Loading...
14 (125) Susana Barrios From:Marc Herbert <fatclaw@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April To:Public Comment Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] DisneyForward You don't often get email from 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. Anaheim’s 6th Cycle Housing Element is out of compliance with the state. It is not the only Element of the General Plan currently out of compliance with the state. 4 of the 7 Elements of the General Plan are out of compliance: Circulation, Environmental Justice/Air Quality, Housing and Land Use. Circulation, Environmental Justice/Air Quality and Land Use are all connected to the Housing Element. As long as the Housing Element remains out of compliance makes it difficult for the other 3 to become compliant. The 6th Cycle Housing Element runs 8 years from Oct. 2021— Oct. 2029. Anaheim waiting approval on its 3rd Draft. The state has won the last 5 Court Cases that tested their housing policy. In March, Huntington Beach was the most recent city to lose. In December, Beverly Hills lost its case. Without a compliant Housing Element, Anaheim is at risk of being forced by the state to approve housing developments exempt from local zoning restraints. They may be larger and taller as long as at least 20% of the units are affordable. Anaheim could also lose access to state funding and be subject to fines and legal action. During the 2+1/2 year DisneyForward development process the question of whether the project can be approved while the city remains out of compliance with 4 of the 7 sections of its General Plan remains unanswered. The question has been raised several times in several public forums. It remains unanswered by the Council. Anaheim was not always out of compliance on housing. In 1993, when Disney last approached the Council seeking approval for a long term expansion, times were different. There were housing problems. Affordable housing and the homeless were issues, but not nearly to the degree they are today. In 1993 the big housing problem around Disneyland involved cars. Disney’s expansion plans called for 10,000 new spaces. In response Anaheim Mayor Tom Daly and the Council approved a 10,000 space parking structure. The deal was simple. Anaheim built and paid for the new structure. Disney retained the parking fees. When the structure was paid off, Disney would get the deed to the land. The Council believed they would recoup the cost of the new structure from the benefits derived from Disneyland’s increased attendance. The structure will be paid off in a few more years. With interest it will have cost Anaheim $1 billion. 1 Though smaller than today, affordable housing was an issue in the 1990’s. As part of the 1993 deal Disney agreed to the following: “That the applicant will build or preserve, or cause to be built or preserved, 500 affordable housing units, in the City of Anaheim in connection with the development of the Project.” Disney did not agree to build 500 affordable units. Disney only agreed to ”cause to be built or preserved” 500 affordable units. Anaheim asked for no more; Disney gave no more. Anaheim later found other funding for the 500 affordable units. The result was that Hermosa Village was remodeled or “preserved”. Some in Anaheim were disappointed that Disney didn’t do more for affordable housing. Many have forgotten that Disney did tee up and use their influence to get 500 affordable units remodeled. At the time was a big step down the path to addressing Anaheim’s growing affordable housing problem. California's 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) covers Oct. 2014 - Oct. 2021. This Cycle begins 20 years after the signing of the 1993 agreement. By this time the issues of affordable housing and the homeless were in plain sight and growing. The Santa Ana River Homeless encampment was the most visible. Here are Anaheim’s 5th Cycle RHNA 2014-2021 numbers: Income Category Projects-in-the-Pipeline Very Low- 1,884 100 Low- 907 367 Moderate- 1,038 36 Above Moderate- 2,501 3,796 Total- 5,702 4,282 Ca. considers the Very Low, Low, and Moderate categories as affordable. The Above Moderate category is market-rate. Unlike 20 years ago in the 1993 agreement, there was now data to document the size of Anaheim’s affordable housing problem- 3,829 units. Anaheim addressed this by arranging for 503 affordable units to be in-the-pipeline during this 7 year period. 3 units more than 20 years ago when the affordable issue was much smaller. Averaging the 503 affordable units to be built over the 7yr. Cycle comes to 72 affordable units per year. So in the 7 year Cycle, Anaheim planned to build 503 affordable units in response to the state’s assigned RHNA target of 3,829 affordable units. Without direction or pressure from the state, Anaheim chose a path that led to just 13% of its affordable housing needs being built. The 6th Cycle Housing Element is based on this history. The 8 year Cycle runs from Oct. 2021—Oct. 2029. Anaheim’s first Draft was submitted in Sept. 2021. 2+1/2 years later Anaheim is waiting for state approval on its 3rd Draft. Below are Ca.’s housing targets for Anaheim’s 6th Cycle. Income RHNA 8-Yr. Quantified Permits Total Permits Category Allocation Objective 8-Yr. Issued 2023 Issued 6th Cycle Very Low- 3,767 754 62 259 Low- 2,397 168 43 115 Moderate- 2,945 8 73 124 Above Mod.