Anaheim City Council
September 10, 2024

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:

Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.

Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.

Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:

Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.

Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:

Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.

Reviewed and wrote part B permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.

Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.

Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’ s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:

Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.

Conducted watershed scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.

Identified high levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.

Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.

Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.

Co authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.

Contributed to the Federal Multi Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:

Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.

Shaped EPA’ s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.

Improved the technical training of EPAs scientific andengineering staff. Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing theregion’s 300 scientists and engineers innegotiations with the Administrator andsenior management tobetter integrate scientific principles intothe policy making process. Established
national protocol forthe peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:

Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.

Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.

Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites ( later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:

Supervised year long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.

Conducted aquifer tests.

Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:

At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography ( lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.

Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.

Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology ( lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP 61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009 2011.
9 SusanaBarrios
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 20244:09PM
To: PublicComment; Thomas Gorham
Cc:' Christine Miller'
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Item31, CCHearing 2/27/24: Pacific ResortPlazaHotelProject Attachments: 2024.02.27_CCComments_PacificPlazaHotel_Exhattached.pdf Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

Dear Hon. Mayor andAnaheim CityCouncil:

Onbehalf ofUNITE HERE Local 11and fourAnaheim residents Harold Roberto Honma, Belinda Ann Honma, Antonio Rogel, andSilvia Gonzalez ( collectively “ Commenters”), please seeattached comment letter, including expert comments attached thereto. Weapologize forthedelay butthese areinresponse totheStaff Report released justFriday.

Inshort, Local 11submitted comments back inNovember 2023 highlighting ?laws intheproject’sMND. TheStaff Report includes aresponse tocomments, which areunfortunately inadequate andfailstoeven address Local 11’s prior comments oreven expert comments submitted byother commenters. Here, therecord includes multiple comment letters, including several expert comment letters, that establish substantial evidence thattheProject may have signi?icant environmental impacts requiring further analysis andmitigation.

Commenters respectfully askthattheCitynotgrant theproject approvals until aCEQA-compliant MND is recirculated thatincludes aphase 1study (asrecommended byexperts), additional airquality andnoise mitigation such asthose recommended byexperts), aswell asmitigation thatmaximizes solar onallstructures proposed for theProject, andarobust, hotel-speci?icTDM program andfood/ waste recycling program.

Thank youforconsideration ofthese comments, which willbeprovided inhardcopy atthehearing.

Very truly yours,
JordanR. Sisson, A?orney
LawOceofGideonKracov
801S. GrandAve., 11thFloor
LosAngeles, CA90017
Oce: 951-405-8127
Direct: 951-542-2735
[email protected]
www.gideonlaw.net
PRIVILEGEDANDCONFIDENTIAL: Thiselectronicmessagecontainsinforma?onfromtheLawOceofGideonKracovandisa?orney workproductconden?alorprivileged. Theinforma?onisintendedsolelyfortheuseoftheindividual(s)oren?ty(ies) named above. Ifyouhavereceivedthistransmissioninerror, pleasedestroytheoriginaltransmissionanditsa?achmentswithoutreading orsavinginanymanner.
1 February 27, 2024
VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY:

Anaheim City Council, City of Anaheim ( publiccomment@anaheim. net) c/ o Thomas Gorham, Contract Planner ( tgorham@anaheim. net) 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.

Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Item No. 31 City Council Hearing ( 2/ 27/ 24);
Pacific Resort Plaza ( 125 E. Ball Road); Project No. DEV2019- 00161 Dear Mayor Aitken and Honorable City Councilmembers:

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“ Local 11”) and Anaheim residents Harold Roberto Honma, Belinda Ann Honma, Antonio Rogel, and Silvia Gonzalez ( collectively “ Commenters”), this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Anaheim (“ City”) regarding the proposed demolition of an existing two-story commercial building and construction of a 5-story, 120-room hotel and a 1,200 square foot (“ sf”) drive-through Starbucks restaurant with two 4-story Puzzle Lift” enclosed parking structures ( 3 stories above ground, 1 below) (“ Project”) located on a 1.57-acre site at the above-referenced address ( APN Nos. 234-161-04 & 234-161-26) (“Site”).

These comments supplement our prior comment letter dated December 4, 2023, and are in response to the recently released staff report dated February 27, 2024 (“ Staff Report”). 2 There, Local 11 raised concerns with the Project’ s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“ CEQA”) 3 due to flaws in the Project’ s Mitigated Negative Declaration (“ MND”) 4 analysis and mitigation of construction- related impacts related to air quality, noise, and the potential for exposure to hazardous materials due the Site’s prior uses. ( See Staff Report, Att-5, PDF pp. 60-43.) So too, concerns were raised about the Project’ s lack of a firm commitment to installing solar panels, including a robust ridesharing program and other Traffic Demand Management (“ TDM”) strategies, and a hotel-specific recycling/ food-waste program. (Id.) Unfortunately, the MND’ s response to comments does not adequately address these concerns for all the reasons explained below, including the expert noise report attached hereto as “ Exhibit A.” Here, the MND is subject to the less deferential “ fair argument” standard, which requires the preparation of a more comprehensive EIR whenever substantial evidence inthe record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. ( See e.g., Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’ n v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. ( 1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v.

City of Los Angeles ( 1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21151.) Under this standard, an MND may be used only where there is “clearly no significant effect on the environment would 1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination ( i.e., “p. #”) or PDF- page location ( i.e., “PDF p. #”). 2 Inclusive of Attachments (“ ATT-#”) 1 through 11, all retrieved from City- controlled website. ( See https:// local.anaheim. net/ docs_agend/ questys_ pub/ 40660/ 40690/ 40693/ 40756/ Documents. htm.) 3 Including “ CEQA Guidelines” codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq. 4 Inclusive of all associated appendices (“ APP-##”) retrieved from the City-controlled website. ( See https:// www.anaheim. net/ 876/ Environmental- Documents; see also Staff Report, ATT-4 & 4A.) CC Comments RE: Pacific Resort Plaza Project
February 27, 2024

occur, and [] there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant impact on the environment.” ( Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5 [emphasis added]; see also CEQA Guidelines §§ 15070( b), 15369.5.) Here, the record includes multiple comment letters, including several expert comment letters, that establish substantial evidence that the Project may have significant environmental impacts requiring further analysis and mitigation— particularly as it relates to air quality, hazards, and noise. So too, more can be done to avoid wasteful use of energy, lessen traffic impacts, and reduce plastic/ food waste from the hotel operations— all important to Commenters. Collectively, these errors may conceal potentially significant Project impacts and thus fail to identify additional mitigation measures that should be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program MMRP”).

Local 11 has a significant interest in the Project. It represents more than 25,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix. In particular, Local 11 has thousands of members who live and/ or work in Anaheim. The individual commenters— Anaheim residents Mr. and Ms. Honma ( who are brother and sister), Mr. Rogel, and Ms. Gonzalez, all live within approximately one- half mile of the Project Site and have an interest in ensuring that the air quality and noise impacts, as well as the potential for hazardous material exposure, are adequately addressed.

For these reasons and those discussed elsewhere in Local 11’s comments and the record incorporated herein), Commenters respectfully ask the City to stay action on the MND and various land use entitlements ( i.e., Rezone and two Conditional Use Permits) ( collectively “ Project Approvals”) until their concerns are addressed in a compliant and recirculated CEQA review that incorporates additional mitigation to the Project ( via a revised MMRP). The remainder of this document responds to the MND’ s response to comments (“ RTC”), located in the Staff Report, Attachment 5 (“ATT-5”).

