2. Appendix to Minutes (03/03/26) — Anaheim City Council, June 9, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

The reports for this project say that adding thes e cars will " only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you' re already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don' t have extra roads or " secret" ways out of the Hills ; we all end up on the same few lanes . Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire jus t feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I unders tand that the city needs hous ing, but it shouldn' t be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Pleas e don' t make an exis ting danger even wors e jus t for a new development. We are as king you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Krys tyna Kis ting
Sent frommy iPhone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 9:35:18 PM
From:" Nora Velazquez"
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time.

But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Nora L. Velazquez
Anaheim CA 92807
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 9:35:42 PM
From:" Brad Gorsha"
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will " only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. W e don' t have extra roads or " sec ret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn' t be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don' t make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritiz e the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Brad Gorsha
Anaheim
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 9:36:31 PM
From:" Raul Velazquez Jr"
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Raul Velazquez Jr
Anaheim CA 92807
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 9:37:47 PM
From:"
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
John E Arce
Anaheim CA 92807
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 9:39:19 PM
From:" maria beverly"
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Council Member,
I am writing as a long-time Anaheim Hills resident and taxpayer to respectfully but firmly urge you to vote “No” on the proposed apartment development at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center.

I lived through Canyon Fire 2 in 2017, and I will never forget being stuck in my car surrounded by smoke, unable to move for hours. It was not ordinary traffic — it was a complete standstill during an active wildfire. The fear and uncertainty of that moment are something residents who experienced it will never forget. We witnessed firsthand how quickly our limited evacuation routes became overwhelmed.

The project’s traffic analysis suggests that this development would add “only” seven minutes to evacuation times. But when residents are already stuck for hours while a fire is approaching, seven additional minutes is not insignificant — it is potentially life or dead.

Anaheim Hills does not have multiple evacuation corridors. We funnel into the same few main roads. Increasing residential density in an already constrained wildfire evacuation zone is not responsible planning — it is a serious safety risk.

Evacuations are not clean mathematical exercises. They are chaotic. Many families have young children, elderly relatives, and pets. Trying to calm frightened kids and animals while sitting in gridlocked traffic, watching smoke move closer, is a reality traffic models cannot fully measure. Safety planning must reflect real human conditions, not theoretical averages.

Additionally, our community has already grown organically. Homes purchased decades ago by families with small children now have teenagers and young adults who drive their own vehicles. Traffic has naturally increased within our own households over time. Infrastructure that was never designed for this level of density is already strained. Adding hundreds of new units — and potentially over a thousand additional residents — compounds an existing bottleneck in a high fire severity area.

This proposal was previously reviewed and denied by the Council after significant community input and careful consideration of the safety concerns. Many residents appreciated that our voices and the evacuation reali ties were taken seriously at that time. It is difficult to understand why the same proposal is being reconsidered when the fundamental evacuation limitations have not changed.

As elected officials, you were entrusted by the residents of Anaheim Hills to represent our safety, our infrastructure realities, and our long-term well-being. We voted for leadership that would protect our community — not increase known risks. Consi stency, transparency, and accountability in land-use decisions are essential to maintaining public trust.

We understand California’ s housing challenges. However, housing solutions must be placed in locations that can safely support them. Public safety must come before development pressure. Once approved and built, this impact cannot be undone.

I respectfully ask that you prioritize the safety of the residents who already live here and vote “No” on this proposal.

Sincerely,
Maria Beverly
Anaheim Hills 18 years resident
Get Outlook for Android
Date: 3/2/2026 9:45:58 PM
From:" Edward Marquez"
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue You don' t often get email from Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Sincerely,
Edward Marquez
Date: 3/2/2026 9:59:54 PM
From:" Nguyen Binh"
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Cc:" Binh Nguyen"
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue You don' t often get email from Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Sincerely,
Binh Nguyen
AnaheimHills , CA 92808
Sent frommy iPhone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 10:03:49 PM
From:" Deanna Drum"
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Opposition to the High Density Festival Center Apartment Project Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

My name is Deanna Drum, and I am a 20+ year resident of the Anaheim Hills community. Iam writing to express my opposition regarding the proposed high density Festival Center Apartment in our area. Iurge the City Council to consider the long-term implications of this development, mainly the lack of infrastructure for the infusion of new residents, the effect on current homeowners insurance policies and fire risk.

This area is a High Fire Risk area so please trust the science and listen to the experts.

In addition, several residents are getting their home insurance dropped. More policies will be dropped when a new high density development is approved. Trying to get new coverage is challenging and very expensive. The Counci l should be advocating for the current residents instead of trying to appease developers.

I ask, should this high density apartment complex be built in our community or is it more suited near Anaheim Stadium or LA? Why has no developer or Council member suggested demolishing the existing shopping are in Savi Ranch where Dick’s and Michael’s still exist and make this area into housing. Iunderstand it’s technically in Yorba Linda and it’s in a flood plane but the likelihood of fires in the hills is a higher probability than floods in that area. Adding entrance and exit access to the 91 freeway would allow for much more housing in north Orange County.

It's essential that we preserve the unique qualities of our community and protect it from high-density and overdevelopment.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Deanna Drum
Date: 3/2/2026 10:04:03 PM
From:" Lindsy M"
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Opposition to Proposed 447-Unit Development at Festival Shopping Center Attachment: Fire behind my street..pdf;Gridlock from fire.pdf; You don' t often get em ail from Learn why this is important Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Council:

I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed 447-unit development at the Festival Shopping Center.

During the last major evacuation, I was at work in Mission Viejo. It took nearly three hours to get home, traveling from Santiago to Serrano. When I finally reached the top ofSerrano near Anaheim Hills Elementary School, just a few blocks frommy home, law enforcement officers stopped all incoming traffic and would not allow residents to proceed. I was unable to return home or retrieve any belongings.

Fortunately, my sister, who teaches at a nearby school, was able to reach my house before road closures intensified and collected my dog, dog food, and a few essential items. As I turned around and attempted to leave the area toward Villa Park, it took two hours to travel approximately two miles due to severe gridlock.

This experience underscores a serious public safety concern. Our current infrastructure and evacuation routes are already strained during emergency situations. Adding 447 residential units in a designated high fire-risk zone will only exacerbate congestion, delay emergency response, and increase the risk to residents.

We are not in a position to support additional development in an area with known evacuation constraints and wildfire exposure. I urge you to reconsider this proposal with public safety as the primary priority. Our community deserves responsible planning that does not place lives at unnecessary risk.

For your reference, I have enclosed photographs taken from my home during the fire, as well as images documenting the traffic conditions while evacuating.

Sincerely,
L. Martin

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 10:50:06 PM
From:" Jerry Bekier"
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
J. Bekier
Susana Barrios
From: ShariJensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March2, 202610:58PM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] VOTENOonFestivalApartments
Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Please vote "No" ontheproposed apartments attheAnaheim Hills Festival Center.

Ihave lived inEastAnaheim forover 40years. Inthattime, thepopulation hasnearly quadrupled.

Yetwestillhave only thesame twofreeway entrances / exits toleave thearea.

While Weir Canyon Road isarelative newcomer, itleads tothesame busy thoroughfare — Santa Ana Canyon Road.

Santa Ana Canyon isalready abottleneck during justthenormal rushhourtraffic.

Please vote NOontheFestival development which willonly exacerbate thecurrent traffic issues — tosaynothing ofwhat it will contribute togridlock during any typeofemergency intheEastAnaheim area.Please consider upgrading and expanding thecurrent infrastructure inourarea before adding hundreds ofnew apartments, 1,000+ more people and automobiles toour roads.

Iunderstand thatthecityneeds housing, butitshould NOTbebuilt inaplace where people arealready struggling togetout safely inanemergency.

Asourrepresentatives, please takeseriously thesafety issues thisdevelopment poses and think ofus, yourfellow Anaheim citizens, first.

Sincerely,
ShariJensen
714-281-8148 phone
714-394-6379 cell
[email protected]
1 You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 11:18:06 PM
From:" John L. Mazzarella"
To:

Ashleigh Aitken" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" NMeeks@anahe im.net, "Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], "Natalie Rubalcava" [email protected], Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected] Cc:

Berenice Ballinas" [email protected], " Cameron Wessel" [email protected], " Ryan Carey" [email protected], " Stacy Vannha" [email protected], " Magnolia Moreno" [email protected], " Angie Gomez" [email protected], "Kellie Tran" [email protected], "Valeria Sandoval" [email protected], Daniel Hernandez" [email protected], "Melissa O. Cuevas" MCuevas@anahe im.net, "Nadia Villafana" [email protected], "Robert Mendoza" [email protected], " Nam Bartash" [email protected], Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Vote No on the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

De ar Mayor and Council Me mbe rs,
Thank you for me eting with me at each of the your Di stri ct Communi ty meeti ngs in Fe bruary. My brothe r, Peter, and I we re the onl y Anahe im reside nts to atte nd eve ry single District Community me eting. It was extremely useful and he lpful to unde rstand the different ne eds and chal lenge s of each District.

Wi ld Fire is the ove rw he lmi ng challenge and evacuation is the most desperate need for the reside nts of Di stri ct 6. Fortunate ly, Di stri ct 6 doe sn’ t have the challe nge s of prostitution, gang acti vity, narcotics, and crime that other Di stri cts of Anahe im may be faci ng, but addi ng more housing in the High Fire Ri sk Zone in East Anaheim Hills will gre atl y magni fy the already extre me ly terrifying aspe ct of tryi ng to evacuate duri ng an inte nse Wild Fire .

