11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 4
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2023-00043
Location: The project site consists of the entirety of the existing 85.7-acre Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan, generally located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road
between Festival Drive and Roosevelt Road, in the City
of Anaheim.
Request: T o a pprove a General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment,
Final Site Plan, and Development Agreement to establish a new Development Area (DA 5) within the existing
boundaries of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan to accommodate residen tial uses in combination with the
site’s existing commercial development. DA 5 would be
created by reallocating land from the existing DA 2,
reducing its size from approximately 48 acres to 31.8
acres. The resulting 16.2- acre area would form the new DA 5. All proposed development would be confined to DA
5, which encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 354 -451-19 and 354- 451-32. The proposed
project includes the demolition of an approximately
62,676-square-foot cinema within DA 5 to construct a
447-unit multiple-family residential community.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether to recommend City
Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 358 (SCH# 2024010859) and adoption of Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 397.
Recommended City
Council approval of the
project and approved
Resolution Nos. PC2025-
033, PC2025-034, PC
2025-035 (as amended to
add Condition of
Approval No. 43 and
renumber the
Conditions of Approval
to reflect the change),
and PC2025-036.
MOTION: (Tran-
Martin/Perez)
VOTE: 6-1
Chairperson Walker and
Commissioners
Abdulrahman, Castro,
Lieberman, Perez, and
Tran-Martin voted yes.
Commissioner Kelley
voted no.
Project Planner:
Amanda Lauffer
[email protected]
Item 4 Audio
Amanda Lauffer, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated November 17, 2025, and a visual presentation. She described the parcel boundaries, existing development areas, surrounding land uses, existing zoning, and the creation of Development Area 5 (DA 5). She described the demolition of the vacant cinema and construction of a residential building of four stories wrapped around a six-level parking structure. She noted the correction in the staff report stating that the correct unit count is 447. She described the unit mix, moderate- income units, amenities, circulation, architectural design, and parking supply. She
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
summarized the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Development Agreement components, including the $100,000 monetary contribution to the Fire Department and installation of CCTV and emergency preemption systems. She provided an overview of the EIR, including the significant and unavoidable VMT impact and the wildfire evacuation analysis. She stated Staff recommended that the Commission recommend City Council approval.
Chair Walker opened the public hearing and invited the Applicant to come forward.
The applicant, Sean McEachern, Vice President of Mixed- Use Development with Shea Properties, stated that the center is aging and reinvestment is needed. He stated the applicant completed extensive outreach beginning in 2021 and reduced the proposed unit count from 600 to 447 in response to community input. He stated the project retains 24 Hour Fitness through a long-term lease extension, improves circulation between decks, and adds publicly accessible open space, including a bluff park and dog park. He stated the proposed architecture conceals the parking structure. He described wildfire safety features, including hardened construction, CCTV cameras, preemption systems along Santa Ana Canyon Road, and a resident notification system. He stated the project revitalizes the center and meets District 6 housing needs.
Chair Walker opened the discussion for Commissioners' questions.
Commissioner Castro asked whether the proposed height was 57 feet and whether the traffic analysis accounted for the 1,880-seat theater. The applicant confirmed both. She asked whether the project would be taller than the senior apartments across the street. The applicant stated it would not be because of the grade difference.
Commissioner Kelly asked about parking distribution for 24 Hour Fitness and the nearby tutor tenant. Senior Planner Lauffer stated that 222 stalls are near 24 Hour Fitness, with 30 additional stalls in the adjacent aisle. Commissioner Kelly asked whether the rezoning could allow the fitness center to be replaced by residential. The applicant stated the mixed-use designation would allow flexibility, but the tenant has a ten-year lease extension.
Chair Walker asked several questions regarding how customers would access the 66 retail stalls in the parking structure, the number of stalls serving Wood Ranch and nearby commercial tenants, the walking distances from the parking structure to upper deck commercial tenants, and how enforcement would be implemented to prevent residents and their guests from using retail stalls within DA 5. The applicant explained how retail, guest, and resident spaces would be managed and stated that enforcement would be through signage and management.