1. Response to Comments 5.5 & 5.7 (Air Quality & Sensitive Receptor Distances) Local 11 previously raised concerns with the MND’s application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“ SCAQMD”) localized significance threshold (“ LST”) methodology, primarily using more permissive thresholds based on the assumption residents are 130 feet away from the Project Site rather than roughly 75 feet (i.e., distance from Project Site Boundary to residential property boundary). ( See ATT-5, PDF pp. 44-47.) In response, the MND repeats its process of assuming residential uses are 130 feet away based on the building location. ( Id., at PDF pp. 61-62.) The property to the north is clearly zoned multi-family residential and includes a patio and other outside areas where residents and children can occupy up to its property boundary 75 feet away from the Project Site, as demonstrated in the attached Noise Report. (See Exhibit A, p. 1).

Furthermore, there is no explanation for why the MND breaks from the City’s seemingly established practice of utilizing LST thresholds based on the distance between a project site and sensitive uses’ property boundary. 5 This is substantial evidence that the appropriate distance to apply is roughly 5 See e.g., KB Home Lincoln & Sunkist Townhomes Project ( Nov. 2022) Checklist, PDF p. 42 (referencing residential uses with property lines located adjacent to the south and approximately 100 feet (~ 30 meters)”); https:// www.anaheim. net/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 47028/ Infill-Streamlining- Checklist- DEV2021- 00180?bidId=; Pepperwood Place Project ( Nov. 2021) Class 32 Exemption, PDF pp. 11, 62 (using minimal 25 CC Comments RE: Pacific Resort Plaza Project
February 27, 2024

75 feet, which warrants the use of a lower LST threshold of 25 meters (~ 80), consistent with SCAQMD’ s LST methodology and the City’ s past practices, which this Project would exceed.

2. Response to Comments 5.6 (Air Quality Reporting)
Local 11 previously raised concerns about the MND’ s failure to report emissions in the hundredth of foot pounds ( i.e., decimals) and during each phase, particularly given the MNDreported emissions near the particulate matter thresholds. ( See ATT- 5, PDF pp. 45-46.) In response, the MND says this is irrelevant because the Project’ s emissions were not close to the threshold. ( See ATT- 5, PDF p. 61.) However, as discussed above, this response is based on the improper use of more permissive LST thresholds.

3. Response to Comments 5.8 - 5.10 (Air Quality and Construction Timeline) Local 11 previously raised concerns about the MND’ s delayed construction timeline, the assumption that there would be no major concurrent construction ( i.e., Phase 1 followed by Phase 2), including no construction during summer months, and seemingly inaccurate CalEEMod modeling. ( See ATT- 5, PDF p. 47-49.) In response, the MND acknowledges the inaccurate timeline estimates in the air modeling but suggests delay would result in the use of cleaner engines, and any inaccuracy is insignificant given the Project’ s emissions are less than half of the SCAQMD’ s significance thresholds. ( Id., at PDF pp. 62-63.) However, this response relies on an inappropriate, more permissive threshold ( discussed supra) and fails to consider that delay may cause the Project to have major concurrent phased development ( i.e., Phase 1 and Phase 2), which would exacerbate maximum construction emissions.

4. Response to Comments 5.12 (Air Quality and Overlapping Construction) Local 11 previously raised concerns about the potential for overlapping construction of a recently approved 249-unit multi family structure with a 5,500-sf restaurant development located across the street from the Project Site. ( See ATT- 5, PDF pp. 50-51.) In response, the MND claims the Project’ s cumulative impacts “ would not be cumulatively considerable[,]” and the property across the street “is not currently proposed for development, and therefore would not result in overlapping construction impacts related to the Proposed Project.” ( Id., at p. 63.) However, there is no factual basis for these conclusory claims, which do not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. ( See CEQA Guidelines § 15384 [“ speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate” is not substantial evidence].)

5. Response to Comments 3.7, 3.8 & 3.10 (Other Expert Air Quality Concerns) Other commenters ( independent of Local 11) also raised concerns about the MND’ s air quality impacts analysis, including its failure to include a health risk assessment, the use of improper modeling data ( e.g., construction length, off-road equipment, construction trips, architectural coating emission factors, etc.). (See ATT- 5, PDF pp. 14-15.) While these comments explicitly referenced expert letters from environmental consultants ( i.e., SWAPE) ( id.; see also PDF p. 77-99 [SWAPE letter dated November 22, 2023]), the MND fails to provide any response to the SWAPE comments. Instead, the MND claims that it properly relied on the 130-foot distance and meters for “residential uses adjacent to the site”), https:// anaheim. net/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 41139/ DEV2019- 00139- Pepperwood- Place- Class- 32-Exemption; CC Comments RE: Pacific Resort Plaza Project
February 27, 2024

relied on the construction assumptions provided by the applicant. ( Id., at PDF pp. 19-20.) As discussed above, substantial evidence demonstrates that the appropriate distance is closer, and the MND admits that modeling data is inaccurate in some cases ( e.g., construction timeline, underestimated cy of export material). ( Id., at p. 63.)

6. Response to Comments 5.14-5.17 (Hazards Material)
Local 11 previously commented that the MND’ s analysis of hazardous substances was limited to a computerized review of regulatory databases, which identified seven sites within the

1.57-acre Site that potentially released hazardous material and, thus, warranted further review such as a phase 1). (See ATT- 5, PDF pp. 52-57 [comments 5.14 - 5.17].) In response, the MND referred to the response to comments 3.11 (id., at PDF p. 64), which included similar concerns from another commenter ( independent of Commenters) calling for the need for a phase 1 study—which explicitly referenced environmental experts’ SWAPE comments. ( Id. at p. 17, 77-78.) Again, the MND failed to respond to the expert comment letter, and concludes the Site “ is not known or anticipated to have been contaminated with hazardous materials … and no hazardous material storage facilities are known to exist on [S]ite” merely because the Site is not on the Cortese List. (Id., at PDF p. 21.) Notwithstanding not being on the Cortese list, there is substantial evidence of hazardous material at the site due to multiple prior uses, which may constitute an unusual circumstance. ( See CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).)

7. Response to Comments 5.18 (Solar Panels)
Local 11 previously commented that the MND failed to analyze whether solar panels— as compared to just solar area— would be required for the Project. (See ATT-5, PDF p. 57.) In response, the MND referred to the response to comments 3.12 (id., at PDF p. 64), which echoed similar concerns ( id., at p. 18). In response, the MND claims solar panels will be provided on the hotel rooftop. (Id., at p. 21.) However, there is no condition of approval making this mandatory and enforceable. CEQA bars reliance on illusory, unenforceable conditions as mitigation. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126. 4(a)( 2), 15097; see also Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’ n v. City of Los Angeles 2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508 [“ Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.”].) Furthermore, there is no explanation for why solar panels are not considered for the roof of the Puzzle Lifts.

8. Response to Comments 5.19 (Construction Noise)
Local 11 previously commented that the MND lacked an adequate noise study, including the lack of details about the ambient noise measurements, specific construction equipment, and the potential of extensive noise during the excavation of the Puzzle Lifts near nearby residential uses.

See ATT-5, PDF p. 58.) In response, the MND merely reiterates the methodology used in the MND.