I echo Mayor Aitke n’ s comments in the January 13, 2026 Anahe im City Counci l Meeti ng at 6:45: 30, “ I am extre me ly conce rne d about adding housing to this part ( East Anahe im Hills) of District 6 if we have other available options in The Canyon or in are as that are not in the High Fire Zone .”
The re are a multi tude of other areas to build housi ng in Di stri ct 6 and at 6:10: 25 in the January 13th me eting Anahe im Pl anni ng & Bui ldi ng Di re ctor He athe r Allen state s, “ The bulk of the sites in D6 that were actual candidate site s are North of the 91 in District 6” ( on the La Palma side).

Eve n the de ve lope r She a Bui lde rs acknowledge d the delete rious effe ct of adding more housi ng in the Fe sti val Shoppi ng Ce nte r, at 2:42: 57 of the January 13th me eting by stating, “ Re ducing the unit count has the single bigge st impact on traffic and evacuation time s,” and at 2:50: 40 She a Bui lde rs we nt on to say, “ The project exce eds City adopte d VMT per service population thre shold and the re fore doe s cre ate a significant unavoidable impact.”
By atte ndi ng all the District meeti ngs I did eventually learn that the State Housi ng Mandate doe s not force the Ci ty of Anahe im to re zone and build re side nti al apartme nts in the Fe stival Shopping Cente r in East Anaheim Hills, and as Di re ctor Al len state d in the January 13th me eting, the bulk of the candi date site are N orth of the 91 Fre eway. There fore , to build more residenti al uni ts in East Anahe im Hi lls w he re Fire Evacuati on duri ng the 2017 Canyon 2 Fire took 3 hours is tantamount to wi llful ne glige nce .

Mayor Pro Te m Le on, thank you for al l your efforts for District 6 as you are a Board Member of the OCTA , how eve r, Di stri ct 6 ne eds to have the evacuation infrastructure of Weir Canyon Road linked to Jamboree Road and the Fai rmount Boul evard fly-ove r in place first be fore eve n ente rtaining the ide a of more reside ntial housing in East Anahe im Hi lls.

Council Me mbe r Maahs, thank you for listening to me at your District meeti ng and letting me know that you gre w up in Anahe im Hi lls and that your pare nts still live in Anaheim Hills. You are probably more that aware of the traffic gri dlock along Santa Ana Canyon Road and how that can transl ate into she er catastrophe duri ng an intense Wild Fire dri ven by high East to West Santa Ana Wi nds.

Council Me mbe r Me eks, at your District 6 meeti ng you told me that you have “ fai th in the Know Your Way Plan,” how eve r, it is just that, onl y a the ore tical plan, it has not be en tested or stre ss tested. Now, the onl y way to test the plan in real life is for anothe r Wi ld Fire evacuati on to occur and that’ s what will have to happen in orde r to se e if the plan works and the n have fai th in it. I mi ght have be en blunt with you at the Di stri ct 6 me eting, be cause you need to unde rstand that the vast majori ty of your District 6 consti tue nts are absol ute ly terrified of more housing in East Anahe im Hi lls addi ng to alre ady unte nable evacuati on time s. Your first duty as an Anahe im City Council Me mber is to your constituents and to represent the m and the ir conce rns, and they do not want the de velopme nt at the Fe stival Shopping Ce nte r. If you are thi nking of supporting thi s proje ct then you ne ed to resign from the Anaheim City Council be fore the vote of the Anahe im Hi lls Fe sti val Spe cific Plan be cause you do not represent the vast majority of constitue nts in Di stri ct 6. Your approval rati ng is already ne ar ze ro in Di strict 6, but you can rede em yourse lf by voting No on thi s proposal. If you do othe rwi se , the n the onl y concl usi on that the reside nts of Di stri ct 6 will come to is that you are involve d in some form of illicit acti vity.

Finally Madam Mayor and Counci l Members, at the District 3 Community Me eting, in spe aki ng with Anahe im Chi ef Communi cati ons Off ice r, Mike Lyste r about the Anahe im Hi lls Spe cific Plan, he tol d me, “ If you don’ t like living in a Hi gh Fire Zone are a, the n you shoul d leave .” I don’ t thi nk this shoul d be the me ssage or motto of Anahe im, “ If you don’ t like it leave.” I woul d rathe r like to he ar, “ Le t’s work toge the r to make it be tte r.”
The refore, I believe the first duty of all of you as Council Me mbe rs for the City of Anahe im is to prote ct the live s and safe ty of all Anahe im reside nts, and in orde r to do so and work toge ther to make it be tte r, is to vote NO on the Anahe im Hills Fe stival Spe cific Plan. Thank you.

Since rely,
John L. Mazzare lla
Anahe im Hills, CA 92808
From: John L. Mazzare lla <
Se nt: Sunday, De ce mbe r 14, 2025 11: 44 PM
To: aaitke n@anahe im. ne t; 'Natal ie Meeks' < nmeeks@anaheim. net>; rbal ius@anaheim. net; cl eon@anahe im. ne t; nrubal cava@anahe im. ne t; nkurtz@anahe im. ne t; kmaahs@anaheim. net
Cc: ' Be re ni ce Bal linas' < bballinas@anaheim. net>; cwessel@anahe im. ne t; RCAREY@ANAHEIM. NET; SV ANNHA@ANA HEIM. N ET; MMore no1@anahe im. ne t; agome z3@anahe im. ne t; ktran4@anahe im. ne t; vsandoval @anahe im. ne t; dhe rnande z6@anahe im. ne t; mcue vas@anahe im. ne t; nvillafana@anahe im. ne t; rmendoza@anaheim. net; nbartash@anahe im. ne t; publ iccomme nt@anahe im. ne t; fire inf o@anahe im. ne t
Subje ct: Anahe im Hi lls Fe stival Specifi c Plan
De ar Mayor and Council Me mbe rs,
Afte r any major disaste r in which human live s are lost, the first que stion always is: W hat we re the warning signs? Approving the Anahe im Hills Spe cific Plan and adding any future residential buildings in Anaheim Hills without any traffic mitigation is your first and only warning sign.

Anahe im Hills is Hi gh Fire Risk area and currentl y when a major fire hi ts, fueled and spread by hi gh Santa Ana wi nds, the re si de nts do not have ne arly any ade quate or ne ce ssary fire emergency escape routes.

During the Octobe r 2017 Canyon 2 Fire whe n re si de nts of Anahe im Hi lls had to evacuate, the re are mul tipl e accounts that it took re si de nts 3 hours to only trave l 2 mi les al ong Santa Ana Canyon Road. Si nce the n the City of Anahe im has insti tute d the “Know Your Way” pl an, but thi s plan is compl ete ly unte ste d and the one undeniabl e fundamental fact that Anahe im Fire Chi ef Pat Russe ll w ill te sti fy to is that w he n the re is a large scal e re si de ntial fire evacuati on, eve ryone te nds to evacuate all at once which will resul t agai n in enti re gri dl ock al ong the curre nt evacuation route s and if large fire balls sweep through those are as, pe opl e sitting in traffic w ill di e .

I know the City of Anahe im is be ing mandated by the State of Cal iforni a to bui ld more housi ng, but if it wi ll jeopardi ze the safe ty of the curre nt re si de nts in Anahe im Hills, which the Anahe im Hi lls Spe cific Pl an will do, the n it doesn’ t justi fy or val idate the State of Cal iforni a’ s mandate .

Prope r fire eme rge ncy evacuation route s need to be in pl ace be fore any further building in Anahe im Hi lls can be done . We ir Canyon Road has not be en linke d to Jamboree Road and the Fai rmount Boulevard fly- over has been bui lt ove r the Santa Ana Ri ve r to conne ct to Fai rmount Boule vard in Yorba Li nda. Anahe im Hi lls re si de nts ne ed to have both of those vital fire eme rge ncy evacuati on route s avai labl e . In short, the State of Calif ornia, the County of Orange, and the Ci ty of Anaheim has not done the ir due di lige nce to prope rl y prote ct the re si de nts of Anahe im Hills and provi de ade quate amounts of eme rge ncy evacuati on routes to allow for more re si de nti al bui ldi ng in Anahe im Hi lls to occur.

If the City Anahe im vote s for the Anaheim Festi val Spe cific Pl an which will allow for 1,000 addi tional re si de nts and ve hi cl es in Anahe im Hi lls w ithout having any additi onal eme rge ncy fire evacuation route s, the n the City of Anahe im wi ll be w illful ly ne gl ige nt w he n the ne xt large scale re si de ntial fire occurs in Anaheim Hills and as a result re si de nts will be trappe d in gri dl ock traff ic and human live s w ill be lost.

The Cine ma in the Fe sti val Shoppi ng Ce nter has al ways be en a cinema since its ince ption many ye ars ago, but it can be some thi ng else comme rci ally. In the same shoppi ng ce nter, a former Stein Mart store was subdi vided into two store s: Nordstrom Rack and Ul ta Be auty and both of those store s now are doing ve ry we ll . 20 years ago a Supe r K- Mart in Anahe im Hi lls on Pul lman Stre et be came a Home De pot, w hi ch is thrivi ng and is the se cond largest Home De pot in the Uni ted State s. The former cinema at Impe rial Hi ghway and La Pal ma Ave nue is now a Te sl a Se rvice Ce nte r and the former Big Lots on Santa Ana Canyon wi ll be a Trader Joe ’ s, whi ch I know many re si de nts are looki ng forward to.

The important poi nt is that the cinema building in the Festi val Shoppi ng Ce nter re main for comme rci al use be cause whe n the ne xt large re si de ntial fire eve nt occurs, especial ly a Re d Fl ag Warni ng, those busi ne sse s wi ll be cl ose d and no traff ic w ill be comi ng or goi ng from the m.

Fi nally, w hat is extre me ly vi tal to point out is if there is a large residenti al bui ldi ng instead, 1000 pe opl e wi ll de sce nd on that are a by comi ng home from w ork afte r pi cking up their childre n from school and the n evacuating al l at once and addi ng to the paral yzi ng traff ic gri dl ock al ong Santa Ana Canyon and many of the m could lose the ir lives as a result.

