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) Transportation Committee, providing that the Property will be maintained for eligible transportation purposes and requires that, if the Property is not used for such purposes or is sold, the ATID portion of the net proceeds from any disposition will be returned to the ATID Transportation Component Fund; authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement, the MOU, and all related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement and the MOU, and authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the Agreement and MOU, so long as the changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney’s Office; determine that the actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15004(b)(2)(A) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and amend the Public Works Fiscal Year 2026/27 budget from the ATID Transportation Component Fund.

19. Approve a License Agreement with the County of Orange Registrar of Voters for the installation, operation, and maintenance of an Official Ballot Drop Box for a five year term at Maxwell Dog Park (2660 W. Broadway).

20. Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Transfer of Public Funds with the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), in the amount of $1,200,288 ($1,000,240 for a program plus a $200,048 assessment fee), for a one-time Intergovernmental Transfer (IGT) to recover unreimbursed ambulance transport revenues for a term effective through June 30, 2028; approve the Health Plan-Provider Intergovernmental Transfer Rate Range Program Agreement with CalOptima Health (CalOptima) to help recover unreimbursed City costs for service for an administrative fee of 2% of the IGT funds resulting in an estimated revenue of $2,730,138 from CalOptima, less CalOptima’s 2% share for a term of January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028; and authorize the Interim City Manager, or designees, to execute the Agreements and any related documents, including any cost-neutral amendments and any documents contemplated by the agreement, and to take such necessary or advisable actions to implement, fund, and administer the agreement.

23. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Agreement between the City of Anaheim and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2002 (General Management Unit) amending the 2023-2027 Memorandum of Understanding to establish Longevity Incentive Pay.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Agreement between the City of Anaheim and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2002 (Professional/Technical Unit) amending the 2023-2027 Memorandum of Understanding to establish Longevity Incentive Pay.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Agreement between the City of Anaheim and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2002 (Confidential Unit) amending the 2023-2027 Memorandum of Understanding to establish Longevity Incentive Pay.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Personnel Rules to establish Longevity Incentive Pay for Non-Represented Executive Management, Non-Sworn Management, and Police Management Classifications.

Amend the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 budget by $1,324,629 as indicated by department [City Administration - $47,961; City Attorney - $76,284; City Clerk - $14,404; Finance - $68,120; Human Resources - $63,301; Community Services - $123,847; Police - $48,776; Fire & Rescue - $191,377; Economic Development - $4,749; Housing & Community Development - $95,368; Public Works - $157,213; Planning & Building - $54,288; Convention, Sports & Entertainment - $65,433; Public Utilities - $313,508].

24. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the dates and times for regular meetings of the Anaheim City Council for the 2026 calendar year and rescinding Resolution No. 2026-021 [rescheduling the meeting of September 15, 2026 to September 22, 2026].

25. Approve minutes of the City Council meeting of June 23, 2026.

BUSINESS CALENDAR:

11. Receive and file the Anaheim Local Housing Trust Fund Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Annual Report.

Director of Housing and Community Development Grace Ruiz-Stepter presented the first annual report for the Anaheim Local Housing Trust Fund, covering Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26. She highlighted the transition from establishing the program framework to implementing housing initiatives and providing direct assistance to Anaheim residents. She stated that the City Council established the Trust Fund in August 2024 to provide a flexible, locally controlled mechanism for receiving and investing housing resources. She reported that in May 2025, the City received its first $15 million DinseylandForward affordable housing payment and adopted program guidelines and a funding allocation plan directing investments towards first-time homeownership, housing stability, and housing production through the Build More Homes initiative. She introduced Community Investment Manager Kevin Clausen to present the Trust Fund’s accomplishments, revenues, and expenditures for FY 2025/26.

Community Investment Manager Clausen reported that the My Anaheim Home Program, the first direct assistance program, launched through the Trust Fund in December 2025. He stated that the program launched in December 2025 and represents the City’s first Citywide homeownership program in more than 15 years. He explained that the program provides eligible households with a $50,000 deferred-payment second mortgage to supplement down payments and increase purchasing power. He noted that implementing the program required developing eligibility and application City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

requirements, underwriting and loan-review procedures, loan documents, closing and funding processes, and coordination protocols with lenders, real estate professionals, brokers, and escrow companies. He shared that during FY 2025/26, the program generated significant community interest.

He reported that the program’s dedicated interest portal received more than 1,200 inquiries, while staff conducted 390 individualized household assessments and assisted 164 households with preliminary steps toward completing an application. He stated that five (5) applications were approved for households currently shopping for homes on the open market. He noted that the program celebrated its first two (2) new homeowners. He added that staff conducted extensive outreach, participating in 12 District Open Houses and 33 additional community outreach events. He noted that, although only two households had completed home purchases during the first year, the program’s initial year focused on establishing the infrastructure, partnerships, processes, and pipeline needed to support increased activity in future years.

Community Investment Manager Clausen stated that one of the key lessons from implementing My Anaheim Home was that down-payment assistance alone is only one component of successful homeownership. He explained that the City found that many prospective buyers also need education, financial preparation, and individualized assistance to become mortgage-ready. He noted that in response, staff developed a “Roadmap to Homebuying Success” outlining the key stages and ongoing support available to households. He reported that the process begins with marketing and outreach to residents and individuals who work in Anaheim, followed by enrollment through the FirstTime Homebuyer Interest List portal and resource page. He stated that staff then conduct a financialreadiness assessment addressing factors such as credit, savings, income, debt, and overall mortgage readiness. He noted that based on the assessment, households are either directed toward City homeownership programs or connected with partner resources, including homebuyer counseling agencies that can assist with credit, savings, debt, budgeting, and other barriers to homeownership.

He emphasized that the goal is to meet households at their current level of readiness and provide appropriate resources to help individuals progress toward homeownership.

Community Investment Manager Clausen reported that the launch of the My Anaheim Home Program, including the First-Time Homebuyer Interest List portal, is being used to connect prospective buyers with other City homeownership opportunities, including density-bonus for-sale homes. He explained that through the entitlement process for certain townhome developments, developers provide a portion of homes at affordable prices in exchange for development concessions and waivers. He noted that the units create additional opportunities for first-time homebuyers, but that maintaining a pipeline of qualified and interested households is important to successfully connecting buyers with available units. He added that over the previous four years, the City supported 46 new homebuyers of density-bonus units, with recent sales demonstrating the potential to expand the buyer pipeline and tools established through the My Anaheim Home Program.

Community Investment Manager Clausen reported that the Stay Housed Anaheim Program launched in April 2026. He explained that the program provides one-time emergency financial assistance to eligible low-income households experiencing an unexpected hardship such as job loss or a medical issue that places the household at an immediate risk of housing instability, eviction, or homelessness.

He stated that the program provides up to $3,500 per household, including up to $3,000 for past-due rent or a security deposit and up to $500 for past-due utilities. He reported that during the first three months, the program assisted 65 households, with average assistance of approximately $2,900, and received more than 260 inquiries. He stated that the initial participation demonstrated the need for a mechanism that can respond quickly to temporary financial crises. He noted that additional housing stability programs include the Senior Safety Net Program and Anaheim Contigo. He explained that the programs are separate from the 65 households assisted through the Stay Housed Anaheim Program, but their housing-related expenditures were included in the Trust Fund’s housing stability financial reporting.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Community Investment Manager Clausen stated that for FY 2025/26, approximately $2.1 million was expended on Trust Fund programs and administration. He clarified that the financial report encompasses not only the My Anaheim Home Program, the Stay Housed Anaheim Program, and the Build More Homes Initiative, but also several legacy programs, grants, and housing-related funds consolidated into the Trust Fund. He noted that the largest expenditure was a $1 million investment into the Build More Homes Initiative for the affordable housing development under construction at Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, followed by $370,000 for housing stability programs, $100,000 for first-time homebuyer programs, and approximately $102,000 for administration and technology.

He emphasized that the expenditures represented the Trust Fund’s initial year of implementation and that substantial resources remain available for future investments, including funds already allocated but not yet expended.

Community Investment Manager Clausen reported that the Trust Fund began FY 2025/26 with approximately $16.7 million, including the initial $15 million DisneylandForward affordable housing payment, and other legacy federal and local funds. He noted that during FY 2025/26, the Trust Fund received approximately $2.3 million in additional revenue, including reimbursements from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Prohousing grant, a developer contribution associated with the middle-income refinancing of 1818 Platinum Triangle and accrued interest. He added that staff established a separately tracked Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) Housing Fund, which accrued approximately $1.2 million, including interest. He stated that following the fiscal year’s expenditures, the combined ending balance of the Trust Fund and separately tracked ATID Housing Fund was approximately $18.1 million.

Community Investment Manager Clausen stated that under the Build More Home Initiative, the Trust Fund received $1 million in gap financing for a 47-unit intergenerational affordable housing development under construction at Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. He noted that staff secured a $5 million REAP 2.0 grant through the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to provide gap financing for affordable housing developments. He stated that the grant expands the resources available for future affordable housing investments beyond the Trust Fund’s initial capitalization and may support future pipeline sites along Beach Boulevard and at Harbor Boulevard and Karcher Way.

Community Investment Manager Clausen reported that the City established the ATID Housing Fund as a separately tracked, recurring source of housing revenue. He noted that a five-member ATID Housing Committee was appointed in April 2026 and began meeting during the fiscal year to assess housing needs and develop potential programs. He stated that the ATID Housing Fund received 9% of the ATID hotel assessment and is intended to expand workforce housing programs for employees of ATID-assessed facilities. He clarified that the ATID Housing Fund is a restricted special fund within the larger Housing Trust, while program development and fund allocations are under the discretion of the ATID Housing Committee. He concluded that the first year of the Trust Fund focused not only on investing existing resources in housing programs and development, but also on securing additional funding and establishing recurring revenue sources for future housing investments.