Id., at p. 64.) However, as discussed in the expert noise report ( attached hereto as “Exhibit A”), this response is inadequate. As explained therein, the MND failed to consider other applicable thresholds and assumed only minimum equipment ( i.e., single bulldozer) and not simultaneous use of all pertinent heavy construction equipment. As shown in the expert report, just the use of three pieces of equipment could cause noise impacts to nearby residents that exceed applicable thresholds. This is substantial evidence of potential noise impacts that warrant further mitigation, such as those proposed in the noise expert’ s attachment ( e.g., avoiding simultaneous construction equipment, adjusting staging areas, using sound control curtains, etc.) CC Comments RE: Pacific Resort Plaza Project
February 27, 2024

9. Response to Comments 5.20 (Vanpool and TDM Measures) Local 11 previously commented that the Project’ s proposed “ rideshare and vanpooling opportunities for employees and patrons” should be clarified with performance measures in a hotel- specific mandatory commuter reduction ( e.g., specific VMT or average daily trip reduction, 100 % employees participation level) and including specific elements ( e.g., participate in guarantee ride programs; preferential parking spaces or hotel valet service as inventive for employee carpool/ vanpool, subsidized transit passes for hotel workers and hotel patrons, dedicated shuttle service for hotel patrons toward nearby destinations). ( See ATT- 5, PDF pp. 58-59.) In response, the MND references compliance with the City’ s TDM ordinance ( Anaheim Municipal Code [“ AMC]” §

14.60 et seq.) ( id., at p. 64), which unfortunately fails to identify any meaningful performance standard or element of a TDM program for this project.

10. Response to Comments 5.21 (Food/ Plastic Waste Reduction) Local 11 previously commented that the Project should include a hotel- specific food/ plastic waste program to address the unique waste streams applicable to the operation of hotel projects.

See ATT- 5, PDF p. 59.) In response, the MND references compliance with the City’ s local waste and recyclable laws ( AMC § 10.10 et seq.). However, hotels are lumped into the generic requirements for “commercial businesses” and considered a “tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator” ifthey exceed 200 or more rooms ( inapplicable here). (See e.g., AMC 10.10.010 subds. .090 & .850.) The City’ s generic waste laws do not address the unique waste streams at issue with hotels, which can be addressed with a hotel- specific recycling program, such as the one proposed in Local 11’s initial comment letter.

In conclusion, there is substantial evidence— including multiple expert comment letters— establishing a fair argument of significant air quality impacts that must be addressed in a revised CEQA- compliant review. Local 11 has a substantial interest in this project, with thousands of members who live or work in Anaheim, as do all four Anaheim residents Mr. and Ms. Honma, Mr.

Rogel, and Ms. Gonzalez, who all live within approximately one- half mile of the Project Site.

Commenters respectfully ask that the City not grant the Project Approvals until a CEQAcompliant MND is recirculated that includes a phase 1 study ( as recommended by experts), additional air quality and noise mitigation ( such as those recommended by experts), as well as mitigation that maximizes solar on all structures proposed for the Project, and a robust, hotelspecific TDM program and food/ waste recycling program.

Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.

Sincerely,
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for Local 11
ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A: Noise Expert Letter ( 2/ 26/ 24)

EXHIBIT A
Dale La Forest & Associates
Design, Planning & Environmental Consulting
101 E. Alma Street, Suite 100-A; Mt. Shasta, CA 96067
Phone: (530) 918-8625 E -Mail: [email protected]
Jordan R. Sisson, Attorney [email protected]
801 South Grand Avenue, 11th Floor www.gideonlaw.net
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (951) 405-8127
Report of Potential Noise Impacts in Mitigated Negative Declaration for Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project at 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA (DEV 2019-00161) Dear Mr. Sisson: February 26, 2024
At your request, I have prepared this report to identify serious noise impacts of the Pacific Resort Plaza Development Project (“ Project”) and the use of an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (“ IS/MND”) for it. My qualifications are attached hereto as “ Attachment 2”. This report is based on my training and experience and on the analysis of the materials I have reviewed in this matter. This report responds also to the City of Anaheim’ s misleading and inaccurate responses to public comments.

The Project’ s IS/MND is inadequate because it fails to include 24-hour noise level measurements, fails to compare the construction noise levels to the City’s noise standards, and fails to describe the noise level increases that neighboring land uses will be exposed to. The IS/MND underestimates how loud construction equipment noise will be. It fails to analyze and mitigate the significant noise impact that construction work will have on neighboring residential, office and school uses. The IS/MND underestimates construction noise by inaccurately assuming homes’ property lines are 80 feet from the construction work. But the nearest property lines for some homes are within 75 feet of the proposed parking garage, and within about 70 feet of excavated parking garage basement pits where noisy construction work will occur.1 At these shorter distances, construction noise will create louder and more significant impacts.

Figure 1 – Illustration of Existing Residences Near Proposed Project Hotel

INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City’s responses to comments about the Project’ s noise impacts do not comply with CEQA’ s requirement that the City provide good faith, reasoned analysis in response, supported by factual information. The City provided no response to the comment challenging the IS/MND’s failure to describe the exact locations where 1 Per Architect’ s Sheet A101, Overall Proposed Site Plan, t parking structure would be about 75 feet from a tondo-inium’ s property line to the north. But the lower level of the puzzle-lift parking structure includes an underground “ maintenance access aisle” that would need additional excavation for its concrete pit that might be up to five feet closer to these condominiums at about 70 feet of the condominiums’ nearest property line. See also Sheet A503, Detail - Puzzle Lifts.

noise measurements were taken, and gave no response to the question about what construction equipment would be used excavating and constructing the Puzzle Lift parking garage near homes. Nor did the City respond to correct the IS/MND’ s error that assumes construction work would be at the closest 80 feet from residential property. No response was given to the request for all feasible noise mitigation to protect these residents. Instead the response discusses irrelevant noise standards from the Federal Transit Administration while totally ignoring that the City itself has stricter, applicable noise standards in the General Plan that were not used in the IS/MND.

THE IS/MND CONTAINS A SERIOUSLY INADEQUATE NOISE STUDY
The IS/MND’s noise study section is inadequate because it omits any analysis of the ambient noise levels and the Project’ s noise levels over a full day’ s 24-hour period. The General Plan limits project noise levels based upon the day-night weighted average noise level measured with the CNEL or Ldn descriptor. No data or analysis in the IS/MND evaluates the Project neighborhood’ s 24-hour averaged ambient noise level or the 12-hour noise levels the Project would contribute. The IS/MND’ s short 20- minute ambient noise level measurements do not reveal the noise levels at other times of the day or night. Therefore, there is no evidence that Project noise levels, when cumulatively averaged with existing noise levels, will comply with the General Plan’ s 24-hour CNEL averaged noise standards. Instead, the IS/MND and the Staff Report erroneously assume that the only applicable noise standard is an 80 dBA Leq-8hr limit representing an eight-hour averaged noise level. The IS/MND ignores the General Plan’ s other noise standards.

Contrary to the IS/MND, construction noise is not exempt from the General Plan’ s noise standards. The Noise Element on page N-5 sets a noise standard of 65 dBA Ldn for housing.2If construction noise levels exceed 70 dBA Ldn at the property line of multi-family homes, that noise level is deemed to be normally unacceptable and requires additional protections not mentioned in the IS/MND. ( See Noise Element, p. N-7, Fig. N-2, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure (Exterior).)

