04/26/2022.specialANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 26 2022
The special meeting of April 26, 2022 was called to order at 5:19 P.M. in the Council Chamber of
Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda, and related
materials were duly posted on April 25, 2022.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Trevor O'Neil, Jose Diaz,
Gloria Ma'ae, Jose F. Moreno, Avelino Valencia, and Stephen Faessel
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and
City Clerk Theresa Bass
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Item No. 1 on Special Meetina Aaenda):
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported four (4) public comments were received electronically prior to 5:00
P.M. related to Special Meeting Agenda Item No. 01. [A final total of five (5) public comments were
received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official record]. — See
Appendix.
Amelia Castro, Anaheim First Board Member, encouraged City Council to approve the settlement
between the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the City of
Anaheim to finalize the stadium sale. She noted it would support affordable housing and create tens
of thousands of jobs. She advised it would also keep the Angels in Anaheim until 2050.
Paul Sanford encouraged City Council to approve the settlement. He expressed excitement that the
City has an opportunity for low-income affordable housing in Anaheim.
Ashleigh Aitken reported she is a lifelong resident of Anaheim and shared her memories of attending
Angels baseball games. She noted Mayor Sidhu's press conference announcing that Angels Baseball
would cover the $96,000,000 fine imposed by the State was nothing more than a deceptive assertion
meant to confuse the public and Anaheim residents. She noted a new influx of cash would result in a
higher purchase price but the residents would not be receiving $1 more for the stadium's sale. She
explained the $319,000,000 is still the price tag for the stadium and advised the original deal credited
the Angels $123,000,000 to be used for affordable housing on the stadium site. She reported the deal
has been altered and $96,000,000 would now be moved into the Housing Trust. She noted the
Angels would now only have to build a fraction of the housing it committed to onsite with the rest of
the $96,000,000 in units to be built offsite away from the stadium.
Ross McCune, Chairman, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, noted City Council voted to partner with
Anaheim First to conduct the 2030 Neighborhood Investment Program. He advised Anaheim First, in
partnership with the City, Visit Anaheim, Anaheim Community Foundation, and the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce directly engaged Anaheim residents on the most neighborhood investment
needs within the six district.
Mayor Sidhu advised this item is only about the Angel Stadium settlement.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 2 of 16
Mr. McCune commended Mayor Sidhu for making the deal with Angels baseball and City Council for
supporting it. He believed it would be good for the community and would generate revenue for the
City.
Jerry Amante, Executive Director of the Anaheim/Orange County Hotel and Lodging Association,
noted his members are intimately involved with the visitors that come into Anaheim. He advised his
members generate an enormous amount of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) which supports
Anaheim and the wish list generated by Anaheim First. He expressed support for approving the
settlement and obtaining $100,000,000 for affordable and workforce housing. He believed it was a
grand slam for Anaheim and encouraged City Council to approve the settlement.
Michael Robbins, President, People's Homeless Task Force, advised Anaheim has $2 billion in debt
and advised this would have been an opportunity for Anaheim to come back. He advised the land
was evaluated at $650,000,000 in 2015 and he believed the City could get more for the land. He
alleged that Mayor Sidhu, Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil, Council Member Diaz, Council Member Valencia,
and Council Member Faessel have each received $500,000 to $1,000,000 in campaign funding from
special interest groups and Arte Moreno. He advised the City should notify hoteliers that the City is
short 150 police officers and 50 firefighters. He explained that if the City negotiated for the actual
value of the stadium, it could hire 50 officers at a time. He encouraged City Council to deny the
approval of the settlement.
Jeanine Robbins noted the City is $2 billion in debt. She believed the entire deal was a travesty and
the City was found guilty by the State Attorney General of breaking the law. She encouraged City
Council to be honest with residents and noted the $96,000,000 was part of the profits that were slated
to go into the General Fund to provide services for residents. She advised the $96,000,000 would
now go towards paying the City's fine and inquired why residents would have to pay the fine for City
Council breaking the law. She inquired where the extra $27,000,000 for affordable housing would
come from. She advised the 466 units would cost over $198,000,000 and inquired where the
remainder would come from to cover the costs.
Wes Jones, People's Homeless Task Force, advised the law said the only exception is price and
terms and the judge was wrong. He advised City Council negotiated a deal, where the City was
paying full price for affordable housing on a project that would break ground in 15 to 25 years. He
reminded residents that this is an election year and he does not see where City Council is working for
the people of Anaheim. He advised that if any of the City Council knew beforehand about the lease
before it was announced publically someone should go to jail because it lowered the assessed value
and is malfeasance of office.
Kris Murray thanked City Council for the incredible work on the stadium sale. She noted Attorney
General Rob Banta congratulated Mayor Sidhu on the historic deal that was reached and quoted his
words from the press conference. She advised this would allow funds for affordable housing to be
expedited. She thanked City Council, staff, and Arte Moreno for making this deal possible.
Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director of the Kennedy Commission, reminded residents that this item
was before City Council today because the City does not have policies and programs in place to
increase affordable housing opportunities and the State had to force the City to create a program that
had not been addressed in many years. He advised the Surplus Land Act intends to create housing
on public lands and noted this deal is looking at the economic use and ignoring affordable housing.
He advised the deal subsidizes $760,000,000 to Angels Baseball and the economic engine of
development on that site for $96,000,000, which is a huge inequity. He noted that part of the City
would be segregated just like Anaheim Hills. He explained the only way to increase parity, diversity,
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 3 of 16
equity, and produce housing for the workforce would be to increase affordable housing on that site.
He noted that $96,000,000 is not enough given the astronomical cost of land.
Vern Nelson noted that although Mayor Sidhu and others state that the City did not violate the
Surplus Land Act, he believed they did and quoted from the recent judgment that shows the
$96,000,000 is consistent with a penalty in violation of the Surplus Land Act. He thanked Attorney
General Banta for revealing how corrupt the deal was until he intervened. He quoted the Deputy
Director of Housing Policy at the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department who
stated "It's a stipulated judgment. And one of the things about it is the enforceability." She further
stated "the previously promised 466 units of affordable housing at the stadium site were
unenforceable and simply a public relations talking point." He expressed concern that Attorney
General Banta's wrist -slap of Anaheim makes the Surplus Land Act weaker and likely to be broken by
other corrupt governments in the future. He noted the judge ruling that the City did not violate the
Brown Act also weakens that act.
David Klawe reported he stood before City Council supporting the sale of the stadium in 2019. He
advised he also spoke about how the sale should benefit the entire City and he still stands behind
that statement. He advised this should also apply to where affordable housing is placed and the
settlement states the funds should be distributed throughout the City.