The re fore , be cause the lives of the residents of Anaheim Hills are in gre at danger duri ng a large scal e re si de nti al fire due to the fact that curre ntl y ade quate eme rge ncy evacuati on routes do not ex it is the Warning Sign staring you al l dire ctl y in the face and in orde r to mi tigate the gre at risk that the re si de nts of Anahe im Hi lls face, you have to vote “ No” on the Anahe im Hi lls Fe sti val Spe cific Plan.

Since rely,
John L. Mazzare lla
Anahe im Hills, CA 92808
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 11:31:56 PM
From:" jason francis"
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Opposing Shea/ Festival Center Project Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

I am writing to register my unequivocal objection to the Shea/Festival Center apartment project. My opposition is rooted in the serious public safety implications and the inevitable strain on our already overtaxed community infrastructure.

Our local transportation network, particularly near the 91 Freeway, currently suffers from severe congestion. This proposed development would drastically intensify traffic, directly impeding the crucial response times of emergency services— fire, paramedic, and law enforcement— to our homes. Such delays in a crisis could have dire, life-threatening consequences for residents. Our existing infrastructure is simply incapable of safely absorbing this significant increase in population density and vehicular volume.

I firmly believe this project prioritizes expansion over the fundamental safety and quality of life for current community members. I respectfully implore the Council to reject the Shea/Festival Center apartment project, safeguarding the well-being of our neighborhood. Thank you for your urgent consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Jason Francis
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 8:05:03 PM
From:" Linda"
To:

Dear Council Members & Mayor Aitken,
I am writing to you as a 20+ year resident of Anaheim Hills to ask you to please vote "No" on the proposed apartments at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center. It's not a matter of "if" but "when" there will be another fire in the surrounding open areas.

I lived here during the Canyon Fire 2 in 2017, and I will never forget the feeling of being stuck in my home as traffic was completely impassible, watching the smoke get closer, and literally not moving for hours.

It wasn't just "traffic"— it was a total standstill. The thought of adding hundreds of new apartments and about 1000+ more people to that exact same escape route is terrifying to those of us who have actually been in that situation.

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

I already have to sit through several light cycles to pull out onto Serrano due to the cut through traffic from the 91 every single day and it impacts my daily life.

Please don't let Anaheim Hills be a Paradise CA, Lahaina Maui Hawaii or an anecdote on what not to do for future generations.

Please vote NO for Festival Center housing as our lives are literally in your hands.

Sincerely,
Linda Loveng
Anaheim CA 92808
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 11:54:56 PM
From:" Aris Shu"
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Strong Opposition to the Proposed 447-Unit Development at Festival Shopping Center Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

To the Planning Commission,
Iamwriting to express my strong opposition to the proposed 447-unit residential development at the Festival Shopping Center. As a resident of Anaheim Hills since 1990, I have witnessed firsthand the increasing wildfire threats our community faces every Santa Ana wind season.

My opposition is based on the following critical safety concerns:

Evacuation Bottlenecks: During past wildfire events, such as the fires inCorona, Santa Ana Canyon Road became the only viable escape route forthousands of residents. I have experienced being trapped ingridlock during an evacuation order; adding nearly 450 more households to this specific corridor would make future evacuations dangerously slow, if not impossible.

High Fire Hazard Zone: Our area is threatened by fire " every single year." Increasing the population density in a high-risk zone, where westward movement is blocked by the fire front, creates a significant public safety liability.

We cannot prioritize high-density development over the lives and safety of current residents. I urge you to deny this proposal.

Sincerely,
Hsiu Yen Shu
Sent from my iPhone
Date: 3/3/2026 3:49:40 AM
From:" Brad & Sandy Chapman"
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue You don' t often get email from Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Sincerely,
Brad Chapman and family
Sent from my iPhone
ou don't often get email from scubamac78@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 6:58:45 PM
From:" Jason MacDonald" scubamac78@gmail. com
To:

Dear Council Member,
I moved to Anaheim Hills because it is a beautiful community, but I am very concerned about the proposed Shea/Festival Center apartment project. Since moving here, I've learned that our neighborhood is in a high-risk fire zone with very limited ways to get out. I was shocked to read that it already takes over three hours to evacuate this area during an emergency. Adding over 1,000 more people and their cars to our streets seems like a huge risk to everyone' s safety.

The project' s environmental report admits that these new apartments will make evacuation times even longer. As a resident, I think about what would happen if a fire broke out while I was trying to get my pets and elderly parents to safety. If the roads are already failing, adding hundreds more cars into the mix will make a bad situation impossible. It feels like the city is hoping for the best rather than planning for the worst.

I am not against new housing in general, but it has to be built in the right places. Putting high-density housing at a known bottleneck in a fire zone is not responsible. I am asking you to please put our safety first and vote "No" on this project until we have a real solution for getting people out of the Hills safely.

Sincerely,
Jason MacDonald
Susana Barrios
From: JenniferBelt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March3, 20265:32AM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] VoteNOonShea/FestivalCenterApartmentProject! Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Dear Council Member,
Imoved toAnaheim Hills because itisabeautiful, family-oriented community, butIamvery concerned about theproposed Shea/ Festival Center apartment project. Since moving here, I'velearned thatourneighborhood isinahigh-risk firezone with very limited ways togetout. Iwas shocked toreadthatitalready takes overthree hours toevacuate thisarea during an emergency. Adding over 1,000 more people and their cars toour streets seems like ahuge risk toeveryone' ssafety.

The project'senvironmental report admits thatthese new apartments willmake evacuation times even longer. Asaparent, I think about what would happen ifafirebroke outwhile Iwas trying togetmychildren & pets tosafety. Iftheroads are already failing, adding hundreds more cars intothemixwill make abad situation impossible. Itfeels likethecity ishoping for thebestrather than planning fortheworst.

Iamnotagainst new housing ingeneral, butithas tobebuiltintheright places. Putting high-density housing ataknown bottleneck inafirezone isnotresponsible. Iamasking youtoplease putour safety first and vote "No" onthisproject until we have areal solution forgetting people outoftheHills safely.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Belt
491SCanyon Ridge Dr
1 ate: 3/3/2026 5:54:09 AM
From:" Amy Spoor" amygarcia1@me. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Anaheim Hills Apartments
You don' t often get email from amygarcia1@me. com. Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

As a res ident of Anaheim hills , I strongly oppos e the building of a large apartment complex. We already have a mas sive traffic problem. We can’ t even evacuate from our homes if a fire clos es in on the hills . I spent an hour and a half in traffic to go les s than half a mile down the hill. It was scary. Having more cars will only make it more difficult for res idents who live up the hill.

Pleas e do not build more apartments here
Amy Spoor
Sent from my iPhone
ou don't often get email from schneid@sbcglobal. net. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 6:59:36 AM
From:" Tom Schneider" schneid@sbcglobal. net
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Festival Shopping center development proposal Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Tom Schneider
110 S. Woodrose Ct.

Anaheim, CA 92807
schneid@sbcglobal. net
3/2/26
Anaheim City Council
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.

Anaheim, CA 92805
Subje ct: Opposition to the Fe stiv al Shopping Ce nter De velopme nt Proposal in Anahe im Hills Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Anaheim City Council, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed Festival Shopping Center development in Anaheim Hills.

While I support responsible economic growth in our community, this project poses significant concerns that outweigh any potential benefits.

1. Incre ase d Traffic and Safe ty Impacts
Anaheim Hills already experiences high congestion on major corridors such as Imperial Highway, La Palma Avenue, and Canyon Rim Road. Introducing a new commercial center— along with its associated delivery trucks, increased visitor volume, and extended operating hours— will exacerbate traffic bottlenecks and create additional safety hazards for residents, pedestrians, and school commuters.

2. Strain on Local Infrastructure
Our neighborhoods are not designed to support the level of infrastructure demand that a development of this scale will create. Noise pollution, increased wear on roads, and added pressure on utilities and emergency services are inevitable consequences that the city must carefully consider.

3. Ne gativ e Impact on Community Characte r
Anaheim Hills has long been valued for its suburban, family- focused environment. A high- density commercial center is incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods and threatens to erode the character and quality of life that residents deeply value.

4. Env ironme ntal and Ope n-Space Conce rns
The proposed development site plays an important role in maintaining local green space and providing natural buffers. New construction would contribute to habitat disruption, increased pollution, and loss of natural landscape— all at a time when communities across California are striving to preserve open areas and promote sustainable planning.

5. Lack of De monstrate d Community Ne ed
Existing retail centers in the area—including Anaheim Hills Festival Center, Savi Ranch, and nearby shopping plazas— already meet the commercial needs of residents. Many of these centers struggle with vacancies. Adding yet another development does not serve residents and may worsen vacancy rates across the region.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the Fe stiv al Shopping Ce nte r de velopme nt proposal and prioritize planning solutions that protect neighborhood safety, preserve open space, and reflect the long- term interests of Anaheim Hills residents.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued commitment to our community. I ask that this letter be included in the public record for the upcoming review of this project.

Sincerely,
Tom Schneider
ou don't often get email from vperez562@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 7:06:48 AM
From:" Veronica Perez" vperez562@gmail. com
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Veronica Doblado
Anaheim Hills Resident
ou don't often get email from radaklj@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 7:56:28 AM
From:" Les Radak" [email protected]
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Les Radak
7251 E Drake Dr, Anaheim, CA 92807
ou don't often get email from svetiugarte@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 8:04:53 AM
From:" sveti ugarte" svetiugarte@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Anaheim Hills Festival Project (DEV2023-00043) – Public Comment / Opposition Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Project (DEV2023- 00043).