THE IS/MND UNDERESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS The IS/MND estimates that construction noise levels during excavation work will be a maximum of 75 dBA Leq at an 80-foot distance.3 But those noise levels might be 10 dBA greater than that. The IS/MND’s calculation is erroneously based on only the minimum equipment use ( i.e. a single bulldozer), not the simultaneous use of all pertinent heavy construction equipment.4 As shown by the U.S. EPA, during excavation work with multiple equipment usage, a noise level of 89 dBA Leq is typically predicted at a 50-foot distance.6 At a distance of 80 feet, such construction noise levels would diminish to 85 dBA Leq, which is 10 dB louder than the IS/MND calculated.

Heavy equipment excavation operations for the parking garage basement level might be located as close as 70 feet to the nearest residences’ property lines. The activity areas of these homes at their property line near where children play just 70 feet away from the Project site could be exposed to those construction noise levels of about

86.1 dBA Leq.7 With these homes’ existing 6-foot high concrete block wall on the property line, such construction noise at ground level could be attenuated by approximately 6 dBA,8resulting in a construction noise level at the property line of about 80.1 dBA Leq. That noise level would exceed the assumed threshold of significance of 80 dBA Leq used in the IS/MND and the predicted noise level of 75 dBA Leq there. It would greatly exceed the City’ s Noise Ordinance threshold of 60 dBA Leq at a residential property line. 2 This 65 dBA CNEL noise standard is also identified in the Noise Element’ s Table N-3 on page N-9. 3 See IS/MND, p. 5-67, Table 18, Noise Exposure Levels for the Nearest Noise Sensitive Uses, Ground Clearing: 75 dBA Leq 4 See IS/MND’ s Appendix H, Noise Calculations, PDF p. 28, “ Minimum required equipment in use” 6 See US EPA, Legal Compilation on Noise, Jan. 1973, Vol. 1, (PDF p. 246), p. 2-104, Table 2-15 (Noise levels at Construction Sites). This is available online : https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/2001517N.PDF?Dockey=2001517N.PDF 7 Noise level attenuation due to distance is calculated as reduced by about 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. One can calculate a dB level at different distances when there is a known dB level for a known distance by the following equation: dB2 = dB1 – 10 xAx LOG(d2/d1) where in this case, at a location 70' (d2) from the construction equipment at residential properties, where dB1 = 89 dBA at 50' (d1), then:
dB2 = dB1 – 10 x Ax LOG(d2/d1) = 89 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(70’/ 50') = 89 - 20 x (0.146) = 86.1 dBA Leq. 8 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’ s 2009 The Noise Guidebook, p. 28, Table 2: 6 foot high barrier, 30 dB transmission loss assumed for a hollow core cinder block wall: 6.0 dB attenuation; this guidebook is available online at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_16417.PDF
DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 2

THE IS/MND ITSELF DOCUMENTS A SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT The calculations in the IS/MND, when applied to the General Plan’ s actual noise standards, are evidence that this Project’ s construction noise levels will exceed the City’s standards. Even the IS/MND’ s use of a relaxed noise standard of 80 dBALeq-8 hr. for 8 hours would permit excessive construction noise levels near homes. If construction noise is as loud as 75 dBA Leq at 80 feet as the IS/MND predicts at a neighboring home’ s property from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and is silent for the remaining 12 hours of a day, its day-night weighted average noise level there would calculate to about 72 dBA CNEL. That construction noise level would create a significant noise impact because the General Plan permits exterior noise levels at the property line of homes to be at most 65 dBA CNEL because noise reduction measures were not analyzed and included for this Project.9 The actual construction noise levels predicted with more reasonable assumptions would be much louder and more disturbing to neighbors.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NEAR HOMES CAN CAUSE SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACTS.

Heavy construction equipment like a backhoe, bulldozer and haul trucks will be used to excavate the basement parking level of the proposed puzzle- lift parking structure as close as about 75 feet from the neighboring residential property line to the north. Excavating that basement pit in order to construct an underground maintenance access aisle” may result in excavation being done as close as 70 feet to that property line. During this construction work, as calculated below, some of these homes’ yards could be exposed to short- term noise levels of over 82 dBA Leq, a noise level representing an increase of 29 dB above ambient noise levels of approximately 53 dBA Leq ( per the IS/MND, p. 5-61). That much of short-term noise level increase during construction would constitute a significant noise impact.

At 50 feet, graders and backhoes have been measured at 85 dBA Leq and dozers at 80 dBA Leq.10 But at 70 feet away from the excavation area at the property line of the nearest homes, their individual noise levels will be about 6 dB lower. 11 For this equipment, that noise level is about 82.1 or 77.1 dBA Leq respectively. During construction of this hotel parking lot, the closest of these homes could be exposed to combined noise levels from multiple pieces of heavy equipment when all are operating simultaneously of as much as 85.7 dBA Leq.12 These equipment noise levels are described being added:

EQUIPMENT AVERAGE NOISE
Dozer 77.1 dBA Leq
Grader 82.1 dBA Leq
Backhoe 82.1 dBA Leq
TOTAL: 85.7 dBA Leq at 70 feet
noise levels logarithmically added for total)
Construction noise levels at the nearest residential property line could exceed the General Plan Noise Element’ s maximum 75 dBA CNEL noise standard. If the above multiple equipment were operated at the same time, emitting 85.7 dBA Ldn at 70 feet for just half (50%) of the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. work day, their 24-hour average noise 9 See Noise Element, Table N-3 on page N-9, multi-family residential use: 65 dBA CNEL. Also see Table N-2 on page N-6, multi-family residential use: 65 dBA CNEL maximum normally acceptable without detailed analysis of noise reduction features and inclusion of such features.
10 Source: County of Ventura; See Table 2 [Typical Construction Equipment Noise] which is available online at:
https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/ceqa/Construction_Noise_Thresholds.pdf 11 Noise level attenuation due to distance is calculated as reduced by about 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. One can calculate a dB level at different distances when there is a known dB level for a known distance by the following equation: dIn this case, at a location 70 feet (d2) from construction, where dB1 = 85 dBA at 50 feet (d1), then dB2 = dB1– 10 x Ax LOG(d2/d1) = 85 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(70'/50') = 82.1 dBA at 70 feet 12 At 50 feet, graders and backhoes have been measured at 85 dBA Leq and dozers at 80 dBA Leq. ( See Table 1 ) [Typical Construction Equipment Noise] ( at 50 feet distance); but using 2.9 dB less at a 70-foot distance:

Combined noise level = 10* LOG[10EXP(0.1* 82.1) + 10EXP(0.1*82.1) + 10EXP(0.1*77.1)] = 85.7 dBA Leq Source for summation calculation: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement, 2009.

DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 3 level would be about 79.7 dBA CNEL which would exceed the City’ s 75 dBA CNEL standard by nearly 5 dB.

Any exceedance above the City’ s absolute maximum 75 dBA CNEL noise level represents a significant noise impact.

NAIL GUNS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL CAUSE SIGNIFICANT NOISE IMPACTS AT HOMES.

Construction noise from use of nail guns in wood-framed hotel construction would create a significant noise impact at nearby residences. Such noise has an impulsive characteristic that can be emotionally harmful to neighbors because it sounds like gun shots. For comparison, the City of Los Angeles penalizes nail guns’ noise by adding 5 dBA to their predicted noise levels due to this anxiety-causing, impulsive character of the noise they emit. The noise levels from nail guns are measured at as much as 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.13 At a nearby condominium patio area about 120 feet away from the proposed hotel building, that maximum noise level during use of a single nail gun would decrease to about 80.4 dBA Lmax.14 If a 5 dB correction factor was added, such nail gun noise level would be analyzed as if it was 85.4 dBA Lmax at these patios. The City of Anaheim does not have a maximum-allowed construction noise limit, so to evaluate the impact of nail gun use under CEQA’ s standards, one could reference the City of Los Angeles’ maximum construction noise standard of 75 dBA Lmax. Nail gun noise levels of over 85 dBA Lmax at these nearby condominium patios would cause significant noise impacts.

