Anaheim City Council
May 29, 2025

discretion. Therefore, the October 28 letter contends that the matter must be continued until after SALT’s December 4 deadline to file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects, at which point the “threat” would be moot.

This argument is deceptive and completely wrong. As an initial matter, the letter is mistaken about the deadline for SALT to file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects. Though SALT initially submitted Preliminary Applications for the three Builder’s Remedy projects pursuant to Senate Bill 330, Government Code section 65941.1, on June 7, 2024, SALT resubmitted the three Preliminary Applications on October 1, 2024.

SALT must therefore file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects within 180 days of October 1, or by March 30, 2025, to preserve its rights under SB 330.

Second, the October 28 letter erroneously claims that the Council’s discretion has been improperly curtailed by SALT’s “veiled threat” to file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects in the event the Hills Preserve project is denied. There is no veiled threat and the City retains full discretion to approve or disapprove the Hills Preserve project. The purpose of my September 27 letter was to inform the Planning Commission and Council about SALT’s legal rights to pursue the Builder’s Remedy in the event the Hills Preserve is denied. If informing the Council about a party’s rights under state law is a threat that improperly curtails the Council’s discretion, then isn’t the October 28 letter – a letter from a CEQA lawyer asserting that a project approval would violate CEQA – itself a “veiled threat” of litigation that improperly curtails the council’s discretion to approve the project? Obviously, attorneys write city councils regularly to inform them about the applicability of state law to discretionary actions, and this does not affect the Council’s ability to exercise its discretion. Indeed, the Council can more effectively exercise its discretion with full awareness of background facts and potential legal consequences of its actions, as discussed at length in my land use colleague’s letter dated September 30, 2024, attached hereto for ease of reference ( see Exhibit 2). The October 28 letter provides no authority to the contrary.

Third, the October 28 letter is deceptive in that, while couched as a request for a continuance until after SALT”s 180-day deadline to file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy Projects, such a continuance would effectively force SALT to pursue the Builder’s Remedy projects. SALT is required by Senate Bill 330 to file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects within 180 days after submitting its Preliminary Applications, or else it will lose its vested rights under state law to pursue the Builder’s Remedy. If the matter were continued until after the 180-day period expired, SALT would be forced to file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects to protect its rights under state law.

It is clear that there is no good faith basis for a continuance, and that neighbors opposed to the project are simply seeking to defeat the project through a last-ditch delay tactic.

Honorable Mayor Aitken and Councilmembers
City of Anaheim
October 29, 2024

Rather than belaboring much further in response to the October 28 letter, we wish to just point out a few other obvious errors. First, the letter ominously warns that SALT could obtain approval for the Hills Preserve project, and then pursue the Builder’s Remedy projects anyway. In fact, this option is foreclosed by the Development Agreement, in which SALT has committed to forego the Builder’s Remedy option in exchange for approval of the Hills Preserve. After all, why would SALT have spent the last four years working on the Hills Preserve project only to scrap it for a different project after it has been approved?
Second, the October 28 letter also claims that very little information about the Builder’s Remedy projects was provided. In fact, the Preliminary Applications included a wealth of detailed information about the project. In any event, under SB 330 Preliminary Applications are intended to be merely “preliminary” and not nearly as detailed as full formal applications.

Third, the October 28 letter disputes that the City will be required to approve the Builder’s Remedy projects. It does so by confusing two totally separate parts of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), Gov Code § 65589.5. SALT is relying on Subdivision ( d), the Builder’s Remedy, which applies specifically to jurisdictions like Anaheim that do not have a compliant housing element under state law. But the October 28 letter cites subdivision (j), which applies to housing projects statewide, and is not the basis of the Builder’s Remedy applications. The October 28 letter also states that Builder’s Remedy projects can be denied if the City finds a specific adverse health and safety impact. But as explained in my September 27 letter, the required health and safety findings cannot be made in this case.

Finally, the October 28 letter asserts that the required findings for a General Plan Amendment cannot be made, and that the project EIR failed to properly analyze and feasibly mitigate the environmental impacts of the project. As exhaustively detailed in a September 30, 2024 letter from my colleague Nadia Costa (see Exhibit 2), the foregoing assertions have no merit. To the contrary, there is ample evidence in the administrative record to support a decision by the Council to approve the Hills Preserve project; all required findings can be made, and all environmental impacts have been adequately studied, disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible as required under CEQA.

For all these reasons, a continuance is completely unwarranted. For the reasons summarized above and detailed more fully in the attached legal correspondence, we respectfully request that the City Council deny any request to continue the matter and instead move forward with its consideration and approval of the Hills Preserve project.

Honorable Mayor Aitken and Councilmembers
City of Anaheim
October 29, 2024

Please feel free to contact me for additional information. I can be reached by e-mail at ken.stahl@msrlegal. com, or by phone at (949) 688-2980.

Very truly yours,

MILLER STARR REGALIA
Kenneth A. Stahl
Kenneth A. Stahl
Enclosures: September 27 Letter from MSR
September 30 Letter from GVR
cc: City Manager Jim Vanderpool ( CityManager@anaheim. net) Heather Allen, ( HAllen@anaheim. net)
Deputy Director of Planning Services
Ted White, Planning and Building Director (tedwhite@anaheim. net) Nick Taylor, Principal Planner ( njtaylor@anaheim. net) Nadia Costa, GVR Partners
Client
EXHIBIT 1
SALT- 58103\ 2902018. 1
1331 N. California Blvd.

Fifth Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
T 925 935 9400
F 925 933 4126
www. msrlegal. com
Kenneth A. Stahl
Direct Dial: 949-688-2980
ken.stahl@msrlegal. com
Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach
September 27, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Ted White, Planning and Building Director
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd
Anaheim, CA 92805
Email: tedwhite@anaheim. net
Re: Comment Letter on September 30, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 Development Application No. 2021-00137)
Dear Mr. White:

This letter is submited on behalf of the applicant SALT Development, LLC (“SALT”), in response to the staff report submitted by you in advance of the September 30, 2024 Planning Commission hearing on the above-referenced Development Application for the Hills Preserve project.

We write for two reasons. First, staff mistakenly contends that two of the four required findings for a General Plan Amendment cannot be made. In fact, as we demonstrate below and addressed in further detail in a letter under separate cover from my land use colleague Nadia Costa, all of these findings can and should easily be made. Second, we write to advise the City that in the event the General Plan Amendment is denied per staff’s recommendation, the City will be required by state housing law to approve the alternative projects SALT has put forward, and will not be able to rely on any ostensible fire evacuation or other health and safety rationales to avoid the application of state housing law. We were quite surprised that the staff report makes no mention of the alternative projects SALT has proposed, so this letter is to ensure that the Planning Commission is fully informed about the consequences of denying the Hills Preserve project.

In the spirit of cooperation, we have presented the City with two options for this site. The first option, the Hills Preserve project, is the project currently before the Planning Commission. Hills Preserve is a mixed-use community with 498 apartment homes (as well as six custom single-family homes), commercial uses, luxury amenities, and numerous public benefits to enhance and expand the existing trail system and other recreation amenities in and around Deer Canyon Park Preserve. The second option is a trio of developments proposed under the state’s “Builder’s Remedy” law, Gov. Code § Ted White, Planning and Building Director
City of Anaheim
September 27, 2024

SALT- 58103\ 2902018. 1
65589.5(d), collectively comprising 1,280 homes on these parcels (“Builder’s Remedy projects”). If the City chooses to approve the Hills Preserve project, SALT will withdraw the pending preliminary applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects. However, if the City denies the Hills Preserve project, SALT intends to file formal development applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects. As described below, the City is legally prohibited from disapproving the Builder’s Remedy projects or approving them in a manner that reduces those projects’ feasibility.

All of the Required Findings for the General Plan Amendment Can and Should Be Made
The staff report contends that the Hills Preserve project will increase evacuation time in the event of a wildfire emergency, and therefore the City cannot make the required finding for a General Plan Amendment that “[t]he proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety.” (Staff Report at 22-23). This contention is puzzling because the City has exhaustively studied the potential fire safety impacts of this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and prepared a detailed draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that explains in great detail how the project will have a negligible impact on fire safety and in fact is likely to enhance fire safety in the area. Among other findings, the draft EIR states that in an unlikely worstcase scenario, using extremely conservative assumptions including a combination of a wildfire erupting exactly during rush hour on Friday, in one precise location in Deer Canyon, a simultaneous mass evacuation from every resident in Anaheim Hills, and the absence of any traffic control by the Anaheim Police Department, the total evacuation time which was projected at 186 minutes would only increase by 24 minutes. In any other possible scenario, the impact on evacuation time would be less or none.

The draft EIR further found that the Hills Preserve project’s implementation of multiple Fuel Modification Zones and the use of fire-hardened construction materials in the design and construction of the buildings would mitigate any fire risks and enable residents of the new buildings to shelter in place in lieu of an evacuation during a wildfire, keeping evacuation routes clear. In addition, new infrastructure investments by Hills Preserve, including improved roads, additional fire hydrants, and significant voluntary donations toward advanced firefighting equipment would buffer and protect the surrounding neighborhoods in the unlikely event of a Deer Canyon wildfire, making the surrounding areas significantly safer compared to if the development were not to proceed.

Likewise, the traffic issues raised in the staff report do not prevent the City from making the required finding that “[t]he proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety.” The draft EIR exhaustively details the project’s potential impacts as it relates to transportation. With respect to non-VMT related issues, such as the operational items noted by staff, there are no unmitigated significant impacts.

The staff report also contends that the City cannot make the required finding that the property is “physically suitable” for the project due to the project’s height, which is taller than neighboring buildings. However, the staff report fails to acknowledge that, as reported in the EIR, all impacts related to aesthetics and land use will be less than Ted White, Planning and Building Director
City of Anaheim
September 27, 2024

SALT- 58103\ 2902018. 1
significant ( with most of these impacts not even requiring mitigation in the first instance).

For example, the project is located near the lowest elevations on the site, which minimizes the visual intrusions on neighboring landowners as well as all relevant public views. The EIR also observes that all retaining walls for the project would be constructed in accordance with applicable development standards, and are being incorporated into the project to minimize grading and to preserve open space. Moreover, the increased height is directly tied to the project’s goal to cluster development on the least topographically and biologically sensitive areas. For all these reasons, the City can and should make all required findings to approve the General Plan Amendment.

If the Hills Preserve Project is Denied, SALT intends to File Formal Applications for the Builder’s Remedy Projects, Which State Law Prohibits the City from Disapproving or Unreasonably Conditioning
In the event the City were to nevertheless disapprove the Hills Preserve project, SALT would file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects, which the City would be legally prohibited from disapproving or approving on conditions that render the project infeasible.

As you are aware, on June 7, 2024, SALT filed “Preliminary Applications,” pursuant to Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, Government Code section 65941.1, and the Builder’s Remedy of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Gov. Code § 65589.5(d) for the three Builder’s Remedy projects. The three projects are: 1) Deer Canyon apartments: 725 apartments on 13.95 acres; 2) Deer Canyon Townhomes: 90 homes on

32.26 acres; and 3) Valley View Apartments: 465 apts on 29.8 acres.

As described in our cover letter accompanying the Preliminary Applications, the filing of a Preliminary Application “freezes” all of a city’s applicable development standards, such that a housing development project may generally be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)). The applicant then has 180 days from the submission of the Preliminary Application to file the full formal application for the project, which is subject only to the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Application was submitted. In this case, the filing of the Preliminary Application locked in place SALT’s ability to proceed under the Builder’s Remedy law, in the event SALT chooses to file formal applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects on or prior to December 4, 2024.

The Builder’s Remedy law prohibits a city, like Anaheim, that does not have an adopted housing element that is substantially compliant with the Housing Element Law (Gov.

Code § 65580 et seq.) from disapproving or conditioning in a manner that renders infeasible a housing development project “for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” even where the project is inconsistent with both the city’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation. ( Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(5)). Projects for very low, low-, or moderate-income households are defined to include projects that provide 20 Ted White, Planning and Building Director
City of Anaheim
September 27, 2024

SALT- 58103\ 2902018. 1
percent of the units for lower income households as defined in the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3)).1
Because the City did not have a a substantially compliant 6th Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“ RHNA”) Cycle Housing Element at the time the Preliminary Applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects were submitted, and the Builder’s Remedy projects are housing development projects that will provide 20 percent of their units for lower income households, the projects are protected by the Builder’s Remedy. 2 Therefore, in the event SALT files formal development applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects, the City would be prohibited from denying those projects, or condition approval of the Builder’s remedy projects in a manner that would render them infeasible. It is SALT’s intent to file formal development applications for the Builder’s Remedy projects on or before December 4, 2024, if the Hills Preserve project has not been approved by that date.

The City Cannot Meet its Burden Of Proving that the Project Presents a Significant and Unavoidable Public Health and Safety Hazard Under the Builder’s Remedy Law Though the HAA/Builder’s Remedy law does permit a municipality to deny otherwise eligible projects if the municipality can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would create a significant and unavoidable health and safety haxard, the City cannot do so here. The HAA defines a specific, adverse health and safety impact as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions” as they existed on the date a preliminary application is submitted. Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2).3 Furthermore, even if a specific adverse impact as defined by the HAA is identified, the project still cannot be denied if there is any feasible way to mitigate the impact. Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2).

Therefore, in this case the City could only deny the Builder’s Remedy projects, or condition the approval of such projects in a way that makes them infeasible, if the City can prove by a preponderance of the evidence both that the project violates some objective, written public health and safety standard that was in place on the date the 1 Pending changes to the Builder’s Remedy law would not apply to these Builder’s Remedy applications. The new law explicitly grandfathers in all projects for which a Preliminary Application has been submitted prior to January 2025, permitting such projects to proceed under the currently existing Builder’s Remedy law notwithstanding the pending changes. See AB 1893 (proposed amendment to Gov. Code section 65589.5(f)(7)); https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient. xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1893. 2 See California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge (Case No. 23STCP02614) Los Angeles Superior Court (Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief, March 4, 2024), page 15 (holding that Builder’s Remedy vests on submission of Preliminary Application if jurisdiction does not have a substantially compliant housing element).
3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2) refers to the date on which an application is “deemed complete,” but the HAA defines “deemed complete” to mean the date on which a Preliminary Application is submitted. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5)).

Ted White, Planning and Building Director
City of Anaheim
September 27, 2024

SALT- 58103\ 2902018. 1
Preliminary Applications were submitted, in a way that creates a significant, direct and unavoidable impact on health and safety, and that the impact on health and safety cannot feasibly be mitigated. Needless to say, this is a very high bar for cities to meet, and the legislature has made clear its intent that the conditions constituting a health and safety hazard under the HAA “arise infrequently.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3). Indeed, I am unaware of any case in which any jurisdiction has successfully used the health and safety proviso to deny a project. To the contrary, I myself prevailed against the City of Huntington Beach in a case in which the City attempted to raise ostensible fire and traffic safety concerns to deny a project. The Court rejected the City’s arguments, finding that the City failed to identify any objective health and safety standards that were violated, except one standard which the project could be easily adapted to meet. See Statement of Decision, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of Huntington Beach, 30-2020-01140855 (Sup. Ct. October 4, 2021) at 17-18 (Exhibit A).

In this case, as noted above, the project has been designed to mitigate any potential health and safety hazards to a level that is far below any threshold of significance.

Regardless, there is plainly no way the City can meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the project poses any significant and unavoidable health and safety hazard within the meaning of the Builder’s Remedy law. For that reason, we reiterate that if SALT does file formal applications to proceed with the Builder’s remedy projects, the City will be prohibited by state law from disapproving those applications, or approving them subject to conditions that make them infeasible There are significant penalties if a local agency fails to comply with the HAA. Where a court finds a violation, it must issue an order requiring compliance within 60 days and can direct the agency to approve the project if it finds the agency acted in bad faith. The court also must award the prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs except in the “extraordinary circumstances” in which the court finds that awarding fees would not further the purposes of the statute. If a local agency fails to comply with the HAA within 60 days of an order’s issuance, the court must impose a minimum fine on the local agency of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project as proposed on the date the application was deemed complete and can issue an order vacating the local agency’s action on the project, in which case the project is deemed approved. (Gov.

Code §§ 65589.5(k)-(l)).

In summary, the City can and should make the required findings to approve the General Plan Amendment for the Hills Preserve project. But in the event it does not, SALT intends to file formal applications for the three Builder’s Remedy projects no later than December 4, 2024.

We would be happy to discuss the Hills Preserve or Builder’s Remedy projects with you at any time. I can be reached by e-mail at ken.stahl@msrlegal. com, or by phone at 949) 688-2980.

Ted White, Planning and Building Director
City of Anaheim
September 27, 2024

SALT- 58103\ 2902018. 1
Very truly yours,

MILLER STARR REGALIA
Kenneth A. Stahl
Kenneth A. Stahl
Enclosures: See Statement of Decision, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of Huntington Beach, 30-2020-01140855 (Sup. Ct. October 4, 2021) cc (via email): Mayor Ashleigh Aitken (aaitken@anaheim. net) Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz (nkurtz@anaheim. net)
Council Member Jose Diaz (jodiaz@anaheim. net)
Council Member Carlos A. Leon (cleon@anaheim. net)
Council Member Natalie Rubalcava ( nrubalcava@anaheim. net) Council Member Stephen J. Faessel (sfaessel@anaheim. net) Council Member Natalie Meeks (nmeeks@anaheim. net)
Christopher P. Walker (cwalkeranaheimplanning@gmail. com) Vice Chair Lucille Kring (Lucille.Kring@Kring. us)
Commissioner Jeanne Tran-Martin (jtranmartin@gmail. com) Commissioner Michelle Lieberman ( mlieberman92805@gmail. com) Commissioner LuisAndres Perez (Lbperez@usc. edu)
Commissioner Amelia Castro (Commissioneracastro@gmail. com) Commissioner Deirdre Kelly (commissionerdeirdrekelly@gmail. com) City Manager Jim Vanderpool ( CityManager@anaheim. net) Heather Allen (HAllen@anaheim. net)
Nadia Costa (nadia.costa@gvrpartners. com)
Client

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
Central Justice Center
700 W. Civic Center Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92702
SHORT TITLE: California Renters Legal Advocacy and Educational Fund vs. City of Huntington Beach

CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC

SERVICE
CASE NUMBER:
30-2020- 01140855- CU-WM- CJC
I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the above Minute Order dated 10/04/21 has been placed for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be mailed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid pursuant to standard court practice and addressed as indicated below. This certification occurred at Santa Ana, California on 10/4/21.

Following standard court practice the mailing will occur at Santa Ana, California on 10/4/21.

Clerk of the Court, by: , Deputy
I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that the following document( s), Minute Order dated 10/04/21, have been transmitted electronically by Orange County Superior Court at Santa Ana, CA. The transmission originated from Orange County Superior Court email address on October 4, 2021, at 12:33:11 PM PDT. The electronically transmitted document( s) is in accordance with rule 2.251 of the California Rules of Court, addressed as shown above. The list of electronically served recipients are listed below:

Clerk of the Court, by: , Deputy

CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE CITY OF

HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET, P.O. BOX 190
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648

MILLER STARR REGALIA
1331 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD., FIFTH FLOOR
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596

CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE CITY OF

HUNTINGTON BEACH
MICHELE@SURFCITY- HB.ORG

MILLER STARR REGALIA
KEN.STAHL@MSRLEGAL. COM

CLERK' S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ ELECTRONIC SERVICE
V3 1013a ( June 2004) Code of Civ. Procedure , § CCP1013( a)

EXHIBIT 2
GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com Nadia L. Costa
Direct dial: 949.340.5596
[email protected]
September 30, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Heather Allen, AICP
Deputy Director of Planning Services
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd
Anaheim, CA 92805
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comment Letter on September 30, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 Development Application No. 2021-00137): The Hills Preserve Project Dear Ms. Allen:

As you know, this office represents the applicant, SALT Development, LLC (“SALT”), in connection with its proposal to develop the Hills Preserve Project (the “Hills Preserve” or Project”). This letter is sent with respect to the upcoming Planning Commission hearing scheduled for this evening, September 30, 2024, to consider the above-referenced item.

As a preliminary matter, we would like to thank Staff for providing a significant level of detail in their Staff Report regarding the Project. We also appreciate Staff’s recognition of:
the many benefits as outlined [in the Staff Report] related to housing production, fire hardening, public access to Deer Canyon Park Preserve, trail connectivity implementing the General Plan, and public benefits provided through the Development Agreement….”
Staff Report, at p. 21.)
This acknowledgement is well-justified, as detailed more fully below as well as in the Specific Plan, the Project’s Draft Development Agreement and the Environmental Impact Report prepared by City Staff and the City’s CEQA consultant for the Project (“Project EIR”).

Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com Given this, we were surprised by and disappointed in the unsupported assertions set forth in the Staff Report with respect to two of the findings necessary for the decision-makers to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment and related Project entitlements. As set forth more fully below, these conclusions are often directly contrary to determinations made by Staff and the City’s own CEQA consultant disclosed in the Project EIR and — at best — reflect a cramped, myopic view of the facts at hand.

Accordingly, this letter seeks to ensure the Planning Commission is presented with a robust, holistic picture of the Hills Preserve to facilitate informed, thoughtful decisionmaking that takes into consideration all relevant facts. As explained more fully below and as otherwise supported by other substantial materials in the administrative record, there is more than ample basis to make all four required findings and recommend approval of the Project.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this additional critically important perspective, and respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Hills Preserve.

I. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND BENEFITS
The Hills Preserve reflects a unique luxury residential and commercial experience, with a range of land uses consisting of open space, attached rental living, single- family detached custom lots, and commercial opportunities. With respect to its residential uses, the Project will provide additional much-needed above-market housing for Anaheim and the region, consisting of varied housing product (i.e., 498 apartments with a variety of unit types as well as six single-family lots for future custom homes) with amenities located near transportation corridors, existing commercial uses, and public recreational facilities. In so doing, the Project supports the City in meeting its state-mandated objective of facilitating housing production to serve a range of economic segments in the Anaheim community.

Rather than low-density sprawl development disturbing the entirety of the Project Site, SALT seeks to implement a much more mindful approach, wherein the Project takes into appropriate account topographical and other considerations through a clustering strategy.

This means that the proposed uses will be condensed into a smaller overall footprint, which then allows for the retention of more than half of the Project Site (approx. 57%) as existing open space with the related aesthetic, scenic and habitat qualities, including protection of major ridgelines and related hilltop vistas.

As reflected in the Draft Development Agreement, the Project will facilitate the achievement of other objectives that benefit the broader Anaheim community, such as:

Improving bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian connectivity throughout the area with the provision of additional trails and street improvements to enhance access to City’s existing trail system and park/recreational amenities (including Deer Canyon Park Preserve) as well as nearby residential and commercial developments.

Enhancing wildfire resilience within the Project Site as well as for neighboring properties as compared to existing conditions by, among other things: (1) improving Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com the existing street network to enhance access; (2) installing numerous fire hydrants; 3) providing fuel modification zones relating to vegetation; (4) installing impervious surfaces and structures that serve as a fire break; and (5) utilizing a noncombustible / fire-hardened building construction to help prevent wildfire spread to neighboring communities. SALT will also voluntarily contribute Two Million Two Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($2,279,825) to Anaheim Fire for equipment and personnel costs (including training) to help further reduce the risk and impact of wildfires and/or assist the City in being positioned and equipped to effectively combat wildfire(s) and better protect the Anaheim Hills community at large.

Protecting existing hilltop vistas, major ridgelines and land contours that contain natural habitat for special status species and minimizing, to the extent feasible, environmental impacts related thereto through: (1) the redesignation and rezoning of the majority of the Project Site for open space (approx. 43.22 acres), and (2) the clustering of housing units at the lowest part of the canyon.

Enhancing traffic safety by: (1) installing a new signalized intersection; (2) facilitating a new park entrance for Deer Canyon Park Preserve at Santa Ana Canyon Road; and (3) improving public vehicle access along Deer Canyon Road with a new two-lane public access road.

Providing and maintaining the public access roads and trails to the Deer Canyon Park Preserve in perpetuity, along with new large park entrance monuments near Santa Ana Canyon Road branded “Deer Canyon Park Preserve.” Paying: (1) development impact fees, which are projected to exceed Seven and Half Million Dollars ($7,500,000), and (2) an additional voluntary contribution in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollar ($500,000) to the City’s Housing Trust Fund; along with the generation of sales and property taxes revenues to the community’s benefit.

Creating employment opportunities through the initial construction and then longterm operation and management of the commercial and multi-family facilities, and further supporting the ongoing viability for the nearby existing commercial retail uses and the adjacent Festival Shopping Center through the Project’s customer base.

II. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
The Project EIR, the Draft Development Agreement, the Specific Plan, and other materials in the administrative record set forth a robust basis for approving the Hills Preserve, including the making of the four findings necessary to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment and related Project entitlements.

Unfortunately, while the Staff Report echoes the factual support for the foregoing in certain respects, it then eschews meaningful consideration of this information, data and analysis in favor of cramped assertions to rationalize a denial recommendation. In so doing, Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com this approach does a significant disservice to the decision-makers and the public by failing to fairly and accurately represent and disclose all facts in the context of a nuanced consideration of complicated issues.

It is just this sort of balancing of competing interests that decision-makers are required to consider in the context of development proposals. The general plan is the constitution for all future development within California cities and counties, and thus any decision by a city affecting land use and development must be consistent with the general plan. (See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815 (2007).) “An action, program or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all of its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” (Governor’s Office of Planning & Research, General Plan Guidelines 164 (2003); see also Corona-Norco Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Corona, 13 Cal.App.4th 1577 (1993).) To be consistent, an action, program or project must be “in agreement or harmony” with the general plan. Friends of Lagoon Valley, 154 Cal.App.4th at 817.

Courts show deference to a city’s consistency determination because “policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests” and the city “must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan’s policies in light of the plan’s purpose.” Friends of Lagoon Valley, 154 Cal.App.4th at 816. Courts have confirmed that in interpreting its general plan, a given project need not be in “perfect conformity” with each and every general plan policy.

Indeed, it is beyond cavil that no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in [the General Plan], and [] state law does not impose such a requirement. A general plan must try to accommodate a wide range of competing interests…and present a clear and comprehensive set of principles to guide development decisions.

Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719-20 (1993).) emphasis added)
Given the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission look beyond the constrained conclusions set forth in the Staff Report, and instead exercise its reasonable judgment to appropriately weigh and balance competing interests, taking into account the overall intent and purpose of the relevant General Plan goals and policies. This holistic approach reflects the complicated reality of land use and harmonizes two fundamental goals (residential development and preservation of open space resources) to ensure these can and will ultimately be achieved.

III. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO AMPLY SUPPORT A

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED GPA AND OTHER PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS.

A. The Project EIR — Prepared By City Staff And The City’s CEQA Consultant Determined The Project Is Consistent With All Relevant General Plan Goals And Policies, And Contains Substantial Evidence To Conclude The Project Will Not Be A Detriment to Public Interest, Health, and Safety And Will Be Located On A Physically Suitable Site.

Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com The Staff Report cherry-picks a few aspects of the Project, focusing almost entirely on (1) the intensification of land uses, and (2) the increase in vehicle trips that would necessarily result from that intensification, to justify its ultimate position of recommending Project denial. It then appears to frame this assertion as a “fait accompli”; i.e., based on the foregoing, the necessary findings cannot be made.

This position, however, is not supported by the relevant facts or law at hand. Such an outcome precludes thoughtful decision-making and the appropriate balancing of countervailing considerations, to the detriment of the Anaheim community. Moreover, it rings hollow given that these assertions are directly contrary to the detailed, robust conclusions set forth throughout the Project EIR, as explained further below.

As a starting point, we respectfully suggest the decision-makers carefully consider the 45- page General Plan Consistency analysis set forth in the Land Use Section of the Project EIR Table 4.10-3) and attached hereto as Exhibit 1 for ease of reference. Therein, City Staff and the City-retained CEQA consultant identified every relevant General Plan goal and policy adopted for the purpose of mitigating environmental impacts, and provided a detailed, nuanced description of how the Project is consistent with each and every such goal and policy.

B. Intensification Of Land Uses — As Compared To Existing Conditions And A 2004 General Plan Vision — Is Necessary For Anaheim To Meet Its RHNA Obligations.

At bottom, the argument for a negative recommendation appears to be grounded in concerns about a proposed intensification of land uses in an area that traditionally has been used only for low-density, single-family detached housing.

We certainly understand and respect community concerns with change in this regard.

However, as with every other jurisdiction in the state, Anaheim is confronted with the challenges of balancing these parochial considerations with the imperative to facilitate housing production to serve all economic segments of its community.

Refusing to support new housing opportunities “in the hills” simply because they involve increased density and/or multiple-family housing rather than single-family, detached homes are no longer viewed as acceptable responses to state housing mandates. In fact, state housing production laws have been enacted to counter just this type of exclusionary approach to housing. As reflected in the state’s Housing Accountability Act, this state law seeks “…to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects….” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(K).)1 1 While the Hills Preserve is not a protected housing development under the Housing Accountability Act, SALT’s Builder’s Remedy projects are clearly protected in this regard. As Miller Starr Regalia’s September 27, 2024 explains at length, if the City chooses to deny the Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com The City has recognized this need for diversified housing, including in the Anaheim Hills area, and the Project will help the City to fulfill this critical need. In fact, the Project EIR affirmed this position when, for example, it found the Project consistent with General Plan Goal 2.1 (Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs). The Project EIR states:

The Project would provide up to a maximum total of 504 residential units, most of which would be apartment units that would include a wide range of sizes (and thus price points). Near the Project Site, most residential units are single-family residential units; therefore, additional apartment units proposed by the Project would serve to further this goal of providing a variety of quality housing opportunities. The Project would be required to adhere to the development standards and design guidelines and policies to ensure a thoughtfully designed, high quality development.”
Project EIR, at p. 4.10-19.) (emphasis added)
In reaching this conclusion, the Project EIR expressly recognized (1) the changes to the physical environment that would occur, which are intrinsic to all intensification of land uses, as well as (2) the countervailing considerations of the nearby single-family homeowners:

This [Project] would result in additional human activity and ground disturbance, and concomitant environmental effects would result. In short, the existing conditions would not be preserved with implementation of the Project and development would occur.

However, these effects have been evaluated in this Draft EIR and have been found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated to the extent feasible. Although these effects may not be significant pursuant to CEQA, it is reasonable to assume that individuals residing in the Project vicinity would desire to keep enjoying the undeveloped condition of the Project Site. At the same time, the City has the obligation to enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic development, while taking into appropriate account its housing obligations under state law and other community interests.” Project EIR, at p. 4.10-21.) (emphasis added)
C. The Hills Preserve Will Enhance Wildfire Resilience For The Existing Community.

1. The Project EIR Determined There Would Be No Unmitigated Significant Impacts With Respect To Emergency Access And Evacuation.

The Staff Report’s assertion that because the Project will add more vehicle trips than what would otherwise occur with a less dense development, this automatically equates to the Hills Preserve, Anaheim will be required to approve the much more dense Builder’ s Remedy projects.

Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com Project “being detrimental to the public interest, health and safety” mischaracterizes the record.

First, as the Staff Report concedes, the additional time to evacuate disclosed in the Project EIR is a “worst case scenario”. This, in fact, is a significant understatement, and thus requires additional context for thoughtful decision-making. The Project EIR explains how its evacuation analysis reflects extraordinarily conservative assumptions that are likely never to occur, including the following: (1) a combination of a wildfire erupting exactly during rush hour on Friday, (2) in one precise location in Deer Canyon, (3) involving a simultaneous mass evacuation from every resident in Anaheim Hills, and (4) the absence of any traffic control by the Anaheim Police Department. Under these extremely unlikely circumstances, the modeled total evacuation time reflected an increase of 24 minutes. In any other possible scenario, the Project’s impact on evacuation time would be less or none.

The Project EIR notes the following, for example:

Under actual emergency circumstances, evacuation events are typically more strategic, surgical, and phased than the mass evacuation scenarios that were conservatively modeled in the evacuation scenario modeling for the Project. For example, APD typically focuses on evacuating smaller areas that are at highest risk using situational awareness rather than evacuating an entire zone. Wildfire evacuations are managed to move smaller populations in a successive phased manner to minimize traffic surges. Populated areas are typically evacuated based on their proximity to the wildfire event and their risk levels. APD has the capability to designate small areas in a more surgical approach that can target neighborhoods or individual streets for alert messaging.”
Project EIR, at p. 4.8-28.) (emphasis added)
Therefore, the evacuation scenarios in the modeling were conservative in that they did not account for APD controlling intersections and directing traffic as is typically implemented during an evacuation event. Traffic control would result in prioritization of the most at risk residents and increase efficiency of the evacuation, thereby reducing evacuation time….”
Project EIR at 4.8-28.) (emphasis added)

2. A Focus Solely On Evacuation Misses The Point And Is Contrary To The City’s Own Wildfire Resilience Strategy.

Perhaps more importantly, the Staff Report fails to provide a robust assessment that places any such theoretical risk of evacuation delay in appropriate context. Intrinsic elements of the Project substantially enhance the wildfire resiliency of the entire area as compared to existing conditions, thereby reducing the need for evacuation in the first instance.

Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com For instance, the Project EIR states:

While additional congestion would occur during an evacuation event, as discussed above, various Project design features actually enhance emergency access and the wildfire resilience for the Project Site and surrounding neighborhoods, thereby decreasing the need for evacuation in the first instance.” Project EIR, at 4.8-29.) (emphasis added)
As the City recently emphasized in its 2024 Know Your Way workshop, evacuation considerations are only one piece of a much more comprehensive puzzle to effectively address wildfire risk. The Project is consistent with the City’s multi-pronged strategy to protect the Anaheim community, as the Project EIR confirms:

In summary, although the Project would result in additional congestion that would result in a potential extension of time to evacuate ( by approximately 24 minutes), given the Project’s numerous design features that enhance wildfire resilience and facilitate emergency access…, combined with adherence to all applicable laws and regulations as well as local policies and programs and implementation of MM HAZ 4, MMHAZ 5, and MM HAZ 9 the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, Be Ready plan or its Know Your Way initiative. Know Your Way does not contain any goals, policies, or other metrics that the Project can be compared against. With implementation of MM HAZ 4, MM HAZ 5, and MM HAZ 9, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to this threshold.”
Therefore, the Project has been designed to generally develop buildings on the lower elevations of the Project Site, thereby working with the topography of the Project Site to minimize wildfire risks related to these physical phenomena. In addition, the Project would result in several benefits that relate to the nearby community’ s overall wildfire resilience that would reduce the risk of loss, injury and death for future Project residents, visitors, and employees as well as the overall surrounding community. These aspects of the Project have been incorporated to minimize risks to the proposed Project as well as to help ensure protection of existing communities.”
Project EIR, at pp. 4.8-29, 30.) (emphasis added)
The Project’s design features upon which the Project EIR relied include the following:

Once the Project is built, the on-site fire potential would be lower than its current conditions due to the incorporation of numerous fire safety requirements that would be implemented on the Project Site pursuant to applicable Fire Code and other requirements.