Director Ruiz-Stepter stated that looking ahead to FY 2026/27, the focus of the Trust Fund will shift from program implementation to expanding program reach, strengthening partnerships, and creating additional homeownership opportunities. She noted that staff would continue assisting prospective homebuyers with financial readiness and explore new partnerships and shared-homeownership models, including tenant in common arrangements, to expand access to homeownership for Anaheim households. She reported that for the Stay Housed Anaheim Program, staff will continue providing timely emergency assistance to eligible renters experiencing temporary financial hardships before they develop into larger housing crises.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Director Ruiz-Stepter reported that under the Build More Homes Initiative, staff will advance several housing-production efforts, including completing the developer selection process for the Harbor Boulevard and Karcher Way site, preparing a Request for Proposals for scattered sites along Beach Boulevard, advancing the assembly of the former Kettle Motor site at Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street, and continuing revitalization efforts in the Avon Dakota neighborhood. She emphasized that the flexible Build More Home funding can support activities beyond construction, including site planning and assembly, partnership development, and the ability to respond to emerging housing opportunities. She stated that the efforts would support the City’s goal of expanding affordable workforce housing and homeownership opportunities and thanked the City Council and staff for their direction and efforts in establishing the Trust Fund programs during the first year. She presented a video of a recipient of the My Anaheim Home Program highlighting the impacts the Trust Fund has had on the community.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Kurtz thanked staff for their work on the housing programs and their extensive community outreach efforts. She noted that staff have participated in numerous community events and engaged directly with residents regarding housing opportunities in Anaheim. She stated that the video effectively demonstrated the impact of the programs and thanked staff for their continued work on the ATID Housing Fund.

Council Member Rubalcava thanked staff for the presentation and stated that it reinforced the Council’s commitment to the Anaheim community. She noted that the video demonstrated the impact of the programs. She asked staff whether any barriers had been identified or whether additional support would be needed to continue expanding the housing programs and serving more Anaheim residents.

Director Ruiz-Stepter responded that implementing the housing programs has been a significant learning experience and emphasized the importance of individualized engagement with residents.

She explained that down-payment assistance is only one component of homeownership readiness, with residents also needing education and support regarding credit, savings, debt management, budgeting, and other financial factors that can create barriers to purchasing a home. She noted that the education and case-management component has emerged as a significant need across the City’s housing programs, including homeownership, rent stabilization, and affordable housing resources.

She emphasized that successfully connecting residents with housing opportunities requires more than establishing programs and making them available; it requires ongoing outreach, personal interaction, and guidance to help residents understand their options and the steps needed to become eligible. She acknowledged that only two households purchased homes through the program to date but stated that the conversations and relationships established during the first year are laying the groundwork for future homeownership as residents improve their financial readiness and make progress toward their goals.

Council Member Rubalcava highlighted the importance of continuing to promote the City’s homeownership programs, noting that she and her husband benefited from a Redevelopment-funded down-payment assistance program when purchasing their first home. She expressed appreciation for bringing similar assistance to the Anaheim community, following the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency. She commended staff for their dedication and responsiveness to residents in need. She shared that after community members brought a homeless family staying at Pearson Park to her attention, City staff quickly intervened and secured housing for a mother and her three children for a year, allowing the children to return to school while the family is housed. She thanked staff for providing resources and assistance to Anaheim residents.

Council Member Meeks thanked staff for their work establishing the Trust Fund and stated that the Council was excited about the opportunity to expand housing resources for Anaheim residents. She City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

expressed support for the homeownership program and acknowledged the importance of providing residents with education on financial matters. She expressed interest in increasing the $50,000 downpayment assistance amount, given the high cost of housing and the difficulty with becoming a homeowner, if staff determines that a larger financial contribution would be necessary to help bridge the gap for prospective homebuyers.

Director Ruiz-Stepter explained that the first year of the My Anaheim Home Program was intentionally used to evaluate whether the $50,000 assistance amount was sufficient and to identify barriers to program participation. She explained that working with financial institutions was challenging because the City’s assistance was structured as a loan rather than a grant, causing some lenders to view the assistance as an additional financial obligation. She reported that the program initially offered the $50,000 assistance with a 3% repayment provision, but several financial institutions stated they would not participate with those terms. She noted that staff worked with multiple lenders to identify ways to expand participation and reduced the interest rates to 1%. She noted that any consideration of increasing the assistance amount would also need to account for its impact on overall household debt and lender underwriting requirements.

In response to Council Member Meeks, Director Ruiz-Stepter stated that the City would also explore the ATID Housing Fund as a potential resource and consider how different program structures could expand access to assistance. She noted that the City may consider varying assistance amounts based on household income, including providing greater assistance to lower-income households, and emphasized that the program parameters remain open to adjustment. She emphasized the importance of deploying the available housing funds to benefit Anaheim residents rather than allowing the resources to remain unused.

Council Member Meeks emphasized the importance of helping Anaheim residents achieve homeownership and stated that the video reflected the intended impact of the initiative. She highlighted that the featured homeowners purchased a home within an existing Anaheim neighborhood and noted that increasing homeownership can contribute to neighborhood pride and provide broader community benefits beyond the individual household. She requested clarification that the $500,000 PRO Housing Grant/Livability Lab referenced in the presentation was separate from the Prohousing designation. She explained that PRO Housing refers to Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing.

Director Ruiz-Stepter clarified that the $500,000 HUD PRO Housing Grant was awarded to the City in 2024 as part of HUD’s first funding round for the program. She explained that the grant provides funding for jurisdictions to identify and study barriers to affordable and workforce housing. She reported that two staff members currently work on the grant to evaluate different housing financing models and to collaborate with the Planning teams to examine land-use considerations and other factors affecting housing development.

Council Member Balius thanked staff for their work on the Trust Fund and the Public Housing Agency Plan, noting the complexity of implementing the associated policies and programs. He asked staff to clarify the reported $581,753 investment amount, recalling that approximately $4.5 million had been designated for investment during the prior year. He specifically inquired whether the $581,753 represented the amount invested from the $4.5 million allocation or from the Trust Fund’s overall balance, and noted that a portion of the prior-year contribution had been intended to be reserved for later use.

Director Ruiz-Stepter confirmed that the City established an approximately $4.5 million reserve for the Trust Fund’s initial funding strategy. She noted that the funds were held separately from the three designated spending areas and left unallocated for future determination.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

In response to Council Member Balius, Director Ruiz-Stepter clarified the investment was on the full balance of the Trust Fund.

Council Member Balius requested clarification on a discrepancy in the Trust Fund’s financial summary and whether additional funds or adjustments were included in the reported remaining balance.

Community Investment Manager Clausen clarified that the financial tables were intentionally separated in the presentation because combining the information could create confusion. He explained that the reported $18.1 million remaining balance was calculated from the fiscal yearbeginning available funds, plus $2.3 million in additional revenue accrued to the Trust Fund and $1.2 million accrued to the ATID Housing Fund. He reported that after accounting for approximately $2.1 million in expenditures, the combined remaining balance was approximately $18.1 million. He noted that staff would clarify the distinction in future reports.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon thanked Housing and Community Development Department staff for their work serving Anaheim residents. He highlighted staff’s responsiveness to families experiencing emergency housing needs and their efforts to provide individualized guidance and support to help households access available resources and remain on track. He expressed appreciation that the City is able to provide housing assistance and services to residents while many other cities are facing budget constraints and reductions in services. He thanked Director Ruiz-Stepter, Deputy Director Andy Nogal, Deputy Director Sandra Lozeau, Community Investment Manager Clausen, and the team for developing and continually improving the programs and encouraged staff to keep the Council informed of any additional support or resources to expand or enhance the services available to the community.

Council Member Rubalcava suggested that, as the My Anaheim Home Program expands, the City clearly communicate to participants that deferred interest may compound over time, noting that the accumulating obligation could become a significant financial burden for households and potentially result in unexpected costs when the homeowner believes that the property is fully paid off. She expressed interest in having the council explore whether some or all of the homeownership loans could eventually be forgiven or converted to grants, questioning whether the long-term revenue generated from interest provides sufficient benefit to the City. She suggested considering a structure where the assistance could be repaid only when the property is sold, allowing the funds to return to the City for future use while reducing the ongoing burden on homeowners.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Director Ruiz-Stepter confirmed that the second payment for DisneylandForward would be due in 2029.

Mayor Aitken thanked staff for the presentation and expressed excitement for the following year’s presentation.

MOTION: Council Member Kurtz moved to receive and file the Anaheim Local Housing Trust Fund Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Annual Report, seconded by Council Member Maahs. 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 August 25, 2026

16. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Urban Habitat, in the amount of $4,456,954.97, for the River Park Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22300.

Director of Community Services Sjany Larson-Cash stated that River Park is a proposed three-acre park located off Orangewood Avenue between the Angel Stadium parking lot and the Santa Ana River Trail in District 5, and will be the City’s 69th park. She reported that staff is requesting approval to award a construction contract to Urban Habitat, which was determined to be the lowest responsible bidder among 12 bids received, at a cost of approximately $4.45 million, below the engineer’s estimate of $4.6 million. She noted that the project is fully funded through grants from the National Park Service’s Land and Water Conservation Fund, State Coastal Conservancy, Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and Natural Resources Agency’s Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program. She stated that construction is anticipated to begin in Fall 2026, with the park expected to open in Summer 2027.

Director Larson-Cash reported that River Park would serve as the first phase of the OC River Walk project, which will transform approximately two miles of the Santa Ana River corridor between Orangewood Avenue and Anaheim Coves into a recreational destination featuring parks, plazas, water access, public art, trails, and related amenities. She noted that OCVIBE will develop adjacent open space, including Meadow Park, which is anticipated to begin construction in 2027, with both parks expected to be available for visitors during the 2028 Olympics.

Director Larson-Cash reported that Community Services worked with residents to develop the park’s vision and incorporated elements that reflect the site’s location along the river and its Indigenous history and cultural connections. She noted that the design will include a welcoming gateway and monument sign, the City’s first sundial in a park, a natural walking trail with footbridges crossing bioswales, an exercise area, playground, shaded picnic seating, security lighting, and extensive native trees and shrubs selected for their horticultural value and traditional uses by Native tribes in the area. She added that existing trees on the site, including California native species, will be preserved to provide shade and heat relief when the park opens.