BACKUP ALARM NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT NEIGHBORS The IS/MND fails to disclose that loud noise from heavy equipment backup warning beepers could disturb residential and commercial neighbors near this Project site. Backup alarms or beepers are a frequent source of complaints from neighbors. Backup alarms must generate a noise level at 5 to 10 dBA above the background noise in the vicinity of the rear of equipment where a person would be warned by the alarm. Backup alarms typically produce up to 112 decibels at four feet,14 which attenuates to about 82 dBA Lmax at 120 feet15 - the distance to the nearest residential patios. The backup alarm noise impact at an adjacent commercial office at 105 E. Ball Road located only about 30 feet from the Project site could be even more annoying at up to 94 dBA Lmax.16 At those noise levels, backup alarm use would exceed the City’s maximum limit of 60 dBA Leq at property line (if construction noise was not exempt) and a 75 dBA Lmax construction noise standard used by other California cities.

If a 5 dB penalty is included for the pure tone characteristic of backup alarms, the noise impact calculation would be more significant yet. The IS/MND is inadequate for failing to analyze the noise impact of such backup alarms during excavation work at least for the parking structure’ s basement, parking lot and building grading activities.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AT ADJACENT COMMERCIAL OFFICE WILL BE EXCESSIVE.

The IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project’ s significant noise impact upon an existing commercial office adjacent to the Project site. The Fiesta Auto Insurance and Tax Service, at 105 E. Ball Road, is located on property 30 feet west of Project site. The IS/MND predicts construction noise levels of 88 dBA Leq there during demolition and ground clearing work when minimum required equipment is used.17 However, when using the EPA’ s data for “all 13 See L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006, PDF p. 316, (p. I.1:8), Exhibit I.1-1. Noise Level Ranges Of Typical Construction Equipment, Pneumatic Impact Equipment: 83 – 88 dBA at 50 feet, available online at:
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/A07.pdf Also see: County of Ventura “ Construction Noise Threshold Criteria,” page 4, Fig. 2, Pneumatic tool: 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet; available online at: https:// docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/ ceqa/Construction_ Noise_Thresholds. pdf 14 See Figure 1 for that 120-foot distance location estimation. Calculation, where: dB1 = 88 dB(A) at 50 feet (d1) from the nail gun’ s use, then at a distance of 120 feet to the nearest home’ s patio area (dB2):
dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 112 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(120'/50') = 80.4 dBA Lmax. 14 Source of back-up alarm noise levels from alarm manufactured by Pollak, #41-761, "Manually adjustable Back-up Alarm," rated at 112, 107, 97 dB.
15 Noise level attenuation due to distance is calculated as reduced by about 6 dB for each doubling of distance. Calculation, where: dB1 = 112 dB(A) at 4 feet (d1) from the backup alarm’ s use, then at a distance of 120 feet to the patio:
dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 112 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(120'/4') = 82.5 dBA Lmax. 16 Calculation, where: dB1 = 112 dB(A) at 4 feet (d1) from the backup alarm’ s use, then at a distance of 30 feet to the office at 105 E. Ball Road: dB2 = dB1– 10 x A x LOG(d2/d1) = 112 – 10 x 2.0 x LOG(30'/4') = 94 dBA Lmax. 17 See IS/MND, Attachment H, Noise Calculations, PDF p. 10, Construction Generated Noise, West Retail, Ground Clearing/Demolition: 88 dBA Leq at 30 feet for “minimum required equipment in use.” DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 4 pertinent heavy construction equipment” ( i.e. multiple equipment18), that commercial property could be exposed to about 93 dBA Leq of construction noise. If such noise continued for an entire work day from 7 a.m. – 7 p.m., with no Project noise during the remaining 12 hours of that day, the calculated day- night weighted average noise level at that office property line would be about 90 dBA CNEL. That noise level would greatly exceed the General Plan’ s noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL at commercial uses by 25 dBA and would therefore constitute a significant noise impact. If, instead, multiple construction equipment are assumed operating about 120 feet from this office where a 2-story building will be demolished, the combined noise levels would total about 78 dBA Ldn.

That is still a significant noise impact because it would be 13 dB louder than the City’s 65 dBA Ldn standard. If that construction noise occurred only during one half of a work day, its noise level would be about 75 dBA Ldn, which is a noise level prohibited by the General Plan as “ clearly unacceptable” for commercial use exposure. Yet the IS/MND, p. 5-67, contradictorily states: “ Commercial and industrial uses to the east, south (across Ball Road) and west of the Project site, which are not considered to be noise sensitive by the City and are not evaluated for noise exposure from construction activities.” (Emphasis added). The IS/MND’s failure to evaluate construction noise at that nearby commercial business adjacent to the Project site is inconsistent with the General Plan. The Noise Element, on page N-23, has Policy #1 to discourage construction noise exceeding stationary-source noise standards at the property line of a commercial use.

Construction Noise Mitigations Are Available and Must be Considered.

CEQA requires that significant noise impacts as described above must be mitigated, but the IS/MND provides no noise mitigations at all. In Attachment 1 are some possible construction noise mitigations intended to reduce the Project’ s construction noise impacts to the fullest extent feasible. The City should consider such construction noise mitigations when it revises and recirculates its IS/MND for this Project to properly evaluate its noise impacts.

Thank you for considering these public comments. If you have questions about these comments, you are welcome to contact me.

Sincerely,
Dale La Forest
Professional Planner, Designer, INCE Associate (Institute of Noise Control Engineering) Dale La Forest & Associates
Attachment 1: Possible Construction Noise Mitigations
Attachment 2: Statement of Qualifications
18 Based on calculation above for noise levels of a dozer, grader, and backhoe generating a combined 85.7 dBA Leq at 70 feet.

DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1
Possible Noise Mitigations
Require construction and demolition activities to be scheduled to avoid operating several loud pieces of equipment simultaneously; alternatively to reduce the overall length of the construction period, combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period ifit will not be significantly greater than if operations were performed separately.

Require the replacement of noisy equipment with quieter equipment, such as utilizing vibratory pile driver instead of conventional pile driver (or even prohibit the use of driven (impact) pile systems altogether), using rubbertired equipment rather than track equipment, or using quieted and enclosed air compressors with properly working mufflers on all engines.

Require construction contractor to avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas.

Require construction staging areas to be as far from sensitive receptors as reasonably possible.

Require all construction truck traffic to be restricted in hours and to truck routes approved by the Department of Building and Safety, which shall avoid residential areas and other noise- sensitive receptors.

Require the construction of sufficiently tall noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between noisy activities and noise- sensitive receivers.

Require flexible sound control curtains to be placed around all jackhammers when in use and more extensive noise control barriers protecting nearby residential structures.

Require power construction equipment operated at the project site to be equipped with effective state-of-the-art noise control devices ( e.g., equipment mufflers, enclosures, and barriers) with contractors maintaining all sound-reducing devices and restrictions throughout the construction period and keeping documentation showing compliance.

Require contractors to use either plug- in electric or solar powered on- site generators to the extent feasible.

Require the use of smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back- up alarms and replace with spotters.