After reviewing the proposal, I respectfully request that the City Council reject this plan due to its potential negative impacts on the surrounding community. Specifically, I amconcerned about increased traffic congestion, public safety risks, environmental impacts, and the overall incompatibility of the proposed development with the existing character ofthe Anaheim Hills area.

This project appears to prioritize commercial interests over the quality oflife of nearby residents. The anticipated increase in traffic, noise, and density would place additional strain on already impacted local roads and infrastructure. Furthermore, the project does not adequately address community concerns or demonstrate meaningful benefits that outweigh these impacts.

Anaheim Hills has a distinct residential character, and developments of this scale should align with long-term community planning goals, environmental responsibility, and resident well-being. I urge the City Council to listen to the voices of local residents and reject this proposal as currently presented.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please include this email as part of the official public record.

Sincerely,
Sveti Ugarte
7920 E. Altair Lane
Anaheim CA 92808
City of Anaheim Resident
ou don't often get email from fpkouri@msn. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 8:11:06 AM
From:" Pamela Kouri" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote no to the Shea/Festival Center apartments forthe safety of Anaheimresidents Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Council Member,
I am writing to you today to ask you to please vote "No" on the proposed apartments at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center. I have been a resident of Anaheim Hills for over 28 years . I have watched as the area has become more and more congested with traffic . Once Serano was opened from Cannon to Nohl Ranch Road, our lives changed. With people using this stretch and all the surrounding roads Nohl Ranch Road, Santa Ana Canyon, Cannon and Weir Canyon) to navigate around the congested 91 freeway, there is traffic almost all the time. Adding hundreds of new apartments and 1000+ cars to this area is an error in judgement and a huge safety risk.

As a long -time resident, I witnessed the very scary fire evacuations . I worked near the bottom of Nohl Ranch Rd just a few miles from my home. There were cars everywhere as people were trying to evacuate to safety. It took me over an hour to get home- just a few miles away- to collect my dog . I unders tand that the research suggests that these apartments will only add 7 minutes to the evacuations - that might happen if everything went smoothly- but let's be honest, emergency situations rarely run smoothly when people are trying to gather their family and get to safety. Adding additiona l people to an already concerning bottlenec k is a disaster waiting to happen. If you lived here through those fires you would know.

I understand that the city needs housing , but it shouldn't be in an area where people are struggling to get out safely. Please do not exacerbate this problem just for a new development. The priority should be placed on the lives and safety of the residents that already live here. Please vote "NO " on these proposed apartments .

Sincerely,
Pamela Kouri
Ana heim Hills residents since 1997
ate: 3/3/2026 8:13:28 AM
From:" Marcia Anderson" mwaassociates@icloud. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Festival Project. Anaheim Hills
You don' t often get email from mwaas sociates @icloud. com. Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

I am traveling today and unable to attend the meeting. I am sending this email to make sure our voices are heard.

We strongly oppos e the Fes tival project due to major fire and safety concerns . If you lived in the area , you would see cons tant conges tion on the 91 fwy at any time of day. There is one es cape route , ONLY one. Adding thos e additional residents in this high fire , high wind area is ridiculous . We fear for our safety. The las t evacuation was a nightmare and many were trapped. Our ins urer of 32 years canceled our homeowners ins urance for high wind/ high fire area. We are not alone.

Money and tax bas e cannot jus tify a human life
Pleas e support the Anaheim Hills res idents and vote NO to stop this project Thank you,
Marcia and Bob Anders on
206 S. Ras pberry Ln.

Anaheim. 92808
Sent from my iPhone
ate: 3/3/2026 8:14:21 AM
From:" Eva Martinez" bbarajas2305@gmail. com
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue You don' t often get email from bbarajas 2305@gmail. com. Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
ome people who received this message don't often get email from zxconsul@ix. netcom.com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 8:31:26 AM
From:" Wendall Clarkson" [email protected]
To:

Dear Council Member,
I am writing to ask you to vote "No" on the Anaheim Hills Festival Center apartment project. You don't need to be a traffic expert to see that Santa Ana Canyon Road is already at its limit. Most days, just getting to the store or work is a challenge. The idea that we can add over 400 apartments and about 1300 people to this area without creating a disaster during a wildfire evacuation just doesn't pass the "common sense" test.

The city's own reports admit that it already takes residents over three hours to get out during a fire. To then say that adding another 7 minutes of delay is "not a big deal" is incredibly frustrating to those of us who live here. Ifa bucket is already overflowing, you don't keep pouring more water into it and say it's fine. By approving this, the city is basically admitting the evacuation plan is broken but choosing to make it even more crowded anyway.

We need our leaders to look at the reality of our streets, not just the numbers on a developer' s spreadsheet. Please do the responsible thing and protect the residents who are already here. We need better ways to get out of the Hills, not more people trapped in them. Please vote "No" on this project.

Sincerely, Wendall
Anaheim Hills Since 2001
You don't often get email from igc@chattenbrownlawgroup. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 8:41:56 AM
From:" Isabella Coye" igc@chattenbrownlawgroup. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Fwd: Comment Letter - Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Attachment: 2026-2-27 Festival Center Letter.pdf;
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Isabella Coye
Associate
igc@chattenbrownlawgroup. com
619) 694-5621
chattenbrownlawgroup. com
Forwarded message ---------
From: Jaclyn Salamony <jms@chattenbrownlawgroup. com>
Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 4:19 PM
Subject: Comment Letter - Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project To: <PublicComment@anahiem. net>, < TBass@anaheim. net> Cc: Isabella Coye < igc@chattenbrownlawgroup. com>, Katie Pettit < kmp@chattenbrownlawgroup. com>, Josh Chatten- Brown jcb@chattenbrownlawgroup. com>, <aaitken@anaheim. net>, < cleon@anaheim. net>, < rbalius@anaheim. net>, < nrubalcava@anaheim. net>, nkurtz@anaheim. net>, < kmaahs@anaheim. net>, < nmeeks@anaheim. net> Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Attached, please find our office's comment letter regarding the Proposed Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project and associated EIR.

The letter identifies significant deficiencies under CEQA, including reliance on a misinterpretation of the City’s Know Your Way evacuation plans, omission of cumulative evacuation impacts associated with the adjacent Hills Preserve project, inadequate and unenforceable mitigation for wildfire hazards, and the need for recirculation based on significant new information, including updated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapping and the forthcoming City evacuation study.

These issues raise substantial questions regarding the adequacy of the EIR’s evacuation, wildfire hazard, and cumulative impact analysis. We submit these comments for the Council’ s consideration in evaluating certification of the EIR and approval of the Project.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Jaclyn Salamony
Jaclyn Salamony
Paralegal / Office Manager
jms@chattenbrownlawgroup. com
619) 374-1440
chattenbrownlawgroup. com
Chatten-Brown Law Group, APC
Isabella Coye | Associate
325 W. Washington Street, Suite 2193
San Diego, CA 92103
igc@chattenbrownlawgroup. com
February 27, 2026
Via email to [email protected], [email protected] City Council, City of Anaheim
c/o Theresa Bass, City Clerk
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
2nd Floor, Suite 217
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Comments Regarding the Proposed Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project
To the Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

On behalf of community members and residents of Anaheim Hills, we provide the below comments on the Proposed Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project Project”). The matter first came before the City Council for the City of Anaheim (“City”) on December 16, 2025, was continued to January 13, 2026, and then again continued until February 3, 2026. During the February 3, 2026 hearing, the City Council again continued the hearing until March 3, 2026. Before doing so, Mayor Aitken requested clarification from the City Attorney on whether continuation of the hearing would necessitate a new public hearing. (Anaheim City Council Hearing, Jan. 13, 2026, at 6:38:00 minute mark.) The City Attorney reported that it would not, as the public hearing had already been closed. (Ibid.) The Applicant had requested this most recent continuance “ to negotiate with labor unions and revisit the Development Agreement terms.” ( City Council Agenda Report, Item No. 10, Feb. 3, 2026.) Thus, the Project is still potentially subject to change.

Additionally, the City’s published Notice of Continuance for the Project provides that “at its meeting of February 3, 2026, the Anaheim City Council, continued the . . . public hearing to March 3, 2026.” 1 Thus, it is reasonable for the public to rely on the City’s own published notice to conclude that public comments may still be submitted.

Furthermore, Courts caution against bifurcating a project’ s environmental review from its approval. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1200 [“ Bakersfield”].) Standing and administrative exhaustion are tied to “project 1 https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/69609/Notice-ofContinuance_Festival_020326 (Emphasis added) [ noting that the public hearing for each of the Project’ s components, including of the FEIR and the General Plan Amendment, would be continued].

February 27, 2026

Page 2 ends

approval,” not when the City unilaterally claims the hearing “ closed,” despite setting another hearing on the matter. (Id. at 1199 [“ section 21177 specifically refers to close of the public hearing on project approval prior to issuance of the notice of determination”]; see also id. at 1198 must speak “ prior to ... approval”].)
The City Council is also free to reopen a public hearing at its discretion, even if the hearing has been formally closed, and it is imperative that the Council do so. Indeed, the City Council has already done so in relation to this Project. (Cf. City Council Action Agenda, Jan. 13, 2026 closing public hearing on the Project]; with City Council Action Agenda, Feb. 3, 2026 [holding public hearing on the Project and again “ continuing the public hearing” to March 3, 2026].) Should the City Council elect to proceed without considering these comments, it does so at its own risk. (See Bakersfield, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1201.) As detailed throughout this letter, the Project’ s Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is fatally flawed in that its analysis of evacuation hazards rests on a misinterpretation of the City’s Know Your Way plans. Indeed, the EIR assumes that all traffic to the west of the Project would evacuate westbound, including the nearly 500-unit Hills Preserve project, without interfering with the Project’ s evacuation on already constrained roadways. Yet, the City’s plans provide the exact opposite: that this traffic would evacuate eastbound towards the Festival Center. This misstatement of the Know Your Way plans obscures the Project’ s evacuation impacts, undermines the EIR’ s conclusions regarding the significance of these impacts, and necessitates revision and additional mitigation if the Project is to proceed. The public hearing must be reopened to allow the public to be heard on this issue, because approving the Project – located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone – without correcting this issue would be imprudent and could result in significant, undisclosed evacuation impacts.

