Loading...
14 (12) Susana Barrios From:Marc Herbert <fatclaw@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 12, To:Public Comment Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] The absence of DisneyForward public participation You don't often get email from fatclaw@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. April 11, 2024 Dear Mayor Aitken, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Member Diaz, Council Member Leon, Council Member Rubalcava, Council Member Faessel, Council Member Meeks, City Manager Vanderpool, and City Attorney Fabela, At the April 2, 2024 City Council Meeting it was good to hear of the DisneyForward informational Open House. Also pleased to hear questions would be encouraged. The City Council's problems with public participation aren’t due to limited opportunities for public questions. The problems with public participation arise after the questions are raised. The problems grow from the Mayor, Council, and Staff not listening, engaging, and answering the public questions. I’m still waiting for answers to questions raised in my Feb. 5, 2024 letter to the Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney. Unanswered Feb. 5, 2024 Letter- The numbers correspond to the questions in my original letter: 1. "Are the Planning Commission Meetings going to be streamed?" Maybe my question wasn't clear. The past few Planning Commission meetings have been streamed. Is this temporary or the new Council policy? I ask because a similar situation arose over the posting of the city’s wifi-password for Council Meetings. For over a year I pressed the previous and current Councils to post the wifi-password for their Meetings. At the meeting prior to the release of the JL Report the wifi-password was finally posted. The wifi-password hasn’t been posted for the past few Council Meetings. Without being anchored in policy, this change has disappeared. Hopefully, the posting of the wifi-password will return again in time for the DisneyForward vote at the April 16th Council Meeting. Cultures don’t change overnight. Anaheim’s is no exception. Either the old ways of the Sidhu years never left or they have drifted back. Since the results are the same, it doesn’t matter which is the case. Anaheim’s culture is corrupt. Here is the updated wording for my original question number 1: Will the streaming of Planning Commission Meetings and the posting of the wifi-password for Council Meetings be a written requirement for all future Planning and Council Meetings? Original Questions 2-7: Actions have overtaken and answered these questions. 1 Original Questions 8-21. These questions remain unanswered. I would appreciate answers. Below are comments and several new questions directed to the Mayor, Council Members, City Manager, and City Attorney. It makes little difference who answers these questions. It does make a difference when no answers are received. Council inactions dictate city procedures and policies as often as actions. Corrupt inactions are as susceptible to litigation as corrupt actions. Apparently the Council believes the DisneyForward process is going better than expected. This sprint to finish line is taking place when- a) The 2 year FBI corruption investigation is ongoing. b) In Nov. 2023 the Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer confirmed his office was looking into Visit Anaheim's misuse of funds. c) In Jan. 2024 Ca. released an audit that found city oversight problems with Visit Anaheim. d) In Jan. 2024 Congressman Correa called for a federal investigation into the misuse of public funds in Anaheim. Since the Sept. 14, 2023 release of the 17,000 page DisneyForward Environmental Impact Report(EIR), the approval process has speeded up. This acceleration is occurring as the investigations and audits are deepening and increasing. The vetting of the Council and Staff won’t be completed until the ongoing investigations and audits are completed. The Council may see the planning process as in the clear. The public doesn’t see it that way. The DisneyForward Council vote should be delayed until the investigations and audits are completed. The Sidhu Council viewed prudence as a cost to be pruned from the planning process. This Council does as well. This Council fails to see the benefits in following a deliberate path in the DisneyForward process. Apparently, the possibility of taking a more prudent deliberate path where exposure to investigations and lawsuits would be limited wasn't considered by this Council. If it was, the public hasn’t been informed. Several Open House questions weren’t answered. The final Disneyforward vote follows the April 10th Open House in 6 days. The public will be left with 2 chances to participate in the planning process. They will have 3 minutes at the Hearing prior to the final vote. Later that same evening, they will have an additional 3 minutes during public comments prior to the final vote. Preceding the DisneyForward vote, the public will each be given 6 minutes to raise questions on the 20,000 pages of documents covering the 40 year deal. The questions, the Staff and other experts at the 2 hour at the April 10th Open House. weren't able to answer, will be dealt with that night. The April 16th meeting will be long and the hour late. Conditions like these will add stress and pressure to the Council that night. Conditions like these will make it difficult for the Council to give that night’s public comments the time and attention they merit. Time for the Council