Director Larson-Cash stated that the park will also feature several public art and interpretive elements, including colorful panels describing native flora and fauna and an interactive canoe representing a traditional form of Indigenous transportation. She noted that a poem by Anaheim Poet Laureate Camille Hernandez will be integrated into the pavement of the park’s pathway, allowing visitors to experience the poem while walking through the site. She explained that the palindrome poem explores themes of time, memory, and community. She added that a large, colorful concrete word sculpture spelling “play” will serve as a focal point along the trail.

Director Larson-Cash reported that the new playground will be designed to maximize opportunities for play and incorporate natural colors and built-in shade. She noted that amenities will include swings designed for all ages and abilities, multiple slides, musical elements, a zip line, spinning components for individual and group use, and additional play features. She expressed enthusiasm for the project and its anticipated benefits to the community.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Maahs expressed support for the River Park project, stating that the site had been truly transformed and suggesting that the City provide before-and-after imagery showing the area’s transition from a location where encampments had been present to a community space intended for recreation and connection. She highlighted that the project is fully funded through grants and commended staff for securing the funding. She also expressed appreciation for the City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

inclusion of a shaded playground and swings designed to accommodate individuals of all abilities and thanked staff for their work on the project.

In response to Council Member Meeks, Parks Manager JJ Jimenez clarified that the Santa Ana Regional Bike Trail had been relocated outside the River Park project area. He explained that the former trail alignment will be retained and repurposed as part of the park, including incorporation of the poem discussed in the presentation. He added that the path will serve as a pedestrian accessibility connection within the park.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Parks Manager Jimenez clarified that the primary public entrance to River Park will be from Orangewood Avenue, where the site directly borders the public sidewalk. He noted that the park will be accessible from the Santa Ana Regional Bike Trail, with a spur connecting to the north side of the park and gates maintained to allow bicycle access. He added that cyclists would be able to enter from either the north or south sides, while pedestrians will primarily access the park from Orangewood Avenue.

Council Member Kurtz inquired about parking.

Parks Manager Jimenez confirmed that the community input process included significant discussion regarding whether parking should be provided at River Park. He explained that the community expressed a preference for maximizing green space and promoting pedestrian and other nonvehicular access through and around the park rather than dedicating space to parking.

Council Member Kurtz noted that, once OCVIBE and Meadow Park are completed, visitors could park in one of the area’s parking structures and walk through Meadow Park to access River Park, providing connectivity between the planned recreational spaces.

Director Larson-Cash explained that several factors along Orangewood Avenue, including existing driveways and site constraints, prevented the addition of a parking lot and associated access driveways for River Park. She noted, however, that the project has been designed to accommodate potential future development on the opposite side of the park, including the existing Angel Stadium parking lot. She added that an access gate has been incorporated into the design to allow for a possible future connection in coordination with the Angels organization.

In response to Council Member Meeks, Director of Public Works Rudy Emami stated that the goal is to deliver River Park early as part of the greater master-planning effort for the area, which is expected to include significant future residential development. He explained that River Park is a communitysized park and noted that additional parking is anticipated as the surrounding area develops through future discussions with the Angels and potential redevelopment of the adjacent property. He emphasized that completing the park first would help shape and enhance future development by encouraging the property to orient toward and incorporate the park into its design.

Council Member Rubalcava thanked staff for incorporating Indigenous cultural elements and history into the River Park design, noting that these elements are particularly meaningful to many residents in her district. She expressed appreciation for staff’s responsiveness to community feedback, especially given the park’s location along the river.

Council Member Balius reflected on the River Park project, recalling discussions of the site during her time on the Parks Commission. He noted that the park’s design anticipates and supports future development in the surrounding area and expressed appreciation for the design. He stated that the park is expected to receive significant use and expressed enthusiasm for the opening of Anaheim’s 69th park.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

MOTION: Council Member Maahs moved to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Urban Habitat, in the amount of $4,456,954.97, for the River Park Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22300, 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.

21. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-097 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the application to and participation in the Prohousing Designation Program through the California Department of Housing and Community Development [includes determination that this action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because it consists solely of an administrative action of the collection of information for the City’s authorization to submit an application to the State of California requesting a Prohousing Designation and will not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment].

Planning and Building Director Heather Allen reported that staff is requesting authorization to submit an application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, for participation in the State Prohousing Designation Program, also referred to as the PDP. She explained that the item was originally scheduled for City Council consideration on June 9 and June 23, 2026, however, at staff's request, this item was removed from the agendas to ensure additional time for public review prior to City Council consideration of the item. She noted that if approved by the City Council and granted by HCD, the Prohousing Designation remains valid for three years from the first day of the January that follows the date of designation.

Director Allen stated that the Prohousing Designation Program was established by the State and is administered by HCD to encourage local jurisdictions to adopt and implement policies that support housing production, affordability, and accessibility. She noted that jurisdictions that receive a Prohousing Designation become more competitive for State funding opportunities related to affordable housing and infrastructure. She explained that to qualify, cities must have an HCD-certified Housing Element, remain current on Annual Progress Report submissions, comply with State housing laws, and demonstrate qualifying housing policies and programs through a scoring system. She reported that a minimum score of 30 points is required for a designation.

Director Allen reported that based on staff’s self-scoring analysis, Anaheim is projected to receive approximately 61 points, well above the 30-point threshold required for designation. She noted that the application relies on policies and programs that are already in place, including Housing Element implementation programs and affordable housing financing tools. She added that no new policies, zoning changes, or amendments are proposed as part of this request.

Director Allen explained that the primary benefit of obtaining a Prohousing Designation is increased competitiveness for State funding opportunities. She stated that the designation would strengthen Anaheim’s ability to pursue funding that supports affordable housing production, housing-related infrastructure, infill development near transit and employment centers, and planning efforts that help accelerate housing production. She added that obtaining the Prohousing Designation would have future funding implications related to the City’s eligibility for Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program funds, or commonly known as HHAP funds. She reported that since the program’s inception in 2019, HHAP has been Anaheim's largest ongoing flexible state homelessness funding source, supporting shelter operations, outreach, housing navigation, prevention, rapid rehousing, permanent housing activities, and system coordination, where the City received City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

approximately $37.7 million over the past six years. She noted that under the revised HHAP funding guidelines, the 14 largest cities, which includes Anaheim, and the 11 counties they are located in, must have obtained, or will obtain within 12 months of first half disbursement, the Prohousing Designation to remain eligible for future funding. She stated that if the City does not pursue or obtain the Prohousing Designation, the City would be ineligible for HHAP Round 7 funding, currently allocated at $6.7 million, thereby reducing the amount of state homelessness funding that would be available to the City.

Director Allen reported that for outreach, staff maintained a project webpage with application materials and supporting documentation and distributed notifications to subscribers of the Housing Element and Environmental Justice Element notification lists. She explained that HCD requires the application to be available for public review for at least 30 days prior to submittal, which concluded on June 11. She added that although the formal public review period ended on June 11, the City continued to accept public comments thereafter. She stated that public correspondence received until the preparation of tonight’s agenda have been included in the agenda materials, and additional comments received by the City Clerk’s Office since then have been provided to the Council. She noted that in response to the public comments received, the proposed resolution authorizing the City to submit its Prohousing application to HCD has been revised. She reported that the revised language now clarifies that the City will continue to exercise its authority and carry out its responsibilities related to public health and safety, infrastructure, emergency access, and public property, while also complying with applicable housing laws and avoiding local actions that could inhibit or constrain housing production, as required by the Prohousing guidelines.

Director Allen stated that staff believes Anaheim is strongly positioned to obtain a Prohousing Designation based on the City’s existing housing policies and programs and that applying for the designation presents an opportunity to leverage work already completed by the City while improving competitiveness for future housing and infrastructure funding opportunities that could benefit the community. She emphasized that no new policies, zoning changes, or amendments are proposed or required as part of this application. She added that staff believes that participation in the PDP does not impose requirements on the City or otherwise restrict local authority beyond current provisions of State Law. She reported that the authorization is for the application as proposed with existing Housing Element policies, implementation programs, and affordable housing financing tools. She noted that in the event that during the Department’s review of the Application or the Director’s review of any Program Documents subsequently provided, it is determined that the City must implement additional policies or programs or otherwise be subject to additional requirements beyond current provisions in State Law to receive the Prohousing Designation, the Director shall return to the City Council for further direction and consideration. She stated that staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing submittal of the application following the conclusion of the review period.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks thanked residents who submitted comments regarding the proposed Prohousing designation and expressed support for maintaining local authority over housing and land-use decisions. She stated that Anaheim can support housing growth while implementing policies according to local priorities and raised concerns about State housing mandates related to parking, increased density, and overcrowding. She noted that the City is already taking actions to support housing, including through the Local Housing Trust Fund, and stated that receiving the designation would help preserve access to millions of dollars in funding, particularly resources supporting homelessness programs and shelters. She stated that she would support the designation but wanted to ensure it would not limit the City’s future ability to protect public health and safety, maintain public facilities and infrastructure, ensure emergency access, and manage public property in accordance with applicable laws. She proposed adding language from Paragraph 6 to Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the revised draft to make clear that the City retains these authorities when taking future City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

actions. She noted that the City should receive credit for its existing housing efforts and referenced the City’s 60 points under the applicable housing program, while emphasizing that approval should not constrain future local decisions.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon, Council Member Meeks confirmed that she was referencing the resolution.

Council Member Kurtz expressed agreement with concerns raised by public speakers regarding State housing laws, particularly requirements affecting local parking and development decisions. She described a recent District 4 neighborhood meeting focused on parking concerns and stated that the loss of existing parking and construction of additional housing without adequate parking can significantly affect neighborhoods while limiting the City’s ability to respond under current State requirements. She expressed frustration with State legislation and supported communicating the City’s concerns to State legislators. She shared her support for the additional language proposed by Council Member Meeks to preserve the City’s authority and inquired whether the designation would be valid for three years, could be withdrawn or otherwise revisited if circumstances changed or the State adopted new laws with which the City disagreed.

