APFA2022/09/27ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
The Anaheim Public Financing Authority regular meeting of September 27, 2022 was called to
order at 5:55 P.M. in the Council Chamber located at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. in joint session with
the Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, the Anaheim Housing Authority,
and the Anaheim City Council. The meeting notice, agenda, and related materials were duly
posted on September 22, 2022.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vice Chairman Trevor O'Neil and Authority Members Jose Diaz,
Gloria Sahagun Ma'ae, Jose F. Moreno, Avelino Valencia, and
Stephen Faessel [Chairperson vacancy]
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and
Secretary Theresa Bass.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items):
No in -person public comments related to the Anaheim Public Financing Authority agenda.
One (1) public comment was submitted electronically related to the Anaheim Public Financing
Authority agenda, which was distributed to the Anaheim Public Financing Authority, and made
part of the official record. — See Appendix.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Member Valencia reported his attendance at the groundbreaking ceremony for the
Miraflores Affordable Housing Community in District 4. He also expressed his pride to
participate at his alma mater Roosevelt Elementary School's Career and College Day.
Council Member Faessel requested the meeting adjourn in memory of District 5 resident and
former Anaheim Convention Center employee Leon Darrell Frerichs. He acknowledged a
Nextdoor post by a Sycamore neighborhood mom where she shared that no friends attended
her son's 12th birthday. Council Member Faessel expressed appreciation for neighbors'
responses on Nextdoor and led the Council in wishing Mr. Seguviano a Happy Birthday.
Council Member Diaz highlighted Happy Barber at 2711 W. Lincoln Ave., a Vietnamese -
immigrant owned small business. He reported on building efforts at Beach Blvd. and Lincoln
Ave. and further announced that WSS recently opened at the northwest corner of Beach Blvd.
and Lincoln Avenue. He encouraged residents to support Anaheim businesses to help transform
Beach Blvd. He announced the Neighborhood Services Meeting for Districts 1 and 2 would be
held on Thursday, October 6 at 7:00 P.M. at the Brookhurst Community Center. He also noted
that October 5 is National Coffee with a Cop Day and residents could meet with the West
Anaheim Community Policing Team from 7:30-8:30 at the 7-11 on the southwest corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Beach Blvd.
Anaheim Public Financing Authority Minutes of September 27, 2022
Page 2 of 3
Council Member Moreno thanked Kaboom!, the Anaheim Ducks, Holy Moly employees, and
volunteers for building a new playground at Center Greens Park. He acknowledged the efforts
of City staff in obtaining grants to help build out the entire park. He announced the rescheduled
Community Resource Fair and neighborhood clean-up event in the Onondaga/Glen
neighborhood on Saturday, October 1. Council Member Moreno referenced Project Labor
Agreements at the Anaheim Union High School District, the City, the Anaheim Elementary
School District, and potentially with the OC Vibe project and expressed appreciation for the
focus on union labor and particularly local labor. He thanked Sandra Lozeau for quickly
responding to emails regarding encampments and offering services to those experiencing
homelessness while balancing needs of residents. He announced that a requested discussion
of street racing and street takeovers would be held at the October 4 City Council meeting. He
thanked the Anaheim Public Utilities and Public Works departments for their efforts in the
Northeast Colony Neighborhood project with new roads, gutters, pavement markings, lighting,
and underground electrical.
Council Member Ma'ae displayed photos and shared the various events and activities she
attended over the past year since she was appointed as the District 2 City Council Member. She
expressed gratitude for the responsibilities and opportunities she was provided, thanking staff,
her colleagues, and her family for their support and assistance. She requested the meeting
adjourn in memory of her friend, neighbor, and Army veteran Bryan Robert Gentile.
CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE:
City Manager Jim Vanderpool invited the public to the Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department's
Wildfire Preparedness Fair at Fire Station No. 10 on Saturday, October 15, 10:00 A.M. — 2:00
P.M. where they can visit the goats, meet firefighters, learn more about the Know Your Way and
paramedic programs, and lunch will be served. He noted that more information could be found
at www.anaheim.net/fire and on the department's social media platforms. Mr. Vanderpool also
announced that the Public Works Department was bringing forward over $1,000,000 of citywide
concrete work to improve sidewalks, pathways, curbs, gutters, driveways, and in nine City
parks.
At 6:56 P.M., Vice Chairman O'Neil recessed the Anaheim Public Financing Authority to
address the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Anaheim Housing Authority, and
Anaheim City Council agendas.
At 9:56 P.M., Chairman O'Neil reconvened the Anaheim Public Financing Authority.
B137.1 26.