The Project would develop the Project Site in a way that would improve wildfire resilience for the Project’ s residents, employees, visitors and other users, and buildings within the Project Site, as well as for neighboring off-site properties by enhancing the Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com existing street network and by providing active fuel modification of fire-prone vegetation near structures to help prevent wildfire spread to neighboring communities.

The Project would install numerous new fire hydrants and new fire access roads in the Project Site pursuant to applicable Fire Code and other requirements that could be used by first responders in the future during wildfire events. Currently there are no fire hydrants and no water service within the Project Site.

Development of the Project would remove significant amounts of highly combustible vegetation from the Project Site and would replace it with fuel-modified slopes, landscaping, and new structures that would be built in compliance with the latest Fire Code and other requirements. By doing so, the Project would result in decreased wildfire exposure for existing private properties that are directly west of the Project Site as well as for motorists and cyclists using Santa Ana Canyon Road by developing the Project Site in a way that would slow the spread of fire in this area of the City.

The Project’ s buildings would be built to the more rigorous requirements for materials and construction methods that are contained in the State’ s Wildland Building Code Requirements, thereby further helping to minimize risk of loss.

The Project’ s multiple family residential building would be built according to the additional access and fire protection requirements that have been established by the California Building Code as amended in the AMC for “high-rise buildings”, resulting in a fire-resistant structure, thereby further helping to minimize risk of loss, injury, and death.

With the conversion of much of the landscape in the Project Site to ignition- resistant development, wildfires may still encroach upon and drop embers on the Project Site in the future with implementation of the Project, but wildfire is not expected to burn through the developed portion of the Project Site or to produce sustainable spot fires due to the lack of available fuels and due to the fire suppression capabilities that would be available.”
Project EIR, at pp. 4.8-32-33.) (emphasis added)
In summary, a focus only on a theoretical increase in evacuation delay misconstrues the relevant considerations and fails to acknowledge the critically important point: the Project will actually make things better as compared to existing conditions with respect to wildfire resilience. Through strategic design and construction, the Hills Preserve will: (1) serve as a barrier against wildfires; (2) incorporate extensive fuel modification zones to protect the community from fire threats; (3) decrease the need for evacuation in the first instance; (4) increase access in the unlikely event evacuation is triggered; and thus (5) enhance the public health, interest and safety for all nearby residents.

Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com D. The Project Site Is Physically Suitable To Accommodate The Project.

The Staff Report makes much of the proposed height and grading associated with the Project in a strained attempt to support a conclusion that the Project Site is not “physically suitable” for the proposed intensification. Fundamentally, as the Staff Report concedes, this is not really about physical site constraints, but rather that Staff and certain neighbors view the proposed multiple-family building as a “significant departure” from existing conditions. While it may be the case that Anaheim Hills has historically allowed only lowdensity, single-family, detached development, this does not mean that current circumstances do not warrant evolution and change.

First, as noted above, excluding higher-density home product based on the notion that it is not “consistent” with traditional land use practices that have prioritized low-density, abovemarket single-family homes is not particularly persuasive in these times where jurisdictions, including Anaheim, are required by state law to facilitate housing for all economic segments of the community.

Second, while the Staff Report cursorily acknowledges that the height2 of the building is to preserve the existing ridgelines,” it then fails to give appropriate weight to the fact that the height (as well as the proposed grading) are necessary to implement a clustering strategy, which then enables the protection of major ridgelines and hilltop vistas as well as the retention of more than half of the Project Site for open space uses.

In other words, whenever there is development, there are necessary tradeoffs. The decision-makers have the authority and obligation under the law to appropriately consider such countervailing interests to ensure that crucially important goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan are achieved. The Project EIR reflects this type of nuanced approach in numerous instances. For example, in finding the Project to be consistent with numerous goals and policies (including, among others, Goal 1.1 (Maintain strict standards for hillside grading to preserve environmental and aesthetic resources)), the Project EIR states:

As detailed more fully in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would involve a substantial amount of grading activities and export of soil from the Project Site. Also, the Project would involve the removal of trees and other vegetation. However, the foregoing ground disturbance activities are necessary for the Project to avoid natural landforms and vegetation on the Project Site including ridgelines, natural open space areas, and several canyons. Disturbed portions of the Project Site would be re-planted with new trees and landscaping prior to the completion of construction. 2 The Staff Report also briefly references the scope of Project grading as an additional basis for its conclusion regarding site suitability. As explained in the Project EIR, the Project seeks to minimize grading through its clustered strategy, which will result in significantly less overall disturbance as compared to the “ carving up” of the entire hillside to allow for low-density, single-family homes that would be permitted under the current land use and zoning controls.

Moreover, much of the grading at issue is associated with the six single-family homes — not the multiple-family building — a fact that is curiously absent from the Staff Report. In that vein, we referthePlanning Commission toSALT’s recentSeptember 23, 2024 to CityStaff wherein SALT confirms its willingness to eliminate development of these single-family homes — as well as half of the commercial uses — thereby alleviating much of this grading concern.

Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com Moreover, the proposed uses would be clustered and located within the lower elevations; this would enable the Project to rezone approximately 57% of the Project Site for open space, thereby allowing for the retention of natural landforms and natural vegetation within these lands. The Project would adhere to all applicable requirements of the City’s Scenic Corridor Overlay regulations. Therefore, key visual components of the Project Site would be retained, and views would generally be maintained; however, there would be development and less visible, contiguous open space as a result of the Project as compared to existing conditions.

The Project would involve a substantial amount of grading activities and export of soil from the Project Site. However, the amount of grading and the amount of soil needing to be exported has been reduced through the proposed construction of retaining walls.

The Project’s buildings have been clustered and sited and the grading approach has been developed so that the more visually significant ridgelines and hilltops on the Project Site would not be developed and so that the overall grading footprint would be kept to a minimum to allow for the proposed buildings. Instead, the upper elevations of the Project Site — approximately 57% — would be zoned as Open Space, thereby enabling the retention of these lands in their existing open space condition along with their aesthetic, scenic and habitat qualities. The Project would generally preserve public views of existing backdrop ridgelines from off-site perspectives, with the addition of new structures at the lower elevations of the Project Site in the foreground of most of these views.

The Project includes development of a mixed-use development that would have high quality architecture and exterior building materials/finishes, which would be clustered and located on lower elevations of the Project Site, in order to protect the visual and scenic resources of the area. Trees and other vegetation would need to be removed for the Project; however, the Project would replace trees that are removed and a landscaping plan would be implemented to minimize visual effects of the Project.

The Project would include buildings that would be similar to other buildings along Santa Ana Canyon Road. As described in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, the Project has been designed to minimize visual effects to aspects of the visual environment that are important in this area of the City, which include views of ridgelines, slopes, and natural areas. The Project would generally retain public views of ridgelines, natural slopes, and natural areas in the upper portions of the Project Site. Also, approximately 43.22 acres of the Project Site would be re-zoned as Open Space.

However, the Project would result in development on an undeveloped Project Site, which would represent change. This change would be more evident for the residents of the single- family residences to the west of the Project Site and for those individuals that regularly traverse the now- vacant Project Site to access Deer Canyon Park Preserve who have more familiarity with these views and who spend a greater time observing these views of private property. These individuals may experience change including additional human activity that would occur, and certain traffic, noise, air quality, and other effects may result.

Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com In short, the existing conditions would not be preserved with implementation of the Project and development would occur. However, these effects have been evaluated in this Draft EIR and have been found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated to the extent feasible. Although these effects may not be significant pursuant to CEQA, it is reasonable to assume that some existing residents in the Project vicinity would desire to keep enjoying the undeveloped portion of the Project Site. At the same time, the City has the obligation to preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s many neighborhoods, while taking into appropriate account its housing obligations under state law and other community interests.

Development standards and design policies and guidelines have been developed in the Specific Plan that would guide future development in the Project Site. See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for further information and analysis as to how the proposed Project standards, policies and guidelines would help to preserve and enhance the Project Site and vicinity.”
Project EIR, at pp. 4.10-31, 32.) (emphasis added)
In summary, the Staff Report’s perfunctory site suitability analysis fails to take appropriate account for the City’s own conclusions set forth in the Project EIR and further supported in the administrative record. As the Project EIR concludes:

The Project Site is located along a major corridor within the City, Santa Ana Canyon Road. Consistent with Goal 3.1, the Project would enhance the City’s image by only developing in a clustered fashion on the lower elevations of the Project Site and maintaining the more visually significant ridgelines. The Project would also rezone approximately 43.22 acres as open space, which would allow for the retention of these lands in their existing open space condition with their related aesthetic, scenic, and habitat qualities.”
Project EIR, at pp. 4.10-48.) (emphasis added)
E. Appropriate Consideration Of The Alternative Reflected In The Builder’ s Remedy Projects Is Also Imperative To A Thoughtful Decision- Making Process.

We would be remiss if we did not briefly highlight the points made in my land use colleague, Ken Stahl’s, September 27th letter regarding the import of SALT’s Builder’s Remedy projects in the context of General Plan consistency.

As Miller Starr Regalia aptly explains, in the event the General Plan Amendment and other Project entitlements for the Hills Preserve are denied by the City in accordance with the Staff Report’s recommendation, the City will be required by state law to approve the Builder’s Remedy projects, consisting of a total of 1,280 multi-family units, with an affordability component wherein twenty percent of the homes would be reserved for lower income households.

Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com While SALT believes this type of denser, more affordable, traditional apartment project would also reflect high quality housing, to the extent the City is concerned about the introduction of more people, more density and more vehicles, denying the Hills Preserve Project is directly contrary to this goal.

In conclusion, we hope this letter will be helpful to the decision-makers by providing a robust, holistic picture of the Hills Preserve, thereby facilitating informed, thoughtful decision-making that takes into appropriate consideration all relevant facts. As explained more fully herein and as otherwise supported by substantial materials in the administrative record, there is more than ample basis to make all four required findings and recommend approval of the Project.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this additional critically important perspective, and respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Hills Preserve.

Very truly yours,
GVR Partners
Nadia Costa
Exhibit 1: Project EIR, Land Use Section, General Plan Consistency Analysis cc: City Council Members
Planning Commissioners
Jim Vanderpool, City Manager
Ted White, Planning and Building Director
Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Stahl, Miller Starr Regalia
Heather Allen, AICP
September 30, 2024

GVR Partners LLP 3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 gvrpartners. com EXHIBIT 1
Project EIR, Land Use Section, General Plan Consistency Analysis

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-17
EXHIBIT 1
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Polic Consistency Analysis Land Use Element
Goal 1.1 Preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’ s mosaic of unique neighborhoods.

Consistent. The Project includes development of
a mixed- use development that would have high
quality architecture and exterior building
materials/ finishes, which would be clustered and
located on lower elevations of the Project Site, in
order to protect the visual and scenic resources of
the area. Trees and other vegetation would need
to be removed for the Project; however, the
Project would replace trees that are removed and
a landscaping plan would be implemented to
minimize visual effects of the Project. The Project
would include buildings that would be similar to
other buildings along Santa Ana Canyon Road. As
described in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, the Project
has been designed to minimize visual effects to
aspects of the visual environment that are
important in this area of the City, which include
views of ridgelines, slopes, and natural areas. The
Project would generally retain public views of
ridgelines, natural slopes, and natural areas in the
upper portions of the Project Site. Also,
approximately 43.22 acres of the Project Site
would be re-zoned as Open Space.

Policy 1 Actively pursue development standards and design policies to preserve and enhance the quality and
character of Anaheim’ s many neighborhoods.

Policy 2 Ensure that new development is designed in a manner that preserves the quality of life in existing
neighborhoods.

However, the Project would result in
development on an undeveloped Project Site,
which would represent change. This change
would be more evident for the residents of the
single- family residences to the west of the Project
Land Use and Planning

4.10-18 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Site and for those individuals that regularly
traverse the now-vacant Project Site to access
Deer Canyon Park Preserve who have more
familiarity with these views and who spend a
greater time observing these views of private
property. These individuals may experience
change including additional human activity that
would occur, and certain traffic, noise, air quality,
and other effects may result. In short, the existing
conditions would not be preserved with
implementation of the Project and development
would occur. However, these effects have been
evaluated in this Draft EIR and have been found to
be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated to the extent feasible. Although
these effects may not be significant pursuant to
CEQA, it is reasonable to assume that some
existing resdients in the Project vicinity would
desire to keep enjoying the undeveloped portion
of the Project Site. At the same time, the City has
the obligation to preserve and enhance the quality
and character of Anaheim’ s many neighborhoods,
while taking into appropriate account its housing
obligations under state law and other community
interests.

Development standards and design policies and
guidelines have been developed in the Specific
Plan that would guide future development in the
Project Site. See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for further
information and analysis as to how the proposed
Project standards, policies and guidelines would
help to preserve and enhance the Project Site and
vicinity.

Policy 3 Encourage future development to provide functional public spaces that foster social interaction.

Consistent. Multiple functional public spaces
have been included in the Project, including a
rooftop deck and outdoor and indoor communal
spaces, that would foster social interaction. Also,
the Project would include a new sidewalk along
Santa Ana Canyon Road and improved multi-use
pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian) trail
connections to Deer Canyon Park Preserve, which
would allow for residents to informally interact to
a greater extent than in existing conditions and
take better advantage of this regional recreational
facility.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-19
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 2.1 Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’ s diverse housing
needs.

Consistent. The Project would provide up to a
maximum total of 504 residential units, most of
which would be apartment units that would
include a wide range of sizes ( and thus price
points). Near the Project Site, most residential
units are single-family residential units;
therefore, additional apartment units proposed
by the Project would serve to further this goal of
providing a variety of quality housing
opportunities. The Project would be required to
adhere to the development standards and design
guidelines and policies to ensure a thoughtfully
designed, high quality development.

Policy 1 Facilitate new residential development on vacant or underutilized infill parcels.

Consistent. Consistent with this policy, the
Project would develop residential units on vacant
land near other urban uses as well as major
transportation corridors and existing City
infrastructure.

Policy 6 Ensure quality development through appropriate development standards and by adherence to related
Community Design Element policies and guidelines.

Consistent. The Project Site is located along a
major corridor within the City, Santa Ana Canyon
Road. Consistent with Goal 3.1, the Project would
enhance the City’ s image by only developing in a
clustered fashion on the lower elevations of the
Project Site and maintaining the more visually
significant ridgelines. The Project would also rezone approximately 43.22 acres as open space, which would allow for the retention of these lands
in their existing open space condition with their
related aesthetic, scenic, and habitat qualities. The
Project also has been designed to incorporate
commercial uses, which would serve the Project’ s
residents and employees as well as surrounding
neighborhoods. It would also facilitate substantial
pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian connectivity
including increasing access to the nearby Deer
Canyon Park Preserve).

Development standards and design policies have
been developed in the Specific Plan that would
guide future development in the Project Site,
which would ensure a thoughtful, high-quality
site and building design that takes into
appropriate account the surrounding topography
and existing uses.

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Goal 3.1 Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’ s image and stimulate appropriate
development at strategic locations.

Policy 3 Ensure quality development along corridors through adherence to established development standards and
Community Design Element goals, policies and
guidelines.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-20 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 4 Continue to pursue additional open space, recreation, and landscaping amenities along major transportation
routes.

Consistent. Consistent with this policy, the
Project would re-zone approximately 43.22 acres
of the Project Site as open space on lands that are
located along Santa Ana Canyon Road and near
SR-91. This would allow for the retention of these
lands in their existing open space condition with
their related aesthetic, scenic and habitat
qualities. The provision of multi-use trail
connections near Santa Ana Canyon Road and SR91 would facilitate and enhance access to Deer Canyon Park Preserve and other open space,
recreational and landscaping amenities.

Goal 3.2 Maximize development opportunities along
transportation routes.

Consistent. The Project would include high
quality, thoughtfully designed development along
a major existing transportation route, Santa Ana
Canyon Road, which would be clustered and
located in the lower elevations in order to
maximize development opportunities while
protecting important scenic and aesthetic
resources.

Policy 3 Encourage and provide incentives for the
consolidation of parcels to create development sites
that are large enough to support quality development.

Consistent. The Project would merge 12 parcels
and would subdivide the Project Site into 8 new
parcels and four lettered lots with clustered
development containing residential, commercial,
and open space land uses. The consolidation of
these lands would enable high quality
thoughtfully designed development that takes
into appropriate account the surrounding
topography and existing uses.

Goal 4.1 Promote development that integrates with and
minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses.

Consistent. Consistent with this goal, the Project
would include a mix of land uses that are similar
to and compatible with the land uses that occur
within the vicinity of the Project Site and along
Santa Ana Canyon Road, which would be
clustered and located in the lower elevations in
order to promote compatible development while
protecting important scenic and aesthetic
resources.

The Project would require adoption of a Specific
Plan and re-zoning of the Project Site; therefore,
the Project would not be developed in accordance
with the City’ s land use plan and zoning code as
currently adopted.

As discussed in response to Goal 21.1 of the
Community Design Element in the table below, all
Policy 1 Ensure that land uses develop in accordance with the Land Use Plan and Zoning Code in an effort to attain
land use compatibility.

Policy 2 Promote compatible development through adherence to Community Design Element policies and guidelines.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-21
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis of the applicable policies from the City’ s
Community Design Element have been
incorporated into the Project. Views of natural
open space areas and ridgelines have generally
been preserved. Also, approximately 43.22 acres
of the Project Site would be zoned as open space.

This would allow for the retention of these lands
in their existing open space condition with their
related aesthetic, scenic and habitat qualities. The
provision of multi-use trail connections near
Santa Ana Canyon Road and SR- 91 would
facilitate and enhance access to Deer Canyon Park
Preserve and other open space, recreational and
landscaping amenities.

Nonetheless, while the Project would re-zone
approximately 57% of the Project Site as open
space, the remaining portions would be
developed with much- needed housing as well as
commercial uses. This would result in additional
ground disturbance and human activity, and the
concomitant environmental effect. In short, the
existing conditions would not be preserved with
implementation of the Project and development
would occur. However, these effects have been
evaluated in this Draft EIR and have been found to
be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated to the extent feasible. Although
these effects may not be significant pursuant to
CEQA, it is reasonable to assume that some
existing residents in the Project vicinity would
desire to keep enjoying the undeveloped
condition of the Project Site. At the same time, the
City has the obligation to promote compatible
development, while taking into appropriate
account its housing obligations under state law
and other community interests.

Development standards and design policies and
guidelines have been developed in the Specific
Plan that would guide future development in the
Project Site. See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for further
information and analysis as to how the proposed
Project standards, policies and guidelines would
help to preserve and enhance the Project Site and
vicinity including land use compatibility.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-22 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 3 Ensure that developers consider and address project impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods during the
design and development process.

Consistent. Consistent with this policy, the
Project’ s impacts are being considered in this
Draft EIR and feasible mitigation measures are
being incorporated for the Project. See Section

3.0, Project Description, of additional information
as to Project design features/ components, and
Sections 4.1 through 4.18 for consideration and
analysis of Project impacts and identified
mitigation.

Policy 4 Require new or expanded uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse
impacts could occur.

Consistent. The Project’ s impacts have been
considered, evaluated and disclosed in this Draft
EIR and feasible mitigation measures have been
incorporated for the Project. See Section 3.0,
Project Description, of additional information as
to Project design features/ components, and
Sections 4.1 through 4.18 for consideration and
analysis of Project impacts and identified
mitigation.

Consistent with this policy, landscaping, building
setbacks, and open space have been incorporated
into Project design.

In general terms, to minimize impacts to scenic
resources, the Project’ s buildings have been sited
to be clustered and located at the lower
elevations, and the grading approach has been
developed so that the more visually significant
ridgelines and hilltops on the Project Site would
not be altered. Instead, these upper elevations of
the Project Site would be zoned as Open Space.

The Project would generally preserve public
views of existing backdrop ridgelines from off-site
perspectives, with the addition of new structures
at the lower elevations of the Project Site in the
foreground of most of these views. This retention
of the natural landscape outside of the
development footprint would be accomplished
through the export of soil from the Project Site
and through the construction of retaining walls to
lower the height of the building pad elevations.

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-23
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 5 Discourage additional multiple- family development in existing single-family neighborhoods.

Consistent. The Project would not add any
multiple- family residential development within
any existing single- family neighborhoods given
that the Project Site is vacant.

Policy 6 Require landscape and/ or open space buffers to maintain a natural edge for proposed private
development directly adjacent to natural, public open
space areas.

Consistent. Landscaping ( approximately 11.50
acres in total) and open space have been
incorporated into the Project’ s design, including
along the eastern and southern edges of the
Project Site where natural open space would be
retained. In total, approximately 57% of the
Project Site would be re-zoned to open space,
which would allow for the retention of these lands
in their existing open space condition along with
their related aesthetic, scenic and habitat
qualities.

Goal 5.1 Create and enhance dynamic, identifiable places for the benefit of Anaheim residents, employees, and visitors.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan, which sets forth the vision for the Project
Site, the Project would result in an identifiable
development within the eastern portion of the
City of Anaheim. The Project would also provide
new commercial uses to serve the Project’ s
residents and employees as well as local
neighborhoods. It would also increase
pedestrian/ bicycle/ equestrian connections and
community access generally to Deer Canyon Park
Preserve for the benefit of the Anaheim
community.

See Section 3.0, Project Description, for additional
information in this regard.

Policy 4 Promote development that is efficient, pedestrianfriendly, and served by a variety of transportation options.

Consistent. The Project Site is accessible by
personal vehicle and by rideshare via Santa Ana
Canyon Road.

The Project would add sidewalks along Santa Ana
Canyon Road, which would improve pedestrian
connectivity for future residents and employees.

There are Class II bicycle lanes on Santa Ana
Canyon Road north of the Project Site.

Also, the Project is within walking distance of
OCTA Route 38, which has a stop near the
intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and South
Roosevelt Boulevard. The Project would include
the addition of sidewalks from the Project Site to
an existing sidewalk that connects to this bus stop
Land Use and Planning

4.10-24 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis to facilitate ready access to available transit
services provided by OCTA.

Goal 6.1 Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic infill development and
revitalization of existing development.

Consistent. The Project would enhance the
quality of life for future residents of the Project
Site by providing access to an existing City park, a
rooftop deck, and other amenities. The Project
would also enhance the quality of life and
economic vitality for the Anaheim community by
developing strategically located commercial uses,
as well as enhancing connectivity and public
access to recreational facilities, including Deer
Canyon Park Preserve. Also, the Project would
promote new economic activity on an infill parcel
of land that is currently not generating much
property or sales tax revenue or jobs for the City.

Nonetheless, while the Project would re-zone
approximately 57% of the Project Site for open
space, the remaining portions of the Project Site
would be developed. This would result in
additional human activity and ground
disturbance, and concomitant environmental
effects would result. In short, the existing
conditions would not be preserved with
implementation of the Project and development
would occur. However, these effects have been
evaluated in this Draft EIR and have been found to
be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated to the extent feasible. Although
these effects may not be significant pursuant to
CEQA, it is reasonable to assume that individuals
residing in the Project vicinity would desire to
keep enjoying the undeveloped condition of the
Project Site. At the same time, the City has the
obligation to enhance the quality of life and
economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic
development, while taking into appropriate
account its housing obligations under state law
and other community interests.

Policy 2 Promote the assembly of parcels to allow for more efficient development patterns wherever adjacent
neighborhoods are not adversely impacted.

Consistent. The Project would merge 12 parcels
and would subdivide the Project Site into 8 new
parcels and four lettered lots with clustered
development containing residential, commercial,
and open space land uses. The assemblage of
these parcels would allow for more efficient
development patterns, while also enabling high
quality thoughtfully designed development that

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-25
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis takes into appropriate account the surrounding
topography and existing neighborhood uses ( e.g.,
by enabling approximately 57% of the Project Site
to be re-zoned for open space and locating
residential and commercial uses on the lower
elevations).

Goal 7.1 Address the jobs- housing relationship by developing housing near job centers and transportation facilities.

Consistent. The Project would provide up to a
maximum total of 504 residential units on an infill
site, most of which would be higher- density
apartment units, as well as commercial uses. Near
the Project Site, most residential units are single
family residential units; therefore, the additional
apartment units proposed by the Project would
allow for more individuals to live in Orange
County instead of commuting out to Riverside
County and San Bernardino County for housing.

Furthermore, the Project would involve some
degree of employment generation, and would be
located near major transportation corridors,
public transit and multi-use trail facilities. In so
doing, the Project supports the City’ s effort to
facilitate a balanced jobs-housing relationship.

Policy 2 Develop housing that addresses the need of the City’ s diverse employment base.

Policy 4 Continue to pursue infill residential development opportunities at mid-block locations along the City’ s
arterial streets as an alternative to underutilized
commercial land uses.

Community
Policy
Areas
The Hill and Canyon Area.

The City’ s Land Use Element states the following about the Hill and Canyon Area of the City:

Since the 1960s, the Hill and Canyon Area has
become home to thousands of hillside
residents and one of Orange County’ s most
desired communities. Scenic views, wellplanned residential development, access to a variety of natural, scenic and recreational
resources like the Santa Ana River, Deer
Canyon Park Preserve and the Anaheim Hills
Golf Course, all contribute to the sense of pride
felt by area residents. The General Plan seeks
to preserve those characteristics that make
the Hill and Canyon Area a special place and to
provide current and future residents with
adequate community services and facilities. It
is further intended to encourage and maintain
living areas which preserve the amenities of
hillside living and retain the overall lower
density, semi-rural, uncongested character of
the Santa Ana Canyon Area.”
Consistent. In general terms, to minimize
impacts to scenic resources, the Project’ s
buildings have been clustered and sited on the
lower elevations of the Project Site, and the
grading approach has been developed so that the
more visually significant ridgelines and hilltops
on the Project Site would not be developed.

Instead, these upper elevations of the Project Site
would be zoned as Open Space, which amount to
approximately 57 percent of the Project Site.

The Project would generally preserve public
views of existing backdrop ridgelines from off-site
perspectives, with the addition of new structures
at the lower elevations of the Project Site in the
foreground of most of these views. This retention
of the natural landscape outside of the
development footprint would be accomplished
through the export of soil from the Project Site
and through the construction of retaining walls.

To minimize visual effects, slopes that would be
disturbed during construction would be
stabilized and re-planted in accordance with a
Land Use and Planning

4.10-26 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 8.1 Preserve natural, scenic and recreational resources; continue to ensure residential neighborhoods are safe,
well-maintained, places to live; and continue to
provide necessary community services and facilities.
landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by
the City in coordination with the Project’ s
Specimen Tree Removal Permit requirements,
which requires approximately 175 replacement
trees be planted.

The Project would result in: reduced acreage of
visible open space areas in the Project Site;
reduced acreage of visible vegetated areas in the
Project Site; and altered views of ridgelines,
particularly for viewers at/near the intersection
of Santa Ana Canyon Road at Deer Canyon Road
who would no longer see certain ridgelines as
they do in existing conditions. At the same time,
while the foregoing changes would occur with the
proposed development of currently vacant
private property and the City has the obligation to
encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and
views, it also must take into appropriate account
its housing obligations under state law and other
community interests.

Policy 1 Encourage the preservation of scenic vistas and views through Green Element Policies and Zoning Code
development standards.

The Project has been designed such that
approximately 57% of the Project Site would be
re-zoned as open space, which would allow for the
retention of these lands in their existing open
space use with their related aesthetic, scenic and
habitat values. Moreover, the Project would
provide new multi- use ( pedestrian, bicycle and
equestrian) trail connections to enhance access to
natural, scenic and recreational resources,
including the currently under- utilized Deer
Canyon Park Preserve.

The Project would be required to provide
necessary community services and facilities to
serve its residents, employees, visitors and users,
and would be required to pay all applicable
development impact fees to ensure the
development “ pays its own way”.

Additional information on the topic of scenic
resources and visual effects is provided in Section

4.1, Aesthetics. See also Sections 4.13, 4.14, and

4.17 regarding the topic of public services,
including parks and recreational resources, as
well as utilities and service systems.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-27
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 3 Provide adequate passive and active park and
recreational resources through the goals and policies
of the Green Element.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would
include a range of recreational amenities for
residents, including indoor amenity space,
outdoor amenity space, a fitness room, private
balconies, and a rooftop deck with pool with other
amenities. Also, the Project would include an
improved multi-use trail connection to Deer
Canyon Park Preserve and well as other trail
improvements, enhancing opportunities for
access to this important community recreational
facility that is currently under- utilized. The
Project would zone approximately 43.22 acres of
the Project Site as Open Space, which would allow
for the retention of these lands in their current
open space condition along with their related
aesthetic, scenic and habitat qualities. Finally, the
Project would be required to pay applicable park
dedication fees in accordance with the AMC in lieu
of land dedication.

Policy 4 Ensure quality development through the policies and guidelines of the Community Design Element and
Zoning Code development standards.

Consistent. Consistent with this policy, the
Project would include a mix of land uses that are
similar to and compatible with the land uses that
occur within the vicinity of the Project Site and
along Santa Ana Canyon Road, which would be
clustered and sited at the lower elevations to
protect scenic resources like ridgelines and
hilltops.

The Project would require adoption of a Specific
Plan and re-zoning of the Project Site; therefore,
the Project would not be developed in accordance
with the City’ s land use plan and zoning code as
currently adopted. It would be required to be
developed in compliance with the development
standards and design guidelines and policies set
forth in the Specific Plan ( which would serve as
the zoning), which would ensure the Project is of
high- quality and thoughtfully designed.

Applicable policies from the City’ s Community
Design Element have been incorporated into the
Project. Views of natural open space areas and
ridgelines have generally been preserved. Also,

43.22 acres of the Project Site would be zoned as
open space. This would result in the retention of
these lands in their existing open space condition
Land Use and Planning

4.10-28 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis with their related aesthetic, scenic and habitat
qualities.

Circulation Element
Policy 3 Require that major new development proposals
include traffic impact analyses that identify measures
and financing to mitigate traffic impacts.

Consistent. Consistent with this policy, a Traffic
Impact Analysis report was prepared for the
Project, which is provided as Appendix L.

Necessary transportation improvements have
been identified therein, which would be installed
and/ or funded by the Developer to ensure the
Project pays its proportionate fair share towards
necessary improvements serving the Project and
the broader community. This would include a new
traffic signal at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer
Canyon Road; widening and/or restriping of
Santa Ana Canyon Road to provide an eastbound
deceleration right-turn lane and a westbound leftturn lane.

Policy 6 Ensure the provision of needed transportation
improvements through the site plan and
environmental review process.

Goal 2.1 Maintain efficient traffic operations on City streets and maintain a peak hour level of service not worse than D
at street intersections.

Internal and external circulation plans have been
submitted for review and have been refined in
coordination with City staff. Also, the Project
would fund and install a sidewalk and a multi-use
trail along Santa Ana Canyon Road and other
transportation and trail improvements.

See Section 3.0, Project Description, for additional
information in this regard.

Policy 3 Install new warranted signals as funding permits, with minimum preferred spacing of 1,000 feet apart.

Consistent. As recommended in the Project’ s
Traffic Impact Analysis report, the Project would
fund and install a new traffic signal at the
intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer
Canyon Road.

Goal 2.2 Provide a safe circulation system. Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and described further in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would fund and install a
new traffic signal, improvements to Santa Ana
Canyon Road, driveways, internal streets, and
sidewalks that would provide safe circulation
within the Project Site.

Policy 1 Promote the principle that streets have multiple uses and users, and protect the safety of all users.

The Project would also fund and install provide a
new sidewalk and multi-use trail along Santa Ana
Canyon Road and a multi-use trail along Deer

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-29
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Canyon Road that would improve conditions for
pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrian users.

See Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 2 Discourage high speed, through traffic on local streets with appropriate traffic calming measures ( e.g., traffic enforcement, bulb-outs, lane striping, chokers, etc.).

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
described further in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would include the
installation of new internal local streets that
would not generally permit high speeds by
vehicles. Through traffic is not anticipated to be
an issue for the Project given its location and as
the Project’ s streets would not provide any time
savings between routes.

See Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 3 Design access onto major arterial streets in an orderly and controlled manner.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
described further in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would include two new
private street intersections. One intersection
would have full access with a newly installed
traffic signal, and the other intersection would be
restricted to right turn in/right turn out
movements with deceleration and acceleration
lanes and full access for emergency vehicles. Both
intersections have been designed per applicable
City standards. Site distance, dimensions, grade,
and other aspects of the site access points have
been designed in consultation with Anaheim Fire
and Rescue requirements. Access to the Project
Site would be improved from existing conditions.

See Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 4 Promote common driveways and reduce curb cuts
along arterial highways to minimize impacts to traffic
flows.

Policy 5 Minimize disruptions to traffic and pedestrian/ bicycle flow.

Consistent. The Project would result in
additional traffic on local roadways.

Project construction would result in a temporary
increase in traffic on local roadways related to
construction employees, material deliveries, and
haul trucks when compared to existing
conditions. Also, during Project construction
there would be limited instances where there
would be temporary closures of up to one lane in
each direction on Santa Ana Canyon Road. These
temporary lane closures would be needed to
allow for roadway and utility improvements that
Land Use and Planning

4.10-30 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis are required to accommodate the Project. To
minimize potential effects to local circulation and
to emergency response times, a Construction
Management Plan would be developed during
final design and implemented during construction
that shall specify the methods by which traffic
would be maintained along Santa Ana Canyon
Road and other local roadways throughout the
Project’ s construction process.

During operation of the Project, the Project’ s
residents, employees, and other site users would
result in additional vehicular traffic and delay on
local roadways, when compared to conditions
without the Project. However, this additional
traffic would not result in any effects requiring
mitigation based on the City’ s thresholds.

Moreover, the Project would fund and install new
multi- use ( pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian)
trail connections to facilitate pedestrian/ bicycle
flow.