Grant Henninger, resident and former Planning Commissioner, advised he is an expert on Affordable
Housing Finance Trusts. He was happy to see the City and the State have agreed. He expressed
concern that there is no requirement to modify the purchase agreement that would require the Angels
to increase the amount of cash the City is receiving. He advised that as it stands, the City would have
to divert a vast amount of money away from the City's General Fund to this new local Affordable
Housing Finance Trust. He did not believe that the City should be agreeing to this judgment without
having the amended purchase agreement with SRB Management in front of the City at the same
time, as he believed they need to be approved simultaneously. He reported there is no requirement in
the judgment or in any other agreement that the City leverage its funds in any way to ensure the most
affordable housing units get built in Anaheim. He advised that $100,000,000 only builds 200 units in
Anaheim if that funding is not leveraged. He referenced the Housing Element that requires the City to
build 6,000 low, very low, and extremely low-income housing units over the next eight (8) years. He
advised the City needs to ensure these funds are leveraged through the normal affordable housing
finance methods such as tax credits, multi -family housing programs, the local housing finance trust
program, and many others that are available through the state and federal government. He
recommended that the item be tabled until it could be brought back with an amended purchase and
sale agreement to be approved simultaneously.
Kenneth Batiste inquired why this item was even being discussed as it was already passed. He noted
when this was over Mayor Sidhu would read his pre -written statement and he believed the odds of
this passing were 6 to 1. He noted he expected the results from the Orange County Judge but noted
he may never vote for Attorney General Banta again. He reported on the last deal the Angels made
$2 billion and the City made $2,000,000. He advised that these are the kind of deals that got the City
$2 billion in debt. He encouraged the citizens of Anaheim to vote out the City Council during the next
election.
Mark Richard Daniels recalled when Anaheim Stadium opened. He advised attendees are now
standing on land that has been put up as collateral for the City's debt. He expressed concern that
Mayor Sidhu is moving too quickly to close the deal at the expense of taxpayers and giving the land
away. He believed a resource this valuable should require a public hearing and noted this was a sad
day for the City.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 4 of 16
Bryan Kaye noted the City is $2 billion in debt and the City used the pandemic as an excuse to sell
the stadium for half of what it is worth. He inquired how much the City Council members and Mayor
Sidhu were receiving from the deal. He encouraged City Council to think about their families and the
residents of Anaheim, to stand up for what is right, and encouraged the City Council to deny the
settlement.
Cecil Jordan Corkern, Outreach Homeless Ministries, reported he has been teaching the homeless
and completing the 2021 reports on Disney. He advised Disney is reviewing the reports now and he
encouraged City Council to pay him for his services.
SPECIAL MEETING
D112 1. Approve Settlement (by way of a Stipulated Judgment in Orange County Superior Court) with
the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the California
Attorney General regarding HCD's Notice of Violation dated December 8, 2021, alleging that
the City's sale of Angel Stadium to SRB Management, LLC (SRB) violated the Surplus Land
Act (SLA), on the following basic terms: (1) the City to create a local housing trust that would
be funded by 30% of the Angel Stadium purchase price (approximately $96,000,000) and
would be used to fund low, very -low, and extremely -low affordable housing units in Anaheim,
(2) the City would ensure at least $27,700,000 worth of low and very -low affordable housing
would be built on the Stadium project site, and would make efforts in conjunction with HCD to
seek funding for up to 466 units on -site, subject to the City's discretionary authority and SRB's
consent; (3) the City would not admit liability under the SLA, and (4) HCD and the California
Attorney General would cease from further enforcement of the SLA as to the Stadium sale.
Mayor Sidhu provided opening remarks and noted he asked to convene this Special Meeting. He
advised the settlement would allow the sale and development of the stadium site to move forward. He
explained it would bring the largest investment in affordable housing the City has ever seen. He
advised it would bring housing that working families could afford sooner than anticipated and allow
stadium land to be used for new uses that fund public safety, libraries, and community centers.
Mayor Sidhu announced this is a mutual agreement between the State of California and Anaheim. He
advised Anaheim has admitted to no wrongdoing, no-fault, and no concession of any violation by
Anaheim. He noted the City's position on the Surplus Land Act has remained unchanged. He
advised spending millions of dollars in court is not in the best interest of the City or the State. He
explained the City would receive $96,000,000 in new cash from SRB Management that would be
used to build 1,000 affordable housing units across the City. He advised the stadium site would
receive $30,000,000 for affordable housing. He noted the stadium sale was conducted correctly and
was transparent every step of the way. He urged City Council to support the agreement to build new
affordable housing in Anaheim, keep baseball in Anaheim, and see the stadium site developed.
MOTION: Mayor Sidhu moved to approve Item No. 01 as presented, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
O'Neil.
City Attorney Robert Fabela reported staff is presenting for approval a proposed settlement with the
State of California in response to the California Housing and Community Development Department's
(HCD) claim that the City violated the Surplus Land Act in the way it sold Angel Stadium and
surrounding properties to SRB Management.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 5 of 16
Mr. Fabela reported that established case law allows settlement agreements to be approved in
Closed Session under the Brown Act. He advised his office has recommended the approval of this
settlement be done in an open session in the spirit of transparency. He reported the purchase and
sale agreement of Angel Stadium was approved by City Council on December 20, 2019. He advised
the City Attorney's office worked closely with outside counsel to determine all of the legal
requirements associated with the sale and disposition of the property. He advised one of the issues
considered at that time was the application of the Surplus Land Act and its relationship to the
Economic Opportunities Statute, each of which provides an avenue for the public sale of lands. He
advised the sale moved forward as an Economic Opportunity Sale under Government Code Section
52201 requiring a commissioned economic report, a public hearing, and a two -weeks -notice to the
public. He explained under the Economic Opportunity Statute, the California Legislature made clear
that this section is an alternative to any other authority granted by law to cities to dispense of city -
owned property.
Mr. Fabela explained because of the nature of this sale as an economic opportunity, the fact that the
land would likely be deemed SLA-exempted, the fact that the Angels controlled the property through
at least 2038 thus making negotiations with affordable land developers impractical, and the fact the
project would yield the SLA's minimum threshold of 15% affordable housing, the City appeared to be
on solid ground to move forward with the transaction. He advised these were the legal arguments that
supported the City's position that it complied with state law when it approved the agreement with SRB
Management in 2019.
Mr. Fabela reported that 10 months after the initial transaction, HCD began inquiring about the sale
and the City fully cooperated with their inquiry. He advised on April 28, 2021, HCD issued a notice of
violation rejecting the City's legal and factual arguments and taking the position that the City violated
the Surplus Land Act. He explained his office strongly disagrees with HCD's position but also
understands this is a legitimate legal dispute with legal risks on both sides, which was also
recognized by HCD and the Attorney General's (AG) Office. He advised that rather than engaging in
court, the City Attorney's Office and the Attorney General's Office met to determine if there were any
creative ways to resolve the dispute keeping in mind the uniqueness of the transaction. He reported,
that at the end of the day, all parties negotiated a proposed settlement.
Mr. Fabela reported under the proposed settlement, $96,000,000 from the sale proceeds would be
placed in a local housing trust for extremely low, very low, and low-income households, $27,700,000
from the sale proceeds would be used for low and very -low affordable housing to be built on the
Stadium project site, and the City would make efforts to seek funding for up to 466 units on -site using
local, state, and federal funding. He explained City would not admit fault, liability, or admission of
violation and the Attorney General would fully resolve the Surplus Land Act dispute.