Require grading and construction contractors to use equipment that generates lower vibration levels such as rubber- tired equipment rather than metal- tracked equipment, such as a combination loader/ excavator for light-duty construction operations.

Two weeks before the commencement of construction at the Project Site, require notification to be provided to the immediate surrounding off-site properties that disclose the construction schedule, including the various types of activities and equipment that would be occurring throughout the construction period. A noise disturbance coordinator and hotline telephone number shall be provided to enable the public to call and address construction-related issues.

Require all mitigation measures restricting construction activity to be posted at the Project Site and all construction personnel shall be instructed as to the nature of the noise and vibration mitigation measures.

Require a noise monitoring/ control plan that includes absolute noise limits for classes of equipment, noise limits at lot lines of specific noise sensitive properties, specific noise control treatments to be utilized ( such as the above- mentioned measures), and a designated compliance officer to respond to promptly respond to complaints and take immediate correction action if limits/restrictions are not complied with.

DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 2
Statement of Qualifications

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
I received a Bachelor of Architecture Degree with Master of Architecture studies in architecture and planning from the University of Michigan (1966 – 1973). My university education included architectural acoustics and the math and physics related to analysis of sound transmission. In 44 years, I have designed hundreds of homes in California. During the last 20 years, I have also prepared expert acoustical studies for various development projects and reviewed and commented upon dozens of noise studies prepared by others. My expertise in environmental noise analysis comes from this formal educational training in architecture and planning, and from many years of evaluation of acoustics as relates to environmental analysis and challenging flawed project applications prepared by less-than professional, industry-biased acousticians. I regularly measure and calculate noise propagation and the effects of noise barriers and building acoustics as they apply to homes near projects and their vehicular travel routes. I have also prepared initial environmental studies for noise-sensitive development projects including hotel and campground projects along major highways. I have reviewed dozens of quarry project and batch plant project environmental documents. I have designed highway noise walls, recommended noise mitigations, and have designed residential and commercial structures to limit their occupants' exposure to excessive exterior noise levels throughout California.

Dale La Forest
DL&A Noise Report re: IS/MND for Pacific Resort Plaza Project, 125 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA – Feb. 26, 2024 Page 7 SusanaBarrios
From: Talab <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, PM
To: PublicComment; CityClerk
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] ( Email1of3) Supporting documents foritemnumber 32 Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

Attachedaredocuments thatwillserveasaproofofpurchases flavoredtobaccoproductsandvapesfrom Adventureland marketforcitystaffandcouncilmembers toreview 1 2
Thanksinadvance
TalabIbrahim
3 SusanaBarrios
From: Public Comment
From:

Sent: Tuesday, February27, 20241:28PM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] ( Email2of3) supporting documents foritem # 32 Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification \]
1 Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

SentfrommyiPhone
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Talab <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, PM
To: PublicComment; CityClerk
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] ( Email3of3) supporting documents foritemnumber 32 Attachments: Video.mov
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.
1 SusanaBarrios
From: Kathrina Hirschfeld <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 20244:28PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: MikeAyaz; Legal
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] RE: RE: Adventureland PCN \[INV01-1000\] Attachments: License Details _ Alcoholic Beverage Control.pdf; 2129SouthHarborBoulevard, Anaheim, CAto500WOrangewood Ave, Anaheim, CA92802 - Google Maps.pdf; B1237-2719.pdf; individual License Details _ Alcoholic Beverage Control.pdf Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

Pleaseseeattachedlicenses, statementofinformation, andmaprelatedtolicensee/appellantTalabIbrahim. As suspectedthisappealisdirectlyrelatedtoacompetitorprotest. Wewouldlikethistobeincludedintheexhibits tothecitycouncilforthisevening’shearingandwewillalsobringphysicalcopiestothehearing. Pleaseadviseif youhaveanyquestionsorconcerns.

Sincerely,
KatHirschfeld
SeniorParalegal
2107N. Broadway, Suite106 | SantaAna, California 92706
P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OFPROCESS ORDOCUMENTS: Notice isherebygiventhatthetransmittal oflegalorotherdocuments viaemail isnotrecognized asproperorlegalservice unless thereispriorwritten approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Thise-mail (including anyattachments) isintended forthesoleuseofthe individual orentity towhomitisaddressed andmaycontaininformation thatisprivate, confidential, or protected byattorney-clientorotherprivilege. Anydissemination, distribution, copying, ortaking ofany actioninreliance onthecontents ofthistransmission, bysomeone otherthantheintended addressee orits authorized agentisstrictlyprohibited. Ifyoureceived thise-mailinerror, pleasedeleteitfromyoursystem without copying itandnotifyBlake & Ayazbyreplye-mail, ortelephone at (714) 667-7171sothatourrecords canbecorrected. Thankyou.
1 Report Date: Tuesday, Februar y 27, 2024

LICENSE INFORMATION
License Number: Primary Owner: NIJMA INC O ice of Application:
11 - SANTA ANA

BUSINESS NAME

KINGS LIQUOR

BUSINESS ADDRESS
500 W ORANGEWOOD AVE , ANAHEIM, CA, 92802
County: ORANGE Census Tract: 0884.03

LICENSEE INFORMATION
Licensee: NIJMA INC
Company Information
OFFICER: IBRAHIM, MOHAMAD TALAB MOHAMAD ( DIRECTOR)
OFFICER: IBRAHIM, MOHAMAD TALAB MOHAMAD (PRESIDENT/ TREASURER) OFFICER: IBRAHIM, MOHAMAD TALAB MOHAMAD (SECRETARY/ ASST SEC) STOCKHOLDER: IBRAHIM, MOHAMAD TALAB MOHAMAD
2 LICENSE TYPES
Allow up to six weeks for expiration date updates a er fee waiver or renewal feesubmittal. 21 - OFF-SALE GENERAL
License Type Status: ACTIVE Status Date: 29-JUL-2013 Term: 12 Month(s) Original Issue Date: 26-JUL-2013 Expiration Date: 31-DEC-2024 Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: P40 Transfers:

From License Number:

Transferred On: 26-JUL-2013 Conditions:

CODE 8 - SELF-INCORPORATION - HISTORICAL VALUE
OPERATING RESTRICTIONS :

No Operating Restrictions found
DISCIPLINARY ACTION :

No Active Disciplinar y Action found
DISCIPLINARY HISTORY:

No Disciplinary History found.

HOLDS :

No Active Holds found
ESCROWS:

No Escrow found
2 Imagery © 2024 Airbus, CNES / Airbus, Maxar Technologies, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA/ FPAC/ GEO, Map data © 2024 Google 100 ft 5 min

0.2 mile
via S Harbor Blvd
5 min

0.2 mile
via W Orangewood Ave and S
Harbor Blvd
min2129 S Harbor Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92802 to 500 W Orangewood Ave, Anaheim, CA 92802 Walk 0.2 mile, 5 A20221100404
Entity Details
Corporation Name NIJMA, INC.