Policy 7 Implement street design features that discourage through traffic intrusion on residential streets.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
described further in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would provide adequate
access from two points of access along Santa Ana
Canyon Road. Also, through traffic is not
anticipated to utilize the roads in the Project Site
given its location and because the roads on the
Project Site would not provide any time savings
between routes.

See Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 10 Provide adequate sight distances for safe vehicular movement on roadways, at intersections and at
driveways.

Consistent. Site distance has been incorporated
into the design of the Project’ s signalized
intersection and new driveway. More information
on this is provided in the Project’ s Traffic Impact
Analysis report as well as Section 4.15,
Transportation.

Policy 3 Support transit supportive land uses in new
development.

Consistent. The Project, which would be located
on an infill site within City limits near major
transportation corridors and existing
infrastructure, would support transit by
providing a mix of land uses at a greater density
of development than some nearby properties
have been developed to. The new residents,

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-31
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis employees and other users of the Project Site
would be potential users for existing and future
transit routes near the Project Site.

Moreover, the Project would be within walking
distance of OCTA Route 38, which has a stop near
the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
South Roosevelt Boulevard. The Project would
include the addition of sidewalks from the Project
Site to an existing sidewalk that connects to this
bus stop to facilitate ready access to available
transit services provided by OCTA.

The Project would also fund and install multi- use
trail connections to facilitate alternative modes of
transit.

Goal 7.1 Protect and encourage bicycle travel. Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and described further in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would fund and install a
sidewalk and a multi- use trail along Santa Ana
Canyon Road and a multi-use trail that would
improve access to currently under- utilized Deer
Canyon Park Preserve. The multi- use trail
facilities would also facilitate use of alternative
modes of transit to other existing nearby uses,
such as the Anaheim Hills Festival commercial
center and other commercial and public- serving
uses located nearby ( e.g., grocery, big-box
warehouse, restaurants, schools, and health club).

The Project would provide sidewalks and
pedestrian paths to provide internal circulation in
the Project Site, and would incorporate
commercial uses that would serve needs of
Project residents and employees as well as the
surrounding neighborhoods.

See also Section 4.15, Transportation, for
additional information and analysis in this regard.

Goal 8.1 Protect and encourage pedestrian travel.

Policy 1 Encourage and improve pedestrian facilities that link development to the circulation network and that serve
as a transition between other modes of travel.

Policy 2 Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections from residential neighborhoods to retail activity centers,
employment centers, schools, parks, open space areas
and community centers.

Policy 6 When appropriate, walkways should include
pedestrian amenities such as shade trees and/or
plantings, trash bins, benches, shelters, and directional kiosks.

Policy 7 Ensure that streets and intersections are designed to provide visibility and safety for pedestrians.

Goal 12.1 Ensure adequate parking is made available to City residents, visitors, and businesses.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
described further in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would provide parking as
Policy 1 Assess required by the AMC. the adequacy of existing or proposed on- and off-street parking as needed, especially in urban and
commercial areas, to ensure that an adequate supply is
provided.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-32 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 5 Encourage the use of well-designed, aestheticallyenhanced parking structures as an alternative to large, expansive surface parking lots.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
described further in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would include welldesigned parking structures for the multiplefamily residential and commercial uses that would be partially underground and that would
otherwise be screened from public views to
minimize aesthetic effect of the Project with
vegetation and/or architectural elements.

Green Element
Goal 1.1 Maintain strict standards for hillside grading to preserve environmental and aesthetic resources
Consistent. As detailed more fully in Section 3.0,
Project Description, the Project would involve a
substantial amount of grading activities and
export of soil from the Project Site.

Also, the Project would involve the removal of
trees and other vegetation.

However, the foregoing ground disturbance
activities are necessary for the Project to avoid
natural landforms and vegetation on the Project
Site including ridgelines, natural open space
areas, and several canyons. Disturbed portions of
the Project Site would be re-planted with new
trees and landscaping prior to the completion of
construction. Moreover, the proposed uses would
be clustered and located within the lower
elevations; this would enable the Project to rezone approximately 57% of the Project Site for open space, thereby allowing for the retention of
natural landforms and natural vegetation within
these lands.

The Project would adhere to all applicable
requirements of the City’ s Scenic Corridor
Overlay regulations.

Therefore, key visual components of the Project
Site would be retained, and views would generally
be maintained; however, there would be
development and less visible, contiguous open
space as a result of the Project as compared to
existing conditions.

Policy 1 Require that infill hillside development minimize alteration of the natural landforms and natural
vegetation.

Policy 2 Limit grading to the amount necessary to provide stable areas for structural foundations, street rightsof-way, parking facilities, and other intended uses.

Consistent. The Project’ s buildings have been
clustered and sited and the grading approach has
been developed so that the more visually
significant ridgelines and hilltops on the Project
Site would not be developed and so that the

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-33
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis overall grading footprint would be kept to a
minimum to allow for the proposed buildings.

Instead, the upper elevations of the Project Site –
approximately 57% - would be zoned as Open
Space, thereby enabling the retention of these
lands in their existing open space condition along
with their aesthetic, scenic and habitat qualities.

The Project would generally preserve public
views of existing backdrop ridgelines from off-site
perspectives, with the addition of new structures
at the lower elevations of the Project Site in the
foreground of most of these views. This retention
of the natural landscape outside of the
development footprint would be accomplished
through the export of soil from the Project Site
and through the construction of retaining walls.

See Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section

4.6, Geology and Soils for additional information
and analysis in this regard.

Policy 3 Minimize import/ export associated with grading. Consistent. The Project would involve a substantial amount of grading activities and
export of soil from the Project Site.

However, the amount of grading and the amount
of soil needing to be exported has been reduced
through the proposed construction of retaining
walls.

The Project’ s buildings have been clustered and
sited and the grading approach has been
developed so that the more visually significant
ridgelines and hilltops on the Project Site would
not be developed and so that the overall grading
footprint would be kept to a minimum to allow for
the proposed buildings. Instead, the upper
elevations of the Project Site - approximately 57%
would be zoned as Open Space, thereby enabling
the retention of these lands in their existing open
space condition along with their aesthetic, scenic
and habitat qualities. The Project would generally
preserve public views of existing backdrop
ridgelines from off-site perspectives, with the
addition of new structures at the lower elevations
of the Project Site in the foreground of most of
these views.

The Project would be required to adhere to the
development standards and design
Policy 4 Grading for infill projects should be kept to an absolute minimum, with developments following the
natural contours of the land, and prohibited in steep
slope areas.

Goal 2.1 Preserve views of ridgelines, natural open space and other scenic vistas wherever possible.

Policy 1 Control infill development on visually significant ridgelines, canyon edges and hilltops through
sensitive site planning and appropriate landscaping to
ensure development is visually unobtrusive.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-34 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis guidelines/ policies in the Specific Plan, as well as
the relevant provisions of the AMC such as the
City’ s Scenic Corridor Overlay regulations. The
foregoing would ensure that the Project
incorporates thoughtful consideration and
protection of visually sensitive ridgelines, canyon
edges and hilltops, as well as sensitive site
planning and appropriate landscaping to ensure
development is visually unobtrusive. See Section

3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.1,
Aesthetics, for additional information and
analysis in this regard.

Policy 2 Encourage development that preserves natural
contours and views of existing backdrop ridgelines or
prominent views.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
discussed more fully in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would avoid direct
impacts to ridgelines and the slopes leading up to
ridgelines within the Project Site. Most views of
these ridgelines would be maintained with the
Project, although the viewpoint of and from Santa
Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon Road would
be impacted.

The Project includes terraced, rounded, and
curved retaining walls to blend with the existing
topography and to minimize grading.

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and Section 4.6,
Geology and Soils, for additional information and
analysis in this regard.

Policy 3 Continue to encourage landscape projects employing water efficient irrigation.

Goal 6.1 Develop a Groundwater Protection Management
Program to ensure the quality of groundwater
drinking supplies.

Consistent. The northern portion of the Project
Site is within an area identified as a groundwater
protection zone in the City’ s Green Element.

The purpose of the groundwater protection zone
is to allow the City to develop a multi-faceted
approach to protecting Anaheim’ s drinking water
from contamination. The primary emphasis will
be to provide educational outreach materials to
inform businesses and residents how to properly
manage materials and waste.

Consistent with these goals/ policies, the Project
would include measures to avoid and minimize
potential water quality effects during
construction and operation of the Project,
including development and implementation of a
SWPPP and a Water Quality Management Plan.

Policy 1 Develop and disseminate educational materials that describe the importance of protecting groundwater
and management techniques for the proper storage
and disposal of materials and waste.

Policy 2 Include groundwater protection educational outreach efforts with Anaheim Fire Department hazardous
materials and waste inspections.

Policy 3 Continue to coordinate groundwater protection
efforts with the Orange County Water District,
neighboring cities and other relevant agencies.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-35
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 7.1 Reduce urban run-off from new and existing
development.

Consistent. A Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan has been developed for the
Project. Consistent with these goals and policies,
which would be incorporated into a final Water
Quality Management Plan approved by the City,
and as discussed in detail in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would incorporate storm
drain infrastructure that would be required to
capture and treat stormwater from the Project
Site using stormwater best management practices
and pursuant to all other applicable requirements
and standards prior to the stormwater being
allowed to flow off-site as described in more
detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality.

Policy 1 Ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) permits, including
developing and requiring the development of Water
Quality Management Plans for all new development
and significant redevelopment in the City.

Policy 2 Continue to implement an urban runoff reduction program consistent with regional and federal
requirements, which includes requiring and
encouraging the following:

Increase permeable areas and install filtration
controls ( including grass lined swales and
gravel beds) and divert flow to these
permeable areas to allow more percolation of
runoff into the ground;
Use natural drainage, detention ponds or
infiltration pits to collect runoff; and,
Prevent rainfall from entering material and
waste storage areas and pollution- laden
surfaces.

Policy 4 Require new development and significant
redevelopment to utilize site preparation, grading and
best management practices that provide erosion and
sediment control to prevent construction- related
contaminants from leaving the site and polluting
waterways.

Consistent. Project grading activities would
disturb and expose soils on the Project Site and
would require the hauling of soil off-site, which
could result in substantial soil erosion and the
loss of topsoil if not implemented consistent with
applicable regulatory requirements. However, the
Project would be required to adhere to all
applicable federal, State, and local laws and
regulations, including, among others, applicable
provisions of the General Plan and the AMC. For
example, as discussed in more detail in Section

4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES)
permit program controls water pollution by
regulating point sources that discharge pollutants
into “ Waters of the U.S.”. The Project’ s
construction activities would be required to be
conducted in compliance with the statewide
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with the Construction and
Land Disturbance Activities ( Order No 2012-
0006- DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), which was
Land Use and Planning

4.10-36 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis adopted by the State Water Resources Control
Board on July 17, 2012. Prior to construction, the
Project would be required to develop a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) that
would outline construction stormwater Best
Management Practices ( BMPs) that would be
implemented during construction to manage
erosion, fugitive dust, and stormwater- related
issues. With implementation of standard
construction BMPs in accordance with a SWPPP,
the Project’ s construction would result in less
than significant impacts related to soil erosion
and loss of topsoil.

See also Section 4.6, Geology and Soil, for
additional information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 2 Regulate construction practices, including grading, dust suppression, chemical management, and
encourage pre- determined construction routes that
minimize dust and particulate matter pollution.

Consistent. The Project would implement
stormwater BMPs during construction to manage
erosion, fugitive dust, and stormwater- related
issues.

The Project would utilize a specified construction
haul route to dispose of soil and other debris
generated during the construction process. The
haul route has been coordinated with and would
be approved by City staff as part of the Project’ s
Construction Management Plan.

Haul trucks containing soils and debris would
travel eastbound along Santa Ana Canyon Road to
Weir Canyon Road, which is a designated truck
route. Haul trucks would travel along Weir
Canyon Road to Imperial Highway to Valencia
Avenue to reach the landfill.

See also Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.6,
Geology and Soil, for additional information and
analysis in this regard.

Goal 9.1 Reduce single- occupancy vehicle trips Consistent. The Project would encourage alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle trips by:
providing a sidewalk connection along Santa Ana
Canyon Road, funding and installing multi- use
trail connections to nearby commercial and
recreational facilities, and by implementing
Transportation Demand Management ( TDM)
measures to reduce VMT generated by the
Project, as outlined in more detail in Chapter 4.15,
Transportation.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-37
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis See also Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
for additional information and analysis in this
regard.

Policy 3 Encourage use of vanpools and carpools by providing priority parking through the project design process.

Consistent. The Project would include priority
parking for vanpools and carpools.

See also Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.5,
Energy, Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 4 Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by improving the City’ s trail and bikeway Master Plan and by
providing convenient links between the trail system
and desired destinations.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project would include a new sidewalk along Santa
Ana Canyon Road and improved trail connections
to Deer Canyon Park Preserve and nearby
commercial, recreational and other uses, which
would allow for residents and employees to
informally interact to a greater extent than in
existing conditions and provide convenient links
between the trail system and desired
destinations.

Further, the Project, which would be developed
on an infill site within City limits near major
transportation corridors and existing
infrastructure, includes a mix of land uses ( i.e.,
higher density multiple- family and single- family
residential as well as commercial and open space
uses) consistent with Goal 11.1.

The Project would support transit by providing a
mix of land uses at a greater density of
development than some nearby properties. The
new residents, employees and other users of the
Project Site would be potential users for existing
and future transit routes near the Project Site.

See Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Goal 11.1 Encourage land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile such as
mixed- use, provision of pedestrian amenities, and
transit- oriented development.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-38 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 1 Encourage commercial growth and the development of commercial centers in accordance with the Land
Use Element.

Consistent. Consistent with this policy, the
Project would include commercial and other land
uses that are similar to and compatible with the
land uses that occur within the vicinity of the
Project Site and along Santa Ana Canyon Road.

The Project would include a General Plan
amendment to redesignate approximately 11.82
acres for commercial uses. Accordingly, the
Project would encourage commercial growth
consistent with Policy 1. The Project’ s close
proximity to other existing commercial uses, such
as the Anaheim Hills Festival commercial center
and other public- serving uses located nearby ( e.g.,
grocery, big-box warehouse, restaurants, schools,
and health club), would facilitate access,
particularly via the new trail connections and
roadway improvements that would be provided
by the Project.

The Project would include adoption of a Specific
Plan and re-zoning of the Project Site to
implement the newly adopted General Plan
designations, generally consistent with existing
zoning designations except as modified by the
Specific Plan.

Applicable policies from the City’ s Community
Design Element have been incorporated into the
Project. Views of natural open space areas and
ridgelines have generally been preserved. Also,
approximately 43.22 acres of the Project Site
would be zoned as open space.

Goal 14.1 Conserve natural habitat and protect rare, threatened and endangered species.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to
cluster its uses on the lower elevations, which
would allow for the re-zoning of approximately

43.22 acres of the Project Site – approximately
57% - as open space, all of which is USFWSdesignated Critical Habitat for the federally Threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and
much of which is suitable habitat for this species.

In so doing, this would enable the retention of
these lands in their existing open space condition
with their related habitat, scenic and aesthetic
qualities.

However, the Project would result in the
permanent removal of approximately 44.09 acres
of Critical Habitat for the coastal California

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-39
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis gnatcatcher. Of this 44.09 acres, the Project would
remove approximately 14.14 acres of occupied,
suitable habitat for this species. A portion of the

14.14 acres of suitable habitat to be impacted was
occupied by one nesting pair of coastal California
gnatcatchers in the spring/ summer of 2023. Also,
indirect effects would occur to coastal California
gnatcatcher and other wildlife adjacent to the
Project Site during construction and operation of
the Project. Feasible mitigation measures would
be required to be implemented by the Project to
avoid and minimize the effects, as described in
more detail in Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources.

The Project has been determined to have less than
significant impacts related to biological resources
with incorporation of mitigation.

Goal 14.3 Ensure that future development near regional open space resources will be sensitively integrated into
surrounding sensitive habitat areas.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project has
been clustered and sited within the lower
elevations to protect scenic resources and take
into appropriate account surrounding sensitive
habitat areas. The Project would re- zone
approximately 43.22 acres of the Project Site –
approximately 57% -- as open space, thereby
enabling these lands to be retained in their
existing open space condition with their related
habitat, scenic and aesthetic qualities. The
Project’ s design has incorporated multi-use trails
that would facilitate connections to open space
and recreational resources, such as Deer Canyon
Park Preserve, in a manner that is sensitive to
biological resources.

In general terms, to minimize impacts to scenic
resources, the Project’ s buildings have been sited
and the grading approach has been developed so
that the more visually significant ridgelines and
hilltops on the Project Site would not be
developed. Instead, these upper elevations of the
Project Site would be zoned as Open Space. The
Project would generally preserve public views of
existing backdrop ridgelines from off-site
perspectives, with the addition of new structures
at the lower elevations of the Project Site in the
foreground of most of these views. This retention
of the natural landscape outside of the
development footprint would be accomplished
Land Use and Planning

4.10-40 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis through the export of soil from the Project Site
and through the construction of retaining walls.

To minimize visual effects, slopes that would be
disturbed during construction would be
stabilized and re-planted in accordance with a
tree re-planting and landscape plan to be
reviewed and approved by the City in
coordination with the Project’ s Specimen Tree
Removal Permit requirements, which requires
approximated [ 175?] 465 replacement trees be
planted.

Consistent with Goal 14.3 and as required by
MM BIO 10, the Project’ s landscaping would
include native plants from the Recommended
Acceptable Fire Resistive Plant Species list
maintained by Anaheim Fire and Rescue. To the
extent feasible, transition zones would be
landscaped to buffer adjacent natural habitats
from human activity using native plantings ( e.g.,
lemonade berry, western sycamore, coast live
oak, etc.).

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and Section 4.3,
Biological Resources, for additional information
and analysis in this regard.

Policy 1 Require new development to mitigate light and glare impacts on surrounding sensitive habitat and open
space areas, where appropriate.

Consistent. As discussed in the Specific Plan and
Section 3.0 of the Project Description, the Project
would result in new exterior lighting on a
currently undeveloped site with no lighting in
existing conditions. Also, the Project would add
new structures that would include new windows
and other exterior finishes, and involve the
introduction of vehicles with headlights, which
have the potential to result in new sources of light
and glare for individuals off-site. Therefore,
exterior lighting plans, exterior photometric
study, and a Glare Report have been prepared for
the Project, which have demonstrated that the
Project would not result in any substantial
exterior lighting or glare effects.

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and Section 4.3,
Biological Resources, for additional information
and analysis in this regard.

Goal 15.2 Continue to encourage site design practices that reduce and conserve energy.

Consistent. The Project would require energy
during construction.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-41
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 1 Encourage increased use of passive and active solar design in existing and new development ( e.g.,
orienting buildings to maximize exposure to cooling
effects of prevailing winds and locating landscaping
and landscape structures to shade buildings).

Also, the Project would result in new demands for
energy during operation, including fuel that
vehicles would use to access the Project Site. Also,
the Project would require energy for the new
buildings, the new exterior lighting, and the new
traffic signal that would be built as part of the
Project.

The Project would be required to reduce and
conserve energy through compliance with the
applicable State of California’ s Title 24 Building
Standards and CALGreen Code Standards as well
as other applicable laws and regulations. For
example, the latest building standards
incorporate the CEC’ s building energy efficiency
standards which would reduce energy
consumption compared to buildings constructed
under older building standards. The Project
would also be required to include renewable
energy generation and electric vehicle charging
infrastructure which is more energy efficient than
gasoline or diesel fueled passenger vehicles.

Because the Project complies with the latest
energy efficiency standards, the Project would not
conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency.

See Section 4.5, Energy, and Section 4.7,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 2 Provide adequate solid waste collection and recycling for commercial areas and construction activities.

Consistent. A Solid Waste Management Plan has
been prepared for the Project, which provides
details on waste truck circulation routes, bin and
barrel storage, and how waste, recycling, and
organics would be collected for each of the
proposed land uses. The locations of
trash/ recycle collection routes and pick up
locations for the Project are depicted in the waste
management exhibit provided as Exhibit 3-21.

Internal access roads for the Project are designed
to accommodate the required truck turning radii
for 35-foot-long trash trucks that are likely to
service the Project once built. The Project would
be required to adhere to all applicable laws and
regulations in this regard. In so doing, the Project
would provide adequate solid waste collection
and recycling for its commercial areas and
construction activities.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-42 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis See Section 4.13, Public Services, for additional
information and analysis.

Goal 17.1 Encourage building and site design standards that reduce energy costs.

Consistent. The Project would require energy
during construction.

Also, the Project would result in new demands for
energy during operation, including, without
limitation, fuel that vehicles would use to access
the Project Site. Also, the Project would require
energy for the new buildings, the new exterior
lighting, and the new traffic signal that would be
built as part of the Project, among other things.

The Project would be required to reduce and
conserve energy through compliance with the
applicable State of California’ s Title 24 Building
Standards and CALGreen Code Standards. The
latest building standards incorporate the CEC’ s
building energy efficiency standards which
would reduce energy consumption compared to
buildings constructed under older building
standards. The Project would also be required to
include renewable energy generation and
electric vehicle charging infrastructure which is
more energy efficient than gasoline or diesel
fueled passenger vehicles. Because the Project
would be required to comply with the latest
energy efficiency standards, the Project would
not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

See Section 3.0, Project Description, Section 4.5,
Energy, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, for additional information and
analysis in this regard.

Policy 1 Encourage designs that incorporate solar and wind exposure features such as daylighting design, natural
ventilation, space planning and thermal massing.

Public Services and Facilities Element
Policy 2 Ensure that adequate electricity capacity exists for planned development.

Consistent. The Project’ s electricity demands
during construction and operations were
calculated as part of the Project’ s overall energy
analyses within Section 4.5, Energy, of this Draft
EIR.

The Project’ s dry utility plans depict the Project’ s
proposed underground electrical lines that would
connect the Project’ s proposed commercial
buildings and multiple- family residential building
as well as the proposed single-family homes??] to
the existing electrical main line that is within

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-43
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Santa Ana Canyon Road. The new electrical lines
would generally be installed within joint utility
trenches that would also contain natural gas lines
and telephone/ CATV/ technology conduits.

A will serve letter was received from APU on
August 10, 2023, conditionally confirming that
APU would be able to provide electrical service to
the Project. APU mentioned in their letter that
final confirmation of service could be provided
during final design once more precise electrical
load information and other such information is
provided ( City of Anaheim 2023i).

The Project would not require or result in the
relocation or construction of any new or
expanded electrical facilities that could cause
significant environmental effects. The only
electrical facilities that would be implemented are
those described above, which are accounted for in
the impact analyses contained throughout this
Draft EIR.

The Project would be required to ensure that
adequate electricity capacity exists to serve its
proposed uses.

See also Section 4.16, Utilities and Service
Systems, for additional information and analysis
in this regard.

Goal 6.1 Maintain a storm drain system that will adequately protect and enhance the health, safety and general
welfare of residents, visitors, employees, and their
property.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project
Description, and Section 4.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the Project would increase
impervious surface coverage in the Project Site
given that it is currently primarily undeveloped;
however, the Project has been designed and
would be required to capture, to detain, and treat
stormwater pursuant to all applicable standards.

The Project’ s Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan confirms that the existing
downstream storm drain system is capable of
receiving flows from the Project.

Moreover, the Project would re-zone
approximately 43.22 acres – approximately 57%
of the Project Site, which would enable these
lands to be retained in their existing, pervious
open space condition.

Policy 1 Improve the City’ s storm drain system to address current deficiencies as well as long- term needs
associated with future development to minimize flood
damage and adequately convey rainfall and
subsequent runoff from a 25-year frequency storm.

Policy 3 Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces in
conjunction with new development.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-44 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis See also Section 4.14, Utilities and Service
Systems, for additional information and analysis
in this regard.

Goal 7.1 Minimize, recycle and dispose of solid and hazardous waste in an efficient and environmentally sound
manner.

Consistent. The Project would require the
export of soil during construction. The Project
would also generate other waste during
construction. Projects requiring any building,
construction, or demolition permits would be
required to comply with all applicable laws and
regulations including, without limitation, AB 939,
SB 1016, and the CALGreen Code. Diversion
through reuse, recycling, and/or composting of
construction and demolition materials at Cityapproved facilities or by the Republic Services can achieve compliance. To meet these demands,
the Project would be required to meet CalGreen’ s
Construction and Demolition ( C& D) recycling
requirement, which requires that all new
construction projects shall divert at least 65
percent of the construction materials generated
during the project.

During operation of the Project, the Project would
include recycling collection points for residents
and employees to accommodate the solid waste
generated during Project operation.

See Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
and Section 4.13, Public Services, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 2 Reduce the volume of material sent to solid waste sites in accordance with State law by continuing
source reduction and recycling programs and by
ensuring the participation of all residents and
businesses.

Goal 8.1 Coordinate with private utilities to provide adequate natural gas and communications infrastructure to
existing and new development in a manner
compatible with the surrounding community.

Consistent. The Project includes connections to
private utilities sufficient to serve the proposed
uses. Utility service availability has been
confirmed with each of the primary service
providers.

See Section 4.5, Energy, and Section 4.14, Utilities
and Service Systems, for additional information
and analysis in this regard.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-45
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 10.1 Improve the City’ s appearance by mitigating the visual impacts of utility equipment and facilities.

Consistent. The Project would underground all
proposed electrical facilities.

As detailed inthe Specific Plan, all above- ground
mechanical equipment would be screened from
public views through the use of screen walls,
landscaping, and/ or by other means.

See Section 3.0, Project Description, for
additional information in this regard.

Policy 2 Use a combination of architectural enhancements, equipment undergrounding, screen walls and
landscaping to reduce or eliminate visibility of utility equipment and facilities, whenever feasible.

Growth Development Element
Goal 1.1 Provide a balance of housing options and job
opportunities throughout the City.

Consistent. The Project would provide up to
maximum total of 504 residential units ( both
multiple- family and single- family), most of which
would be higher- density apartment units (with a
range of unit sizes and price points). Near the
Project Site, most residential units are singlefamily residential units; therefore, additional apartment units proposed by the Project would
serve to further this goal of providing a variety of
quality housing opportunities. Moreover, the
Project would incorporate commercial uses,
which would provide job opportunities.

Policy 3 Ensure a balance of retail, office, industrial and residential land uses to enhance the economic base of
the City when considering land use changes.

Consistent. The Project would include a mix of
residential, commercial, and open space land
uses, which would enhance the City’ s economic
base through property tax and sales tax revenue.

Policy 1 Encourage development of vacant and underutilized infill sites where public services and infrastructure are available or can be efficiently accommodated.

Consistent. The Project would provide up to a
maximum total of 504 residential units ( as well as
commercial and open space uses) on an infill site
within City limits near existing infrastructure and
public services.

The Project includes connections to private
utilities sufficient to serve the proposed uses.

Utility service availability has been confirmed
with each of the primary service providers.

See Section 4.13, Public Services, and Section 4.14,
Utilities and Service Systems, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Goal 1.4 Develop land use strategies and incentives to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled within the City.

Consistent. The Project would increase vehicle
miles traveled when compared to existing
conditions in which the Project Site is
undeveloped.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-46 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis However, the Project would develop an infill site
near existing public services and
commercial/ office uses and would include a
maximum total of 504 residential units ( primarily
higher- density apartment units), along with
commercial uses that would serve Project
residents and employees as well as the
surrounding neighborhoods, in an area of the
metropolitan region that has a relatively dense
concentration of jobs, in furtherance of this policy.

See Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 2 Encourage higher density and/ or mixed- use
development along major transit corridors and/ or at
transit stops.

Consistent. The Project would be consistent with
this policy by developing mixed uses, including
higher density residential uses as well as
commercial uses that would serve Project
residents and employees as well as the
surrounding neighborhoods, along a major
transportation corridor with transit access.

Goal 2.1 Reduce traffic congestion on the City’ s arterial highway system.

Inconsistent. Consistent with this policy, a Traffic
Impact Analysis report was prepared for the
Project, which is provided as Appendix L.

Necessary transportation improvements have
been identified therein, which will be funded by
the Developer. This would include a new traffic
signal at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon
Road; widening and/ or restriping of Santa Ana
Canyon Road to provide an eastbound
deceleration right-turn lane and a westbound leftturn lane Internal and external circulation plans have been
submitted for review and have been refined in
coordination with City staff. Also, the Project
would include a sidewalk along Santa Ana Canyon
Road and other transportation improvements.

However, the Project would be inconsistent with
this goal as it would increase vehicular
congestion. However, pursuant to CEQA,
vehicular delay in terms of LOS is no longer
considered an environmental impact.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-47
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 7 Improve traffic flow by reducing the number of curb cuts and encouraging driveway consolidation along
arterial highways in conjunction with future
development.

Consistent. As discussed in more detail in Section

3.0, Project Description, the Project’ s design has
minimized the number of access points to the
Project Site, thereby reducing the number of curb
cut and encouraging driveway consolidation. The
Project would include one new signalized
intersection near where there is currently an
unsignalized driveway. Also, the Project would
add one additional new driveway to provide
access to the commercial land uses within the
eastern portion of the Project Site.

See also the Traffic Impact Analysis report, which
is provided as Appendix L, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Goal 2.2 Evaluate the traffic-related impacts of proposed developments and/or intensification of existing land
uses and address said impacts.

Consistent. Consistent with this policy, a Traffic
Impact Analysis report was prepared for the
Project, which is provided as Appendix L.

Necessary transportation improvements have
been identified therein, which would be
installed/ funded by the Developer to ensure a
proportionate fair share payment towards these
improvements, which would serve the Project and
other uses in the vicinity. This would include a
new traffic signal at Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Deer Canyon Road; widening and/or restriping of
Santa Ana Canyon Road to provide an eastbound
deceleration right-turn lane and a westbound leftturn lane.

Internal and external circulation plans have been
submitted for review and have been refined in
coordination with City staff. Also, the Project
would include a sidewalk along Santa Ana Canyon
Road and other transportation improvements.

The foregoing improvements would ensure that
the Project would not result in an exceedance of
applicable LOS standards.

See also Section 4.15, Transportation, and the
Traffic Impact Analysis report ( Appendix L), for
additional information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 1 Continue to review development projects to ensure traffic- related impacts are addressed appropriately.

Policy 4 Prior to issuing building permits for new development forecast to generate 100 or more peak hour (morning
or evening) trip ends, require traffic impact analyses
be completed that identify arterial and intersection
improvements that may potentially be needed to
provide not worse than LOS E along Interstates/ State
Routes/ Smart Streets ( unless current operation is LOS F), and not worse than LOS D along the balance of the
arterials on the City’ s Circulation Element that are
measurably impacted by the new development and are
under the City’ s jurisdiction.

Policy 5 Require development projects that exceed LOS
standards beyond acceptable levels to provide
necessary improvements and/or funding to mitigate
said impacts, if determined necessary by the City.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-48 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 3.1 Ensure the adequate provision of police, fire, library, parks and recreation, school, flood control and other
public services and facilities as development occurs in developing” areas of the City.

Consistent. Safety and the ability for public
service providers to provide police, fire, and other
services to the Project Site while maintaining
existing service to others in the community is
evaluated in more detail in Section 4.13, Public
Services. The Project would not impair the City’ s
ability to serve the Project and other existing and
planned uses while still maintaining adequate
levels of police, fire, library, parks, recreation,
school, and flood control services.

The Project would provide open space, trail and
recreational facilities for its residents and
employees as well as the broader community;
would install and maintain storm drain, lighting
and security improvements; and would be
required to pay all applicable development
impact fees to ensure the development “ pays its
own way” – this would enable the City to utilize
these fees, in combination with other fees/funds,
as the City determines appropriate and consistent
with its capital improvement planning to continue
to maintain acceptable service levels.

See also Section 4.13, Public Services, for
additional information and analysis in this regard.

Safety Element
Goal 1.1 A community prepared and responsive to seismic and geologic hazards.

Consistent. A Geotechnical Investigation Report
was prepared for the Project to document the
environmental setting for the Project Site and
identify design- related recommendations. As
described in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, the
Project Site has been evaluated for geologic issues
including seismicity, expansion, landslides,
liquefaction, etc. and the Project has been
determined to be geotechnically feasible by the
Project’ s geotechnical engineer. The Project Site
has potentially expansive soils; therefore,
additional soil sampling shall be conducted
during final design and prior to issuance of a
grading permit to confirm implementation of
identified recommendations. Based on this
additional sampling, the geotechnical consultant
shall provide recommendations related to the
expansion potential of the soils that are evaluated
Policy 2 Minimize the risk to life and property through the identification of potentially hazardous geologic areas.

Policy 3 Require geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards as part
of the environmental and/ or development review
process for all structures.

Policy 4 Enforce structural setbacks from faults and other geologic hazards identified during the development
review process.

Policy 5 Enforce the requirements of the California Seismic Hazards Mapping and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Acts when siting, evaluating, and constructing
projects within the City

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-49
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 6 Require that engineered slopes be designed to resist earthquake- induced failure.
to the Property Owner/ Developer, which shall be
incorporated into the Project’ s final design to the
satisfaction of the City’ s Public Works
Department.

Also, portions of the Project Site have high
landslide susceptibility. The Project’ s proposed
buildings would be designed in accordance with
applicable provisions of the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code, which contains
stringent standards regulating the design and
construction of excavations, foundations,
retaining walls, and other building elements to
control the effects of seismic ground shaking and
adverse soil conditions. Project implementation
would also be required to comply with all
applicable standards and requirements,
including, without limitation, the
recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical
Investigation Report prepared for the Project.

Based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report
and adherence to all applicable laws and
regulations, the Project is geotechnically feasible
provided that the recommendations in the report
are reviewed and integrated in the context of the
final Project design and are incorporated during
the Project’ s construction phase.

See also Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, for additional information and analysis
in this regard.

Policy 9 Require new construction, redevelopment, and major remodels located within potential landslide areas be
evaluated for site stability, including the potential
impact to other properties, during project design and
review.

Goal 2.1 A community protected and prepared for urban and wildland fires.

Consistent. The Project would introduce
additional residents, employees, and visitors to an
area that is within the urban wildland interface
and designated as a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone, similar to other lands in the
vicinity.

Through the addition of new residents,
employees, and other site users, the Project would
result in it taking longer ( conservatively
estimated to be approximately 24 additional
minutes) for existing residents to evacuate during
future wildfire events.

However, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would incorporate
numerous design features that would help reduce
fire risk, increase emergency access, and increase
Policy 2 Effectively enforce City and State regulations within the VHFHSZ and incorporate new techniques and best
practices as they become available to reduce future
risks to existing and new developments
Policy 4 Minimize urban and wildland fire exposure for
residents, business owners, and visitors by
incorporating Fire Safe Design into existing and new
developments
Land Use and Planning

4.10-50 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis wildfire resilience with respect to the Project Site
and surrounding neighborhoods. The foregoing
would help to reduce the need for emergency
access and evacuations in the first instance. Under
the Emergency Operations Plan, evacuation is
advised to occur through the most reasonable safe
exits out of the City. Therefore, it is anticipated
that the Project would be able to utilize Santa Ana
Canyon Road to safely evacuate, consistent with
the policies and programs in the Emergency
Operations Plan. Moreover, the Project would be
required to adhere to all applicable laws and
regulations as well as plans and programs,
including those set forth in the Building, Fire and
CALGreen Codes, the General Plan, the Municipal
Code, the City’ s Emergency Operations Plan, the
Be Ready Anaheim plan, and the City’ s Know Your
Way initiative. In addition, the Project would be
required to implement MM HAZ 4 and MM HAZ
5 to reduce impacts in this regard.

An analysis of public services to accommodate the
Project is provided in Chapter 4.13, Public
Services.

An analysis of wildfire risk to people and
structures and an analysis of Project effects
relating to emergency evacuation plans is
provided in Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.

Also, an overall analysis of wildfire is provided in
Chapter 4.18, Wildfire.

Policy 7 Expand vegetation management activities in areas adjacent to wildland fire prone areas.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would include fuel
modification zones around all proposed buildings.

See Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
and Section 4.18, Wildfire, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 8 Refine procedures and processes to minimize the risk of fire hazards in the Special Protection Area including requiring new development to:

Utilize fire-resistant building materials;
Incorporate fire sprinklers as appropriate; SAFETY
ELEMENT 18 Anaheim Safety Element | City Council
Adopted | January 2023
Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the Project would be required to
adhere to all of the standards and programs set
forth in Policy 8, including, without limitation,
utilizing fire-resistant building materials and
incorporating fire sprinklers and fire hydrants.

Defensible space and fuel modification zones
would be provided around all proposed buildings.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-51
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Incorporate defensible space requirements;
Comply with Anaheim Fire Department Fuel
Modification Guidelines;
Provide Fire Protection Plans; and,
Implement a Vegetation Management Plan, which
results in proper vegetation modification on an
ongoing basis within the Special Protection Area.

Develop fuel modification in naturalized canyons
and hills to protect life and property from wildland
fires, yet leave as much of the surrounding natural
vegetation as appropriate.

Require development to use plant materials that are
compatible in color and character with surrounding
natural vegetation.

Provide wet or irrigated zones when required.

See Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
and Section 4.18, Wildfire, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 13 All development projects within the VHFHSZ must prepare a Fire Protection Plan ( FPP) to reduce or
eliminate fire threats. FPPs shall be consistent with the following guidance: ( New Policy) A Fire Protection
Plan (FPP) may be required by the fire code official for new development within the Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones ( VHFHSZ). FPPs are required to include
mitigation strategies that consider location,
topography, geology, flammable vegetation, sensitive
habitats/ species, and climate of the proposed site.

FPPs must address water supply, access, building
ignition, and fire resistance, fire protection systems
and equipment, proper street signage, visible home
addressing, defensible space, vegetation management,
and long-term maintenance. All required FPPs must be
consistent with the requirements of the California
Building and Residential Codes, the California Fire
Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim, and the City of Anaheim Municipal Code.

Consistent. Pursuant to the requirements set
forth in Policy 13., a Fire Protection Plan has been
prepared for the Project, which is provided as
Appendix R ( Fire Safe Planning Solutions 2024a).

Hardening strategies have been incorporated into
the Project’ s design based on recommendations
from the Project’ s Fire Protection Plan, including
recommendations for: fuel modification zones;
landscaping; fire hydrant placement; etc. The
Project would be required to adhere to all
mandates and standards set forth in the approved
Fire Protection Plan, and would be required to
adhere to all other applicable standards and
mandates including those set forth in the
California Building and Residential Codes, the
California Fire Code as adopted by the City of
Anaheim, and the City of Anaheim Municipal Code.

See Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
and Section 4.18, Wildfire, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-52 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 3.1 A community resilient to the effects of flooding and dam inundation hazards.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to
minimize potential effects of flooding from rain
events or from dam inundation events.

Specifically, the Project’ s structures are proposed
to be constructed at higher elevations than the
dam inundation zone for Prado Dam. The Project’ s
structures would also be outside of areas
designated as floodplains.

See Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
for additional information and analysis in this
regard.

Policy 5 Encourage new development to maintain and enhance existing natural streams, as feasible.

Consistent. The Project would avoid impacts to
the larger drainage feature on the Project Site;
however, the Project would result in permanent
impacts to some dry upland washes. Permanent
impacts to these features would be mitigated for
through the regulatory permitting process, as
detailed more fully in Section 4.3, Biological
Resources.

The Project would re-zone approximately 43.22
acres – approximately 57% – of the Project Site
for open space, thereby enabling these lands to be
retained in their existing open space condition
along with their related habitat, scenic and
aesthetic qualities.

Policy 3 Require new development within a designated
floodplain or fire hazard severity zone to submit fire
and/or flood safety plan for approval by the Fire
Department and Floodplain Administrator
Consistent. The Project Site is not located within
a designated floodplain. Consistent with this
policy, the Project has been designed in
coordination with the City’ s Fire and Rescue and
Public Works staff.

See Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
and Section 4.18, Wildfire, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Goal 6.1 A city that prioritizes emergency preparedness and public awareness of community risks.

Consistent. During operation of the Project,
based on conservative assumptions, the Project
would increase the amount of time ( by
approximately 24 minutes) it would take to
evacuate the Project Site and nearby
neighborhoods/ businesses during an evacuation
event. However, as discussed in Chapter 4.8,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the increased
delays for evacuation events would not be
significant given that the Project would not result
in any people or structures being placed at
Policy 5 Ensure access routes to and from hazard areas relative to the degree of development or use ( e.g., road width, road type, length of dead- end roads, etc.) are
adequately designed and sized to accommodate
anticipated needs.

Goal 7.1 A city that can effectively respond and evacuate during hazard events.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-53
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 3 Ensure all new development and redevelopment
projects provide adequate ingress/ egress for
emergency access and evacuation.
significant risk of loss, injury, or death from a
wildfire event, nor would the Project impair
implementation of an evacuation plan. Moreover,
as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project would incorporate numerous design
features that would help reduce fire risk, increase
emergency access, and increase wildfire
resilience with respect to the Project Site and
surrounding neighborhoods. The foregoing would
help to reduce the need for emergency access and
evacuations in the first instance. Under the
Emergency Operations Plan, evacuation is
advised to occur through the most reasonable safe
exits out of the City. Therefore, it is anticipated
that the Project would be able to utilize Santa Ana
Canyon Road to safely evacuate, consistent with
the policies and programs in the Emergency
Operations Plan. Finally, the Project would be
required to adhere to all applicable laws and
regulations as well as plans and programs,
including those set forth in the Building, Fire and
CALGreen Codes, the General Plan, the Municipal
Code, the City’ s Emergency Operations Plan, the
Be Ready Anaheim plan, and the City’ s Know Your
Way initiative. In addition, the Project would be
required to implement MM HAZ 4 and MM HAZ
5 to reduce impacts in this regard.

See Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, and Section 4.18, Wildfire, for
additional information and analysis in this regard.

Noise Element
Goal 1.1 Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and regulation.

Consistent. The Project would result in
construction noise and operational noise from
both mobile and stationary sources including, for
example, vehicles, HVAC equipment, the rooftop
deck, etc. Noise analyses have been conducted for
the Project, which have determined that the
Project would not result in any significant noise
effects to nearby residences or other receptors.

More information on Project noise effects is
provided in Chapter 4.11, Noise.

Policy 2 Continue to enforce acceptable noise standards consistent with health and quality of life goals and
employ effective techniques of noise abatement
through such means as a noise ordinance, building
codes, and subdivision and zoning regulations.

Policy 3 Consider the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising or
reviewing development proposals.

Policy 5 Encourage proper site planning and architecture to reduce noise impacts.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-54 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 7 Require site-specific noise studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic consultant utilizing acceptable
methodologies while reviewing the development of
sensitive land uses or development that has the
potential to impact sensitive land uses.

Policy 3 Require that development generating increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level
adjacent to noise- sensitive land uses provide
appropriate mitigation measures.

Policy 3 Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the
restriction of the hours in which work other than
emergency work may occur. Discourage construction
on weekends or holidays except in the case of
construction proximate to schools where these
operations could disturb the classroom environment.

Policy 4 Require that construction equipment operate with mufflers and intake silencers no less effective than
originally equipped.

Policy 5 Encourage the use of portable noise barriers for heavy equipment operations performed within 100 feet of
existing residences or make applicant provide
evidence as to why the use of such barriers is
infeasible.

Community Design Element
Goal 1.1 Create an aesthetically pleasing and unified
community appearance within the context of distinct
districts and neighborhoods.

Consistent. As discussed in detail in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project has been designed consistent with
aesthetic- related requirements contained in the
City’ s Community Design Element and in the AMC
e.g., Scenic Corridor Overlay regulations), and
would be required to adhere to the foregoing as
well as the development standards and design
guidelines and policies set forth in the Specific
Plan.

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 4 Pursue unifying streetscape elements for major corridors, including coordinated streetlights,
landscaping, public signage and street furniture, to
reinforce Anaheim’ s community image.

Consistent. As discussed in detail in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project would including significant landscaping
approx. 11.50 acres in total) throughout the
Project Site and its frontage that would similar to

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-55
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis and compatible with other landscaping that
already exists along Santa Ana Canyon Road.

Streetlights and signage would be incorporated
that are similar to and compatible with existing
streetlights along Santa Ana Canyon Road. All of
the foregoing would facilitate implementation of
a unified, cohesive streetscape and lighting
design, which would reinforce Anaheim’ s
community image.

Policy 5 Identify and preserve/ enhance view corridors for major landmarks, community facilities, and natural
open space in the planning and design of all public and private projects.

Consistent. As discussed in detail in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project includes development of a thoughtfullysited, mixed- use development that would have high quality architecture and exterior building
materials/ finishes. Trees and other vegetation
would need to be removed for the Project;
however, the Project would replace trees that are
removed and a tree re-planting and landscaping
plan would be implemented to minimize visual
effects of the Project. The Project would include
buildings that would be similar to and compatible
with other buildings along Santa Ana Canyon
Road. As described in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, the
Project has been designed to minimize visual
effects to aspects of the visual resources that are
important in this area of the City, which include
views of ridgelines, slopes, and natural areas. The
Project would be clustered and sited at the lower
elevations, and thus generally retain public views
of ridgelines, natural slopes, and natural areas in
the upper portions of the Project Site. Also,
approximately 43.22 acres of the Project Site
would be re-zoned as Open Space, which would
allow for retention of these lands in their existing
open space condition with their related aesthetic,
scenic and habitat qualities.

However, the Project would result in
development on currently vacant private
property, which would represent change. This
change would be especially evident for the
residents of the single-family residences to the
west of the Project Site and for those individuals
that utilize informal access trails to regularly
traverse the Project Site to access Deer Canyon
Park Preserve. These individuals would
experience change including additional human
activity and ground disturbance that would occur,
Land Use and Planning

4.10-56 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis and the concomitant environmental effects. In
short, the existing conditions would not be
preserved with implementation of the Project and
development would occur. However, these effects
have been evaluated in this Draft EIR and have
been found to be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated to the extent feasible.

Although these effects may not be significant
pursuant to CEQA, it is reasonable to assume that
some individuals in the vicinity would like to keep
enjoying the undeveloped condition of the Project
Site.

Development standards and design policies have
been developed in the Specific Plan that would
guide future development in the Project Site.

Moreover, the Project would be required to
adhere to all other applicable mandates and
standards such as the City’ s Scenic Corridor
regulations.

The foregoing would ensure that view corridors
are identified and preserved for major landmarks,
community facilities, and natural open space in
the planning and design of all public and private
projects.

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Policy 7 Screen public and private facilities and above- ground infrastructure support structures and equipment, such
as electrical substations, and water wells and recharge facilities, with appropriately scaled landscaping or
other methods of screening.

Consistent. The Project would underground all
proposed electrical facilities.

As detailed in the Specific Plan and Section 3.0,
Project Description, the Project would be
required to implement sensitive site design and
construction techniques to minimize visual
impacts of public and private facilities. For
example, all above- ground mechanical equipment
would be screened from public views through the
use of screen walls, landscaping, and/or by other
means.

The Project would also incorporate significant
landscaping ( approx. 11.50 acres in total)
throughout the Project Site, including the nearby
arterial corridor of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and
would be required to prepare and implement
Policy 8 Construct public and private facilities and support structures ( e.g., water pipes, irrigation and electrical controls, vents) to blend with the surrounding
environment.

Policy 9 Minimize visual impacts of public and private facilities and support structures through sensitive site design
and construction. This includes, but is not limited to:
appropriate placement of facilities; undergrounding,
where possible; and aesthetic design ( e.g., cell tower stealthing).

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-57
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 2.1 Attractively landscape and maintain Anaheim’ s major arterial corridors and prepare/ implement distinctive
streetscape improvement plans.
distinctive streetscape improvement plans
approved by the City.

Policy 2 Use landscaping and facade articulation to break up long stretches of walls associated with residential
development along major corridors.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project’ s
buildings would incorporate landscaping
approx. 11.50 acres in total) and façade
articulation, which would help to ensure no long
stretches of walls along major corridors.

Policy 4 Ensure adherence to sign regulations, which address issues of scale, type, design, materials, placement,
compatibility, and maintenance for uses along
freeways, toll roads and major arterial corridors.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project’ s
signage would comply with applicable
requirements contained in the AMC.

Goal 4.1 Multiple- family housing is attractively designed and scaled to complement the neighborhood and provides
visual interest through varied architectural detailing.

Consistent. As detailed in the Specific Plan and
Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project has
been designed to include varied architectural
detailing. The Project would be similar in scale to
help ensure compatibility with nearby uses, with
its use of exterior building materials similar to
several buildings along Santa Ana Canyon Road in
the City’ s Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. The
Project’ s proposed multiple- family residential
building has been integrated into the Project Site,
with the perception of its scale reduced through
its siting on the lower elevations; the removal of
soil from the Project Site; and through the
construction of retaining walls, which allow for
the building to be built near the toe of the existing
slope. Therefore, while the building would be
built at a greater density than the single- family
residences to the west of the Project Site, the
design of the building and its location within the
Project Site result in it being appropriately scaled
for the overall location of the Project Site on Santa
Ana Canyon Road.

The Project’ s mid-century modern architectural
style, along with other design elements reflecting
articulation, balconies, window treatments, and
appropriate use of varied colors and building
materials, as further detailed in the Specific Plan,
would ensure the Project is visually interesting
and aesthetically pleasing, and not visually
monotonous.

Policy 1 Reduce the visual impact of large- scale, multiplefamily buildings by requiring articulated entry features, such as attractive porches, and detailed
facade treatments, which create visual interest and
give each unit more personalized design.

Policy 2 Discourage visually monotonous, multiple- family residences by incorporating different architectural
styles, a variety of rooflines, wall articulation,
balconies, window treatments, and varied colors and
building materials on all elevations.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-58 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 3 Require appropriate setbacks and height limits to provide privacy where multiple- family housing is
developed adjacent to single- family housing.

Consistent. The Project has been designed
consistent with required setbacks and building
height limits pursuant to applicable mandates and
standards, including those set forth in the City’ s
Scenic Corridor overlay regulations. Due to its
placement at the toe of the existing slope
generally within an existing canyon, the proposed
multiple- family residential building would not
result in any substantial privacy effects for
neighboring single- family residences, which are
built upon the top and set back from a hillside
bluff to the west of the Project Site.

See Section 3.0, Project Description, and the
Specific Plan, for additional information in this
regard.

Policy 4 Reduce the visual impact of parking areas by utilizing interior courtyard garages, parking structures,
subterranean lots, or tuck- under, alley-loaded designs.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project would include parking structures that
would be partially underground and that would
otherwise be screened from public views to
minimize aesthetic effect of the Project.

Policy 6 Provide usable common open space amenities.

Common open space should be centrally located and
contain amenities such as seating, shade and play
equipment. Private open space may include
courtyards, balconies, patios, terraces and enclosed
play areas.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project would include significant and varied
common and private open space amenities
consistent with this policy.

Policy 7 Where a multiple- story apartment building abuts single- story development, provide for a gradual
transition in height by reducing the height of the
building adjacent to the smaller scale use.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project’ s grading, retaining walls, and placement
of the proposed multiple- family residential
building have been designed to minimize vertical
intrusion for single- family residences to the west
of the Project Site. The Project would be required
to adhere to all applicable development
standards, including height limitations, in
accordance with the Specific Plan and the City’ s
Scenic Overlay Corridor regulations.

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-59
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 8 Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from multiple- family development to nearby
commercial centers, schools, and transit stops.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project would provide a sidewalk and a multi- use
trail along Santa Ana Canyon Road and a multi- use
trail that would improve access to Deer Canyon
Park Preserve.

The Project would provide Class III bicycle lanes
within the streets in the Project Site as well as
sidewalks and pedestrian paths to provide
internal circulation in the Project Site.

The foregoing improvements would provide safe
and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and
equestrian access from the Project Site to nearby
recreational and open space amenities as well as
nearby commercial centers and transit stops.

Policy 9 Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them to be as
inconspicuous as possible.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, new
electrical facilities to serve the Project would be
undergrounded. No overhead power lines are
proposed by the Project. Above- ground utility
facilities would be screened or landscaped from
public views.

Policy 10 Encourage multi-family housing developers to comply with Residential Voluntary Measure A4.106. 9.2 of the
California Green Building Standards Code that outlines
the provision of long-term parking for multi-family
buildings.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project would comply with applicable parking
requirements.

Goal 11.1 Architecture in Anaheim has diversity and creativity of design and is consistent with the immediate
surroundings.

Consistent. As detailed more fully in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project includes development of a mixed- use
development that reflects diversity and creativity
in design while ensuring consistency with the
immediate surroundings. The Project would have
thoughtful site planning, as well as high quality
architecture and exterior building
materials/ finishes. Trees and other vegetation
would need to be removed for the Project;
however, the Project would replace trees that are
removed and a tree re-planting and landscaping
plan ( approx. 11.50 acres in total) would be
implemented to minimize visual effects of the
Policy 1 In areas of diverse character, encourage project design that represents architectural elements of the
neighborhood or surrounding commercial areas.

Policy 2 Encourage architectural designs that are visually stimulating and varied, yet tasteful, containing rich
contrasts and distinctive architectural elements.

Policy 3 Ensure that the scale, materials, style and massing of new development is consistent with its surroundings
and any larger vision for an area.

Land Use and Planning

4.10-60 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 4 Add visual richness to residential streets by
discouraging the same building elevations on adjacent
lots and avoiding repetitious elements and colors.

Project. The Project would include buildings that
would be similar to and compatible with other
buildings, in massing and scale, along Santa Ana
Canyon Road. As described in Chapter 4.1,
Aesthetics, the Project has been designed to
minimize visual effects to aspects of the visual
resources that are important in this area of the
City, which include views of ridgelines, slopes, and
natural areas. The Project would generally retain
public views of ridgelines, natural slopes, and
natural areas in the upper portions of the Project
Site. Also, approximately 43.22 acres of the
Project Site would be re-zoned as Open Space,
which would allow for the retention of these lands
in their existing open space condition with their
related aesthetic, scenic and habitat qualities.

However, the Project would result in
development on an undeveloped Project Site,
which would represent change. This change
would be especially evident for the residents of
the single- family residences to the west of the
Project Site and for those individuals that
currently use informal access trails to regularly
traverse the Project Site to access Deer Canyon
Park Preserve. These individuals would
experience change including additional human
activity and ground disturbance would occur, and
the concomitant environmental effects. In short,
the existing conditions would not be preserved
with implementation of the Project and
development would occur. However, these effects
have been evaluated in this Draft EIR and have
been found to be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated to the extent feasible.

Although these effects may not be significant
pursuant to CEQA, it is reasonable to assume that
some individuals in the vicinity would like to
continue enjoying the undeveloped condition of
the Project Site.

Development standards and design policies and
guidelines have been developed in the Specific
Plan that would guide future development in the
Project Site, which would add visual richness to
residential streets by discouraging the same
building elevations on adjacent lots and avoiding
repetitious elements and colors.

HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

4.10-61
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for additional
information in this regard.

Policy 5 Encourage energy and environmental efficiency – such as “ Green Development Standards” ( see Green
Element) – in the design and approval of new projects.

Consistent. The Project’ s buildings would be
constructed in accordance with all applicable
laws and regulations including, without
limitation, the then-current energy efficiency
requirements contained in the State Building
Code, CALGreen Code and in the AMC. More
information on Project energy effects is provided
in Section 4.5, Energy, and Section 4.7,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Goal 21.1 Preserve the Hill and Canyon Area’ s sensitive hillside environment and the community’ s unique identity.

Consistent. As discussed in detail in the Specific
Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description, the
Project has been designed to preserve and respect
the area’ s sensitive hillside environment and
unique identity. This occurs through the Project’ s
site plan that clusters buildings and located these
at the lower elevations. Approximately 57% of the
Project Site would be re-zoned as open space,
which allows for the retention of these lands in
their existing open space condition with their
related aesthetic, scenic and open space qualities.

The Project would be required to include replanting of all areas that are disturbed by grading and not permanently impacted. These areas
would be landscaped ( approx. 11.50 acres in
total) in compliance with the applicable
provisions of AMC Section 10.19 to ensure
appropriate water conservation features are
incorporated into development pursued under
the Specific Plan. Landscaping would also be
required to comply with the City’ s Guidelines for
Implementation of the City of Anaheim Landscape
Water Efficiency Ordinance.

Policy 1 Reinforce the natural environment of the area through appropriate landscaping and the preservation of open
space.

Policy 2 Require compliance with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone to reinforce quality development standards and
guidelines compatible with the hillside area.

Also, the Project would comply with the City’ s
Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone requirements, as
described in more detail in Chapter 4.1,
Aesthetics. See also Section 4.3, Biological
Resources, for additional information and
analysis in this regard.

Policy 4 Encourage the siting of housing development below the existing ridgelines to preserve unimpeded views of
existing natural contours.

Consistent. As discussed in more detail in the
Specific Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description,
the Project would avoid direct impacts to
Land Use and Planning

4.10-62 HILLS PRESERVE PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE 4.10 3

CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES
CONTAINED IN THE CITY’ S GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 5 Use grading techniques that incorporate rounded slopes or curved contours to minimize disturbance to
the site and to blend with the existing topography.
ridgelines and the slopes leading up to ridgelines
within the Project Site. Most views of these
ridgelines would be maintained with the Project,
with the exception of from the viewpoint at Santa
Ana Canyon Road and Deer Canyon Road.

The Project would involve the siting of buildings
in the lower elevations in clusters, and would
include terraced, rounded, and curved retaining
walls to blend with the existing topography and to
minimize grading.

See Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and Section 4.3,
Biological Resources, for additional information
and analysis in this regard.

Policy 6 Where grading has occurred, revegetate primarily with drought- tolerant native species to control erosion and create a more environmentally sound condition.

Consistent. As discussed in more detail in the
Specific Plan and Section 3.0, Project Description
the Project would include re-planting of all areas
that are disturbed by grading and not
permanently impacted. These areas would be
landscaped ( approx. 11.50 acres in total) in
compliance with the applicable provisions of AMC
Section 10.19 to ensure appropriate water
conservation features and erosion control
measures are incorporated into development
pursued under the Specific Plan. Landscaping
would also be required to comply with the City’ s
Guidelines for Implementation of the City of
Anaheim Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance.

See Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, and Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional
information and analysis in this regard.

Susana Barrios
From: LisaPrisbrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Deercanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Istandincompleteopposi?ontotheprojectinDeerCanyoninAnaheimhillsandrezoningDeerCanyon. 1 Susana Barrios
From: Gene Roseman <generoseman@icloud. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] VoteNoonSALTDevelopment
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

MyfamilyandImoved fromLAcounty because apartment buildings werebuiltbehind ourhouse. We moved toAnaheim Hillstohaveabetter, safer, morepeaceful wayoflife. Wepay3times the property taxes, andmuchmoreforinsurance andhouse payment.

Nowtheyareproposing toputanapartment building behind usinthisexclusive area! Inanareathat weweretoldwouldnever havesuchathing.

Thisproject should bestopped. VoteNOonSALT
1 Susana Barrios
From: LiLo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 1:44PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: LindaLoveng; Natalie Meeks; Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; JoseDiaz; CarlosA.

Leon; [email protected]; Stephen Faessel
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] 20241029CityCouncil Meeting - VoteNo, againstSaltDevelopment in Anaheim HillsCA
Attachments: IMG_20171009_162257268_HDR.jpg; IMG_20171009_162030337.jpg; IMG_20171009_ 132521979_HDR.jpg; IMG_20171009_132523245.jpg; IMG_20171009_110905008 HDR.jpg
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DeerCityCouncilmembers,
I'vebeenahomeownerinAnaheimHillssince2001. I'vebeenthroughtwowildfiresthatthreatenedand burnedinAnaheimHills.

TheAnaheimFreDepartmentandassistingfiredepartmentsdidagreatjobofkeepingallofussafe. Not allstructureswereabletobesaved.

DuringtheCanyon2Fire:

Itwasterrifyingtryingtoevacuateandbeingunabletodosoduetotrafficinourneighborhoods. We watchedasthelandscapeinourtownburnedinourrearviewmirrors. Wesatinourcarswithour belongingsonlocalroadsatacompletestandstill, hopingwewouldbeabletogettosafetyintime.

Wonderingaswesatunmovingifweweregoingtoneedtograbourkidsourpetsandrun.

ItwastrulyfrighteningbeingunabletoescapeawildfireandIhopeyouneverhavetogothrough somethinglikethatinyourlife.

Wehaveallseenwhatcanhappenwithwildfires, theyburnoutofcontrol. SantaAnawindsareapartof lifebutalsomakebattlingwildfiredifficult.

SomecitiesinCalifornialikeParadisehavenotbeensoluckyandhavelostmanylives. Ihopethat AnaheimHillswillneverbeoneofthosestatistics.

PleaseprotectAnaheimHills. Weareyourconstituentsandaskallofyoutovoteaccordinglyforour safetywherewelive, workandplay. Youmaynotliveherebutyou'reresponsibleforourlives.

PleasevoteagainsttheSaltDevelopment inDeerCanyon.

Sincerely,
LindaLoveng
1 AnaheimCA92808
2 Susana Barrios
From: MikeJacobs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Proposed Development
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Members oftheAnaheim CityCouncil,
Seldom, ifever, doIventure intotheworldofcommunity politics, preferring instead toleavethat typeofgoverness tothosebetter
qualified thanmyself. However, inthisinstance I'mbeginning towonderifthoseinvolved inthe decision-making process ofwhether
ornottoapprove theDeerCanyon development possess thenecessary qualifications either, most important ofwhichwouldbethe
common sense" qualification...

MywifeandIhavelivedinAnaheim Hillssince1972, andinourpresent home forover33years, so Iamextremely familiar withthe
growth ourcommunity hasexperience, andthedifficulties thatgrowth hassometimes brought. In recent years thedevelopment has
slowed fortworeasons: A) Theavailability oflandtodevelop, andB) moreimportantly toexisting residents, theinability ofourroad
system tohandle anyadditional traffic. Ifyouhaven'tyettraveled downSerrano Ave. andontoWeir Canyon roadduring theweekat
around 3:00PMthrough 6:00PM, youhaven'texperienced thejoyofsittinginbumper tobumper trafficasHUNDREDS ofcarsattempt
tomaketheirwaytothe91Freeway. Negotiating thetraffic lightattheintersection ofSerrano and WeirCanyon Roads., andagain at
WeirCanyon andSantaAnaCanyon Roads, wouldbeanexperience youwouldn'tlongforget. Add tothattheadditional carsthatare
anticipated fromsuchadevelopment asDeerCanyon andyouhavenothing butchaosandgridlock twiceaday. Whatwouldpossess
someone tofeelthatisagoodideaisbeyond reason..

Iftheultimate decision onwhether ornotthisproject isapproved restsonyourcollective shoulders, I wouldimplore youtogivevery
careful consideration tosuchadecision, because withthevastmajority ofourcommunity being 100% against thisadditional burden
onourneighborhoods, Ihavetobelieve therewouldbearecallefforttohavethosewhovotedin favorofthisdevelopment removed 1
fromoffice, andIwould befront-and-centerwiththateffort, bothasavolunteer andfinancial supporter...

Sincerely,
MikeJacobs
Anaheim Hills
2 Susana Barrios
From: jillianwhitcomb <juleswhitcomb3@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Savedeercanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
Iamopposedtothedevelopment. I'mconcernedforthetrafficandmysafetyintheeventofan evacuationduetofireorotheremergency.

JillianWhitcomb
Anaheimhillsresident
Serrano/ weircanyon
1 Susana Barrios
From: KarenHendrickson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Concerns
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToWhom ItMayConcern,
Thepurpose ofthisletteristoexpress myabsolute disappointment andconcern abouttheproposed building ofapartment homes andbusinesses inwhatisnowDeerCanyon. Tothinkthatanyone would thinkthisisa goodideaisridiculous. Haveyoutriedgetting anywhere onweekdays between thehoursof3:00-6:00pm? The trafficandcongestion thatwillresult ifthisbuilding isapproved willbehorrendous. Intheeventofafireaswe experienced afewyearsago, theroadswillbedeadlocked withresidents tryingtoevacuate. Allofmyreading aboutthisproposed projecthastaught methatthereisonlyonereason anyone would beinfavorofthis - the money!!!! Iseriously hopeandpraythatthosewhoareaposition todosowillvoteNOonthisproposed project. Thisisnottheplaceforsuchabuilding thatwilladdmorecongestion toanalready overcrowded area.

Sincerely,
KarenHendrickson
1 Susana Barrios
From: LisaStough <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Saltdevelopment project
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Iamstronglyopposingthesaltdevelopment project. Iwillbeatthemee?ngtonighttosupportmydecision. Thankyou somuchLisaStough.

SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Christie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] TheHillsPreserve
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Iabsolutely opposetheDeerCanyonhousingproject. Tracisoutofcontrolnowandwillbeunbearable ifthisis approved.
1 Susana Barrios
From: WendySowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Oppose SALTDevelopment
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

IopposetheSALTDevelopment.

ThoseresidentsupinthehillswillNOTbeabletogetdownthehillincaseofre.

Idonotwanttoperishinmycar.

PleasevoteNO.

Respec?ully,
WendySowski
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: JayLieberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Objection toconstruction
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Goodmorning,
Iwouldliketobeonrecordtoobjec?ngtotheconstruc?onconceptsoofSantaAnaCanyonRoad. Itwillcreatean unbelievable amountoftracplustheexposedredangerisunacceptable.

JayLieberman
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: DeidreFortier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomisincharge
IOPPOSEtheDeerCanyonDevelopment inAnaheimHills. Thereissomuchtrafficalreadyitisimpacting mybusiness. Iamamobilepetsittertravelingtomultipleclientshouse's. Certaintimesofthedaythe trafficissobaditcompletelyimpactsmyschedule. Wheneverthisprojectisbroughtup, Myfirstthought isMAUI. Peoplebeingburnedaliveintheircarsduetogridlockandcan’tevacuate. ThisISNOTtheplace formultilevelHighdensityhousing
DeidreFortier
Anaheim, CA92807
1 Susana Barrios
From: EvelynAbrams <samerlyn@sbcglobal. net>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTDEER CANYON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ToAllItMayConcern,
Iamanearly30yearAnaheimHillsResidentandIhavebeenfollowingthisdevelopment forsometimenow.

IamshockedatthePlanningCommission'sallowanceforittoproceedasfarasithasandI'mprayingthatCityCouncil willdotheobviousandrightthingtoprotectlivesandproperties, whichwouldbetodenythere-zoningwhichwouldallow thedevelopment toproceed.

Whilethe '24minute' evacuationincreaseisobviouslyaridiculousunderestimate, anyactionthatexacerbatesanalready unsafecondition, wouldbeirresponsible atbest, criminalintheviewofmany. This, nottomentionaddingtountenable trafficfromInlandEmpirecommuteruseofAHasawidthextensionofthe91, aswellasdisruptionofthenatural environment thatisDeerCanyon, itself.

Please, please, pleaseDONOTallowthisprojecttogoforward, changingAHforever!!! Thankyouverymuch,
EvelynAbrams
1 Susana Barrios
From: AprilSchley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] LetterinOpposition toDeerCanyon SALTDevelopment Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

HelloAnaheim CityCouncil Members,
MynameisAprilSchley andIhavebeenaresident ofAnaheim Hillsnearly20years, livingnear Running Springs Elementary. Iliveonastreetwheremultiple houses burned totheground in2008. It tookoveronehourandahalftogettoYorba Linda (justatVillage CenterDrive) whenweevacuated.

Itwasabsolutely frightening asthemedians wereburning withlargeflamesaswedrovedownWeir Canyon anditwasuttergridlock. With2toddlers, Ihadtocontemplate whatIwoulddotoescape the flames onfootaswewerenotmoving aninch.

In2017, Iwasevacuated againwithmanyhomes being destroyed inmyneighborhood. Iraced to topickupmykidsandpacked mycarwithotherkidswhose parents wereworking andcouldn'tgettherefastenough. SantaAnaCanyon andWeirCanyon during theseevacuations wereabsolutely atastandstill. IttookanhourandhalfgoingjustdownSantaAnaCanyon fromthe festival toCanyon highschool - thesameroutethesenewresidents would havetogoaswell. Now, therearemoreresidents andmoretrafficsoevenwiththecurrent population itwould be exponentially dangerous. ToaddtheSALTdevelopment withitshundreds ofcarsisasking fora tragedy abouttohappen. Especially sincealotofthe "reasoning" isthatresidents aregoingtostay putduring anevacuation andthatwiththeKnowYourWayplan, theywon'tbeallowing parents or others backintogettheirlovedones/pets. Youdorealize thattherearesomany kidshomethatare oldenough tostayhome butarenotyetdrivers thatarehomealoneafterschool inourcommunity? Noparent intheirrightmindwouldnotgobackfortheirchildren andcityleaders thatcommunicate thisasalegitplanclearly havenograsp ontherealityofthesefireevacuations. Andcalling a neighbor tohelpevacuate yourlovedonesisalsoentirely unrealistic asthephone lineswereblocked fromsomanymaking callsthatIcouldn'tmakeacall.