to deliberate over the public comments hasn’t been included, and scheduled on a regular basis, during the 2+1/2 year DisneyForward process. Instead, the majority of the time set aside for public engagement and deliberation has been back loaded. Relegated to the end of the process. The public was kept at arm’s length until the EIR was released Sept. 14, 2023. Public engagement didn't start until 2 years into the process. Public engagement, not outreach, started 7 months before the final vote. A good portion of the Council’s deliberations on public comments is scheduled for April 16th, the day of the DisneyForward vote. The public needs more time to engage with this 40 year, $1.9 billion dollar project. The process sets the schedule. Policy sets the process. The Council sets the policy. This Council didn’t start the DisneyForward process. The DisneyForward process started during the Sidhu Council. Since this Council assumed office the past year, the process and culture of the Sidhu years hasn’t changed. The fact the investigations and audits are continuing indicates that the 2 public is not alone in that perception. This project needs to be delayed until the investigations and audits have cleared the Council and Staff. New Questions, series (a)- 1a) Why does the DisneyForward planning process policy remain unchanged since its origins in the corrupt Sidhu years? A strength of the Sidhu Council was its ability to guide new projects quickly through the approval process. The 2022 Anaheim Stadium project was such a deal. 2a) Why is the Council in a similar rush with the even larger DisneyForward project? The Council doesn’t answer questions or engage speakers during public comments. This has been the policy since the Sidhu years when DisneyForward first started. 3a) Will the public have to wait 3 weeks until the May 7th Council Meeting for answers and follow- ups to the public comment questions raised at the April 16th Hearing and Council Meeting? The DisneyForward vote is scheduled for April 16th. After the Open House there will be 6 days remaining until the final DisneyForward Council vote on April 16th. There will be 4 days left minus the weekend. 4a) Where should unanswered Open House questions be directed to ensure receiving timely answers? This brings up the question of where in the process the public should go to obtain answers to their previously raised questions. Take the example of Georgia Price. She is a retired librarian who has taken the time to read the 17,000 page DisneyForward EIR as well as the other recently released documents. She has read the documents, thought about the documents, and then raised questions during public comments about the documents. Disney, the Council, and City Staff have not answered her questions. Georgia Price is still waiting for answers to her questions raised months ago in the DisneyForward planning process. Whether the questions were raised at Workshops, Hearings, or Public Comments it didn't matter. Whether the comments were at the Planning Commission or Council it didn't matter. Whether they were submitted in person or in writing it didn't matter. They remain unanswered. Here are links to some of her unanswered questions. a) At the 03:05:10 mark Georgia Price speaks for 2:49 minutes on environmental justice violations. https://anaheim.granicus.com/player/clip/3117?view_id=2&redirect=true b) 03:15:25 Georgia Price addresses for 3 min. the fireworks issue at Disneyland. https://anaheim.granicus.com/player/clip/3113?view_id=2&redirect=true c) 00:50:21 Georgia Price speaks for 3 min. on Magic Way and the difficulty of engaging in the public process. https://www.anaheim.net/2142/View-City-Council-Meetings d) 00:51:40 Georgia Price speaks for 3 min. on Disney traffic. https://www.anaheim.net/2142/View-City-Council-Meetings e) 02:18:46 Georgia Price speaks for 3 min. on EIR vol. 1 and air quality. https://anaheim.granicus.com/player/clip/3080?view_id=2&redirect=true f) 01:44:10 Georgia Price speaks at the DisneyForward Council Workshop for 3 min. on transparency and environmental justice. https://anaheim.granicus.com/player/clip/3074?view_id=2&redirect=true 5a) Why did Council and Staff not respond to the questions of Georgia Price earlier? 6a) When will the city answer Georgia Price’s questions? 3 7a) When will the city inform the rest of the community of these answers? 8a) How will the city inform the community? 9a) When in the process does the public follow-up on Georgia Price’s answers? 10a) Where in the process does the public follow-up on Georgia Price’s answers? 11a) If the Council, and Staff haven’t had time the past few months to respond to Georgia Price’s questions, how can the public be expected to follow-up in less than a week? Not answering the questions raised by the public, may benefit the Council, and Staff by speeding up the DisneyForward process. 12a) How does not answering the previous public questions benefit the public? 13a) Should Georgia Price and others resubmit unanswered questions? 14a) Is there a priority list for unanswered Council and Staff questions? 