RESOLUTION NO. APFA-2022-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
AGR-13776
DIRECTORS OF THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY authorizing the
AGR-13776.0.1
execution and delivery by the Authority of a Ground Lease, a Lease Agreement, a First
AGR-13776.0.2
Amendment to Lease Agreement, an Assignment Agreement, a Master Indenture, a
AGR-13776.0.2.1
Fixed Rate Supplemental Indenture, a Variable Rate Supplemental Indenture, a Bond
Purchase Contract, a Revolving Bond Purchase Agreement, an Accounts Agreement
AGR-13776.0.3
and a Continuing Disclosure Agreement in connection with the issuance of Anaheim
AGR-13776.0.4
Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Arena Improvement
AGR-13776.0.5
Project), approving the issuance of the Lease Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal
AGR-13776.0.E
amount of not to exceed $400,000,000, authorizing the distribution of a Preliminary
AGR-13776.0.7
Official Statement and an Official Statement and authorizing the execution of necessary
AGR-13776.0.8
AGR-13776.0.9
AGR-13776.0.10
AGR-13776.0.11
Anaheim Public Financing Authority Minutes of September 27, 2022
Page 3 of 3
documents and certificates and related actions (related to City Council Public Hearing
Item No. 25-B).
Finance Director Debbie Moreno explained all the terms are the same as previously discussed
during Anaheim City Council Public Hearing Item No. 25 [see minutes of Anaheim City Council
meeting of September 27, 2022].
MOTION: Authority Member Diaz moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. APFA-2022-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY authorizing the execution and delivery by the Authority of a Ground Lease, a
Lease Agreement, a First Amendment to Lease Agreement, an Assignment Agreement, a
Master Indenture, a Fixed Rate Supplemental Indenture, a Variable Rate Supplemental
Indenture, a Bond Purchase Contract, a Revolving Bond Purchase Agreement, an Accounts
Agreement and a Continuing Disclosure Agreement in connection with the issuance of Anaheim
Public Financing Authority Lease Revenue Bonds (Anaheim Arena Improvement Project),
approving the issuance of the Lease Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of not to
exceed $400,000,000, authorizing the distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement and an
Official Statement and authorizing the execution of necessary documents and certificates and
related actions, seconded by Authority Member Ma'ae. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Vice
Chairman O'Neil and Authority Members Diaz, Ma'ae, Moreno, Valencia, and Faessel; NOES —
0. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to conduct, without objection, Vice Chairman O'Neil adjourned
the meeting of the Anaheim Public Financing Authority at 9:57 P.M.
1,,r.1;�o tfully submitted,
_ There a Bass, CMC
Secretary, Anaheim Public Financing Authority
Public Comment
From: jordan@gideonlaw.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 2:54 PM
To: Public Comment; City Clerk
Cc: danielle.wilson@uniteherel 1.org; 'Bridget McConaughy'; gk@gideonlaw.net
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Items 25-A, 25-B & 26 City Council (9/27/22): OCvibe Project Approvals.
Attachments: 2022.09.27_Council Comments_OC Vibe.pdf
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 Honorable City Council:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11, please see attached comments on the above -referenced items regarding the
OCvibe project approvals. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any issues retrieving. City Clerk, please confirm
receipt of this message including attachment —many thanks.
Very truly yours,
Jordan R. Sisson, Attorney
Law Office of Gideon Kracov
801 S. Grand Ave., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Direct: 951-542-2735
Fax:213-623-7755
jordan@gideonlaw. net
www.gideonlaw.net
PRIVILE( ED AND CONFIDk WFIAL: 'Fhis c➢cc:ti°o ic. iiressage contains information. frorn the Law Office of Gideon. Krac:ov and is
attorney works product c:onfidcnlia➢ or privileged. 'Fhe information. is intended so➢e➢y for the use of the in.dividua➢(s)or
enlity(tes) stained above. If you have received this transmission in. error, p➢ease destroy the origina➢ transmission and its
attachments without reading or saving in. any manner.