Iwatched theentireBuilding Commission meeting anditisabsolutely insane thatthemembers would voteinfavorofthisrezoning withalltheresidents sharing realexperiences, theFiredepartment, the Police department andthecitystaffopposing thedevelopment. Iwassurecommon sensewould prevail soIhadn'twritten anything untilnow. IntermsoftheSALTdevelopment providing much needed housing, thatisaPRspinifIeversawone. Howarerentsforapartments from $3,000 - 16,000amonth helping theyounger generation havetheopportunity toliveinAnaheim Hills? If someone hasthattypeofbudget theycanrentanicesizehome, orevenpurchase oneinAnaheim Hills. Before thecitycouncil entertains anyhigh-risedevelopments inAnaheim Hills, especially inthe Festival area/DeerCanyon area, safety mustbeaddressed asthe #1priority. Thisprojectisputting livesofchildren, elderly andfamilies injeopardy. Iurgeyoutolistentoyour constituents, theFire Department andthePolice Department andvoteagainst this. 1 AprilSchley
Anaheim HillsResident
2 Susana Barrios
From: Veronica Valdivia <veronicame@sbcglobal. net>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SaveDeerCanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Hello ,
IhavelivedinAnaheimHillsmywholelife . Idriveinthetracnightmarefromthe91freewaydaily . Ittakesme45min togetsomewhere thatshouldtake5minutes . Wecan’taordtoaddaddi?onaltractoourroads. Mysona?ends Canyonhighschoolandtheschooldoesn’thaveenoughparkingwiththenewremodel . Howwillthisprojectaectour schools? Thisprojectwilldisplacewildlife. Iopposethedeercanyonproject. Thisprojectisatoutwrong !! Thankyou ,
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Jennifer Belt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello, mynameisJenniferBelt & Iliveat inAnaheimHills. Myfamilymovedhere fromLongBeachinAugust2023 & welovethiscommunity. Onethingthatisdifficultthoughistheheavy trafficonSantaAnaCanyon, WeirCanyon, & ImperialHwy.

Iamsympathetic totheneedformorehousinginourstate & havedonenonprofitworkwithhomeless populations, soI’musuallyinfavorofmorehousingopportunities. However, inlightofalreadyexisting trafficproblems & theseriousneedtoevacuate *when* thenextfirehitsourarea, Ibelievetheaddition oftheDeerProjecthousingdevelopmentwouldbeafoolish & dangerousadditiontothisarea. In lightofthis, Iaskyoutopleasereconsidertheapprovalofthisproject. Itseemssomanypeopleare alreadyspeakingoutagainstit & believethemotivationtoproceedispurelyfinancial - pleasedonotput moneyaheadofthesafetyofyourresidentsasthatwouldbecompletelydishonorable.

Thankyouforyourtime,
JenniferBelt
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Kerilyn Counter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: PublicComment; Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; JoseDiaz; CarlosA. Leon; Natalie Rubalcava; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toDeerCanyon
Somepeoplewhoreceivedthismessagedon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityofAnaheimCouncil,
IamwritingtoexpressmyoppositiontotheDeerCanyonProject. WhileIrecognizethestatehousing requirements, Ibelievethisparticularprojectposessignificantriskstoourcommunityandthe environment thatcannotbeoverlooked.

Firstly, theincreaseintrafficandpopulationdensityresultingfromtheprojectwillexacerbateexisting infrastructure challenges. Ourroadsarealreadystrained, andaddingmorevehicleswillleadto congestion, increasedpollution, andsafetyhazardsforresidentsandwildlifealike. Evacuationwillbe nearlyimpossiblewithourroadsandthe91freeway.

Moreover, theproposedprojectthreatensthedelicateecosystemofDeerCanyon. Thisareaishometo diversewildlifeanduniqueplantspeciesthatcontributetoourregion'sbiodiversity. Disruptionoftheir habitatcouldleadtoirreversibledamageandthelossofthesenaturalresources.

Additionally, Iamconcernedaboutthelong-termeffectsonourcommunity'squalityoflife. Anaheim HillsisasuburbofAnaheim. Thecharmandtranquilityareessentialtoouridentity, andtheproposed development couldunderminetheveryqualitiesthatmakeourcommunityspecial. Ichoosetodrive aboutanhoureachwaytowork, toliveinthischarmingcommunity. Addingthetwoproposed apartmentcomplexesandthetrafficwillmakeitfeellikeacity.

IurgeyoutoreconsidertheDeerCanyonProjectandprioritizesustainabledevelopmentthatrespects bothourcommunityandtheenvironment. Thankyouforconsideringmyperspectiveonthisimportant issue. IcanalreadythinkofbetterplacesforadevelopmentlikethisonethatisnotinWestAnaheim.

Sincerely,
KerilynCounter
ResidentofAnaheimHills, CA92807
1 Susana Barrios
From: Tiffany Mueller <tiffanymueller@firstteam. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 20242:21PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Project
Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

IliveontheeastendofAnaheimHillsatthetopofWeirCanyon. Traffichasgottenhorrifictosaythe least. Ithasgottenprogressivelyworseandworseeveryyear, primarilyduetopeopletakingbackroutes tocutontothe91fwy (UsingSerranoandSantaAnaCanyon, andcuttingthroughtogetonatWeir Canyonratherthantakingthe91fwyfromwherevertheywere). Ihaveto "commit" togoinghomeand notleavingagainintheafternoonbecausethebackupissobadtryingtogetbackdownWeirCanyonto gotothegrocerystoreoranywhere. InregardstotheDeerCanyonProject, wehaveNOMOREROOMfor morepeopleorcarsATALL. Addingmorehousingwouldbeadisastertoourcommunityandwouldbea hazardinthesensethatwecouldgettrappedandnothaveawayoutwhenweneedtoevacuate again. Whenwehadtobeevacuatedin2017, itwasadisasterthen (carsstopped, surroundedby smoke, wonderingwhetherornotwewouldgetoutandwonderingifourhouseswereburningdown behindus), andtrafficis10timesworsenow. Therealityofitisthatweliveinaseverefirehazardzone andthecityneedstoprotecttheresidentsthebesttheycan (andthatiswhatweelectthemtodo), and byaddingmorehousingandmorecarsthecityiswelcomingaseriousthreattothesafetyofitsresidents intheevent (andnotIF, butWHEN) wehaveanotherseverefire. Shameonthecityforlookingfor financialgainandnotoverallwellbeingofitsresidents.

OurfamilyandneighborsstronglyOPPOSEtheDeerCanyonprojectandanadditionalhousingbeing addedtoourlocalcommunity
TiffanyMueller
1 ATTENTION: Cybercrimeandonlinefraudareontherise. IfyoureceiveanyemailcontainingWIRETRANSFERINSTRUCTIONS, youareadvisedtoVERIFYthatallwiretransferinstructionsarecorrectPRIORtotransferringanyfunds. Pleaseimmediately contactyourEscrowOfficerforassistancewithverification.

ThisemailiscoveredbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct, 18U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. Thecontentsofthisemail messageandanyattachmentsareintendedsolelyfortheaddressee(s) andmaycontainconfidentialand/orprivileged informationandmaybelegallyprotectedfromdisclosure. Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipientofthismessageortheiragent, orifthismessagehasbeenaddressedtoyouinerror, pleaseimmediatelyalertthesenderbyreplyemailandthendeletethis messageandanyattachments. Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient, youareherebynotifiedthatanyuse, dissemination, copying, orstorageofthismessageoritsattachmentsisstrictlyprohibited. 2 Susana Barrios
From: BristelStrauch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposing newapartments inAnaheim Hills Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
Iamdeeplyopposedtothenewapartment complex thatisbeinglookedatinAnaheimHills. Addingmorepeopleand vehiclestotheareaisadangertotheci?zens.

MyfamilyandIliveonCanyonHeightsDrandwasincrediblyimpactedbythe2017Canyon2re. Sevenhomesburnt downonourstreetandourhomecaughtonreaswellbuttheredepartment wasrighttheretoputitout.

Wehadsuchahard ?mege?ngoutofourneighborhood anddownWeirtogetonthefreewayatthis ?me. Adding moretracconges?onisnotonlyabadideabutyouwouldliterallybepu?nglivesatstake. Myfamily’slives! Peoplewouldbesi?ngducksifwearealltryingtoevacuateduringanotherreandwearegridlocked. Fireshavetaken outcommuni?esandcouldhourstoo.

Secondary, itistakingabout30-40minutestogetfrommyneighborhood, CanyonHeightsDr, tothe91duringrushhour trac. Itshouldtakeabout5-7minutes. ThisisonWeirCanyon, notthe91, notthe241, butWeir. Thisisnotok. Ifwe addhundredsorthousands morevehicles, peoplewillbelookingatwaystoleaveAnaheimHillsandlookforanother placethatvaluesit’scommunity members.

Thankyou,
Bristel
1 Susana Barrios
From: nyrawadkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Oppose DeerCanyon Development !
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Towhomnotmayconcern.

AsaresidentofAnaheim Hillsfor30yearsnow, meandmyfamilyopposetheprojected development ofapartments in Deercanyon. Buildingthesewouldbeextremely irresponsible considering theinfrastructure doesnotsupportalarger popula?onincaseofanevacua?on.

In2017wealmosthadamajorcrisis- a “Paradise” situa?onwherethousandsofresidentsweretryingtoevacuateand couldnot. Imaginehowmanyliveswouldhavebeenlosthadwenotgo?enluckyandthereputout.

Evennow- withoutamajorre, thetracisunbearablewithpeopletryingjusttogettoCorona! Wearealreadyin dangerifamajoremergency (re, earthquake, ood..) weretooccur.

Pleaseberesponsible andnotgreedy, andturnthisdown!
Sincerely,
NyraWadkins
366
Anaheimhills
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: JasonMacDonald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toDeerCanyon apartment project Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncilmembers,
Pleaseconsiderthisemailasmyopposi?ontotheproposedDeerCanyonproject.

Iurgeyoutoconsiderthecommunity’sinterestinopposingthisproject.

Thankyou,
JasonMacDonald
1 Susana Barrios
From: Ryan Mueller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] CityCouncil Meeting - PublicComment Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

AsavoterandresidentofAnaheimIstronglyopposethedevelopment ofDeerCanyon.

Besidestheobviousinconvenience ofaddi?onaltracinourareaonregularcommute daysandlongerlinesfor groceriesandatentertainment venues inAnaheimHills, thereisalifeandpropertysafetyissuewiththisplan.

Duringthemandatory reevacua?onsin2017and2018mostrecently, manyresidentswereunabletosafelyexitthe hillsinanorderlyfashionduetoconges?onandtrac. Thisdevelopment willaddmanycarstoouralreadycongested roadsandmoreliveswillbeatrisk.

Addi?onallyemergency personnelwillbeunabletoquickly respondtohotspotareasintheeventofare / mass evacua?oneventduetoconges?onwhichwilllikelyleadtounnecessary lossofpropertyaswell. Asaformerreghter IknowhowhardthemenandwomenofAnaheimFireworktoprotectourcommuni?esandthiswillonlymaketheir jobsmoredicultandaddunduestressina ?meofcrisis.

Wealreadysawseveralhomesburnedanddamagedwhichupendedthelivesofmanyresidentsduringthelastroundof res - whyriskanymore?
Nottomen?onthebeautyoftheareawhichishikedandbikedbymanyresidentsandthoseopportuni?eswillbe limitedandtheaddi?onalconges?onwillundoubtedly disturbthelocalwildlifeevenfurther.

TheDeerCanyondevelopment issmackintheheartofareareaandwillcauseaddi?onalrisktoourcurrentci?zens.

NodoubtpeoplewanttomovetoAnaheimHillsandourbeau?fulareabutpackinginhundredsofaddi?onalresidences intothecanyonisnotresponsible andIstronglyopposeit.

Thankyou,
Respec?ully,
RyanMueller
AnaheimResident
2005
2013-Current
1 Susana Barrios
From: Jennifer Boyle <mrsboylebus@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

AsaresidentoftheAnaheimHillscommunity, IfeeltheDeerCanyonProjectwillpoorlyaectourneighborhood. The sheertracwillcauseseriousproblems & nottotalkwhathappens inanevacua?on.

Thankyou,
JenniferBoyle
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: AnneD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toDeerCanyon apartment project Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Iamwritingtoopposethe498-unitAnaheimHillsapartmentcomplexproposedforDeerCanyonin AnaheimHills. IvoteNOontheproject.

Sincerely,
AnneDosSantos
1 Susana Barrios
From: Kimberly Hughes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Deerpark concerns
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearMayorandcouncilmembers,
I’m writingonbehalfofmyself, myfamilyandmycommunityaboutthenewproposedconstruction in DeerParkCanyon. I’velivedinAnaheimfor30yearsandIlovemycommunity. Unfortunately, thetraffic onSantaAnaCanyonisunbearableduringtheweekandonweekendbecause the91freewayvehicles useourstreetwhenthe91isbackedup, whichisprettymucheverydaybetweenthehoursof3and8PM intheevening. AndIhaveunfortunatelybeenapartofmanyfireevacuationsAnaheimHills. Thelastfew wereabsolutelyhorrible, tryingtomakeourwayoutofthearea. Insomecases, itwasfasterformeto walkthan tousemyvehicle. Wedonothavetheinfrastructure tohaveanotherthousandresidence apartmentsbythemovietheatersandintDeerCanyon. Thetraffichasbeengettingworseandworse overthepastfewyearsinourcommunity, forthoseofustoliveininAnaheimHills, we’vebeen concerned .Iamateacherat schoolandIamveryactiveintheAnaheimcommunity.

Iattendedthelastmeetingfromthepropertydivisionofthecity, andIheardthefiredepartmentspeak andthepolicedepartmentspeakabouttheiroppositionfortheconstructionoftheseapartments. Ialso wasundertheimpressionwhenIpurchasedmyhome30yearsagothatallofDeerParkCanyonwas protectedland, andthatlandwouldneverbesoldorbuiltonhomesoratleastthat’swhatIwastold. The landwasrecentlysoldforsingle-familyhomestobebuiltonly. Andofcourse, thesebigcorporations had nointentioninbuildingsingle-familyhomesandaretryingtorezonethepropertyfortheirownfinancial gainandbenefit. Mycommunityhasnoissueswithsingle-familyhomesbeingbuiltonthatland. Thereis somethingtobesaidaboutcitizensandindividualfamiliesandthepride , careandlovetheyhaveforthe landandthecommunity. Andthat’swhat’smadeAnaheimHillsspecialtoourfamilyisthesenseof communityandpride. Ihavevideosoftrafficat3PM, 4PM, 5PM, 6PMduringtheweek, butIwasableto uploadthemandattachthesefilestothisemail. BuildingApartmentsinthisvicinityisnottheanswerto ourpublicsafety. Idon’tknowifanybodyontheboardorthecouncillivesinAnaheimHillsbutifyoudid, thenyouwouldknowandunderstandourconcernsandfrustration. Iliveonraspberrylaneinthehomes abovetheseniorapartmentsandthefestivalcenter. Pleasehelpusprotectoursafetyanddotheright thing.

Blessings,
KimHughes
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: RonHenry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Oppose SALTProject
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hieveryone, wereallyneedeveryonesupportOnthesaltproject. Frompersonalexperiencefromthisfto fire, itwasahorrendoustimetoleaveAnaheimHills. Wesetoutfromcannon2fireapproximately10:30 andgotoutofAnaheimby3;304:00. Wethengotgoingontothefreewaythe57freewayandthattookus anothercoupleofhoursbottomlinewedon’thavetimenorroomforadditionalhousingandpeople! Iwholeheartedly opposethisprojectandmyvoteisabsolutelynoit’snotgoodforthepeopleherein Anaheimmealsandit’snotfairthatwehavetosuffer. Please votenoonthisproject! Thankyou
RonHenryAnaheimHills
Sent fromYahoo MailforiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: oklaurak Hesser <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposed toSALTdevelopment.

Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

IamveryopposedtotheSALTdevelopment. Thetrafficsituationisalreadyawfulanditwillonlyget worsewithathousandmorepeople. Thefiresameisalreadysobad, wecan'tgetoutinan emergency. Pleasedon'tchangethezoning. Keepitasitis .

LauraHesser
Anaheim, 92808
GetOutlookforAndroid
1 Susana Barrios
From: HildaTrujillo <hildatrujillo18@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon project
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern:

I opposetheSALTprojectbcofthehorribletracandpoten?allossoflifeif/whenwehaveanotherreinthecanyon.

Thankyou,
HildaRTrujillo
1 Susana Barrios
From: SheilaValdivia <sheilavaldivia@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Oppose
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

IopposetheDeerCanyonproject. Mymainconcernisthetracandreconcerns. Weare38yearresidentsofAnaheim Hillsandhaveneveropposedanyimprovement ordevelopment oftheCity. Thisisanextremesafetyconcerntoour community.

SheilaandJoeValdivia
GoIrish Sheila
1 Susana Barrios
From: LisaSanchez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] opposition toDeerCanyon Project
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
Pleaseconsiderthismyformalopposi?ontothedeerCanyonApartment project. Iliveincloseproximity toSantaAna CanyonRdandIfeelthatthedevelopment wouldbringalargenumberofsafetyrisksandwoulddestroythequalityof lifetoourbeau?fulAnaheimHillscommunity.

PleasevoteAGAINST theproposed highriseapartment buildingandthecommercial structures inDeerCanyon.

Thankyou,
LisaSanchez
SentfromLisa'siPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Lauryn Czar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] HillsPreserve SaltDevelopment
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
I’mwritingtoexpressmydisagreementwiththeproposedHillsPreserveSaltdevelopmentinAnaheim Hills. Abeautifulcommunityhasgottenovercrowded tothepointwhereitisbecominganunsettling placetoliveandconcerningforthesafetyofourresidentsifandwhenafireisnear. Gettingamiledown theroadtobaseballpracticeistakingover20minutes, whenitshouldbelessthanfive. Idisapproveof thisdevelopmentandstronglyencouragedenyingtheproposal.

Thankyou,
LaurynCzar
1 Susana Barrios
From: ClydeDosSantos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toDeerCanyonProject inAnaheim Hills Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

IamrmlyopposedtotheOpposi?ontoDeerCanyonProjectinAnaheimHillsprimarilyduetothealreadydreadfully congested tracinAnaheimHills.

DrCDosSantos
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Spencer Waldron <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toDeerCanyon Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

IamaresidentofAnaheim. IopposetheapprovaloftheDeerCanyonProject. It createsalotofriskforresidents intheeventofanevacation. Theroadsarealready overly-congestedandthisprojectwilladdtoomanycarsinthisneighborhood. Itisa horribleidea. Weshouldbefocusedonreducingthetrafficcongestion, notcreating morecongestion.

SpencerWaldron
1 Susana Barrios
From: AndreaA <nuttinbutasinger@hotmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toSaltDevelopment inAnaheim Hills Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
I'mextremely opposed tothesaltdevelopment inAnaheim Hills. Safety ismy100% mainreason. Thetraffic onanynormal weekday isgetting outofcontrol. Residential streetsarebeingusedasfreeway bypass streets. Adding morehomes creates MOREcongestion. Iurgeanyonewhosupports this, drive5daysaweek inthatareabetween 5-6pm. Seehowfaryougo...nowimage afire (whichtherehavebeen) oran evacuation. Manypeople willdie.

Please consider thecurrentresidents, infrastructure, traffic flowandfreeway conditions before approving to develop thisproject. Please consider thesafetyoffamilies withchildren andthosetryingtocommute toand fromwork. Please decline thisproject.

Thank youforyourtime.

Sincerely,
Andrea Acosta
1 Susana Barrios
From: VietNguyen <pikagoku2001@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Deercanyon housing project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
Iamsureyouareawarebynowthattherehasbeenmajorconcernsabouttheproposedhousingproject atDeerCanyon. Iamnotsureifyou'vebeenoutthereyourselvesduringtraffictimewhichisoneofthe majorcauseofconcernforsafety. Itishighlyimpactedduringtraffichoursasanaheimhills (91freeway) isanexustoriversidecounty. Dailynews (radioasiamaware) alreadyreportonthedailyofconstant trafficjamsinthearea. Havingmorehousingandresidentslivingalongthatimpactedareaisnot beneficialforsafetyandenvironment. Imagineafireorothernaturaldisasterthatcouldhappeninthe areaandtheuttermadnessthatmightincuroncurrentandfutureresidents. Pleasereconsiderthis projectandmoveitelsewherewhereitislessimpactedtoresidents, traffic, safetyandtheenvironment.

Averyconcernedanaheimresident,
VietNguyen
YahooMail: Search, Organize, Conquer
1 Susana Barrios
From: Lauren Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Oppose SALTproject
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Hello,
IamanAnaheim hillsresidentandIstronglyopposetheSALTprojectbecauseofthehorribletrac (thatcon?nuesto getworseasdriverscomethroughourneighborhoods asalternateroutestothe55, 91 & 241headingouttowards Corona) andalsoopposedduetopoten?allossoflifeif/whenwehaveanotherreinthecanyon.

Sincerely,
LaurenCooper
1 Susana Barrios
From: Stephen Moriyama <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALT / Anaheim Hills
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityofAnaheim,
TheSALTProject proposed forAnaheim Hillsposesasignificant threattoourcommunity anditsresidents. My concerns aredeeply rooted inthepotential hazards thatcouldarisefromsuch adevelopment, particularly in lightofthechallenges wefacedduring theCanyon 2Fire.

During theCanyon 2Fire, whichdevastated partsofourregion, wewitnessed firsthand thecritical issues surrounding traffic congestion andevacuation routes. Many residents werecaught ingridlock, making it nearly impossible toescape theflamesandsmoke. Emergency services struggled tonavigate theovercrowded roads, delaying vitalresponses andputting livesatrisk. Thechaosandconfusion during thattimehighlighted theinadequacy ofourcurrent infrastructure tohandle emergencies effectively.

Given theproposed SALTProject, whichwould likelyincrease thelocalpopulation andtraffic volume, Ifearwe maybesetting ourselves upforarepeatofthoseharrowing experiences. Theadditional strainonourroads couldleadtoeven greater challenges inevacuation scenarios, leaving families andindividuals more vulnerable intimesofcrisis.

Moreover, theenvironmental impact ofincreased development cannot beoverlooked. Thehillsandcanyons thatdefine ourlandscape arenotonlybeautiful butalsoserveasnatural firebreaks. Deforestation andurban encroachment could diminish thesecritical buffers, heightening theriskofwildfires andmaking the community moresusceptible todisaster.

Inlightoftheseconsiderations, itisimperative thatweadvocate forourcommunity'ssafety andwell-being.

Wemustcarefully evaluate theimplications oftheSALTProject andensure thatanydevelopment plans prioritize theprotection ofourresidents andtheintegrity ofourenvironment.

Ourexperiences during theCanyon 2Fireshould serveasavitallesson intheimportance ofpreparedness and responsible planning forthefuture.

Sincerely,
Stephen Moriyama
1 Susana Barrios
From: Sabeh, Gino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Additional Developments inAnaheim hills- NOMORE MULTIFAMILY Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
Thankyouforreadingmymessage. ThisisinregardstothetworecentdevelopmentprojectsinAnaheim hillslessthan2milesapartfromeachotheraddingupto800multi-familyhomestothearea. Iam dumbfounded thatthecityhasre-zonedthisareatoallowforapossibleprojectofthis magnitude. Why? Wedonotneedmorecarsonourroads. WehaveaMajorFireIssueyearinandyear out. Livesmatter.

Atthesametime, howdoyouplantoschoolallofthesechildren????? Onlyaddingmorekidstoan alreadyoverfilledclassroom.

Weaskthatyoupayattentiontothealreadycongestedroadsduringschoolhours, businesstraffic, and 91freeway. Adding800 *2cars= 1600morecarsintheroadwillonlycreatesomuchmoregridlock.

WetalkaboutSharinginthecommunityofadditionalhousing- Wellifthatisthecase- Thenwhydowe nothaveenoughpoliceinthearea, ourhomelesssituationisgettingbadweeklyandwillonlygetworse. I assumetheamountofpropertytaxdollarsthecitygetsbecauseofthenicepartofAnaheimhillswillonly dropinvalueinthefuture. EspeciallyasItadds800newrentalsinthearea.

TheFireissuesarerealinAnaheimhillsandjeopardizingtheabilityforfamiliestoevacuatetheareais real. HaveyoutrieddrivingdownSerranoatanytimefrom3PMto6pm. itisDeadStop. HowaboutSanta AnaCanyonroad?
IFyouwanttozonethisare, thenzoneifforSinglefamilyhomesasneededbutnota7-storybuildingthat willbeanEYEsoreinAnaheimhills. Ourhomeowner’sinsurancehasgoneup300%- Whyareyounot takingcareoftheDeadvegetationalloverourcity?
Ipersonallywillprobablyhavetosellandmoveoutoftheareaafterlivingherethesepast40yearsaswe cannotdrivedownthehillofserranoduringprimetimetopickupourkidsfromtheiractivities. ITmakes ita30mndriveversusa7minpickup? Iftrafficisthisbad, Iwillneedtorelocatemybusinesstoorange orYL.

Atthesametime, whyhasn’tthecityexpandedourroadstofixthegrowingtrafficissuewearedealing withdaily. Pleasenoteitwillonlygetworseasfolkshavetogobacktoofficeworkingversusfromhome. 1 SorrytosharethisgrossVideoofahomelessmandefacinginAnaheimHillsincleardaylight. Thisisjust sowrongforthekids, ladiesandalltosee. ButIcanonlyimaginehowthiscommunitywilllookifwedo notstoptheseprojects.

NOMOREMUTIFAMILYandFixourTrafficissue- Pleasefixourfirehazardareas.

Thankyou,
GinoSabeh – Anaheimhillshomeownerandresidence
PleaseexcuseanytypossentfrommyiPhone!
2 Susana Barrios
From: LaurenBaker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] NoonDeerCanyon Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

GoodAfternoon,
IamnotinfavoroftheDeerCanyonproject. Iaskthatyoupleasetaketheconcernsofcurrentresidents ofAnaheimHillsintoconsideration. Iaskthatyoutaketheimpactithasoncommunityseriously. I stronglybelievethatthenegativeimpactoutweighsthepositiveimpactofthisproject.

Thanks,
LaurenBaker, CMCA, AMS
Sent fromYahoo MailforiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Adam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Fwd: SaltDevelopment
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Thankyou
AdamFarias
https://g.page/af-insurance/review?rc
https://g.page/af-insurance?gm
ThankyouforchoosingAFInsuranceServices!
WearehereforallyourInsuranceneeds
CallorText (
Fax (877) 610-2840
www.afinsurance.org
Forwardedmessage ---------
From: Adam <
Date: Mon, Oct28, 2024, 4:18PM
Subject: SaltDevelopment
To: <[email protected]>
IhavesomanyconcernsregardingthisprojectandtheimpactitwillhaveontheresidentsofAnaheim Hills. Hereareafewkeyconcerns: 1. Increasedfireriskandevacuationconcernsinahigh-riskfirezone.

2. Creatinggreatertrafficandgridlockonanalreadycongestedstreet (SantaAnaCanyon), among others. 3. Changingthenaturalbeautyandcharacterofthecommunitywitha24-hourshoppingmall 1 stylelighting. 4. Overcrowding oflocalschools, whichwilllikelydecreasekids' academicperformance andscores. 5. Disruptinganddisplacingwildlife. ThepurposeoflivinginAnaheimHillsistogetaway fromtheurbandevelopmentofshoppingmalls, parkinglots, andrestaurants. Thereneedstobea diversecollectionofurbanandsuburbancommunities inSouthernCalifornia. Ourcityisoneofthemost beautifulandit'sourresponsibility tokeepitassuch. Irespectfullyrequestthatyouseriouslyconsider themanynegativeimpactsofthisprojectandthedetrimentitcanbringtothequalityofourlivesinthis area.

Thankyou
AdamFarias
https://g.page/af-insurance/review?rc
https://g.page/af-insurance?gm
ThankyouforchoosingAFInsuranceServices!
WearehereforallyourInsuranceneeds
CallorText (
Fax (877) 610-2840
www.afinsurance.org
2 Susana Barrios
From: BryanWadkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Oppose Deercanyon Developement
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

ToWhomitmayconcern,
AsaresidentofAnaheimHillsfor25+ yearsIamwri?ngtoexpressmyopposi?onoftheDeerCanyon development. The development wouldaddstraintoanalready strainedinfrastructure, andbeadisastrous situa?onshouldamajor emergency occur.

Asapoliceocerof30yearsandnowaCaptain, Irecognize poten?aldangerous situa?ons, andtryingtogetthousands ofpeopleoutofadenselypopulated areawithminimalroadsisaverydangerous situa?on. In2017thisareawas evacuated foramajorcanyonre, andthankGodthereshi?edormanywouldhavelosttheirlivessi?ngintrac tryingtoevacuate. Ratherthanaddtotheproblem, abe?ersolu?onwouldbetoxtheroads, tracandinfrastructure thatisalreadyhere.

Beresponsible, takecareofyourci?zens.

Sincerely,
BryanWadkins
AnaheimHills
SentfrommyiPad
1 Susana Barrios
From: LaurelWarren <dedicatedmama917@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] NotoDeerCanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

PleaselistentousAnaheimHillsresidents!!! Theideaofahugeapartment complexlikeDeerCanyonisnotagoodidea forthealreadybadtracwefaceduetothepeopletryingtocutthrutogettoIE! PleaseNoooooo!!!!! SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: KentAndersson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon development
Attachments: TBCF_2.docx
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Iamopposedtothedevelopment.

Seeattachedinformation.

Thanks
KentAndersson
1 Tra?icBottlenecksandtheCampFire
Source: LLGTra?icStudy, LATimesArticle, “Paradisenarroweditsmainroadbytwolanes despitewarningsofgridlockduringamajorwildre11/20/18
NextFridaymarksthesix-yearanniversaryoftheCampFire, where85peopletragicallylost theirlives, manyofthemelderlyandforgotten, whileothersweretrappedintheircars tryingtoee. Amajorcontributingfactortothistragedy? Tra?icbottlenecks. ABayArea tra?icengineerconductedastudypredictingthatthemainroadwascapableofhandling evacuationbutitinsteadcreatedchaos.

IamnotsuggestingthatwewillexperiencetheexactsameoutcomeasParadise; they facedfactorsthatwedonothave. However, wealsohaveuniquechallenges thattheydid nothave.

UnlikeParadise, wehavethe91freewayandahighwayinfrastructure thatallowsRiverside CountyresidentstouseAnaheimHillsasashortcut. Duringawildreevacuationwhenwe areindanger, residentsinRiversideCountywouldstillneedtoreachtheirjobsinIrvine, Tustin, andotherpartsofSouthernCalifornia. Theywillnotbetakingvacationtimetokeep ourroadsclear. Thiswillcontributetogridlockintra?iclayoutsthatdi?ersignicantlyfrom thoseinParadise.

Tra?icengineersunderestimated thespeedatwhichrecouldspreadinParadise.

AlthoughSouthernCaliforniaresourcesrushednorthtohelp, Paradisewasultimately destroyed. Thelessonhereisthatstudiescanbeawed, especiallywhenreal-life circumstances, suchasevacuationroutes, emergencytra?icowsandhumanbehavior arenotaccuratelyrepresented.

HereinAnaheimHills, weriskcreatingsimilarbottlenecksthatcouldhinderevacuation e?ortswhenlivesareatstakeandrstresponders' responsetimesarelimited.

Weneedtoaddressthesechallenges, butaddingthousandsofnewvehiclesandvariables isnotthesolution. UsingthePoliceForcetorequireneighborhoods toshelterinplaceto preventtra?icisacivilrightsviolationandnotane?ectiveorlegalformoftra?iccontrol.

Pleasevoteagainstrezoningthisareabeyondwhatisfeasibleandmanageableforthis area. ItisnotourfaultthatSALTdecidedtopurchasethisland, butitwouldbecomeyour responsibility ifitisrezonedforabuildingthattheredepartmenthasclassiedasahighriseandunsustainable fortheregion.

ClimateHubs
Source:https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/sites/default/les/A%20Guide%20to%20Stayin g%20Safe%20During%20Wildres_1.pdf
I’dliketoshareanexcerptfromaClimateHubsdocumentrelatedtoevacuationand wildresafetyinurbaninterfacezones. Forthoseunfamiliar, ClimateHubsisa collaborationofvariousdepartmentagenciesthatusescienticresearchtodevelopand deliver "science-based" solutions.

Thedocument’ssummaryemphasizes, “Ready! Set! Go!”—notsitbackand ‘stayput’ as BrianHobbssuggests. TheirsolutionShelterinPlaceasatra?icmitigationstrategyis simplytakingtheadviceofreexpertsoutofcontext.

FireSafetyExpertsunanimouslyagreethatgettingoutshouldalwaysbePlanA. The ClimateHubsdocumentdenesShelterinPlaceassomethingnecessarywhen quote\]“evacuationisn’tsafe,” orwhenyouronlyevacuationroutestakeyouintothere, thereismovingtooquicklyortooclosetoevacuatesafely, orifescaperoutesareblocked orcongested.

Thedocumentalsohighlightsatragicreality: Acommonwaypeopledieinwildresisbeing trappedintheircars. Itsays,\[quote\] “Manypeoplewhoperishinwildresdosoinvehicles.

Onereasonisbecausetheywaittoolongtogoortheythinktheirvehiclecanmovefaster thanawildre.”
Thedeveloperhassaidtra?icimpactduringanevacuationisbeingexaggerated, claiming tra?icwouldmovethesameifthisprojectwerebuilt. Buttheirstudyfalselyassumesthat everyonewouldignoretheirinstincttoleaveandinstead ‘stayput.’ Thedeveloperhasnot providedanydocumentation orstudyexplaininghowthatwouldwork, whiledozensof governmentagenciesandexpertssayit’scompletelyunrealistic.

Thisentireplanreliesontakingtherestudyoutofcontext. Infact, theFiresafedocument usestheterm “shelterinplace” zerotimes. Thestudyconcludesthatduringasevere emergency, residentswillhaveareastoshelterinplaceforprotectionuntilhelparrives, but itdoesn’tprovetheymustsheltertopreventbottlenecks. Surroundingthisproposed developmentaredozensofroadsandthousandsofhomesthatallowontoSantaAna CanyonRoad, withnootherwayout.