Director Allen confirmed that the City Council could withdraw from the designation at any time during the three-year designation period. She noted that, if the State determined the City was not in compliance, the State would communicate with the City regarding the issue. She stated that if a new State law were enacted that the Council determined was unacceptable, the Council could return to the matter and take appropriate action.

Council Member Kurtz requested that staff provide her with a list of the housing actions or criteria the City has satisfied, noting that the City meets approximately 60 criteria when 30 are required for the designation. She stated that the information would help her better understand the City’s existing housing efforts and communicate those accomplishments to State legislators and their staff.

Council Member Rubalcava stated that she supports developing housing that is appropriate for Anaheim communities but expressed concerns about relinquishing local control over where and how housing is developed, particularly given the existing density in District 3. She requested that staff identify the specific State policy or requirement providing that jurisdictions that do not receive the Prohousing designation would be ineligible for HHAP funding, and questioned whether that connection was formally established or merely an informal understanding Director Ruiz-Stepter clarified that the requirement became effective in 2026 under AB 179 and confirmed that the Pro Housing designation is required for eligibility for HAP funding. She stated that she could provide her with a copy of the legislation and noted that the City has a 12-month grace period to comply with the requirement.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director Ruiz-Stepter explained that Anaheim’s HHAP funding is shared regionally with Santa Ana, Irvine, and Orange County. She noted that Santa Ana has already obtained a Prohousing designation and would therefore likely retain its share of funding, while Irvine, which had not yet applied at the time of the discussion, could face similar eligibility issues as Anaheim. She added that a separate requirement is that jurisdictions must provide a local match for HHAP funds. She stated that, hypothetically, if a portion of funding allocated to Orange County were available for redistribution because another jurisdiction did not meet the newer eligibility requirements, Anaheim could potentially receive additional funds, although the specific outcome would depend on how the regional allocation is handled.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Council Member Rubalcava expressed concern that developers could potentially use the Prohousing designation or related State mandates to challenge the City’s local development decisions. She referenced past development proposals in Anaheim Hills and her district that, in her view, raised health and safety concerns and questioned whether approving the designation would limit the City’s ability to protect community interests. She asked staff whether the designation would constrain the City’s authority or otherwise allow developers to pursue projects that the City determined were not appropriate for the community.

Director Allen clarified that adopting the Pro Housing designation resolution would not change the existing legal framework governing development in Anaheim. She noted that developers already have rights and opportunities available under existing State laws, while the City Council retains discretion within the limits of those laws. She explained that the designation itself would not alter the City’s current authority or the existing balance between State requirements and local discretion.

In response to Council Member Balius, Director Allen stated that a new Prohousing program or application cycle could be established in the future. She noted that the current program has been in place since 2019 and that its application cycles and requirements have changed over time. She added that the City could potentially apply during a future application cycle at the end of the threeyear designation period, depending on the program requirements and funding landscape at that time.

Council Member Balius asked whether the proposed Pro Housing designation would impose any additional housing requirements or commitments beyond those already established in the City’s approved Housing Element.

Director Allen clarified that the Pro Housing designation application would not add additional housing sites or change any existing policies or programs beyond those already included in the City’s approved Housing Element. She stated that any programs referenced in the application are existing commitments that the City had already planned to adopt, and that the application does not propose any new housing programs or policies.

In response to Council Member Balius, Director Allen reiterated that the Pro Housing designation would not add requirements beyond existing State law. She stated that if any future step in the process introduced a new requirement or request that went beyond current State law, the matter would be brought back to the City Council for direction.

Council Member Balius expressed support for the revised language proposed by Council Member Meeks and stated his intention to support the Prohousing designation. He expressed disappointment that Anaheim must complete additional State administrative requirements to demonstrate its commitment to housing, noting that the City has been a regional leader in housing, has adopted a compliant Housing Element, and has taken steps to facilitate responsible housing development. He acknowledged that the designation could help facilitate additional development, particularly along the Beach Boulevard corridor, and preserve eligibility for future funding opportunities. He noted Anaheim receives more than $5 million annually through HHAP and stated that maintaining access to those resources was an important consideration. He concluded that, although he may not agree with the additional State requirements, he supports the designation as a means of preserving funding opportunities and advancing housing development.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon thanked staff for their work on the item and specifically acknowledged Director Allen and Director Ruiz-Stepter for taking the time to brief him, answer questions, and provide clarification.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

In response to Council Member Maahs, Director Allen clarified that the Prohousing designation application was based primarily on existing City policies and programs from a broader list of potential scoring criteria, rather than adding new commitments. She stated that the City’s parking requirements would not change and are consistent with or more stringent than State law. She explained that the City must comply with State requirements when triggered by programs such as density bonuses or other affordable housing programs, but that the City does not currently have regulations that are less restrictive than State law. She added that it does not limit the City’s ability to solve problems.

Council Member Maahs asked whether the Prohousing designation would require the City to apply the same housing policies and development standards uniformly across all areas of Anaheim, regardless of differing community or public safety concerns.

Director Allen confirmed that the designation would not require all areas of the City to be treated the same.

Council Member Maahs expressed her support for the item with the recommended updates by Council Member Meeks.

Mayor Aitken requested clarification regarding concerns over the Builder’s Remedy, including in connection with the Deer Canyon project, and density bonus provisions that affect parking.

Director Allen confirmed that the provisions are established by State law rather than Anaheim policy.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen confirmed that now that the Housing Element has been adopted, the City should not have new projects eligible to use the Builder’s Remedy and asked staff to confirm that understanding.

Mayor Aitken followed up on Council Member Meeks’ concerns regarding language in Recital 3 of the resolution, which states that the City would not take local actions that may inhibit housing production.

She inquired whether the City’s development and adoption of a wildfire plan, which establishes safety-related guardrails for housing development, could potentially be viewed as a policy that inhibits or limits housing production and how the City would navigate that provision.

Director Allen stated that the City’s adoption of a wildfire evacuation threshold would not be considered a policy that inhibits housing production, noting that State law encourages cities to establish objective evacuation standards. She referenced the Attorney General’s support for numerical evacuation thresholds and explained that such standards provide the City Council with objective criteria for balancing housing production with circulation, public safety, and hazard considerations. She clarified that the City’s General Plan contains multiple elements that must remain consistent and that housing policies do not necessarily take precedence over other City objectives.

She noted that the language in the resolution would therefore allow the Council to continue supporting housing while also considering other applicable public health, safety, and planning factors.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen explained that State law establishes a process for addressing disagreements between the State and a city regarding housing-related actions. She noted that under that process, the State could communicate its concerns about a City action, and the City would have an opportunity to respond and explain its position. She acknowledged that the application of the law to wildfire-related housing decisions is untested and does not establish a clear bright-line standard, but noted that housing laws, including provisions associated with the seventh housing cycle, recognize wildfire risk as a potential constraint on development. She stated that the law appears to contemplate balancing housing production with other considerations, including wildfire hazards. She explained that a disagreement with the State would not necessarily result in the City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

immediate loss of the Prohousing designation, as there would be an opportunity for discussion and for the City to justify its actions. She added that any consequences to funding eligibility if the designation were ultimately lost would depend on the applicable funding guidelines.

Mayor Aitken emphasized the importance of retaining local control and stated that she was motivated to establish a wildfire evacuation threshold as an additional tool to ensure future development in wildfire-prone areas is carefully planned and safe. She expressed concern about the State conditioning HHAP funding on the Pro Housing designation, but stated that maintaining the funding was important to prevent a loss of resources that support shelters and homelessness services. She acknowledged that, while she did not necessarily agree with the State’s approach, she viewed the designation as a practical consideration. She also noted her understanding that the designation would not require the City to create new programs or impose additional requirements beyond those already required under State law.

Council Member Kurtz inquired how much HHAP funding the City would currently be at risk of losing if the Prohousing designation requirement were already in effect and Anaheim had not received the designation.

Director Ruiz-Stepter reported that the City anticipates $6.7 million in HHAP funding for Round 7.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Director Ruiz-Stepter explained that the City primarily uses HHAP funding to support the Anaheim Emergency Shelter operated by the Salvation Army. She noted that historically, the funding has also supported the Community Care Response Team and other transitional services and programs addressing homelessness.

Council Member Meeks requested clarification regarding the consequences of taking an action that the State determines is inconsistent with the Pro Housing designation.

Director Allen confirmed that the State’s recourse would be to discontinue the City’s Prohousing designation. She clarified that any action by the State to discontinue the City’s Pro Housing designation would not necessarily occur immediately and would follow the process the State has used in other housing-related matters.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2026-097 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the application to and participation in the Prohousing Designation Program through the California Department of Housing and Community Development [includes determination that this action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because it consists solely of an administrative action of the collection of information for the City’s authorization to submit an application to the State of California requesting a Prohousing Designation and will not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment], as amended to Recital Nos. 3 and 5, 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.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

22. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-098 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring a portion of City-owned property “exempt” surplus lands pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C).

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-099 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA approving Operating Memorandum No. 3 for the OCVIBE Mixed-Use Project Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2020-00004 between the City of Anaheim, Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC, TS Anaheim, LLC, and FCD, LLC, memorializing clarifications related to Deck A, Lot B, South Plaza, and First Residential Phase (collectively Project Phase 2) final site plans, as amended including modifications to Section 6 of Operating Memorandum No. 3.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA approving the Acquisition Agreement providing for the acquisition of the CFD 08-1 Improvements as contemplated in the OCVIBE Mixed-Use Project Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2020-00004 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC.