GKLAw
LAND USE, EwiRONIbIENTAL & MUN1c1PAL LAwYERs
September 27, 2022
VIA EMAIL:
City Council, City of Anaheim (publiccomment@anaheim.net)
c/o City Clerk's Office (cityclerk@anaheim.net)
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Jordan R. Sisson
801 South Grand Avenue, 1 lth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Direct: (951) 542-2735
Fax: (213) 623-7755
E-mail: jordanCgideonlaw.net
www.gideonlaw.net
RE: Items 25-A, 25-B & 26 City Council Hearing September 27, 2022;
100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
Dear Honorable City Council:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 ("Local 11"), this office respectfully provides the
following comments' to the City of Anaheim ("Anaheim") concerning the proposed development of
1,500 residential dwelling units, 1,922,766 square feet ("sf') of commercial, 961,055 sf office, and
250,000 sf institutional uses, and other onsite/offsite improvements ("Project" or "OC Vibe") on
roughly 101 acres within the City's Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan ("PTMLUP") and
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use ("PTMU") Overlay Zone. In furtherance of the Project, Anaheim Real
Estate Partners ("AREP" or "Applicant") is seeking various land use permits ("Entitlements")2 and
a Development Agreement (No. DAG2020-00004) ("DA") pursuant to the Anaheim Municipal Code
("AMC" or "Code"). With regard to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"),3 the City is considering the adoption of Addendum No. 11 ("Addendum" or "Add 11") to
the 2010 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339 ("FSEIR No. 339").4
In short, the Addendum and Project Entitlements' findings do not adequately address and
analyze inconsistencies with the City's draft housing element and housing goals, such as the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") affordable housing obligations. Furthermore, Local
11 questions the analysis of the Project's new, potentially significant impacts on energy use, vehicle
miles traveled ("VMT"), and greenhouse gas emissions ("GHG"). The City has the discretion to seek
more public benefits. Additional affordable and market -rate housing should be required.
For the reasons discussed herein, Local 11 respectfully asks that the City not grant the
Entitlements, DA, and Addendum (collectively "Project Approvals") at this time and also that it
recirculate a CEQA-compliant environmental review.
' Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., "p. #") or PDF-page location (i.e., "PDF p. #").
z Including but not limited to: 1) General Plan Amendment (GPA2020-00532); 2) Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan Amendment (MIS2020-00739); 3) Reclassification (RCL2020-00333); 4) Zoning Code
Amendment (ZCA2020-00174); 5) Special Sign District Amendments and Coordinated Sign Programs; 6)
Final Site Plan (FSP2020-00004 through-00008); 7) Conditional Use Permit (CUP2010-05492) Amendment
and alcohol related Conditional Use Permit; 8) Minor Conditional Use Permit; 9) Tentative Tract Map (TTM
No. 19153). (See Add 11, pp. 1-2, 42-45.)
3 Including "CEQA Guidelines" codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq.
4 Inclusive of all associated appendices ("APP-##") retrieved from City -controlled website. (See https://
www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/45 716/Addendum-No-11-and-Appendices-List?bidld).
Items 25 & 26 RE: 100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 2 of 10
I. LOCAL 11'S STANDING
Local 11 represents more than 25,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports,
sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix —including
thousands of members who live and/or work in the City. The union has a First Amendment right to
petition public officials in connection with matters of public concern, including compliance with
applicable zoning rules and CEQA, just as developers, other community organizations, and
individual residents do. Protecting its members' interest in the environment, including advocating
for the environmental sustainability of development projects and ensuring the availability of
housing and hotels (in compliance with state and local rules), is part of Local 11's core function.
Recognizing unions' interest and union members' interest in these issues, California courts have
consistently upheld unions' standing to litigate land use and environmental claims. (See Bakersfield
Citizens v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1198.) Furthermore, Local 11 has public
interest standing to challenge the Project Approvals given the City's public duty to comply with
applicable zoning and CEQA laws, which Local 11 seeks to enforce. (See e.g., Rialto Citizens for
Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.AppAth 899, 914-916, n.6; La Mirada Avenue
Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1158-1159;
Weiss v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 194, 205-206; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City
of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 CalAth 155, 166, 169-170.)
II. BACKGROUND ON STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA's PURPOSE: CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform
decision makers and the public about the potentially significant environmental effects of a project.
(See CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(1).) To this end, public agencies must ensure that their analysis
11stay[s] in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes." (Cleveland
National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 504 ("Cleveland
II"). Hence, an analysis that "understates the severity of a project's impacts impedes meaningful
public discussion and skews the decisionmaker's perspective concerning the environmental
consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of
project approval." (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017)
17 Cal.App.5th 413, 444 ("Cleveland III"); see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of
California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.)
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage by
requiring the implementation of "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation
measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) & (3); see also Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, at p. 564.)
If a project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it
finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment
where feasible" and that any significant unavoidable effects on the environment are "acceptable due
to overriding concerns." (Pub. Res. Code § 21081; see also Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (13).)
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ADDENDUM REVIEW: Generally, CEQA requires additional CEQA
documentation to a previously prepared EIR when there are either: (1) substantial changes to a
project; (2) circumstances involving the project that result in new or more severe significant
impacts; or (3) substantial new information showing either new or more severe significant effects
Items 25 & 26 RE: 100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 3 of 10
not previously disclosed, or new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would
substantially reduce significant impacts. (See e.g., CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162(a) [subsequent EIRs],
15163(a) [supplemental EIRs], 15164(a) [EIR addendums]; see e.g., See Ventura Foothill Neighbors
v. Counter f Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 436 (increase in project height from original CEQA
document required new CEQA review].)