Weneedyoutovotetokeepthisareazonedas-is, forthehousingprojectitwasoriginally designedfor.

Susana Barrios
From: Melissa Vega <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Please!
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityCouncilMembers,
Pleaselistentoyourconstituents. TheDeerCanyonprojectshouldNOTbeapproved. Haveanyof youbeenonSantaAnaCanyonRoad, WeirCanyon, LaPalma, andnowevenSerrano, duringthe lateafternoonoreveningonaweekday? IsitjusttobecomeourwayoflifeinAnaheimHillsforit totake45minutestogettoRalphsorCostcoforashoppingrunorgas? Dothevoicesandeducated opinionsofthefirechiefandAPDnotcarryanyvalidity? Doanyofyourememberwhatitwaslike toevacuate? HaveanyofyouseenwhatthetraffichasbeenlikethelasttwoFridays? Thenotionthat "it'stimeforthehillstogettheirfairshare" isabsurdandoffensive. Itmakesthis projectapprovalseemmoreofa 'usvsthem' thananythingfoundedonreasonorlogic. Wedidnot movetoAnaheimHillsover20yearsagofromLosAngelesCountytobefacedwiththistypeof growth. Weareallforgrowth. Therightgrowthfortheexistinginfrastructureandtheaesthetics ofthecommunity. Thisprojectisnotit.

Wearenotonlyresidents, butalsobusinessownersinAnaheimHills. Wemadeachoicetoliveand moveourbusinesstoAnaheimHills. Weappreciatedthesafety, thecommunity, the suburbia. Thisprojectwillchangeitall. Itwillbethefirstandthenitwillbethefirstof several.

Dowhat'srightandvotenotoday, please!
RobertandMelissaVega
1 Susana Barrios
From: JamieBrinker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Project - Opposed
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
IamwritinginoppositionoftheDeerCanyonproject. MyfamilyhaslivedoffofSantaAnaCanyonRoad andFairmontforthelast10years. Overthoseyearstheamountoftrafficinourareahasincreased substantially. Morerecently, bythe91commuters.

WewereinvolvedintheevacuationorderfrombothCanyonfiresin2017andthankfully, wereabletoget toourchildrenjustpriortotheevacuationannouncementONLYduetoaclosefriendofoursbeingon thefiredepartmentandrelayingtheseverityofthesituation. Ittookmultiplehourstodrivelessthan1 miletoeitherendofSantaAnaCanyonRoadthatday.

BythegraceofGodandtheamazingworkofourfireservices, wewerespared...thattime. Ifwe experienceanothereventliketheCanyonfires, orworse, evenasourpopulationcurrentlystands, along withtheincreasedfreewaypassthroughtrafficthatisbeingallowed, wewillbetrappedandunableto escapeanysortofdisaster, fire, earthquake orother.

Asmembersofthecommunity, Iwouldthinkthisboardwouldrecognizethesimilaritiesofwhatthe communityofParadise, CAwentthroughandisstillgoingthrough, andrealizehowdirethisdecisionis forthecommunityofAnaheimHills.

Iimploreyoutoimagewhatyouwouldbefeelingifyouhadtoputyourselfandyourfamilyinacaronthe middleofSantaAnaCanyonRoad, onaFridayafternoonwhileourcityisunderevacuation, thinkabout whatthefamiliesinParadise, CAwentthroughastheytriedtounsuccessfullyescapetheirfireandthen maketherightdecision. VotenoontheDeerCanyonProject.

Sincerely,
JamieBrinker
1 Susana Barrios
From: vincent henry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Oppose SALTProject
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

AsanAnaheimhomeowner fornearly30years, Iamwri?ngtoopposetheproposed 498-unitDeerCanyonapartment complexand6adjacentluxuryhomesinAnaheimHills.

WhileIrecognize theneedtoaddress
SouthernCalifornia'shousingchallenges, thisproposed development onthe76-acrewilderness areaoSantaAna CanyonRoadraisesseveralcri?calissuesthatwouldnega?velyimpactourcommunity andenvironment.

1. Unacceptable Increases toPublicSafetyRiska.

Wildreriskisextremely highin
AnaheimHills. AddingtheDeerCanyondevelopment willplaceaddi?onalstrainonevacua?onroutes, reghtersand police. Intheeventofawildre, isDeerCanyon deemeddefensible bylocalreghterscurrently?

2. Unsuitability oftheSiteforBuildinga.

UnsuitableSoil - Theareaisknowntohaveunstablesoilthatissubjecttolandslides - especially duringheavyrains.

Overhead powerlines - Willthebuildersassumeliabilityforthepoten?almedical issuesresul?ngfromproximityofthe residences tothehighvoltagepowerlinesoverhead? Havetheydisclosed thisasarisk? Thepowerlinesalsocon?nueto beapoten?alsourceofaccidentalwildreplacingthefutureresidents inanextremely high-riskarea.

Floodplain - Theproposed development isatthemouthofawatershed totheSantaAnaRiver. Afutureoodisa ma?erofwhen, notIf.

Whydiddevelopers passonthislandbackinthe1970swhentheareawasrstsurveyedzoned? i. Maybebecause theaboveriskshavebeenavoided inthepastbykeepingthelandundeveloped.

Howwellhasthesitebeenve?edbythebuilders?
Whobearstheriskshere - thedevelopers orthefutureresidents

3. Increased riskofcrimeandvandalism inDeerCanyon.

Itisinevitable thatincreased u?liza?onwillleadtotheneedforincreases surveillance andpolicing - howdoesthe builderproposetomi?gatethisrisk?
Orcompensate currentnearbyresidents forlowering theirqualityoflife?

4. IncreasedTrac, Noise, andPollu?on:
a. Theproposed development wouldsignicantly increasetraconSantaAnaCanyonRoad, directlyaec?ngfamilies wholivealongorneartheroute. Currently, thenoiseandsmogfromthenearby91 Freewayalreadyimpactresidents, andthisaddi?onaltracburdenwouldexacerbate theissue, diminishing our community'squalityoflife. Ourneighborhoods cannotenduretheworsening condi?onsthatthisdevelopment would impose.

5. Destruc?onofLocalWildlife
Habitat
a. TheDeerCanyonareaishometovariouswildlifespecies, whosehabitatswouldbedestroyed bythisregion

6. LossofVegeta?onBene?ngAir
Quality
1 a. Thevegeta?oninDeerCanyonplaysanessen?alroleinlteringtheair, helpingmi?gatesmogfromthe 91Freeway. Whenfreeway conges?onincreases, manyvehicles, includingheavytrucks, exitonImperialHighwayand takethewindingroutethroughourareatobypass trac, addingevenmorepollu?on. Removing thisvegeta?onwould havedirect, adverseeectsonairqualityforAnaheimHillsresidents.

7. IncreasedSafetyRisksinaHigh-RiskZone
a. Addingnearly500unitsinAnaheimHillsraisesserioussafetyconcerns. OurareasitsneartheSanAndreasFault, increasing theriskofstructuralfailureandsignicant dangerduringearthquakes.

Addi?onally, AnaheimHillsisathighriskforwildres, andtheincreased popula?ondensitywouldcomplicate evacua?onduringemergencies, pu?nglivesatrisk. Developing inahigh-riskarealikethisissimplynotprudent, asit wouldlikelyresultinpruaent, asitwouldlikelyresultincomplexandpoten?allyhazardous evacua?onscenarios.

8. DoesnotIncreasing theHousingSupplyforthemarketsegmentmostaectedbythecurrentshortage a. Ashigh-incomeunits, theimpactofthisproposedcomplexonthehousingmarketforlowtomiddleincomerenters andhomeowners seemshighlyques?onable.

Considering theseconcerns, lurgetheCityCounciltoreconsidertheDeerCanyonapartmentprojectanddenythe development request.

Thelong-termimpactsontrac, environmental stability, airquality, andresidentsafetyinAnaheimHillsshouldbe priori?zedoverspecula?verealestateinterests.

Ratherthancontribute to
overdevelopment inasensi?vearea, 1hopetheCouncilwillfocusonsustainable, well-considered solu?onsthat genuinely addressthehousingcrisiswithoutcompromising theintegrityofourcommunity. Thankyouforconsidering thesecomments.

Thelong-termimpactsontrac, environmental stability, airquality, andresidentsafetyinAnaheimHillsshouldbe priori?zedoverspecula?verealestateinterests.

Ratherthancontribute to
overdevelopment inasensi?vearea, IhopetheCouncilwillfocusonsustainable, well-considered solu?onsthat genuinely addressthehousingcrisiswithoutcompromising theintegrityofourcommunity. Thankyouforconsidering thesecomments.

Thankyouforyourcommitment tolisteningtothevoicesofAnaheim residents.

Sincerely,
CityofAnaheimResident
2 Susana Barrios
From: susan bright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Thisprojectisamistake. Theareaisalreadyoodedwithtracandthiswillonlymakeitworse. Seemslikeaverypoor idea.

SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: JudyDavila <judymusictime@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Ioppose Item31ontheAgenda (regarding building a498multi-dwelling unitinAnaheim Hills
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Ioppose construction oftheproposed 498unitcomplex proposed forAnaheim Hills. Thiswillcreate massive congestion andcreate danger whenanevacuation takesplace, endangering many livesand ruining lifehere.

JudyAnnDavila
Anaheim HillsCA92808
1 Susana Barrios
From: OrinAbrams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTDevelopment
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Pleasedon’tkillusduringthenextreevacuationbyexacerbatinganalreadyseriouslydangeroussituation.

DONOTapprovethisproject.

Pleasesaveourlives.
1 Susana Barrios
From: alexis cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition ofSALTproject
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
AsalifelongresidentofAnaheimHillsIamwritingtoexpressmystrongoppositiontotheSALTproject. Thisproject wouldincreasethealreadyhorribletrafficwe'refacinganddriversusingourneighborhoods asshortcutstothefreeway.

Thereisaalsoriskoflossoflifeif/whenwearefacedwithanotherfireevacuationandonlyhaveonewayinandoutof here.

AlexisTrujillo
1 Susana Barrios
From: Emily Jenkin <efjenkin@roadrunner. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Cc: efjenkin@roadrunner. com; Emily Jenkin
Subject:\[
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncilMembers,
Asa20yearresidentofAnaheimHills, IimploreyoutoNOTAPPROVEmovingforwardwiththeSALTdevelopment.

Ithasbecomeincreasingly diculttodrivehomefromworkduetothecurrenttracconges?onfromourlocal community anddriversusingourroadsasabypass fortheeastbound 91freeway.

Ifoundonmydayso, itisdiculttomakeaquicktriptoTargetbecauseIhavetowaitupto3lightcyclestoturnonto Serranobecausethele? hasturnlaneisbackedupwithallthecommuters headedtoWeirCanyon.

Please, pleasepauseandlookforanalternate planforthesedevelopers outsideofAnaheimHills.

Thankyou,
EmilyJenkin
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: BrinkerScuderia < [email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Project - Opposed - **HighPriority** Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearPlanningCommission Members,
IamwritingtoexpressmystrongoppositiontotheproposedDeerCanyonproject. AsaresidentofSanta AnaCanyonRoadandFairmontforthepasttenyears, Ihavewitnessedthesignificantincreaseintraffic inourarea, particularlyfrom91commuters.

DuringtheCanyonfiresin2017, myfamilyandIwereinvolvedintheevacuationorder. Whilewewere fortunatetoreceivetimelyinformationfromafriendinthefiredepartment, ittookusseveralhoursto drivelessthanamileonSantaAnaCanyonRoadduetotheheavytraffic.

Iamdeeplyconcernedthatifanotherdisaster, suchasafireorearthquake, weretooccur, theincreased trafficfromtheDeerCanyonprojectwouldmakeitimpossibleforresidentstoevacuatesafely. The situationinParadise, CA, servesasatragicreminderofthedevastatingconsequences thatcanresult frominadequateevacuationroutes.

IrespectfullyurgeyoutoconsiderthesafetyofourcommunityandvoteagainsttheDeerCanyonproject.

ImagineyourselfandyourfamilytrappedinacaronSantaAnaCanyonRoadduringanevacuation, and maketherightdecisiontoprotectourlivesandproperty.

Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.

Sincerely,
CarlBrinker
1 Susana Barrios
From: JennyHeim <xoxojheimxoxo@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Iamwritinghopingmyvoicematters. IampleadingtoNOTallowtheDeerCanyonprojecttobe approved! Itisnotonlyamassivefirehazardbutoverwhelming alltogetherforthecommunityinregards totrafficandovercrowdingofschoolsanduseofalreadythinresources. Pleasedotherightthingand putyourcommunity youalreadyhaveneedsfirstbeforeprofit.

Thankyou,
JennyHeim
1 Susana Barrios
From: ScottDiMascio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] HillsPreserve Project Multifamily Project Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Oursmallcommunity isalreadyfacingsignicant conges?on, primarilyduetodailytracfromtheInlandEmpirecu?ng throughAnaheimHillstoavoidthe91Freeway. Thisprojectwouldexacerbate thesitua?on, transforming SantaAna Canyonintoanevenlargerparkinglotduringtheearlyeveninghours. Moreover, itwouldposeaseriousdisrup?onto thewildlifeintheaectedandsurrounding areas.

Signed,
Sco? andJennyDiMascio
SummitSpringsCommunity, AnaheimHills
1 Susana Barrios
From: Maryann Emery <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] PUBLIC COMMENT for10/29/24MtgonSALTProject Development Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

IhavebeenanAnaheim Hillsresident since1984andIcansaywithconfidence thattheproposed SALT development isnotappropriate forthisparcel. Firedanger, excess grading willchange ground, traffic congestion, schools overcrowded, notenough police andfireprotection tobeadded nottomention cannot addorwiden lanesthruSantaAnaCanyon Roadbecause ofthecurveandadded dangeritwould bring.

Ihavehadtoevacuate myhomeon2occasions duetothefires. In2017, ittookmeover3hours totravel under3miles. WewillNOTsurvive another fireofthemagnitude ofthe2017firewiththeadded development. Thisdangerous precedent already exists. There isnoquestion thedangerthatitposes.

IurgeyoutoLISTEN toandSTAND withyourCONSTITUENTS inopposition ofthisdevelopment.

Maryann Emery
1 Susana Barrios
From: Megan DeWert <megandewert@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Disagree withproposed development inAnaheim Hills Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Towhomthismayconcern,
I’mwri?ngtoexpressmydisagreement withtheproposedHillsPreserveSaltdevelopment inAnaheimHills. Abeau?ful community hasgo?enovercrowded tothepointwhereitisbecoming anunse?lingplacetolive. Anotherhugeconcern isforthesafetyofourresidents, whenweneedtoevacuateforare. Therearenotenoughroadsandtoomanypeople asitis. ThereareplentyofotherareasinOrangeCountythatarenotnearlyaspopulated thatwouldbebe?ersuitedfor thistypeofproposed project.

Thankyou,
MeganDeWert
Cell:
1 Susana Barrios
From: Suzanne Disparte <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon - concerned constituent Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearCityCouncil,
IamaresidentofAnaheimHills. MyhusbandandImovedtothisbeautifulcommunitywithourfour youngchildrenin2020. Oneisnowastudentat oneisastudentatEl andtwoare studentsat Elementary.

We'veseenincreasedissuesandconcernswithtrafficaroundSantaAnaandWeirCanyon, particularly intheBelAircommunity. Wenowseetheissuescreepingfurtherintotheneighborhood streetsonboth sidesofthe91freeway.

Thisalready-existingproblemwillbeexacerbatedmultipletimesoveriftheproposedDeerCanyon developmentisapproved, posingserioussafetyconcernsforusall. Asaparentandmemberofthis wonderfulcommunity, Isincerelyhopethatyouwilldothedutyyouwereelectedtodo, andrepresent thesafetyandwell-beingofyourconstituency.

PleasevotetoopposetheDeerCanyondevelopment.
1 Susana Barrios
From: Richard Sowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition toSALTdevelopment
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

IhavelivednearRunningSpringsElementary forover28years.

Frommyownexperience, Ialready knowthatthetracjamtogetdownWeirCanyonincaseofwildreisslimtonone.

Thisdevelopment willcertainly causeresidents toperishintheircarstryingtogelottoSantaAnaCanyon.

Pleasevoteno!
RichardSowski
1 Susana Barrios
From: Sandra MRodriguez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Anaheim Hill,CADeercanyon project Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

MyhusbandandIareagainstthisprojectmovingforwardduetoourextremesafetyconcerns! Pleasekeepinmind people'slivesareinjeopardy.

Ilivedthruthe2018fireevacuationwithmy95yearsoldmothervisitinghere, asItoldhertogethermerenecessities readywhileIdroveoutoftheneighborhood toseewhichwaytogo, therewasnowayout, weweretrapped! Ireturned home, shesaidIamready,IsaidMomwecan'tgetout! thelookonherfacesaiditall, westartedpraying! Apparently, nonofourelectedorappointedofficialsliveonthehills offofWeirCanyon, becauseyoualldon'trealizethe gridlockweencounteroff ofWeirCanyonandSantaAnaCanyon. Ifeveryoneissosmartcomingupwithalltheseplans, WHYdidn'ttheyworkandcomeupwithaplanforinfrastructure first??? Ourcurrentfamilyevacuationplanis, assoonaswehearfireinthehillsweloadupthecarsdrivetoYLpastLaPalma, parkthecars, walkbackhome (becauseluckilywearewalkers) andwait! ifneedtoevacuate, wetakeourbackpacks andheadouttoYLWALKING! Let'snotkidourselvesthereisnowaywewouldgetoutalivetryingtodriveoutofhills.

REMEMBER YOUDON'TMESSWITHMOTHERNATURE, ANDIFSHESAYSFIRE, ITAIN'TWAITINGFORUSTO GETOUT!
Thankyou,
SandyRodriguezandChrisCalano
1 Susana Barrios
From: stephanie jukic <stephaniejukic@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCreekProposal-Opposition
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
Ihopethismessagefindsyouwell. Iamwritingtoexpressmystrongoppositiontotheproposed developmentatDeerCreekinAnaheimHills.

WhileIunderstandtheneedforgrowthanddevelopmentinourcommunity, Ibelievethis particularprojectposessignificantconcernsthatmustbeaddressed. Thearea’snaturallandscape andecologicalbalancearealreadyfragile, andthisdevelopmentcouldleadtodetrimentalimpacts onlocalwildlifeandtheenvironment. Additionally, increasedtrafficcongestionandstrainonlocal infrastructurewouldnegativelyaffectthequalityoflifeforresidents.

Iurgethecitytoconsideralternativeplansthatprioritizesustainabilityandpreservetheunique characterofAnaheimHills. Engagingwiththecommunityforfeedbackandexploring environmentally-friendlydevelopmentoptionswouldbeamorebeneficialapproachforall stakeholdersinvolved.

Thankyouforyourattentiontothismatter. Ihopethecitywillreconsideritsplansandprioritize thewell-beingofitsresidentsandtheenvironment.

Sincerely,
StephanieJukic
Anaheim, CA92808
1 Susana Barrios
From: JulieZayas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SAVEDEER CANYON
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Please knowthisisn'taboutnotwanting growth, butyoucan'thavegrowth whentheinfrastructure around youisdestroying theenvironment. Building moreintheareaofDeerCanyon putsmoreofaburden onthe surrounding community. Please don'tallowanyone tobuildinthisarea. Itisallaboutgreedandmonetary profit, butwithout theconsideration ofthecurrent issues regarding safety. Wealready haveinsurance companies bailing outofCalifornia and/ornotinsuring individuals infirezones. Thebuilding isthisareawill onlysecureagreaterlossinaneventofafireorotherdisaster. PLUS, whataboutthewildlife thatarealready indanger oftheirenvironment. SAVEDEER CANYON ANDSAY "NO"! JulieZayas
Anaheim Hillsresident
1 Susana Barrios
From: Andy <andymhoward@yahoo. com>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposition ofAnaheim HillsAptComplex Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

IamaresidentofAnaheimHillsandwantedtoexpressmyutmostconcernoftheDeerCanyonComplexbeingbuilt. Asa residentformorethan20years, I’vehadtoevacuate3 ?mesandwitheach ?methetracbecamemoreandmore challenging. Ihadtoliterallyparkmycarthelast ?meandwalkoutduetotheconges?on. Theaddi?onof500more residence isadisasterwai?ngtohappen. Wearealreadyhavingto ?meourcommutes downSantaAnaCanyon, itwill onlygetworse .

Pleasedon’tbuild.

AndyHoward
1 Susana Barrios
From: KenWood <kw1familyman@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SanotoDeerCanyon Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

MynameisKenWood -- MywifeJanice & IhavelivedinAnaheimHillsfordecades. Our2daughtersand husbandswithour7grandkidslivejustdownthestreetfromus. WearejustsouthofSAC, andourkids arejustNofSAC.

WeareconvincedthatDCPshouldnotbeapprovedonmanylevels - theonethatI'mspeakingtotonight istrafficcongestiononSAC-- notfocusingonemergencyescapebutratherondailytravelonSAC. 2 weeksagoonFridayafternoonwetriedtotraveleastonSAC2milesandittook1-1/2hoursandadozen lightchangestogettoCostco. Althoughlongerthanusual5to7daysaweekgoingeastonSAC, northon WeiroreastonLaPalmaarenearlyaslong.

Soforgetthe91goingeasteverydaystartingearlyPM. AvoidSACeastmanydaysduringschooltimes andespeciallyPM's.

NotrafficstudyisneededtoconfirmwhatweareexperiencingdailyonSAC.

Inmy40yearsinbusiness, Ilearnedearlythatthereare2axiomsinlife -- problemswhichhavepotential solutionsandfactsoflifewhichhavenoapparentsolutions.

I'mconvincedthattheelephantintheroomhereisclosetothefactoflifeandthat'sthe91andSAC congestion.

AddinghundredsmorecarstoSACandsurroundingroadswillmakeourdailytravelsinourcommunity evenworsethanwhatwearecurrentlyexperiencingandagainnotevenaddressingemergency evacuation.

WestronglyrecommendaNOonthisproject.
1 Susana Barrios
From: LynnNichter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] PLEASE READ! Opposition toDeerCanyon Development andPROPSED SaltProject
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

CityCouncilMembers,
ThisareahasALWAYSbeenzonedforsinglefamilyhomes, andthereiscurrentlyashortage ofthesehomesinAnaheimHills. Ahomerightaroundthecorner, 121 justsoldABOVEASKINGwithinthefirsttwodaysoflisting. MysonsoldhishomeonHibiscus lastyearonthefirstday, andABOVEASKING. Ifyoustudythecompsin92807and92808, youwillseethistrendofABOVEASKINGin90% ofsales.

WhatthisareaDOESNOTNEEDisamultiunithugeapartmentcomplexandtheTRAFFIC CONGESTIONitbrings.

SincewhenaretheconcernsofourlocalPOLICEandFIREdepartmentsnot considered?????
Wewereforcedtoevacuateafewyearsago, andwe'renotevenlocatednearacanyon. We arelocatedrightoffSantaAnaCanyonandMohler. Infact, IcanseeSantaAnaCanyonRd. frommybackyard. Itwasanightmarewhenwetriedtogetoutforthepastevacuation, and thecongestionfromamorerecentevacuationbroughttraffictoastandstill.

ISTRONGLYURGEYOUTOVOTENOONTHESALTPROJECT!
Iappreciateyourconsideration,
LynnNichter (anAnaheimHillshomeownersince1975)
1 Susana Barrios
From: Valerie Orleans <valerieorleans@icloud. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Firehazard
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Dearcouncilmembers,
I’dliketoregistermyconcerns aboutthenewhousingdevelopment underconsidera?oninAnaheimHills. Asa40-year resident, IhavebeenadvisedtoevacuatetwicewhenresnearedmyhomeonCaminoGrande. Thetracwasalmostat astands?ll. Ittookmorethananhourtogoonemile.

Onanother occasion, IhadtoreachmyelderlymotheronAvenidadeSan?agoandthetracwasevenworsethat ?me.

Ithinkthisisunacceptable. Considertheimpactanewhousingdevelopment wouldhaveonevacua?onroutes (and therearen’tmany).

Whenarechiefrecommends againstaprojectforthesereasons, Ithinkyouneedtoheedthisadvice. Otherwise you arepu?ngpeople’slivesindanger.

ValerieOrleans
Sentfrom myiPad
1 Susana Barrios
From: [email protected]
Sent: 20243:18PM
To: PublicComment; Ashleigh Aitken
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DEER CANYON !!
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearMadamMayorAitkenandAnaheimCityCouncilmembers:

IamwritingtoexpressmyoverwhelmingOPPOSITIONtotheproposedbuildingofApartmentsandSingle familyunitsintheareaofDeerCanyonPreserve!!
IhavebeenaresidentofAnaheimHillsfor11yearsandmyDaughter, SoninLawandmy3grandchildren justpurchasedahomeonWilldanRd., whichbacksuptothePreserve.

ItistotallyunfairtothefamiliesofAnaheimHillstohavethisbeautifulareabulldozedforyetanother HousingDevelopment- NOONEWHOLIVESIN / ANDPAYSTAXESINTHISCOMMUNITYshouldhaveto havetheirsurroundingstakenawayfromthembecauseofothersdecisions- ITISAHORRIBLEIDEAAND WILLBEAFIREDANGERtothepeoplewholive here!! TheentireareaofSantaAnaCanyon/ Serrano/ WeirCanyonandImperialHwycannotwithstandthedailytrafficandfrustrationthatthisproposed projectwillcause!
IfyouandtheCityCouncildonotlistentotheValidandPersistentconcernsofyourconstituents- I wouldnotbesurprisedifthereisnotamovementtorecalleverysingleoneofyou.

ThePeopleofAnaheimHillsaretiredoftheAgendasandtheLandgrabsthataretakingplaceandwill notputupwiththisdestructionoftheircommunity!!
IwouldremindyouthatwhenyoubecameMayor
YoubecameapublicservanttotheCommunity- nottheotherwayaround- Ihopethatyouconsider wiselyyourdecisions.

Sincerely,
BarbaraMcDaniel
SentfromtheallnewAOLappforiOS
1 Susana Barrios
From: TheGrateful DeadSource <thegratefuldeadsource@gmail. com> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Meeting tonight 10/28comment please read Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hi,
Firstoff, thankyouforbeingsoniceonthephonethismorning.

Ihopethemeetinggoeswell.

HereiswhatIwouldliketosayatthemeeting, I'llkeepitkindashort. thankyouandwarmregards,
Ron
Hi,
MynameisRonSteen.

IhavespentmostmylifeinAnaheim.

Crescent, ElRancho, Canyon...

EverynowandagainIgoonvacationandwheneverIcomeback, it'salwayswonderful.

Thecityisbeautiful. Wehavegreatsports, Disneyland, wonderfulfood, theworks.

AnaheimHillsfeelslikeyou'reawayfromthecity, butyou'rerighthere.

Please, don'tchangeit. Openspacehelpsmakethisplacewhatitis.

Irememberbeingstuckintrafficinsomeofthefires-itfeltdangerousandallthebeautifulanimalsthat thriveinthissmallspace.

Pleasedon'tchangeit.

It'sperfect.

IremembermovingtoLAaftercollegeforawhileandlivinginvariousplaces. ButIcamebackandwill politelyleaveforeverifthisbuildingisconstructed. I'msureotherswillfollow.

Thankyouforyourconsideration,
Ron
1 Susana Barrios
From: SherryShokoohi <sherryshokoohi@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Traffic
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
Theadditionofmoreresidentialunitstoanalreadyverysaturatedneighborhoodwithtrafficdrowningour streetscuttingthroughtogotoCoronaonadailybasisisdetrimentaltooursafetyandlives. Justlast weekIcouldn'ttakemysontohispracticebecausetherewassomuchtrafficgoingdownSerranothat wascuttingthroughthatittookus30minutestogo3miles!
IhavephotosandvideosthatIcanshareofthefireswehadafewyearsback, andtheamountoftraffic thatwascloggedupinthestreetswithnootherescaperoute. Ifthecityislookingtoaddrevenue, maybe theyshouldconsidermoreshoppingcentersthatareuptodatethatcankeepstoreslongerthanone yearatatime.

Regards,
ConcernedResidentandhomeowner,
SherryShokoohi
1 Susana Barrios
From: Bnjunk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposed tothesaltproject building housing inAnaheim Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

IdonotwantSalttobuildthiscomplex inmyneighborhood, therethreatsaresevereandSantaAnacanyonroadisour onlywayoutandit’salreadyveryhardtogetoutinarewithoutthenewcommunity thatsaltisreques?ngtobuild. I amagainstthisproject. Itwoulddevistateourcommunity.

From, Brandi
1 Susana Barrios
From: Debbie Nita <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Deercanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Hello. IamaresidentofAnaheimhillswithmyfamilyof4. Wewerehereduringtheevacua?onof2017anddirectlyhad ourhouseimpacted bytheres. Weevacuated notknowing ifourhousewouldbestanding butthisevacua?ontook hourstogettosafetywithtwoyoungchildren.

Onaregularbasiswehavetoplananextra45minutestogetjustdownweircanyonorSantaAnacanyonduetothe increased tracofthe91freeway. Itissadthataselshbuilderanddeveloperwouldwanttoputfamiliesatriskand causemoretracandheadache.Toknowthatbuildingtheseapartments couldcausemoreconges?onissuchaconcern.

Pleasereconsidering.

DebbieNita
1 Susana Barrios
From: KELLYWILSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DEER CANYON PROJECT
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

TotheAnaheimCityCouncilmembers:

IamwritingthisemailtoexpressmyconcernregardingtherezoningoftheDeer Canyonproject.

MyfamilyhaslivedinAnaheimHiilssince1995. Weareveryconcerned thatinour opiniontheEIRreportisinaccurateIwanttomakesurethatthecitycouncilmembers understand howwehavebeenimpactedbythetrafficsituationhereinthecanyon.

Onanygivenday, butspecificallybetweenthehoursof3-7pmthetrafficonmost streetsinAnaheimHills, butspecificallyonSantaAnaCanyonRdwhichissoimpacted thatwecannotevengetoutofourneighborhoods toleavethehouse. Thistrafficis backedupfrompassedImperialandallthewaytoWeirCanyon. Gridlockand numerous vehiclesrunningredlightsareonadailybasis.

IftherewasanaturaldisasterintheareaIfearforpeopleslivesasitiscertainnot everyonewillbeabletoevacuateduetothehorrifictraffic.

Iurgeyoutoconsiderthepeoplethatyourepresent. Iamnotsurewhatcanbedoneto easethealreadyextremelyimpactedtraffic, butIam100% certainthatadding500 morehighdensityhousingunitswithapotentialfor1000morecarsisNOTwhatisbest forourcommunity. Iurgeyoutolistentotheopinionofthefirechief, thepolicechief andtheresidentsofAnaheimHillswhenmakingyourdecision.

Thankyou,
KellyWilson
SentfrommyiPad
1 Susana Barrios
From: CelyRivera <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SaveDeerCanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant at
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

SentfrommyiPhone
ToAnaheim’sPlanningCommission andTotheCityCouncil
MynameisCelyRiveraaresidentofAnaheim Hillssince1992.

I’veseenthiscommunity prosperandenjoylivinghere.

Throughtheyears, manymorehouseswerebuiltandourstreetshasgo?enbusy.

Residents fromCorona, Norco, andothernearby townshasusedtheSantaAnaCanyonRoadastheiralterna?veroutes goinghome. Nowwiththeusedof “ways”, mobilemaps, and/orothersocialmedias, they’renowalsousingNohlRanch RoadandSerranoRoadfortheiralterna?veroutes, makingusresidents togetstockontracjusttodoasimplefamily errands.

Afewyearsago, wewererushedinmandatory waytoleaveourresidentsduetore.

FromwhereIresidetowheretheproposed area - DeerCanyon, ittookme5hrs. Therewerehundredsofusthatgo?en stockedonSantaAnaroad. Theminute, Iwasabletoapproached therstresiden?alstreetgoingright, a?erthestorage place, Imademywayouttherendingroadsun?lIgottotheSanAntonioChurch.

Thedistancewasonly3milesandshouldonlybe4to5minutesaway, buttookus5hoursintothatspecicarea, where wewerejustaimingalltoatleastreachedBankofAmericaparkinglotbyImperial.

Inthisregards, Istronglyopposetothisdevelopment. Thatareaisalsohometothewildanimalswhichisalsogoodto theecosystem.

Insteadofbuildingmorebuildings, maketheareaasaparkwhereresidentscanenjoy justliketheYorbaRegionalPark.

Thankyou,
CelyRivera
AnaheimHillResident
1 Susana Barrios
From: JohnL. Mazzarella <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] NoonDeerCanyon Apartment Development Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncil,
Iamwritingtoyoutostatevehemently thatIamagainsttheproposed development ofthe498unitapartment complex inDeerCanyon.

IhavebeenaresidentinEastAnaheimHillsfor20yearsandknowthatthedevelopment wouldhavedeleterious and catastrophic effectsonthetrafficflowsofSantaAnaCanyonRoad.

Furthermore, addinganotherpotential1000automobiles travelingbyElRanchoCharterSchoolwilldramatically impact thesafetyofthechildrenthatcrossSantaAnaCanyoneverydaybeforeandafterschool.

Rejectthisproposed rezoningfortheDeerCanyoncomplexortheresidents ofAnaheim willneverforgetwhataTraffic Armageddon youwillhaveunleaseduponthem.

Sincerely,
JohnL. Mazzarella
Anaheim, CA92808-2233
1 Susana Barrios
From: YukaSuzuki <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Community concern against seven storyapartment building Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCommunity,
Ihopethismessagefindsyouwell. Iamreachingouttosharesomeconcernsabouttheproposedsevenstorybuildingprojectplannedforourneighborhood. Whiledevelopmentisoftenasignofgrowthand progress, itisimportanttoensurethatsuchchangesalignwiththebestinterestsofourcommunity’s character, safety, andqualityoflife.

Manyresidentshaveexpressedapprehensionaboutthisnewdevelopmentduetoitspotentialimpacton ourcommunity, including:

1. TrafficandSafetyConcerns: Anincreaseinthenumberofresidentsandvehiclesmay exacerbateexistingtrafficcongestionandcreatenewsafetyhazardsforpedestrians, cyclists, and schoolchildren inourarea.

2. StrainonInfrastructure: Aseven-storystructurewouldplaceadditionaldemandonlocal utilities, parking, andpublicservices, potentiallyleadingtoovercrowding andreducedqualityof service.