Mr. Fabela reported the total amount of the investment in affordable housing through this settlement
is reflective of the $123,000,000 that was originally credited to SRB in the Stadium sales transaction
for onsite affordable housing. He explained the parties intend that the Stadium deal would be
restructured such that approximately $96,000,000 of the $123,000,000 credit would instead fund the
housing trust, while the balance of the credit would be used to fund affordable housing on the
Stadium site. He advised those revisions were currently being negotiated between the City and SRB
and would be reflected in proposed amendments to the Development Agreement and the Purchase
Agreement that would be presented to the public and considered at future Planning Commission and
City Council meetings in the ensuing months.
Mr. Fabela reported the City would have five (5) years to commit and expend the housing trust funds
to finance newly constructed housing units that are affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 6 of 16
income households within the City. He advised after five (5) years, any remaining funds yet to be
disbursed would be deposited into the State Housing Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly
constructed housing units that are affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households
located in the City. He noted the Attorney General would monitor the City's disbursements and the
City would be subject to annual reporting requirements. He advised the actual manner in which the
trust funds are administered would be subject to a future public discussion and vote by City Council
Mr. Fabela reported the City would be committing to an investment of $27,700,000 in affordable
housing as part of the Stadium project and would be reflective of the balance of the $123,000,000
credit left after the $96,000,000 funding of the housing trust. He advised the City would be committing
to work with HCD, state, and local affordable housing partners in leveraging public and private
programs such as tax credits, affordable housing bonds, and grants for affordable housing on the
project site beyond the $27,700,000 commitment. He advised the City would maintain its
discretionary approval rights consistent with state law to any additional affordable housing proposals
and SRB would have to consent to any affordable housing beyond the $27,700,000 invested on -site.
Mr. Fabela reported that, if approved, the Settlement would be implemented through a stipulated
judgment to which the parties have tentatively agreed and would be signed by a judge of the Orange
County Superior Court. He advised a copy of the stipulated judgment is part of the agenda packet. He
explained as a practical matter, this means that the AG's Office would file a complaint against the City
claiming an SLA violation, and would simultaneously file the stipulated judgment for Court signature.
He advised the Court would then have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, meaning that
either party claiming that the other is not in compliance with the stipulated judgment could seek
enforcement directly from the Court rather than having to file a complaint for breach of contract.
Mr. Fabela advised that even if the recommendation is approved there are still terms that are subject
to further public review through legislative action by the City including the creation of the housing trust
and amendments to the Development Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement with SRB to
effectuate certain terms of the Settlement.
Mr. Fabela thanked the efforts of David Pi, Attorney General's Office, for his diligence in attempts to
seek a resolution to this contentious matter; Amit Kulkarni, City's Outside Counsel for his sage advice
for this process; and Planning and Building Director Ted White and Director of Community and
Economic Development Grace Stepter for their insight to the practical impact that a settlement like
this would have on the City's effort to increase affordable housing in the City.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Valencia inquired who called the Special Meeting, to which Mayor
Sidhu advised he called the Special Meeting. In response to Council Member Valencia's inquiries, Mr.
Fabela reported the settlement was finalized on Sunday, April 24, 2022, and the matter has been
agendized for Closed Session four or five times. He clarified that the final document has not been
seen by City Council in Closed Session.
Council Member Valencia inquired who is paying the $96,000,000 penalty. Mr. Fabela clarified it was
not a penalty but is equal to the amount of the penalty if there were a violation. He explained it would
be funded through the Purchase Agreement with SRB Management. He further explained the original
agreement identified a $123,000,000 credit for affordable housing, which would be restructured
subject to City Council discretion. He advised the proposal is that $96,000,000 would fund the
housing trust and the balance would be used to fund affordable housing on -site. He explained the
$96,000,000 would be funded at the close of escrow.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 7 of 16
Council Member Valencia inquired if SRB Management was open to restructuring the deal. Mr.
Fabela acknowledged it was subject to a future agreement but there were other opportunities for City
Council to vote in a way inconsistent with this, which means the stipulation would just go away.
Council Member Valencia inquired if SRB Management would be required to build affordable housing
on the property. Mr. Fabela advised the agreement is that $27,700,000 would have to be invested for
affordable housing on the project site but is subject to negotiation. He confirmed the commitment is
on the City to leverage the $27,700,000 for even more affordable housing on -site and is subject to
future City Council discretion and SRB Management's consent. He advised affordable housing
locations would be discussed when the housing trust is created and before City Council.
Council Member Valencia noted the settlement creates a lot of uncertainty. Mr. Fabela explained the
$27,700,000 would be subject to future agreements with SRB Management. He advised that
$96,000,000 would go into the housing trust and be administered by the trustees for that entity.
Council Member Valencia reported Attorney General Banta advised approximately 1,000 affordable
housing units would be built under this settlement and inquired where that analysis was derived from.
Housing and Community Development Director Grace Stepter advised the analysis was largely based
on the number of dollars that could be leveraged when looking at this particular amount of money.
She explained that based on the City's current experience, the City usually gets 3 to 1 and works with
a variety of affordable housing partners and funding sources. She cautioned that in the City's
developments, there are increased costs of building materials and noted land costs are increasingly
growing. She has some degree of confidence the City would aim for 1,000 but she could not
guarantee 1,000 units.
Ms. Stepter explained this was an educated guess, the Housing Authority has existed for some time
in Anaheim, and staff is not new to this process. She noted the City currently has five (5)
developments in the pipeline. She advised there is some uncertainty, but given the experience and
the time frame, educated estimates are going into the 1,000-unit estimate.
Council Member Valencia questioned the need to rush into a Special Meeting to discuss the
settlement. He explained he has asked for periodic updates but was told he was not provided detailed
information due to the concern of a leak.
Mr. Fabela acknowledged having conversations with Council Member Valencia and tried to provide
him with as much detail as possible. Mr. Fabela advised he worked very closely with the Attorney
General's Office regarding disclosure, timing, and this meeting for which the AG's Office was
surprised was not happening in Closed Session. He advised the City Attorney's Office worked to
respect the work of the Attorney General's Office, be consistent with the Brown Act, and balance
those interests. Mr. Fabela explained the timing of this meeting was important to the Attorney
General's Office and the City wanted to respect that.
Council Member Valencia expressed concern over the expedited timeline and inquired if the Attorney
General's Office recommended agendizing the item as swiftly as possible. Mr. Fabela explained
various issues went into the timeline. He explained City Council is approving the authority by which
the City can enter into the stipulation that has been presented without attaching the stipulation. He
explained it was attached to provide additional information about the legal process. He noted that in
a typical settlement agreement, the City Attorney is given authority to enter into a settlement and then
works through the details.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 8 of 16
Council Member Faessel requested Ms. Stepter explain how the Housing and Community and
Development Department uses leveraging.