- 8,344 7,000 787 993 Total- 17,453 7,930 965 1,491 2 1. In the 1st column are the income categories: Very Low, Low, and Moderate constitute Anaheim’s need for affordable units. 2. In the 2nd column are Anaheim’s 8yr. RHNA targets set by the state: 9,109 affordable units + 8,344 market-rate = 17,453 total. In this 8 year period 52% of Anaheim’s total housing needs will be for affordable units. 3. In the 3rd column are Anaheim’s 8yr. Quantified Objective targets set by the state. These figures represent what Anaheim “has determined to be a reasonable number of building permits that the city can anticipate it will issue for housing units during the planning period”: 930 affordable + 7,000 market-rate=7 ,930 total. Anaheim’s 8yr. RHNA target for affordable units is 9,109. Anaheim estimates 930 building permits will be issued in this 8yr. period. This means Anaheim will be 8,179 units short of its 6th Cycle affordable housing target. Anaheim’s 3rd Draft will be meeting 10% of the state’s mandated affordable target of 9,109 units. 4. In the 4th column are the number of building permits Anaheim issued in 2023: 178 affordable + 787 market-rate= 965 total. Anaheim’s RHNA target for affordable housing in this 8yr. period is 9,109 units. Anaheim issued 178 affordable unit permits in 2023. In 2023 Anaheim met 2% of the state’s mandated affordable target of 9,109 units. 5. In the 5th column are the total number of building permits Anaheim has issued in the 6th Cycle: 498 affordable units + 993 market-rate= 1,491 total. Anaheim’s RHNA affordable target in this 8yr. period is 9,109. In this 2+ 1/2 year period Anaheim has issued 498 affordable units. Anaheim has met 5.5% the state’s mandated RHNA affordable target of 9,109 units. Anaheim is 85.5% short of meeting Ca.’s mandated RHNA affordable target for this 8 year Cycle. In the remaining 5+1/2yrs. of this 8yr Housing Cycle, Anaheim will have to build 8,611 additional affordable units to meet Ca.’s RHNA mandated target. A couple weeks ago a high ranking City Staffer told me: “These aren’t real numbers. They are just made- up by the state. Computer generated.” I don’t know. I do know that finding this out 2+1/2 years into the Disneyforward planning process is problematic. Finding this out a month before the Council vote on April 16th is troublesome. This raises several housing related questions about the DisneyForward project. From this point on, the questions here will be numbered with the letter “b” along side. These questions are my “b series” of questions. Many have been asked before in the DisneyForward process. Most remain unanswered. Delaying the DisneyForward vote would provide time for Council and Staff to answer these questions. These are different from my “series a” questions which focused on the public participation problems in the DisneyForward process. These questions also remain unanswered. It’s just not me that needs answers. The public needs these questions answered in order to make an informed decision on DisneyForward. If more time is required to examine more reports so be it. series b questions- (1b) Are Ca.’s RHNA numbers made up? 3 2b) What is the difference between made-up computer generated numbers and algorithms and those that are not made-up? 3b) Are all other projections in the DisneyForward Environmental Impact Report(EIR) made up? 4b) What other made-up computer generated projections and algorithms in the DisneyForward and Project should be discounted or dismissed? 5b) What are the margins of errors in the projections used for the 6th Cycle Housing Element 3rd Draft? 6b) If the Staff and Council don’t recognize the validity of the RHNA numbers , then what numbers should the public examine in order to gain an understanding and be able to discuss the Drafts of 6th Cycle Housing Element with the Staff and Council? At the Jan. 23 Council Meeting Workshop Planning+Building Director Ted White, was unable to provide the Council with an estimate of the expected number of new visitors that the DisneyForward expansion would generate. In his words, “the lens of that number" wasn't used in the methodology that produced the projections for future housing, traffic, employment, noise, water, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution in the 17,000 page Environmental Impact Report(EIR). The following week the public learned that Disney considered its attendance figures “proprietary”. 7b) What methodology, numbers, and algorithms did the city use for their calculations, projections, and models in the housing, traffic, employment, noise, water, greens gas emissions, and air pollution in the DisneyForward EIR ? The timeline on the fact sheet for the Council’s Jan. 23, 2024 Workshop, listed 2 Council DisneyForward Hearings in April and May. The DisneyForward Council vote has now been moved up a month to April 16th. 7b) What did the Council learn at the Jan. 23rd Workshop that caused them to think it was better to speed up the process and drop one of the two scheduled public Workshops? 8b) How is reducing the number of public hearings and moving up the Council's vote by a month helpful for residents, the Planning Commission, Council and city staff to complete their reading of the 17,000 page EIR and the3,000 pages of new documents that dropped within the last 2 weeks? 