3. PreservationofNeighborhood Character: Ourcommunity’sidentityandappealarerootedinits small-scale, close-knitfeel. Theconstructionofahigh-risebuildingmaydisruptthissenseof communityandintroducechangesthatdon’talignwiththearea’straditionalaesthetic.

4. Environmental Impact: Theprojectcouldposeriskstoourgreenspacesandcreatechallenges inmanagingwaste, waterrunoff, andlocalwildlifehabitats. Itiscrucialtoconsiderhowthiswill affectoursharedenvironment.

Webelievethatbeforemovingforward, thereneedstobeamorecomprehensive andinclusive assessmentofthisproject’slong-termimpactonourneighborhood. Asacommunity, it’sessentialthat weadvocateforresponsibledevelopment thatprioritizesoursafety, well-being, andsharedvalues.

Thankyouforyourattentionandcommitment toourneighborhood.

YS
AnaheimResident
1 Susana Barrios
From: PeterA. Mazzarella <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] NoonDeerCanyon Apartment Development Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncil,
Iamwritingtoyoutostatevehemently thatIamagainsttheproposed development ofthe498unitapartment complex inDeerCanyon.

IhavebeenaresidentinEastAnaheimHillsfor30yearsandknowthatthedevelopment wouldhavedeleterious and catastrophic effectsonthetrafficflowsofSantaAnaCanyonRoad.

Furthermore, addinganotherpotential1000automobiles travelingbyElRanchoCharterSchoolwilldramatically impact thesafetyofthechildrenthatcrossSantaAnaCanyoneverydaybeforeandafterschool.

Rejectthisproposed rezoningfortheDeerCanyoncomplexortheresidents ofAnaheim willneverforgetwhataTraffic Armageddon youwillhaveunleaseduponthem.

Sincerely,
PeterA. Mazzarella
Anaheim, CA92808
1 Susana Barrios
From: SteveTurner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeercanyonApartment complex
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
Ifearformylifemyfamily’slivesandmyneighbors livesifthisprojectgoesthrough! InthelastfirewehadinAnaheimhillsittook
Me3hourstoreachmyfamilyfromSantiagoCanyonandCannontogetthemoutofthemandatory evacuationzone.

WhenIwasdrivinguptoevacuatethemthefiredepartmenttruckscouldnotpasswithallofthevehicles TryingtoGoupthehill.

Thankyoufortheconsideration.

SteveTurner
1 Susana Barrios
From: Kambria Rombough <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Proposed development
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Hello,
I’mwritingtoexpressmydisagreementwiththeproposedHillsPreserveSaltdevelopmentinAnaheim Hills. Abeautifulcommunityhasgottenovercrowded tothepointwhereitisbecominganunsettling placetoliveandconcerningforthesafetyofourresidentsifandwhenafireisnear. Gettingamiledown theroadtokidsextracirriculars istakingover20minutes, whenitshouldbelessthanfive. Idisapproveof thisdevelopmentandstronglyencouragedenyingtheproposal.

KambriaRombough
KambriaL. Rombough, LCSW
1 Susana Barrios
From: EllenBekier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Re: SaltProject
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

MyhusbandandIaredeeplyconcernedaboutaddingcloseto500apartmentsintheAnaheimHillsarea.

Wehavelivedheresince1987andintheOldBridgeareasince1996. Thetraffichasbeengettingworse eachyearandthefiredangerhasalwaysbeenastrongconcern. Wehavebeenevacuatedtwicesince livinginthisarea. Thefiredepartmentandthepoliceandplanningcommitteeshaveallsharedtheir concernsanddonotthinkthisprojectshouldmoveforward. Iagreewiththem.

IamafraidthatAnaheimHillswillbecomethenextParadise,Ca.

Idonotunderstandwhythisprojectshouldmoveforwardwithsomanypeoplewithsomanyconcerns forthesafetyofourcommunity. Thefutureofthiscommunitywillbeforeverchanged. Thetrafficwillbe horrendousandthefiredangerincreased. Evacuationwillbeverydifficult.

IurgeyoualltovotenoontheSaltProject.
thankyou,
EllenandJerryBekier
1 Susana Barrios
From: Dorothy O'Neill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Nicholas J. Taylor
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Stopthebillsproject
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Enoughisenoughtrac
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: VillaPark <villaparkmoto@gmail. com>
Sent: Monday,
To: Nicholas J. Taylor
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Re-Zoning Objection
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

HiNick,
MynameisKyleScott, andIamahomeownerinAnaheimHills. Myneighborsandmyselfstrongly opposetheconsiderationofrezoningthepropertynexttoDeerCanyontobuildalargeapartment complexoffSantaAnaCanyonRoad. Rezoninganaturepreservetoaccommodateabuildingthat belongsinDowntownLosAngelesorsimilarisaridiculousidea.

Thisisaquietcommunity, andtheserenityofDeerCanyonwouldbelostforever. Theimpacton thewildlifeandthecurrentresidentswouldbemonumental.

Thetrafficnexttothe91freewayisalreadyterribleandaddingroughly1500newresidentswould ruinourcommunity. Rezoningtoappeaseadeveloperwouldbeaslapintheface. Amassive7-8 storybuildingwithadditionalhomes, andcommercialbuildingstogowithitsimplydonotbelong inAnaheimHills.

Additionalimpactstothecommunityinclude, displacingwildlife, overcrowdingtheroads, making trafficworsewithadditionalstreetlights, impactingcurrentresidents’ abilitytoevacuateinan emergency, takingawaywaterresourcesfromcurrentresidentsinanalreadydrought-stricken region, andmore.

IstronglyobjecttorezoningoftheproposedconstructionsiteandwouldliketoknowhowIcan officiallyprotesttherezoningprocessandstopthedevelopmentofthisunwantedapartment complex.

Pleasecontactmeatyourearliestconvenience.

Thankyouforyourhelp. Ilookforwardtospeakingwithyoufurtherregardingthis.

Respectfully,
KyleScott 1
2 Susana Barrios
From:

Sent: Tuesday, October29, 202412:09PM
To: [email protected]; ScottKoehm <[email protected]>; HeatherR. Allen <[email protected]>; Ashleigh Aitken <[email protected]>; NormaC. Kurtz <[email protected]>; JoseDiaz <[email protected]>; CarlosA.

Leon <[email protected]>; NatalieRubalcava <[email protected]>; NatalieMeeks <[email protected]>; cwalkeranaheimplanning@gmail. com; TedWhite <[email protected]>; StephenFaessel <[email protected]> Cc: JOHNCIERPIAL <
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] SALTDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INANAHEIM HILLS - DEERCANYON "PRESERVE" APARTMENTS Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Iwouldexpectourelected officials andAnaheim representatives tovoteinthebestinterest of Anaheim Hillsagainst proceeding withthe498apartments oftheDeerCanyon "Preserve" project.

1. Itdoesnot "preserve" DeerCanyon.

2. Thatareaiszonedforsingledwelling homes. Whyaretheybuilding multidwelling unitof498 apartments?

3. Ifthezoningwaschanged, whoandwhymadethischange? Ifthezoning waschanged, why wasnotAnaheim Hillsresidents, whowouldbeaffected bythischange, given theoption tovoicetheir opinions andconcersn?

4. Attending thelastmeeting, Ididnothearanywordsofthis498-unitcomplex mention "families", children", noramenities forfamilies orchildren. Why? Thedescription andvisuals weremorelikea presentation oftheunitanditsamenities ofaLasVegas hotel.

5. WhyisaUtahdevelopment property inAnaheim Hills?

6. WhyisthereagreenofficialroadsignonNohlRanch Road, between Canyon RimandAnaheim HillsRoad, STATING MAKEARIGHT ONANAHEIM HILLS ROAD TO91FWY? Anaheim Hills residents already knowwhere 91FWyis! OurAnaheim Hillsroadsarealready feeling theimpactof carsfromSouthCounty usingALLofourAnaheim Hillsroadsasshortcutstogetto91FWY leading totheirotherfreeway routes.

7. Ourroadsareimpacted heavily atcommuter times already.

8. Incaseoffireoranyotheremergency, Anaheim Hillsresidents willnotbeabletoevacuate. Can youevenimagine ourroads ifweneedtoleaveourhomes. Ourroadsarealready beingaffected as ashortcuttofreeways.

9. Whyareourrepresentatives notstanding upfortheAnaheim Hillsresidents theyrepresent?

10. Ourfireandpoliceservices arealready atmaximum ofserving thiscommunity safely.

11. Ourschools willfurtherimpacted, unless the "PRESERVE" isnotreally planning onapartments serving families.

13. Thelistactually goesonandonwhynottobuildapartment hirisesandlimittosingledwelling homes keeping thesafetyandintegrity ofthisareaandwhatiswasoriginally designed.

12. Ifthisproject isapproved andproceeds, itwillonlybethebeginning ofimpacting ourcommunity.

Thereneedtobeanswers totheabove totheAnaheim Hillsresidents by "ourrepresentatives" that wereelected orhiredonourbehalf.
1 JohnCierpial
2 Susana Barrios
From:

Sent: Tuesday, October29, 202411:23AM
To: [email protected]; ScottKoehm <[email protected]>; HeatherR. Allen <[email protected]>; Ashleigh Aitken <[email protected]>; NormaC. Kurtz <[email protected]>; JoseDiaz <[email protected]>; CarlosA.

Leon <[email protected]>; NatalieRubalcava <[email protected]>; NatalieMeeks <[email protected]>; cwalkeranaheimplanning@gmail. com; TedWhite <[email protected]>; StephenFaessel <[email protected]> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Re: SALTDevelopment Hill "Preserve" Project - October29,2024meeting Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Iamasking ourrepresentatives, elected orotherwise, toviewtheSALTDevelopment Hill "Preserve" Project asanything butto "Preserve" ourAnaheim Hillscommunity. It definitely willnot "preserve" orimprove thelivesofAnaheim Hillsresidents.

Icaneasily thinkbacktothelastfirethatwasencroaching Anaheim Hillsstarting an evacuation. Iwasinatrafficgridlock tryingtogethomefromwork togetmyfamily andthenwhenIfinallymade it, Iwasagaininagridlock tryingtocomply witha suggested evacuation. Insurance companies already recognize Anaheim Hills vulnerability tofiresbecause ofbigincreases inourhomeinsurance. Imagine what the498-unitapartment complex inAnaheim Hillswillcontribute toouralready community'sroadcongestion. Imagine whatthe498-unitapartments complex willdo tocrowding ourschools. Imagine whatthe498-unitapartments willdotoouralready strained fireandpolicedepartments. Imagine whatthe498-unitapartments willdoto impact ourlocalwildlife. Imagine theenvironmental impactofthe498-apartments onour Anaheim Hillscommunity.

TheCityisalsokidding themselves iftheythinkaSaltLakeCitycompany, notalocal company, willhavedeedrestrictions thatwouldkeephalfoftheundeveloped open space. Ifyoubelieve that, Ihaveanother offertoyouresurrecting anoldphrase..."If youbelieve that, Ihaveabridge inBrooklyn toselltoyou."
Anaheim Hillsroadsarealready beingusedasshortcuts from/totherollroadsand otherfreeways thatareheading outtoCorona. Wearereferring toSantaAnaCanyon RoadasSantaAnaCanyon Freeway, samewithSerrano, NohlRanch, Fairmount, Imperial andevenourshortAnaheim HillsRoad. ThereevenisanewroadsignonNohl Ranch "Freeway" between Canyon RimandAnaheim Hills, thatdirects traffic to91 FREEWAY! Iwaswondering whyAnaheim Hillshadsomuchtrafficattimes, thesign directing traffic to91Freeway answered thatquestion. Ibetthereareother signsdoingthe exact samethingwhich explains ourcommunity traffic concerns. 1 Please donotapprove this "preserve" project. Makethesafetyandconcerns ofthe Anaheim Hillscommunity yourpriority.

Louise Cierpial
Anaheim Hills92807
2 Susana Barrios
From: Darren McLain <darren@darrensmclain. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Nicholas J. Taylor
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTDeerCanyon project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Nick,
MynameisDarrenMcLain, I’ma27-yearresidentofAnaheimHills. Idon’twanttheSaltDeerCanyonprojecttobe approved. Theareainquestionshouldremainascurrentlyzoned. 498apartmentunitsisnotAnaheimHills.

AndI’mmorethansuspiciousaboutthe40Ksfcommercialspace. JusttodayIdrovearoundthecommercial propertiesonandaroundSantaAnaCynroadandeverysingleonehasspaceavailable. Onesignsaidupto20Ksf wasavailable. Justaddingupthespacelistedonthesignstheavailablespaceiswellover40Ksf. Thereisno needfor40Kmoresfofcommercialspace. Theapplicantisn’taskingforcommercialspace; they’reaskingfor spacetheyknowwon’tbeleasableandthenthey’llcomebacklatertoasktoconvertthatspacetoevenmore apartments. Iknowhowthisworks; I’malicensedarchitectandIworkwithdevelopersallthetime.

DarrenMcLain
1 Susana Barrios
From: DebiC <debichristensen@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Opposing rapidgrowth without infrastructure Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

IdisagreewiththeapartmentbuildingsproposedbySaltdevelopmenttogoupinDeerCanyon. Iknow weneedtodoourpartinhelpingtohouseCaliforniansbuttwo-bedroomfamilyexpensiveapartmentsin anareathatdoesn'thavetheinfrastructure tosupportthesafetyofevacuationorthebuildingsand teachersforthekidsthatwouldbemovinginisunfairtonotonlyourcommunitybutthosethatwouldbe movingin.

Let'sfindabettersolutionandPLANsomethingamazingthatwillsupporttheneedsofcurrentandfuture Anaheimresidents.

TalkaboutpavedParadiseandputupaparkinglot.... Therearesofewnaturalareastorecreate. Why wouldyoucutintothatwithhugeapartmentbuildings? Nottomentionwhentheraincomeshowmy neighborhood downstreamisgoingtohandletheimpacttheywouldhaveonthehill. Closingthegates foreasyaccesstoDeercanyonfromSantaAnahasbeenadisservicetothecommunity. Ibelievethisis partofsalt'sdoing. Theyhavealsobeenverydeceivinginadvertising. Usingthesavedeercanyon platformwithatwistofwordstomakethoseunawarebelievetheyareputtinginsomethingbeneficialfor thecommunity. Thecommunityhasbeenspeakingout!!
Iknowtheirpocketsaredeep, butpleaseheartheoutpouringvoices. Lookatthemapandcurrenttraffic livingsituation. Pleasedon'toverthinkthiswithSalt'ssparklesandcharm. thereispressuretohouse morepeoplebutlet'sdoittherightway. Commonsensewilltellyouthisisabadidea. 1 Susana Barrios
From: laprincesa laprincesa <labonnieboo@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTPROJECT/SAVEDEER PARK
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

WeSTRONGLY opposetheSaltDevelopment projectinAnaheim Hills, Ca, 92807. USETOLOVEITHERE, ABSOLUTELY HATEITNOW, TOOMUCHTRAFFIC, 24/7!
B
1 Susana Barrios
From: CoreyChristensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] SALTDevelopment DeerCanyon
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
IopposethedevelopmentinDeerCanyonduetothealreadyterribletrafficduringrushhourandschool dropoff/pickuptimes. PleasewatchthevideosonFacebook "SaveDeerCanyon" forreference.

Thanks,
CoreyChristensen
1 Susana Barrios
From: Achavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Deercanyon comment
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncil, Iamwritingtoexpressmyseriousconcernsregardingtheproposed498-unitDeer CanyonapartmentcomplexinAnaheimHills. WhileIrecognizetheneedtoaddressSouthernCalifornia’s housingchallenges, thisparticulardevelopmentonthe76-acrewildernessareaoffSantaAnaCanyonRoad raisesseveralcriticalissuesthatwouldnegativelyimpactourcommunityandenvironment. 1. IncreasedTraffic, Noise, andPollution: TheproposeddevelopmentwouldsignificantlyincreasetrafficonSantaAnaCanyon Road, directlyaffectingfamilieswholivealongorneartheroute. Currently, thenoiseandsmogfromthenearby 91Freewayalreadyimpactresidents, andthisadditionaltrafficburdenwouldexacerbatetheissue, diminishing ourcommunity’squalityoflife. Ourneighborhoodscannotenduretheworseningconditionsthatthis developmentwouldimpose. 2. DestructionofLocalWildlifeHabitat: TheDeerCanyonareaishometovarious wildlifespecies, whosehabitatswouldbedestroyedbythisspeculativeproject. Thisnaturalareaservesasa vitalsanctuaryforthesespecies, andtheproposeddevelopmentwouldresultintheirreversiblelossof biodiversityanddisrupttheecologicalbalanceoftheregion. 3. LossofVegetationBenefitingAirQuality: The vegetationinDeerCanyonplaysanessentialroleinfilteringtheair, helpingmitigatesmogfromthe91 Freeway. Whenfreewaycongestionincreases, manyvehicles, includingheavytrucks, exitonImperialHighway andtakethewindingroutethroughourareatobypasstraffic, addingevenmorepollution. Removingthis vegetationwouldhavedirect, adverseeffectsonairqualityforAnaheimHillsresidents. 4. IncreasedSafety RisksinaHigh-RiskZone: Addingnearly500unitsinAnaheimHillsraisesserioussafetyconcerns. Ourarea sitsneartheSanAndreasFault, increasingtheriskofstructuralfailureandsignificantdangerduring earthquakes. Additionally, AnaheimHillsisathighriskforwildfires, andtheincreasedpopulationdensitywould complicateevacuationduringemergencies, puttinglivesatrisk. Developinginahigh-riskarealikethisissimply notprudent, asitwouldlikelyresultincomplexandpotentiallyhazardousevacuationscenarios. Inlightofthese concerns, IurgetheCityCounciltoreconsidertheDeerCanyonapartmentproject. Thelong-termimpactson traffic, environmentalstability, airquality, andresidentsafetyinAnaheimHillsshouldbeprioritizedover speculativerealestateinterests. Ratherthancontributetooverdevelopmentinasensitivearea, Ihopethe Councilwillfocusonsustainable, well-consideredsolutionsthatgenuinelyaddressthehousingcrisiswithout compromisingtheintegrityofourcommunity. Thankyouforconsideringthesecomments. Iappreciateyour commitmenttolisteningtothevoicesofAnaheimresidents. Sincerely, AnnalisaChavez SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: SergeModoc <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Cc: KyleeModoc
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Re: NoonProposed DeerCanyonProject Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Strongnoonproposed deercanyonproject. No, please, no.

SergeModoc
SentfrommyiPhone
OnOct29, 2024, at1:22PM, KyleeModoc < wrote:

MyhusbandandIstandincompleteopposi?ontotheprojectproposed indeercanyon, Anaheimhillsandrezoning deercanyon.

Serge & KyleeModoc
SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: FrankLiddi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Re: DeerCanyon development
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Towhomitmayconcern,
IamsendingmyconcernforthisprojectoSantaAnacanyon. IamanAnaheim HillsresidentwholivesnearWeir CanyonRdandSantaAnaCanyonroad. Thetracisge?ngincreasingly worse, weekdaytractoweekendtracis becoming intolerable. Ittookmeover2hoursstuckintractogethomedrivingeastboundonSantaAnaRoadalso passingbythisproposed project. AsIdrovebytheprojectIwasthinkingwhatwouldhappenifthecurrentresidents werenotabletoevacuateshouldtherebeawildreandweneedtogetoutofthearea.

Ineededtoevacuate3 ?messincelivinginmyhome. Thisismostdenitelyasafetyhazardanddisasterinthemaking.

Pleaseusethispe??ontoaddmyvoicetotheopposi?ontothisproject.

Thankyou,
FrankLiddi
Anaheim
Sentfrommy iPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: CathyWong <cpeterson8808@icloud. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Weareagainst thedeercanyon build- wedon’thaveenough lanes to drive intooroutofthisarea - ittookme3hours togettothelibrary (ourevacuation site) andnofreeways areopenupherewhenwehavehadfires - please noexpansion Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Isabelle Dena <isabelledena2016@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Protect OurCommunity fromUnsafe Development Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

DearCityCouncilMembers,
AsaresidentofAnaheimHills, Iamdeeplyconcerned abouttheproposeddevelopment inDeerCanyonPreservebythe SaltProject. Thisuntouched areaishometomanyanimalsandisavitalpartofourcommunity’snaturalbeauty.

GivenSouthernCalifornia’shistorywithdevasta?ngwildres, developing inthisareaposessignicantriskstooursafety.

Itiscrucialthatweputthesafetyofourresidentsabovenancialinterests. Ourcommunity doesnotneedmorejobsat theexpenseofincreased crimeandtrac, reminiscent ofAnaheim’sissues.

Pleaseconsiderthelong-termimplica?onsandpriori?zethepreserva?onofDeerCanyonPreserveforthewell-beingof AnaheimHillsresidents.

Sincerely,
Isabelle
AnaheimHillsResident
1 Susana Barrios
From: CathyKerr <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Apartment Project
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheimCityCouncil
Iamwritingtoexpressmyurgentconcernsregardingtheproposed498-unitDeerCanyonapartmentcomplex inAnaheimHills. WhileIrecognizetheneedtoaddressSouthernCalifornia’shousingchallenges, this particulardevelopmentonthe76-acrewildernessareaoffSantaAnaCanyonRoadraisesseveralcritical issuesthatwouldnegativelyimpactourcommunityandenvironment.

1. IncreasedTraffic, Noise, andPollution: Theproposeddevelopmentwouldsignificantlyincreasetrafficon SantaAnaCanyonRoad, directlyaffectingfamilieswholivealongorneartheroute. Currently, thenoiseand smogfromthenearby91Freewayalreadyimpactresidents, andthisadditionaltrafficburdenwouldexacerbate theissue, diminishingourcommunity’squalityoflife. Ourneighborhoodscannotenduretheworsening conditionsthatthisdevelopmentwouldimpose.

2. DestructionofLocalWildlifeHabitat: TheDeerCanyonareaishometovariouswildlifespecies, whose habitatswouldbedestroyedbythisspeculativeproject. Thisnaturalareaservesasavitalsanctuaryforthese species, andtheproposeddevelopmentwouldresultintheirreversiblelossofbiodiversityanddisruptthe ecologicalbalanceoftheregion.

3. LossofVegetationBenefitingAirQuality: ThevegetationinDeerCanyonplaysanessentialroleinfiltering theair, helpingmitigatesmogfromthe91Freeway. Whenfreewaycongestionincreases, manyvehicles, includingheavytrucks, exitonImperialHighwayandtakethewindingroutethroughourareatobypasstraffic, addingevenmorepollution. Removingthisvegetationwouldhavedirect, adverseeffectsonairqualityfor AnaheimHillsresidents.

4. IncreasedSafetyRisksinaHigh-RiskZone: Addingnearly500unitsinAnaheimHillsraisesserioussafety concerns. OurareasitsneartheSanAndreasFault, increasingtheriskofstructuralfailureandsignificant dangerduringearthquakes.

Additionally, AnaheimHillsisathighriskforwildfires, andtheincreasedpopulationdensitywouldcomplicate evacuationduringemergencies, puttinglivesatrisk! Developinginahigh-riskarealikethisissimplynot prudent, asitwouldlikelyresultincomplexandpotentiallyhazardousevacuationscenarios Inlightoftheseconcerns, IurgetheCityCounciltoreconsidertheDeerCanyonapartmentproject. Thelongtermimpactsontraffic, environmentalstability, airquality, andresidentsafetyinAnaheimHillsshouldbe prioritizedoverspeculativerealestateinterests. Ratherthancontributetooverdevelopment inasensitivearea, IhopetheCouncilwillfocusonsustainable, well-consideredsolutionsthatgenuinelyaddressthehousingcrisis withoutcompromisingtheintegrityofourcommunity.
1 Thankyouforconsideringthesecomments. IappreciateyourcommitmenttolisteningtothevoicesofAnaheim residents.

Sincerely,
CatherineKerr
29yearAnaheimHillsresident
2 Susana Barrios
From: kristinahinds05 < kristinahinds05@aol. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Project - Opposition Statement Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

ThisisaformalwrittennoticethatweopposetheDeerCanyonProject. ThedailytrafficonSantaAna CanyonbetweenLakeviewandWeirCanyonisalreadyoutofcontrol. Building1000+ homeswill increasethetrafficsignificantlycausingdangeroussituationstotheAnaheimHillscommunityand residents. Thefiredangerishighandwedonothavemanyroadstogetoutsafely. Accidents, deathsand crimewillincreasecausingchaosinasmallandquitetown. Overcrowdingisnotthesolution. In additionthiswillcontinuetodestroynaturalhabitatforourwildlife. Pleasebuildelsewhere. Preserve AnaheimHills!
TheOrtiz's
Imperial & SantaAnaCanyon
SentfrommyVerizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Jeff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 21PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Development application 2021-00137 zoning reclassification and development alongSantaAnaCanyon Road/ DeerCanyon Road
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

AsresidentsofAnaheimHills, westronglyopposethezoningreclassica?onandtheproposed development oftheDeer CanyonRoadandSantaAnaRoadarea.
1 Susana Barrios
From: BobOlea <bobbyolea070522@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: JimVanderpool; CarlosA. Leon; Ashleigh Aitken; Berenice Ballinas; Natalie Meeks; Natalie Rubalcava; Norma C. Kurtz; PublicComment; JoseDiaz; Stephen Faessel; Theresa Bass
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

ListentotherechiefandthepolicechiefvotenoSentfrommyiPhone 1 Susana Barrios
From: Sharron <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Deercanyon
Youdon'to?engetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportantat
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ca?on \]
Warning: Thisemailoriginated fromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropena?achments unlessyou recognize thesenderandareexpec?ngthemessage.

Wedonotneedaddi?onalhousinginourarea. WealreadyhaveatracproblemonSantaAnaCanyonRd, ifwehavea rewewillreallybeintrouble. WeliveupbySerranowhichhasnowbecomeatracproblem, everynightthereis moreandmorecars. IwishIhadananswerforallthetrac, butIdoknowmorehousinginourareaisnottheanswerit willonlyADDtotheproblemwealreadyhave.

Thanksforlistening.

SentfrommyiPhone
1 Susana Barrios
From: Deborah Biscotti <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 202411:49PM
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DeerCanyon Apartment Project
Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

DearAnaheim CityCouncil,
Iamwriting toexpress myurgent concerns regarding theproposed 498-unitDeerCanyon apartment complex inAnaheim Hills. WhileIrecognize theneedtoaddressSouthern California’shousing challenges, thisparticular development onthe76-acrewilderness areaoff SantaAnaCanyon Roadraisesseveral critical issues thatwouldnegatively impactour community andenvironment.

1. Increased Traffic, Noise, andPollution: Theproposed development wouldsignificantly increase trafficonSantaAnaCanyon Road, directly affecting families wholivealongornear theroute. Currently, thenoiseandsmogfromthenearby91Freeway already impact residents, andthisadditional trafficburdenwouldexacerbate theissue, diminishing our community’squalityoflife. Ourneighborhoods cannot endure theworsening conditions that thisdevelopment wouldimpose.

2. Destruction ofLocalWildlife Habitat: TheDeerCanyon areaishometovarious wildlife species, whose habitats wouldbedestroyed bythisspeculative project. Thisnaturalarea servesasavitalsanctuary forthesespecies, andtheproposed development wouldresultin theirreversible lossofbiodiversity anddisrupttheecological balance oftheregion.

3. LossofVegetation Benefiting AirQuality: Thevegetation inDeerCanyon playsanessential roleinfiltering theair, helping mitigate smogfromthe91Freeway. Whenfreeway congestion increases, manyvehicles, including heavytrucks, exitonImperial Highway andtakethe winding routethrough ourareatobypass traffic, addingevenmorepollution. Removing this vegetation wouldhavedirect, adverse effects onairquality forAnaheim Hillsresidents.

4. Increased SafetyRisksinaHigh-RiskZone: Adding nearly500unitsinAnaheim Hills raisesserious safetyconcerns. OurareasitsneartheSanAndreasFault, increasing therisk ofstructural failureandsignificant danger duringearthquakes.

Additionally, Anaheim Hillsisathighriskforwildfires, andtheincreased population density wouldcomplicate evacuation duringemergencies, puttinglivesatrisk! Developing inahigh1 riskarealikethisissimplynotprudent, asitwouldlikelyresultincomplex andpotentially hazardous evacuation scenarios
Inlightoftheseconcerns, IurgetheCityCounciltoreconsider theDeerCanyon apartment project. Thelong-termimpacts ontraffic, environmental stability, airquality, andresident safetyinAnaheim Hillsshouldbeprioritized overspeculative realestate interests. Ratherthan contribute tooverdevelopment inasensitive area, IhopetheCouncil willfocusonsustainable, well-considered solutions thatgenuinely address thehousing crisiswithout compromising the integrity ofourcommunity.

Thank youforconsidering thesecomments. Iappreciate yourcommitment tolistening tothe voicesofAnaheim residents.

Sincerely,
DebbieBiscotti
Anaheim HillResident forover29years
NOTICE: Thisemailmessageisforthesoleuseoftheaddressee(s) namedaboveandmaycontainconfidentialand privilegedinformation. Anyunauthorized review, use, disclosureordistributionofthismessageoranyattachments is expresslyprohibited. Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient, pleasecontactthesenderbyreplyemailanddestroyall copiesandbackupsoftheoriginalmessage.
2 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Wednesday, October9, 20245:18AM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Iguessyoucopsaredoingyourjobright Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://www.facebook.com/100067027132438/posts/pfbid02xatEExt2DPwiHydkBCk9qe8nfk8c4tHfoGU 2ubMKUkod7UxK55VvTnYYVB7BR5xwl/? mibextid=7Upa0K
1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Wednesday, October9, 20246:15AM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Where'smylibertyandjusticeforRubenwithallthewrongyoudidtomecourthouse inpolice OrangecountyRiversidecountyfamilylaw
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

SearchLabs | AIOverview
3 TheLibertyBellisasymboloffreedomintheUnitedStates, anditsmessageis "ProclaimLiberty throughoutallthelanduntoalltheinhabitants thereof". Thebell'sinscriptioncomesfromtheBible, Leviticus25:10, whichreferstothe "Jubilee", whenIsraeliteswereinstructedtofreeslavesandreturn propertyevery50years.

TheLibertyBellwasorderedin1751bythePennsylvaniaAssemblytocommemorate the50th anniversaryofWilliamPenn'sCharterofPrivileges, whichwasPennsylvania'soriginalConstitution. The bellwasoriginallycalledtheStateHousebellandwashunginthetowerofIndependenceHall, which wasthenknownasthePennsylvaniaStateHouse.

TheLibertyBelliskepttodaybecauseitsmessageoflibertyisstillimportant.

NationalParkService (.gov)
TheLibertyBell - Independence NationalHistoricalPark (U.S. ...

Jul13, 2024 — TheLibertyBell'sinscriptionisfromtheBible (KingJamesversion): "ProclaimLiberty ThroughoutAlltheLandUntoAlltheInhabitantsthereof."
The
1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Thursday, October10, 202410:18PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Fwd: Response fromCongressman Correa Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Forwardedmessage ---------
From: Rep. LouCorrea <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Oct10, 2024, 2:49PM
Subject: ResponsefromCongressmanCorrea
To: RubenGregSoto <
Dear Mr. Soto,
Thank you forcontacting myoffice regarding your request forassistance.

AsaMember ofCongress, myability toassist you extends tofederal matters. However, since therequest you have made pertains tolegal matters. Our office recommends you contact theOrange County Public Defenders' Office located at 801 Civic Center Drive West, Suite 400, Santa Ana, CA92701. You canalso give them acallat (657) 251-6090. My staff recommended youcontact them regarding theClean Slate Program.

Once again, thank you forcontacting myoffice.
1 Sincerely,
Rep. LouCorrea
Member ofCongress
Sign upformynewsletter togetupdates onthis issue and others! SignUp!
ContactMe
Washington D.C.
2301 Rayburn House
Office Building
Washington, DC20515
202) 225-2965
Santa Ana
Rancho Santiago
Community College Building
2323 N. Broadway, Suite 319
Santa Ana, CA92706
714) 559-6190
46 RM0Z50-9WP7R\]
2 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Sunday, October13, 20249:11AM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Nonoinformation onGregLaurie'ssalarywhy Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02khmfMYLjEytCzP8PKr1gsZWdwUUqoyeAVej6MLp kMC15tFs7Rifgqo6bGaFvaNXsl&id=100094259776148&sfnsn=mo&mibextid=VhDh1V 1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto <
Sent: Wednesday, October16, 202410:14AM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Childsupportgovernment aidChurchaid Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oV9tXMx3jpSbWX4h7
1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Saturday, October19, 20242:53PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Scamming thesystem
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

HeyJusticeformeyouknowwhyallthepigsandsheriffsandallyourpeopleinthegovernmentandyour jaildidyoubegivingallthemedicationthepillsthatthecriminalswantandtheyallstandupinmind there'salonglinecuztheylietohimwhattheygottheproblemsandstuffcuztheygetfree poppingpillmedicationtheyknowwhichonestogetcuzthey'redrugaddictsandyoustupid inthecourtsystemyoudamnsheriffyou nursesyoudoctorsinthat jailI yougoodandIdosomemorerevengeformeyousonofa aboutmoneyyougreedymother 1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Saturday, October19, 20243:22PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Drugabuseinjailtaxpayers moneygoingtowaste Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0gZ5RUSCcweWMRDcPEnB5cnanYDZ9R31yvcnVC obKo3K7kjJgXRghuAKv98gttkSwl&id=100094259776148&sfnsn=mo&mibextid=6aamW6 1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto <
Sent: Monday, October21, 202410:22AM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] GodrepayingwhatyoudidtonativeAmericans Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/mL2ZUAxVg3TFCx2t7
1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Monday, October21, 202411:07AM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] ThanksGivinghuhpilgrimssmallpoxblankets firewater Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m3fHBr9CxHsbQT8y8
1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Tuesday, October22, 202411:39AM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Congressman isheamanofhisword
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/rvHhgWg8AwSMfNXi9
1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Tuesday, October22, 20248:13PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Betrayaltoyourchildrenchildsupporttaxevasion Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02YjJtkqJBesp2TtDdgHPSEENZUYCDTfdHAgX5kQgY P8EUDRX5sEMmZAgnw5x96gy9l&id=100094259776148&mibextid=7Upa0K 1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Thursday, October24, 20246:04PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] GrandtheftAutodocumented withFullertonPolicedepartment Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0KBytnNpJhWaTDdkRLUkVq3ALWxbZvtJWAaGortf9 H87R8oTL6y74hwKJoeR8TAmVl&id=100094259776148&mibextid=7Upa0K 1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Thursday, October24, 20248:10PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] WhatyoualldidtoRubenyeahitisagainstGod'srulelaw Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02QNCVD43VWjW5D7D5qtNs765fFym8472r4VZP1 aK2kVj5sxehFMdLvgHxbmeL3tTcl&id=100094259776148&mibextid=7Upa0K 1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Thursday, October24, 20248:26PM
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0K5DB3p2H933XbHhESg3h9FZPopM1MGwvDQAC ppBXz8PAwA9sEBATG85yLxJQk8DKl&id=100094259776148&mibextid=7Upa0K 1 Susana Barrios
From: RubenSoto
Sent: Friday, October25, 20248:58AM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Oldmenpayingfor mybaby'smamamyniece Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid03Ux8rxTU5ZiriXbffWE3bK6ZeC7isiC63aqEEep4Ww jSA7AKFGXu4TurRy5w9Cqgl&id=100094259776148&mibextid=7Upa0K 1 Susana Barrios
From: MichaelMavrovouniotis <
Sent: Thursday, October10, 20242:28PM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] PublicComment forthenextCityCouncilmeeting Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

For18months now, Orange CountyAnimal Care (OCAC) refuses toacknowledge simple facts. For OCAC morning isthesameasafternoon, littledogsweighthesameasbigdogs, and37isequalto 150. Don’tlaugh. Ionlywishtheseexamples weremadeup.