Deputy City Manager Ted White presented a series of actions related to the continued implementation of the OCVIBE mixed-use project and its 2022 Development Agreement. He explained that Section 20.6 of the Development Agreement allows for an Operating Memorandum to clarify or modify project provisions when the changes do not increase project density or intensity in a manner that creates new significant environmental impacts, change permitted uses inappropriately, increase the overall amount of development, or reduce construction and improvement standards. He stated that two prior Operating Memoranda were approved by the City Manager addressing landexchange sequencing and utility easements. He added that following approval of Final Site Plans for Parking Deck A, the South Plaza, and the first residential phase, additional clarifications to the Development Agreement were presented to the Council.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the action includes a request for Council to determine that certain City-owned properties involved in a minor land exchange qualify as exempt surplus land. He noted that the exchange would support the Honda Center South Apron improvements, Katella pedestrian bridge, ARTIC parking garage, and a potential future immersive digital museum. He stated that the properties are generally equivalent in size, use, and character, with a modest increase in square footage conveyed to the City.

Deputy City Manager White reported that staff requests approval of Operating Memorandum No. 3, which contains 16 amendments. He highlighted provisions increasing the project’s minimum sharedparking requirement by more than 1,000 spaces, to approximately 9,000 spaces, consistent with approved Final Site Plans. He noted that the memorandum would also establish the framework for the Lot A and Lot B land exchange, under which the City would receive Lot/Deck A and the associated pedestrian bridge, while Lot B would be conveyed to the developer subject to a City reversionary interest. He added that the owner would be required to obtain land-use entitlements for a 100,000-square-foot immersive digital museum by December 31, 2027, and complete construction within five years thereafter, by December 2032. He noted that the memorandum currently included a requirement to obtain building permits by the end of 2027; however, the developer submitted a letter requesting removal of that deadline, stating that obtaining permits by that date would be unrealistic.

He stated that the land-use entitlement deadline and 2032 construction deadline would remain. He reported that if the developer fails to meet the required milestones, Lot B would revert to the City, while the City would retain ownership of Lot A.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Deputy City Manager White highlighted additional Operating Memorandum provisions addressing the timing of Meadow Park, the $5 million off-site park contribution, potential use of ATID transportation funds for the pedestrian bridge, maintenance responsibilities, project phasing, and Final Site Plan approvals. He noted that the provisions are minor clarifications and cleanup items that generally benefit the City.

Deputy City Manager White reported that the Council was asked to approve a CFD 08-1 Acquisition Agreement, establishing a mechanism for the City to acquire eligible public roads, utilities, and other public infrastructure constructed by the developer, with reimbursement limited to the developer’s share of CFD 08-1 bond capacity. He provided a visual overview of the areas involved, highlighting the exchange of Lot B, an existing parking lot south of the ARTIC with 221 parking spaces, for Lot/Deck A, a larger parcel currently under construction that will include an approximately 1,840- space parking structure serving ARTIC, Meadow Park, and OCVIBE. He added that Lot B is the proposed location of the immersive digital museum. He stated that the proposed actions would implement the existing OCVIBE Development Agreement and establish the necessary land, infrastructure, and financing mechanisms for the project’s next phases. He addressed comments from the California High-Speed Rail Authority regarding the potential impact of the immersive museum on the Authority’s preferred design. He expressed confidence in the City, OCVIBE, and the High-Speed Rail Authority, and the High-Speed Rail Authority could work collaboratively on design solutions that preserve Anaheim’s potential role as a Southern California terminus for high-speed rail. He reported that staff recommended approval of the item, including a proposed modification to Section 6 of the Operating Memorandum to remove the requirement to obtain building permits and commence construction of the immersive museum by December 31, 2027, while retaining the other applicable project requirements.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Kurtz requested clarification regarding the proposed exchange of Lot B and Lot/Deck A, noting that Lot B is currently City-owned and contains 221 parking spaces and approximately 100,000 square feet, while Lot/Deck A is approximately 142,000 square feet. She inquired how many parking spaces would be provided in Lot/Deck A.

Deputy City Manager White explained that the parking structure with 1,840 parking spaces is currently under construction. He noted that the City would be receiving more land area and more parking spaces.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Deputy City Manager White confirmed that if the proposed transaction does not proceed, Lot B would revert to the City and the City would retain the lot.

Steve Mattas with Redwood Public Law added that the agreement includes a reversionary interest in favor of the City. He reported that if OCVIBE does not complete construction of the immersive museum by 2032, Lot B would revert to the City. He noted that the City would retain ownership of Lot B and Lot/Deck A, including the parking improvements and parking structure.

Council Member Kurtz highlighted the terms negotiated in the agreement.

Mayor Aitken inquired why the amendment to Section 6 would remove the requirement to obtain building permits by the end of 2027, and whether the requirement could instead remain in place with the option to address feasibility through a future memorandum if necessary.

Deputy City Manager White explained that obtaining building permits by the end of 2027 would be an aggressive and challenging timeframe given the anticipated schedule for completing project entitlements, design, and construction plans. He concurred with removing the 2027 building permit deadline while retaining the entitlement deadline, noting that the additional time would still provide a City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

realistic timeframe to construct and open the project. He emphasized that the primary City interest is ensuring the project is constructed and opened by the established outside date.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Deputy City Manager White clarified that there is no specific deadline for obtaining building permits. The developer must plan accordingly to complete construction by the 2032 outside date; however, the requirement to obtain final site plan approvals by the end of 2027 remains in place.

Mayor Aitken disclosed meeting with the OCVIBE team and inquired whether staff had considered how parking in Lot/Deck A would be managed once the museum is operational, particularly during events such as the Angels game. She expressed concern about protecting parking availability for the museum and ARTIC while considering the City’s financial interest in directing appropriate parking demand to Angel Stadium.

Mr. Mattas explained that the Operating Memorandum requires the City and OCVIBE to enter into an operating agreement for the new parking structure. She reported that the agreement would establish mechanisms to manage parking during competing events at Angel Stadium and other nearby venues, which could include paid event parking. He noted that the intent is to prioritize use of the ARTIC garage for Meadow Park, ARTIC, and the immersive museum rather than Angel Stadium events. He added that the operating agreement for the ARTIC garage would return to Council for consideration.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Mr. Mattas confirmed that the Council would receive and have the opportunity to act on the operating agreement before the parking structure opens. He noted that the agreement would address how parking at Lot/Deck A will be managed and controlled.

Mayor Aitken questioned whether the High-Speed Rail Authority could seek to use the museum site or otherwise require changes to accommodate a future rail project, including whether eminent domain could become an issue. She asked how the City’s prior use of High-Speed Rail funding and commitments associated with ARTIC would factor into the situation.

Director of Public Works Rudy Emami confirmed that the City did not accept any High-Speed Rail funds to build ARTIC. He explained that the City entered into an MOU with the High-Speed Rail Authority in 2020 confirming the City’s commitment to use the existing ARTIC building for terminal and ticketing facilities if Anaheim becomes the southern terminus. He noted that the Authority’s environmental analysis includes a separate terminal building on Lot B as a worst-case scenario, but the City believes using the existing ARTIC facility would avoid duplicative infrastructure. He stated that the primary concern has been the distance between the Lot/Deck A parking structure and the rail platform. He noted that the City has proposed moving the platform farther west, placing it approximately 250 feet from the bottom of the stairs, or about a one-minute walk for the average person, while also providing protection from the elements under the SR-57 bridge. He added that the Authority may still determine that additional platform facilities, such as ticketing or restrooms, are needed, but emphasized that the City and Authority share the goal of providing a convenient transit experience and expect to continue working collaboratively toward a solution.

In response to Mayor Aitken, City Attorney Fabela clarified that the 2020 MOU concerning the HighSpeed Rail track south of Lot B is expressly nonbinding and reflects the parties’ intent rather than creating a binding obligation. He stated that the MOU therefore would not provide a basis to prevent the proposed development. He acknowledged that future discussions could involve alternative solutions or, potentially, eminent domain, but said the City does not anticipate eminent domain being the solution.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon inquired if the action applies to the Surplus Land Act.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Mr. Mattas explained that the Surplus Lands Act applies to the transaction, but the properties qualify as exempt surplus land under specific statutory exceptions. He noted that the City used the same exemption during the first phase of the project, which was approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). He stated that the current second phase involves the South Apron, including Lot B and Lot A, and qualifies for the exemption because the transaction involves exchanging parking and other public uses for other public uses.

Council Member Balius raised questions regarding the terminology and current planning for HighSpeed Rail in Orange County. He stated that, based on a review of the Authority’s current 15- to 20- year plan, trains traveling through Orange County would use existing tracks with a maximum speed of approximately 78 miles per hour, and questioned how the City should account for those plans when considering the proposed development. He acknowledged uncertainty regarding how to condition the project for potential future rail service but stated that the development should not be delayed solely because of those considerations.

Director Emami explained that train speeds through Orange County are lower due to existing regional constraints. He noted that the region continues to encourage High-Speed Rail service to Orange County because a one-seat ride to Northern California would provide greater convenience for transit riders and eliminate the need to transfer to another train in Los Angeles.

Council Member Balius expressed support for the item and for the continued partnership between the City and OCVIBE as the project progresses. He highlighted the addition of more than 1,000 parking spaces as a significant benefit, noting the importance of parking in the area. He expressed disappointment that the proposed amphitheater was no longer part of the project but acknowledged that changes and compromises are expected as a project of this size and complexity develops. He emphasized the importance of continuing to move the project forward and stated that the project is expected to bring new investment, opportunities, housing, employment, and visitors to Anaheim.

In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Deputy City Manager White clarified that the amendment does not constitute a waiver of special treatment for OCVIBE. He stated that the original timeframe was a voluntary commitment by the developer and that the revised timeframe is a negotiated component of the agreement. He noted that the developer would still be subject to an aggressive timeline to deliver the project, which staff described as a potentially significant investment and source of economic benefit for the City and community. He confirmed that the developer would still have to apply for building permits and follow all safety requirements.