Ms. Stepter reported sometimes the developer has secured a site and needs the City's support to
make it come to fruition and cited La Esperanza as an example. She noted sometimes the Housing
Authority obtains land by using former assets of the Redevelopment Agency and cited Finamore
Place at Manchester -Orangewood where gap financing was used. She advised staff anticipates with
this money, staff would be looking at wide ranges such as development partners looking for projects
and others where land needs to be acquired. She noted they also look to work out the deals that have
waited for some time to be activated because they are waiting on local leveraging to be competitive.
She advised every deal is looked at as a "lasagna of financing" because there are layers of funding.
She noted affordable housing funding has become increasingly complex but some resources could
be used to leverage the dollars.
Council Member Faessel referenced Mr. Henninger's previous public comments. He inquired if there
was anything in the stipulated agreement regarding the housing trust at this time. Mr. Fabela noted
there was not but advised there are state regulations on how a housing trust is created and counsel is
looking into the steps for its creation. He noted it would be presented to City Council at a later date.
Council Member Faessel inquired if City Council was taking any action on the creation of a trust
today. Mr. Fabela confirmed no action was taking place today and it would return to City Council. Ms.
Stepter concurred and advised staff would be looking at the directives in the agreement to ensure the
funds were spent appropriately.
Council Member Moreno expressed concern that the Special Meeting was expedited and City Council
was not provided enough time to review. He would like to hear thoughts of residents on this matter.
He advised Attorney General Banta announced that 466 affordable housing units would be built on
this site with the $27,700,000 and inquired if that was correct.
Mr. Fabela explained that was a bit of an overstatement given what the stipulated judgment requires.
He advised the stipulated judgment requires $27,700,000 be invested into the site. He noted he is not
an expert in affordable housing but understands that would not fund 466 units. He explained it is on
the City to make a good faith effort to leverage that amount to build as many of the 466 units as
possible, all subject to City Council's discretion and SRB Management's consent.
Council Member Moreno noted he has much respect for Attorney General Banta's work and
expressed surprise that he would make such a statement unless he thought it was the truth. He
inquired if Attorney General Banta was made aware of the cost per unit calculated or does he believe
that $27,700,000 would produce 466 housing units. Mr. Fabela advised he does not think anyone in
the room could tell Council Member Moreno what Attorney General Banta meant by saying that but
noted the stipulation is very clear.
Council Member Moreno mentioned that Attorney General Banta made mention that SRB
Management has the potential to buy out affordable housing on -site. Mr. Fabela advised that is one
interpretation but explained there is a penalty provision of the City recouping the loss in value if the
committed number of units were not built. He noted the first is specific performance, which is an order
by the Court that requires SRB Management to do that, and the failsafe is the actual reimbursement
to the City.
Council Member Moreno inquired if, under the current agreement, SRB Management could have
chosen to not build any affordable housing and later pay a penalty per the Purchase Agreement and
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 9 of 16
there would not be any affordable housing on the site. Mr. Fabela advised the City would be entitled
to specific performance and there is a failsafe that the City would at least get reimbursed for the loss
of housing.
Council Member Moreno noted the Attorney General is correct that the current Purchase Agreement
would allow SRB Management to not build affordable housing but would have to pay a penalty. Mr.
Fabela advised that is an oversimplification but there is a provision that reimburses the City if SRB
Management fails to build the project.
Council Member Moreno inquired if SRB Management was required to build affordable housing on
the site if the settlement was approved tonight. Mr. Fabela advised the judgment is Court ordered,
and if stipulated to by the parties and signed by the Judge, would compel the building of $27,700,000
of affordable housing on the site.
Council Member Moreno cited the Settlement that states on Page 9, "Should SRB Management
under any state and local affordable housing partners refuse to participate in such discussions, which
is build affordable housing, such refusal shall not constitute a violation of this judgment." He advised it
suggests to him that SRB Management could just say, "keep your $27.7 million and we will not build
the City's affordable housing on its site." Council Member Moreno also referenced Page 9, Line 22
through 25 of the Settlement that states "in accordance with this Judgment, the ultimate development
of affordable housing on Angel Stadium Property shall be subject to any required approvals —either
by -right or discretionary —from the City, SRB's sole consent, and the securing of additional federal
and/or state funding as set forth above." He inquired if, according to that reference, SRB
Management could solely decide that they do not want to build affording housing on the site then the
settlement would not acquire them to do so.
Amrit Kulkarni, Meyers Nave, advised this was not a correct interpretation of the agreement. He
explained the agreement would intend that there would be a set of discussions between the City, the
Attorney General, and HCD to facilitate discussion with housing partners. He advised if SRB
Management chose not to participate in that discussion, it would not be a violation of the judgment.
He clarified that $27,700,000 is a definitive commitment and noted SRB Management could not
escape that through their sole consent.
Council Member Moreno inquired what would happen to the $27,700,000 if SRB Management
decided not to build affordable housing. Mr. Kulkarni advised the $27,700,000 would be reflected in
the Development Agreement. Council Member Moreno asked for clarification.
Mr. Kulkarni advised the $27,700,000 is an amount used specifically for constructing on -site
affordable housing and would be reflected in the Development Agreement itself that would eventually
come to City Council.
Council Member Moreno inquired if it is only based then that SRB Management would be required if
they agree to the Development Agreement and City Council includes it in the Development
Agreement. Mr. Kulkarni confirmed that was correct.
Council Member Moreno inquired if this stipulated judgment and settlement require SRB
Management to build any affordable housing on the site with the City's $27,700,000. Mr. Kulkarni
explained if the deal was consummated, the $27,700,000 would be under the Court order and be
enforceable by a judge that the units be built onsite.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 10 of 16
Council Member Moreno read a segment of the judgment for the public. Mr. Fabela explained the
judgments are against the parties who are a party to it so a Court order cannot be put on the third
parties who are not under the judgment. He advised the best the City could do under the
circumstances is put commitments on HCD and the City, which requires the City to take a certain
action. He explained when the City presents the amended Purchase and Sale Agreement and
Development Agreement they would reflect the City's commitment to imposing those requirements.
He further explained if not, the City would not comply with the stipulated judgment, City would be in
violation, the SLA would become a factor again, and that dispute would re -arise.
Council Member Moreno reiterated his understanding that the stipulated judgment does not require
SRB Management to build any affordable housing and absolves them of it per the Purchase and Sale
Agreement if it has to be amended.
Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil inquired if the settlement was approved would there be anything that would
prevent the City from placing the $96,000,000 in the newly created housing trust to be deployed to
create affordable housing on the stadium site. Mr. Fabela advised nothing is stopping the City from
doing that.
Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil commented he was happy to finally have a resolution on the matter. He noted
the proposed settlement means the City receives an additional $96,000,000 in cash than originally
agreed to. He believed it was a legacy endowment to the City for affordable housing and extended
his gratitude to SRB Management and the Angels for their partnership.
Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil advised the sale and deal points contained in it are not part of the item before
City Council. He explained City Council is only considering the proposed settlement with HCD that
brings new money to accelerate the production of affordable housing without cost to taxpayers. He
noted it was easy to mischaracterize what this agreement was but it was hard to dispute the facts
about it and simply repeating the same lie does not make it the truth. He reiterated the City was not
found to have violated the Surplus Land Act, the City was not fined, and to report otherwise speaks to
a political agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil reported he hears from residents periodically questioning why the City is
talking about affordable housing on the site. He explained every city in the state is subject to state
housing mandates not only to zone for market -rate housing but subsidized housing and lower -income
housing as well. He advised Anaheim received a quota of over 17,000 new housing units that must
be zoned for over the next eight (8) years. He noted this project puts a huge dent in that quota and
enables the production of state -mandated affordable housing that does not burden taxpayers and
developers. He thanked Attorney General Banta for remarking that this is a huge win for the State
and Anaheim and thanking the Mayor and City Council for moving this along.
Council Member Valencia reiterated that this is a complex topic and he would have liked to have a 1-
on-1 briefing to better understand the topic. He appreciated the settlement's attempt to expedite
affordable housing throughout the City and the continuation of Angels baseball in the City but was
uncomfortable with how fast this settlement is moving forward and being pushed through. He advised
additionally, that he does not believe enough time has been allotted to Anaheim taxpayers to analyze
and provide input on the settlement. He expressed concern about the publication of the finalized
settlement and the potential approval that will have taken place in 24 hours and finds it baffling. He
noted it takes longer to get a 7-11 approved than it has taken to get this settlement and agreement of
this magnitude publicized and approved in the City. He advised a 24-hour notice raises transparency
concerns and does not provide ample time for public communication. He would have hoped the City
would have learned its lesson this go around. He commented that The Notice of Violation was kept
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 11 of 16
from City Council for months and was unacceptable. He noted the ramrodding of this settlement was
unfortunate because it is one of the largest decisions made in Anaheim's history. He advised what
was being done was creative accounting and the overall number has still not changed. He noted that
to add insult to injury, it was only increasing the financial interest of the Angels due to the possibility
of affordable housing not being built on -site although those units were zoned to be created. He
explained that means they would be able to be sold at market rate and at a conservative number,
which means tens of millions going into the pockets of the Angels instead of the taxpayers of
Anaheim. He did not support the direction and the speed at which the settlement was moving and
advised he would not be supporting the settlement.
Council Member Moreno inquired about the Housing Element. He requested Planning and Building
Director Ted White provide a summary of the comments received from HCD on the City's Draft
Housing Element.
Mayor Sidhu requested Mr. Fabela intervene as this meeting was not about the Housing Element. Mr.
Fabela recommended Council Member Moreno reword the question to connect it to the settlement.
Council Member Moreno advised this has been put out by the City as an historic investment in
affordable housing throughout the City. He explained if City Council was being asked to vote on the
merits of this settlement in part because it provides affordable housing throughout the City, there
were implications of where the housing would go. He noted, that one of the benefits, if any, of the
current situation, means that 466 units would be built on -site. He advised if the City agrees to the
settlement, then 1,000 units would be pushed out to the rest of the City. He inquired if this implicates
other policy goals or does it have implications for further segregating the pockets of poverty in the
City. He believed the settlement would put the City in conflict with the City's Housing Element that has
to be approved by HCD. He also inquired if it was relevant to this settlement that the City was
agreeing to push $96,000,000 outside the stadium site.
Mr. White advised the City received a 14-page letter from HCD, which is not uncommon given the
Housing Element is 1,000 pages. He summarized that there were questions regarding site selection,
which is to be expected, along with a request for additional data. He advised the City's planning
consultant was hard at work with staff to put that additional data request together. He reported it has
not been resubmitted to HCD but would come before City Council for another concurrence before it
was sent.
Mr. White believed the stipulated judgment would comply with the direction received from HCD. He
noted the City would be updating the Draft Housing Element to reflect the parameters of the
stipulated judgment.
Council Member Moreno believed the City has encountered legal troubles with HCD even though
they have approved previous plans. He noted the City has to be very cautious to make sure the City
is not contradicting any component of the Housing Element.
Council Member Moreno reported that HCD required analysis of Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration
of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Areas of Affluence (RCAA). He referenced the letter from HCD that states,
"The element states that a R/ECAP does not exist, however, HCD notes the City does have areas of
High Segregation and Poverty according to TCAC/HCD Opportunity maps. In addition, the element
identifies the concentrated area of affluence. As a result, the element should include a specific
analysis of these areas, as described above, to better formulate appropriate goals and actions." He
referenced the letter from HCD regarding Disparities in Access to Opportunity that states "As noted
above, the element must include analysis of disparities in access to opportunity. This analysis must
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 12 of 16
address access to education and economic opportunities." He referenced the letter from HCD
regarding Sites Inventory that states "While the element provides information regarding the
placement of sites relative to race, income, and disparities in access to opportunity (composite level),
additional analysis is required. For example, the element, for all components of the assessment of fair
housing, should address the number of units by income group, the magnitude of impact on local
patterns, any isolation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) by income group, and
address the concentrations of sites in key areas and corridors." Council Member Moreno inquired if
there were maps submitted to HCD that identify the sites in the Housing Element. He noted if the City
was going to spend $96,000,000 on affordable housing he wanted to make sure they were being built
on the sites identified.
Mr. White advised he has them in hard copy but does not have the maps available for display. He
noted it was the sites identified in the Housing Element Workshop in October 2021.
Council Member Moreno advised this was a critical element and asked for City Council and residents
to look at the maps that identify the stadium site as a huge component that would contribute to the
areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Areas of Affluence (RCAA). He noted the maps also
identify a heavy concentration of racial and economic segregation. He expressed concern about
voting on the stipulated judgment because he wanted to know if it aligns with the City's goals of
wanting to integrate the community racially and economically as there is not enough time to do the
analysis. He expressed concern that the public has also not had enough time to hear about the
stipulated agreements.
Council Member Moreno inquired if the maps reported to the State identify the stadium site as a
location. Mr. White confirmed the stadium site is one of the candidate sites reported in the Housing
Element for opportunities for affordable housing.
Council Member Moreno inquired what the expected workforce housing would be based on the
anticipated 45,000 jobs expected at the stadium site and inquired if it was contemplated in the
settlement. Mr. Stepter advised the workforce numbers were not taken into account but added the
number she put out was based on units. She explained when units are developed, staff is looking at
all levels of needs including seniors, the homeless, and the workforce so it contemplates building for
a variety of needs.
Mr. White noted it was important to note that the average salary of $65,000 that Council Member
Moreno was quoting would be eligible for very low-income housing and the monies identified in the
settlement are required to go to low, very low, and extremely low-income residents.
Council Member Moreno advised the $124,000,000 allocated in credits was going to give the City 466
units. He inquired how the City could project 1,000 units with $96,000,000 with $263,000 per unit. Ms.
Stepter advised she does not expect to use that $96,000,000 in isolation and would leverage a 3-to-1
ratio in dollars to stretch.
SUBSIDIARY MOTION: Council Member Moreno moved to continue Item No. 01 to May 3, 2022 or
May 17, 2022, seconded by Council Member Valencia.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Valencia noted he did not understand the need to expedite it but
believed it was at the Attorney Generals' request.