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Under CEQA, substantial evidence includes facts, a reasonable
assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact; not argument, speculation,
unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence, or evidence of
social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the
environment. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(e), 21082.2(c); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(f)(5),
15384.) Courts will not blindly trust bare conclusions, bald assertions, and conclusory comments
without the "disclosure of the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled from evidence to action."'
(Laurel Heights Improvement Assn, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 404-405 [quoting Topanga Assn. for a
Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515]; Cleveland 111, 17 Cal.App.5th
at p. 441 [agency "obliged to disclose what it reasonably can ... [or] substantial evidence showing it
could not do so."].)
B. LAND USE, PLANNING, AND ZONING LAW
GENERAL PLANS: The California Supreme Court has described general plans as a
'constitution' located at the top of the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use (DeVita
v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773); as a'contract' between neighbors to forgo certain
property rights with the assurance that reciprocal enforcement will be mutually beneficial and
enhance the total community welfare (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los
Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 517-518); or as a'yardstick' where one can take an individual parcel
and check it against the plan to know which uses would be permissible (Orange Citizens for Parks &
Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 216, 159).
AGENCY DEFERENCE: While planning agencies enjoy some discretion in interpreting their
zoning laws, "deference has limits," and courts are not bound by unreasonable interpretations
contrary to the plain language of regulations and statutes. (Orange Citizens, 2 Cal.5th at 146, 156-
157 [rejecting attempts to "downplay the facial inconsistency," court held city abused its discretion
finding residential project consistent with general plan designation where "no reasonable person
could conclude that the Property could be developed without a general plan amendment"]; see also
Stolman v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 916, 928-930 [vacating variance based on
zoning administrator's interpretation contradicted by the plain language of the municipal code].)
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: To be compatible with an applicable general plan and its
elements, a proposed project must be "'in agreement or harmony with the terms of the applicable
plan ...." (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002)
102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678 [internal citations omitted]; see also Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of
Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 817 [a "project is consistent with the general plan if,
considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies ... and not obstruct their
attainment." (Emphasis added)].).
Items 25 & 26 RE: 100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 4 of 10
III. SPECIFIC ISSUES & COMMENTS WITH PROJECT/ADDENDUM
A. POTENTIAL LAND USE INCONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT SHOULD BE
DISCLOSED AND ANALYZED
Proper disclosure of land use inconsistencies is required under CEQA. (See e.g., CEQA
Guidelines § 15125(d); Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1552, 1566;
Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.AppAth 859, 881.) There
does not need to be a direct conflict to trigger this requirement; even if a project is "incompatible"
with the "goals and policies" of a land use plan, the EIR must assess the divergence between the
project and the plan, and mitigate any adverse effects of the inconsistencies. (See Napa Citizens for
Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 342, 378-79; see also
Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903 [holding under CEQA that a
significant impact exists where project conflicts with local land use policies].)
Local 11 questions why this Project swaps valuable public land to provide parking that serves
the Applicant's commercial needs. The Project proposes to rezone roughly 10 acres of City -owned
property from Open Space to General Commercial in order to provide 1,113 spaces of employee
surface parking (i.e., Arena District Sub Area A). (Add 11, pp. 16, 29, 38, 55, 67-71.) Furthermore,
the Project includes an exchange of land between the City and the Applicant and related parties.s As
shown in the below figure on the next page, the City would receive 119,180 sf of land located at the
northeast corner of Honda Center to be developed as a City -owned public parking structure (green)
in exchange for 109,050 sf of land located primarily west of Honda Center and south of Katella
Avenue, to facilitate Honda Center expansion improvements (see blue). Local 11 questions whether
onsite housing would be a superior use of this land in light of the City's desperate need for housing
(discussed below) and where land costs are claimed to be a significant burden to producing
affordable housing according to the City's Draft Sixth Cycle: 2021-2029 Housing Element ("Draft
Housing Element"). (See Draft Housing Element,6 PDF pp. 58-59.) It is unclear why commercial
parking cannot be co -located on Applicant's land used for said commercial uses (e.g., adjacent to
and or below -ground in various parking levels). Nor is it clear why City -owned property could not
co -locate parking in addition to other uses, like more housing (e.g., variety of below -grade and
above -grade parking with high -density housing on upper floors). City -land could provide adequate
parking (including spaces for workers of the Project Site) and co -locate other uses, such as housing.