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Castro asked about the number of trips used in the wildfire model. The applicant’s traffic consultant, Steven Cook, stated that the no project condition had 11,249 trips, the project had 12,053 trips, and the cinema without the project scenario had 11,664 trips. He stated the seven-minute difference represents the project versus the cinema without the project scenario.
Commissioner Kelly asked Mr. Cook, whether the evacuation analysis assumes the theater being fully occupied. Mr. Cook clarified that the analysis is based on parking capacity rather than the number of people, using full occupancy of the available parking as a worst-case scenario. He explained that evacuation conditions are evaluated during peak times—such as evening commute hours and late-night periods when most residents are home—and that theater peak activity generally aligns with residential peak hours.
Chair Walker asked the Secretary to call forward speakers.
Robert Etzenhouser provided public comment in support of the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing his belief that additional housing is needed in District 6, especially for younger generation such as himself.
Chase Preciado of Lozeau Drury LLP, representing Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the adequacy of the project EIR.
Douglas Robbins provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes.
Andrew Winger provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes and requested a moratorium on housing in District 6 until the issue is resolved.
Peter Mazzarella provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes and asked a question whether there is security at the Wood Ranch restaurant.
Doug Hill provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes, and mentioned the need for a bridge off of Fairmont Boulevard.
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Dan Scanlon provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes.
John Gillespie provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes and potential crime associated with multiple family residential developments.
John Cook provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the increased traffic and related issues.
An unidentified speaker provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes.
Karen Heger provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the increased traffic and safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes.
Robert Camire provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the scale of the project, safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes, and impacts to home values.
Elizabeth Hansburg provided public comment in support of the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing her belief that additional housing is needed in District 6.
Bryan Farkas, a member of Western States Regional Council of Carpenters , provided a general public comment regarding the Anaheim Hills Festival Project and the environment and economic impact, and requested that the City require local hire, prevailing wage, and state certified apprenticeship labor to reduce environmental impacts and support local jobs.
John Mazzarella provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the parking impacts and safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes.
Mark Fortezzo provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes.
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
G. Price provided public comment in opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project, expressing concern over the safety issues associated with wildfires and evacuation routes and provided a handout to the Commissioners.
Chair Walker invited the applicant to come forward to rebut.
The applicant responded to public comments, stating that this is one of the few viable housing opportunities in District 6 and that it replaces existing intensive use rather than creating new impacts. He noted that regional traffic issues tied to the 91 freeway were not the project’s responsibility. The applicant also addressed concerns about crime and declining property values, stating that data does not support those claims and that multifamily residents typically contribute positively to the community. T he applicant then deferred to their attorney to address additional comments.
Attorney Andrew Fog noted that all previously submitted comments during the official comment period were fully addressed, but a new letter from S AFER was submitted on the day of the hearing, raising indoor air -quality concerns regarding formaldehyde. He characterized the letter as a bad-faith submission, largely duplicating letters submitted on other projects, and emphasized that CEQA evaluates a projec t’s impact on the environment, not the environment’s impact on the project, and cited relevant case law.
Mr. Fog explained that the study cited in the letter is outdated, based on a 2009 report, and relies on unrealistic assumptions, such as residents spending 70 years in fully sealed units with continuous formaldehyde off-gassing. He also noted that the study ignores later research showing a 33% reduction in emissions, misrepresents typical construction and furniture materials, and does not reflect current building codes or indoor air -quality standards.
He further referenced CDC and federal guidance indicating that gases from construction materials dissipate within two years and highlighted multiple building code updates — including Title 24, the Green Building Code, and the Energy Code—that have significantly reduced emissions since 2009. Mr. Fog concluded that the letter does not constitute substantial evidence and that a formal written response will be submitted.