Council Member Rubalcava cautioned about the verbiage used regarding the amendment as a building permit waiver. She expressed support for the High-Speed Rail for the purpose of ARTIC and the potential benefits while noting concerns about its current funding and timeline. She suggested that the Council consider sending a letter to the High-Speed Rail Authority reaffirming the City’s support for transportation and its desire to maintain a partnership, while also communicating the importance of the proposed museum and cultural development. She noted that ARTIC could continue to accommodate High-Speed Rail-related facilities in the future and that maintaining a collaborative relationship with the Authority and the City’s major investors would be beneficial.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Director Emami confirmed that both short-term and long-term parking would continue to be managed through Deck A.

Council Member Meeks supported sending a letter to the High-Speed Rail Authority clarifying the City’s position and expressing support for continued collaboration. She stated that shifting the rail platform would not create a significant distance within the transportation complex and expressed support for the proposed project, noting that the agreement and reversionary provisions City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

demonstrated confidence that the project would proceed. She highlighted the potential for the museum to expand Anaheim’s cultural and educational offerings and stated that the City is currently limited in museum and cultural destinations.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2026-098 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring a portion of Cityowned property “exempt” surplus lands pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C)., RESOLUTION NO. 2026-099 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA approving Operating Memorandum No. 3 for the OCVIBE Mixed-Use Project Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2020-00004 between the City of Anaheim, Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC, TS Anaheim, LLC, and FCD, LLC, memorializing clarifications related to Deck A, Lot B, South Plaza, and First Residential Phase (collectively Project Phase 2) final site plans, as amended including modifications to Section 6 of Operating Memorandum No. 3, and RESOLUTION NO. 2026-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA approving the Acquisition Agreement providing for the acquisition of the CFD 08-1 Improvements as contemplated in the OCVIBE Mixed-Use Project Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2020-00004 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC, seconded by Council Member Kurtz.

DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member Maahs, Deputy City Manager White confirmed that the City would gain approximately 1,600 parking spaces and 42,000 square feet, while retaining Lot A and the pedestrian bridge, and if the proposed development on Lot B is not completed within the required timeframe, Lot B would revert to the City. He also confirmed that activating the currently underutilized Lot B could gain approximately 1,600 parking spaces and 42,000 square feet, while retaining Lot A and the pedestrian bridge.

Council Member Maahs expressed support for the project and thanked staff for their work.

In response to Council Member Kurtz, Director Emami explained that the parking structure and other OCVIBE facilities would be maintained by the developer through provisions similar to the Resort Maintenance Assessment District, with maintenance responsibilities transferring if the properties are sold. He stated that the City would follow up with the High-Speed Rail Authority to reaffirm its commitment to high-speed rail and emphasized that the City, OCVIBE, and the Authority share a common goal of increasing Anaheim’s destination appeal and ridership through the development of OCVIBE and the proposed museum.

Mayor Aitken emphasized the importance of keeping the High-Speed Rail Authority informed and involved throughout the OCVIBE project, noting the City’s commitment to public transportation and support for Council Member Rubalcava’s suggestion to maintain communication with the Authority.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2026-098 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring a portion of Cityowned property “exempt” surplus lands pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(C)., RESOLUTION NO. 2026-099 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA approving Operating Memorandum No. 3 for the OCVIBE Mixed-Use Project Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 2020-00004 between the City of Anaheim, Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC, TS Anaheim, LLC, and FCD, LLC, memorializing clarifications related to Deck A, Lot B, South Plaza, and First Residential Phase (collectively Project Phase 2) final site plans, as amended including modifications to Section 6 of Operating Memorandum No. 3, and RESOLUTION NO. 2026-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA approving the Acquisition Agreement providing for the acquisition of the CFD 08-1 Improvements as contemplated in the OCVIBE Mixed-Use Project Amended and City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Restated Development Agreement No. 2020-00004 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC, 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.

26. Discuss and provide direction to proceed with the preparation of a chronic nuisance property ordinance for subsequent review as an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code.

Director of Planning and Building Heather Allen reported that at the July 28, 2026 City Council Meeting, Council Member Balius requested to agendize for discussion a chronic nuisance property ordinance that would authorize administrative penalties for properties that repeatedly generate excessive nuisance activity and disproportionate demands on City public safety resources. She noted that the current Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 6.44 (Nuisances) does not address the concept of a chronic nuisance disproportionately placing demands on public safety resources.

Director Allen stated that the general framework of a potential ordinance would include identifying qualifying nuisance activity, which could include specified criminal activity and other conduct requiring repeated public safety intervention; establishing objective thresholds such as repeated qualifying incidents within a defined period wherein the thresholds could vary by land use category, for example, commercial versus residential, and exclusions for specified emergency responses. She added that escalating administrative penalties would be authorized along with the ability to pursue all legal and equitable remedies to collect unpaid fines.

Director Allen explained that following discussion, staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction to proceed with the preparation of a chronic nuisance property ordinance for subsequent review as an amendment to the AMC. She reported that the establishment of regulations specific to repeat nuisance service calls adds an additional civil enforcement tool to address a property’s operations and its impacts, in addition to or instead of land use regulation or criminal prosecution.

She added that, in response to public comments, the proposed ordinance is not intended to criminalize the use of Code Enforcement. She explained that staff would draft the ordinance for specific calls for service related to public safety and ensure that the appropriate guardrails are in place to prevent weaponizing neighbor disputes in Code Enforcement.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Balius explained that the discussion was requested to obtain input from the Council before moving forward with a potential ordinance. He noted that another city had adopted a similar ordinance and wanted to explore whether a comparable approach could be used in Anaheim. He explained that the proposal would establish a threshold for nuisance-related public service calls to a business, after which the City could potentially bill the business for subsequent service calls. He noted that the approach could also potentially apply to senior living facilities and emphasized that the intent was not to penalize businesses or weaponize Code Enforcement, but rather to provide an additional tool to address nuisance activity, particularly along Beach Boulevard.

Council Member Kurtz expressed support for further exploring an ordinance but requested additional information from staff and emphasized the need for appropriate safeguards. She raised concerns that, without clear guardrails, the process could be misused by individuals to repeatedly report minor or subjective issues involving a neighbor, such as lawn maintenance, tree trimming, or noise, potentially resulting in unnecessary Code Enforcement activity. She noted that a proposed ordinance could be useful in addressing recurring nuisance activity associated with certain businesses, such as liquor stores where individuals may congregate and cause problems. She requested that staff review how other cities have implemented similar ordinances and develop potential language and safeguards for Council consideration.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Council Member Meeks expressed support for researching best practices from other cities and consulting with Code Enforcement and the Police Department to identify appropriate provisions and guardrails. She emphasized the importance of ensuring that reported violations are legitimate and actually constitute violations, rather than allowing the process to be used to harass neighbors or generate unfounded complaints. She referenced the City’s prior success addressing problematic motel operators along Beach Boulevard through Conditional Use Permits (CUPs). She noted that calls for service helped identify violations of the motels’ operating agreements, ultimately allowing the City to revoke the CUPs and remove problem operators.

Director Allen explained that, for businesses operating under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), calls for service, nuisance code violations, and police and fire activity can establish the need for additional conditions of approval. She stated that the City can generally begin by modifying the CUP to determine whether additional conditions can address the issues and, if necessary, proceed toward revocation. She noted that the CUP is an effective regulatory tool for businesses subject to such permits. She explained, however, that some businesses may not have a CUP and therefore would not be subject to the same regulatory process. She stated that the proposed ordinance could help bridge that gap by providing a mechanism to engage with businesses that are operating legally but are experiencing impacts associated with their operations, such as problems occurring in their parking lots. She explained that the goal would be to identify potential measures the business could take to address those impacts, even when the operator is not technically in violation of existing regulations.

Council Member Meeks expressed support for a proposed ordinance.

Council Member Kurtz expressed concern about moving forward without first understanding the City’s existing enforcement policies and identifying the specific problem the proposed ordinance would address. She noted that the City already has numerous tools available to address nuisance violations. She expressed concern over a lack of clear direction to staff and that smaller businesses could be disproportionately affected and cited Mondragon Market as an example, noting that the business is located in a residential area and that some issues may arise simply from the interaction between commercial and residential uses. She noted that complaints in the area are generally handled reactively rather than through proactive enforcement. She recommended that staff first evaluate whether the proposed policy would provide a meaningful enforcement tool or simply create additional burdens for residents and businesses. She suggested that, if the primary concern is problematic motels, the City could consider a narrowly focused motel nuisance ordinance rather than a broader policy. She noted that, regarding liquor stores, existing state and local laws already address certain activities, such as public drinking, and suggested that the City may need to make greater use of existing enforcement mechanisms, including referrals to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). She stated that she was open to further exploration but requested clearer direction and analysis from staff regarding the intended scope, existing enforcement tools, and appropriate guardrails. She emphasized that any new policy should focus on documented problem operators rather than inadvertently affecting businesses that are operating lawfully, duplicating existing enforcement efforts, or harming residents. She noted that some businesses, including those located in older neighborhoods where residential and commercial uses are increasingly adjacent, may experience unavoidable neighborhood impacts and should be evaluated accordingly.

Director Allen reported that staff had reviewed sample ordinances from other jurisdictions, including ordinances specifically addressing motels as well as broader nuisance ordinances. She clarified that the proposed tool was not intended to duplicate or “double dip” on existing nuisance enforcement mechanisms where the City already has authority under the AMC. She explained that the proposed ordinance was intended to address a gap involving businesses or land uses that are not otherwise City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

subject to a regulatory approval or where the operator is not engaged in criminal activity or violating an existing regulation, but where recurring impacts still warrant a conversation with the business owner. She noted that a proposed monetary citation would provide the City with additional leverage to initiate that conversation and encourage the operator to address the identified impacts.

Council Member Rubalcava emphasized that the City’s ability to enforce the proposed ordinance should be considered, noting that an ordinance is only effective if adequate resources are available for enforcement. She suggested that staff include any necessary staffing or other resource needs when returning with a proposed ordinance or additional information.