Mayor Pro Tern O'Neil noted that he did not support the substitute motion. He reported it was
interesting now to hear that the conversation has shifted to where the affordable housing would go.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 13 of 16
He noted affordable housing was identified for the site before HCD got involved and it was to be the
largest, integrated affordable housing development in Orange County history. He noted that at some
point the production of affordable housing units has to be implemented and believed City Council and
Mayor have done that. He stated that others talk but the leaders of City Council take action.
Council Member Valencia clarified for the record that he did not vote on the original deal and noted
that the concerns that he has had since last year pertain to what he alluded to earlier.
Council Member Moreno encouraged City Council to continue the item and noted that if it does not
pass he would be forced to vote against the stipulated judgment. He noted the State still suggests the
City violated the Surplus Land Act and the City is settling to avoid the litigation costs. He advised
without additional discussion, conversation, and clarification he was opposed to the settlement as
proposed. He believed as proposed, the settlement absolves the City of the illegal, no -bid sale of its
most valuable asset and levies a $96,000,000 fine/penalty that should otherwise be in the City's
General Fund. He noted the settlement intensifies racial and economic segregation in the City by
pushing affordable housing away from the 153-acre Stadium site and Platinum Triangle District in
direct contradiction to the Housing Element submitted to HCD. He noted residents would benefit from
the affordable housing that comes from the stadium settlement and hoped the housing would be
equitably and spatially distributed throughout the City and prioritize low and very -low-income housing
units as stipulated. He advised through his role as a City Council Member since 2016 he remained a
firm advocate for affordable housing. He advised the dais has not supported any motion he has made
to support affordable housing in any project that has been before City Council in public hearings.
Council Member Moreno reported the City's settlement and the transaction has concerning
implications for the application for the California Surplus Land Act and causes an inability to advocate
for meaningful projects for deeply affordable housing on public -owned surplus property. He explained
the purpose of the Surplus Land Act and noted with the settlement, the City does not have to build
affordable housing on -site which is in opposition to one of the goals of the SLA. He explained that as
learned tonight, SBR Management can simply say no. He expressed concern regarding
transparency. He advised Mayor Sidhu appointed himself as the representative of the City in
negotiations with the intention that he would report to City Council and receive their input for a
negotiation agreement. He advised that Mayor Sidhu instead returned and decided on a proposed
sale agreement that left little or no room for consultation with the public. He advised no public forums
were provided other than the day of the public hearing. Council Member Moreno stated that Mayor
Sidhu and the City Council majority at that time decided they knew what was best for Anaheim
without consulting residents and the public.
Council Member Moreno reported on December 21, 2021, HCD concluded the City violated the
Surplus Land Act by failing to declare Angel Stadium as surplus, failed to send a Notice of Availability
pursuant to the SLA, and violated the Surplus Land Act by failing to provide required documents per
code.
Council Member Moreno questioned why the City Council majority chose to not put the site out to bid
under the SLA process and resolve this sooner. He noted as a long resident and City Council
Member he expressed concern about the precedent the City was setting and what it signals to other
municipalities. He advised Mayor Sidhu and the City Council Majority illegally sold Angel Stadium's
surrounding land in a no -bid deal real estate deal that has cost the taxpayers $96,000,000. He noted
that while the fine would go towards affordable housing, the fact remains that the law was broken. He
advised the settlement pushes affordable housing away from the site, furthering racial and economic
segregation in the City. He noted the flatlands would bear the brunt of Mayor Sidhu and the Council
Majority's alleged illegal behavior. He advised the message is that if you are a hardworking resident
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 14 of 16
of Anaheim you may work and serve in Anaheim but you are not welcome to live in the stadium
district.
Council Member Moreno encouraged City Council to continue with the item so they could prove him
wrong or the public could tell him to support the settlement.
SUBSIDIARY MOTION: Council Member Moreno moved to continue Item No. 01 to May 3, 2022 or
May 17, 2022, seconded by Council Member Valencia. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 2 (Council
Members Moreno and Valencia); NOES — 5 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members O'Neil, Diaz, Ma'ae,
and Faessel). Motion failed.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz advised that he does not know how moving affordable housing
from the stadium area increases the racial inequality in the City. He noted he campaigned to increase
economic development in the City. He advised the City depends a lot on the Resort district and the
City needs a diversified economy. He reported he campaigned for all types of housing and the only
way to get that it is to develop all types of housing. He advised he would be supporting the item. He
noted that today Angel Stadium is a large parking lot generating heat and a lot of liability. He noted
eventually the City would have to pay to renovate the Stadium and surrounding area. He advised the
area in the future would have new houses, supermarkets, entertainment, one of the biggest parks in
the City, and revenue coming to the City along with a new fire station and new water well. He noted
the choice was obvious and advised sports stadiums are a huge economic engine.
Council Member Faessel advised Mr. Henninger reported the stipulated agreement has no
requirement for leveraging and requesting additional information from the City Attorney.
Mr. Fabela advised the stipulated judgment does not require there to be leveraging but requires a
good faith effort and attempts to leverage the $27,700,000. He noted that that the attempts to
leverage the housing trust side, the $96,000,000, would be based on the practices of the housing
trust and how the trustee directs how to handle the funds. He stated that Ms. Stepter would know
exactly what to do.
Council Member Faessel advised he was just making the point that the housing trust was not before
the City Council this evening.
Council Member Faessel inquired if the $96,000,000 was ever earmarked for the General Fund. Mr.
Fabela advised he could not answer the question because he did not know what statement Council
Member Faessel was referring to but he reiterated that the $96,000,000 and $27,700,000 did not
come out of thin air but were reflective of the credit provided to SRB Management as part of the last
Purchase and Sale Agreement. He explained that $96,000,000 would be placed in the housing trust
and the remainder would be used as an investment on the site for affordable housing.
Council Member Faessel stated this was still the largest commitment to affordable housing ever seen
in the City and some housing would be around the City and some would be on the stadium site. He
agreed it was important that they be divided equitably across the City. He would love to see 1,000
units but noted that was not specifically before City Council this evening. He advised the units would
be built over the next five (5) years due to the stipulated judgment. He believed it was a great win for
the City.
Council Member Ma'ae inquired how many years Ms. Stepter has been involved in affordable
housing. Ms. Stepter reported she has been doing affordable housing development for 10 years and
has a longer career upwards of 20 years with subsidized housing.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 15 of 16
Council Member Ma'ae thanked Ms. Stepter for her years of service and noted she has all the faith in
Ms. Stepter to get the money leveraged for the City.
Council Member Ma'ae inquired how long Mr. White has been involved in planning, to which Mr.
White reported he has been a planner for 25 years.