We respectfully urge you to take careful consideration of these comments, as they call the EIR’ s entire evacuation and wildfire hazards analysis into question and directly implicate the safety of your constituents. Because these errors materially understate evacuation impacts in this Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, they constitute significant new information under CEQA and require revision and recirculation of the EIR before the Project may lawfully be approved.

I. The Project’s Cumulative Evacuation Analysis Misstates Applicable Evacuation Guidance to Erroneously Claim No Cumulative Impacts from Adjacent Residential Development
The evacuation modeling performed for the Project considered thirteen other projects for the cumulative impacts analysis, including the Hills Preserve Project. (DEIR, App’x 4.9-2, pp. 10-

11.)
February 27, 2026

Page 3 ends

The Hills Preserve project and Festival Center Project are less than 800 feet apart at their closest points.2 Yet, the Project’ s Evacuation Time Analysis (“Evacuation Memo”) asserts that the Hills Preserve project would cumulatively add zero minutes to the evacuation time of the Festival Center Project if a “ worst case” fire (i.e., one located in Deer Canyon) were to occur. Based on the Evacuation Memo’ s analysis of the City’s Know Your Way evacuation planning framework, the Hills Preserve project is “expected to evacuate via alternate routes that do not intersect with the Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road intersection and . . . [is] therefore assumed to have no measurable impact (0 minutes) on the cumulative evacuation times presented.” DEIR, App’x 4.9-2, p. 12.) Rather, the Hills Preserve project is assumed to “[ e]vacuate west via Santa Ana Canyon Road to Imperial Highway.” (Ibid.)
Hills Preserve project marked as A1; Festival Center Project marked with an orange circle; Alleged road closure marked with a red circle.3)
The Hills Preserve project is located partially in Zone 8 and partially in Zone 9, and the Festival Center Project is located in Zone 8. The Evacuation Memo clarifies that it based these assumptions on the evacuation directions provided for each Know Your Way Zone:

In the event a fire were to ignite in [Deer Canyon Park] . . . an evacuation would likely occur in the City’s Know Your Way Zones 4 and 8 . . . [and] land uses to the west of the fire, which include Know Your Way Zones 9, 10, 11, and 13, would also likely be evacuated. The evacuating vehicles associated with these land uses would travel westbound on Santa Ana Canyon Road and would not overlap with evacuating traffic from the Know Your Way Zones 4 and 8, which would direct all land uses to evacuate eastbound towards Weir Canyon Road . . . therefore, the 2 Google Maps measuring tool.
3 DEIR, App’x 4.9-2, Figure 7.

February 27, 2026

Page 4 ends

evacuating vehicles associated with Know Your Way Zones 9, 10, 11, and 13 are not considered in the evacuation time analysis for this scenario.

DEIR, App’x 4.9-2, p. 6.)
The only authority cited for this premise is a link to the City’s Know Your Way plans. (Ibid.) However, the conclusion that Zone 9 would evacuate west is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of these very plans. The Festival Center Project, located in Zone 8, would indeed evacuate eastbound along Santa Ana Canyon Road towards the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road.4 The Hills Preserve project is also proposed largely in Zone 8. However, even the Zone 9 Know Your Way plan clearly depicts that residents would also evacuate eastbound along Santa Ana Canyon Road towards the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road.5 These Know Your Way plans are depicted below and individually attached as Exhibit 1 [Zone 8] and Exhibit 2 [Zone 9]:

Hills Preserve marked with red star; Festival Center marked with yellow star; Red line delineating Zone 9 to the left and Zone 8 to the right.) 4 https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/41302/Zone-8-flyer. 5 https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/41303/Zone-9-flyer.

February 27, 2026

Page 5 ends

The Know Your Way plans clearly depict all traffic along Santa Ana Canyon Road traveling eastbound. The Evacuation Memo’ s claim that the entire Hills Preserve project, which it fails to acknowledge as being largely located in Zone 8 alongside the Festival Center Project, would travel westbound is unfounded and in contrast with the maps published by the City.

Indeed, the only apparent support for this interpretation is the inclusion of one marker indicating a road closure between the two projects, which is not adequately disclosed, but rather depicted solely in the Evacuation Memo’ s Figure 7. The Evacuation Memo does not otherwise indicate why this road closure is necessary. The assumptions made regarding the fire’s origin point are similarly flawed. The Evacuation Memo presents two models to demonstrate worst-case fire scenario: one igniting in the northeast portion of Deer Canyon – between the two projects – and one igniting in the southwestern portion. (DEIR, App’x 4.9-2, p. 2.) Figure 4a, left; Figure 4b, right; Fire ignition points depicted by red dot.) In its discussion of the evacuation assumptions for the worst-case fire scenario, the Evacuation Memo clarifies that “land uses west of the fire” would evacuate westward. (DEIR, App’x 4.9-2, p. 6.) But in the context of Figure 4b – or in any other context wherein the “ worst-case” fire breaks out in Deer Canyon anywhere other than right between Hills Preserve and Festival Center there is no support for the premise that all Hills Preserve traffic would evacuate westward. By February 27, 2026

Page 6 ends

including both Figure 4a and Figure 4b, the Evacuation Memo concedes that the worst-case fire is one that breaks out anywhere in Deer Canyon. Yet the entire analysis of the worst-case fire appears to rest on the assumption that the fire would break out directly between the two projects, and that the road would be closed. This is highly speculative.

Furthermore, because the City’s Know Your Way plans clearly depict the evacuation route directing all residents of the Hills Preserve project and the Festival Center Project eastward, the DEIR’s assumption that there would be a road closure along Santa Ana Canyon Road conflicts with the published plans. In fact, the Project’ s DEIR confirms that the “Know Your Way maps also indicate locations where APD may implement traffic closures or diversions.” ( DEIR, p. 4.9- 26, emphasis added.) The Know Your Way plan for Zone 8 reflects no potential locations for road closures.

The Evacuation Memo must be revised accordingly, as the assumption that the Hills Preserve project would add zero minutes to the Festival Center Project’s evacuation times is directly at odds with the very maps cited by the Evacuation Memo for support. This mistake undermines the accuracy of the entire Evacuation Memo and FEIR and necessitates scrutinous review so that the Festival Center Project’s cumulative evacuation impacts may properly be assessed and disclosed.

Indeed, as discussed below in Section II.B, the Hills Preserve Project was initially denied by the City because of its significant impacts to evacuation. The City cannot now claim that the very same project will have no impact on the Festival Center Project’s evacuation while using the same roadway for evacuation.

II. The Project Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Impacts to Evacuation and Wildfire Hazards
A. The EIR’s Conclusions Regarding the Significance of Evacuation-Related Impacts Are Erroneous, Given the Project’s Conflict With Evacuation Plans The severity of the Project’ s potential impacts to wildfire and evacuation hazards are assessed under numerous thresholds, including – as relevant here – the following two thresholds:

Impact 4.9(f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Impact 4.9(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

DEIR, p. 4.9-20.)
February 27, 2026

Page 7 ends

In evaluating Impact 4.9(f), the DEIR assesses the Project in connection with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the Know Your Way program. (DEIR, p. 4.9-24.) The DEIR asserts that “ coordination with APD and Anaheim Fire & Rescue confirmed that no modifications to the existing Know Your Way evacuation maps are necessary to accommodate the Project,” and that with “the incorporation of MM HAZ-1, PDF HAZ-1 and PDF HAZ-2, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Know Your Way program.” ( DEIR, pp. 4.9-28 to 4.9-29.) Thus, the DEIR concludes that impacts are less than significant with implementation of these measures.

However, these project design features and mitigation measure do not relate to the Know Your Way program. PDF HAZ-1 calls for a Construction Fire Prevention Plan, for use only during construction, and PDF HAZ-1 calls for a Wildfire Evacuation and Awareness Plan, for use on a Project-specific level (i.e., only for residents of the Project). (DEIR, p. 4.9-29.) MM HAZ-1 requires the preparation of a Construction Management Plan, again for use only during construction. (DEIR, p. 4.9-30.)
Furthermore, the Evacuation Memo confirms that the residential component of the Project alone would contribute 804 evacuating vehicles to the roadways as compared to existing conditions.

DEIR, App’x 4.9-2, p. 7.) As discussed in Section I, above, all traffic from the adjacent Hills Preserve development would be utilizing the same roadways for evacuation pursuant to the Know Your Way plans, yet the FEIR omits the Hills Preserve project from consideration entirely, relying on a misinterpretation of the plans. Indeed, the Evacuation Memo confirms that traffic from Zone 9, to the west, is not factored into the evacuation times for the Project: “ The evacuation travel time for Zones 4 and 8, the existing Festival Center, and the Project in the event of a fire occurring in Deer Canyon Park to the west of the Project site would take 3 hours and 05 minutes.” ( DEIR, App’x 4.9-2, p. 8.)
As discussed in Section I, the Evacuation Memo speculatively assumes a roadblock would be established between the two projects, yet provides no support for this assumption despite the fact that the roadblock would interfere with the Know Your Way plans. The only support for the assumption that a roadblock would be located between the projects comes from the Hills Preserve project’ s evacuation modeling, which is attached to the Evacuation Memo. Importantly, the City Council already denied certification of the Hills Project’ s EIR on safety grounds. (See Section II.B.) The Evacuation Memo and EIR cannot disregard the Hills Preserve project entirely by assuming that a fire would break out directly between the projects – rather than anywhere in Deer Canyon Park, as the Evacuation Memo purports to study – and then claiming a roadblock would be in place in conflict with the Know Your Way plans.