Failure to maximize this City -owned land seems inconsistent with the City's General Plan Land Use
Element.? The Addendum does not disclose or address this inconsistency with applicable City
General Plan goals and policies.
5 See City (9/27/22) Item 25-A Staff Report, p. 5, https://Iocal.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/
35024/35054/35057/35213/35442/Staff Report35442.pdf; see also Staff Report, Item 25-A, Attachment 25,
PDF p. 5, https://Iocal.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/35024/35054/35057/35213/35468/
25.Resolution - Land Disposition35468.pdf.
6 https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/44687/june-2022_HCD-All-Sections.
7 See e.g., Land Use Element (May 2004) PDF pp. LU-42 - LU-47 (Goal 2.1 Continue to provide a variety of
quality housing opportunities to address the City's diverse housing needs [including policies 1 through 5],
Goal 3.2 Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes [including policies 1 and 3], Goal
5.1 Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of Anaheim residents, employees and
visitors [including policies 2, 4], GOAL 6.1:Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim
through strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development [including policies 2], among
others.), https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9522/E-Land-Use-Element?bidld=.
Items 25 & 26 RE: 100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 5 of 10
City of Anaheim Property 109,050S.F. ';-Pm--
AREP Property 119,160S.F. N.T.S.
Local 11 questions whether additional housing, rather than parking or massive increases in
commercial uses (discussed infra), would be a superior use in this Project area —especially in light
of the City's current RHNA obligation of 17,453 housing units over the 8-year planning period. As
shown in the excerpt below on the following page, the City has a 17,453 RHNA obligation, including
over 6,000 units for low-income, very low-income, or extremely low-income residents. (See Draft
Housing Element, PDF pp. 7, 221 [Tbl. 3-53, see excerpt below on following page].) The Platinum
Triangle has been identified as one of three primary areas to meet the City's RHNA housing
obligations that will benefit from reduced VMTs due to co -locating jobs and housing opportunities.
(Id., at PDF pp. 64, 157, 200, 225.) While the area has been planned for 17,501 dwelling units with
12,642 already entitled (i.e., 72%), only 5,232 units (i.e., 30%) have been built since 2004 (id., at pp.
250.) It seems that the area is simply not producing the housing units the City hoped for and, thus,
the City needs to take further action to ensure a "Dynamic mix of uses and high -density urban
housing." (Land Use Element, p. LU-58.) By proposing 1,284 dwelling units on roughly 107 acres for
the combined Arena and Transit areas (i.e., 12 units/acre) (Add 11, Tbl. 3-5), the Project is well
below the 100 and 60 du/acre intended for Mixed -Use High and Urban Core under the Land Use
Plan (p. LU-15). This seems inconsistent with Land Use Element Goal 15.1, specifically policy 3: to
"[e]ncourage mixed -use projects integrating retail, office and higher density residential land uses."
(Id., at p. LU-59.) So too, this seems inconsistent with Goal 7.12, particularly policy 3 "Promote new
residential development within Downtown, The Platinum Triangle, and other mixed -use districts, in
accordance with the Land Use Plan." (Land Use Element, p. LU-48.) The Addendum does not
disclose or address this inconsistency with applicable City General Plan housing goals and policies.
Items 25 & 26 RE: 100-Acre Xvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 6 of 10
7able 3.53, Housing Needs for 2021-2029
Extremely Law ( %or less)
Very Low 131 to 5+D9 l
Low (51 to'$ )
1,884
80113
1,883
10.13%
2,397
13.7%
Moderate (91%to IZD%)
2,945
15.9%
Aborve Moderate (Dyer 120%)
8,344
37 8%
1 lox
T II
17,459
Note t =. , :9 AS 1614. local jurisc€ictioats are also required to projlect the housint rat J j 7_ i , Irworrka
40uwholds 10-3._ .if4Al1_ In effirn#ting tN rlurnbgr O4 extremQly Iow-OC&rne 1110uS9111t71ds, o junsttictiu :yn tea 5" of the
vary low-+nc&mr.. a,lacation or appoMoo ttw vary low-income fqure based on Cgosus data.
Additionally, the Project may induce greater onsite demand for workforce housin . Here, the
Project would amend the PTMU by removing roughly 1.388 and 1.25 million sf of office and
institutional uses (respectively) to add 339 dwelling units and approximately 1.412 million square
feet of commercial uses (see Add 11, pp 40 [Tbl. 3-4, see figure below]), which is primarily targeted
towards entertainment and hospitality uses, such as: 230,909 sf with 14,413 seats of entertainment
uses; 202,293 sf of restaurant and outdoor dining; and 550 rooms in two hotels. (Id., at pp. 34-35,
55.)$ According to Addendum 11, the Project will slightly increase the residential population (i.e.,
up 832) but significantly reduce employees (down 3,336) in the area, purportedly improving the
Jobs/Housing ratio from 2.19 to 2.00. (See Add 11, p. 223.) However, the shift from
Office/Institutional uses to the proposed commercial uses may shift the type of employment
opportunities in the area that may be from generally higher -paying jobs (e.g., office workers,
government employees, etc.) to lower -paying jobs (e.g., restaurant workers, service employees,
etc.). Lower -paying jobs will also likely increase the demand for affordable housing, which the City
lacks.