Council Member Ma'ae advised between the two staff members there are 50 years of experience and
she knows they would stretch that dollar as far as possible. She noted she has faith in both Mr. White
and Ms. Stepter. She advised she came into her role after the deal was made but has made it a point
to understand the deal with an open mind. She acknowledged it was a complicated matter and she
learned about the SLA and its impacts. She understood that the State believes the City violated the
SLA and the City does not believe it did and that is just where things are at today. She advised she
has met with residents who want the deal renegotiated and others who embrace the deal. She
believed this was the best deal for the residents of Anaheim that allows the City to keep the Angels
and generate revenue for the City. She advised affordable housing is a great need in the City. She
knew that the staff would do right by the citizens of Anaheim and every development that comes out
of this would be for the residents of Anaheim. She expressed concern that Council Member Moreno
would not vote for this since he is such a proponent of affordable housing. She advised this was an
opportunity for the City to make the largest investment in affordable housing that it has ever done and
noted she would be supporting the item.
Mayor Sidhu stated that misinformation on this item was given by a member of the dais. He advised
this was a mutual agreement between Anaheim and the State of California. He explained there was
no wrongdoing, no fault, and no concession of wrongdoing by the City of Anaheim. He advised
terming it a violation of the SLA or an illegal sale was misinformation. He noted he heard that the City
did not have enough time to review and that secret meetings were held. He advised no secret
meetings were held and City Council was transparent with the process. He advised a judge validated
the entire process.
Mayor Sidhu recognized the importance of the agreement for the public. He advised today the City
moves forward with affordable housing for those who need it and clears the way for the plans for the
stadium. He advised that over the next few weeks, the stadium plan would work through the final
stages of the process. He noted the vast majority of the community supports the plan for the future of
baseball in Anaheim. He called the lawsuit unnecessary and he believed what was happening tonight
was right.
MOTION: Mayor Sidhu moved to approve Settlement (by way of a Stipulated Judgment in Orange
County Superior Court) with the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD)
and the California Attorney General regarding HCD's Notice of Violation dated December 8, 2021,
alleging that the City's sale of Angel Stadium to SRB Management, LLC (SRB) violated the Surplus
Land Act (SLA), on the following basic terms: (1) the City to create a local housing trust that would be
funded by 30% of the Angel Stadium purchase price (approximately $96,000,000) and would be used
to fund low, very -low, and extremely -low affordable housing units in Anaheim, (2) the City would
ensure at least $27,700,000 worth of low and very -low affordable housing would be built on the
Stadium project site, and would make efforts in conjunction with HCD to seek funding for up to 466
units on -site, subject to the City's discretionary authority and SRB's consent; (3) the City would not
admit liability under the SLA, and (4) HCD and the California Attorney General would cease from
further enforcement of the SLA as to the Stadium sale, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem O'Neil. ROLL
CALL VOTE: AYES — 5 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members O'Neil, Diaz, Ma'ae, and Faessel);
NOES — 2 (Council Members Moreno and Valencia). Motion carried.
City Council Minutes of April 26, 2022 (Special Meeting)
Page 16 of 16
ADJOURNMENT:
At 7:43 P.M., Mayor Sidhu adjourned the Special Meeting of the City Council.
R ctfully submitted,
There a Bass, CIVIC
City Clerk
PublicComment
From:Theresa Bass
Sent:Monday, April 25, 2022 12:06 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:FW: \[EXTERNAL\] Please post to council comments.
From: Denise Barnes <
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Theresa Bass <TBass@anaheim.net>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Please post tocouncil comments.
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.
Why would you vote for tax payers to pick up the tab? Just say that we, the city, are being fined and that the
mayor, and his team, made a big mistake. Unbelievable!
Begin forwarded message:
From: Denise Barnes <
Date: April 25, 2022 at 11:56:32 AM PDT
To: Denise Barnes <
Subject: News Flash • Anaheim, CA • CivicEngage
https://www.anaheim.net/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2409
1
PublicComment
From:wtcourtney@aol.com
Sent:Monday, 4:25 PM
To:wtcourtney@aol.com; Public Comment
Cc:info@srbmanagement.com; Mike Lyster; william.shaikin@latimes.com; Robert Fabela
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Re: Support for Stadium Development Plan? NO!
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.
Dear Mayor Harry Sidhu and Members of the Anaheim City Council,
Do NOT approve the City paying $96 MILLION from the stadium sale for affordable housing.
I DO NOT support the City selling the Stadium property with the current plan. VOTE NO, AND
WORK ON A FAIR DEAL FOR THE ANAHEIM TAXPAYERS!!!
YOU WILL BE VERY EMBARRASSED WHEN SRB/MORENO GET'S THESE ENTITLEMENTS
APPROVED AND THEN SELLS THE PROPERTY FOR 100's OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
PROFITS! THE TRANSACTION SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A CLAUSE THAT ALLOWS THE
CITY THE FIRST RIGHT TO PURCHASE AT THE BUYER'S COST SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO
SELL. WHY SHOULD SRB PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF ANAHEIM TAXPAYERS?
As our leaders, I hope you will look closely at what this proposed agreement and plan DOES NOT
OFFER....NAMELY, THE MARKET VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY ($246Mil - $96Mil = $150Mil
for 153 acres, how much do the taxpayers get for the Stadium and the Grove? $0...that's how much!).
Your NO VOTE CAN take Anaheim and their residents to the next level.
Thank you for your leadership. Please do the proper thing and VOTE NO. THIS IS NOT a great deal
for the City of Anaheim.
WALLY COURTNEY
ANAHEIM TAXPAYER
1
PublicComment
From:DAVID DURAN <davidlukeduran@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26,
To:Public Comment
Cc:Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Jennifer Diaz; Trevor O'Neil; Stephen Faessel; Jose Moreno;
Avelino Valencia; Gloria S. Ma'ae; Kelly Aviles; Norberto Santana;
scustodio@voiceofoc.org; Karen Hernandez; Ed Lopez; Jeanine Robbins; Thomas
Fielder; Linda Lehnkering; Kenneth Batiste; PAT7OAKS
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] RE: Public Comments (City Council
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.
According to Rob Bonta, California Attorney General, the City of Anaheim will be required to:
Deposit approximately $96 million into a local housing trust fund for the sole purpose of financing new
extremely low, very low, and low-income housing in the City of Anaheim over the next five years; Provide the
Attorney General with periodic detailed reports tracing those funds to specific affordable housing development
projects, until the funds are fully disbursed; Commit an additional $27 million in affordable housing credits to
the Angels for the development of up to 466 affordable housing units on the Angel Stadium Property Site;
and allow the Angels to leverage the $27 million with development incentives and public financing to ensure
the timely development of these units.
Rob Banta called on the City Council to approve the proposed judgment, which would dedicate more than $123
million to fund the construction of affordable housing on an expedited timeline and could result in more than
1,000 new affordable homes.
Sidhu continues to lie to the public by stating that the City of Anaheim acted legally, leading the residents and
public to believe that the State Attorney General is wrong to impose any amendments to the city’s behind closed
doors negotiations and corrupt dealing(s) with the Angels Baseball and SRB management.
The residents & taxpayers of Anaheim, funded the corrupt sale of the stadium and the city’s owned largest
parcel surrounding the stadium. Now, with the stadium giveaway and the Attorney General’sproposal, the
taxpayers are again being lied to by Sidhu when he states that SRB will be paying the approximately $96
million considering the fact that the $96 million is taxpayer money that was corruptly given to SRB in the first
place.