Council Member Maahs expressed support for further exploration of the proposal while emphasizing the need to consider potential unintended consequences. She requested consideration for residential impacts, including seniors or other residents who may be unable to maintain their yards or address other property-related issues.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon expressed support for further exploring the proposal and requested that staff provide greater clarity regarding its scope and application. He specifically asked staff to define what constitutes “repeated public safety intervention,” including whether the term would encompass homelessness-related activity, police calls for service, or other types of public safety responses. He raised concerns bout determining when a business or property owner should be held responsible for activity occurring in or around the property, such as in parking lots or on adjacent sidewalks. He noted that while there may be a clear connection between a business and certain recurring issues, such as those associated with liquor stores or motels, other locations may experience repeated calls for service because of circumstances outside the business owner’s control. He referenced the Brookhurst Corridor and nearby bus benches as an example and questioned whether responsibility should fall on the business owner, property owner, or City. He emphasized the need to avoid creating an undue burden on businesses that are operating lawfully and simply dealing with activity occurring around their properties. He asked staff to further examine the proposed parameters, including whether the ordinance would apply to specific types of businesses, particular activities, or abandoned properties that generate recurring calls for service, and to identify clear criteria for determining when the proposed enforcement tool would apply.

Mayor Aitken expressed general support for exploring an additional enforcement tool to help beautify neighborhoods and support businesses, particularly small businesses. She requested clarification regarding the types of activity that would qualify under the proposed ordinance, noting that the discussion had referenced both “criminal activity” and situations that may fall into a gray area below the threshold of criminal conduct. She asked whether the proposal would apply only to activity constituting a criminal offense under the Penal Code, or whether it could also encompass Code Enforcement violations and other noncriminal violations. She requested clarification on whether the intent was to address circumstances that do not rise to the level of criminal activity but nevertheless violate applicable regulations or create ongoing impacts.

Director Allen clarified that the proposed ordinance could address situations where the business owner or operator is not personally engaging in criminal activity, but recurring criminal or quality-of-life issues are occurring around the business. She explained that there may or may not be an applicable violation under the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) regulations, leaving the City without an existing enforcement tool. She stated that the proposed ordinance would provide a mechanism to address repeated calls for service associated with quality-of-life issues attributed to a business, even when the owner is not committing a criminal offense. She noted that the proposed enforcement mechanism would be civil rather than criminal, potentially providing a civil remedy or monetary penalty directed at the business owner.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen explained that the proposed process would establish a call-for-service threshold tailored specifically to Anaheim. She noted that staff would analyze Police Department call-for-service histories to determine what constitutes a normal rate of calls for different types of properties or businesses, while identifying appropriate exemptions. She emphasized that the intent would not be to discourage residents from contacting the police when legitimate public safety concerns arise. She noted that other cities use different categories and thresholds, including distinctions among commercial and residential properties, motels, apartments, and single-family homes. She explained that staff would evaluate which categories are appropriate for Anaheim and develop locally specific thresholds designed to address the City’s identified nuisance and quality-oflife concerns. She reported that findings and proposed parameters would be incorporated into a draft ordinance for Council consideration.

Mayor Aitken emphasized the need for flexibility in determining which types of activity should trigger the proposed enforcement tool. She distinguished between properties with numerous minor Code Enforcement cases, such as poor yard maintenance or excessive animals, and properties associated with serious illegal activity. She stated that the ordinance should provide the City with additional tools to address serious illegal activity occurring at or around a property, including situations where property owners are aware of such activity. She questioned whether the proposed threshold should be based solely on the number of calls for service or should account for the variety and source of complaints. She used the Mondragon Market as an example, and asked whether the ordinance could distinguish between one individual repeatedly reporting the same location and multiple residents or police officers independently reporting recurring activity. She requested that staff consider a mechanism to ensure that repeated complaints from a single person do not have the same effect as multiple independent reports or documented police activity.

Director Allen agreed that appropriate guardrails should be incorporated into the ordinance to prevent unintended consequences. She noted that the City has encountered situations involving disputes between neighboring property owners and emphasized that the proposed tool was not intended to address personal or neighborhood disputes. She stated that the ordinance should be structured to prevent such conflicts from triggering the proposed enforcement process.

In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Allen noted that Mayor Pro Tem Leon had previously requested staff explore additional tools to address abandoned and vacant properties. She stated that, in addition to other potential tools, the proposed ordinance could potentially apply to vacant or abandoned properties that generate a significant number of calls for service due to activity occurring on or around the property. She suggested that such properties could be included if they meet an established callfor-service threshold.

Council Member Balius explained that staff had intentionally not been directed to conduct additional research in order to first gauge Council’s interest before dedicating significant staff time to the proposal. He acknowledged the concerns raised by other Council Members and emphasized that the intent was to develop a narrowly targeted tool addressing significant nuisance or quality-of-life issues, not minor Code Enforcement matters such as slightly overgrown landscaping. He noted Council consensus to continue exploring the proposal and asked the City Attorney whether a formal motion was necessary to direct staff to proceed.

City Attorney Fabela explained that Council could proceed in either of two ways: adopt a motion directing staff to continue developing the proposal, or take no action at the meeting and agendize the matter through the regular agenda-setting process. He noted that, if Council chose to proceed by motion, staff would continue working with Council Member Balius, who initiated the item, consistent with the City’s practice of coordinating with the Council Member who requested the agenda item. He added that Council could involve fewer than a majority of Councilmembers in that process, if desired.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

MOTION: Council Member Balius moved to work with staff to prepare a chronic nuisance property ordinance.

DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava offered to work with Council Member Balius on further developing the proposal.

MOTION: Council Member Balius moved to work with staff to prepare a chronic nuisance property ordinance, 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.

27. Receive a presentation regarding the Anaheim Police Department's implementation of the Blue Envelope Program as part of its ongoing commitment to enhancing public safety and improving interactions between law enforcement officers and individuals with communication challenges, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and other cognitive conditions [informational item only].

Chief Manuel Cid introduced the presentation of the Anaheim Police Department’s Blue Envelope Program, noting that the program was being expanded and developed further. He introduced Lieutenant Rick Boyer, who would provide an overview of the program.

Lieutenant Boyer provided background on the Blue Envelope Program, explaining that the program originated in Connecticut in 2022 and was initially designed to assist individuals with autism during interactions with law enforcement and first responders. He reported that the program expanded rapidly after participants and public safety personnel recognized its value in providing officers with information about potential communication or social challenges. He noted that in 2025, Connecticut considered statewide legislation to require adoption of the program, but the legislation did not advance because of procedural and timing requirements rather than a substantive rejection. He explained that Anaheim chose to implement the program proactively because the Department believes it can provide a meaningful benefit to the community without waiting for a legislative mandate. He reported that the program is intended to assist a broad range of individuals who may experience communication, sensory, or other challenges during interactions with law enforcement, including individuals with autism, epilepsy, hearing impairments, sensory challenges, and learning disabilities. He emphasized that the program provides two particularly valuable resources to law enforcement: information and time. He stated that by giving officers advance information about an individual’s needs and allowing additional time to understand and process an interaction, the program can help officers and first responders respond more effectively.

Lieutenant Boyer reviewed the contents of the Blue Envelope. He reported that the envelope itself is designed to be immediately recognizable to law enforcement and first responders and can be displayed at the beginning of an interaction to alert them that additional communication or assistance may be needed. He noted that the envelope contains a wallet card that can be carried by the individual and identifies the types of assistance or accommodations they may need. He added that the envelope can contain documents that may be useful during a traffic stop or other interaction, such as proof of insurance and vehicle registration. He noted that the national program initially included a driver's license in the envelope, but Anaheim determined that this was less practical because individuals are generally required to carry their driver's license and should not be encouraged to store it in a vehicle. He added that the envelope also includes a communication assistance card featuring pictures and other visual prompts that can help individuals communicate with officers or first responders. He noted that the card can be particularly useful for individuals who are deaf or hard of City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

hearing or who have difficulty communicating verbally. He explained that the visual prompts can be used by either the individual or the officer to identify a problem or ask questions. He provided an example of an officer pointing to an image of a flat tire and asking whether that was the reason assistance was needed, allowing the officer and individual to communicate more effectively even when verbal communication is difficult.

Lieutenant Boyer explained that the Blue Envelope Program also includes a distinctive sticker that can be placed on the rear or side window of a vehicle or, in residential settings, on a front door or nearby window. He reported that the sticker provides an immediate visual notification to law enforcement and first responders that an individual at the location may have communication, sensory, or other needs requiring additional time and consideration. He emphasized that the sticker allows officers to recognize that there may be circumstances that are not immediately apparent and helps them adjust their approach accordingly. He stated that regarding implementation, the program had already been introduced and tested within the Traffic Detail, and the Department planned to expand it to Patrol, with envelopes readily available in patrol vehicles. He noted that the Department also planned to provide basic training to patrol officers and expand the program to its volunteer program, whose members regularly interact with the community. He reported that Blue Envelopes would be distributed at community events and other appropriate outreach opportunities.

Lieutenant Boyer noted that the program was already being incorporated into the Department’s child passenger safety program, allowing families with children who have special needs to become familiar with the resources at an early age. He added that the Department also planned to connect the program with its schools program, with the goal of making information available to students and families as they approach driving age. He described the program as a built-in de-escalation and communication tool, explaining that the visual indicators allow an individual and an officer to communicate that additional time or assistance may be needed before any verbal interaction occurs.

He stated that the program is intended to improve communication, reduce stress during potentially difficult encounters, and promote understanding between community members and public safety personnel.

Lieutenant Boyer reported that the Department is also considering an online process through which residents could express interest in receiving a Blue Envelope rather than formally registering. He added that the Department could then use a Community Services Officer to send the individual a packet containing the envelope, informational materials, and basic instructions for its use.

Lieutenant Boyer credited Motor Officer Ryan Warner for dedicating significant time and effort to developing the program and expressed appreciation for his work. He concluded that, while the concept is simple, it could provide a meaningful benefit during interactions between community members and law enforcement, and he invited Councilmembers to ask questions.

DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken thanked Council Member Maahs for bringing the Blue Envelope Program forward and praised the program as a meaningful initiative.

