Loading...
05/12/2026ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 12, 2026 The regular meeting of May 12, 2026 was called to order at 4:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber of Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda, and related material were duly posted on May 7, 2026. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Carlos A. Leon, Ryan Balius, Natalie Rubalcava, Norma Campos Kurtz, and Natalie Meeks. Council Member Kristen M. Maahs joined the meeting during Closed Session. STAFF PRESENT: Interim City Manager Greg Garcia, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City Clerk Theresa Bass ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None CLOSED SESSION: At 4:00 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed to closed session for consideration of the following: 1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director Name of Employee Organizations: Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, Police Cadet Unit 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director Name of Employee Organizations: Service Employees' International Union, United Service Workers West At 5:00 p.m., Mayor Aitken reconvened the Anaheim City Council. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Carlos A. Leon, Ryan Balius, Natalie Rubalcava, Norma Campos Kurtz, Kristen M. Maahs. and Natalie Meeks INVOCATION: Reverend Jessica Strysko, Anaheim United Methodist Church Council Member Meeks recognized the Memorial Day holiday by honoring the men and women who gave their lives in service to the nation and encouraged reflection with gratitude, humility, and a renewed commitment to community and country. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Natalie Meeks City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 2 of 36 PRESENTATIONS: Recognizing Steve Carroll, the Anaheim Ducks broadcaster, who is retiring after a 50-year career (27 seasons with the Ducks) Mayor Aitken recognized Anaheim Ducks broadcaster Steve Carroll for being the voice of 27 years. She shared that he is concluding a 50-year broadcast career as he starts a new chapter with a well- earned retirement. She stated that he has called radio play-by-play for more than 2,000 Ducks games, including the 2007 Stanley Cup championship. She shared that he is known for his steady, trusty voice, and the energy, excitement, and drama of the games he has called. She noted that he is part of a generation of broadcasters that includes greats Vin Scully, Dick Enberg, and others who defined sports for a generation. She added that he has also worked for the Angels, co -hosting "Angels Today" and "This Week in Angels Baseball" in 2011. She shared that Mr. Carroll, a St. Louis native, began his career in 1976 calling college basketball in Missouri. She added that for a time in the 1990's, he was the voice of the Philadelphia Flyers. She announced that Mr. Carroll was inducted into the Southern California Sports Broadcasters Hall of Fame. On behalf of the City, she thanked him for the incredible role that he played in Anaheim's professional sports. Steve Carroll expressed gratitude for the City's recognition upon his retirement after a 55-year broadcasting career, reflecting on his time with the Anaheim Ducks and the opportunity to serve the Anaheim community. He spoke about the fulfillment of working in professional hockey, praised the dedication of first responders and public servants, and thanked the Ducks organization, its ownership, and the Anaheim community for their support throughout his career. He expressed his desire to remain involved with the Ducks organization and offered to continue supporting community events as an emcee. He thanked the City for the recognition and expressed enthusiasm for the Ducks' playoff run. Recognizing Canyon High School's Connor Shim who has been named a semifinalist in the Music Center's 38th Annual Spotlight Program Mayor Aitken shared that Connor Shim is an accomplished classical musician who will be performing at the Walt Disney Concert Hall in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, May 16. She stated that he is a junior at Canyon High School who has played the oboe for nearly a decade. She noted that his skill on the woodwind instrument has led him to be a grand finalist in the Music Center's 38th Annual Spotlight Program, a nationally recognized performing arts showcase by the Music Center in Los Angeles. She shared that he has been part of the Canyon High School orchestra and marching band for his entire high school career. She added that he also performs with the Pacific Symphony Orchestra in Costa Mesa. She stated that he faced the difficult choice of giving up his other love, playing hockey, which he did for a decade. She shared that music is a source of ongoing joy and happiness for him. Connor Shim thanked the City Council for the recognition. Recognizing the Anaheim Police Department for participating in the 2026 Baker 2 Vegas Challenge Cup Relay receiving First place in their category and Fifth place overall Mayor Aitken recognized the Anaheim Police Department 2026 Baker 2 Vegas Team. She shared that in March, the team participated in the Baker to Vegas, 120-mile relay race through the desert in Las Vegas. She stated that it is the largest law enforcement event of its kind, drawing teams from local, regional, state, and federal agencies. She reported that the team earned first place in their category and fifth overall, making the team the fastest in Orange County. She stated that the Elite team is made up of 20 officers and staff who have trained for months, including runs at Servite High School. She noted that the team's Baker to Vegas performance reflects the dedication, commitment, and pursuit of excellence they bring to the community City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 3 of 36 The Anaheim Police Department 2026 Baker 2 Vegas Team and Chief of Police Manuel Cid accepted the recognition. The team captain recognized the dedication of the team. He noted that the department placed fifth overall among more than 270 competing teams despite having a significantly smaller workforce than the top four finishers. He expressed pride in the team's achievement and optimism about improving their standing in next year's competition. ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS To be presented at a later date): Recognizing April 28, 2026, as Workers' Memorial Day Albert Munoz with SMART Local Union 170 Sheet Metal Workers highlighted workplace safety concerns facing construction and trades workers, including heat illness, silica dust exposure, machinery -related injuries, ergonomic hazards, electrical risks, and falls. He emphasized the importance of Cal/OSHA compliance, strong safety practices, and fostering a workplace culture that prioritizes employee health and well-being. He also recognized the work of the Southern California Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health in advocating for improved workplace safety standards, injury prevention, and worker education. Recognizing May 16, 2026, as Kids to Parks Day Recognizing May 22, 2026, as Harvey Milk Day Recognizing May 11 — 17, 2026, as Bike to Work Week Recognizing May 17 — 23, 2026, as National Public Works Week Recognizing May 2026, as Building Safety Month Planning and Building Director Heather Allen introduced Building Official Scott Beery to accept the recognition and recognized his leadership of the Building Services Division since 2024. Director Allen highlighted the division's efforts to streamline permitting processes, improve communication with the development community, ensure code compliance, and collaborate with other City departments to serve residents and businesses. She also recognized Building Services staff in attendance and requested a group photo with the City Council in conjunction with the Building Safety Month proclamation. Building Official Beery recognized May as Building Safety Month and emphasized the importance of modern building codes in ensuring safe, resilient, and functional buildings. He acknowledged the collaborative efforts of building safety professionals, fire prevention personnel, architects, engineers, contractors, and tradespeople in protecting the community. He also recognized the Building Services Division for its ongoing commitment to public safety, code compliance, accessibility, energy efficiency, and sustainable development. He invited the public to visit the Building Services Division's outreach booth at the Anaheim Farmers Market and requested a group photo with Building Services staff and the City Council. Recognizing May 2026, as Mental Health Awareness Month Recognizing May 2026, as National Cities, Towns, and Villages Month At 5:27 p.m., Mayor Aitken called to order the Anaheim Housing Authority, in joint session with the City Council. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 4 of 36 PUBLIC COMMENTS all agenda items : Prior to receipt of public comments, City Clerk Theresa Bass provided an outline of procedures for public comments, notice of translation services, and a brief decorum statement. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that a total of eight (8) public comments were received electronically prior to 3:00 P.M. [A final total of seventeen (17) public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. — See Appendix. R. Joshua Collins expressed concerns regarding conditions at local homeless service providers, including allegations about sanitation practices, delayed medical care, inadequate case management, and lack of access to basic services. He stated that homeless individuals face barriers to participating in City Council meetings due to transportation and concerns about safeguarding their belongings, and suggested options such as transportation assistance, storage, remote public comment, or video submissions. He called for continued oversight of police practices and urged the City to pursue meaningful reforms to address concerns raised by the community. Vern Nelson expressed support for Item No. 24, implementing remote public participation in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 707 and amendments to the Brown Act. He stated that he advocated for remote public comment for several years, explaining it would improve accessibility for residents unable to attend meetings in person due to health, work, or family obligations. He recognized the death of Albert Arzola, noting his prior employment with the Anaheim Ducks. He mentioned the release of the name of the officer involved. He noted ongoing efforts related to a local rent control initiative and announced a community debate taking place at Anaheim High School. Christine Lopez referenced a recent Los Angeles Times article regarding an excessive force lawsuit involving Anaheim police officers and expressed concern about allegations of prior officer conduct. She urged the City to strengthen police accountability and oversight, stating that additional measures are needed to prevent future officer -involved deaths. She commented on the Police Review Board and advocated for greater community oversight of the Police Department to improve transparency and public trust. David Pulido called for the termination of the officer involved in the shooting of Albert Arzola and urged the City to take action to increase police accountability. He criticized the City's response to officer -involved shootings, referenced previous incidents involving Anaheim police officers, and expressed concerns about the outcomes of investigations into use -of -force cases. He concluded by urging the Council to take a public position on the matter and support greater accountability within the Police Department. Pearl Arzola expressed support for the implementation of remote public comment but stated a preference for continuing to participate in City Council meetings in person. She commended Mayor Pro Tern Leon for visible engagement and improvements within District 2 and encouraged his reelection. She expressed concerns that other Council Members have not demonstrated sufficient community engagement or addressed neighborhood needs. Grace Arzola urged the City Council to not only expand opportunities for public participation through remote comments but also to give meaningful consideration to residents' concerns. She expressed dissatisfaction with recent Council decisions, called for greater transparency regarding police -related matters, including information about officer conduct and surveillance technology, and urged the Council to provide more public information about the use of automated license plate reader cameras. She encouraged the City Council to City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 5 of 36 Forrest Pollock shared challenges experienced by individuals experiencing homelessness. He requested that the City consider policies allowing unhoused residents to leave their belongings without fear of confiscation while attending appointments, working, or participating in City Council meetings, stating that repeated property loss makes it difficult to rebuild their lives. He advocated for shelter options that accommodate pets and couples, explaining that caring for a service animal limits his ability to access employment and services. He shared that he previously worked in automotive customization but is currently homeless. He requested that law enforcement and Code Enforcement focus on providing assistance rather than enforcement, alleging that unhoused individuals are frequently cited or displaced despite not engaging in criminal activity. He expressed concerns about Code Enforcement interaction involving a local business that provides mail and other assistance to homeless individuals, and urged the City to adopt a more supportive approach toward residents experiencing homelessness. Amanda Lockwood shared that she resides at the Illumination Foundation shelter. She raised concerns about shelter policies and conditions. She requested accommodations for an emotional support animal and the ability to keep prescribed medications and vitamins in their room, stating both had been approved by a physician. She expressed additional concerns regarding the lack of water in a shower despite a maintenance request, an early curfew, and alleged harassment by a security guard. She commented on staffing levels and expressed concerns regarding access to case management services and accommodations for residents with diabetes. She stated that diabetic meal and snack options were inadequate, alleged delays in receiving insulin, and requested improvements to better address residents' medical and dietary needs. Danny Gonzalez expressed support for the family of Albert Arzola. He described him as a hardworking and valued member of the community. He alleged that the officer involved had a history of excessive force and stated that the force used in the incident was excessive. He raised concerns regarding the handling of the incident, including the release of body -worn camera footage, the status of the autopsy report, and the lack of accountability. He urged the City and Police Department to provide transparency and take action to ensure accountability and prevent similar incidents in the future. Sergio Pelayo congratulated the City on the development of new affordable housing, noting the high cost of housing in Anaheim. He expressed support for the family of Albert Arzola and remote participation at City Council meetings. He criticized the conduct of the police investigation into Albert Arzola's death. He stated that the officer had a history of excessive force. He questioned the status of the autopsy report, stating that the family has not received answers regarding his death. He noted that neighborhood surveillance footage had become a significant source of evidence and called for greater transparency and accountability in the investigation. Card #7567 spoke in opposition to proposed public comment procedures under Item 24, arguing that reducing speaking time and imposing a public comment time limit would limit residents' ability to present detailed information on complex public safety and community issues, including wildfire evacuation, infrastructure, and development concerns. She stated that the proposed changes would disproportionately affect residents seeking to address significant community matters, including the family of Albert Arzola, Spanish-speaking residents, and individuals with disabilities. She urged the Council to reject the proposed public comment time limits, stating that they would reduce transparency, accountability, and meaningful public participation, and concluded by calling for continued attention to the Arzola family's requests for answers regarding the ongoing investigation. Rosie Camacho shared her family's grief over the death of her son, Albert Arzola. She alleged misconduct by the officer involved in the incident. She expressed concern that the officer remains employed by the City, called for greater transparency and accountability from the City and Police City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 6 of 36 Department. She urged the Council to pursue justice and take steps to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. Leslie Lopez expressed support for allowing remote public participation in City Council meetings but opposed limiting public comment, stating that the City should clearly explain the purpose of proposed procedural changes. She raised concerns that the changes could discourage public participation on important community issues. She commented on the death of her cousin Albert Arzola, alleging misconduct by the officer involved, and expressed concern that the officer remains assigned to the same neighborhood. She referenced a Jesse Ben -Ron with the Orange County Business Council spoke in support of Item No. 22. He commended the City for developing an economic strategy and emphasized the importance of local economic development in supporting regional growth. He stated that a strategic plan would help guide business attraction, retention, and expansion efforts. He encouraged the Council to adopt the strategy, noting that it would help the City effectively align resources to support the local business community. G. Price addressed Item No. 4, expressing opposition to the proposed professional services agreement for the City's fireworks display. She questioned the procurement process, noting that the agreement was not publicly advertised through the City's online bidding system and that the same vendor has been selected repeatedly. She raised environmental concerns, referencing prior allegations involving perchlorate contamination associated with the vendor's fireworks operations in other jurisdictions. She questioned the proximity of the fireworks display to the Santa Ana River and expressed concerns about potential impacts to water quality, air quality, and surrounding neighborhoods. She stated that the agreement lacked detailed provisions addressing environmental monitoring, debris cleanup, public health protections, and long-term environmental accountability, and urged the Council to seek additional information before approving the contract. Marc Herbert expressed support for the family of Albert Arzola and discussed concerns regarding the City's handling of water quality issues and public transparency. He alleged that residents raising questions about drinking water quality had been dismissed and cited concerns involving water system operations, PFAS detections, well shutdown timing, laboratory reporting, and statements contained in the City's water quality report regarding unmet monitoring requirements. He raised concerns about government transparency and public participation, referencing prior Brown Act complaints, public records requests, Council Member attendance at meetings, and proposed reductions in public comment time under Item 24. He urged the City to improve transparency, responsiveness, and public engagement regarding both water quality and Council proceedings. Mike Robbins addressed excavation safety practices, emphasizing the importance of complying with California's Dig Alert requirements to prevent utility strikes and protect workers, residents, and emergency responders. He referenced a gas line strike in Anaheim and expressed concerns that excavation work has proceeded without all required utility clearances, increasing the risk of serious injury or death. He alleged that employees who raised safety concerns or refused to participate in what they believed were unsafe practices experienced retaliation, including harassment, hostile work environments, and lost promotional opportunities. He urged the City to investigate workplace safety practices, report the number of Dig Alert violations and underground utility strikes, and strengthen accountability and transparency to ensure employee public safety. Stephanie Mercadante expressed concerns regarding the City's organizational culture, alleging patterns of retaliation against Public Utilities employees who report safety concerns, excavation issues, and operational risks. She stated that employees responsible for maintaining critical infrastructure should be able to raise concerns without fear of adverse employment consequences. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 7 of 36 She urged the City to support employees who report safety concerns, investigate allegations of retaliation, and hold management accountable when employee or public safety is compromised. Jeanine Robbins questioned the City's assurances regarding drinking water quality, arguing that repeated statements that the water is safe do not adequately address residents' concerns. She stated they obtained records related to Well 51 through a Public Records Act request after challenging an initial request to sign a nondisclosure agreement. She alleged that residents experienced prolonged water flushing, discolored water, and operational issues involving a reservoir valve, claiming that employee safety concerns were ignored by management. She requested greater transparency regarding water quality, operational decisions, and regulatory compliance, and asked the City to provide a more detailed explanation of how it determined the water remained safe during the reported incidents. Tom Fielder urged the City to increase transparency by releasing records related to water system operations, including flushing logs, hydrant records, SCADA data, operational timelines, internal communications, and excavation -related records. He questioned the City's handling of water quality issues, Well 51 operations, reported flushing activities, and communication with the City Council, and expressed concern about increased water rates. He alleged retaliation against employees who raise safety concerns and called for greater accountability and transparency regarding public infrastructure and justice for Albert Arzola. Dave Duran expressed confidence that many City employees are committed to protecting drinking water quality but alleged that employees who raised operational and safety concerns faced retaliation or were ignored. He claimed City officials repeatedly assured the public that the water was safe while dismissing residents' concerns, and alleged that individuals questioning water quality were characterized negatively. He shared potential health risks associated with trihalomethanes (TTHMs), called for greater transparency regarding water quality issues, and concluded by requesting justice for Albert Arzola. Major Ken Perine with The Salvation Army recognized National Salvation Army Week and shared several success stories from the Anaheim Emergency Shelter, highlighting residents who obtained employment, secured or were preparing to secure permanent housing, and made progress toward self-sufficiency. He emphasized the importance of shelter services, case management, and community support in helping individuals transition out of homelessness. He provided an update on The Salvation Army's upcoming CARI (Center for Applied Research) Building project, which will include a medical facility, expanded case management services, and a research center focused on improving homeless services, and thanked the City for its continued support. Michele Mary, an Ambassador with the Disneyland Resort, provided updates on the Resort's community initiatives, including the completion of school -year programs supporting literacy and food distribution for Anaheim students and families. She announced that 22 Anaheim Union High School District students will participate in the AIME Summer Mentorship Program with Disney leaders. She provided additional updates, including the return of the Anaheim resident ticket offer, discounted summer children's tickets, the upcoming "Happiest Day in Anaheim" community event, and plans to begin construction of the new East parking facility, with neighborhood outreach underway to keep nearby residents informed. Ruben Greg Soto shared personal experiences with law enforcement and ongoing efforts to resolve a child support payment issue. He shared that he had contacted a member of Congress to encourage attention to community concerns regarding police conduct and accountability. He shared his current housing situation and expressed a desire to purchase a home in the future. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 8 of 36 Art Castillo expressed concerns about a -bike safety involving children. He relayed a request from District 1 residents for vegetation maintenance at the Edison Field area due to fire concerns. He referenced past experiences involving police misconduct and whistleblower cases. He requested an opportunity to discuss his concerns further and expressed support for the family of Albert Arzola and called for justice. Mazatl Tepehyolotzin acknowledged the traditional lands of the Tongva people and expressed support for federal recognition of the tribe. He discussed Native American history, preservation of ancestral remains, and advocated for the renaming of places tied to colonial history. He commented on broader issues, Indigenous rights and police accountability. He called for justice for Albert Arzola. Ben Hurst with The Salvation Army highlighted the City's partnership in developing the Center of Hope homeless services campus, noting achievements including shelter operations, meals served, counseling sessions, and permanent housing placements. He announced that the groundbreaking for the new Center for Applied Research and Innovation on June 16t". He stated that the Center would support homeless services locally and nationally, invited the Council to attend, and shared an example of how the Center's work inspired the creation of a nonprofit organization, thanking the City for its continued partnership and support. Bryan Kaye criticized City leadership and the Police Department, alleging a lack of transparency and accountability regarding officer conduct and use -of -force incidents. He urged City officials to be more truthful and accountable in addressing public concerns. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Council Member Maahs highlighted a new exhibit, "Concrete Wave" at Muzeo beginning April 25 through July 12, regarding the history of Vans and skateboarding history in Anaheim. She shared that in 1966, Paul Van Doren opened a small shoe factory at 704 East Broadway in Anaheim, which transformed into a cultural revolution. She noted that the exhibit celebrates Vans' 60t" Anniversary as the gateway to exploring Anaheim's pivotal role in skateboarding, youth culture, and creative rebellion from local skate parks to a global phenomenon. She thanked Kelly from Muzeo, Catherine Acosta with Vans, and Jim Fitzpatrick and Todd Hubert with the Skateboarding Hall of Fame. She highlighted a photo at the opening of the Concrete Wave skate park and attendance by the Council at the time. Council Member Maahs announced that on Friday, May 22"d, at Zion Lutheran Church, there would be a book discussion about automation and Disneyland by the Anaheim Historical Society with assistance from Heritage Services Manager Jane Newell. She stated that the event would be from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Council Member Maahs announced that on Saturday, May 23rd from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., former Anaheim Police Officer Rick Martinez would be at the Sunkist Branch Library to share early Anaheim Police Department history. She congratulated and thanked the Community Services Department for hosting the well -attended Eco Fun Fair at Oak Canyon Nature Center on Saturday, May 9t" Mayor Pro Tern Leon highlighted Parks Manager JJ Jimenez and the Parks team for improvements at Chaparral Park and ongoing improvements at Circle Park. He shared that he visited Magnolia High School and Loara High School to recognize seniors. He expressed appreciation for the warm welcome from the school administration, parents, and students. He highlighted the recognition of the Magnolia High School Sentinel of the Year and distinguished Loara High School volunteers who are graduating. Mayor Pro Tem Leon thanked Chris Wartnaby, Jared Martinez, and Public Utilities General Manager Dukku Lee for quickly addressing a request to replace outdated banners for a year- end celebration. Mayor Pro Tern Leon highlighted Scott Davis, head custodian at Walt Disney Elementary School, and former custodian at Maxwell Elementary, for his retirement after 40 years of service to the Magnolia School District. He shared that Mr. Davis was a student of the Magnolia School District and returned to work for the District. He thanked Mr. Davis, his family, and the entire City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 9 of 36 Maxwell Elementary and Magnolia School District. Mayor Pro Tem Leon congratulated the graduating Class of 2026 from Savanna High School, Gilbert High School, Magnolia High School, Servite High School, and Loara High School. He expressed support for the Anaheim Ducks during Game 5 of the Playoffs. Council Member Rubalcava highlighted the City's continued focus on housing initiatives, including First -Time Homebuyer programs and housing assistance to those in the City. She recognized staff's work, in collaboration with LINC Housing, to convert the Motel 6 off Harbor and the 91 freeway into permanent supportive housing. She reported that there are 87 units for individuals along with on -site supportive services, a community garden, and additional resources. She shared that herself, Mayor Aitken, and Council Member Balius met with residents and participated in a ribbon -cutting. She thanked Director of Housing and Community Development Grace Ruiz-Stepter and the Department for their efforts and expanding housing opportunities throughout Anaheim for all socio-economic backgrounds. Council Member Rubalcava recognized Loara Elementary School fifth -grade teacher Mrs. Saldivar for being recognized as an Orange County Teacher of the Year finalist. She noted that she oversees the dual -immersion program for the fifth -grade class, adding that the dual -immersion program in Anaheim is award -winning. Council Member Rubalcava reported a massive enforcement effort on April 23rd by the Anaheim Police Department Gang Enforcement Unit, in collaboration with the Orange County Violent Gang Task Force and other federal, state, and local agencies. She shared that two warrants were served on District 3 households. She thanked Chief Cid, Gang Enforcement Team, and law enforcement partners for continuing to ensure that the City's streets are safe. Council Member Rubalcava shared that she would be collaborating with the Anaheim High School Alumni Association to provide $5,000 scholarships to students who have attended Anaheim High School, reside in District 3, or recent graduates. She reported that the deadline to submit is May 15t" and recipients would be announced the following week at Anaheim High School. Council Member Rubalcava requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of Richard "Dick" LaRochelle, Anaheim High School graduate, former City of Anaheim employee, and father of recently retired Police Department Lieutenant LaRochelle. She shared that he was a dedicated public servant of 30 years, serving in Public Works, Forensics, and Code Enforcement. She added that he worked tirelessly to keep Anaheim beautiful through graffiti abatement, alley cleanups, and community efforts with Anaheim Beautiful and the Kiwanis Club. She shared that he served the county with two tours in Vietnam aboard the USS Virgo and as a reserve policeman for the Placentia and Brea Police Departments. She highlighted his work ethic, patriotism, and commitment to others. Council Member Balius announced the District 1 Open House meeting on June 3d would be held at the Haskett Library from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Mayor Aitken thanked the McDonald family, owners and operators of the McDonald's restaurant located across from Disneyland Park, for inviting her to tour the restaurant. She shared that they hire local high school students part-time. She added that the General Manager began working at the restaurant decades prior, and highlighted the staff who love the family and the job. Mayor Aitken shared her attendance at the ribbon -cutting for the Azure Housing Facility, located at the former Motel Six. She highlighted the Housing and Community Development Department for expanding housing opportunities in the City. Mayor Aitken announced she would be adjourning the meeting in memory of Mary Hirahara, a lifelong community volunteer who dedicated her time to enriching the lives of people in Anaheim and Orange County. She shared that Mary worked to preserve Japanese American history, including the impact of Japanese internment during World War II, for future generations and her legacy of service and philanthropy would continue to inspire all who knew her. She expressed her condolences to her family. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 10 of 36 CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: Interim City Manager Garcia shared that the Public Works Department partnered with the Anaheim Union High School District to help Anaheim students gain real -world experience. Students of varying abilities visited the City's Public Works yard to see what sort of public service careers might be open to them in the future. The program was a meaningful way for City staff to engage with Anaheim students and teach them how to do tasks that employees do to help grow their capabilities and confidence as they plan for their futures. He thanked the Public Works team and the school district for making the program a success. Interim City Manager Garcia congratulated the Housing team for the Azure project and for working tirelessly to add new units all over Anaheim for those who need them. He encouraged attendance at the upcoming district community meetings in June and shared that information regarding the meetings is available on the City's website. Information regarding the budget will be provided to the community during the community meetings as well as the Budget Workshop on June 9tn At 7:08 p.m., the City Council recessed to address the Anaheim Housing Authority agenda and reconvened at 7:09 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR: At 7:09 p.m., the consent calendar was considered with Council Member Maahs pulling Item No. 12 for separate consideration. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Leon moved to waive reading of the ordinances and resolutions and adopt the balance of the consent calendar as presented, in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations furnished each City Council Member, seconded by Council Member Kurtz;. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. D116 3. Approve certificates recognizing District 5 resident Nathan Enriquez for his Mater Dei Varsity Soccer accomplishments; and South Junior High School Leadership for their 2026 Civic Learning Award of Excellence. D116 4. Receive and file, with the possibility of discussion, the list of Professional Services Agreements authorized by the City Manager for April 2026. AGR-15963 5. Approve Master Agreement Contract No. 106-499121 with Sage Environmental Group LLC, in an annual amount not to exceed $228,000, for a cumulative contract amount not to exceed $1,140,000 plus a 15% contingency, for as -needed fire prevention and habitat restoration services using goats in various locations for a one year period with four one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all necessary contractual documents and exercise the renewal options, in accordance with Bid No. 9890. AGR-159646. Approve Master Agreement Contract No. 106-499037 with Siemens Industry, Inc., in the amount of $1,093,192 plus a 20% contingency, for central monitoring of fire and burglar alarms, as well as testing and inspection services for security and fire life safety systems, effective upon execution through May 31, 2029 with three one-year optional renewals for a total cumulative contract amount not to exceed $2,347,277.19 over the potential six -year period, plus a 20% contingency; and authorize the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute all necessary contractual documents and to exercise any renewal options, in accordance with City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 11 of 36 the terms of Sourcewell Cooperative Contract 121024-SIE, which includes the option for up to three one-year additional extensions beyond the original three-year term. AGR-15965 7 Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, GRBCON, Inc., in the amount of $498,588, for the Magnolia Avenue and Broadway Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 (d) (New Construction) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. AGR-15966 8• Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, S&H Civilworks, in the amount of $210,350, for the Street Improvements at the southwest corner of the Santa Ana Canyon Road & Royal Oak Road Intersection Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. AGR-15967 9. Determine that the proposal submitted by Liftech Elevator Services, LLC is the most advantageous to the City; award a Design -Build Agreement, in substantial form, to Liftech Elevator Services, LLC, in the amount of $3,445,337.50 inclusive of a 10% contingency, to design and construct the Anaheim West Tower Elevator Modernization Project; waive any irregularities in any of the proposal documents; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the Design -Build Agreement and related documents and to take such actions as are necessary, required, or advisable to implement and administer the Design -Build Agreement; determine that the project and any related construction activities associated therewith are exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301(b), 15302(c), 15303(d), 15303(e), and 15304 of the California Code of Regulations; authorize de minimis changes to the Design -Build Agreement that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the agreement, as determined by the City Attorney's Office; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22300. AGR-15968 10. Approve Master Agreements for Arterial Street Maintenance and Construction, in substantial AGR-15969 form, with three contractors and such other contractors pre -qualified by the City in the future AGR-15970 during the term of the Master Agreement, each in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 per work order package, with a limit per contractor of $10,000,000 in total awards during each fiscal year of the agreement term; each for a two year period with up to two two-year optional renewals; authorize the Public Works Director, to execute the Master Agreements and for the Public Works Director, or designee, to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the Master Agreements; determine that the projects to be performed under the Master Agreements shall be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15302 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the Master Agreement, as determined by the City Attorney's Office [Hardy & Harper, Inc.; Onyx Paving Company, Inc.; and R.J. Noble Company]. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 12 of 36 AGR-15971 11. Approve an Agreement with Cho Design Associates, Inc., in the amount of $68,088 plus a 15% contingency for a total amount not to exceed amount of $78,301.20, to provide engineering design services related to the Anaheim West Tower Window Project; and authorize the Director of Public Works, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents, and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreement. 13. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with KPMG, LLP to perform the annual financial AGR-5089.6.1 audit of the City for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2026, 2027 and 2028, in amounts not to exceed $797,700, $820,000, and $850,000, respectively, with two one-year optional renewals in amounts not to exceed $875,000 and $900,000, respectively, for a cumulative amendment amount of $4,242,700, authorize the Finance Director/City Treasurer to execute the amendment and authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the agreement, so long as such changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney's Office. AGR-15975 14. Approve an agreement with Qlogic LLC, in an amount not to exceed $174,750 plus a 10% contingency for as -needed services, to develop and maintain an energy and water educational website for a term of five years; authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designees, to execute the agreement and related documents, including any cost -neutral amendments, assignments, and any documents contemplated by the agreement, and to take the necessary actions to implement, fund, and administer the agreement. 15. Approve an agreement with Prehospital Med LLC, in an amount not to exceed $265,000, to AGR-15976 provide Medical Director services to Anaheim Fire & Rescue, for a three year term with two one-year optional terms; and authorize the City Manager, or designees, to execute the agreement and any related documents, including any cost -neutral amendments and any documents contemplated by the agreement, and to take such necessary or advisable actions to implement, fund, and administer the agreement. D175 16 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Director of Public Works or designee to submit an application to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for funds for the Environmental Cleanup, Tier 1 Grant Program under Orange County Local Transportation Ordinance No. 3 for the Stormwater Catch Basin Installation Project Phase 7 and if awarded, authorizing the acceptance of such grant funds on behalf of the City and amending the budget for fiscal year accordingly and determine that these actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guideline Section 15303 [grant funds in the amount of $598,950 with local matching funds of $149,738]. AGR-15977 17 RESOLUTION NO. __ 2026-043 _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ratifying and approving the actions of the Anaheim Director of Housing and Community Development, or designee, in submitting a grant application on behalf of the City of Anaheim to California Volunteers for the Youth Service Corps Initiative, and accepting such grant funds on behalf of the City of Anaheim and determining that these actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guideline Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15306 City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 13 of 36 Increase the budget accordingly in the Housing and Community Development's Workforce Development Grants Fund by the awarded amount of $1,601,173. T106 18. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM initiating proceedings for the annual levy of assessments in, and accepting an Assessment Engineer's Report for the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District [Fiscal Year 2026-27]. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to provide for an annual levy and collection of assessments in the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District, and setting a time and place for public hearing thereon [Fiscal Year 2026-27; Public Hearing scheduled for Council meeting of June 23, 20261. M142 19. ORDINANCE NO. 6626 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 10.18 (Water Conservation and Water shortage Contingency Rules and Regulations) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to update water shortage response processes and water conservation requirements, and determining that such action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Water Code Section 10652 [includes determination that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2)-(3) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) as the Ordinance does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15378 and will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment]. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-046 _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan and determining that such action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Water Code Section 10652. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and determining that such action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Water Code Section 10652. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM rescinding Resolution No. 2023-065, which ordered the implementation of Water Reduction Plan I; declaring a shortage category of conservation awareness; and determining that such actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Water Code Section 10652. D114 20. Approve minutes of the City Council meeting of February 24, 2026. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 14 of 36 BUSINESS CALENDAR: AGR-15972 12. Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-0876, in substantial form, with Caltrans for design AGR-15973 (plans, specifications, and estimates) services for the Northbound SR-57 Off -Ramp to Katella Avenue and the Southbound SR-57 Off -Ramp to Ball Road as part of the proposed ocV!BE development project; approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-0877, in substantial form, with Caltrans, in the amount of $225,000, for right-of-way services for the Northbound SR-57 Off - Ramp to Katella Avenue and the Southbound SR-57 Off -Ramp to Ball Road as part of the proposed ocV!BE development project; authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreements and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreements, including any extensions; and authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the agreements, as determined by the City Attorney's Office [costs reimbursed by ocV!BE developer, Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC from a Public Works Developer Trust Account]. DISCUSSION: Council Member Maahs requested additional information on the timeline for the project and the reimbursement process. Director of Public Works Rudy Emami reported that the timeline of the project was already underway and construction will begin once right-of-way acquisition is complete. He explained that the full $225,000 reimbursement amount had already been deposited by the ocV!BE developer into a trust account, and upon execution of the agreement, those funds would be transferred to the State to cover the agreement costs. In response to Council Member Maahs, Director Emami stated that the overall ocV!BE project had begun. He noted that the freeway ramp improvements remain in the design and Caltrans permitting phases. He explained that the City's goal is to complete the improvements before the Olympics and partner with OCTA on its widening project on the 57 freeway between Orangewood Avenue and Katella Avenue. Council Member Maahs highlighted the project and expressed her support for the item. MOTION: Council Member Maahs moved to approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-0876, in substantial form, with Caltrans for design (plans, specifications, and estimates) services for the Northbound SR-57 Off -Ramp to Katella Avenue and the Southbound SR-57 Off -Ramp to Ball Road as part of the proposed ocV!BE development project; approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-0877, in substantial form, with Caltrans, in the amount of $225,000, for right-of-way services for the Northbound SR-57 Off -Ramp to Katella Avenue and the Southbound SR-57 Off -Ramp to Ball Road as part of the proposed ocV!BE development project; authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreements and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the agreements, including any extensions; and authorize de minimis changes that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the agreements, as determined by the City Attorney's Office [costs reimbursed by ocV!BE developer, Anaheim Real Estate Partners, LLC from a Public Works Developer Trust Account], seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Leon. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 15 of 36 \GR-15978 21. Select an executive search firm to conduct the recruitment for the position of the City Manager and approve and authorize the Human Resources Director to negotiate and enter into an agreement with the selected firm, and any related amendments, in a total amount not to exceed $75,000, for costs associated with the contract and any contingencies that may arise from the recruitment. Director of Human Resources Linda Andal reported that at the February 24t" Council meeting, staff was directed to conduct a Request for Information (RFI) process to solicit proposals from qualified executive recruitment firms to assist with the nationwide search following the vacancy that occurred on February 4, 2026. She stated that in response to that direction, the Human Resources Department contacted ten (10) executive firms with experience in public sector executive recruitments and invited them to submit proposals. She explained that the RFI emphasized several important qualifications, including demonstrated success recruiting city managers or other municipal executive positions, strong recruitment methodologies, the ability to effectively engage with election officials and stakeholders, and a commitment to maintaining confidentiality throughout the process. She reported that as a result of the solicitation, the City received six (6) proposals. She stated that two (2) of the firms declined to participate due to scheduling conflicts and two (2) firms did not respond. Director Andal reported that a review panel consisting of five (5) members of the executive leadership team independently evaluated the proposals based on several criteria, including qualifications and experience, recruitment strategy, stakeholder engagement, communication and transparency and overall ability to meet the City's needs and Council's needs. She stated that following the evaluation process, CPS, HR received the highest overall ranking, followed by Bob Murray & Associates. She shared that copies of all proposals were forwarded to the City Council for early review and evaluation, but were not included in the agenda packet. She noted that since a selection had not been made, the City Council may select any one of the six (6) firms, regardless of ranking. She reported that upon selection of a firm, the Human Resources Director would negotiate and execute an agreement with the selected firm. She stated that the selected firm will work collaboratively with the Council to develop a recruitment profile, establish a recruitment timeline and conduct a comprehensive nationwide recruitment process. She reported that the scope of work would include, but was not limited to, stakeholder outreach and engagement, candidate recruitment and evaluation, presentation of qualified candidates for Council consideration and interviews, consistent reporting throughout the process to all members of the Council, and background investigations. She shared that the scope of work was consistent with the direction provided by Council. She added that the selected firm would also provide periodic updates to the City Council throughout the recruitment process to ensure transparency and ongoing communication. She stated that the City Council may select any of the six (6) responsive firms regardless of their rankings. She added that staff's evaluation was conducted to support an efficient and thorough process. Pursuant to Government Code Section 1091.5, Director of Human Resources Linda Andal reported she is one of seven Agency members of the board of directors of CPS, a joint powers authority, which under California law is deemed a public entity. Anaheim has been a Member Agency of the JPA since May 2003 and she serves solely as the City's representative. She stated she does not receive any compensation for this role, other than reimbursement for required travel expenses, as permitted by law and CPS Bylaws. The board has no authority, involvement or role related to procurement or award of public contracts for the JPA. DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken requested additional information regarding the timeline for entering into a contract, if the item is approved. Director Andal presented a tentative timeline for the city manager recruitment process, noting that the current agenda item is for the City Council to select an executive recruitment firm. She explained that City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 16 of 36 at the Council's direction, staff did not present a recommendation, instead presenting all six proposals for Council's consideration. She added that the proposed timeline includes developing a recruitment brochure, conducting stakeholder and community meetings, screening candidates, and holding City Council interviews between June and September, with flexibility to adjust the schedule based on Council direction and discussions with the selected recruiter. She noted that an appointment for a City Manager could occur between September and October. Council Member Meeks inquired if the City has utilized CPS for executive recruitments. Director Andal reported that the firm was previously used in 2021 for the Safety Manager recruitment, the 2020 Deputy Planning Director recruitment, and previously for the City Manager recruitment. Council Member Meeks expressed a preference for Bob Murray & Associates over CPS HR Consulting and asked whether the proposals included interviews. Director Andal clarified that the rankings were based solely on the written proposals and did not include the interview process. In response to Council Member Meeks, Director Andal confirmed that she has worked with both and expressed confidence in both firms. Council Member Meeks stated support for either firm, but expressed a preference for Bob Murray & Associates. Council Member Balius stated that Ralph Andersen & Associates, CPS HR Consulting, and Bob Murray & Associates were all highly qualified firms. He emphasized the importance of considering cost and asked whether the City's solicitation specified the expected number of community meetings, noting that some proposals included those services in a flat fee while others identified them as additional costs. Director Andal explained that the RFI did not specify the level of detail regarding stakeholder and community meetings. She reported that proposals included varying optional and supplemental costs, with some firms identifying virtual meetings as included and in -person meetings as additional expenses. She noted that the details could be addressed during contract negotiations and recommended authorizing an amount up to $75,000 to accommodate additional costs to meet Council's desires for community and stakeholder meetings. In response to Council Member Balius, Director Andal responded that preparation of the brochure is included in the recruitment fee and would be completed by the recruiter based on interviews with each Council Member to develop the City Manager candidate profile. Council Member Balius stated that his preference would be Bob Murray & Associates, followed by CPS HR Consulting and Ralph Andersen & Associates. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Leon, Director Andal explained that interviews with City Council members would be conducted in person. She stated that the format of stakeholder and community meetings would depend on Council's direction and the selected recruiter's approach, noting that several firms indicated virtual meetings would generally be sufficient. She added that if Council preferred in -person stakeholder meetings, that could be incorporated into the consultant's contract. Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested clarification on the specific direction being sought from Council. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 17 of 36 Director Andal clarified that the requested Council action was to select one of the six executive recruitment firms and authorize staff to negotiate and execute a contract with the selected firm for an amount not to exceed $75,000. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Leon, Director Andal confirmed that Council's approval would authorize staff to negotiate and execute the contract without returning to Council for further approval. Mayor Pro Tern Leon inquired whether Council would have the ability to discontinue to the recruitment process if the Council decided not to proceed. Director Andal confirmed that the City Manager recruitment process is conducted at the City Council's discretion. She noted that Council may discontinue the recruitment at any point, reopen the recruitment, or select a candidate outside of the recruiter's recommended finalists. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon, Director Andal stated that the proposal items would need to be reviewed for any applicable cancellation provisions and noted that such terms could also be addressed during contract negotiations. Council Member Rubalcava expressed support for Bob Murray & Associates, citing the firm's experience recruiting city managers, while noting that its proposed fee appeared unusually low compared to similar executive search firms. She inquired how stakeholder meetings would be coordinated given that all seven Council Members would be involved in directing the recruitment process and emphasized the importance of engaging internal stakeholders. Director Andal stated that the selected executive recruiter is experienced in working with governing bodies and would collaborate with all seven Council Members collectively and equitably throughout the recruitment process, as outlined in the City's RFI. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Director Andal noted that the firm has been in business for approximately 35 years and has been retained by the City on multiple occasions. Council Member Rubalcava requested additional information on the recruitments Bob Murray & Associates have assisted with. Director Andal reported that the City retained the firm for the 2023 Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief recruitments, as well as the 2025 Deputy Planning Director and Community Preservation and Licensing Manager recruitments. Council Member Rubalcava requested additional information about CPS HR Consulting, including information about the firm's experience and involvement in executive recruitments. Director Andal explained that the request for proposals required firms to highlight only city manager or executive -level recruitment experience. She noted that CPS HR Consulting has been in business for approximately 40 years and has conducted executive recruitments for more than 20 years. She reported that as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), CPS was established to support public sector organizations and provides a broad range of governmental and human resources services in addition to executive recruitment. She stated that the firm employs experienced recruiters and has extensive expertise in public sector operations and staffing. Council Member Rubalcava expressed a preference for CPS HR Consulting as the top choice, citing the firm's examples of community outreach. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 18 of 36 Council Member Kurtz thanked staff for maintaining consistent communication with the entire City Council throughout the recruitment process and stated that the updates had increased confidence in the process. She expressed support for CPS HR Consulting, citing the firm's broad experience. Council Member Maahs expressed support for CPS HR Consulting as the preferred firm, citing its experience serving agencies such as Orange County, the City of Phoenix, and San Diego County. She stated that Bob Murray & Associates was the second choice. Council Member Balius noted that the recruitment proposals did not appear to include cancellation provisions but assumed firms would bill for services performed if the process were to discontinue. He shared that many firms offered a one-year replacement guarantee, with some proposing to conduct a replacement search at no additional professional fee if the selected candidate departed within the guaranteed period. Mayor Aitken expressed confidence in the executive evaluation panel. MOTION: Mayor Aitken moved to approve and authorize the Human Resources Director to negotiate and enter into an agreement with CPS HR, and any related amendments, in a total amount not to exceed $75,000, for costs associated with the contract and any contingencies that may arise from the recruitment, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Leon. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. D125 22. Review the draft Anaheim Economic Development Strategic Plan for 2026-2031 and provide staff with direction as necessary. Director of Economic Development Sergio Ramirez introduced the Economic Development Strategic Plan, noting that it implemented Goal F of the City's Strategic Plan, which focused on promoting economic development and tourism through business attraction, retention, job creation, and a strong, diverse local economy. He reported that the City engaged Baker Tilly to partner with the Economic Development Department in developing the plan. He stated that over the past 12 months, Baker Tilly evaluated City operations, procedures, funding, and service capacity, while conducting extensive outreach with businesses, developers, property owners, residents, City departments, and the City Council. He introduced the project team and Al Zelinka with Baker Tilly. He highlighted Mr. Zelinka's experience in city management, community development, and economic development. He shared that Mr. Zelinka served as City Manager for the cities of Riverside and Huntington Beach. He added that prior to that, he served as the Community Development Director for the City of Huntington Beach. Mr. Zelinka presented the proposed five-year Economic Development Strategic Plan, describing it as an implementation -focused roadmap designed to advance the City Council's priorities and address Anaheim's economic development needs across its commercial corridors and districts. He noted that the plan fulfills the Council's 2024 direction to address neighborhood and commercial blight and to create and implement a strategic economic development plan, translating those policy priorities into actionable initiatives for City staff. Mr. Zelinka summarized the extensive outreach effort conducted to develop the Economic Development Strategic Plan, including interviews with City Council Members and department heads, community meetings, stakeholder roundtables, and public surveys. He reported that outreach included participation from more than 175 business and real estate professionals through surveys, over 352 residents at six district meetings, and more than 75 participants in roundtable discussions with small and large businesses, developers, and brokers. He noted that the feedback gathered through the engagement efforts formed the foundation of the Strategic Plan. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 19 of 36 Mr. Zelinka explained that the Economic Development Strategic Plan is grounded in both extensive stakeholder input and economic data, including analyses prepared by the City's economic consultant, Keyser Marston. He reported that the plan follows the same framework as the City's Strategic Plan by establishing goals, strategies, and implementation actions. He added that unlike the City's Strategic Plan, the implementation actions are organized by year from 2027 through 2031 and identify lead and supporting departments to enhance accountability and track progress. He stated that the overview would focus on the plan's goals and strategies. Mr. Zelinka outlined Goal A of the Plan, which focused on attracting and retaining business through primary strategies: promoting Anaheim locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally; attracting industries that strengthen the City's tax base; and proactively supporting existing businesses to retain jobs and encourage expansion. He emphasized that business attraction and retention are essential to maintaining a strong local economy, generating General Fund revenues, and supporting quality employment opportunities throughout Anaheim. Mr. Zelinka reported that Goal B of the Plan focused on promoting tourism, hospitality, sports, and entertainment through strategies to expand lodging, dining, and entertainment opportunities and position the Angel Stadium property for long-term success. He noted that tourism remains a key economic driver for Anaheim and emphasized preparing for future growth while balancing citywide economic benefits with neighborhood stability. He identified the City Manager's Office as the lead department for efforts related to the Angel Stadium property, with support from the Economic Development Department and other City departments. Mr. Zelinka outlined Goal C of the Plan. He explained that the goal focused on supporting small businesses through strategies to strengthen local retail and restaurant businesses, provide information on financing opportunities, leverage City partnerships to increase business visibility, and improve navigation of City processes and regulations for small and micro businesses. He noted that feedback from the business community emphasized the importance of access to capital, marketing support, and assistance with regulatory processes. He stated that the goal is intended to create a more seamless business experience and strengthen commercial corridors and districts throughout Anaheim. Mr. Zelinka stated that Goal D focused on revitalizing Anaheim's commercial corridors through strategies that include managing successor agency properties, advancing the 39 Commons development, packaging investment -ready sites, fostering a vibrant downtown, and revitalizing key commercial corridors. He noted that community feedback highlighted a strong desire for visible improvements, including enhanced cleanliness, safety, and reinvestment in underutilized properties, with an emphasis on delivering tangible results that benefit residents and businesses. Mr. Zelinka outlined the final goal, Goal E, of the Plan, which focused on evaluating the Economic Development Department's organizational structure and establishing sustainable funding strategies. He noted that the Department was created with one-time and declining successor agency funding and that stakeholder input strongly supported maintaining a dedicated Department. He reported that the Plan recommends transitioning to a more sustainable funding model to ensure the department's long-term effectiveness. He emphasized that economic development is a citywide responsibility requiring collaboration across all departments and highlighted the importance of continually improving the development review process to better serve businesses and investment opportunities. DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks expressed support for incorporating stronger Code Enforcement efforts into commercial corridor revitalization initiatives, emphasizing the importance of maintaining property standards to support businesses and enhance neighborhood quality throughout the City. She highlighted the City's ongoing permit streamlining efforts and encouraged continued City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 20 of 36 interdepartmental collaboration to improve the business development process. She expressed concerns about Anaheim's lower -than -average high school graduation rates and suggested exploring educational support programs, such as GED classes through the City's libraries, to strengthen workforce development. She noted that improving educational opportunities could benefit both residents and the City's long-term economic development efforts. Mayor Pro Tem Leon thanked staff for the Economic Development Strategic Plan and asked how progress on Goal D, continued revitalization of commercial corridors, would be measured. He noted that many of the implementation actions are ongoing and requested information on key performance indicators (KPIs) or other measurable objectives that would be evaluated. Director Ramirez reported that Goal D encompasses a broad range of initiatives and that specific KPI's are being developed for individual commercial districts and corridors. He noted that planned performance measures include attracting targeted industries through economic analyses, advancing business growth initiatives, evaluating business improvement districts, implementing corridor revitalization projects, supporting small business development, reducing code enforcement and public safety issues, and promoting placemaking and reinvestment efforts in commercial areas, including the Canyon, Little Arabia, Beach Boulevard, and Center City. Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested clarification on how ongoing implementation actions would be managed, asking whether specific timelines, milestones, and deadlines would be established for initiatives such as developing industry -specific marketing materials and investment packages. He emphasized the importance of having a clear implementation roadmap to measure progress toward the plan's long-term economic development goals. Director Ramirez explained that one of the plan's implementation priorities is developing a strategic marketing and communications plan to better promote Anaheim's strengths. He noted that the City's public utility system is a significant competitive advantage and emphasized the importance of working collaboratively with City departments to identify and market the incentives and assets that distinguish Anaheim and attract targeted industries and businesses. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon, Director Ramirez emphasized that developing a strategic marketing and communications plan is one of the City's highest implementation priorities for the coming year. Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested that the Economic Development Strategic Plan explicitly include exploring and pursuing the formation of a Business Improvement District (BID) in the Little Arabia District. He noted growing interest among local business owners and brokers and emphasized the importance of providing outreach, education, and City support throughout the BID formation process. Director Ramirez confirmed that the Business Improvement District initiative is already included under Goal D, but stated that, based on Council direction, it could be identified as a standalone implementation action and scheduled as a 2027 priority. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon, Deputy City Manager Ted White clarified that Goal D, Action D already includes support for the revitalization of key commercial corridors, including Little Arabia, and specifically provides for City support of locally initiated BID formations, concluding that the requested initiative is already addressed within the plan. Council Member Kurtz expressed support for the Plan's emphasis on diversifying Anaheim's economy while continuing to strengthen the City's tourism, hospitality, sports, and entertainment sectors. She also emphasized the importance of collaboration among City departments and recognized the value City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 21 of 36 of leveraging market and visitor data from the Convention Center and tourism staff to inform economic development strategies and attract visitors and investment. She highlighted the importance of public safety as a foundational element of the City's economic development efforts, noting that maintaining a safe community is essential for attracting businesses, supporting tourism, revitalizing commercial corridors, and encouraging investment. She requested that the Plan more explicitly recognize the critical role of the Police and Fire Departments in achieving the City's economic development objectives. Council Member Rubalcava thanked staff for developing the Economic Development Strategic Plan and expressed strong support for its focus on business attraction and retention. She shared strong support for Goal A, emphasizing that attracting and retaining businesses is the foundation of economic development. She encouraged the City to pursue high -value employers and industries that generate significant sales tax revenue and quality jobs, citing the future Porsche dealership as an example of the type of investment the City should seek. She recognized the importance of restaurants and hospitality businesses, but noted that restaurants generally produce less tax revenue and experience high business failure rates, making economic diversification an important priority. She highlighted Goal B and agreed with the emphasis on tourism, hospitality, sports, and entertainment while recognizing the important role of Visit Anaheim in those efforts. She encouraged the City to continue developing partnerships with international organizations and foreign trade representatives, referencing recent engagement with Mexican officials to promote technology -related investment. She recommended leveraging the City's memberships in professional and industry associations, as well as collaborating with organizations such as the Orange County Business Council, to identify businesses seeking new headquarters or expansion opportunities in Anaheim. She supported revitalization of commercial corridors but cautioned against placing too much emphasis on physical improvements and signage without ensuring that new businesses and employers are actually locating within those areas. She stated that while corridor branding is valuable, the City's primary objective should be attracting industries such as aerospace and other high -quality employers that create jobs and expand the local economy. She acknowledged the challenges associated with utilizing federal Opportunity Zone incentives and suggested partnering with experienced consultants to better assist businesses in navigating those programs and attracting private investment. She shared that under Goal E, she had concerns regarding expansion of the Economic Development Department and its funding. She recognized the importance of economic development; however, emphasized the need to avoid creating overlapping responsibilities with departments such as Planning, which already plays a critical role in facilitating business development and permitting. She cautioned against organizational changes that could complicate interdepartmental coordination. She requested additional information regarding the Economic Development Department's current budget. Community Investment Manager Ajay Kolluri explained that the Economic Development Department's budget is funded through two primary sources: a General Fund transfer based on a formula tied to former redevelopment agency revenues, and one-time revenues generated from the sale of former successor agency properties. He noted that because property sale proceeds are finite and decline as assets are sold, a significant portion of the department's operating budget relies on an unsustainable, one-time funding source. He stated that the Strategic Plan identifies this funding challenge but does not propose a specific solution. He explained that the plan is intended to acknowledge the issue and initiate future discussions among the City Council, City Manager's Office, and Finance Department to develop a sustainable long-term funding strategy for the Economic Development Department. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Interim City Manager Greg Garcia responded that a detailed budget breakdown was not immediately available but would be provided during the upcoming June budget discussions. He noted that the budget presentation would identify the department's funding sources, including General Fund support and declining successor agency City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 22 of 36 revenues. He emphasized that Goal E is intended to highlight the need to develop a sustainable long- term funding model for the Economic Development Department. Council Member Rubalcava stated that, before considering long-term funding solutions for the Economic Development Department, the City Council should review the department's performance and measurable outcomes. She requested KPIs and other metrics demonstrating the department's accomplishments and the return on taxpayer investment, explaining that the information would help inform future funding decisions during the budget process. Interim City Manager Garcia emphasized that developing a sustainable funding strategy is necessary to implement the Economic Development Strategic Plan and achieve its long-term goals and initiatives. Council Member Rubalcava stated that while the Economic Development Strategic Plan contains many worthwhile initiatives, not all of the proposed actions should necessarily be the responsibility of the Economic Development Department. She emphasized the importance of maintaining a focused, results -oriented approach, particularly on business attraction and retention, and suggested that some initiatives may be more appropriately led by other departments, such as Marketing or Communications. She reiterated the need to prioritize measurable outcomes and thanked staff for the comprehensive presentation, expressing appreciation for the work completed and interest in seeing the plan implemented. Council Member Maahs expressed appreciation for the Economic Development Strategic Plan and emphasized the importance of ensuring that small businesses receive the same level of attention as major development projects. She requested additional information on how the City engages with small businesses that do not typically participate in City outreach efforts. Director Ramirez explained that the City engages small businesses through partnerships with community organizations, direct outreach, community meetings, social media, and targeted business roundtables. He noted that the small business roundtables held during development of the Economic Development Strategic Plan generated strong participation and valuable feedback and will continue to serve as a key outreach strategy. Mr. Zelinka highlighted the success of the business roundtables, noting that they created valuable networking opportunities among Anaheim businesses. He noted that during one roundtable, businesses discovered they had been purchasing goods and services from outside the city despite being able to source them locally, leading to new commitments to do business with one another. He explained that the feedback directly informed Goal C, including actions to create an Anaheim business -to -business directory and establish regular quarterly business roundtables to strengthen local business connections and support the local economy. Council Member Maahs emphasized the importance of diversifying the City's revenue base by attracting industries that are less vulnerable to economic downturns, such as biotechnology and defense, to strengthen Anaheim's long-term economic resilience. Council Member Balius thanked staff for developing a comprehensive and well -considered Economic Development Strategic Plan and expressed support for its overall direction. He emphasized that public safety is essential to successful economic development, particularly along Beach Boulevard, stating that maintaining a safe environment is critical to attracting high -quality businesses and investment. He distinguished the role of the Economic Development Department from Visit Anaheim, noting that while Visit Anaheim promotes tourism and visitor attractions, the Economic Development Department is focused on attracting businesses that invest in Anaheim and serve the local City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 23 of 36 community. He encouraged continued outreach and marketing efforts to recruit new businesses and recognized the department's work in supporting new business openings and economic growth, expressing appreciation for staffs efforts. Mayor Aitken expressed support for the plan's inclusion of Opportunity Zone initiatives and the pursuit of additional state and federal funding for qualifying areas throughout the City. She inquired how flexible the Economic Development Strategic Plan would be in responding to changing economic conditions and unforeseen opportunities, noting that implementation should allow for adjustments as new priorities and economic circumstances arise. Director Ramirez responded that the Economic Development Strategic Plan is intended to remain flexible to accommodate changing economic conditions, emerging opportunities, and evolving City priorities. He stated that the Plan would be reviewed annually either as part of the City's overall Strategic Plan update or through a dedicated economic development update, allowing the City Council to revise goals and implementation actions as needed. Mayor Aitken inquired whether the City has considered implementing zoning changes to encourage redevelopment of underutilized commercial centers along major transportation corridors into mixed - use projects with housing. She noted that recent State legislation promotes housing near transit and suggested that increasing residential development along commercial corridors could help expand the customer base for local businesses. Deputy City Manager White responded that, through the recently adopted Housing Element and its implementation program, the City has updated its Zoning code to allow by -right residential development in certain underutilized commercial areas, including older strip malls, without requiring a separate rezoning process. In response to Mayor Aitken, Deputy City Manager White explained that the City's by -right residential zoning generally allows residential -only development rather than mixed -use projects. He noted that mixed -use development has historically faced market challenges and has been most successful in highly walkable areas and major intersections, while mid -block mixed -use projects have generally not proven economically viable over the past two decades. Mayor Aitken inquired how the City is distributing information about the Housing Element to developers. Deputy City Manager White stated that the City has a variety of tools available to facilitate redevelopment opportunities and noted that housing developers are highly proactive in identifying potential sites. He explained that developers actively build relationships with property owners and are well aware of redevelopment opportunities throughout Anaheim, including sites suitable for new housing. In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Ramirez explained that individual property owners —not the Downtown Anaheim Association —are responsible for leasing and managing retail properties in the Center Street area. He added that the Downtown Anaheim Association manages public spaces and programming, while the City participates as a board member and meets regularly with the association to address operational issues. He noted that retail vacancy along Center Street is relatively limited. Mayor Aitken inquired whether the City plans to partner with professional marketing experts to better promote Anaheim's economic advantages as part of its business attraction strategy. She emphasized the importance of effectively communicating the City's competitive strengths —such as affordable public utility rates, business -friendly environment, and successful business investments —to City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 24 of 36 prospective employers. She encouraged developing a proactive marketing strategy that highlights success stories, including major business expansions and relocations, and leverages local media and City leadership to showcase Anaheim's economic assets and attract additional investment. Director Ramirez agreed that engaging a professional marketing firm would be the department's preferred approach for developing and promoting Anaheim's economic development brand. He explained that the firm would help create a comprehensive marketing strategy highlighting Anaheim's competitive advantages, develop targeted messaging and marketing materials, and position the City to compete nationally and internationally for business investment in industries such as tourism, bioscience, and manufacturing. He added that the process would include input City leadership, business stakeholders, and departments to create customized marketing tools and narratives that effectively communicate Anaheim's strengths. Mayor Aitken encouraged the City to make greater use of social media and local media outlets to highlight Anaheim's economic successes, including showcasing local CEOs, successful business relocations and expansions, and the City's competitive advantages. She cited Arizona Tea as an example of a significant success story that deserves greater public recognition. She inquired whether the Economic Development Department has analyzed the impact of the former hotel incentive program and requested information on new development activity in the Resort district since the incentive program expired. Director Ramirez stated that the City has not conducted a formal evaluation of the former hotel incentive program. He noted that hotel development costs ultimately exceeded the assumptions made when the program was adopted in 2016, while the resulting economic benefits to the City appear to have surpassed original projections. He shared that a retrospective analysis would be valuable and added that, with anticipated growth from Disneyland Forward and OCVIBE, demand for hotel rooms is expected to increase, creating opportunities to attract additional hotel development and retain investment within Anaheim rather than neighboring cities. Mayor Aitken suggested exploring updates to zoning standards along Harbor Boulevard, particularly hotel density requirements, to encourage redevelopment and reduce the need for parcel -by -parcel zoning changes. She noted that upcoming infrastructure improvements, including construction of the pedestrian bridge, present an opportunity to reevaluate zoning policies in the Resort area. She expressed strong support for departmental performance dashboards to improve accountability and transparency and emphasized the importance of continued cross -department collaboration to streamline the business permitting process. She recommended establishing a "one -stop" business assistance model, with Economic Development serving as a central point of contact to guide new businesses through the City's permitting and approval process, making it easier for entrepreneurs to open and retain businesses in Anaheim. Mayor Pro Tern Leon requested that the proposed Little Arabia Business Improvement District (BID) be identified as a standalone action within the Economic Development Department Strategic Plan rather than being included as part of a broader implementation item, stating that doing so would better emphasize the City's commitment to advancing the initiative. He stressed the importance of continued collaboration between the Economic Development and Planning Departments to ensure businesses receive coordinated assistance throughout the development and permitting process, while acknowledging recent improvements and encouraging continued efforts to streamline approvals and enhance the customer experience. Council Member Rubalcava expressed support for targeted business -to -business marketing efforts but stated that broad marketing of tourism, hospitality, sports, and entertainment should remain outside the primary role of the Economic Development Department. She encouraged staff to focus City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 25 of 36 marketing efforts on trade shows, partnerships with regional chambers of commerce, and outreach to businesses considering expansion into Anaheim. She cautioned staff to carefully evaluate any future business incentives or subsidy programs, noting that such programs have historically been controversial in Anaheim. She acknowledged that incentives can sometimes be necessary to attract investment; however, urged transparency and thoughtful consideration of any future incentive packages, particularly distinguishing between support for small businesses and larger corporations. She emphasized the importance of interdepartmental collaboration regarding business development, noting ongoing efforts with the Planning Department to improve the development review process. She suggested continuing to streamline permitting through clear, user-friendly processes, including online resources that outline required permits, approvals, and departmental responsibilities for prospective businesses. She encouraged staff to ensure the Economic Development Department's website provides comprehensive resources for businesses evaluating Anaheim as a potential location. She requested updates on the City's efforts to recruit businesses to long -vacant commercial properties, including prominent vacant sites and existing commercial vacancies, and asked staff to provide information on current recruitment strategies and measurable success in filling those spaces. Deputy City Manager White clarified that improvements to the planning and building review process are a key component of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and confirmed that the Planning and Building Department will serve as the lead department for those initiatives. He explained that Economic Development, along with Public Works, Utilities, Fire, and other departments, will provide supporting roles to ensure a coordinated and streamlined development review process. Council Member Rubalcava expressed support for highlighting Anaheim's competitive advantages in future marketing materials, recommending that business recruitment efforts emphasize key features and benefits such as the City's lower utility rates, large resident population, and substantial daily increase in population due to visitors and workforce activity. Council Member Balius asked whether the implementation actions in the Economic Development Strategic Plan should be prioritized to better identify the City's highest priorities, noting that the plan contains numerous ongoing initiatives. He suggested that establishing a prioritized order could help guide implementation and resource allocation. He emphasized the importance of pursuing long-term ground lease opportunities on City -owned land, stating that leasing available properties could provide a sustainable revenue source while supporting the City's broader economic development objectives. He clarified whether the Economic Development Strategic Plan should establish a clearer prioritization of its goals and implementation actions, similar to the City's broader Strategic Plan, to better identify the highest -priority initiatives and guide the City's efforts. He suggested that the Plan place greater emphasis on leveraging City -owned property as an economic development tool, including opportunities to lease or otherwise utilize municipal land to generate ongoing revenue while supporting economic growth. Director Ramirez responded that the use of City -owned and successor agency properties is already addressed under Goal D, which focuses on managing and disposing of the successor agency property portfolio. He explained that vacant properties are actively managed and, when immediate redevelopment is not possible due to environmental remediation or legal constraints, the City seeks temporary activation opportunities until long-term development can occur. He added that previous Council interest in activating underutilized properties has been incorporated into the Strategic Plan's implementation approach. In response to Council Member Balius, Director Ramirez stated that City -owned properties are generally managed by the Public Works Department, noting that further evaluation would be needed to determine how those properties could be incorporated into the City's economic development strategy City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 26 of 36 Council Member Balius recommended adding greater emphasis in the Economic Development Strategic Plan on leveraging City -owned properties to generate ongoing revenue, stating that municipal assets should be strategically utilized to support economic development and provide long- term income for the City. Interim City Manager Garcia responded that the City regularly evaluates opportunities to utilize City - owned properties for revenue generation and economic development, noting that the appropriateness of such uses depends on the property's location and other site -specific considerations. Director Ramirez acknowledged that the Strategic Plan contains numerous ongoing initiatives but explained that the intent is to maintain a focused, achievable five-year work program with measurable KPIs. He noted that the plan reflects extensive input from the City Council and community stakeholders, while balancing ongoing obligations —such as successor agency responsibilities —with the City's available staffing and resources to ensure meaningful progress on Council priorities. Council Member Balius suggested that the Economic Development Strategic Plan prioritize its initiatives to provide clearer direction to staff, noting that while all of the ongoing efforts are valuable, identifying the highest -priority actions would help focus resources and implementation. Deputy City Manager White explained that the Economic Development Strategic Plan already incorporates a level of prioritization by organizing actions over a five-year implementation timeline, with Year One initiatives representing the highest near -term priorities. He noted that unlike the broader City Strategic Plan, many economic development activities are ongoing and must remain flexible to respond to changing market conditions and emerging opportunities. Council Member Balius suggested partnering with the Workforce Investment Board and local colleges to support GED and high school completion programs, noting that these organizations may be better suited than the library system to help strengthen workforce development and educational attainment. Deputy City Manager White advised that Council could approve the Strategic Plan as presented, approve with amendments, or direct staff to return with additional revisions. He noted that proposed changes, including adding a goal for the Little Arabia Business Improvement District, could be incorporated through a Council motion or following discussions with Council Members. MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to continue the item and direct staff to incorporate the Council's feedback into a revised Strategic Plan. DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava explained that additional detail and refinement would help Council provide more informed direction, particularly as the City enters the budget planning process. Interim City Manager Garcia stated that the Council's feedback could be incorporated into the Economic Development Strategic Plan and explained that the Plan could be approved with the proposed revisions. He added that additional details, including budget and organizational considerations, could continue to be developed and presented as part of future implementation efforts. Council Member Rubalcava expressed concern about approving the Plan before the Council's feedback was fully incorporated. She requested that staff revise the Plan to reflect the comments received, provide additional detail on implementation priorities and measurable KPIs, and return with an updated version for Council consideration rather than approving the Plan. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 27 of 36 Council Member Meeks stated that the revised Economic Development Strategic Plan should incorporate the Council's feedback and recommended that staff work directly with individual Council Members to clarify any comments that were not sufficiently specific before finalizing the document. She suggested the revised plan could return as a consent calendar item if appropriate, noting that the plan was close to completion. She added that the existing format appropriately reflects the need for flexibility in responding to economic opportunities. Council Member Kurtz expressed support for the Plan's approach, noting that economic development requires staff to manage multiple initiatives simultaneously and remain flexible in responding to emerging opportunities. She stated that the Year One actions already reflect the City's priorities and that additional ranking of initiatives is unnecessary, as priorities will naturally shift when significant development opportunities arise. She emphasized the importance of continuing progress on all ongoing efforts, while highlighting the proposed Little Arabia Business Improvement District as a particularly important initiative. Mayor Aitken supported having staff meet individually with Council Members who provided comments to ensure their feedback was accurately reflected in the final Plan. She suggested returning the revised plan on the Consent Calendar, if appropriate, to ensure the final language captures the Council's intent. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Leon moved to approve the Economic Development Strategic Plan, incorporating Council's feedback, including adding Goal E to include the Little Arabia Business Improvement District, and return to Council with the final plan. DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava requested that the motion include direction to staff to incorporate feedback and revise the Economic Development Strategic Plan accordingly, and return the updated plan on the Consent Calendar for approval. City Attorney Fabela advised that no motion was pending because neither Council Member's motion had received a second. Council Member Rubalcava proposed modifying the motion to direct staff to incorporate the Council's feedback, including revisions related to the proposed Little Arabia Business Improvement District, consult with Council Members as needed to ensure their comments are accurately reflected, and return the revised Economic Development Strategic Plan on the consent calendar for approval. She noted that the approach would ensure the final document reflects the Council's intent while avoiding the need for additional discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Leon inquired whether delaying approval of the Economic Development Strategic Plan until the following Council meeting would present any concerns. Interim City Manager Garcia stated that while there was no urgency to approve the Economic Development Strategic Plan. He explained that staff had hoped to obtain Council approval to provide clear direction and move forward with implementation and other priorities. He added that if Council preferred additional time to refine the plan through individual meetings, there would be no objection, and a brief delay would not significantly impact ongoing economic development efforts. He committed to meeting individually with Council Members to review their comments, incorporate the suggested revisions into the Economic Development Strategic Plan, circulate the updated document for review, and return it to the Council on the Consent Calendar, with a target timeframe of June, subject to Council availability City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 28 of 36 In response to Mayor Aitken, Interim City Manager Garcia confirmed the action would be to continue the item. Mayor Aitken suggested continuing the item to a date certain, for the June 91h City Council meeting, to incorporate Council feedback, ensuring accountability for completing the revisions and returning the updated plan for consideration. Director Ramirez requested clarification from the City Attorney on whether the item could return on the Consent Calendar, or whether continuing the item would require the Plan to return on the Business Calendar. City Attorney Fabela stated that, while a continuance would typically require the item to return as a Business Calendar item, the Council could instead direct staff to revise the Economic Development Strategic Plan and place the updated version on the Consent Calendar, with the option for any Council Member to pull it for discussion if needed. In response to Mayor Aitken, City Attorney Fabela advised that the City Council could move to continue the item with direction to place the Plan on the Consent Calendar following input from Council Members. MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to continue the item to the June gth City Council meeting, seconded by Council Member Balius. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. D116 23. RESOLUTION NO.. 2026-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM opposing the California High -Speed Rail Authority's proposal to establish Tax Increment Financing districts. Government Affairs Manager Alyssa Guerrero reported that the item was a resolution to oppose the California High -Speed Rail Authority's proposal to establish State-controlled Tax Increment Financing Districts. She stated that at the May 5, 2026 Council meeting, Council Member Balius requested an agenda item for the City to consider formally opposing the proposal. She reported that in February 2026, the High -Speed Rail Authority released its construction strategy and revenue approach for the High -Speed Rail Project. She added that the plan included a proposal to establish tax increment financing districts within a half -mile radius of proposed station locations. Government Affairs Manager Guerrero stated that under the High -Speed Rail Authority's proposal, the State would be allowed to capture property and sales tax growth revenue from new developments to support the construction of the High -Speed Rail Project. She reported that Anaheim is identified as a future High -Speed Rail Station site at the ARTIC, and if the proposal advances, it could divert property and sales tax growth revenue from the areas surrounding the station, including OCVIBE. She explained that such revenues from OCVIBE could potentially be captured to fund the High - Speed Rail Project, thereby taking away funding that could support essential public services, including parks, housing, infrastructure, maintenance, transportation, and public safety. Government Affairs Manager Guerrero reported that on April 27, the State Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the draft 2026 Business Plan. She explained that the Plan is likely to move forward through the State budget process, and the City would not receive specific information about the proposal until it appears in a budget trailer bill. She stated that Statewide local government organizations, including the League of California Cities, the California Association of Counties, and the California Special Districts Association, have led efforts to oppose City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 29 of 36 the proposal. She explained that if approved, the resolution and a letter of opposition would be sent to State legislators. DISCUSSION: Council Member Balius clarified that the discussion was not opposition to the High - Speed Rail Project itself; however, opposition to the proposed formation of taxing districts included in the legislation. He expressed concern that the proposal's language was overly broad and could allow tax increment financing outside the normal State budget process, potentially creating a precedent for future taxing districts. He noted that Anaheim has made significant local investments, including around Angel Stadium, to generate revenue for City services and expressed concern that State capture of local property or sales tax revenues could negatively affect the City's finances. He recommended that the City formally oppose the proposed language to enable staff to actively advocate against the measure. Council Member Meeks expressed support for opposing the proposed taxing district language, noting that the City invested in ARTIC and surrounding development in anticipation of the economic benefits associated with future high-speed rail service. She stated that Anaheim has prepared for the High - Speed Rail and should retain the local economic benefits generated by those investments rather than lose them through State tax increment proposals. Council Member Kurtz expressed concern that the proposal was being advanced through the State budget process rather than the traditional legislative process. She recommended sending the City's opposition to Anaheim's legislative representatives, directing the City's lobbyists to actively oppose the proposal, and having staff communicate directly with legislators to convey the City's concerns. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Leon, Government Affairs Manager Guerrero confirmed that the resolution would be revised accordingly to update "letters of support" to "letters of opposition". Mayor Pro Tem Leon requested clarification in the resolution that Anaheim supports public transportation and future high-speed rail service, while opposing only the proposed taxing district language. He stated that the City supports expanding public transportation through a fair, transparent, and collaborative partnership with the state, and recommended including that message in communications with state legislators to avoid any misunderstanding about the City's position. Mayor Aitken requested that the resolution be revised to explicitly state the City's support for the High -Speed Rail Project and not that ARTIC was developed in anticipation of serving as a future High -Speed Rail station, ensuring the City's opposition is clearly limited to the proposed taxing district provisions. Council Member Balius agreed to incorporate language affirming the City's support for the High - Speed Rail, emphasizing that the intent of the item was not to oppose the project itself but to oppose the proposed tax increment financing provisions. Council Member Rubalcava supported incorporating language affirming the City's support for public transportation and recognizing Anaheim's investment in infrastructure to accommodate the future High -Speed Rail Project. She emphasized that the City's opposition is directed solely at the proposed tax increment financing provisions, particularly given the importance of public transportation in a tourism -oriented community. MOTION: Council Member Balius moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2026-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM opposing the California High - Speed Rail Authority's proposal to establish Tax Increment Financing districts, as amended to update the recital to state "letters of opposition" and include a recital expressing the City's support of the City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 30 of 36 High -Speed Rail project, seconded by Council Member Meeks. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. D113 24. Receive presentation on Senate Bill (SB) 707 (2025) regarding changes to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act). RESOLUTION NO. 2026-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Council Policy No. 1.14 regarding the City's policy in response to telephonic or internet service disruption during public meeting. (Council Policy No. 1.14 amended to clarify disruption to "City" services) RESOLUTION NO. 2026-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Council Policy No. 1.15 establishing a public posting board for publicly translated agendas. (Council Policy No. 1.15 amended Section C. to read removal of agendas on the day following the Council meeting) RESOLUTION NO. 2026-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining reasonable efforts to encourage public participation in meetings pursuant to Government Code § 54953.4. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-053 __ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending and restating the procedures and rules of order for the conduct of City Council meetings. Provide additional direction or feedback to staff regarding meeting procedures, as desired. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that in October 2025, Senate Bill (SB) 707 was signed into law, enacting the most comprehensive set of amendments to the Brown Act. She stated that the legislation restructured and expanded the statutory framework governing public access and remote participation in local government meetings with the intent to diversify and increase public engagement. She explained that the new requirements under SB 707 apply to "Eligible legislative bodies", defined as City Councils with populations of greater than 30,000 or City Councils in counties with populations of greater than 600,000. She confirmed that the City of Anaheim meets the criteria and was thereby subject to those requirements outlined in the statute. She reported that among the various new requirements under SB 707, the legislation requires eligible legislative bodies to provide two-way telephonic or audiovisual access for all open meetings and to take specific actions that encourage residents to participate, including comprehensive language access for non-English speakers. City Clerk Bass explained that SB 707 requires City Council meetings to move beyond live streaming and offer hybrid meetings. She noted that currently, the public can watch City Council meetings online through Granicus, YouTube, and on Anaheim TV. She reported that starting July 1, the public must be able to participate through a two-way phone or video platform, with the ability to provide real- time public comment. She explained that to meet those requirements, staff is working with the City's Information Services Team to utilize Zoom Webinar, which integrates with the City's current systems and provides automatic captioning. She added that with the shift to remote participation, members of the public would be provided information and clear instructions on the City's procedures to participate City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 31 of 36 and provide public comments remotely. She explained that similar to in -person speakers, those who would like to provide public comments would be asked to complete a speaker form, which would be provided online, to indicate if they are addressing City Council on an agenda item or any non -agenda item, but within the Council's jurisdiction. She reported that following the completion of in -person speakers, staff would call upon those who submitted an online form to address Council remotely. She noted that the public comment procedures remain unchanged, with speakers having one opportunity to address the City Council, except for scheduled public hearings. She added that the public comment period is limited to 90 minutes or until all agenda item speakers have been heard; beyond the 90 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and City Council, the non -agenda related speakers may be heard during the second public period, held at the end of Council business. She reported that with the new technical component to City Council meetings, SB 707 requires the City Council to approve a policy regarding disruption of the remote platform and efforts to restore service. She explained that if a disruption prevents the public from attending a meeting, the City Council must take a recess and try to restore service for at least one hour, or until service is restored, whichever occurs first. She added that if the disruption cannot be resolved, the City Council must adopt a finding by roll call vote confirming that good -faith efforts were made to fix the issue and that resuming the meeting serves the public interest more than delaying it further. She explained that the proposed Council Policy No. 1.14 ensures compliance with SB 707. City Clerk Bass reported that SB 707 also revises and restates the existing teleconferencing provisions for states of emergency, just cause, and emergency circumstances, and expands coverage to include: (1) states of emergency declared by localities, and (2) just cause allowances, including physical or family medical emergencies preventing in -person attendance and military service. She noted that in addition, SB 707 allows agencies to permit attendance by a Council Member via teleconferencing as a reasonable accommodation under applicable law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She added that those attending in accordance with this section must disclose any present adults and their relationship to them and participate via audio and camera, unless their disability prevents them from doing so. She reported that the new law also authorizes remote teleconference meetings by "eligible subsidiary bodies" of local agencies, as long as the subsidiary bodies comply with certain requirements. She explained that compliance is defined as having at least one physical location for the meeting, requiring that members attending remotely appear on camera and requiring the legislative body that created the subsidiary body to make certain findings prior to authorizing fully remote meetings and at least every six months thereafter. She added that under SB 707, an "eligible subsidiary body" includes only advisory bodies that cannot take certain final actions and do not have primary subject matter jurisdiction on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, library material restrictions, or taxing or spending proposals. City Clerk Bass reported that in efforts to increase participation from underrepresented groups and non-English speakers, agendas must be translated into every applicable language when the agenda is posted within the required 72-hour notice. She explained that the bill defines "applicable languages" as those spoken by at least 20 percent (20%) of the local population that speaks English less than "very well," according to the most recent American Community Survey. She stated that based on current demographic information from the American Community Survey, Spanish is the only applicable language for the City, with Spanish spoken by 41 % of Anaheim residents and 39% speak English "less than very well." She reported that pursuant to the new legislation, the City Council Agenda will be translated into Spanish and posted concurrently with the English version under the Brown Act's agenda -posting deadlines. She added that translation of the agenda would also include instructions for how to join the meeting via telephonic or internet-based service, including the speaker instructions for public comment. She stated that SB 707 requires a freely accessible physical location near the official posted agenda to be made available for members of the public to post additional translations of the agenda. She added that the Public Posting Board is for publicly translated agendas only and any documents other than translated agendas for the Anaheim City Council are not City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 32 of 36 permitted. She explained that the Brown Act does not provide for City review of agenda translations posted by third parties. She noted that to ensure that members of the public who may rely on such translations, the Posting Board will include language stating that the City is not responsible for the content or accuracy of the content, of the posted agendas on the Posting Board. She reported that proposed Council Policy No. 1.15 ensures compliance and establishes the procedures for the translated agendas by the public pursuant to SB 707. She added that staff is requesting an amendment to the policy to read as follows: "To ensure that the Public Posting Board does not contain outdated information, staff will remove agendas the day after the meeting date", from Wednesday, to account for meetings that may not fall on a Tuesday. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that the intent of SB 707 was to increase and encourage participation in public meetings and requires the City and City Council to take specific actions, particularly among underrepresented communities and non -English-speaking communities. She stated that the proposed resolution defining reasonable efforts to encourage participation establishes the City's outreach approach to include media serving non -English-speaking communities in the distribution of meeting agendas, notices, or other meeting -related information. She added that the City of Anaheim would continue to maintain methods for members of the public to access meeting agendas and related materials electronically through the City's website. She noted that the City would continue to provide the option of members of the public to receive meeting agendas, notices, or other updates through the City's online "Notify Me" system. She reported that in addition, the City would provide meeting information through existing communication channels and partnerships with community -based organizations, neighborhood groups, civic organizations, and organizations serving non -English-speaking communities, as well as utilizing City newsletters, social media platforms, public counters, bulletin boards, and outreach at community meetings. She added that the efforts identified in the Resolution are intended to provide a flexible framework for outreach and public participation with broad discretion in defining these reasonable efforts and clarifies that failure to provide notice to any specific group does not create a basis for legal action, pursuant to the statute. She noted that staff is prepared to modify, expand, and adjust outreach methods over time based on evolving communication practices, changes in technology, and the needs of the community. She added that SB 707 requires an accessible internet webpage dedicated to information concerning public meetings and how members of the public may participate, including a link to the page on the agency's home page. She reported that the requirement has been met by having a prominent link to "Council Meetings" on the City's homepage. City Clerk Bass reported that SB 707 requirements and implementation need to be completed by July 1, 2026, City Council's consideration and action will put the infrastructure in place to ensure a seamless transition, with the first meeting with remote participation fully implemented at the Council meeting of July 14. She stated that the adoption of a Telephonic or Internet Service Disruption Policy will provide a clear playbook for when technology fails; Adoption of Public Posting Board for Publicly Translated Agendas Policy ensures language is no longer a barrier to participation and provides members of the public the opportunity to post translated agendas to reflect the diversity of our community. She added that defining 'reasonable efforts' for outreach means the City is being intentional, moving beyond just posting a notice on a wall and actively encouraging participation. She reported that amending and restating the Council Rules of Order is to integrate remote participation and includes updates to the public comment time limit for legislative matters to three (3) minutes per speaker from five (5) minutes to be consistent with members of the public addressing on quasi- judicial matters; all other public comment time limits remain unchanged. She outlined the current time limits for public comments: three (3) minutes for agenda items and general comments, 20 minutes for project applicants, 10 minutes for rebuttals, 10 minutes for property owners in the noticed area, and three (3) minutes for those outside the noticed area. She stated that the updates are not about legal compliance; they are about ensuring every resident —regardless of their primary language or whether City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 33 of 36 they can physically be in the Council Chamber- has the opportunity to participate in their local council meeting. DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks commented that the proposed multilingual bulletin board process appeared inconsistent, noting concerns that agendas translated by third parties could be posted alongside an English disclaimer stating the City could not guarantee the accuracy of the translations. She added that online translation tools are already available through the City's website and suggested monitoring how the bulletin board process functions in practice. City Clerk Bass acknowledged Council Member Meeks' concerns and stated that the City would monitor how the multilingual bulletin board is used, including which translations are most frequently utilized. She added that the process could be refined over time, including updating the disclaimer to appear in additional languages if appropriate. MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve the item. DISCUSSION: Council Member Balius suggested clarifying the meeting disruption policy to specify that qualifying disruptions refer only to failures of the City's remote meeting services, not connectivity issues experienced by individual participants. City Clerk Bass stated that the policy could be revised to make clear that disruptions apply only to City -provided streaming and remote participation services. In response to Council Member Balius, City Clerk Bass clarified that remote participation by an entire subsidiary body would require City Council approval. She noted that remote participation options for boards and commissions could be considered separately, but clarified that SB 707 applies specifically to city councils and does not extend to boards and commissions. Council Member Rubalcava clarified that the proposed language does not automatically limit public comments to one minute, noting that it preserves the Council's discretion to reduce speaking time, such as to one minute per speaker, only when necessary to accommodate a large number of public commenters. City Clerk Bass clarified that the proposed amendments do not reduce public comment time to one minute. She noted that the only substantive change to the Rules of Order is revising the public comment time for public hearings on legislative matters to three minutes, while all other speaking time limits remain unchanged. She added that the existing 90-minute general public comment guideline remains a procedural practice and provides flexibility to continue general public comments to after Council Business, if necessary. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, City Clerk Bass explained the proposed public comment process would include participation from in -person speakers followed by remote speakers. She also spoke of the use of an online speaker form to allow remote participants to identify whether they wish to speak on agenda items or general public comments, enabling staff to better organize and manage remote participation during meetings. Council Member Rubalcava inquired whether remote speakers would be required to provide identifying information, such as their name and contact information, similar to in -person speaker cards, and whether participants joining remotely would be required to have their cameras turned on while providing public comment. City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 34 of 36 City Clerk Bass explained that remote speakers would be asked to provide certain identifying information through an online speaker form, similar to in -person public comment cards. She noted that contact information would be optional, but speakers who wish to receive a response from the City Council or staff would be encouraged to include it. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, City Clerk Bass clarified that remote public participation would be audio -only. She added that remote speakers will be able to view the meeting. Council Member Rubalcava expressed support for allowing remote public participation, noting that it improves access for residents who cannot attend meetings in person. She expressed appreciation for staff's clarification that the proposed changes do not limit public participation. MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve the item, seconded by Council Member Rubalcava. DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tern Leon thanked the City Clerk and staff for their work on the updates. He requested clarification that the addition of remote public participation would not affect the public's ability to continue attending and speaking at Council meetings in person. City Clerk Bass confirmed that remote participation was intended to expand public access and does not change existing opportunities for in -person participation or the submission of written public comments. She explained that remote participation would serve as an additional option for members of the public to engage in Council meetings. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Leon, City Clerk Bass clarified that ADA-related teleconferencing provisions apply specifically to Council Members, providing additional accommodations for members who require them. She noted that under those provisions, a Council Member receiving an ADA accommodation would not be required to appear on camera while participating remotely. Mayor Pro Tern Leon requested clarification on the distinction between the proposed ADA teleconferencing provisions and the City's current procedures for remote participation by Council Members. City Clerk Bass explained that the City will continue to use traditional teleconferencing procedures, which require advance notice and posting of the remote location. She added that the proposed changes expand remote participation options by allowing Council Members to participate remotely under specified circumstances, including emergencies, illnesses, ADA accommodations, and other "just cause" situations authorized by State law, providing greater flexibility while remaining compliant with statutory requirements. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Leon, City Clerk Bass outlined a comprehensive public outreach plan to promote new remote participation options. She explained that the City would create a dedicated webpage accessible from the homepage in English and Spanish, with additional language translations available through the website's translation feature. She added that outreach efforts would include social media, attending community meetings, newsletters, utility bill inserts, public information displays, bulletin boards, and coordination with other City departments to ensure residents are informed about the new participation options and upcoming Council meetings. Mayor Pro Tern Leon requested clarification on the remote speaker queue process. City Clerk Bass explained that the Zoom webinar would remain open for the public to observe the meeting. She reported that individuals wishing to provide public comment would be asked to submit City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 35 of 36 an online speaker form by 5:00 p.m., identifying the item on which they wish to speak. She noted that speakers would be called in order by name or for phone participants, by the last digits of their telephone number. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Leon, City Clerk Bass clarified that requiring advance submission of an online speaker form is an administrative process to help organize and manage remote public comments, ensuring speakers are recognized and called for the appropriate agenda item. She noted that the procedure was not mandated by State law, but intended to facilitate orderly and effective remote participation while complying with State requirements for two-way public access. Mayor Pro Tern Leon inquired if the process was consistent with other cities' policies. City Clerk Bass explained that cities use different procedures to manage remote public comments. She noted that the proposed online speaker form was intended to organize speakers by agenda item, general public comment, and public hearing category, ensuring each speaker is recognized at the appropriate time and receives the correct time allotted for speaking. In response to Council Member Maahs, City Clerk Bass confirmed that the updates were proposed in compliance with State law and meant to increase public engagement, language equity, and remote access. Council Member Maahs inquired about the one -hour minimum for the Technology Disruption Policy. City Clerk Bass stated that she was not aware of the rationale behind the one -hour minimum, noting that the requirement was included in the legislation. Council Member Kurtz requested clarification regarding remote participation procedures for Council Members. City Clerk Bass explained that Council Members participating remotely would be participating via Zoom, to comply with SB 707's provisions for two-way communication. She clarified that under the new "just cause" provisions established by state law, Council Members may participate remotely for qualifying emergencies or family -related circumstances without posting the remote location, consistent with the updated legislation. In response to Council Member Balius, City Clerk Bass clarified that the 20- minute speaking time only applied to project applications and appellants during public hearings, including ten (10) minutes for rebuttals. She added that speakers within the noticed area receive ten (10) minutes to speak. She explained that remote speakers addressing public hearing items will be asked to indicate whether they are within the noticed area and provide their address for verification. She noted that the process mirrors the City's existing procedure for in -person speakers, whose addresses are verified to determine eligibility for speaking time applicable to those within the noticed area. MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2026-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Council Policy No. 1.14 regarding the City's policy in response to telephonic or internet service disruption during public meeting, as amended to clarify disruption to "City" services, RESOLUTION NO. 2026-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Council Policy No. 1.15 establishing a public posting board for publicly translated agendas, as amended, to update Section C in Council Policy No. 1.15 to read removal of agendas on the day following the Council meeting, RESOLUTION NO. _ 2026-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining reasonable efforts to encourage public participation in City Council Minutes of May 12, 2026 Page 36 of 36 meetings pursuant to Government Code § 54953.4, and RESOLUTION NO. 2026-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending and restating the procedures and rules of order for the conduct of City Council meetings, seconded by Council Member Rubalcava. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Leon, Balius, Rubalcava, Kurtz, Maahs, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (non -agenda items). None COUNCIL AGENDA SETTING: Council Member Meeks requested a recognition for the Quick Track Club for reaching the National Track and Field Championships. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Council, Mayor Aitken adjourned the City Council in memory of Richard "Dick" LaRochelle and Mary Hirahara, at 9:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, s, CMC Cit* Clerk From: David Martinez <david@streetsforall.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 11:36 AM To: Public Comment Cc: Mayors Office; Carlos A. Leon; Ryan Balius; Natalie Rubalcava; Norma C. Kurtz; Kristen Maahs; Natalie Meeks Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose Item 23 Attachments: OPPOSE Item 23.pdf You don't often get email from david@streetsforall.org. Learn why this is important Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Hello, Please see attached for our letter opposing Item 23. Best, David Martinez State Policv Manager Streets For All Unm 12 May 2026 Anaheim City Council 200 S Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: OPPOSE Item 23 - Resolution Opposing CA High -Speed Rail Tax Increment Financing Dear Mayor Aitken and Members of the City Council, Streets For All is a transportation and land use advocacy organization that is engaged in work that promotes sustainable multi -modal transportation solutions, street safety, and smart land use decision making throughout California. We are committed to crafting policies that allow communities to benefit everyone. We respectfully urge you to oppose Item 23, the proposed resolution opposing the California High -Speed Rail Authority's exploration of tax increment financing districts near future station areas. If Anaheim wants to see high-speed rail reach ARTIC within a realistic timeframe, new financing mechanisms such as tax increment financing will likely be essential to making that vision achievable. Without these new financing tools, the delivery of high-speed rail to Anaheim becomes significantly more difficult and uncertain. High-speed rail represents a once -in -a -generation investment in California's transportation infrastructure, and Anaheim stands to benefit significantly from its delivery. As the future southern terminus of the system, Anaheim, and particularly the ARTIC station area, would gain from increased economic activity, stronger regional connectivity, expanded tourism, and new housing and commercial investment. High-speed rail would better connect Anaheim to major employment centers across Southern California and the state, while reinforcing the city's role as a major economic and visitor destination. The resolution suggests that tax increment financing would divert resources away from the City. However, tax increment financing is designed to capture new value created by public investment. That is growth that may not otherwise occur without the project itself. In other words, high-speed rail can help generate the very economic growth that produces additional local tax revenue over time. Our recent research found that Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) could help accelerate delivery of high-speed rail in Southern California by leveraging future value created around station areas. This type of value capture can be an important tool to bring projects online faster while aligning public investment with local economic growth. Opposing innovative financing mechanisms at this stage risks delaying a project that will deliver substantial economic and transportation benefits to Anaheim for generations. Rather than rejecting tax increment financing outright, we encourage the City to engage constructively with the High -Speed Rail Authority to shape financing tools in ways that protect local priorities while enabling this critical statewide investment to move forward. We respectfully ask you to vote No on Item 23 and support efforts to accelerate the delivery of high-speed rail to Anaheim Sincerely, David Martinez State Policy Manager Streets For All From: Concerned Anaheim Residents Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 12:44 PM To: Theresa Bass; Public Comment; Ashleigh Aitken; Carlos A. Leon; Ryan Balius; Natalie Rubalcava; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Meeks Cc: Robert Fabela; Gregory Garcia; _City Council Subject: [EXTERNAL] FORMAL OBJECTION: Agenda Item #24 (May 12, 2026) — Documentation of Systemic Bad Faith & Record Suppression Attachments: K1 - Timeline of Coordinated Influence & Predetermined Outcomes.pdf; EXHIBIT N-2 - Documentation of Unregistered Lobbying and Material Omission .pdf, Exhibit L - Notice of Administrative Default & Record Suppression.pdf You don't often get email from Learn whV this is important Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: The Stakeholder Audit Team hereby submits this formal objection to Resolution 1.14 and 1.15. on Agenda Item #24 for the upcoming City Council Meeting on 5-12-26. While these are presented as "modernizations," they are, in fact, Selective Enforcement Tools being codified only after heavy public scrutiny from the Arzola Family and East Anaheim Residents. To adopt these restrictive measures while documented forensic violations remain unaddressed is an act of Administrative Bad Faith and a premeditated denial of meaningful public participation. I. Constructive Admission & The "Huddle" Safe Harbor Resolution 1.14 (Glitch Recess) serves as a defensive reaction to the evidence in Exhibit N-2, which captured the staggered exits of 6 out of the 7 Council Members/Mayor and the City Attorney during the 3/24/26 hearing before deciding to Reject the Appeal for the Festival Proposal AND voted to approve the 2nd vote for that development. While Council Member Norma Campos Kurtz remained at the dais, her documented use of a cellular device suggests continued coordination either of. By voting to approve these today, the City is attempting to codify a "Safe Harbor" for these unrecorded huddles while continuing to suppress the requested live meeting text logs and key video footage from inside and outside of the dais during that time window. Stakeholders also witnessed registered and unregistered lobbyists (Younus Zeshaan, Joel Saldivar, & Jack Truman) engaged in perceived active texting chains between multiple Council Members leading up to the vote. By voting "YES" today, the City is attempting to codify a "Safe Harbor" for this unrecorded coordination. II. Systematic Suppression, Pattern of "Record Scrubbing," & Multiple Ethics Violations The City cannot "clean up" its rules while the following Multiple Ethics and Transparency Violations remain unaddressed: Stakeholders formally object to the City's ongoing Administrative Default (Exhibit Q. We have documented a pattern of "Record Scrubbing" intended to sanitize the administrative record, including: • The 3/21 Portal Deletion: The removal of 870 page appeal for the Festival Development Proposal & the 7 page Staff Report recommending denial of the appeal, that was posted to the 3-24-26 Meeting Agenda that was visible on 3/21/26, but later scrubbed from the City's page during a critical review window. • Calendar Scrubbing: Documented forensic gaps in the public calendars of Council Member Natalie Meeks and Ted White regarding project coordination with Curt Pringle. Additional discrepancies amongst City Council Members calendars and those of their fellow Council Members. Additionally, Lobbyists have shown clumping date patterns in their quarterly reports in a perceived attempt to hide the exact dates and frequency they reached out to Council Members and key City Staff during critical decisions making windows regarding the Festival Development. • Social Media Viewpoint Discrimination: The deletion of resident comments on official City pages, which only "reappeared" after Stakeholders provided a comment explaining they had screenshotted proof of the censorship. The 1-Minute" Muzzle: While 1-minute limits existed in writing, they were never enforced until residents began presenting complex evidence of misdemeanor lobbying perjury, wildfire safety concerns, and lack of infrastructure in a High Fire Severity Area. Using this "discretionary power" now is a direct strike against meaningful participation on upcoming projects like Deer Canyon and Saddle Ranch. III. Unified Tactic Against Resident Oversight & Life -Safety Testimony Agenda Item #24 is a coordinated attempt to 'time out' the most critical and informed voices in our community. By implementing a restrictive 90-minute cap and enforcing a 1-minute discretionary limit, the City is ensuring that evidence -heavy testimony on matters of life and death is effectively suppressed. Suppression of Justice Efforts: These rules directly target the Arzola family, who for months have been forced to repeatedly attend meetings to seek justice for Albert, demanding the release of unedited bodycam footage and the names of involved officers. While they have only recently received the name of the officer involved, the officer is still working, bodycam footage remains unprovided, and this change would severely impact their ability to continue fighting for justice for Albert. The family also reports repeated instances of harassment from police officers at their home. Suppression of Public Safety Concerns: Similarly, these rules target East Anaheim residents fighting for safety in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Residents are raising alarms about high -risk, large-scale projects, such as the Hills Festival Project (DEV2023-00043), the resurgent Deer Canyon/Hills Preserve, and upcoming projects like Saddle Ranch, that fail to address critical infrastructure deficits, bottlenecks, and evacuation gridlock. Withholding of Evidence: The City continues to operate in Administrative Default by withholding the broader Anaheim Hills Cumulative Wildfire Evacuation Study, which by the City's own prior findings was deemed necessary to properly evaluate cumulative development impacts. Approving high -density projects while suppressing the very data needed to prove their safety is a failure of informed decision -making. By adopting these new procedural hurdles today, the City is choosing to prioritize 'meeting efficiency' over its legal and moral obligation to allow meaningful participation from residents whose lives are at stake." IV. Financial Conflicts (Levine Act § 84308) Documentation proves aggregated contributions exceeding statutory limits from Applicant agents to the "YES" voting block within 12 months. This disqualifies the majority from voting on any project - related items, including these procedural "fixes." V. Notice of Formal Referrals Referrals regarding these criminal and ethical violations are currently in process with the OCDA Public Integrity Unit, the California FPPC, and the Orange County Civil Grand Jury. Stakeholders reserve all rights, including the filing of a Writ of Mandate to stay all project activity should the City fail to Cure and Correct the documented procedural and Brown Act violations associated with Project DEV2023-00043. VI. NOTICE OF PROTECTED WHISTLEBLOWER STATUS Per GC § 8547.10, the identity of this Audit Team is strictly confidential. Any attempt to use City resources to identify or retaliate against these volunteers will be reported as a criminal violation of whistleblower protections. Respectfully, Stakeholder Audit Team Kl: Timeline of Coordinated Influence & Predetermined Outcomes Exhibit K-1: Documentation of Coordinated Influence & Predetermined Outcomes I. Introductory Summary The evidence compiled in this installment establishes a systemic pattern of institutional coordination between the City of Anaheim leadership and the private lobbying firm Curt Pringle & Associates (CP&A). This coordination bypassed legally mandated public transparency standards and created a predetermined administrative outcome for Project DEV2023-00043. The forensic record, detailed in the tables and supplemental communications below, proves: 1. Voting Block Alignment: A 100% correlation between the City Council's "YES" majority and their respective Planning Commission appointees. 2. The Money -to -Meeting Pipeline: A direct temporal link between large campaign contributions from CP&A principals and project -altering huddles with Council leadership. 3. Institutional Inconsistency: A direct contradiction between the Council members' public pledges of "ethical and transparent governance" and their documented participation in "Shadow Team" activities. This exhibit establishes that the project's approval was not the result of an independent, evidence -based review, but rather a multi -year managed operation intended to favor private development interests over the legally protected right of resident stakeholders to meaningful public participation. Pa C'') _ O cc _ O E O a O _ O .y N E p O U to _ .E cc a N N W V N Y LIE _ i = O cc E � s cc cc L 3 � a cc m O% Q W ►7 rw ii i 0 f S U O bA O C O Q Q co L 0 O U U) co U Q U co O L U) c co O co U i O O E U ►7 co C N bA co U O .F E U C O O U 4- O E co co U C) C N U C cz co N U H ca O U U (o O O vi a� C O N �L Q O N cca N O i' ƒ � � Q k \ ƒ £ 0 0 � � Q § 4) co/ � ± cc 2 / 2 b 0 CL E cc� 2 Z R Q CDQ t ƒ f - w cc 2 Z Q t w 2 7 � Q (D s 2 2 § / 0 y = = � 0 C e 3 � \ _0 c CN / _0E 2 3 A 2 cok co y41 / « g � cn o 0 $ 0 E (n 0 m . z .. k 0 m � 2 = k 0 � d CL CL ° > £ c4-1 z (D 2 w � / D f y w) E m � § E g k 0 Q g k 0 Q @ k £ 0 Q © ' 2 = S 2 2 u c 2 � . o 0 \ -E 4- / \ $ g cz \ � U) 0 3 E _ -0 �_ . 0 ' 2 2 2 % ccN m 2 N ca ° U 0 0 / ° 3 \ § N 3 3 E E cz ? / E LL E I u § 0 / 2 ' IL) E d / g s s E J \ 0 �' � ■ g w ° (D E t ¥ 4 a) / \ E 0 L k x w ° d $ \ § k k a k CU 2 § ¢ 0 i \ � � d � C4 @ N q * m 41 co N Cn U) >+ CB C co CB U 41 a) O a) E m C O a N +�+ ++ Q o V C _ O co U +.1 c o L QQ co O 3 U Z v� cc = cc � V � - Q -0 � Q � a) O ca 41 0 +�+ co o z a z 0 0 0 N N N CD M M � � O N N � O O i- U (1) cn >co > > J a) U •U H Q 4- _ co U N C o +' 70 a) :t O U Q co O a) > o Q Q= a) Co C o 4- o 0 Q ( O L +J a) O L O U _ O cu O ca O 4-i O a) O +-+ C co Z N J E s in +� Co O - O U -0 ca cncn } -0 co D 70 � ca co U O O o > Q C Q E (D-0 O = v- O O U C co a) Q co U cn CD C _0C C a) p H _p U s ++ U cn O Q CO a, C o i Q L � C N N U i a) CU CCo U s O Y a) Q V C o +J G cn cn +, U0 C m D s : Q 7 O U O V 4- N -0 � T .O C (a a) N C > U > > � L' C -0ca > C > O O ,_ O V t cn Z >+ O " Q = cn N co U � a) -0 C = O CB c o U Co -O C 0 = m cis O Q O U O U cn U N (Dp N U C c6 cUn a UA N N +� O N } O o C co CE CO o i O O cc ) U) 0- i Ca � _o 'C � } c2 U its co Q U >, cc >+ co C C (6 coO3 +� C .� N L C C a) 0 U X .V L i F ;.% N cn D � .. - io 7 a) O a) ° O a_ CV)O Ca � M co i - _ U Cl) C CO s o Z >, on � H a) C o = N A 'a > cc O A -O J U N C C6 O > O + y cc C ... = Q C _ca •� 3 O .N O a) � O O O �_ t M s +a = C Oco Q - U c o O _ co 0 O m 0 Q co co U i P o > � Q Q U > s N o C co -0 0c = E � Q ° CO cz a) a� cz cn C O U cn L 0 CO c 0 E m _ 0 Q cn 0 Q O O 07 N Cl) 0 _ O O s N O N N 7 _ 7 a+ N O J t U O a--� O c O co co co 0 t N i Y O CL E cc U ca 0 Z d O O m a� cc O s N 0 co s a� N c co U N E co U O L O U c 0 O Co_ 0 O E N c O .O U) N +r c O S? co U U) O cc c U U) a� 0 s E O m N O bA O N ai 3 A cc 0 _ cn m s I O N O N O N s m U- ►E3 U c O bA c O U c 0 D L UA c O Q N W U N 0 c 0 N J c O vi N N O Y Co co _U co O 0 U c 0 U 4-1 c 0 E 0 w co U O SZ N N 0 c 0 co co c O Q U N cz U) co .. ER I U O N v O N c O a Ci > 0 LIJ dry LL T A� W Q C Qw to E u _ � U C'` 0 X A If C N U O a 'C7 D a N cc M.> tan N m j pc O D cC MC pd r o C O N m .O a= y N = a N U y i T ,a `n :Ei C w a 5 T O •• 00 D• on 3 YA vDt 'a�V m3�' jp •, C o m C w O 0,n,a O O) w 2�� _m.6.5 m a p o rn aD y COL ooa loj yc.0 c �E oa D 0, o..c o m" O- m �$ m F o N Cci N Q 0 W �'O C F N m F' O y C C W C a V 9 — t — m J 0 N �r 5 « O 'O U C O a N w 0 ° O a� o OOin a0m, Na o a a E N cu y in m m0 a, O N a a p N a�•� E•v N � c $=a 4 arm met F=�(J�Y'� Q O a LS a° a ; a Ew o m o •a m c J n a i u o ❑' c u° Z+c ;� ❑ 3 v p a $ w J ❑ � m� a .E � '� � rn m a � E C `• a 3 a �_' m m f0 13 n ? q E a `m 'aa m e m E u a p o Cep Q 4 ' y v a ] a «� o_ m L U' v G w u Q ,t-+ Q Q U E O N Q } D _ a O d `aL 0 o a 07 O tq y a C O c c c c d a o a E a aid v =c d0 c� do 3O13a N y 0 O1N a C t o a 0 0'Q r_2w E N N =O d am a�iU Uc `a U T c= OOI +a3= O Z.. 7 U (d tp C y 7- O UI 1.0 Y j +• Ll. C Op � N O i U a1 t✓3 M MM= 0c co -Q m ava 'o N p U y0 •.' D E O° a Y N N�a N D a s a a C U C w N .0L C O O y C C E N y NL2 U•O pa yai0 u ;� E a^p a E E .0 aim E c•o 0 E s '6 a - Em0uED.jc'C° tm .iNN�.m, U°m pa; N 6aQ 0C a }ry oO r mO �Nv�a •OL ; m ams U ao aUE 5/7/26, 5:05 PM Gmail - URGENT: NOTICE OF DEFAULT & INTENT TO ESCALATE - PRA #03162026-8 & #04102026-4 f Gmail Concerned Anaheim Residents URGENT: NOTICE OF DEFAULT & INTENT TO ESCALATE - PRA #03162026-8 & #04102026-4 1 message Concerned Anaheim Residents Tue, May 5, 2026 at 12:39 PM To: rfabela@anaheim.net, ggarcia@anaheim.net, tbass@anaheim.net Cc: etrejo@anaheim.net, aengeln@anaheim.net, bmorley@anaheim.net, Public Records Requests <recordsrequest@anaheim.net> ATTENTION: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY; OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Mr. Fabela and Mr. Garcia, As of 12:30 PM today, May 5, 2026, the City has failed to comply with the Stakeholders' final demand for the production of "identified" records regarding Project DEV2023-00043. By remaining silent after admitting in writing that responsive records exist, and by failing to acknowledge the Formal Notice of Duty to Preserve Evidence issued on May 4, the City is in documented Continued Administrative Bad Faith. Formal Notice of Escalation: As the City has willfully exhausted the administrative timeline and failed to produce the administrative record, Stakeholders are currently transmitting a formal Investigative Referral to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). This filing includes comprehensive forensic evidence of: • Criminal Perjury & Filing Fraud (GC § 81004): Documented in Exhibit N and Exhibit P-1. • Unregistered Lobbying Activity: Specifically regarding agents Saldivar and Truman. • Non -Disclosure of Activity Expenses: Documented $0.00 reporting despite paid coordination. • Administrative Record Suppression: The intentional deletion of the 3/21 /26 records. The City is further notified that Stakeholders are finalizing mirror referrals for the OCDA Public Integrity Unit and the Orange County Civil Grand Jury regarding the potential criminal perjury and systematic record suppression. These will be submitted as the next phase of our formal escalation following the City's default on today's production deadline. Any subsequent production that is missing metadata or contains over -redaction without a corresponding Privilege Log will be cited as willful spoliation of evidence in upcoming judicial proceedings. Sincerely, Stakeholders of Save Anaheim Hills / Concerned Residents (Community Volunteer Team - Administrative Audit Division) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2/?ik=bb7ab00bd6&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a: r2576061196758237564&simpl=msg-a:r587111418252533... 1 /3 5/7/26, 5:05 PM Gmail - URGENT: NOTICE OF DEFAULT & INTENT TO ESCALATE - PRA #03162026-8 & #04102026-4 On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 8:35 PM Concerned Anaheim Residents wrote: CC: Office of the City Manager; Office of the City Attorney; Office of the City Clerk Ms. Engeln and Ms. Morley, Stakeholders acknowledge your 5:10 PM correspondence. The City is now in documented Continued Administrative Bad Faith regarding the systemic and intentional withholding of "identified" records for Project DEV2023-00043. 1. Confirmation of Production & Demand for Consolidated Delivery: Stakeholders formally confirm our intent to proceed with the immediate production of all identified records. On April 10, 2026, the City stated records for #03162026-8 were "currently being prepared for production" It has been 24 days since that admission. Stakeholders demand the immediate electronic delivery of all "identified" records for BOTH requests no later than 12:00 PM tomorrow, Tuesday, May 5, 2026. 2. Systemic Statutory Violations & Deficient Extensions: Stakeholders have documented a pattern of illegal stalling via procedurally deficient 14-day extensions that failed to set forth "unusual circumstances" as mandated by Gov. Code § 7922.535(b): • PRA #03162026-8: Deficient extension issued 3/26/26; initial request submitted 3/16/26. PRA #04102026-4: Deficient extension issued 4/20/26; initial request submitted 4/10/26. The City was formally notified of these deficiencies for both PRA #03162026-8 and PRA #04102026-4 and the resulting Constructive Denial on April 21, 2026, yet intentionally failed to provide compliant determinations. As the City now admits records are "identified," there is no further legal basis for delay. We reject the "20-day arrangement" window; production must be prompt. 3. Anti -Redaction & Privilege Log Mandate: For every redaction made, the City must provide a specific Privilege Log identifying the author, recipient, date, and the specific legal justification for the withholding. All records must be produced in their native electronic format (including full metadata/timestamps). Failure to produce these records by 12:00 PM tomorrow will be cited as a willful suppression of evidence in our pending referrals to the OCDA Public Integrity Unit, particularly in light of the 5:00 PM City Council meeting on May 5, 2026. Sincerely, Stakeholders of Save Anaheim Hills / Concerned Residents (Community Volunteer Team - Administrative Audit Division) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Amy Engeln <AEngeln@anaheim.net> Date: Mon, May 4, 2026 at 5:10 PM Subject: Public Record Act Request No. 04102026-4 To: Please find attached correspondence regarding your Public Records Request No. 04102026-4. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2/?ik=bb7ab00bd6&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a: r2576061196758237564&simpl=msg-a:r587111418252533... 2/3 5/7/26, 5:05 PM Gmail - URGENT: NOTICE OF DEFAULT & INTENT TO ESCALATE - PRA #03162026-8 & #04102026-4 Have a great rest of the day. WHO Amy Engeln Paralegal Office of the City Attorney City of Anaheim p: 714.765.5169 x 5538 e: aengeln@anaheim.net 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 356 Anaheim, CA 92805 www.anaheim.net This communication is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed, and may be confidential or privileged by law. If you are not the intended recipient or you receive this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the Anaheim City Attorney's Office of the error immediately at 714-765-5169 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2/?ik=bb7ab00bd6&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a: r2576061196758237564&simpl=msg-a:r587111418252533... 