Entity No. 3520185
Formed In CALIFORNIA
Street Addres s of Pr inc ipal O ffic e of Cor por ation Principal Address 500 W ORANGEWOOD AVE
ANAHEIM, CA 92802
Mailing Addr es s of Corporation
Mailing Address 500
tion
Street Addres s of California O ffic e of Corporation
Street Address of California Office 500 W ORANGEWOOD AVE ANAHEIM, CA 92802
Offic er s
O ffic er Name O ffic er Addres s Pos ition( s )
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM 500 W ORANGEWOOD AVE
ANAHEIM, CA 92802
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary Additional Offic er s
O ffic er Name O ffic er Addres s Pos ition Stated Pos ition None Entered
Direc tors
The number of vacancies on Board of Directors is: 0
Direc tor Name Dir ec tor Addres s
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM 500 W ORANGEWOOD AVE
ANAHEIM, CA 92802
Agent for Serv ice of Proc es s
Agent Name MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM
Agent Address 500 W ORANGEWOOD AVE
ANAHEIM, CA 92802
Ty pe of Bus ines s
Type of Business LIQUOR STORE
Email Notific ations
Opt-in Email Notifications No, I do NOT want to receive entity notifications via email. I prefer notifications by USPS mail.

Labor Judgment
No Officer or Director of this Corporation has an outstanding final judgment issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or a court of law, for which no appeal therefrom is pending, for the violation of any wage order or provision of the Labor Code.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Office of the Secretary of State

STATEMENT OF INFORMATION

CORPORATION
California Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
916) 653- 3516
B1237- 2719 11/ 08/
2022 8:48 PM
Received
by California Secretary
of StatePage 1 of2
Elec tronic Signatur e
By signing, I affirm that the information herein is true and correct and that I am authorized by California law to sign.

MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM
Signature
11/08/2022
Date
B1237- 2720 11/ 08/
Search
Report Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2024
License Number:

Primary Owner:

O ice of Application:

LICENSE INFORMATION

IBRAHIM, MOHAMAD

TALAB MOHAMAD
11 - SANTA ANA
County:

Census Tract:

BUSINESS NAME

KINGS LIQUOR & JR MARKET

BUSINESS ADDRESS
ORANGE
0884.03

LICENSEE INFORMATION
Licensee:

IBRAHIM, MOHAMAD

TALAB MOHAMAD
2 LICENSE TYPES
Allow up to six weeks for expiration date updates a er fee waiver or renewal fee submittal.

License Type Status:

Status Date:

Term:

Original Issue Date:

Expiration Date:

Master:

Duplicate:

Fee Code:
21 - OFF-SALE GENERAL

CANCELED
29-JUL-2013
12 Month( s)
28-JAN-2005
31-DEC-2013
Y
0 2
Transfers:

P40
OPERATING RESTRICTIONS:

No Operating Restrictions found
DISCIPLINARY ACTION:

No Active Disciplinar y Action found
DISCIPLINARY HISTORY:

No Disciplinar y Histor y found.
2 HOLDS:

No Active Holds found
ESCROWS:

No Escrow found
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Kathrina Hirschfeld <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 20244:59PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: MikeAyaz; Legal
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] RE: RE: RE: Adventureland PCN \[INV01-1000\] Attachments: caselawcited.pdf
Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

Forpurposesoftheadministrativerecord, wewouldalsolikethememorandumaddressingappellant’scaselaw citedinhisletterlodgedwiththecitycouncil. Thankyou.

Sincerely,
KatHirschfeld
SeniorParalegal
2107N. Broadway, Suite106 | SantaAna, California 92706
P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OFPROCESS ORDOCUMENTS: Notice isherebygiventhatthetransmittal oflegalorotherdocuments viaemail isnotrecognized asproperorlegalservice unless thereispriorwritten approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Thise-mail (including anyattachments) isintended forthesoleuseofthe individual orentity towhomitisaddressed andmaycontaininformation thatisprivate, confidential, or protected byattorney-clientorotherprivilege. Anydissemination, distribution, copying, ortaking ofany actioninreliance onthecontents ofthistransmission, bysomeone otherthantheintended addressee orits authorized agentisstrictlyprohibited. Ifyoureceived thise-mailinerror, pleasedelete itfromyoursystem without copying itandnotifyBlake & Ayazbyreplye-mail, ortelephone at (714) 667-7171sothatourrecords canbecorrected. Thankyou.

From: KathrinaHirschfeld
Sent: Tuesday, February27, 20244:28PM
To: publiccomment@anaheim. net
Cc: MikeAyaz <[email protected]>; Legal <[email protected]> Subject: RE: RE: Adventureland PCN \[INV01-1000\]
1 Pleaseseeattachedlicenses, statementofinformation, andmaprelatedtolicensee/appellantTalabIbrahim. As suspectedthisappealisdirectlyrelatedtoacompetitorprotest. Wewouldlikethistobeincludedintheexhibits tothecitycouncilforthisevening’shearingandwewillalsobringphysicalcopiestothehearing. Pleaseadviseif youhaveanyquestionsorconcerns.

Sincerely,
KatHirschfeld
SeniorParalegal
2107N. Broadway, Suite106 | SantaAna, California 92706
P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: [email protected] | www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OFPROCESS ORDOCUMENTS: Notice isherebygiventhatthetransmittal oflegalorotherdocuments viaemail isnotrecognized asproperorlegalservice unless thereispriorwritten approval.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Thise-mail (including anyattachments) isintended forthesoleuseofthe individual orentity towhomitisaddressed andmaycontaininformation thatisprivate, confidential, or protected byattorney-clientorotherprivilege. Anydissemination, distribution, copying, ortaking ofany actioninreliance onthecontents ofthistransmission, bysomeone otherthantheintended addressee orits authorized agentisstrictlyprohibited. Ifyoureceived thise-mailinerror, pleasedelete itfromyoursystem without copying itandnotifyBlake & Ayazbyreplye-mail, ortelephone at (714) 667-7171sothatourrecords canbecorrected. Thankyou.
2 Reply to Legal and Factual arguments put forth by appellant via his counsel of record:

1. Appellant is believed to have an ulterior motive for filing the appeal as he has a direct financial conflict of interest via ownership of parcel 233-031-02 with address 500 W Orangewood Ave ., Anaheim, CA 92802. This premise operates under business name Kings Liquor ( Type 21 Off Sale General License; 21-533123) with the licensee as Nijma,Inc. where a Mohamad Talab Ibrahim is listed as director, president, treasurer, secretary and stockholder. This premise is .2 miles from the applicant’ s premise and is believed to be a direct competitor within the area.

2. Appellant puts forth an argument of undue overconcentration that poses a risk to the public’ s welfare and moral wellbeing and cites several cases to support his point. The cases cited to are factually very distinct from the matter at hand as put forth below:
a) Sepatis v. Alcoholic Bev. Etc. Appeals Bd., 110 Cal. App. 3d 93: applicant in this case applied for a bar in the Haight Street district of San Francisco. The overconcentration of bars in this area lead the Department to require a determination of Public Convenience and Necessity in order to grant the application. The Department issued the license and it was protested. The appeal court reversed the appeal board’ s decision and reinstated the Department’ s deci sion to issue the license finding that the premise appealed to a different clientele than what was being offered at current bars. Ultimately the court affirmed that it was the Department’ s jurisdiction to grant a license based on Public Convenience and Necessity.
i. Thus, we must indulge the assumption that the Legislature intended by the phrase public convenience or necessity" to [*** 8] invoke criteria different from those utilized in determining " undue concentration," and to permit the Department on the basis of such criteria to grant an application for issuance or transfer of such a license even where undue concentration is found to exist. This assumption is reflected in the Department' s rules
ii. The Supreme Court has observed that the phrase " public convenience and necessity" arguably more restrictive because of the conjunctive) " cannot be defined so as to fit all cases . . . . [ Its] meaning must be ascertained by reference to the context, and to the objects and purposes of the statute in which it is found." ( San Diego etc. Ferry Co. v. Railroad Com. ( 1930) 210 Cal. 504, 511 -512 [*** 9] iii. The Department' s licensing authority stems from article XX, section 22 of the state Constitution, which provides in relevant part that the Department " shall have the exclusive power, except as herein provided and in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature, to license the . . . sale of alcoholic beverages in this State," and that it "shall have the power, in its discretion, to deny, suspend or revoke any specific alcoholic beverages license if it shall determine for good cause that the granting or continuance of such license would be contrary to public welfare or morals . . . ." The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (§ 23000 et seq.)
iv. Section 23819 makes clear that the Department is not required to issue licenses in the statutorily limited ratio, and section 23820 authorizes the Department to make rules v. [ the Department] it is entitled to consider not only the kind of business to be conducted on the licensed premises but " the probable manner in which it will be conducted [ and] the type of guests who will be its patrons . . . ." ( Koss v. Dept. Alcoholic Beverage Control (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 489, 495 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 219].) vi. Where the determination of the department is one which could have been made by reasonable people, the appeals board or the courts may not substitute a decision contrary thereto, even though such decision is equally or more reasonable in the premises.