Thus, the Project conflicts with the established Know Your Way plans by contributing 804 vehicles to evacuation traffic, without ever analyzing or disclosing that traffic from the west of the site, including Zone 9, would also be reliant on the same roadway.

February 27, 2026

Page 8 ends

In light of this critical omission, the FEIR must also reassess the Project’s consistency with Impact 4.9(g), as the assertion that the Project would not expose people to significant wildfire risk cannot be supported until the evacuation modeling is revised in accordance with the City’s Know Your Way plans.

A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR where “significant new information” is added to the document, including changes in project or environmental setting or the inclusion of additional data or other information. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5, subd. (a).) The fact that the Project conflicts with adopted evacuation plans is significant new information that necessitates revisions to the EIR, which may reveal significant impacts to evacuation, both cumulatively and individually. Accordingly, the FEIR must be recirculated.

The Evacuation Memo is also misleading in that it appears to ignore the inherent differences between evacuating commercial and residential uses. The modeling assesses three scenarios:
existing uses without the Project, existing uses in addition to the Project, and existing uses assuming the vacant cinema on the Project site is still operative. (FEIR, App’x 4.9-2, pp. 9-10.) The Evacuation Memo only considers the number of vehicles associated with each use. This approach ignores the fundamental differences between commercial and residential evacuation dynamics and renders the comparison analytically unsound. Patrons of commercial establishment are able to flee quickly and immediately, as they must only exit the commercial establishment and drive away. In contrast, residential evacuations may require the evacuees to first pack important items and documents, gather children and pets, and only then be able to flee. Thus, there is an inherent delay associated with residential evacuation, which undermines the FEIR’s speculative conclusion that it would only take seven minutes longer to evacuate the entire site with the Project compared to evacuation of the site if the cinema was still operative and the fire started in Deer Canyon Park.

Lastly, the Evacuation Memo continues to assert that the Project is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“VHFHSZ”). (FEIR, App’x 4.9-2, p. 2.) However, as confirmed by the EIR, the Office of the State Fire Marshal released its recommended revisions to the severity zone maps for Southern California on March 24, 2025. (DEIR, 4.9-4.) These maps indicate that 8.26 acres of the Project site are now located within a VHFHSZ, and 2.17 acres are located in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (“ HFHSZ”). (Ibid.) The City formally adopted these maps on June 10, 2025. (City Council Action Agenda, Consent Item No. 15, June 10, 2025.) While the Evacuation Memo and DEIR were prepared prior to the adoption of the VHFHSZ maps, the FEIR was released months later, in September 2025. Yet, no revisions were made to the Evacuation Memo to address this inconsistency. (FEIR, pp. 30-32.) February 27, 2026

Page 9 ends

Accordingly, the Evacuation Memo contains misleading analysis and patently false assertions, and relies on a misinterpretation of the City’s Know Your Way plans. The EIR’s analysis of wildfire hazards will require extensive revisions to address these deficiencies.

B. This Council Already Determined that Evacuation on These Same Roadways Poses Safety Risks in Connection with the SALT Project
The Hills Preserve project came before the City Council on October 29, 2024. The Hills Preserve project proposed 498 residential units and 40,000 square feet of commercial uses in Deer Canyon Park. (City Council Action Agenda, Item No. 31, Oct. 29, 2024.) The City heard from 66 in person speakers and received nearly 500 electronic public comments on the highly controversial project, including comments submitted by our office, which are attached as Exhibit 3. Fire Chief Patrick Russell confirmed that the City’s Fire and Rescue Department did not support the project due to the significant increase in density and the associated complexity with evacuation. (City Council Minutes, Oct. 29, 2024, p. 42.)6 City Staff also recommended that City Council deny the project given the safety risks. (Id. at p. 26.)
Following the public hearing and upon the recommendation of City Staff and the Fire Chief, the City Council ultimately voted 5-2 to deny the project and reject certification of its EIR. (Ibid.) In doing so, the City Council adopted the following finding:

Amending the General Plan to increase development density and intensity at the requested magnitude on Property located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, would exacerbate existing conditions beyond those currently planned for in the General Plan with both the proposed density and peak vehicular trips over 5 times greater than identified in the General Plan. Because the magnitude of the increased density and intensity, inhabitants, and vehicular trips will increase evacuation time and result in an exacerbation of risk, the General Plan Amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City; and therefore, Required Finding No. 2 that the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City is unsupported.

Ibid., emphasis added.)
The record of the City Council hearing is clear: the Hills Preserve project was denied for wildfire and evacuation risks, at the recommendation of the public, City Staff, and the Fire Chief. Yet, the 6 The Fire Chief also spoke at the Planning Commission hearing on the project to support denial.

Planning Commission Hearing, Sept. 30, 2024, at 1:54:00 mark.) February 27, 2026

Page 10 ends

project has since reappeared as a “ builder’s remedy” project.7 Therefore, the potential cumulative impacts must be thoroughly studied and mitigated. This project, identified by the City as a safety risk, would burden the already strained Santa Ana Canyon Road in the event of an evacuation.

This is the very road the Festival Center Project will rely on for evacuation. (See Section I, supra.)
In relation to the Festival Center Project, numerous commenters again raised the issue of emergency evacuation, citing already strained roadways and congestion. (See, e.g., FEIR, App’x A, pp. 300 [“ Emergency evacuation is already near impossible and to add this many residents in this spot would only exasperate the situation”], 304, 306, 307, 308.) One resident described a particularly harrowing experience: “ During one of the fires we were unable to leave the area and we fearfully sat in our car in the Festival parking lot for over 6 hours while we watched the fires all around us.” ( FEIR, App’x A, p. 301.) In response, the FEIR summarily dismisses these concerns:

T]he Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire beyond existing conditions, nor would it impair implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (“ Be Ready Anaheim”), or Know Your Way initiative. The Draft EIR concludes that wildfire impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and this conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

FEIR, p. 22, emphasis added; see also pp. 23-25.)
The FEIR reveals that no changes were made to the DEIR’s assessment of hazards or to the Evacuation Memo in response to the numerous comments submitted by residents. (FEIR, pp. 30-

32.) Furthermore, the FEIR’ s conclusions still rest on the erroneous assumption that the Hills Preserve project would evacuate westward, which is directly in conflict with the City’s adopted Know Your Way Plans. (See Section I, supra.)
Simply put, there is no support for the conclusion that evacuation is not impacted by the Festival Center Project when evacuation has already been deemed hazardous in relation to the adjacent Hills Preserve project, the Hills Preserve project is likely to be built despite these concerns, and the Hills Preserve project and Festival Center Project will rely on the same roadway for evacuation.
7 https://www.ocregister.com/2025/08/06/after-council-rejection-anaheim-deer-canyon-housingproject-back-as-builders-remedy-plan/.

February 27, 2026

Page 11 ends

C. The EIR’s Lack of Binding, Enforceable Mitigation Violates CEQA CEQA requires that mitigation measures be concrete and “ fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.” ( Pub. Resources Code § 21081.6(b); Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 425, 445.) “ The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded.” Federation of Hillside & Canyon v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261.) In Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645 (“ Lotus”), the Court of Appeal held that an EIR violated CEQA where it stated certain mitigation techniques would be incorporated into a project rather than being adopted as binding mitigation. (Id. at 656, 658.) The adoption of plans, such as Fire Protection Plans, as design features or components of a project improperly compresses analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, and do[es] not obviate the need for the EIR to analyze significant impacts that would exist prior to the implementation” of such measures. (Exhibit 4, at p. 8 [excerpts of Oct. 7, 2021, Minute Order in Petition of Sierra Club, Case No. 37-2019-00038820-CU-TT-CTL, wherein the court assess a project’s compliance with Lotus and CEQA].)
As discussed in Section II.A, the Project provides only one mitigation measure for impacts to wildfire and evacuation: the preparation of a Construction Management Plan. The EIR also provides for two Project Design Features (“ PDFs”), the preparation of a Construction Fire Prevention Plan and the preparation of a Wildfire Evacuation and Awareness Plan for the project site. (Section II.A; DEIR, 4.9-29.)
PDFs lack enforceability as compared to mitigation measures and run afoul of Lotus when they are relied upon to claim no significant impacts. As such, the two PDFs must be incorporated as binding, enforceable mitigation measures within the EIR.

Furthermore, the EIR relies on these three, limited measures and design features to determine that “the Project would not conflict with the City’s Know Your Way program. Impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.” ( DEIR, p. 4.9-29.) Two of these measures relate only to the construction phase. The remaining measure, PDF-HAZ-2, is the only “mitigation” for the Project’s residential component, is not incorporated as binding mitigation, and will not serve as mitigation for the off-site impacts of the Project (i.e., the delays that neighboring developments will be burdened by during an evacuation as the result of the Project). The claim that these three measures will reduce this Project’s operational impacts to wildfire and evacuation hazards is speculative at best.

Moreover, the City’s analysis of the Project’ s consistency with the Know Your Way plans is based on a misinterpretation of the Zone 8 and Zone 9 plans that erroneously and improperly February 27, 2026

Page 12 ends

omits the Hills Preserve project from study in relation to the Festival Center Project. The Know Your Way plans direct all traffic from the near 500-unit Hills Preserve project along the same roadways as the Festival Center Project. (See Section I.) Accordingly, the EIR’s conclusions based on this analysis must be disregarded or revised.

It remains unclear how the EIR could arrive at the conclusion that no binding mitigation is necessary for this Project’ s operational phase, particularly in light of the fact that this Project will rely on the same overburdened roadways as the Hills Preserve project – which the City Council already attempted to deny on wildfire safety grounds. The incorporation of PDF-HAZ-2 is plainly insufficient to address these concerns and the potentially significant operational impacts associated with this Project.