9b) At the Council Workshop the public had one 3 minute opportunity to speak on the 17,000 page DisneyForward EIR. Why did the Council consider this adequate? 10b) How was it in the public’s interest to reduce their chances of getting their questions answered by eliminating a second Workshop? These questions on housing and procedures are complicated. Many were raised earlier in public comments at a Closed Session, the Open House, Planning Commission Meetings, Planning Commission Workshops, Council Meetings, Council Workshops, Council Hearings, Community Meetings, and in writing to the Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Staff. 11b) Why weren’t these questions answered earlier? 4 12b) Why do so many questions remain unanswered days before the Council’s April 16th vote on DisneyForward ? Perhaps one reason why so many public questions remain unanswered on Anaheim’s 6th Cycle Housing Element is that the Housing Element Update Committee(HEUC) was shut down during ex-Mayor Sidhu’s term. The HEUC’s last met Sept. 9, 2021. This was over 2+1/2 years ago. Just as this process was shutting down another process was starting up. On September 14, 2021, less than a week later, Planning Director Ted White received the news of the DisneyForward project in a letter from Disney Vice-President Deanna Detchemendy. No sooner had the HEUC’s door been locked shut, barring the public’s continued participation in 6th Cycle Housing Element planning process, than the Planning Director’s door swung open welcoming Disney to City Hall. I spoke on this at the March 26, 2024 Council Meeting. Here are my notes: During Sidhu’s term, Anaheim’s first submitted its 6th Cycle Housing Element to Sacramento. It was Sept. 28, 2021, 2+1/2 years ago. Anaheim has since submitted 2 additional Housing Element Drafts. Anaheim is still waiting for the approval of its 3rd Draft. In a June 28, 2023 letter to Deputy City Manager and Director of Planning+Building, Ted White, Ca.’s Department of Housing and Community Development wrote “During the Housing Element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community…by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.” The Anaheim Housing Element Update Committee(HEUC) was created to fulfill this obligation. It was responsible for holding a "monthly meeting throughout the Housing Element Update process". The committee’s last meeting was Sept. 9, 2021. The last opportunity for public participation was 2 Drafts and 2+1/2 years ago. At the last Council Meeting, Council Member Rubalcava said the HEUC was not a long term committee. HEUC's mission statement posted on the city's website says otherwise: "The main purpose of the HEUC is to advise and provide input and perspective to staff throughout the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update project process." "The HEUC will hold monthly meeting throughout the Housing Element Update process. HEUC meetings will be open to the public, so that anyone may attend, observe, and provide input." The last time HEUC held a public meeting or posted an update on the city's website was 2+1/2 years ago. The Housing Element planning process has continued for 2+1/2 years through Sidhu’s term, the new Council, and 2 more Drafts. The Mayor and Council have changed. Anaheim’s Housing Element planning policy of excluding the public has not. At last week’s Council Meeting Ted White, confirmed the Housing Element update process has "a citizens' advisory committee component to it." Mr. White said, "for the most part that (HEUC) has been concluded." No date for the closure of this committee has been posted. No reason for the HEUC’s shutdown has been posted. Mr. White did say there may be "an opportunity to engage with that group(the public)" when a "final document" is "brought back for adoption." Mr. White continued "We haven't had much to report in quite some time as we have been navigating the 5 minutia with the state of Ca." Currently, Anaheim is out of compliance with state law. In the minutia are questions about Anaheim's housing needs. Why is Ca.'s Regional Housing Needs Assessment(RHNA) 8- year target of 17,453 units 220% larger than Anaheim's Quantified Objective 8-year target of 7,930 units? In the minutia are questions of why only 178 affordable units were permitted last year? In the minutia are questions why 48 affordable units were lost on Walnut St. across from Disneyland? Most through evictions. In the minutia are questions of why is Disney building 1,100 affordable units in Florida and offerIng Anaheim $30 million (enough to build 52 units). In the minutia are questions of what the impact will be of Disney adding 13,800 workers and 25 million new visitors to Anaheim's environment and infrastructure. In the minutia are questions about the Circulation, Land Use, and Environmental Justice sections of the General Plan that intersect with issues in the Housing Element. These 3 sections of the General Plan are also out of compliance. In the minutia are questions of what Anaheim will do if it fails compliance and faces the state taking away funding and zoning authority. There appear to be 2 paths Anaheim may take