Table 3.4 Platinum Trianlale Develooment Intensities (Existing and
Cumulative Change
General Plan Land Existing PTIALUP Net Change in Arena Net Change in Resulting From New PTIRUP Total
Use I Total: District Transit District Modified PuDiect +f(_l with Modified Project
Mixed Use Urban Core
�: aeAerdal
17501 DU
859 DU
'.
=-_ :-
(2.25C _: =_
(12
?.39 DU
I ''SSF
:=_ se)
17,840 DU
Garnrnenial
Office
Insftfional
4:782,243SF
1;404,8988F
6,195,019SF
9,1180,7475F
861,065SF
7,791,802SF
1,500,000 SF
O SF
250,000 SF
4fFlmAiah and Low
1 4.309.486 5F 1 (441,950 SF) 1 0 1 (4441,950 SF) 1 3,867.536 SF
' Ttte Propwsed pTt,ILLP reslderdial permitted densty totai is 1?,134a aweiix units However. additional 216 dwell rig unns are allowed dy aens tj+
bonus. Therefore, ocv.BE Proposes to construct 1.500 dwetranp units (1,2844 dweMng units atlmd by pettuilted density plus 216 dwelling uruis
allDwed Dy density Donus}
8 Third, it is unclear whether the Project is above the required 0.75 floor -area -ratio ("FAR") threshold. It is
not explained what square footage of development was considered in the Addendum's FAR, such as the more
than 1 million square footage of "other uses" including parks, open space, residential amenities, and 11,289-
stall parking spread through a variety of parking decks and surface lots. (Add 11, pp. 34-37.) Nor is it
explained whether the FAR calculations included all Project areas, such as the additional 10 acres of City -
owned property rezoned from Open Space to General Commercial to place a parking lot.
Items 25 & 26 RE: 100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 7 of 10
Furthermore, the City has historical) uy nderproduced homes as compared to Orange County.
(See Draft Housing Element, 9 PDF p. 46 [Tbl. 2-29, see figure below]). Notwithstanding the City's
median home value (i.e., $846,355) being roughly 11 percent below the Orange County average (i.e.,
$950,000) (id., at PDF p. 52), the City's medium income level (i.e., $71,763) is more than 20% below
the County average (i.e., $90,234) (id., at PDF p. 25). To the extent the Project increases the demand
for affordable housing —without providing commensurate onsite housing —the Project may
exacerbate the City's lack of housing, which may acutely impact those severely burdened by
increased housing costs, such as renters. (Id., at PDF pp. 26, 29, 32). This seems to be inconsistent
with Land Use Element Goal 7.1, "Address the jobs -housing relationship by developing housing near
job centers and transportation facilities[;]" including (but not limited to) policy 1, "Address the
jobs -housing balance through the development of housing in proximity to local job centers." (Land
Use Element, p. LU-48.) Here, the Project may decrease the employees and residents (collectively
"service population") of the area near transit. In sum, the Project seems out of balance and more
onsite housing is needed.
6,Lena Park
Table 2.29; Housing UifltGrowth
23,895 24,007
Trends
24,578
PC
2010
0.5%
pememMV) Change
2,4%
Cypress
16,335
16,109
16,256
-1.4%
0.9%
PlaoenW
16,679
16,553
16,964
48%
2.5%
Santa Ana
77,796
77,192
79,024
-0. %
2,4%
Stanton
12,111
11,972
1L640
-1.1%
-2.8%
-..lerton
47,956
4.7,319
48,120
-1.3%
17
Anaheim
105,050
104,812
106,709
-0.27L
1.8%
Orange (City)
44,217
44,229
44,664
0.0%
it0%
yorba Ueda
21,665
22,592
23,452
4.3%
19%
Garden Grove
47,454
48,385
49,061
2.0%
1.4%
COUnty Of Oranp
1 1.042.254
1,064,642
1.100,449
2.1%
3.4%
S r e 1035.2019F*e-yeps A.mtrriGon Cammw)irySvrwy (U,5. Census6ureou)
Thus, more immediate action addressing affordable housing onsite seems warranted. While
the Project may include 195 affordable units, no extremely low-income units are provided. (See Add
11, p. 36.) This is troubling because while the City seems to be on track to meet its above -moderate -
income goals over the 8-year Housing Element planning period (i.e., roughly 73% of the 8,344-unit
goal are already in the City's pipeline), it is far behind on meeting its 9,109 units goal of affordable
housing (i.e., 425 units in City's pipeline or roughly 9% of goal). (See Draft Housing Element, at PDF
p. 310 [Tbl. B-1, see excerpt below on following page].) Furthermore, the Development Agreement
(DA) allows the Applicant to remove all affordable housing obligations to an "offsite location" (i.e.,
during phase 2 and 3) and after 100 percent of the commercial uses during phase 1 is completed.