III. Any Approval of the Project Should be Continued until Completion of the City’s Forthcoming Evacuation Study, Which Will Update Local Evacuation Guidance The City is currently conducting a publicly-funded Wildfire Evacuation Study in connection with its Know Your Way program, and has already held at least four community workshops to obtain public feedback and input.8 The website for the program emphasizes the need for community input in the preparation of the study: “ Whether you live, work or spend time in Anaheim Hills, your input will help guide wildfire preparedness and community safety efforts.” (Ibid.) The study will evaluate evacuation in the entire East Hills area of the City, and includes resident feedback on prior evacuation constraints and issues, including those that arose during the 2017 Canyon Fire 2 evacuation.

On February 4, 2026, a City Traffic Engineer confirmed to our clients via email that the study is anticipated to be completed within the next few months. (Exhibit 5.) As detailed above, the community has exhaustively voiced its concerns about evacuation constraints near the City’s Festival Center. This forthcoming study could redefine evacuation patterns and guidance in this area in response to these concerns, and may provide critical insight into how future residential development should proceed.

Furthermore, the EIR would already need to revise its analysis of the City’s Know Your Way plans to reflect the existing guidance that was misstated. In the event the City Council does not vote to deny the Project outright due to its significant safety concerns and the numerous fatal flaws within the EIR, including the improper application of the Know Your Way plan, the City Council should at the very least continue the hearing on the Project until the forthcoming Wildfire Evacuation Study is published. This would ensure that the Project is consistent with the most up-to-date guidance for evacuation, and may help address the significant community opposition to the Project due to the known evacuation hazards in the area. 8 https://www.anaheim.net/5204/Know-Your-Way.

February 27, 2026

Page 13 ends

IV. Conclusion
The Festival Center Project is located in an area already burdened by evacuation constraints.

Indeed, evacuation constraints served as the primary basis for the City Council’ s attempted denial of the Hills Preserve project, which is adjacent to the Festival Center and – as established above – would be reliant on the same roadways as the Festival Center in the event of an evacuation. Yet, the EIR fails to disclose this impact entirely by misstating the City’s Know Your Way plans and claiming the Hills Preserve project would evacuate in the opposite direction. This assumption is unfounded and directly at odds with the City’s own plans.

Furthermore, the EIR improperly compresses its analysis of evacuation impacts and mitigation measures, in violation of CEQA and Lotus, by adopting Project Design Features as mitigation rather than binding, enforceable mitigation measures. Development in a fire prone area must be undertaken with caution and only upon proper consideration of the circumstances. The EIR effectively precludes such consideration here despite proposing the introduction of nearly 450 residential units into an area with known evacuation hazards. As a result, the Project should be denied for the safety of the community.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
Isabella Coye
Josh Chatten-Brown
Kathryn Pettit
Cc:

Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken ( [email protected])
Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Carlos A. Leon ( [email protected]) Councilmember Ryan Balius ( [email protected])
Councilmember Natalie Rubalcava ( [email protected]) Councilmember Norma Campos Kurtz ( [email protected])
Councilmember Kristen Maahs ( [email protected])
Councilmember Natalie Meeks ( [email protected])
EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3
Chatten-Brown Law Group, APC
Kathryn Pettit | Associate
325 W. Washington Street, Suite 2193
San Diego, CA 92103
kmp@chattenbrownlawgroup. com
Phone: ( 619) 393- 1440
October 28, 2024
Via email
Anaheim City Council
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.

First Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Comments on the Proposed SALT Development Project - Agenda Item #31 Mayor Aitken and Councilmembers:

On behalf of community members and residents of Anaheim Hills, we provide the below comments on SALT Development LLC’s proposed “Hills Preserve” development along Santa Ana Canyon Road (the “Project”), which will be considered at tomorrow’s City Council meeting.1 The Project requests a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Reclassification, Zoning Code Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Discretionary Tree Removal Permit, and Development Agreement.

After careful review of the Project materials and environmental impact report (“EIR”), we identified several violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as the City of Anaheim’s (“ City”) General Plan and municipal code, as identified below.

Furthermore, it has come to our attention that the applicant sent an ultimatum to the City on September 27, 2024: “It is SALT’s intent to file formal development applications for [three] Builder’ s Remedy projects on or before December 4, 2024, if the Hills Preserve project has not been approved by that date.” ( Exhibit A, SALT Letter to City.) Before the City Council can approve a General Plan Amendment project, it is required to make specified findings of fact. SALT filed three unrelated separate development applications totaling over 1,000 units with the apparent purpose of forcing the City to approve this Project.

SALT’s statement essentially presents a veiled threat and compromises the City’s decisionmaking process by framing the situation as an either/or choice, pressuring the City to approve the Hills Preserve project or face a much larger development under the “Builder’ s Remedy” law. By 1 These comments apply to the “Alternative 2” Project that is described in the City’s Statement of Overriding Considerations and Project EIR, as well as the Preferred Project. The Alternative 2 Project eliminates six single-family homes from the Preferred Project, and does not alleviate any of the below-identified deficiencies with the EIR and Project.

Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

invoking this law, SALT attempts to effectively strip the City of its authority to make independent planning decisions. The implicit threat that SALT will proceed with the Builder’ s Remedy projects if its proposal is rejected attempts to coerce a favorable decision, while undermining normal environmental and planning review processes. This tactic limits public input and discourages the City from fully considering community concerns or alternative proposals, ultimately compromising the integrity of the planning process by forcing a decision based on fear rather than on the merits of the project and its alignment with the City’s goals.

Since the City’s independent decision-making authority on this Project would be compromised, the City must continue the hearing on the Project until after December 4, 2024, the trigger date of SALT’s threat.

The City owes a duty to its residents to provide unbiased, objective decision-making and consider the environmental impacts of this Project; and to protect health, safety, and welfare of residents. The City cannot do so with a threat hanging over its head.

I. The City Council Is Not Obligated to Approve the Project We first want to address the erroneous claims made by SALT through its counsel in a September 27, 2024 letter to the City. Incredulously, SALT is wielding the threat of other projects it proposed purely to bully the City into approving a project that conflicts with the General Plan, requires major deviations from the zoning code, severely impacts the sole evacuation route for the community as determined by the City’s own fire chief, significantly increases vehicle miles travelled impacts, destroys designated critical habitat, and contains zero affordable housing.

Counsel for SALT wrote to the City:

W]e 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… The second option is a trio of developments proposed under the state’ s “ Builder’ s Remedy” law, Gov. Code § 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. (Exhibit A.)
Not only is this bad faith, but it is also a threat. SALT filed three preliminary project applications on June 7, 2024, and is using these applications in an attempt to force the City to approve a Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

completely separate project. SALT issues a clear threat to the City: “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 decision of whether or not to approve the Project is purely discretionary for the City and it must be made with full discretion. SALT has undercut the City’s discretion through its plan to force the City’s hand. Notably, SALT sent this letter to the City “in response to the staff report” provided in advance of the Planning Commission hearing on the Project, where staff found that two of the four required findings for a General Plan Amendment cannot be made. (Exhibit A, September 27, 2024 Letter from SALT to City.)
SALT’s plan appears to be having its intended effect. The Staff Report released before SALT’s letter recommended denial of the requested General Plan amendment for failure to meet the required findings. (September 30, 2024 Planning Commission Report, p. 23.) However, after SALT issued its threat, the City Council Agenda Report now recommends that the City Council approve the requested General Plan Amendment and certify the EIR. (October 29, 2024 City Council Agenda Report.)
Rather than incorporate changes to the Project or identify alternative locations in good faith to address the City’s concerns, SALT instead undermined the discretionary nature of the City Council’s decision. For this reason alone, the hearing on the Project must be continued until after SALT’s stated “ deadline.” 2
We also wish to briefly address SALT’s claim 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.” As SALT itself notes, the Housing Accountability Act does not strip local agencies of their ability to deny or condition projects where they find the projects “would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.” Furthermore, these findings are only required if a “ proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards.” ( Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The Housing Accountability Act further states specifically that nothing relieves a local agency from making the required CEQA findings and otherwise complying with CEQA. (Government Code Section 65589.5 subd.(e).)
2 We find it worth noting that nothing prevents SALT from obtaining its approval for the Project from the City, and then filing formal applications for the three “Builder’s Remedy projects” regardless.

Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

The only information that SALT provides about its three “Builders Remedy Projects” is contained in the following list: “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.” ( Exhibit A.) SALT simply points to general requirements and penalties under the Housing Accountability Act, rather than discuss the actual project specifics. Thus, SALT’s claims that the City would be obligated to approve these three projects lack foundation.

It is ironic that the Project invokes State laws intended to maintain housing affordability when the Project is 100% market rate with no affordable housing, the developer describes the Project as “ luxury for-rent apartments,” and offers the “ cheapest” rates of $2,500 a month, with the most expensive [] likely going to push $15,000-16,000 a month.” (Appendix D, Applicant’ s Workshop Comments.)
We urge the City to seriously consider the precedent this would set. If developers see the City bow to threats like this one from SALT, it will only incentivize similar behavior from other developers in future applications.

II. The Project Does Not Qualify for a General Plan Amendment To approve a requested General Plan Amendment, the City must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) The proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan; 2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City;
3) The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City; and 4) If the amendment is to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to, access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses.