to resolve these questions: First, Remain on the current path and out of compliance. Doing this risks incurring the cost of future lawsuits. Ca. has won the last 5 court decisions on housing: Beverly Hills last Dec. Huntington Beach 2 weeks ago. It also risks, as in the past, having the FBI and State step in to clear things up. Second, Open the planning process up. Invite, engage, and listen to the public. This is the first step Planning Director Ted White should take to get the city out of the state’s minutia and on the path to winning compliance for the 3rd Draft of its 6th Cycle Housing Element. Let me unpack the remaining unanswered questions from the minutia above and attach them to my “b series” of questions: 13b) Why is this Council remaining on the path to noncompliance initiated during the Sidhu years? 14b) Isn’t this Council aware that Ca. won the last 5 court decisions that challenged its Housing policy? 15b) Why was the 6th Cycle HEUC shut down while the 6th Cycle Housing Element approval process continues? 16b) Why did Ca. reject Anaheim’s first draft of its 6th Cycle Housing Element submission? 17b) Why did Ca. reject Anaheim’s second draft of its 6th Cycle Housing Element submission? 18b) After Sidhu resigned, why didn’t the Council reconvene the HEUC? This Council is following the path of noncompliance first selected during the Sidhu years. This Council has weighed the risks of incurring the cost of future lawsuits and decided this risk was worth taking. The fact that Ca. has won the last 5 court decisions challenging its Housing Policy has made no difference. Beverly Hills and Huntington Beach were the last 2 cities to lose. In his August 23, 2022 letter to Anaheim’s Planning Director Ted White, Ca.’s Department of Housing 6 and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development, Senior Program Manager Paul McDougall rejected Anaheim’s 1st Draft for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. In his letter he reminded Mr. White of the importance of public participation in the planning process: “Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and an email with the link sent to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.” No action was taken to reopen the HEUC. 19b) Why did the Council, the Planning Commission, the Planning Director Mr. White, City Manager, and staff ignore this admonition to return public participation to the process. 10 months later on June 28, 2023 Ca.’s Senior Housing Program Manager McDougall rejected Anaheim’s 2nd Draft for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. In this letter he again reminded Mr. White to include public participation in the planning process: “Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and an email with the link sent to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.” For the second time no action was taken to reopen the HEUC. In both of these letters to Mr. White, Ca.’s Senior Housing Program Manager McDougall warned Mr. White that failure to gain compliance for their 6th Cycle Housing Element risked the city losing future state funding. “Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.” 20b) Why is it in the interest of Anaheim to remain out of compliance with its Housing Element and risk losing eligibility for future funding? 2+1/2 years ago, prior to winning a Council seat, Council Member Rubalcava was on the HEUC. At the time, she didn’t raise questions about the closing of the HEUC. When I raised this issue at the March 7 19th+26th Council Meetings she dismissed the significance of the HEUC. As long as several other Ca. cities remained out of compliance with their Housing Element, she assured the Council that they too would remain safe from litigation. No one questioned whether Huntington Beach and Beverly Hills have different opinions now. With the HEUC doors shut the past 2+1/2 years, the Council has lost the benefit of public participation. This is not just my opinion. This is also Ca.’s view. One backed by state law. Here is a letter I sent to Ca.’s Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development: March 8, 2024 Dear Mr. Miller; A group of Anaheim residents and I are looking at Anaheim's 6th Cycle Revised 3rd Draft Housing Element. We are also reading Disney's 17,000 page Environmental Impact Report(EIR) that covers their expansion plans for Disneyland. Anaheim's Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, City Manager, City Attorney, Outside Counsel Steve Mattis, Director Planning and Building, City Staff, and Disney consultants have been unable to answer a few of our questions. Paul McDougall, Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development Senior Program Manager, responded Anaheim's 3rd Draft of the Housing Element in a June 28, 2023 letter to Ted White, Anaheim's Director Planning and Building. In it, he directed questions to you. Here goes- In Mr. McDougall's June 28th letter the importance of public participation in the Housing element revision process was stressed. The same paragraph was also included in his response to Anaheim's 2nd Draft sent to Mr. White August 23, 2022: "Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and an email with the link sent to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element 