15a) Is there an expiration date to unanswered Council and Staff questions? In the planning process public participation is built on the engagement of 4 parties: the Developer, the Council, the Staff and the Public. Public participation slipped during the Sidhu years from "engagement" to "outreach". Public engagement remains the same today. Today public participation is a box to be checked during the approval process. A box to be checked to avoid lawsuits. Since the Sidhu years, the Council listens to questions during Public Comments, Workshops, and Hearings and checks the box. This is public outreach; this is not public engagement. It's one-way. Outreach keeps the public at arm’s length. Engagement embraces the public. It invites the public into the planning process in a meaningful substantive way. 16a) From the public's perspective, what is the difference from raising their questions at a Workshop, Hearing, Council Meeting, or in writing? 17a) From the Council's perspective what is the difference from public questions raised at a Workshop, Hearing, Council Meeting, or in writing? 18a) Does the public stand a better chance of receiving an answer to their question at a Workshop, Hearing, Council Meeting, or in writing? Residents like Georgia Price completed their homework, stepped forward, and attempted to engage in the DisneyForward Process. It takes at least 2 parties to engage. Holding an informational Open House 6 days prior to the Council vote, or holding an additional Workshop hours before the final vote might allow the Council to check another “public outreach” box. It's not public engagement. These won't provide any more assurance for the public that their questions will be answered. The public will remain at arm’s length from the 3 parties that are left engaging with the DisneyForward project: Disney, Council, and Staff. Getting answers after the April 16th DisneyForward vote is too late. Once it’s approved the residents of Anaheim are left with the Council's unanswered DisneyForward questions for the next 40 years. There won't be another opportunity to get answers until the agreement comes up for renewal in 2064. And finally- On Sept. 14, 2023 the 17,000 page Disneyforward EIR was released to the public. In the 7 months since, nearly 3,000 additional pages of documents have been released to the public. Two weeks 4 before the scheduled DisneyForward Council vote, the public learned of more primary documents yet to be released. Through a document request, Cynthia Ward discovered that Anaheim never received a copy of the complete Ca. State Univ. Fullerton(CSUF) Economic Report. This was the basis of the DisneyForward project. At the April 10th Open House, I learned from the CSUF Economic Report table that Anaheim never requested the report. Anaheim never requested an Executive Summary of the Report. An Executive Summary of the report was given to Disney, who then passed it on to Anaheim. Disney claimed it contained proprietary information. The Sidhu Council and the current Council accepted Disney's word and have been using Disney's 9-page Executive Summary as the basis of the 2+1/2 year DisneyForward project. Primary Document copy- Ms. Ward, Thank you for your email. I contacted the City's Planning Department regarding your request for the full Economic Report. The department stated that the City received only the Executive Summary, which was previously provided and posted on the City's website at the following link: https://ca- anaheim.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/53926/Economic-impact-report-executive-summary- 2023 Thank you, Theresa Theresa Bass, CMC City Clerk City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. #217 Anaheim, CA 92805 Email: tbass@anaheim.net Phone: (714) 765-5166 | Fax: (714) 765-4105 I guess no one in the Council and Staff had the reaction that a lawyer friend of mine had: "That’s hysterical! Keep pressing the need for source material and evidence backing up assertions made in the executive summary. Disney’s claim that some information is proprietary should be examined in camera by a judge or other neutral; the appropriate information should be redacted from the rest of the document, which should be read by the council, its staff, and the public. Reliance on a short, conclusory executive summary is inadequate and a breach of duty owed to residents and taxpayers." 19a) What's the advantage to the public of following the Council's current course of relying on a 9- page Executive Summary rather than examining the complete CSUF Report? 20a) What’s the disadvantage of following my friend's suggestion? 21a) Wouldn't delaying the April 16th Council vote provide the time required to redact and examine the CSUF report? Nearly 2 years have passed since ex-Mayor Sidhu resigned due to corruption charges. The culture of corruption in Anaheim remains the same. The words and tone may be softer, but the transparency and accountability of the Council and Staff remain murky. Look no further than the missing CSUF Economic Report. Conclusions- 5 1. The culture at City Hall remains unchanged from the Sidhu years. 2. This letter, as was my previous letter, is an example of public engagement. 3. Soliciting questions without providing answers is an example of public outreach. 4. Public engagement is more than public outreach. 5.I would like answers to the 15 remaining unanswered questions from my Feb. 5, 2024 email. 6.I would like answers to each of the 21 questions (series-a) in this email. 7.I would like answers to the unanswered questions Georgia Price raised in the above6 links. 8.The Council should delay the vote on DisneyForward until the public gets access to the full CSUF Economic Report and answers to the public's questions. The Council will not have fulfilled its public obligations until then. This is a 40 year project. A rush to the final vote does not serve the public's interest. Sincerely, Marc Herbert 6