(See DA,10 pp. 42-43; Add 11, pp. 53.) The City should not risk the delay of housing units being
constructed onsite while commercial development proceeds. Local 11 questions the City allowing
commercial development without adequate assurance and a timing plan that commensurate
housing actually be constructed. So too, we question the wisdom of allowing the Applicant to
9 https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/44687/June-2022_HCD-All-Sections.
10 https://Iocal.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/35024/35054/35OS7/35213/35489/
10a.%20Draft%2ODevelopment%2OAgreement%20 (DAG2020-00004) 35489.pdf.
Items 25 & 26 RE: 100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 10
relegate affordable housing offsite rather than ensuring the site is truly a mixed-income/mixed-use
site. Also, by not providing any extremely low-income units, the Project seems inconsistent with
Land Use Element Goal 7.1, policy 2 to "[d]evelop housing that addresses the need of the City's
diverse employment base." And by excluding extremely low-income populations and leaving the
possibility of all affordable housing obligations to be provided offsite, the City is disincentivizing
those populations who may be more likely to use transit.
Finally, we note the Addendum's land use consistency impact analysis is completely silent as
to whether any CiV open space requirements are being satisfied. (See Add 11, pp. 192-195.)
B. GREATER CEQA ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR POTENTIAL ENERGY IMPACTS
The Addendum's CEQA analysis related to energy impacts is flawed. The Addendum claims
there would be no new energy impacts since the adoption of the SFEIR 399. (Add 11, pp. 129-138.)
While it is anticipated the Project will install solar panels (id., at p. 132), this measure is not specific
enough, there are no clear performance standards, and solar may not necessarily be required under
the cited Anaheim Public Utility Plan or other City GHG Reduction Plan. (Id., at 132.) To the extent
the Project lacks enforceable performance standards for solar panels and use of renewable
energy —mitigation that is much more feasible today than in years past —this may indicate a new
significant impact on energy. Under CEQA, the lead agency needs to consider the project's energy
consumption. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) In addition to examining whether there is a
"wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources," lead
agencies must investigate whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the
project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2 (b); League to Save Lake Tahoe v. County of Placer (2022) 75
Cal.App.Sth 63, 167-168 [duty to investigate renewable energy option is required as part of
determining whether project impacts on energy resources are significant].) A project's compliance
with building codes may not be enough where they do not address many considerations under
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, like "whether a building should be constructed at all, how large
it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources,
or anything else external to the building's envelope ... [,] energy impacts for a project intended to
transform agricultural land into a regional commercial shopping center." (California Clean Energy
Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.AppAth 173, 211.) Here, the Addendum seems to rely
substantially on state energy efficiency standards (Cal. Code Regs Title 24) (commonly referred to
as "Title 24"), but this does not answer whether the Project is leaving feasible options to
incorporate solar off the table. Local 11 questions the City's failure to consider additional mitigation
measures, such as specific solar energy generation commitments on site. All this seems inconsistent
with the General Plan's Green Element's green development practices (i.e., incorporate renewable
resources like solar), Goals 15.2 and 17.1 (i.e., encourage design that reduces energy costs), and
policy 1 (i.e., encourage solar). (See Green Element,11 p. G-27 - G-30.)
11 https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidId=.
Items 25 & 26 RE. 100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 9 of 10
C. MORE CEQA ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR POTENTIAL VMT/GHG IMPACTS
First, the Addendum claims the Project would not have a more significant GHG impact as
compared to the project under the SFEIR 399. (Add 11, pp. 150-151.) It relies largely on regulatory
measures adopted by the state independent of the Project. So too, it cites compliance with the City's
GHG Reduction Plan —but fails to identi&specific requirements of that Plan that are mandatory for
the Proiect.12 The Addendum relies merely on pre-existing mitigation measures under the SFEIR.
(Add 11, pp. 153-162.)