8 at least seven days before submitting to HCD." There has been no opportunity for public participation since a 1st Draft Workshop 2+1/2 years ago. Council approval followed the same night, Sept. 28, 2021. The Housing Element Update Committee(HEUC) is responsible for holding a "monthly meeting throughout the Housing Element Update process." Its last meeting was also 2+1/2 years ago on Sept. 9, 2021. The public participation ended 2/+1/2 years ago but the 6th Cycle Housing Element process has continued. The process is now 2 Drafts past the last public participation occurred. https://www.anaheim.net/5877/Housing-Element-Update-Committee Two names of interest on the HEUC: Natalie Rubalcava, Current Anaheim Council Member. Todd Ament, Anaheim Corruption- convicted felon, currently awaiting sentencing in June. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/39664/Summary-of-Minutes- HEUC7_992021_UPDATED https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-head-anaheim-chamber-commerce-pleads-guilty- federal-fraud-false-statement-and Disney announced the expansion of Disneyland in their DisneyForward March 25, 2021 Letter of Request to Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Anaheim Senior Planner. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/38794/Conceptual-letter-of-request Disney followed this with A Letter of Initiation to Ted White, Director Planning and Building, Sept. 14, 2021. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/40216/Applicant-Letter-of-Request-for-Initiation Disney's Notice of a Preparation of a Draft EIR for the expansion of Disneyland was submitted a month later Oc. 21, 2021. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021100402 The 30 day public review for the 6th Cycle Housing Element ended Sept. 24, 2021. The DisneyForward project started before the first Draft of the the 6th Cycle Housing Element was completed. Anaheim was notified of DisneyForward March 25, 2021. The first Draft wasn't approved until 6 months later Sept. 28, 2021. The Oct. 10, 2021 Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR, raised 27 project issues. Population/Housing was one such issue. 25 State Reviewing Agencies were listed. . The Department of Housing and Community 9 Development was not listed: a) What state agency reviewed the Population/Housing issue? b) Was the issue of Anaheim's 6th Cycle Housing Element reviewed as part of the Draft EIR? c) Can the DisneyForward project be approved while Anaheim remains out of compliance with its General plan due to its noncompliance with the 6th Cycle Housing Element? 3. The 1993 EIR 311 determined that Disneyland "would create a less than significant impact related to employment, population, or housing and no mitigation was required." Despite this the city attached a condition for approval to housing. Disney was required to "build or preserve, or cause to be built or preserved 500 affordable units, in the city of Anaheim..." 30 years later, Anaheim's affordable housing and homeless issues are much larger. Anaheim's 2021-2029 RHNA allocation of 17,453 is significantly larger than its 2014-2021 allocation. Anaheim's shortage has grown by 300% since the previous 7 year Cycle. It is currently 5,702 units short of its target. The extremely low, very low, and low income categories are where the shortages are greatest. In January 2024, 34 months after the launch of DisneyForward, Disney offered $30 million for affordable housing. According to Grace Stepter, Anaheim Housing Program Director, an affordable unit costs the city $560,000. $30 million would cover the costs of about 52 units. Currently Anaheim is accepting an offer that provides 1/10 the number of affordable units that were in Disney's prior 1993 agreement. Anaheim's homeless and affordable housing problems are now much larger. The EIR doesn't take into account the housing needs of the 13,000 new employees projected for the DisneyForward expansion. City Staff plans to leverage Disney's $30 million to cover the cost of building the 500 affordable units. To accomplish this, Anaheim needs to multiply Disney's $30 million by 9 to cover the $280 million cost in building the 500 affordable units. How does the January 2024 Beverly Hills court decision impact Anaheim's 6th Cycle Housing Element 3rd Draft? Both the 6th Cycle Housing Element and DisneyForward started in 2021 during ex-Mayor Harry Sidhu's administration. The change in culture Disney and City Hall has not been as dramatic as the resignation and conviction of Harry Sidhu: a) Disney failed to cooperate in Anaheim's recent corruption investigation directed by the JL Group. 10 b) Many of the staff employees employed at City Hall during the Sidhu administration remain. c) Disney and the City Staff have yet to be cleared by the FBI Corruption Investigation or the examination by the Orange County District Attorney's Office. Both investigations are ongoing. A Public Hearing and the EIR vote for approval are scheduled at the Anaheim Council Meeting April 16, 2024. Thanks, Marc Herbert This letter raises additional questions that have yet to be answered. The following questions should be attached to my “b series”. “The 1993 EIR 311 determined that Disneyland "would create a less than significant impact related to employment, population, or housing and no mitigation was required.” Despite this the city attached a condition for approval to housing. Disney was required to "build or preserve, or cause to be built or preserved 500 affordable units, in the city of Anaheim…"" 21b) Since Anaheim’s issue of affordable housing was much smaller in 1993, why did the city put this condition of approval for 500 affordable units into the agreement? 