This request was filed with the City of Anaheim in April 2024.

Applicable Grounds 2. There was not a fair hearing and the petitioner was thereby deprived of any rights;

  1. Anaheim residents were denied adequate time to share their views when, what was promised to be, two separate Public Hearings were combined into one. This reduced, by half, the time permitted to speak on the issues of street abandonments and the DisneylandForward project as a whole. It also deprived the public of the option to support the expansion project while opposing the abandonment of roads, despite Council acknowledgment that the road closures were a key issue for opponents of the project leading up to the April 16, 2024 meeting.

    When the Public Hearing for the abandonment of streets was set during the City Council meeting of February 27, 2024, as Agenda Item 24, several City Council members asked City staff about whether the street abandonment Public Hearing would be rolled into the DisneylandForward Public Hearing. Rudy Emami and Ted White both answered that the street abandonment would be a separate Public Hearing from the DisneylandForward Hearing. Ted White stated that both Public Hearings were being planned for the same date and meeting, but that there would be two separate Hearings to allow the public to share their views on each subject (see video).

    1. Two separate Public Hearings were critical to the exercise of rights by the public, as many speakers commenting on the DisneylandForward project in the weeks preceding the Public Hearing had expressed their desire to approve the project itself without the closure of Magic Way. By combining all agenda items into one Public Hearing, residents were left unable to oppose the closure of Magic Way without also opposing the DisneylandForward project.

    2. Combining all subject matter into one Public Hearing also left the public with only 3 minutes to comment on both the expansion project and the closure of public roads. Review of the Public Comments portion of the meeting shows numerous residents running out of time prior to completing their thoughts.

  2. Some Anaheim residents opposed to the project were denied a reasonable opportunity to speak altogether, due to the City of Anaheim’s deliberate actions which deviated from past practice, making it physically impossible for some to retain their place in line to speak during Public Comments. Seats inside of Council Chambers were reserved for City staff and Disney supporters. No accommodation appears to have been considered to make seating available for those residents within the Public Notice area. Those arriving at City Hall as early as 3 pm were left outside of the building. City staff failed to follow the usual practice of collecting Speaker Cards to reserve a speaking opportunity, and residents were forced to stand in line for hours to hold their respective places. Folding chairs had been “zip-tied” together, making it impossible to use the seating provided to sit while in line. No accommodation had been made for those with mobility issues who might be physically unable to stand in place for hours, nor was there accommodation to use the restroom without losing one’s place. Due to this physical hardship, many speakers left without the opportunity to address the City Council, as shown by the number of speakers who did not appear at the microphone after being called by the City Clerk. Since the applicant had already reserved the majority of seats in Council Chambers for their own supporters, it stands to reason that leaving speakers outside City Hall would adversely affect those opposed to the project.

    There is a belief that this action may also have violated ADA requirements, but that is not the subject of this particular request for rehearing.

  3. Members of the Anaheim City Council failed to act with disinterested zeal, indicating their reluctance to fairly consider testimony from those opposed to the project. Their dismissive indifference to the Public Comments was palpable and is well-documented through video recordings.

    1. During the allotted time for Public Comments, Mayor Aitken and members of the City Council spoke amongst themselves, laughed with each other, or departed from the Chambers, indicating they were not granting residents the equivalent attention offered to the applicant. Evidence of this is available in video format. Further evidence is available in the Granicus video record of the April 16, 2024 meeting.

    2. During the deliberative portion of the meeting, marked by timestamp 8:58:11 on the Granicus video, Councilmember Diaz made a lengthy statement in which he dismissed, without examination of evidence, a resident complaint regarding Deputy City Manager Ted White offering misinformation to the public. Councilmember Diaz failed to clarify or investigate the resident statement to determine whether incorrect information might have been presented to the public. Instead, Councilmember Diaz indicated extreme bias in favor of City staff to the exclusion of resident complaints;

      Beginning at 8:58 time stamp on Granicus video

      Councilmember Jose Diaz:

      “A comment was made about Ted White that he lied. Ted, I know your character, I know your integrity. Ted White did not lie about anything here, in fact, I see City Manager s office here, I see Finance, Public Works, Public Utilities, Fire, Community Services, Economic Development, Housing. I put my hands in the fire for you guys. I know your integrity, I know who you are, you don ‘t deserve to be called corrupt, you don t deserve to be called liars. You are not. You have a lot of integrity and I stand by you. That’s my first point.”

Applicable Grounds 3. There was a prejudicial abuse of discretion by the City Council within the meaning of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California;

  1. City of Anaheim accepted/adopted all DisneylandForward-provided studies as being true and accurate. Independent appraisals/studies were not ordered or completed by the City of Anaheim for verification of information, in violation of City Policy.

    1. This failure is in direct violation of Council Policy 5.5, which states “in any case where the Senior Real Property Agent finds that the fair market value of such property interest may exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), he or she shall order an independent M.A.1. appraisal of such property interest. The cost of any such appraisal shall be borne by the applicant and shall be deemed an obligation of the applicant due and owing to the City.”