Mr. Fog introduced Lisa Meyer, a wildfire planner with Dudek , who helped prepare the evacuation plan.
Ms. Meyer explained that the evacuation study shows that the project would add about 14 minutes to total evacuation time, but the project itself only contributes a small portion of that traffic. Because the site is near the freeway and at the end of the evacuation route, most traffic comes from other areas, so the project’s impact is limited. The study also accounts for police and fire input on traffic flow, and the project will follow the latest California Fire and Building Codes for high fire hazard areas, meaning the buildings will be built to be very safe and fire-resistant.
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
The application addressed one additional comment regarding the six -level garage. He clarified that the six-level garage consists of subterranean level and will be level with the top of the wood framed roof of the residential building.
Chair Walker closed the public hearing and invited Commissioners’ questions.
Commissioner Abdulrahman asked staff if there was an assessment from the Fire Department.
Fire Marshal Lindsey Young responded that the Community Risk Reduction team participated in the development review process alongside the Planning Department and reviewed studies to ensure compliance with all basic code requirements , and that it did meet all the minimum requirements as identified through the California F ire Code. She also stated that there is no defined minimum or maximum evacuation time thresholds, but the project’s construction and access meet all applicable code requirements.
Commissioner Kelly asked Fire Chief Pat Russell if he was present during the 2008 and 2017 fires, and asked what his experience was with evacuation times during those fires in the Anaheim Hills area.
Fire Chief Russell responded that he was and that he ran both fires, and referenced the Canyon 2 Fire as a key example for evaluating evacuation plans. The fire moved aggressively under 40–45 mph Santa Ana winds, prompting evacuations that revealed challenges in existing plans. Lessons learned included strengthening contracts and coordination with Cal Fire, the Forest Service, and neighbors, which improved access to aerial assets and other resources.
Fire Chief Russell noted that while there were some residential structure losses, there were no fatalities, and the experience highlighted the importance of collaboration between Fire, Police, Caltrans, and the City of Orange to develop safer, more effective evacuation plans.
Fire Chief Russell emphasized that evacuation plans can never operate perfectly and must remain flexible to adapt to changing conditions such as fire behavior and time of day. He noted improvements in signal preemption and traffic control and expressed confidence that future evacuations will be more effective and safer.
Commissioner Kelly asked if he felt that a two -to-three-hour evacuation time estimate remained for the area.
Fire Chief Russell responded that he could not provide technical opinions on traffic studies but emphasized the importance of evaluating the project on its own merits rather
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
than comparing it to other projects. He noted that any increase in population or vehicles inherently brings challenges, particularly for public safety and emergency response times, especially in areas like the East End that may face large-scale evacuations.
Fire Chief Russell also highlighted measures being taken to mitigate risks, including fuel reduction, weed abatement along evacuation routes, and new technologies for pre- treating fuels that were not available during previous incidents.
Commissioner Kelly asked if it was correct that during an evacuation, if a resident left, they would not be allowed to reenter an evacuation zone.
Fire Chief Russell responded that evacuations are inherently challenging because local residents often know the streets and may attempt to return even during mandatory evacuation orders, which cannot be strictly enforced.
Fire Chief Russell noted m any residents delay leaving until the fire encroaches and conditions worsen, at which point they are on the roads while firefighters are trying to access the area, creating congestion and safety risks. He stated that once residents are cleared past checkpoints, re- entry is not allowed to maintain safety and emergency access.
Fire Chief Russell also highlighted special considerations, such as retrieving children from schools, and emphasized that returning traffic can further impede emergency vehicles and complicate overall evacuation efforts.
Fire Chief Russell stressed the importance of developing a wildfire plan and emphasized that the Fire Department has advantages in tracking fire weather, particularly predictable Santa Ana winds, and highlighted the role of the Community Communications Officer in quickly sharing information with the public. He encouraged residents to prepare in advance by packing, fueling vehicles, and planning for children’s safety, similar to preparing for other natural hazards, and to exercise and adjust their evacuation plans based on changing conditions.