Also, the Addendum may have improperly screened the Proiect out from a VMT analysis
relying on the Site's location within a Transit Priority Area ("TPA"). (Add 11, pp. 239, 244-250; ADD
11, APP-K,13 PDF pp. 14, 63,1063-1065.) While the City's VMT guidelines state that projects located
within a TPA "may" be presumed to be less than significant, it does not state that the presumption is
irrebuttable.14 It seems the Addendum ignores the fact that the Project would serve primarily
entertainment and regional visitors (which is not local serving)15 while reducing the area's local
service population (i.e., total residents and employees served in the area). Employees working at
the new entertainment uses may likely be forced into longer commutes generating more VMTs.
In sum, Local 11 questions the City's use of the TPA exemption from conducting a Project -
specific VMT analysis and the Addendum's reliance on outdated VMT and GHG reduction measures.
The GHG and VMT analysis should be updated to ensure all feasible additional mitigation measures
and strategies available can be incorporated, such as those urged by California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association ("CAPCOA"), the State Office of Policy and Research ("OPR"), Southern
California Association of Government ("SCAG"), California Air Resources Board ("CARB").16 This
would be in keeping with the City's Green Element goals of reducing emissions (Goal 8.1), reducing
single -occupancy vehicle trips (Goal 9.1), and improving public transit ridership efficiency (Goal
10.1). (See Green Element, p. G-18 - G-21.)
12 City's GHG Reduction Plan makes no mention of its adoption pursuant to a CEQA review and/or other
hallmarks of a qualified climate action plan ("CAP"), such as: i) inventorying existing and future GHG
emissions within the City from all relevant sources; ii) establishing a numeric limit of total GHG emission for
the City; iii) identifying specific mitigation measures with performance standards that can be implemented on
a project -by -project basis that would achieve the City limit; iv) creating a monitoring program to ensure the
CAP's efficacy for the City to reach its limit. (Compare Anaheim Public Utilities (May 2020) GHG Reduction
Plan (https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/7987/Greenhouse-Gas-Reduction-Plan?bidld=)
with CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5(b)(1).)
13 https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/45711/CEQA-ExhibitAl lApp-K-Traffic-Study.
14 City (Jun. 2020) TIA Guidelines for CEQA, p. 6, https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/32774/
City- of-Anaheim-TIA-Guidelines-for-CE QA-Analysis-62 0 2 0.
15 Ibid., p. 7
16 See e.g., CAPCOA (August 2010) Quantifying GHG Measures, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf; CAPCOA (Dec. 2021)
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/
Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf, OPR (Dec. 2018) Technical Advisory, http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-
743_Technical_Advisory.pdf, CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix B-Local Action, pp. 7-9,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/app_b_local_action_final.pdf, SCAG (Dec. 2019) Final Program EIR,
pp. 2.0-18 - 2.0-71 (see "project -level mitigation measures" for air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts),
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdPl607981618.
Items 25 & 26 RE: 100-Acre OCvibe Project Approvals
September 27, 2022
Page 10 of 10
D. THE CITY SHOULD USE ITS DISCRETION TO PRIORITIZE AND INCREASE HOUSING
The City has the discretion to reject the Project Approvals without more public benefits.
Here the Project is seeking numerous discretionary entitlements, such as General Plan Amendment,
Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Amendment, and a Zoning Code Amendment. (Add 11,
pp.1-2, 42-45; see also AMC §§ 18.20.010 et seq., 18. 68 et seq., 18.76 et seq.; Cal. Gov. Code § 65864
et seq.; Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 570; Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 cal.
3d 511, 519 n. 8.) These are legislative in nature, and the City has the discretion to seek more public
benefits. It would seem that the City places great weight on impact fees and purported millions of
dollars in economic impact. (DA, p. 5.) Yet, impact fees are to mitigate negative impacts to the City
incurred because of the Project - with a nexus to all negative impacts required. More affordable and
market -rate housing should be considered. So too, it is unclear the degree one publicly owned park
and one privately owned park compensate for the loss of 10 acres of open space and the Applicant's
existing open space obligations (previously noted). Local 11 questions whether the City has truly
garnered the benefit of the bargain
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Addendum and Project Entitlements' findings do not adequately address and
analyze inconsistencies with the City's Draft housing element and housing goals. Furthermore,
Local 11 questions the analysis of the Project's new, potentially significant impacts on energy use,
VMT, and GHG. The City has the discretion to reject the Project Entitlements to seek more public
benefits. Additional affordable and market -rate housing should be required.
Local 11 reserves the right to supplement this appeal justification at future hearings and
proceedings for this Project. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist.
(1997) 60 Cal.AppAth 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during EIR
comment period].)
Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the
administrative record for the Project.
Sincerely,
74A- 'G r._
Jord n R. Sisson
Attorney for Local 1