OCAC isusingnonsensical “calculations” toclaimthatwhenvisitors couldn’tvisitthedogsinthe kennel buildings itmiraculously gotmoreadoptions done. “200% moreadoptions” theysaid. Thisis nonsense. I’veshown it, inapeer-reviewed research paper, based ontheshelter’sowndata.

It’snowbeenoveramonth andahalfsincethepaperwaspublished. Orange County government is sticking toitsnonsense. Itstillhasonitswebsite acalculation thatwouldgetyouanFinmiddle school math.

Iscounty evergoingtorecognize simple factsandshowaminimum ofrespect foritscitizens? Youcanreadmyresearch paperhere:
https://jsmcah.org/index.php/jasv/article/view/85
andclickon “PDF” todownload thefulltext.)
Theshelter’snonsense, ifyoucanstomach it, ishere:
https://app.box.com/s/uebomlp63lm0tk4kmid8kddljvau7w2f
andliveontheirwebsite here: https://ocpetinfo.com/DailyAdoptionOptions 1 Susana Barrios
From: AlexBrown <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday,
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] citycouncil PUBLIC COMMENT oncountyANIMAL SHELTER Attachments: 4thLetterOCAC Volunteers.pdf
Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

I’mtryingtogetinformationtothecommunity, sotheycanputpressureontheirelectedofficials.

Thecitycouncilprobablyalreadyhasthisinformation.

Dearfellowcitizens, pleasereadtheattachedletter, whichwassentbyOrangecountyanimalshelter volunteers toelectedofficials.

It’sthefourthlettertheysent. Ifyouwanttoreadthepreviousonesyoucanfindthemonocshelter.com Scrolldown… pastalistofrecentscathingarticles… theStrategicPlantheshelterisNOTfollowing… the GrandJuryReporttheshelterdidNOTlistento… togettothe4 (four) volunteerlettersthatfellondeaf ears.
1 August 26, 2024
Monica Schmidt, OCAC
Dawn Maestas, OCAC
Sam Blankenship, OCAC
Frank Foran, OCAC
Dylan Wright, OCCR
Cymantha Atkinson, OCCR
Michelle Aguirre, Acting CEO
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Grand Jury
Voice of OC
OC Register
Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter is being written on behalf of many loyal volunteers at OC Animal Care ( OCAC), many of whom have worked with the dogs at the shelter for many years. We love the animals and have established great relationships with many other wonderful volunteers and OCAC sta members.

We were so disheartened to read the August 14th Voice of OC article regarding sta ing at the shelter and the response OCAC intends to give the Grand Jury.

To verify that the Voice of OC got it right, we watched the Board of Supervisors August 13th meeting to hear exactly what was said about sta ing at the shelter. We moved from being disheartened to being angry at the blatant lies told by shelter leadership, specifically by OCAC Director Monica Schmidt.

Allow us to annotate what she said and what the truth is. But first, let’s be clear about what the Grand Jury is asking ( pulled from Attachment A on the BOS website for Agenda Item #26):

To clarify, the Grand Jury' s inquiry pertains specifically to the Animal Care Attendant ( ACA) position, not shelter sta ing as a whole. And let’s be clear about who these ACAs are and what they do: they are the frontline sta providing direct care tothe animals at the shelter (dogs, cats, barnyard animals, and more.).

Despite the Grand Jury being very specific about who they are asking about, here is what Monica Schmidt told the Board of Supervisors:

Monica –“ I appreciate the opportunity to share a bit more in depth. So we do have a number of positions that handle animals at the shelter, roughly about 90 out of 137. Animal Care Attendant is just one of many classifications that assist with the care of animals on our property. The other thing this report didn’t necessarily have the ability to add in is the robust volunteer program that we also have with a number of community supporters. We had nearly 400 volunteers the first six months of this year alone. The last quarter, that equated to about

15.7 full time positions in addition to what our sta does to support the animals. And so we really have taken a look at it’s a multi-faceted review, not a singular classification review of where we say we have enough sta to care for the animals.” As concerned volunteers, please allow us to break this down for you:

So we do have a number of positions that handle animals at the shelter, roughly about 90 out of 137. Animal Care Attendant is just one of many classifications that assist with the care of animals on our property.”
The Grand Jury wasn’ t asking about everyone who “assist[ s] with the care of animals”( Animal Control O icers, Intake Sta, Vet Sta, Foster Sta, etc.). These sta members all do important work, but the Grand Jury is asking about the frontline sta who provide the direct, daily care ofthe animals. i (which includes feeding, watering, cleaning, disinfecting, provide enrichment, handling adoption introductions/ visits with potential adopters and the potential adoptable dog(s), stocking the supplies and bedding, transporting injured or sick dogs to the clinic for treatment, transporting adopted dogs to the clinic when adopted.)
Monica’ s response tries to divert your attention away from the problem at hand: the shelter is woefully understa ed in the ACA position, the only position the Grand Jury is talking about. Here are the facts:

Despite the Grand Jury’ s finding that there were 21 ACAs providing direct care to the animals at the time of their report in 2023, and despite the shelter’ s Strategic Plan consultants saying there should be 26 per day (which with two shift patterns actually means 52 total), the number has only gone DOWN since the Grand Jury Report was issued. Here’ s a little history ( data drawn from Public Records Act requests):
2017- 18:
29 Kennel
Attendants
3 Sr. Kennel
Attendants
2018- 19:
23 Kennel
Attendants
5 Sr. Kennel
Attendants
2019- 20
19 Kennel
Attendants
6 Sr. Kennel
Attendants
2020- 21
15 Kennel
Attendants
4 Sr. Kennel
Attendants
2021- 22
13 Kennel
Attendants
4 Sr. Kennel
Attendants
2022- 23
20 Kennel
Attendants
4 Sr. Kennel
Attendants
Total: 32 Total: 28 Total: 25 Total: 19
pandemic year
Total: 17
pandemic year
Total: 24
How many ACAs does the shelter employ at present? Approximately 13! Yes, 13. How many animals are they caring for? Hundreds of dogs, cats, kittens, and other animals ( rabbits, roosters, and occasionally reptiles, birds, etc.).

Early 2024: there were approximately 16 to 19 ACAs
Presently: approximately 13
6 new sta are promised to be coming on board (2 permanent, 4 extra help) That will bring us to approximately 19
Look at the numbers. We’re gone from 32 in 2017 --- to 21 cited by the Grand Jury --- to not even 19 today (the new people still haven’ t come on board, despite the County posting this job MONTHS ago).

And don’t forget, the Strategic Plan consultants call for 26 PER DAY. With two shift pattens ( ACAs work Sunday through Wednesday, and another cohort works Wednesday through Saturday), that means the shelter needs to employ a minimum of 52 ACAs to comply with the guidelines set forth by the nationally respected experts in animal sheltering they employed to draft their Strategic Plan. 19 ACAs
vs.
52 ACAs
Despite us saying there will be 19 ACAs once the new sta on board, please know there are days there are just a handful of ACAs at the shelter. In fact, there were a few days within the last two months where only THREE Animal Care Attendants were working caring for HUNDREDS of dogs.

Monica should be ashamed of her continuing failure to sta this position and also for lying about sta ing levels at the shelter. Her failures negatively a ect the ability to provide basic care for the dogs, handle adoption visits, and the myriad other duties performed by the ACAs.

Back to Monica’ s (mis)statements to the Board of Supervisors:

So we do have a number of positions that handle animals at the shelter, roughly about 90 out of 137. Animal Care Attendant is just one of many classifications that assist with the care of animals on our property.

Fine. But that’s NOT what the Grand Jury is asking for a follow- up response on to their Findings 3and

4. Board of Supervisors: We know you rely on shelter leadership to provide you with accurate information. However, it’s bold language to use but you’ ve been lied to. Monica has done what she does best and told you a story about sta ing that simply isn’t true. We’re sad to say that Monica’ s primary focus is shelter PR, not actually running the shelter and doing what needs to be done.

The consultants who developed the Strategic Plan are national experts. They know full well that many other sta interact with the animals. They made recommendations about other sta ing issues. But know that when these national experts talk about ACAs, they mean ACAs. These national experts’ calculations are based on national standards about basic care provided by ACAs.

To continue with the (mis)information Monica provided to the BOS on August 13th:

The other thing this report didn’t necessarily have the ability toadd inis the robust volunteer program that we also have with a number of community supporters. We had nearly 400 volunteers the first six months of this year alone. The last quarter, that equated to about 15.7 full time positions in addition to what our sta does to support the animals. And so we really have taken a look at it’s a multi- faceted review, not a singular classification review of where we say we have enough sta to care for the animals.

Wow. Let’s clarify: volunteers are not sta and we are limited in the tasks we can perform (feeding is sta only, volunteers are not allowed to run big dog play groups, volunteers are not allowed to handle adoption visits with members of the public, and we have other restrictions on what we can do at the shelter). In addition, OC Animal Care is a unionized worksite. Is Monica saying she doesn’ t have to hire people because she can just count volunteers as sta? This suggestion is unacceptable, as the unions would undoubtedly agree. Further, we can wholeheartedly tell you there are nowhere CLOSE to 400 volunteers who participate on a regular basis to even consider as daily support. We suspect she is counting some people who never even touch an animal, such as those volunteers who come in just to help with laundry or one-time volunteers who show up for a few hours to volunteer at the monthly Pet Food Pantry and are never seen again. However, Monica has a penchant for making up numbers.

The consultants that developed the Strategic Plan know full well that the shelter has volunteers. They gave recommendations about the volunteer program as well. When they arrived at the number of ACAs ( 26 present per day, implying 52+ positions) they were NOT mixing ACAs and volunteers. They knew that volunteers would be helping in other ways ( walks, yard time). Monica is either utterly ignorant or knows full well and is choosing to lie to you.

Susana Barrios
From: KATHYCHANCE <
Sent: Thursday, October10, 20243:44PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] APD: SKYCRANEwithanIronNitridemagnetFe16N2neededforillegallyparkedvehicles Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

It'stimetheCityofAnaheimlookforbettercost-savingmeasuressuchasaSKY CRANEwithanIronNitridemagnetFe16N2topickupand
removeillegallyparkedvehicles, thenplacethemimmediatelyintoimpound.

Whyarewewastingourtaxdollarsontowtrucks? WecantotallydothisfromtheskyANDinhousetosavemoney! KathyChance
34+ homeowner, 92804
Moreinnovativewaysonhandlinghabitualillegallyparkedviolators" 1 Susana Barrios
From: CraigADurfey <
Sent: Monday, October14, 20241:26PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] SharingCellphone bansdon'tsolvetherealproblem -- addictivesocialmedia Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

IthoughtyouwouldwanttoseethisinterestingstoryfromEdSource: https://edsource.org/?p=720528 1 Susana Barrios
From:

Sent: Tuesday, October15, 20241:39PM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] CityCouncilPublicComment, OrangeCountyCommunity Resources Youdon'toftengetemailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

SeniorcountymanagersenabledtheAndrewDoscandal
https://voiceofoc.org/2024/10/mavrovouniotis-senior-county-managers-enabled-theandrew-do-scandal/ AnumberofcountyexecutivesconnectedtotheAndrewDo – VietAmericaSociety scandalleftquietly. Twokeyfiguresimplicatedinthescandalstillholdhighoffice. Oneis AndrewDohimself, whosetermwillendthisyear. TheotherisDylanWright, DirectorofOC CommunityResources.
1 Susana Barrios
From: CraigADurfey <
Sent: Tuesday, October22, 202412:54PM
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Fwd: NewsfromPAWSforPeople
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Forwardedmessage ---------
From: CraigADurfey <
Date: Tue, Oct22, 2024at11:25AM
Subject: Fwd: NewsfromPAWSforPeople
Forwardedmessage ---------
From: CraigADurfey <
Date: Tue, Oct22, 2024at10:55AM
Subject: Fwd: NewsfromPAWSforPeople
To: CraigADurfey <
Forwardedmessage ---------
From: CraigADurfey <
Subject: Fwd: NewsfromPAWSforPeople
Forwardedmessage ---------
From: CraigADurfey <
Date: Tue, Oct22, 2024at9:18AM
Subject: Fwd: NewsfromPAWSforPeople
1 TOWHOMITMAYCONCERN

LETSSUPPORT DOGTHERAPYTOADDRESSTHEVIOLENCEINSCHOOLTHELACKEMPATHYSO BELOWTHEARETWOPARTSOFINFORMATIONLETTERSSUPPORTTHISTODIMINISHBULLYING. .

Forwardedmessage ---------
From: CraigADurfey <
Date: Tue, Oct22, 2024at8:57AM
Subject: Fwd: NewsfromPAWSforPeople
To: CraigADurfey < PIODepartment <[email protected]>

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'SDIGEST
HR28, asamended, Dababneh.

DIGEST KEY

BILLTEXT
WHEREAS, Sections 233.5 (partoftheHate Violence Prevention Act) and60042 oftheEducation Code require instruction inkindergarten andgrades 1to12, inclusive, topromote andencourage kindness topets andhumane treatment ofanimals; and
WHEREAS, TheStates ofFlorida, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, andWisconsin have adopted humane education laws similar toCalifornia’s; and WHEREAS, Numerous academic studies have established acorrelation between animal cruelty during childhood andinterpersonal violence inadulthood; and
2 WHEREAS, Lawenforcement agencies inmajor cities such asHouston, Chicago, andLosAngeles have acknowledged thiscorrelation andformed special enforcement units tocombat animal cruelty; and WHEREAS, Humane education, such asthatinvolving wildlife, theanimals’ place intheoverall environment, and thenegative impacts humans canhave onthem, including death andextinction, candisrupt thecycle ofanimal and human abuse bydecreasing achild’spotential tobeabusive orneglectful toward animals and, consequently, to promote prosocial behavior toward humans; and
WHEREAS, Humane education programs seek toprevent violence byteaching empathy, compassion, andrespect forallliving beings andhelpchildren develop intocaring, responsible citizens; and WHEREAS, Reputable nonprofit organizations areworking toimplement humane education programs through inclassroom presentations, teacher training, andtheprovision ofrelevant resources, andthese organizations could assist California schools incomplying withtheEducation Code’shumane education provisions without burdening school budgets; and
WHEREAS, Theexperiences ofthese nonprofit organizations, aswellasotherteachers ororganizations thathave conducted pilot humane education efforts, provide evidence that student knowledge andpositive perceptions of animals isnotascommonplace asitshould be; and
WHEREAS, Deficiencies inchildren’sunderstanding oftheroleanimals have intheeconomy ofnature andin people’slives contribute toaproliferation inthenumber ofwildanddomestic animals thataresuffering from cruelty, abandonment, highanimal shelter euthanasia rates, and, inextreme circumstances, extinction; and WHEREAS, Schools andschool districts areundertaking steps torectify these deficiencies bypromoting humane education andimplementing itinclassrooms; now, therefore, beit Resolved bytheAssembly oftheState ofCalifornia, That compliance withEducation Code provisions should include educating students ontheprinciples ofkindness andrespect foranimals andobservance oflaws, regulations, andpolicies pertaining tothehumane treatment ofanimals, including wildlife anditsenvironment; andbeitfurther
Resolved, Thatactions such asimplementing statewide ordistrictwide “humane education days” andinvolving nonprofit organizations inhumane education activities withlocal faculty andschool administrators beconsidered forinclusion incompliance efforts; andbeitfurther
Resolved, That theSuperintendent ofPublic Instruction beencouraged toensure theincorporation ofhumane education inthecorecurriculum; andbeitfurther
Resolved, That theChief Clerk oftheAssembly transmit copies ofthisresolution totheStateSenate, the Superintendent ofPublic Instruction, theStateBoard ofEducation, theState Department ofEducation, andthe author forappropriate distribution.

BillText - HR-28
Forwardedmessage ---------
From: PAWSforPeople <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct22, 2024at7:05AM
Subject: NewsfromPAWSforPeople
To: <
3 PAWSforPeopleCommunityNewsletter: LateOctober, 2024
AVeryPAWSStory - ReturntotheCancerCenter
Last week, IvyandIhadaspecial visit. Allofourvisits are special, ofcourse, butthisonehadspecial significance.

Weparticipated inResource Day atTheHelen Graham
Cancer Center—thesame center where Imeet with my
hematologist/ oncologist, where Ireceived chemotherapy, where Icontinue tohave labs drawn. Myhome-away-fromhome forthepast 17months.

When theopportunity became available toprovide pet
therapy fortheevent, Iknew Ihadtodoit, andIknew
which dogIwould bring. Ivyisajet-blackEnglish labwho
canbekind andgentle one moment andasstrong asa
bullthenext. She enjoys people andplays hard with other dogs. But sheisalertandattentive andrises tothe
occasion when itcomes totherapy. Iwasjust beginning to
walk more andwith lesspain. Iwasstilltired, andhoped
myenergy would hold up, butthisevent was tooimportant
nottoattend. Ihoped Ivycould help methrough the
9:00am to11:00am shift.

The event was held inalarge room neartheeast entrance
tothebuilding. Iusually enter atthewest, soIdidn’tsee
any familiar faces. Ikept mydiagnosis tomyself. WesatneartheNurse Navigators display bya bank ofwindows overlooking acourtyard andapond with afountain. Among theother participants in theroom, were nutritionists, nurses, anddoctors. Thegoal was topresent thepatients and caregivers with available support from various departments astheywalked through thecancer experience.

During our shift, most ofourinteractions were with staff—they needed thecomfort asmuch asthe patients andcaregivers. Aswewere approaching theendofourtime there, awoman, andaman I assumed tobeherhusband, entered thedouble room. IvyandIwere seated onthefarthest side away from them, andyetIvy immediately came toattention. She stood up, alert, staring atthe couple. She didnottake hereyesoffthem. Iwondered whyshewas soattentive. We didnotknow 4 thecouple, yetshehadaconnection with them that wasundeniable. They walked slowly, cautiously, looking atsome ofthedisplays. The man pushed awalker andthewife said, “This way, Lee,” inan effort toguide himtoother tables. Asthey came closer, Ivypulled metoward them.

Imade eyecontact with thewoman who hadbeen looking atIvy. “She isabeautiful dog.” Thank you,” Ireplied. “Hername isIvy. Would youliketosayhello?” The woman slowly reached outherhand asIvysniffed itfirst, then licked it. Wechatted abitbefore thehusband looked atus. Ivypulled meright toward him, asthough she couldn’treach him soon enough. Herwhole body shook with excitement asher back legs came offtheground. She essentially danced toward him likeabear cub. The man reached over thefront ofhiswalker topet Ivy’shead playfully andstrongly. Itwasasthough theman hadbeen energized bythemoment. He spoke toIvywhile Ilooked back atthewoman. She hadtears inher eyes.

She isvery excited tobewithyouboth,” Isaid.

You mean shedoesn’tdothiswith everyone?” sheasked.

No, shedoesn’t,” Ireplied.

Something happened during that encounter. Idon’tknow who needed thecomfort more—the husband orthewife. But, Ivy knew shewas needed. Sheknew shehadlove togiveandthatherlove was needed inreturn. She was notslow inherapproach. She was excited, joyful, anddirect. In return, they received herinaway that communicated their need.

Asthecouple leftustocontinue their walk around theroom, Iputmyhand onIvyandtoldherwhat a good jobshehaddone. She allowed metoleave myhand onherforawhile. Perhaps sheknew that Ineeded her, too.

Denise Lopes, PAWS Member
PAWSAttendsVolunteerDelawareConference
PAWSTeamshadthepleasureofattendingtheVolunteer
DelawareConferenceonThursday, October10th, atBally's
DoverCasinoResortinDover, bringingtheirpettherapyjoyto
thisvibrantevent. Theconferencewasagatheringofvolunteer leadersandprofessionalsfromcorporate, nonprofit, and
communitysectors, alldedicatedtomakingadifferencein
Delaware.

Addingafestiveflairtotheoccasion, thePAWSpupscame
dressedintheirHalloweencostumes, delightingeveryonein
attendance. Throughouttheday, thePAWSteamsmingledwith
attendees, spreadingcomfortandjoytoallwhocrossedtheirpath. Theconferenceprovidedtheperfect opportunityforparticipantstoexperiencefirsthandthepositiveeffectsofpettherapy. Thismemorableinteraction remindedeveryoneofthevitalrolethattherapyanimalscanplayinsupportingcommunitywell-being.

Teamswhoattendedincluded: CaraCordrey & Cali, SeelyGerraughty & Gretchen, TawandaHarbison & Onyx, Bob Hairgrove & Holly, DebKing & HankandTerriMohr & Gracey
5 PAWSforPeoplewasproudtobepartofthisimportantconference, reinforcingthevitalcontributionsvolunteers maketothehealthandhappinessofourcommunities.

PetTherapy inAction
6 Willy (BeverlyRelyea) receivedendlesslove
andsnugglesatAmazon'sTrunkorTreat Poppy (JulieBrooks) patientlylistensas eventinWilmington, DE. childrenreadtoherattheElktonLibraryin Elkton, MD.

Wag & Walkathon: ThankYou!!
7 Thisyear’sWAG & Walkathon, inpartnershipwiththePhiladelphiaKennelClub's NationalDogShow, culminatedinaspectacularcelebrationatPAWSFurryFall FestivalonSaturday, October17thatDelcastleParkinWilmington. Thebeautiful fallweathersettheperfectbackdropforadayoffunandfestivitiesforboth peopleandtheirpups. WiththejoyfulPAWSspiritfillingtheair, oldfriendsand newgatheredtoenjoytheevent. Fromengagingdemonstrationsandgamesto our18vendorsofferingfabulousitems, therewassomethingforeveryone. We areincrediblythankfultoallwhojoinedandmadethisyear’seventatremendous success!
Wehad151participantsmakingeverystepcountforthecumulativemarathon.

Theyloggedover3,000milesandhelpedraiseover $50,000fortheprogramsof PAWSforPeople. Thesefundswillhelpensureourpettherapyteamscan continuetobringhopeandhealingtoourlocalcommunities!
AspecialThankYoutothefollowingpeopleandbusinessesforalltheirhelpin makingthisyear'seventagreatsuccess:

OurAmazingCommittee
SueGood, MarilynHuebner, AileenMurray, KaiScott, ChristinaSumma, & SueTorello Photographer
TedRosenthal
Sponsors
PresentingSponsor
KennelClubofPhiladelphia’sNationalDogShow
TopDog
HillsideHeating & Cooling
RaisingCane's
WSFSCommunityFoundation
Bone-A-Factor
BeebeHealthcare
ChristianaCare
FirstStateUrgentVet
HamiltonADR-NC
SL24UnlocketheLightFoundation
VCA - 4locations
WawaFoundation
FurryFriend
8 ConcordPetFoods & Supplies
FCCB - FirstCitizensCommunityBank
FinancialHouse
PettinaroManagement, LLC
SomervilleInvestments
UBS - CWWealthManagementGroup
WindcrestAnimalHospitalGroup
TailWagger
BrandywineValleyVeterinaryHospital
TailWaggerEngagePersonalTraining
FordAuto & TruckService, Inc
LawOfficeofKathrynA. Meloni, Esq., P.C.

MerrillLynchConnellAssociates
The Mottola Group
TEAMDavidAssociates
Team Oodles ofDoodles & More
DelawareCountyKennelClub
PAWStoOfferOrientation, STEX & Training
inMultipleLocationsforNovember
DoyouhaveagreatpetwhoissweetandfriendlyandLOVESpeople, andyouthinksharingallthatlovewouldbea goodwaytogivebacktopeopleinthecommunity?
Ifyouorsomeoneyouknowisinterestedinbecomingatherapyteamwithyourdog, catorbunny, wehaveOST Orientation, STEX, andTraining) comingupinourNewarkOfficeandalsoRadnorTownship, PAandMilton, DE.

RadnorTownship, PA
Orientation & Training
Wednesdays, October30th & November13that6PM
Newark, DE
Orientation & Training
Wednesdays, November6th & 20that6PM
Saturdays, November2nd & 16that10AM
Milton, DE
Orientation & Training
Thursdays, November7th & 21stat1:00PM
ForMoreInformationortoRegister
9 OurTeamsoftheWeek
Sue & Porter Liz & Gevvie
SueTorelloandherhandsome, irresistibleyellowlab,
Porter, sharetwowonderfultraits: comfortand LizBermanandhersweet, 6-year-oldLabrador compassion. Porteristheperfectsnuggler, andSue, Retriever, Gevvie, havebeenmakingadifferencein whothrivesonhelpingothers, embarkedona people’slivessincejoiningPAWSforPeoplein2022. journey ofservice after retiring. She began by Gevvie’scalmandaffectionatenaturemakeshera volunteeringforseniorservices, andwantingto perfecttherapydog, bringingcomfortandsmilesto spreadevenmorejoy, Suerealizedshecoulddosoby everyoneshemeets. includingPorter, wholovespeople.

Together, LizandGevvievisitCADES, wherethey InAugust2022, SueandPorterbecameaPAWS providecompanionshipandemotionalsupportto therapyteamandimmediatelygotinvolved. Eagerto individualswithdisabilities. Theyalsotakepartin connectwithpeopleofallages, Suecompleted PAWSforReadingatboththeSwarthmorePublic severalPAWSUniversitycourses, includingPAWSfor LibraryandtheHelenKateFurnessFreeLibrary, Reading, PTSD, DogBodyLanguage, AutismInitiative, helpingyoungreadersimprovetheirliteracyskills andSocialEmotionalLearning. Thesecoursesnot whilefosteringaloveforreading. Inadditiontotheir onlyenhancedhervisitingskillsbutdeepenedher regularvisits, LizandGevvieareactiveparticipantsin bondwithPorter. Together, theyvisitplaceslike numerousCommunityEventsandSpecialRequest ChristianaCare – NewarkCampus, BowlingGreen visits, offeringtheirtimeandwarmthtopeopleofall BrandywineTreatmentCenter, andlibrariesinHavre ages. deGrace, BrandywineHundred, andSwarthmore, 10 whilealsoparticipatinginCommunityEventsand Thankyou, Liz, foryourunwaveringcommitmentto DeStressvisits. PAWSforPeopleandforsharingGevvie’sgiftswith thosewhoneedthemmost. Andthankyou, Gevvie,
Thankyou, SueandPorter, foryourcommitmentto forbeingajoyful, furryambassadoroflove, improvingthelivesofpeopleinourcommunity! brighteningthelivesofeveryoneyoumeet! Your generosity, warmth, andgentlepresencetrulymake
theworldabetterplace.

ThankstoOurPAWSPartners
PAWS forPeople | P.O. Box 9955 | Newark, DE19714 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice 11 12
SusanaBarrios
From: KATHY CHANCE <onlykathychance@gmail. com>
Sent: Monday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] Request removal ofChiefofPoliceRICKARMENDARIZ (nocontrol of illegalfireworks on4thofJuly2024)
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

Irespectfully requesttheremovalofAnaheimChiefofPolice, RickArmendariz. ChiefArmendarizhadnocontroloverthe CityofAnaheimonthe4thofJuly2024, evenafterseveralmonthsofplanning, andcausedourcitytobeplacedinto dangerousandfire-hazardousconditions. Irequesthisremovalimmediately. Histeam, aftermonthsofprepandtraining forthe4thofJuly2024, alongwithAnaheimFire, failedourcityandplacedallofusindanger.

Iaminreceipt, andhavereviewed, the20PAGES (est30-40callsperpage) ofFireworksComplaintCallsfortheENTIRE cityofAnaheimtoAnaheimPolicefromWED7/3 - SUN7/7, 2024. AllCallsfrommytractinDistrict1, 92804toAnaheim PoliceDispatchwereCANCELED, otherthanoneofwhichofficer(s) statedtheysawnothing (July4th).

AnaheimPoliceandAnaheimFireignoredallofthepre-4thillegalfireworksconcernsthatwereplacedonlineontheir websitedevotedtothisissue. YetnowtheAnaheimFireDepartmenthasnorecords, noteventheconcernsaddedto theirownwebsite? Aswell, themajorityofFireworkscallcomplaints throughouttheentirecitywereCANCELED! OnJuly18, 2024AnaheimDeputyCityAttorney, BrynM. Morley, respondedtomeinwritingviaaUSPS-mailed letter. Theletterstatesthatmypublicrequestforrecordspertainingtoillegalfireworkshadbeenreceivedbut, "Despitea diligentsearch, theAnaheimFire & RescueDepartmentwasunabletolocaterecordsthatfallwithinthescopeofyour my) request."
Iofferedsurveillance footageofwhathadoccurreddirectlyaroundmyhome, butAPDneverrequestedtoviewmy videos. IplacedaCodeComplaintandalsoofferedcopiesofthevideosshowingproofofwhattranspiredandwastold byCodesinceitisafterthefact, thereisnoactionwhichtheycantake.

IrequesttheCityCounciltoaskforaninvestigation andagendizefortheChiefofPoliceandtheAnaheimFireChiefto explainWHYtheyhadabsolutelyNOCONTROLonthe4thofJuly2024, duringcouncil! Of20PAGES, withan estimated30-40complaintsperpageofcity-widecomplaints, APDissuedonly28citations!!!!!!! IwouldliketoknowWHOfundedtheillegalfireworkswebsitethatapparentlynoonewasmonitoring. Wasthisalsoatthe taxpayer'sexpense? WHOfundedallofthisso-calledmonthsandmonthsoftrainingandprepforAPDandAnaheimFire tobepreparedtohandleillegalfireworksonthe4thofJuly, ustaxpayer's? Itappearsthiscity, policeandfirecontinuetoabuseourtaxpayerfunds. Whereisallofourmoney going?????????????????????????????????????????
ThisisTOTALLYUNACCEPTABLE!
COMPLETEFAIL!
KathyChance
34+ homeowner, 92804
1 Susana Barrios
From: KATHY CHANCE <onlykathychance@gmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October
To: Public Comment
Subject:\[ EXTERNAL\] DEPLORABLE TREATMENT OFDLRHOMELESS! Senior Citizen homeless DISNEYLAND RESORT - VOTENO: MayorProTemNorma Campos KurtzwhoL@@KS theotherway!!!!
Warning: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofAnaheim. Donotclicklinksoropen attachmentsunlessyourecognizethesenderandareexpectingthemessage.

OnTuesday, 10/29/2024aftermidnight (thismorning) Ireturned totheDLRasIdomany nightsoftheweek. Thismorning Iwitnessed HORRIFIC andINHUMANE treatment toa homeless senior citizenmanwhohashearing andvisionissues. Iwouldestimate heisin his80's. Afterhundreds ofcontacts tothecitytogetthisindividual intoshelterandcare andotherseniorsaswell), the "BeWellOC" and "CityNet" cannever "seemto" locate himbecause theyallworkBanker'shoursatourtaxpayer expense. ThismorningwhatI notonlywitnessed butvideo-tapedwasDEPLORABLE! Ialsointerviewed amanwho knewthesituation alltoowell. Hestateshetoohastriednumerous timestoassistthis elderlyman, hascontacted thecityandAPDandistoldthereisnothing theycando. No onecouldeverbelieve thatthisistaking placeinthemiddleofthenightatthe DISNEYLAND RESORT! Ihaveoffered councilwoman Normaandtherestofthecity councilride-alongswithme, butthere'sneveranytakersbecause theytooworkBanker's Hoursandareonlyinthereforthefanfare, parties, andtofigureoutnewinventive waysto stealourmoneywhilemostofthecitysleeps.

IhavegiventheCityofAnaheimanultimatum
earlythismorningthattheyaretogetatleast
thethreehomelessseniorcitizensintocare
andImean, LONG-TERMCARE) bymidnight
tonight (withprooftomethattheyhavedone
so) otherwisetheycanwatchthevideoonthe
NewsandTMZtomorrowafternoonalongwith
therestofAmerica.

RECAP:
1 Ihavebeenactively photographing andvideotaping thehomeless crisisattheDisneyland Resort / ANAHEIM RESORT districts sinceNovember 2023foranupcoming docuseries. Spot-checks beforethesuncomesupdailyshowindividuals livingalloverthebus benches formany, manyblocks. Manyseniors Irecognize throughout thenumerous streetsattheDLRandANAHEIM RESORT DISTRICTS frommyhundreds ofvisitssince 2023.

OverChristmas 2023, Ispent19wee-morning hours (aftermidnight) inarowspeaking withtheDLRhomeless onthestreets. Ialwayssentreportswithphotos totheCity, but nothing everwasdoneaboutit.

IurgeALLWHOCOMETOTHISHAPPY
PLACE, TOVOTENOforMayorPro-temNorma
CamposKurtzintheupcoming
election. Disneysupportsherwhiletheyboth
allowtheseniorDLRandANAHEIMRESORT
homelesstocontinuetobeunhoused.

Ialsourgeallwhoreadthistowriteletters tothiscitycouncil demanding theremoval of BEWELLOCandCITYNET.

Thiscitycontinues tosquander ourtaxpayer dollarsandfederal funding topaythe salariesofworthless organizations suchasCityNet.

Iurgeeveryone tospendacoupleofhoursaftermidnight drivingupanddownthecity streetsofDLR; forthenyouwillseewhatIhavebeenseeing.

KathyChance
34+ homeowner, 92804
2