Commissioner Kelly asked staff for the status of the Fairmont Bridge.
Principal Transportation Planner, Cory Wilkerson, explained that the Fairmont connection, identified in the City’s circulation element, links the north side of the 91 freeway near Yorba Linda to the 91 on- and off-ramps, but does not extend south to Santa Ana Canyon. He stated that the project is included in the SR 91 Implementation Plan, and the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda are working with OCTA to raise its priority, though no specific timeline for completion or funding has been established.
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Principal Transportation Planner Wilkerson also stated that the Fairmont Bridge project is a significant construction effort that would span both the Santa Ana River and the 91 freeway. The C ity has been exploring options to provide emergency vehicle access through this area to improve connectivity and safety, though no permanent solution has been finalized. This final connection is not included in the C ity’s circulation element, has not been funded, and is not currently planned, partly due to community input expressing concerns about potential impacts. As a result, while the bridge itself is being pursued, full connectivity to Santa Ana Canyon remains uncertain and would require additional planning, funding, and community discussions.
Commissioner Kelly asked if there was a planned exit at the top of Weir Canyon.
Principal Transportation Planner Wilkerson responded, No, it was not part of the planned circulation element.
Commissioner Kelly asked for confirmation that there were no other possible exit points.
Principal Transportation Planner Wilkerson responded that there were not.
Commissioner Castro asked staff whether the 241/91 project would ease traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Principal Transportation Planner Wilkerson explained that while the project is intended to help and should reduce some bottlenecking—mainly by creating a direct connection between the toll roads and the fast-track lanes—it would not fully solve the area’s overall traffic problems.
Chair Walker asked staff whether there is any planned public roadway connection from Santa Ana Canyon to the 91 via Fairmont.
Principal Transportation Planner Wilkerson confirmed that no direct vehicle access is currently planned between Fairmont and the future bridge connecting to the 91.
Chair Walker asked how far the bridge would extend and whether the incomplete connection was already approved.
Principal Transportation Planner Wilkerson confirmed that the shorter, partial connection is what is currently in the City’s circulation element.
Chair Walker asked how often the circulation element is updated.
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Principal Transportation Planner Wilkerson noted that a major update was recently completed, and the prior update had been many years prior.
Chair Walker asked staff if the Planning Commission could require the project to prohibit its residents from using certain parking spaces.
Deputy Planning and Building Director, Joanne Hwang, confirmed that the Planning Commission could add or modify Conditions of Approval of any project being considered, and recommended that the Commission include a specific parking -management requirement, and allow those conditions to be updated over time with approval from the Planning and Building Director.
Chair Walker asked the applicant if they would agree to that new condition.
The applicant responded that while restricting resident parking in certain spaces can be challenging to enforce, they have on- site management and security and have successfully used methods like guest vouchers in the past. He emphasized they are committed to finding workable enforcement solutions , as supporting the long- standing retail tenants on the upper deck is a priority.
Commissioner Castro thanked the project applicant for providing $100,000 to the fire department and installing a CCTV system. She noted past evacuation challenges, referencing her experience during the Canyon 2 Fire, and expressed confidence that the City, in coordination with Cal Fire, Caltrans, and the county, has now implemented a robust evacuation plan with enhanced fire, police, and traffic support.
Commissioner Lieberman commented that, unlike previous projects such as Salt Creek, this project involves adding apartments to an already developed site with a pre- existing theater. She expressed support for the project, acknowledging some similar concerns but emphasizing that the area has existing infrastructure, and encouraged the public to have confidence in the recently implemented know your way plan, al though it is untested at this time.
Vice Chair Tran-Martin made a motion to recommend approval with the additional Condition of Approval regarding the parking management plan.
Commissioner Perez seconded the motion.
Motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with Commissioner Kelly voting no.