All of this could and would have been avoided if the corrupt mayor followed the law in accordance with the
Surplus Land Act; instead, his calculated corruption, greed, and ineptitude targeted ignoring the law as evident
by the city’s defendant position vs. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
I demand that the city’s so-called mayor (Harry Sidhu) immediately recognize wrongdoing and immediately
resign….the residents of the city deserve better.
LINK: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-calls-anaheim-city-council-approve-
proposed-stipulated
1
DavidL. Duran
Orange County, California
cell:
Breach of confidentiality & accidental breach of confidentiality
This email and any files transmitted with itare confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If
you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
2
PublicComment
From:H Garten <grtnhs@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday,
To:Public Comment
Cc:Jose Moreno
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Anaheim Stadium Sale Legal Settlement (proposed), Vote No...
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 26, 2022
We three, Warren Garten, Marcia Garten and Steven Garten and we allvote in everyelection here in Anaheim since
2000, are strongly opposed tothe settlement regarding the saleofthe Angel Stadium, asproposed, between theCity
of Anaheim and the State Attorney General’sOffice. Asproposed, the settlement absolves the City’sillegal no-bid
sale ofour most valuable asset; leviesa $100 million fine that should otherwise beinour general fund forparks,
neighborhood services, infrastructure, and public safety; and the settlement further intensifies racial and economic
segregation inour city bypushing affordable housing away from the153 acres stadium district and platinum
triangle–indirect contradiction toour Housing Element assubmitted totheState ofCalifornia. Inessence, this
settlement approves anillegal act that is akintosomeone taking your home and offering your child abicycle to
compensate.
Itisinarguable that the City of Anaheim andits residents will benefit greatly fromthe affordable housing that will
come from the Angel Stadium settlement. Ihope thatthe housing will beequitably spatially distributed throughout
the City, and that the City prioritizes very low income (VLI) and low income (LI) units. Through my role asaCity
Council member since 2018, Ihaveremained and continue to beafirm advocate for affordable housing, especially
for very low income and low income households. Ihavefirmly advocated that affordable housing beequitably
spatially distributed throughout the City, even attimes when the current council majority didnot wish toconverse
and agendize the topic when itcame tothe Housing Element and/orother development projects that havecome upto
avote.
Anaheim'ssettlement for the Angel Stadium transaction hasconcerning implications for the application ofthe
California Surplus Land Act andadvocates ability to advocate for meaningful projects with deep affordable housing
onpublicly-owned surplus properties. The CA SLAisdesigned toprioritize affordable housing and other
community benefits onpublicly-owned surplus properties. With the settlement, itappears the Citydoes not have to
build affordable housing unitsonsite, which isinopposition toone ofthe goals ofthe SLA ofhaving affordable
housing incorporated toa proposed project.
Moreoever, throughout the Angel Stadium negotiation and ultimately itssale, there was aclear issue of
transparency. Mayor Sidhu appointed himself asthe representative ofthe City innegotiations with the intention that
hewould report tocouncil and receive their input for anegotiation agreement. However, Sidhucame back and
decided onaproposed sale agreement and left little tono room for consultation with the Council and the public.
Additionally, the Citydid not provide publicforums where residents and other members ofthe publiccould learn
about theongoing negotiations andprovide their input. Mayor Sidhu and the Council majority decided thatthey
knew whatwas best forAnaheim without consulting residents and thepublic.
On December 2021 the CA Housing andCommunity Development department concluded thatthe City was in
violation ofofthe CA Surplus Land Act and found that:
1. The Cityfailed to declare theAngel Stadium property as “surplus”
2. The City failedtoput out anotice ofavailability as required bytheSLA
1
3. The City violated the Surplus Land Act byfailing toprovide HCD the information and documents required by
Government Code section 54230.5(b)(1) prior toagreeing totermstodispose oftheProperty.
The question remains, “Whydid the Council Majority choose tonot put this land upfor abid under the SLA process
and resolve this sooner?” Asalongtime Anaheim resident and Anaheim council member, Iam concerned ofthe
precedent we are setting asaCity and whatitsignals toother municipalities that they can circumvent the law and
negotiate adeal onpublicly-owned surplus properties behind closed doors andsimply payafine later down the line.
The bottom line isthis: Mayor Harry Sidhu, and his Council majority, illegally sold our Anaheim Stadium and
surrounding land onano-bid realestate dealthat is now costing the taxpayers of Anaheim $100 million in state
imposed fines. Whilethe $100 million fine will gotoward building affordable housing inAnaheim, the fact remains
that the lawwas broken. Endsdo not justifythe means. As proposed, the settlement pushes such affordable housing
away fromthe stadium site furthering racial and economic segregation inour City. Soonceagain, the flatlands of
Anaheim will bear the responsibility ofMayor Sidhu andhis Council majority’s illegalbehavior. The message to
Anaheim residents–take aback seat tothe Mayor’sfriends and campaign contributors; and ifyou are ahard-working
resident inour City? You may work and serve inAnaheim but you are not welcome tolive inthe Stadium district.
Thank you,
Marcia, Warren and Steve Garten
Anaheim Ca92805
2
PublicComment
From:Pat D <pat7oaks@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,
To:Public Comment
Cc:Gloria S. Ma'ae; Jose Moreno; Jose Diaz; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Trevor
O'Neil; Avelino Valencia
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Public Comments Special mtg and #14
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.
14
http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/33393/33423/33424/33651/Documents.htm
Congratulations in making this move to create a bit more affordable housing. Too bad took so long to get into
this approach and how about you commit to pursuing all districts to create these opportunities? Your efforts in
taking seriously the RHNA goals assigned and gain approval for Anaheim's General Plan in this Housing
Element cycle is more cruel and arrogant work by majority of the Council. Failing to focus on Affordable
Housing, unless free money and legislation/court action compels you to do the right thing, reflects the council
majority's continuation of devaluing members of our community who are housing insecure.
You must do better!
Special meeting
http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/33765/33795/33796/33802/Documents.htm
Before you celebrate and continue your self righteous approach as to Stadium sale
and the Surplus Land Act, please realize you VIOLATED THE SURPLUS LAND ACT!!!
The current legislation worked as best it could but we the citizenry of Anaheim are still screwed. Financially
many holes exist and all because of the work of this majority Council.
Our biggest asset is gone. Our city is on verge of bankruptcy. You continue your commitment to lack of
transparency though I note you decided to manage this "deal" in open session. You might be catching on as to
Brown Act but I doubt it. You can'tbe trusted.
As implementation of the General plan moves forward for this RHNA Cycle you will need to step up and get
some viable proposals on the table for adequate low and very low income affordable housing builds. Housing
and Community Development is pretty clear on what you need to do and the community is watching.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and site identification big areas of compliance you haven't adequately
addressed.
Following all your self congratulatory activities at the expense of our community is exhausting, infuriating, and
now we know, can be found illegal!
Your knowledgeable staff know what needs to be done. Listening to their ideas and past successful practices is
key.
While I truly wonder about the capacity of most of you, if able, you must do better!
Pat Davis
1
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and typos.
2