3/3 EXHIBIT N=2: Documentation of Unregistered Lobbying and Material Omission N O a+ v Q 0 0 0 0 co U B i U U C U U U U N E LL O L H m � § 5 \ m \ 0 0 m - \) _2 _l )\ \\} \\)\\\)\)))). . } \\/\ \ - //)j))\f)))))// f!�\\\\ � rai k ■ E � 0 I E w r_ E z w � U 2 ca % > � @ � 2 0 } ( ! ] � / k � ) { ) \) ) , <) (f \ r0 � k\\ f»; 2=%{ z23& \ {i t 2\)/ ■u27 � \ Lu J � q7 LO O V L O N ca ca 0 cm N O N N S U L Ccc L i O M N a+ N S S O J O N O N r" a cc 0 m N O N 4 N s L cc 1�3 Ii E 04 ° | ) ` ! # �2 - , CL- �T !$ ! E 3 � §� c7 _ ! / �+ 7LLI !! !| 7 )} ■! ■e �4 !a . (.0 q C*4 r � c 0 _0 2 2 0 0 From: Concerned Anaheim Residents Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:40 PM To: Theresa Bass; Public Comment; Ashleigh Aitken; Carlos A. Leon; Ryan Balius; Natalie Rubalcava; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Meeks Subject: [EXTERNAL] SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE: Item #24 — ADA Barriers & Discriminatory Impact on Life -Safety Testimony You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. To the Mayor, Council, and Members of the Media: This is a supplemental filing to the Master Objection submitted earlier today at 12:44pm. Upon review of the full Item #24 Agenda Report, the Stakeholder Audit Team identifies the following critical failures: ADA & Physical Barriers: While the City proposes 'remote' ADA fixes, it continues to ignore the non -compliant physical podium in the Chambers, which prevents wheelchair -bound members of the Arzola family from addressing the Council in person. The 'Midnight' Squeeze: Public hearings for high -risk projects (e.g., Festival, Deer Canyon, & Upcoming Saddle Ranch) routinely have extend from 10:00 PM until midnight. Codifying a 90- minute cap on the first comment period is a mathematical guarantee that critical life -safety testimony will be buried in the middle of the night. Bad Faith Outreach: Section 3 of the 'Reasonable Efforts' Resolution is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card that attempts to strip the Hispanic community of legal standing when the City fails to provide adequate noticing. The City cannot'modernize' participation while the chambers remain physically and linguistically inaccessible to the very families seeking justice and safety. Respectfully, Stakeholder Audit Team On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 12:44 PM Concerned Anaheim Residents wrote: To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: The Stakeholder Audit Team hereby submits this formal objection to Resolution 1.14 and 1.15. on Agenda Item #24 for the upcoming City Council Meeting on 5-12-26. While these are presented as "modernizations," they are, in fact, Selective Enforcement Tools being codified only after heavy public scrutiny from the Arzola Family and East Anaheim Residents. To adopt these restrictive measures while documented forensic violations remain unaddressed is an act of Administrative Bad Faith and a premeditated denial of meaningful public participation. I. Constructive Admission & The "Huddle" Safe Harbor Resolution 1.14 (Glitch Recess) serves as a defensive reaction to the evidence in Exhibit N-2, which captured the staggered exits of 6 out of the 7 Council Members/Mayor and the City Attorney during the 3/24/26 hearing before deciding to Reject the Appeal for the Festival Proposal AND voted to approve the 2nd vote for that development. While Council Member Norma Campos Kurtz remained at the dais, her documented use of a cellular device suggests continued coordination either of. By voting to approve these today, the City is attempting to codify a "Safe Harbor" for these unrecorded huddles while continuing to suppress the requested live meeting text logs and key video footage from inside and outside of the dais during that time window. Stakeholders also witnessed registered and unregistered lobbyists (Younus Zeshaan, Joel Saldivar, & Jack Truman) engaged in perceived active texting chains between multiple Council Members leading up to the vote. By voting "YES" today, the City is attempting to codify a "Safe Harbor" for this unrecorded coordination. II. Systematic Suppression, Pattern of "Record Scrubbing," & Multiple Ethics Violations The City cannot "clean up" its rules while the following Multiple Ethics and Transparency Violations remain unaddressed: Stakeholders formally object to the City's ongoing Administrative Default (Exhibit L). We have documented a pattern of "Record Scrubbing" intended to sanitize the administrative record, including: The 3/21 Portal Deletion: The removal of 870 page appeal for the Festival Development Proposal & the 7 page Staff Report recommending denial of the appeal, that was posted to the 3-24-26 Meeting Agenda that was visible on 3/21/26, but later scrubbed from the City's page during a critical review window. Calendar Scrubbing: Documented forensic gaps in the public calendars of Council Member Natalie Meeks and Ted White regarding project coordination with Curt Pringle. Additional discrepancies amongst City Council Members calendars and those of their fellow Council Members. Additionally, Lobbyists have shown clumping date patterns in their quarterly reports in a perceived attempt to hide the exact dates and frequency they reached out to Council Members and key City Staff during critical decisions making windows regarding the Festival Development. Social Media Viewpoint Discrimination: The deletion of resident comments on official City pages, which only "reappeared" after Stakeholders provided a comment explaining they had screenshotted proof of the censorship. The 1-Minute" Muzzle: While 1-minute limits existed in writing, they were never enforced until residents began presenting complex evidence of misdemeanor lobbying perjury, wildfire safety concerns, and lack of infrastructure in a High Fire Severity Area. Using this "discretionary power" now is a direct strike against meaningful participation on upcoming projects like Deer Canyon and Saddle Ranch. III. Unified Tactic Against Resident Oversight & Life -Safety Testimony Agenda Item #24 is a coordinated attempt to 'time out' the most critical and informed voices in our community. By implementing a restrictive 90-minute cap and enforcing a 1-minute discretionary limit, the City is ensuring that evidence -heavy testimony on matters of life and death is effectively suppressed. Suppression of Justice Efforts: These rules directly target the Arzola family, who for months have been forced to repeatedly attend meetings to seek justice for Albert, demanding the release of unedited bodycam footage and the names of involved officers. While they have only recently received the name of the officer involved, the officer is still working, bodycam footage remains unprovided, and this change would severely impact their ability to continue fighting for justice for Albert. The family also reports repeated instances of harassment from police officers at their home. Suppression of Public Safety Concerns: Similarly, these rules target East Anaheim residents fighting for safety in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Residents are raising alarms about high -risk, large-scale projects, such as the Hills Festival Project (DEV2023-00043), the resurgent Deer Canyon/Hills Preserve, and upcoming projects like Saddle Ranch, that fail to address critical infrastructure deficits, bottlenecks, and evacuation gridlock. Withholding of Evidence: The City continues to operate in Administrative Default by withholding the broader Anaheim Hills Cumulative Wildfire Evacuation Study, which by the City's own prior findings was deemed necessary to properly evaluate cumulative development impacts. Approving high -density projects while suppressing the very data needed to prove their safety is a failure of informed decision -making. By adopting these new procedural hurdles today, the City is choosing to prioritize 'meeting efficiency' over its legal and moral obligation to allow meaningful participation from residents whose lives are at stake." IV. Financial Conflicts (Levine Act § 84308) Documentation proves aggregated contributions exceeding statutory limits from Applicant agents to the "YES" voting block within 12 months. This disqualifies the majority from voting on any project - related items, including these procedural "fixes." V. Notice of Formal Referrals Referrals regarding these criminal and ethical violations are currently in process with the OCDA Public Integrity Unit, the California FPPC, and the Orange County Civil Grand Jury. Stakeholders reserve all rights, including the filing of a Writ of Mandate to stay all project activity should the City fail to Cure and Correct the documented procedural and Brown Act violations associated with Project DEV2023-00043. VI. NOTICE OF PROTECTED WHISTLEBLOWER STATUS Per GC § 8547.10, the identity of this Audit Team is strictly confidential. Any attempt to use City resources to identify or retaliate against these volunteers will be reported as a criminal violation of whistleblower protections. Respectfully, Stakeholder Audit Team From: Concerned Anaheim Residents Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:44 PM To: Theresa Bass; Public Comment; Ashleigh Aitken; Carlos A. Leon; Ryan Balius; Natalie Rubalcava; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Meeks Subject: [EXTERNAL] Subject: CLARIFICATION: Item #24 Supplemental Evidence — ADA & Civil Rights Impact You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. To the City Clerk and Council: Please include this vital clarification in the Stakeholder Audit Team's supplemental filing for Item #24: The proposed rules fail to address physical ADA barriers within the Council Chambers —specifically the non -compliant podium access which prevents wheelchair -bound members of the Arzola family from participating in person. Furthermore, Section 3 of the'Reasonable Efforts' Resolution creates a discriminatory loophole by exempting the City from accountability for failing to notice the Hispanic community. These rules do not modernize participation; they codify the exclusion of vulnerable residents. Respectfully, Stakeholder Audit Team On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 3:39 PM Concerned Anaheim Residents wrote: To the Mayor, Council, and Members of the Media: This is a supplemental filing to the Master Objection submitted earlier today at 12:44pm. Upon review of the full Item #24 Agenda Report, the Stakeholder Audit Team identifies the following critical failures: ADA & Physical Barriers: While the City proposes 'remote' ADA fixes, it continues to ignore the non -compliant physical podium in the Chambers, which prevents wheelchair -bound members of the Arzola family from addressing the Council in person. The 'Midnight' Squeeze: Public hearings for high -risk projects (e.g., Festival, Deer Canyon, & Upcoming Saddle Ranch) routinely have extend from 10:00 PM until midnight. Codifying a 90-minute cap on the first comment period is a mathematical guarantee that critical life - safety testimony will be buried in the middle of the night. Bad Faith Outreach: Section 3 of the 'Reasonable Efforts' Resolution is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card that attempts to strip the Hispanic community of legal standing when the City fails to provide adequate noticing. The City cannot'modernize' participation while the chambers remain physically and linguistically inaccessible to the very families seeking justice and safety. Respectfully, Stakeholder Audit Team On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 12:44 PM Concerned Anaheim Residents wrote: To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: The Stakeholder Audit Team hereby submits this formal objection to Resolution 1.14 and 1.15. on Agenda Item #24 for the upcoming City Council Meeting on 5-12-26. While these are presented as "modernizations," they are, in fact, Selective Enforcement Tools being codified only after heavy public scrutiny from the Arzola Family and East Anaheim Residents. To adopt these restrictive measures while documented forensic violations remain unaddressed is an act of Administrative Bad Faith and a premeditated denial of meaningful public participation. Constructive Admission & The "Huddle" Safe Harbor Resolution 1.14 (Glitch Recess) serves as a defensive reaction to the evidence in Exhibit N-2, which captured the staggered exits of 6 out of the 7 Council Members/Mayor and the City Attorney during the 3/24/26 hearing before deciding to Reject the Appeal for the Festival Proposal AND voted to approve the 2nd vote for that development. While Council Member Norma Campos Kurtz remained at the dais, her documented use of a cellular device suggests continued coordination either of. By voting to approve these today, the City is attempting to codify a "Safe Harbor" for these unrecorded huddles while continuing to suppress the requested live meeting text logs and key video footage from inside and outside of the dais during that time window. Stakeholders also witnessed registered and unregistered lobbyists (Younus Zeshaan, Joel Saldivar, & Jack Truman) engaged in perceived active texting chains between multiple Council Members leading up to the vote. By voting "YES" today, the City is attempting to codify a "Safe Harbor" for this unrecorded coordination. II. Systematic Suppression, Pattern of "Record Scrubbing," & Multiple Ethics Violations The City cannot "clean up" its rules while the following Multiple Ethics and Transparency Violations remain unaddressed: Stakeholders formally object to the City's ongoing Administrative Default (Exhibit L). We have documented a pattern of "Record Scrubbing" intended to sanitize the administrative record, including: The 3/21 Portal Deletion: The removal of 870 page appeal for the Festival Development Proposal & the 7 page Staff Report recommending denial of the appeal, that was posted to the 3-24-26 Meeting Agenda that was visible on 3/21/26, but later scrubbed from the City's page during a critical review window. • Calendar Scrubbing: Documented forensic gaps in the public calendars of Council Member Natalie Meeks and Ted White regarding project coordination with Curt Pringle. Additional discrepancies amongst City Council Members calendars and those of their fellow Council Members. Additionally, Lobbyists have shown clumping date patterns in their quarterly reports in a perceived attempt to hide the exact dates and frequency they reached out to Council Members and key City Staff during critical decisions making windows regarding the Festival Development. • Social Media Viewpoint Discrimination: The deletion of resident comments on official City pages, which only "reappeared" after Stakeholders provided a comment explaining they had screenshotted proof of the censorship. The 1-Minute" Muzzle: While 1-minute limits existed in writing, they were never enforced until residents began presenting complex evidence of misdemeanor lobbying perjury, wildfire safety concerns, and lack of infrastructure in a High Fire Severity Area. Using this "discretionary power" now is a direct strike against meaningful participation on upcoming projects like Deer Canyon and Saddle Ranch. III. Unified Tactic Against Resident Oversight & Life -Safety Testimony Agenda Item #24 is a coordinated attempt to 'time out' the most critical and informed voices in our community. By implementing a restrictive 90-minute cap and enforcing a 1-minute discretionary limit, the City is ensuring that evidence -heavy testimony on matters of life and death is effectively suppressed. • Suppression of Justice Efforts: These rules directly target the Arzola family, who for months have been forced to repeatedly attend meetings to seek justice for Albert, demanding the release of unedited bodycam footage and the names of involved officers. While they have only recently received the name of the officer involved, the officer is still working, bodycam footage remains unprovided, and this change would severely impact their ability to continue fighting for justice for Albert. The family also reports repeated instances of harassment from police officers at their home. • Suppression of Public Safety Concerns: Similarly, these rules target East Anaheim residents fighting for safety in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Residents are raising alarms about high -risk, large-scale projects, such as the Hills Festival Project (DEV2023-00043), the resurgent Deer Canyon/Hills Preserve, and upcoming projects like Saddle Ranch, that fail to address critical infrastructure deficits, bottlenecks, and evacuation gridlock. • Withholding of Evidence: The City continues to operate in Administrative Default by withholding the broader Anaheim Hills Cumulative Wildfire Evacuation Study, which by the City's own prior findings was deemed necessary to properly evaluate cumulative development impacts. Approving high -density projects while suppressing the very data needed to prove their safety is a failure of informed decision -making. By adopting these new procedural hurdles today, the City is choosing to prioritize 'meeting efficiency' over its legal and moral obligation to allow meaningful participation from residents whose lives are at stake." IV. Financial Conflicts (Levine Act § 84308) Documentation proves aggregated contributions exceeding statutory limits from Applicant agents to the "YES" voting block within 12 months. This disqualifies the majority from voting on any project -related items, including these procedural "fixes." V. Notice of Formal Referrals Referrals regarding these criminal and ethical violations are currently in process with the OCDA Public Integrity Unit, the California FPPC, and the Orange County Civil Grand Jury. Stakeholders reserve all rights, including the filing of a Writ of Mandate to stay all project activity should the City fail to Cure and Correct the documented procedural and Brown Act violations associated with Project DEV2023-00043. iKkirell I113*91SU:T9110x11041l►JI:16*1 � 3��]►JI�:V3If-A VR Per GC § 8547.10, the identity of this Audit Team is strictly confidential. Any attempt to use City resources to identify or retaliate against these volunteers will be reported as a criminal violation of whistleblower protections. Respectfully, Stakeholder Audit Team From: Ruben Soto Sent: To: Subject: a girl access my sims card last night at 9:35 p.m. 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ruben Soto Date: Wed, May 6, 2026, 10:47 PM There's a girl I try to help out named �l picked up in Riverside and brought her down here in Anaheim by those who I stay she has to borrow my phone she downloaded my sims card on her phone and then she put a bunch of receipts on my Walmart app so she probably trying to return some things I'm trying to pretend that gets me that's returning it with my hey Greggo app with Walmart she was a meth addict she had some guy over her she met him Walmart she went in the store and bought a sweater that I gave her 12 bucks to buy and I bought her some In-N-Out Burger she went inside the store inside in and out to buy the stuff she's about 5 feet white girl brownish red hair and she even tried to take $10 for me and say it was only $3 change cuz she said oh my God she ran back inside like she dropped it and it was still there she tried to rip me off so you can see her in Walmart and in and out probably about 9:00 or so maybe a quarter to 8:00 or 8:45 p.m. no one gets away with nothing with me so now we got to check my sims card marabella why she accessed it thank you have a nice day y'all From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto Thursday, May 7, 2026 11:03 AM [EXTERNAL] Watch "Mr Luis CORRea congressman Santa Ana Washington DC killing Hispanics Anaheim PD" on YouTube 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. From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto Thursday, May 7, 2026 11:52 AM [EXTERNAL] Anaheim P D killing kids 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. From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto Friday, May 8, 2026 9:40 AM [EXTERNAL] Fwd: EOIR BIA Decision - May 8, 2026 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. wow on my God read this ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: U.S. Department of Justice <usdoj(,'Oaublic.govdelivery.com> Date: Fri, May 8, 2026, 9:28 AM Subject: EOIR BIA Decision - May 8, 2026 To: EOIR BIA Decision The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of V-A-B-, 29 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2026). (1) The proposed particular social group defined as "married Mexican women who are unable to leave their relationship" is not cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act because it is circularly defined and lacks particularity. (2) The existence of a lawful marriage cannot be presumed simply because two persons are cohabitating or have children in common. Executive Office for Immigration Review Office of Policy PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov 703-305-0289 You have received this e-mail because you have asked to be notified of changes to the U.S. Department of Justice website. GovDelivery is providing this service on behalf of the Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW - Washington, DC 20530 202-514-2000 and may not use your subscription information for any other purposes. Manage your Subscriptions Department of Justice Privacv Policy I GovDelivery Privacy Policy From: Germaine Neumann <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 11:35 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Reject Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Expansion Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Anaheim City Council Anaheim City Council, To: Mayor Aitken and the Anaheim City Council, I am writing to strongly oppose Item 07, the proposed expansion of the City of Anaheim's proposed Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) through the purchase of 72 additional cameras from Motorola Solutions. I do not support taxpayer dollars being used in this way. This proposal represents a significant expansion of surveillance across the City and County of Orange. ALPR systems raise serious concerns over the violation of privacy, civil liberties, and the safety of immigrant communities. ALPR technology has historically enabled data sharing across jurisdictions, creating pathways for access by federal agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Even when cities do not intend to share information directly with ICE, the use of third -party vendors and regional data -sharing platforms introduces real and well - documented risks of indirect access and has led to unintended access by outside agencies in municipalities across the State of California and Country. I applaud the City's efforts to support residents that have been impacted by immigration enforcement actions. I support the Anaheim Legal Defense Fund and Anaheim Contigo programs. Expanding surveillance infrastructure like this undermines and contradicts the spirit of those efforts as ALPR technology puts the City's immigrant families at greater risk. Anaheim residents deserve real support. I urge the City Council to prioritize community -based approaches to public safety that respect the rights, dignity, and safety of all residents - reject Item #07 and vote NO on expanding Automated License Plate Readers in the City. Germaine Neumann Anaheim, California 92805 From: Sue Hennings Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 4:30 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Fwd: Automatic reply: [EXTERNAL] Pickleball Courts You don't often get email from Learn why this is important In February I submitted a request for the City to consider building pickleball courts in East Anaheim. I received the below acknowledgment that it would be submitted to the council members. Will I receive a response from the council? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Public Comment <publiccomment@anaheim.net> Date: February 6, 2026 at 11:13:29 AM PST To: Sue Hennings Subject: Automatic reply: [EXTERNAL] Pickleball Courts The City is in receipt of your public comment. Your comment will be distributed to the City Council for their consideration and made part of the public record of the City Council meeting. From: Margot Pierrong Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 6:16 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] THE HUGE NUMBER OF FLOWER VENDORS SELLING ON SIDEWALKS OF ANAHEIM 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 City of Anaheim :....this may sound petty to a lot but I just have to make a comment about all the flower vendors set up on the sidewalks of Anaheim yesterday & today & some directly near & across the street from Anaheim brick & mortar business that pays city tax & gets business licenses & sell their flowers & Mother's Day items..... While I realize this is only for 1 or 2 days I thought our motto from our mayor was to protect the businesses that we have. I also saw this on Valentine's Day — and wonder if our rule -following businesses make a complaint to the City about any of this....?? Mother's Day — Valentine's Day are huge retail money maker days for the businesses that we are supposed to be protecting & with all the street vendors selling without permits I just have to wonder why this is even fair or even allowed.... maybe no one is bothered by this anymore — even our businesses — because I see the numbers each year climbing --.....sigh — maybe no one is bothered by this anymore ...I was just thinking of all the retail businesses that we vowed to protect ... & this year the ones so close to Ralphs Grocery Store & Stater Bros on Orange Ave surprised me that the grocery stores did not complain ... you can tell these sidewalk sellers have not signed up for any type of selling permit in order to pay any city tax..... Thank you — if you read & listened.... Margot Pierrong Anaheim resident - 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto 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. From: Paul Anderson Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 1:30 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fence around old tree stump Pearson Park [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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. Good afternoon, For several years there has been a temporary fence around what looks like a rotten tree stump, looks bad. It is between the two sets of tennis courts against the more eastern set of courts. When will this be cleaned up? Thank you, Paul Anderson District 3 Sent from my iPhone From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:13 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] On Behalf of Georgia Price, District 6, Councilmember Natalie Meeks 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. For public comment on May 12, 2026: 1 want to address Agenda Item 4, namely the professional services agreement for fireworks with Pyro Spectaculars, Inc. This agreement was not publicly advertised on the City's online bidding system. Yet, the same vendor appears to be selected every year. Pyro Spectaculars' environmental track record should be a huge red flag. The cities of Rialto and Colton were forced to close drinking water wells due to perchlorate contamination. Court records show that Pyro Spectaculars directly contributed to that contamination. Perchlorate containing fireworks materials and improper waste disposal practices polluted soil and groundwater in the area. Is this really a company that Anaheim should be in business with? More concerning is just how close the fireworks show is to the Santa Ana River. The Clean Water Act (CWA) makes it unlawful to discharge pollutants into waterways. Fireworks debris (paper, cardboard, and plastics) and chemical contaminants (perchlorate and heavy metals) are all considered pollutants. In reviewing the contract, what stands out is not what is included; it is what is missing. There is virtually nothing in this agreement addressing environmental safety, air quality impacts, toxic debris fallout, public health protections, or long-term cleanup accountability. The scope of work is essentially one vague paragraph for explosives being launched over a densely populated residential area in Orange County. The contract references a "debris fallout area," but where exactly is that area? It isn't listed in the Scope of Work. What neighborhoods, parks, streets, schools, and waterways fall within that zone? Cleanup - PYRO shall be responsible for the clean up of any live pyrotechnic debris. THE CITY - shall be responsible for any other clean up which may be required of all fallout areas including any and all environmental clean-up. Fireworks are not magic. They release toxic chemicals and metals that eventually fall back into our communities. How are the Public Park and Elementary School located at the launch site cleaned up? Is the Santa Ana River tested for pollutants before and after the show? For decades, Anaheim appears to have approved firework displays without meaningful environmental transparency, disclosure, or long-term monitoring for residents living beneath the fallout zone. The public deserves answers before these contracts are approved, not after. From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:16 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] On Behalf of Marc Herbert 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. For public comment on May 12, 2026: Residents who raised concerns about Anaheim's water were publicly labeled a "disinformation brigade" by the Mayor of Anaheim. The Mayor claimed the water is safe, before she asked any questions, before she gathered any information, before she gathered any facts. Residents were mocked or dismissed for asking questions when the City itself admits it cannot fully verify water quality. There are still unresolved questions involving: 1. Excessive flushing activity, 2. Operational valve changes, 3. TTHM Exceedances, 4. PFAS Exceedances 5. Well shutdown delays and discrepancies 6. Concerns regarding missing or improperly submitted laboratory records. Anaheim's official water quality report states: "Monitoring Requirements Not Met for Anaheim Public Utilities." According to it, during the third quarter of 2025, a required water sample for haloacetic acids from a distribution sampling site was not collected. As a result, the City states: "We cannot be sure of the quality of the drinking water during that time." Rather than responding with transparency and engaging with the public, the Council has turned its back on its residents: 1. At the Nov. 18, 2025 Council Meeting, I filed 6 Brown Act Violations. As of today, no answer. 2. At the Jan. 13th Council Meeting, I reminded the Council of those 6 unanswered Brown Act Violations. As of today, no answer. 3. 1 filed a Public Records Request on March 3rd on the Wyndham Hotel's illegal room conversion records. In April, the city replied that they had been found. I requested a USB copy. As of today, I'm still waiting. 4. At the April 21 st Council Meeting, Counci[member Rubalcava left the Dias before the final Public Hearing started. She didn't return for the Hearing, the Hearing Vote, or the rest of the Council Meeting. No explanation was given. Who was representing the residents of District 3? 5. At the May 5th Council Meeting, Councilmembers Rubalcava and Campos -Kurtz were absent. No explanation was given. Who was representing the residents of Districts 3 and 4 at that Council Meeting? 6. At the May 5th Council Meeting, I filed a new Brown Act Violation concerning the Mayor. As of today, I'm still waiting for an answer. If the City truly believes there is nothing improper to hide, then it should answer our questions. Perhaps it's time to give up on expecting written answers. Maybe the Council's actions and inactions are their answers. I guess Mayor Aitken's and the Council's concept of transparency, public engagement, and safety aren't the same as those of the residents. Theirs won't lead to the public trust being rebuilt. From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:20 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] On Behalf of Mike Robbins, District 2, Councilmember Carlos Leon 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. For public comment on May 12, 2026: Let's talk about digging and the very real dangers employees face when excavation work is performed without proper utility locating and safety clearances in place. Every time a crew breaks ground without confirmed utility markings or without all required utility representatives present, lives are placed at risk. What is underground? Gas lines. Electrical infrastructure.Communication lines. Water mains. One mistake underground can cause explosions, electrocution, flooding, catastrophic injury, or death. This is a photo of a gas line that was struck in Anaheim - the danger is very real to both employees and residents. [Photo shown during the Council Meeting] California's DigAlert laws exist for a reason. They are not optional paperwork. They are designed to protect workers, residents, businesses, motorists, and emergency responders from preventable disasters. Yet employees have described situations where excavation work moved forward without proper clearances, where concerns were minimized, and where workers felt pressured to proceed anyway. And here is what should concern every resident in Anaheim: There were employees who stood up and refused to participate in unsafe practices. Employees who raised concerns because they wanted projects completed safely, lawfully, and without someone getting hurt. And what happened to them? They were isolated. Harassed. Targeted. Denied promotions. Forced to work in hostile environments. For years. Yet despite all of that, many of them are still there, still showing up, still protecting the public, and still trying to do the right thing. Those employees are not the problem. The real problem is a culture where management is allowed to retaliate against employees. Will that same management also be held responsible when employees or residents are seriously injured or killed? Residents deserve to know: How many DigAlert violations have occurred? How many underground utility strikes have happened? And why are employees allowed to be punished for trying to make these projects safer? Safety cannot exist in a culture of fear. And accountability cannot exist without transparency. From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:00 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: On Behalf of Mike Robbins, District 2, Councilmember Carlos Leon Attachments: Screenshot_20260510_132826_Galleryjpeg 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. Update: I am submitting the image shown during the Council meeting, as camera adjustments prevented online viewers from seeing it. For ease of reference, I have included the image below and attached it. Thank you. On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 6:20 PM Stephanie Mercadante For public comment on May 12, 2026: wrote: Let's talk about digging and the very real dangers employees face when excavation work is performed without proper utility locating and safety clearances in place. Every time a crew breaks ground without confirmed utility markings or without all required utility representatives present, lives are placed at risk. What is underground? Gas lines. Electrical infrastructure.Communication lines. Water mains. One mistake underground can cause explosions, electrocution, flooding, catastrophic injury, or death. This is a photo of a gas line that was struck in Anaheim - the danger is very real to both employees and residents. [Photo shown during the Council Meeting] California's DigAlert laws exist for a reason. They are not optional paperwork. They are designed to protect workers, residents, businesses, motorists, and emergency responders from preventable disasters. Yet employees have described situations where excavation work moved forward without proper clearances, where concerns were minimized, and where workers felt pressured tc proceed anyway. And here is what should concern every resident in Anaheim: There were employees who stood up and refused to participate in unsafe practices. Employees who raised concerns because they wanted projects completed safely, lawfully, and without someone getting hurt. And what happened to them? They were isolated. Harassed. Targeted. Denied promotions. Forced to work in hostile environments. For years. Yet despite all of that, many of them are still there, still showing up, still protecting the public, and still trying to do the right thing. Those employees are not the problem. The real problem is a culture where management is allowed to retaliate against employees. Will that same management also be held responsible when employees or residents are seriously injured or killed? Residents deserve to know: How many DigAlert violations have occurred? How many underground utility strikes have happened? And why are employees allowed to be punished for trying to make these projects safer? Safety cannot exist in a culture of fear. And accountability cannot exist without transparency. From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:23 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] On Behalf of Stephanie Mercadante, District 4, Councilmember Norma Campos Kurtz 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. For public comment on May 12, 2026: The public should be deeply concerned about the pattern that continues to emerge inside the City of Anaheim. This includes not only water quality issues and "call before you dig" violations, but also a broader culture of retaliation, suppression, and disregard for public safety. According to documented claims submitted against the City, employees responsible for maintaining critical public infrastructure allege they were retaliated against for raising safety concerns, reporting excavation violations, questioning unsafe work practices, and advocating for lawful operations. Employees describe a workplace where speaking up could cost you promotions, overtime, opportunities, or your career. Think about that. These employees are the quiet heroes of Anaheim. They are the people who work behind the scenes so residents can turn on their taps and trust the water is safe to drink. They are the crews responding to emergencies at all hours, repairing critical infrastructure beneath our streets, and performing dangerous work the public rarely sees but depends on every single day. Yet instead of fostering a culture of transparency, accountability, and safety, the allegations describe an environment where employees feared retaliation for reporting hazards, unsafe conditions, regulatory concerns, and operational risks. When the very people responsible for protecting public infrastructure are afraid to speak openly, every resident in this city should be concerned. The public should be asking: If employees are afraid to report problems internally, what problems never reach the public? When a government culture punishes the people trying to raise concerns, the risk is not just to employees. Rather, the risk is to every resident who depends on these systems to function safely, transparently, and without fear -driven suppression of the truth. This is more than an HR issue. This is a public safety issue. Anaheim residents stand with the Anaheim Public Utilities Heroes who keep our city safe every day. Moreover, we demand accountability from the managers responsible when employees and the public are placed in harm's way. From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:26 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] On Behalf of Jeanine Robbins, District 2, Councilmember Carlos Leon 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. For public comment on May 12, 2026: Residents continue to hear the same repeated message from this City: `The water is safe.' But reassurance without knowledge is not accountability. Anaheim's annual water quality report and the recent Water Quality presentation repeatedly assured residents that our water "meets or exceeds regulatory thresholds". But the problem is that the report answers only the questions the City wants to answer, not the questions residents are actually asking. Residents called to complain about the flushing, but they weren't complaining about 5 minutes of flushing; we know that is a routine operational function. Residents called regarding 30 minutes to 60 minutes of flushing, multiple times a week. There was so much flushing that it caused the asphalt to lift off the street. That is definitely not routine flushing. Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and related state regulations, public water systems are required to: • Conduct representative sampling • Maintain accurate records • Submit truthful monitoring •And comply with approved sampling protocols. Let's walk through this •A valve that was long since closed was abruptly reopened on September 17th to 22% • City employees raised concerns to management to close the valve; they knew opening a valve at that amount would adversely affect the water quality • Management ignored their warnings • On September 23, management was told to come look at the water, and employees asked again for permission to close the valve. • Management again ignored their warnings This is what the water SHOULD look like: [Poster of clean water shown in the Council Meeting]. But, on September 23, this is what your drinking water actually looked like: [Poster of purple/brown water shown in the Council Meeting]. And on Sept 24, it got even worse; this looks like sewage water instead of drinking water: [Poster of brown water shown in the Council Meeting]. •And then excessive flushing was noticed and reported by residents beginning in September and continued up until approximately March of this year. So how can the City still confirm our drinking water is safe? Residents are still waiting for an explanation. From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:04 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: On Behalf of Jeanine Robbins, District 2, Councilmember Carlos Leon Attachments: Screenshot_20260510_185304_Galleryjpeg; Screenshot_20260510_185247 _Galleryjpeg 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. Update: I am submitting the images shown at the Council meeting, as the camera adjustments prevented online viewers from seeing them. For ease of reference, I have included the images below and attached them. Thankyou. A6, On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 6:26 PM Stephanie Mercadante wrote: 1 For public comment on May 12, 2026: Residents continue to hear the same repeated message from this City: `The water is safe.' But reassurance without knowledge is not accountability. Anaheim's annual water quality report and the recent Water Quality presentation repeatedly assured residents that our water "meets or exceeds regulatory thresholds". But the problem is that the report answers only the questions the City wants to answer, not the questions residents are actually asking. Residents called to complain about the flushing, but they weren't complaining about 5 minutes of flushing; we know that is a routine operational function. Residents called regarding 30 minutes to 60 minutes of flushing, multiple times a week. There was so much flushing that it caused the asphalt to lift off the street. That is definitely not routine flushing. Under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and related state regulations, public water systems are required to: • Conduct representative sampling • Maintain accurate records • Submit truthful monitoring • And comply with approved sampling protocols. Let's walk through this • A valve that was long since closed was abruptly reopened on September 17th to 22% • City employees raised concerns to management to close the valve; they knew opening a valve at that amount would adversely affect the water quality • Management ignored their warnings • On September 23, management was told to come look at the water, and employees asked again for permission to close the valve. • Management again ignored their warnings This is what the water SHOULD look like: [Poster of clean water shown in the Council Meeting]. But, on September 23, this is what your drinking water actually looked like: [Poster of purple/brown water shown in the Council Meeting]. And on Sept 24, it got even worse; this looks like sewage water instead of drinking water: [Poster of brown water shown in the Council Meeting]. • And then excessive flushing was noticed and reported by residents beginning in September and continued up until approximately March of this year. So how can the City still confirm our drinking water is safe? Residents are still waiting for an explanation. From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:29 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] On Behalf of Tom Felder, District 1, Councilmember Ryan Balius 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. For public comment on May 12, 2026: The City of Anaheim now faces a choice: address these concerns openly and transparently, or continue withholding information and deepen the growing perception that a cover-up is occurring Release the flushing logs. Release the hydrant records. Release the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition trend data. Release the operational timelines. Release the internal communications. Release the Dig Alert Violations records. Release the claims filed after underground utility lines were struck. Because residents are still waiting for answers. We still do not know why our drinking water in September 2025 looked like sewage water. We still do not know why the presentation given just weeks ago — and the City's own Annual Water Quality Report — failed to meaningfully address that very important detail. We still do not know why Well 51 appears to have remained online for weeks after PFOS exceedance concerns were known. We also cannot comprehend why the City Council was notified on February 17 that the well was offline, while records reflect the well was NOT shut down until March 6! There cannot be two different dates for the same operational action. We still do not know why there was so much flushing occurring throughout 2025. And yes, residents care that approximately 10 million gallons of water were flushed, especially when we just received notice that our water rates increased again. Are residents paying for all of these secrets? And perhaps most disturbing of all, employees who want the water system to be safe, who want infrastructure projects performed lawfully, and who want a safe work environment are being harassed, retaliated against, and disciplined instead of listened to. These are the very employees responsible for protecting public infrastructure and public health. So the public is asking: Does the City of Anaheim need to be on Channels 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 before residents finally receive a full explanation? Residents deserve answers now. From: Stephanie Mercadante Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:33 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] On Behalf of Dave Duran, District 1, Councilmember Ryan Balius 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. For public comment on May 12, 2026: I'm confident there are many Anaheim city employees who genuinely care about the safety of our drinking water. They care because they take pride in their jobs. They care because they do not want their family, neighbors, and residents to get sick from drinking unsafe water. We know some of the city employees had the courage to raise concerns — ask questions — report operational issues — and advocate for transparency; and instead of being supported by management, some were isolated, retaliated against, ignored, or targeted as a problem. The public needs to know that the Anaheim City Council and Public Utilities officials/management have misinformed the public by repeatedly assuring residents that Anaheim's tap water was safe while insinuating that the city's water concerns did not exist. Residents who continued asking questions were labeled a "disinformation brigade." One resident was interrupted multiple times while attempting to express their concerns about Anaheim's water quality. So let's take a moment to document and recap the following for those who live, work, vacation, and the children who go to school in Anaheim. • The Mayor and other city officials say the water is safe. • Residents and employees who are raising concerns and/or are asking questions about the water are being recognized by city officials as a problem. Let me remind everyone about the importance of why Tri-halo-methanes are a serious concern. TTHMs are among the most common contaminants found in US drinking water. Key health concerns include: • Increased risk of bladder cancer — the most consistently associated health effect • Possible links to colorectal cancer • Liver, kidney, and central nervous system damage • Possible reproductive effects, including miscarriage risk at high exposure levels I believe the photos shown earlier tell a different story than the City is telling the public. A healthy organization does not punish employees for caring about public safety. A healthy organization listens to them. And now the City's own recently released Annual Water Quality Report raises more questions than it answers. On one hand, the City willfully reports to residents that Anaheim's water met all State and Federal standards in 2025 — But buried inside the report is an admission that a required water quality sample was not collected during the third quarter of 2025 — and the City explicitly states, quote, "we cannot be sure of the quality of the drinking water during that time." So, which statement are residents supposed to believe? Because both cannot comfortably exist together. The report also confirms Total tri-halo-methanes (THM) levels reached as high as 77 parts per billion —just below the legal maximum of 80. Transparency should not be treated as a threat to the City. It should be the foundation of public trust. We demand that the city release the flushing logs. Release the hydrant records. Release the SCA(y)DA trend data. Release the operational timelines. Release the internal communications. And stop misinforming the public. The public deserves to know the truth and not dangerous, self-serving, strategically fabricated lies! From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto [EXTERNAL] Watch "hashtags somebody's been stealing money from me ex-wife Maybe" on YouTube 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. From: Bobby Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:14 PM To: Public Comment; Ryan Balius; Kristen Maahs; Carlos A. Leon; Natalie Rubalcava; Natalie Meeks; Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; dlee@anaheim.net; Manny Cid Subject: [EXTERNAL] [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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. I moved back to Anaheim six years ago the water great fire, the police officers the bad ones Sent from my iPhone