30 years later, Anaheim's affordable housing and homeless issues are much larger. Anaheim's 2021-2029 RHNA allocation of 17,453 units is 3 times larger than its 2014-2021 allocation 5,702 units. A 300% increase. In January 2024, Disney offered Anaheim $30 million for affordable housing 34 months after the launch of DisneyForward. According to Grace Stepter, Anaheim Housing Program Director, an affordable unit costs the city $560,000. $30 million would cover the costs of about 52 units. 22b) In light of the size of today’s affordable housing shortage and the increase in the number of homeless, Why is Anaheim accepting an offer that provides 1/10 the number of affordable units that were in the 1993 Disney agreement? City Staff plans to leverage Disney's $30 million to cover the cost of building the 500 affordable units. To accomplish this, Anaheim needs to multiply Disney's $30 million by 9 to cover the $280 million cost in building 500 affordable units. 23b) Where specifically will this money come from? 11 24b) With the city’s 6th Cycle Housing Element still waiting for approval, how does the Council plan to replace the state funding they stand to lose from remaining out of compliance? 25b) How do the recent court decisions backing Ca. on the housing challenges by Beverly Hills and Huntington Beach impact Anaheim’s chances of retaining its state’s funding while remaining out of compliance? In Sept. 2023 the DisneyForward EIR projected the expansion would create over 13,000 new jobs. This projection came 2 years after Ca. released its RHNA targets for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. 26b) Is this another “computer generated made-up number”? Disney considers Disneyland attendance to be proprietary information. Anaheim agrees and has not pressed for that number. 27b) Without using its attendance numbers, how did Disney calculate its projections for new Disneyland jobs? 28b) Without using Disneyland attendance numbers how did Anaheim verify Disney’s job projections? In April, Disney donated 80 acres for up to 1,400 new housing units by DisneyWorld. At least 1,100 will be affordable. There will be no government funding used to build the project. Disney is offering Anaheim $30 million for housing. $30 million will be the cost of 52 affordable units. Anaheim is hoping to leverage this $30 million with government funding. 29b) Has Anaheim asked Disney for a deal proportionate to the affordable housing deal in Florida? If not, why? 30b) Why doesn't Anaheim have a deal comparable to the one signed in Florida? 31b) Wouldn’t an affordable housing deal like the one at DisneyWorld help Anaheim in their efforts to become compliant with the state’s 6th Cycle Housing Element? The DisneyForward EIR was released to the public Sept. 14, 2023. The first Council Workshop was scheduled 4 months later, Jan. 23, 2024. Since the public has been invited into the process the following has occurred: 1. Planning Commission Meetings are now streamed. 2. There is a procedure in place for the selection of Speakers at Planning Commission Meetings. The Speaking Order is no longer based on the whims of the Chair. 3. The wifi-password has returned to being posted for Council Meetings. 4. Disney’s option to close Disneyland Drive has been dropped from this agreement. 12 5. At the Jan. 23, 2024 Disney Workshop presentation Disney announced $30 million in housing contributions. 6. At the Jan. 23, 2024 Disney Workshop presentation Disney announced $8 million in contributions for new parks. 7. On Jan. 23, 2024 Disney offered $40 million for street abandonments and the closure of Magic Way. 8. In Jan. 2024 Anaheim conducted and released a Magic Way traffic study. 9. In Feb. 2024 the public informed the Council and Staff of Disney’s project to build 1,400 units, 1,100 affordable, with no government funding at Disney World in Florida. 10. On Feb. 26, 2024 an appraisal was submitted to Disney for the street abandonments and the closure of Magic Way 11. In April 2024 the public received a copy of the appraisal. 12. In April 2024 the public requested a copy of the California State University Fullerton(CSUF) Economic Report that was commissioned by Disney and used as the basis of the DisneyForward project. 13. The public’s April 2024 request for the CSUF Economic Report reminded the Council and Staff to request and release the 9 page Executive Summary that Disney was holding. In the 6 months since the release of the DisneyForward EIR, this is what public participation has accomplished. With answers to these questions and more time to study them, imagine what else the public could contribute to the process. At a minimum, this project needs to be delayed until the questions raised here are answered and the complete CSUF Economic Report is released to the Council, Staff, and Public. Sincerely, Marc Herbert 13