Citations.]" ( Koss v. Dept. Alcoholic Beverage Control, supra, 215 Cal.App.2d 489, 496.
b) Torres v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 192 Cal. App. 2d 541 Factually distinct in number of licenses ( 88 licenses in census tract, 26 of which were in a 500 ft radius); High area of crime and protest was lodged by PD. Area was described as a skid row” with several crimes involving minors, prostitutes, and reports of public drunkenness.
c) Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Bd., 136 Cal. App. 3d 315
The Department considers the number of licenses in conjunction with high crime rates to support denial of application. Here although there was a protest lodged by the police for the general area, upon closer inspection the census tract was divided by a freeway, and the concentration of crime was on the other side of the freeway, almost a mile from the proposed premise, thus increased crime rate was distinguished. i. The Department, in the exercise of its rule-making power, has defined undue concentration purely in statistical terms. However, it is not just the number of licenses in a given area that is important; rather, it is the low number of persons per license combined with an unusually high crime rate which set the stage for possible denial of a license. These two figures reflect the belief there is a relationship between crime and increased accessibility to alcohol, an accessibility which is fostered by increased competition (see Torres v. Dept.

Alcoholic Bev. Control ( 1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 541, 548 [13 Cal.Rptr. 531]). Yet, if the applicant in an area [**192] where there is an undue concentration of licenses can show the public convenience or necessity so dictates, he can still get a license. In this way, the Department has balanced the need for an easy method of determining when there is an undue concentration of liquor licenses in an area with the need under some circumstances for the license to be granted, notwithstanding the statistics.

Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Bd. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 315, 319 [186 Cal.Rptr. 189].)
SusanaBarrios
From: jodiemosley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Beach blvdpainted sidewalk graffiti Attachments: 20240216_093833.jpg; 20240216_093831.jpg; 20240216_093830.jpg Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

Thesephotosshowhowbadthesepaintedsidewalks looks. Itmadeourcommunity looksomuchworse..

WEBEGYOU, REMOVEALLTHEPAINTYOURANDOMLY GRAFFITED ONOURPUBLICSIDEWALKS, it'sneglectedand ghettolooking.

Thankyou
SentfrommyT-Mobile5GDevice
1 i / y// /
y
ai tom,.! -
-0:=1". • - - 7
• • • • •-• •

SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Friday, February 23, 20244:59PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February23, 20244:57PM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
Zayden Rubio
Anaheim, CA, 92805
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Friday, February 23, 20245:00PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February23, 20244:56PM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
TiaRubio
Anaheim, CA, 92805
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 202410:37PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February15, 202410:33PM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
Samuel Ramirez
Anaheim, CA, 92805
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Monday, February 19, 202411:14PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February15, 202412:20PM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
DeniseSoria
Anaheim, Ca, 92806
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 202411:02PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February13, 20244:32PM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
DevynFavela
Anaheim , CA, 92805
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 202410:50PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February14, 20249:34AM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
ClaireParker
Anaheim, CA, 92805
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Monday, February 26, 202410:12PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February26, 20247:43PM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
Chase Cohen
LosAngeles, CA, 90005
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 3:11AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February26, 20243:08PM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
Cameron Pickrell
LakeForest, CA, 92630
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 SusanaBarrios
From: Theresa Bass
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 1:21AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward Support Letter From: AnaheimResident <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February27, 20245:18AM
To: TheresaBass <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] DisneylandForward SupportLetter
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropenattachments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpecting themessage.

DisneylandForward Support Letter
TheHon. AshleighAitkenandHon. Councilmembers
CityofAnaheim
Anaheim CityHall
200S. Anaheim Blvd., MS162
Anaheim, CA92805
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable MayorAitkenandCityCouncilmembers:

I’mwritingtoexpress mysupportforDisneylandForward andto encourage Anaheim’sCityCounciltocertify theDraftSubsequent Environmental ImpactReport (DSEIR) andapprove the
DisneylandForward Project.
1 DisneylandForward willpavethewayforDisney tomeaningfully invest fordecades, andtocreatethousands ofjobsforlocalresidents and infusetheCity’sgeneral fundwithmillions inadditional taxrevenue everyyear. WithDisneylandForward, Disney isproposing tobuildonly onlandalready ownedorcontrolled byDisney. Disney isnotasking fortaxpayer subsidies oraskingtoaddanyadditional themepark square footage orhotelroomsbeyond whattheCityalready has approved. Basedonmyreview, Disneyisjustaskingtospread the previously approved square footage andhotelrooms aroundDisney properties inawaythatmakes sensefortoday’smarketdemand.

TheDraftSEIRreviews thekeycomponents undertheCalifornia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), including traffic, noise, aesthetics lighting), airqualityandcumulative impacts among others. Afteran exhaustive studybythird-partyindependent experts, itisclearthat aftermanyyearsofplanning, reviewandanalysis, itistimetocertify theEIRandapprove theDisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely,
Anthony Slade
Riverton, UT, 84065-6804
cc: Anaheim Planning Commission
ElaineThienprasiddhi, CityofAnaheim PrincipalPlanner
TheresaBass, Anaheim CityClerk
2 February 26, 2024
City of Anaheim
Anaheim City Hall
200 S. Anaheim Blvd, MS 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: DisneylandForward
Dear Honorable Mayor Aitken and City Councilmembers:

I am writing in support of the DisneylandForward project. I appreciate the more than $100 million towards infrastructure, parks, and street improvements, and look forward to seeing the positive impact it will have on the entire region.

Having affordable housing in and around the Disney resort area is essential in enabling Disney’ s employees to live close to their place of employment. Disney’s commitment to investing $30 million in affordable housing seed money is a step in that direction. In addition to affordable housing, I urge both Disneyland and the city to consider the need to produce significant amounts of nearby and public transitadjacent housing to meet the inevitable demand.

Anaheim is not the only area impacted by the tourism generated by Disneyland and the planned expansion. The resort area includes nearby cities such as Garden Grove. For this reason, itis imperative to extend the investment and the benefits laid out in the DisneylandForward program throughout the resort district. I am hoping that Disney will consider extending its infrastructure and affordable housing plans to include Garden Grove.

I believe DisneylandForward has the potential to improve the quality of life for the residents in our community. I encourage the city and Disney to work closely together to ensure that the mutual goals are achieved.

Sincerely,
Thomas J. Umberg
California State Senator, District 34