Council Member Maahs noted that the program began with Anaheim Police Officers and thanked them for bringing it to the City. She noted that the program was introduced at the “Sensory With a Patch” event at Zion Lutheran Church and recalled parents expressing significant relief and appreciation for the program. She emphasized the importance of effective communication during interactions with law enforcement, noting that in certain circumstances it can have life-or-death implications, and thanked the officers and staff for their work on the program.

Council Member Kurtz expressed strong support for the Blue Envelope Program and encouraged staff to expand outreach to older adults, noting that some seniors may become overwhelmed or City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

unsure of how to respond during interactions with law enforcement. She suggested that providing Blue Envelopes and information in advance could help seniors prepare for and navigate these situations more calmly. She recommended distributing the program materials through senior centers, resource centers, and similar community facilities.

Lieutenant Boyer agreed that the proposed online interest process would provide an opportunity to broaden awareness of the Blue Envelope Program. He stated that the website information could explain that the program may be useful for a variety of circumstances in which an individual wants to communicate a concern or request for additional consideration before interacting with law enforcement or other first responders.

Council Member Rubalcava congratulated staff on the Blue Envelope Program and noted its potential for further expansion. She suggested exploring a process, potentially in coordination with regional centers, that would allow parents or caregivers to notify law enforcement when an individual with behavioral or communication challenges may require additional sensitivity or consideration during a response to a residence. She stated that such an expansion could provide reassurance to families and assist officers in responding appropriately to situations involving individuals with special needs.

Lieutenant Boyer explained that the second Blue Envelope sticker was intended for residences. He added that once an individual completes the online interest process, the information would be added to the residence’s call-for-service notes, allowing officers responding to the location to see the registered information and any identified concerns, along with other relevant comments associated with nearby residences.

Council Member Rubalcava suggested partnering with regional centers to help inform families receiving services about the program and available resources for communicating with law enforcement.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon thanked Lieutenant Boyer and Council Member Maahs for their work on the Blue Envelope Program, stating that the program was important to the community, particularly the Latino community, where stigma surrounding autism and mental health has historically existed. He emphasized the importance of providing information and resources to families and asked about the timeline for expanding training from the Traffic Detail to Patrol and eventually ensuring departmentwide awareness among officers.

Lieutenant Boyer explained that additional Blue Envelope materials had been ordered and that the timeline for expanding the program depended on receiving sufficient inventory. He stated that raining for Patrol and VIPs would take approximately 10–15 minutes during a briefing and could potentially be completed within about a week once the materials were available. He explained that an exact implementation date could not yet be provided because the delivery date for the additional envelopes was unknown.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon, Lieutenant Boyer explained that the Department was developing a website where residents could proactively express interest in the Blue Envelope Program. He reported that residents would receive a packet with a cover letter and program information, and their participation would be documented in the system so responding officers would be alerted to the information associated with the residence. He noted that registration would remain associated with the residence until removed, and participants could receive stickers for their residence and vehicles based on their individual needs.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested that the Blue Envelope Program webpage include information reassuring residents about the purpose and privacy of the program. He suggested clarifying that the City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Anaheim Police Department follows state law and does not enforce federal immigration laws, and that information provided through the program would remain private between the resident and the Police Department.

Chief Cid stated that the Department would use multiple outreach methods to expand the Blue Envelope Program, including officer contacts, community meetings, neighborhood partnerships, the Department’s website, social media, and other educational efforts. He emphasized the importance of clearly communicating what the program is and is not, providing residents with information on how to participate and obtain a Blue Envelope, and being mindful of community sensitivities.

Mayor Pro Tem Leon offered to assist with outreach by distributing Blue Envelopes through Council offices and at community events, if appropriate. He encouraged the Department to keep the Council informed of opportunities to increase awareness and expand the program.

Council Member Meeks expressed support for distributing Blue Envelopes at district meetings and other community events as additional outreach opportunities. She asked staff to explain what materials are included in the envelope and what training officers receive regarding interactions with individuals with autism and others who may have communication or behavioral needs.

Lieutenant Boyer reported that, at a minimum, all officers complete a mandatory California POST training cycle every two years. He noted that the training covers various learning domains and includes video-based scenarios designed to reinforce standardized decision-making. He noted that specialized Department units receive additional training.

Chief Cid explained that officers receive training through the California POST academy on recognizing mental health conditions and disabilities and strategies for interacting with individuals with different needs. He reported that officers also complete periodic POST refresher training every one to two years. He noted that the Department’s two mental health clinicians regularly work with officers, respond to calls, and provide updated training and guidance during briefings. He emphasized that the training is ongoing and addresses challenges officers encounter in the community.

He added that the Department’s two mental health clinicians regularly work with officers, respond to calls, and provide updated training and guidance during briefings. He emphasized that the training is ongoing and addresses challenges officers encounter in the community.

Council Member Meeks thanked staff and expressed support for the stickers, while emphasizing the importance of ensuring officers are properly trained and aware of the program before responding to locations displaying the stickers.

Council Member Balius asked whether the Blue Envelope Program was specific to Anaheim or a statewide program, and whether a driver carrying a Blue Envelope would be recognized by agencies such as the California Highway Patrol.

Lieutenant Boyer Staff explained that the Blue Envelope Program was intended to become a statewide program, but proposed legislation was tabled due to legislative procedural issues. He noted that cities and counties may currently adopt the program independently and that Anaheim, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, and Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department had adopted it. He stated that the Department was implementing the program proactively while statewide legislation remained pending.

Chief Cid added that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department adopted the program.

Informational item; no formal action taken by the City Council.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

28. Consider District 3 appointment to the Older Adults Commission to serve a term ending December 31, 2026.

Older Adults Commission:

District 3 appointment: Melody A. Marler (December 31, 2026) (unscheduled vacancy)
NOMINATION: Council Member Rubalcava nominated Melody A. Marler. ROLL CALL VOTE: ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES – 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES – 0. Nomination approved.

PUBLIC HEARING:

29. Public Hearing regarding adopting the Study and Financial Implementation Plan for the Central Area of the City of Anaheim and a resolution amending the sewer impact and improvement fees for the Central Area of the City of Anaheim.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers dated April 2026 and adopting the Central Anaheim Sanitary Sewer Financial Implementation Plan dated April 2026 and rescinding Resolution No. 2026-058.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Sewer Impact and Improvement Fees for the central area of the City of Anaheim and determining such actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b) (8) and Guideline Section 15273 (a).

Director of Public Works Rudy Emami presented the proposed adoption of the updated Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers and Financial Implementation Plan and amendments to the sanitary sewer impact and improvement fees for the Central Anaheim area. He explained that the City maintains separate sanitary sewer master plans for the West, East, and Central areas of Anaheim.

He stated that the existing Central Anaheim plan was adopted in 2018 and was updated to incorporate the latest census data, current market pricing, updated development assumptions, and the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code update adopted in April 2025. He added that the study area encompasses Central Anaheim and the Platinum Triangle and evaluates existing and projected sanitary sewer capacity needs through buildout conditions.

Director Emami reported that the updated study identified approximately $44 million in future sanitary sewer improvements for Central Anaheim and approximately $10 million in improvements for the Platinum Triangle for properties not located within Community Facilities District 08-1. He explained that the improvements were related to anticipated future development and increased sanitary sewer flows. He noted that sewer impact fees are collected from developers to fund capital improvements associated with the development-related impacts on the sewer system. He added that the accompanying Financial Implementation Plan identified sanitary sewer impact fees as the most practical ongoing funding mechanism for these development-related improvements.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

Director Emami explained that the proposed Central Anaheim Sanitary Sewer fees and supplemental Platinum Triangle fees would remain independent of one another, meaning that a property would be subject to only one of the two fees. He added that the proposed fee structure also incorporated a simplified methodology for calculating the sanitary sewer impact associated with development. He noted that the updated methodology and fees were intended to modernize the City's development impact fee structure while ensuring that future development contributed toward the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate increased sewer demand.

Director Emami reported that the required public notification and public hearing process had been completed. He added that if approved, the amended fees would become effective 60 days following adoption of the resolutions. He noted that the item supported the City's Strategic Plan by promoting financial responsibility, modernizing development impact fees, and investing in and maintaining infrastructure.

At 10:39 p.m., Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing.

City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that the City does not have any remote speakers addressing Public Hearing Item No. 29. She added that there was one in-person speaker wishing to address the Public Hearing.

Marc Herbert expressed concerns regarding the proposed sanitary sewer plan and the City’s oversight of public infrastructure. He questioned whether the item fell under Public Utilities or Public Works and raised concerns about recent staff turnover and the ability of the public to obtain responses to questions from City departments, Boards and Commissions, and elected officials. He referenced questions regarding the Wyndham Hotel, including allegations that 35 rooms were added without authorization and that the issue was not identified for approximately 27 years. He questioned how the public could evaluate staff oversight and performance when such issues occur and expressed concern that the matter reflected a broader pattern or institutional culture. He also questioned aspects of the 2018 Sewer plan and the continued employment of staff who had worked for the City during that period.

At 10:42 p.m., Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing.

MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2026-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Central Anaheim Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers dated April 2026 and adopting the Central Anaheim Sanitary Sewer Financial Implementation Plan dated April 2026 and rescinding Resolution No. 2026-058 and RESOLUTION NO. 2026-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the Sewer Impact and Improvement Fees for the central area of the City of Anaheim and determining such actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b) (8) and Guideline Section 15273 (a), 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 that regarding Closed Session Item No. 2, the City Council voted unanimously to authorize the City Attorney’s Office to file a cross-complaint against the codefendant in the case of Sandy Jo v. City of Anaheim, et al. He added that there was no other reportable action.

City Council Minutes of August 25, 2026

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

Council Member Balius requested an update on the City’s procedures to address cases that were not successful in the ACCESS program.

City Attorney Fabela confirmed that staff would follow up with him.

ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Council, Mayor Aitken adjourned the City Council in memory of Anthony Deloya, at 10:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Theresa Bass, CMC
City Clerk