      Citation: Council Policy 5.5

      Adopted 01/31/89

      Amended 06/05/07

      The Abandonment or Vacation of Public Easements or Rights- Of-Way

      It is the policy of the City Council that any applicant requesting the abandonment or vacation of any easement, right-of-way or other property interest (collectively referred to herein as “property interest”) by the City shall, as a condition of approval of any such abandonment or vacation, be required to compensate the City in an amount equal to the fair market value of such property interest.

      The Real Property Section of the City Engineer’s Office (“Senior Real Property Agent”) shall be responsible for recommending the fair market value of any such property interest and shall provide such information to the City Council and the applicant prior to any decision by the City council to vacate or abandon any such property interest. Final determination of fair market value shall be made by the City Council except where otherwise provided by law. If the Senior Real Property Agent, at his or her sole discretion, determines that an independent appraisal is advisable, or in any case where the Senior Real Property Agent finds that the fair market value of such property interest may exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), he or she shall order an independent M.A.I. appraisal of such property interest. The cost of any such appraisal shall be borne by the applicant and shall be deemed an obligation of the applicant due and owing to the City.

      The requirements of this policy shall not apply (1) to the Summary Vacation of unused easements, (2) to property interests with a fair market value of less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or (3) when the property owner dedicates equivalent casements or rights-of-way on the property to replace the abandoned or vacated easements or rights-of- way.

      Nothing contained in this policy shall prohibit the City Council from waiving all or any portion of the compensation payable to City hereunder, for good cause shown, to the extent otherwise permitted by law.

      Reference: Previous Council Policy 216

    2. Council Policy 1.0 allows Council Policy to be waived only with a vote of the majority. No such public vote happened, meaning the Council deviated from policy and standard procedure, indicating abuse of discretion by the Anaheim City Council.

      Citation: Council Policy 1.0

      The purpose of Council policies is to establish standard practices and procedures for implementation by the City Council, City boards and commissions, and City staff which express the general intention and directives of the City Council.

      All City Council policies continue in full force and effect until expressly amended or rescinded notwithstanding any changes in City Council membership. Council policies shall be adopted, amended or rescinded only by a resolution duly adopted by the City Council. The City Council may deviate from or waive the provisions of any Council policy on a case-by-case basis by motion adopted by at least a majority of a quorum of its members. The policies memorialized in the City Council Policy Manual (the “Policy Manual”), adopted, amended and restated in full by City Council Resolution No. 2007-078 as said Policy Manual may thereinafter be amended, shall constitute the exclusive expression of policies by the City Council. Any prior City Council policies not set forth in Resolution No. 2007-078 shall be deemed rescinded and of no further force and effect, provided, however, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit the City Council from taking an action consistent with such former policy or readopting such prior policy in the manner provided herein.

      Upon the adoption, amendment or rescission of any City Council policy, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to immediately revise and update the Policy Manual to reflect such change. The City Clerk shall be the custodian of records of the Policy Manual and shall keep the Policy Manual, and make it available to all City Departments and the public in either hard copy or electronic format, or both. The policies set forth in this Policy Manual shall be deemed directory. Failure to comply with the provisions or terms of any such policy shall not be deemed a violation of any law nor be the basis for any legal action against the City, any City officer or employee, or any other person or entity.

  2. The City of Anaheim may have engaged in ex-parte communication with the applicant, which denied the public opportunity to access and review the same evidence upon which the City Council based their approval of the project.

    1. The City of Anaheim accepted a 9-page Executive Summary of a CSUF economic study as the sole evidence to justify the economic benefits cited in the “Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration” and as an integral part of the Environmental documents approved on April 16, 2024. Representatives of the City of Anaheim have stated they did not request the full CSUF report from Disney, nor did the City request a redacted version (or any version thereof). Instead, they operated with only the 9-page executive summary, which does not align with statements made by the applicant. This disparity in facts presented vs. evidence cited indicates the potential for ex-parte communication between the applicant and City leaders, resulting in the City Council members approving the project without providing all relevant information to the public.

    2. At time stamp 9:13 in the Granicus video of the April 16, 2024 meeting, Mayor Aitken engages in discussion with Disney’s Ken Potrock, in which they discuss Disney’s support for using ATID as an ongoing source of funding for housing, and a “letter we hope to include in this public record,” was noted. No such letter appears in the Agenda packet, disclosed for public review prior to the City Council meeting. ATID’s enabling documents do not allow for such use of funds for housing. Nor has the use of ATID funding for “Community Benefits” related to DisneylandForward been publicly discussed or reviewed in documents available to the public.

  3. Members of the City Council indicate they might not have examined all of the evidence, as they claimed to have done in the “Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration.”

  4. All of these points considered, the current council was willfully and grossly negligent in their respective duties. They acted as uninformed decision-makers, and failed in their duties to fairly represent the people of Anaheim with the disinterested zeal required of their offices.