As the City’s Staff found in its September 30, 2024 Planning Commission report, the Project conflicts with the required findings that it would not be detrimental to public interest, health, and safety, and that it is physically suitable:

B]ecause the magnitude of increased density and intensity, inhabitants and vehicular trips will increase evacuation time and result in an exacerbation of risk, the required finding that the proposed amendment … would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City (Finding No. 2) is unsupported according to City staff, in consultation with Anaheim Police Department and Anaheim Fire & Rescue staff. Furthermore, while City staff Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 5 ends

believes a General Plan Amendment to incrementally increase residential density on the project site would be in furtherance of maintaining the balance of land uses in the City, considering the physical constraints of the site largely attributable to topography, The finding that the proposed map amendment – particularly to accommodate 498 multi-family residential units – is physically suitable for the site (Finding No. 4) is not established.

September 30, 2024 Planning Commission Report, p. 23.)
At the Planning Commission hearing, Anaheim’ s Fire Chief Russel voiced his opposition to the Project due to its impact on evacuation operations in the event of a wildfire.3 Only one evacuation route exists in the community, which results in all vehicles utilizing Santa Ana Canyon Road during an evacuation. Residents submitted extensive comments and photographs to the City detailing the massive gridlock and hours-long delay on Santa Ana Canyon Road during prior evacuations. After Fire Chief Russell spoke, the Police Department Captain addressed the Commission and agreed with Fire Chief Russell, also recommending that the Commission deny the proposed Project.4
Furthermore, Fire Chief Russel explicitly noted that the EIR’ s evacuation study presumed flawless execution of the evacuation plan, which in practicality is far removed from reality on the ground.5 As described further in Section III, the EIR’s “ Evacuation Study” suffers from significant flaws, omissions, and assumptions lacking substantial evidence.

The Project also is not physically suitable for the site. Chapter 17.06 of the City’s Code, which addresses “ Grading, Excavations and Fills In Hillside Areas,” explains that “[ i]n the use of crib walls and retaining walls, it is essential to require certain standards in order to preserve the natural beauty of the Hillside Area. These standards … are imposed in addition to any applicable permit and other requirements for crib walls and retaining walls.” The City’s Code establishes that the “ maximum height shall be ten feet” for retaining walls.

AMC Section 17.06.048.) The EIR admits, “the Project would include some relatively tall retaining walls when compared to the walls that are allowed by AMC”: two 60-foot-tall retaining walls and a 30-foot-tall retaining wall. (EIR, p. 4.1-23, emphasis added.) Thus, the Project proposes several retaining walls three to six times the height allowed by the City. 3 Anaheim Planning Commission Meeting (Sept. 30, 2024), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eaRrOKge0U (cited language beginning at the 1:37:00 mark).
4 Id. beginning at 1:39:20 mark.
5 Id. beginning at 1:41:00 mark.

Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 6 ends

The EIR further admits “[ t]he Project Site has existing topographic constraints and existing development to the west that limit what the Project Site can improve on.” (EIR, p. 4.10-64, emphasis added.) The Project is plainly not suitable for the site, resulting the need for several deviations from the Anaheim Municipal Code.6
Therefore, Staff correctly found that the subject property is not physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, and the requested amendment should be denied.

III. The Project Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Its Significant Impacts to Evacuation and Wildfire Risks

1. The Project Will Significantly Impact Evacuation on a Constrained Roadway with a History of Delayed Evacuations, and Fails to Provide Adequate Mitigation In response to the increase in severity and frequency of fires in California, the Attorney General’ s Office released new guidance on siting and design of development in very high fire severity zones in 2023, titled “Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act.”7 The Attorney General’ s Office explains, “Development in fire-prone areas increases the likelihood that more destructive fires will ignite, fire-fighting resources will be taxed, more habitat and people will be put in harm’ s way or displaced, and more structures will burn. It is therefore imperative that local jurisdictions making decisions to approve new developments carefully consider wildfire impacts as part of the environmental review process, plan where best to place new development, and mitigate wildfire impacts to the extent feasible.” In particular, the Attorney General explains that “siting residential structures in rugged terrain or on the top of steep hills may increase the wildfire risk…. Some EIRs have concluded that the conversion of some wildland vegetation into paved development reduces or does not increase wildfire risk. This conclusion is contrary to existing evidence and the well-accepted understanding that the fundamental driver of increased wildfire risk is the introduction of people into a flammable landscape.”
The Project site is located in a very high fire severity zone. The EIR concluded that “the Project would expose additional people and structures to wildfire hazards and secondary effects when 6 Including: 18.46.120 Crib Retaining Walls, 17.06.048. Crib Walls and Retaining Walls,

18.46.120.1201 Crib and retaining walls visible from public rights-of-way, 17.060.110 Excavation –Terracing 17.06.120 Fills –Terracing
7 Available at: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2022.10.10%20- 20Wildfire%20Guidance.pdf.

Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 7 ends

compared to existing conditions” and “would increase evacuation time that is already in excess of three hours without implementation of the Project.” (EIR, p. 4.18-3.) The EIR ultimately relied on the following mitigation measures MM HAZ-4, MM HAZ-5, and MM HAZ-9 in its determination that impacts could be mitigated to below a level of significance.

These mitigation measures are plainly inadequate. MM HAZ-4 merely requires the preparation of a Construction Management Plan, which would only serve to mitigate wildfire hazard during the construction phase of the development. (EIR, p. 4.8-46–4.8-47.) This mitigation measure would provide no benefit for the residents of the proposed development once construction is completed. MM HAZ-5 calls for the installation of closed-circuit television (“ CCTV”) cameras at various locations in proximity of the Project. (Id. at 4.8-48.) This too provides no tangible benefit once an evacuation has begun; rather, it would only serve as an alert system. Moreover, nothing in the language of MM HAZ-5 purports to provide for monitoring of these CCTV cameras. Without active monitoring, the installation of the CCTV cameras fails to serve even as a means of early fire detection. Similarly, MM HAZ-9 requires the Developer to pay its “fair share” to Anaheim Fire and Rescue to support education and outreach programs. (Id. at p. 4.8-

49.) While this measure may serve to educate the public, education alone will not reduce evacuation times by more than a non-negligible degree.

The Attorney General’ s Office Memorandum recommends “[ c]onstruction of additional points of ingress and egress and modification of evacuation routes to minimize or avoid increasing evacuation times or emergency access response times.” Yet, each of the Project’ s mitigation measures fails to curtail evacuation times. In fact, not a single fire hazard measure calls for substantive improvements to the Project’ s planned evacuation routes, despite the site’s identification as a “ constrained roadway” in the City’s General Plan.

Senate Bil 99 also emphasizes the need for ample routes for ingress and egress, requiring identification of residential developments in hazard areas that fail to provide at least two emergency evacuation routes. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65302, subd. (g)(5).) In response to Senate Bill 99, the City identified the Project’ s entrance as a “ constrained roadway” in its General Plan safety element. (General Plan, Safety Element, Figure S-7.) The General Plan further explains that “Cal Fire is concerned with subdivisions within the state that have 30 or more dwellings accessing a single roadway.” ( Id. at p. 27.)
This Project would evacuate along a single road that leads to and from the Project, Santa Ana Canyon Road.

It is evident that Project poses a severe risk of fire hazard to its residents, fails to adequately mitigate that risk, and is thus inconsistent with the Attorney General’ s Office guidance. The City’s Fire Chief came to this conclusion. For this reason, the Project further conflicts with the Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 8 ends

General Plan’ s mandate to “[ e]nsure all new development and redevelopment projects provide adequate ingress/egress for emergency access and evacuation.” ( Id. at p. 31.) Therefore, the Project must be denied unless the above deficiencies are corrected.

2. The Project Fire Evacuation Study Relies on Inaccurate Assumptions and Fails to Analyze Cumulative Projects in the Evacuation Modeling
The EIR’ s “ Evacuation Analysis” concluded the Project would increase evacuation times in the community by 24 minutes, resulting in an evacuation time of 3.5 hours for a fire origin located immediately east of the project site. (EIR, Appendix S (“ Evacuation Report”), p. 7.) Despite the EIR’s admission that the Project would increase evacuation times in the event of a fire originating east of the site, the Evacuation Report assumed that “the proposed Project would shelter in place for the other fire origins evaluated in the Firesafe Planning Solutions fire modeling scenarios, which would therefore result in no increase in evacuation travel times along Santa Ana Canyon Road.” ( Ibid.) This further conflicts with the Attorney General’ s Guidance to a]void overreliance on community evacuation plans identifying shelter-in-place locations. Sheltering in place… should not be relied upon in lieu of analyzing and mitigating a project’ s evacuation impacts.” 8
The EIR fails to provide any evidence for this assumption. The City’s Fire Chief concluded that the Evacuation Report was unrealistic, further undermining the Evacuation Report’ s assumption.

The Evacuation Plan contained within the Evacuation Report relies on “road closures and the intersection locations that would require traffic control by the City of Anaheim Police Department...City of Anaheim Police Department personnel would be placed at these identified intersections to direct vehicular traffic …” Yet, the City’s own Police Department Chief also opposed the Project as described earlier.

The EIR also claims that “[ g]iven that Santa Ana Canyon Road has three westbound through lanes as it approaches Imperial Highway, the evaluation assumes three westbound through lanes.” ( Evacuation Report, p. 6.) This is not accurate. Santa Ana Canyon Road has only two lanes in each direction within the Project vicinity, as demonstrated by Satellite Imagery:
8 See supra, fn. 6.

Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 9 ends

Satellite Imagery of Santa Ana Canyon Road at Project Entrance) The Evacuation Report’ s inaccurate assumption that Santa Ana Canyon Road would have three lanes in both directions in particularly concerning given that the Project’ s Transportation Analysis admitted several segments of Santa Ana Canyon Road “ are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS D or LOS E when compared to the LOS standards defined in this report.” EIR, Appendix L, p. 74.)
Finally, the EIR is required to consider a Project’ s cumulative impacts, including its potential to result in cumulatively significant impacts to evacuation. The City is currently processing another major project – 450 units and commercial uses – on Santa Ana Canyon Road, off Festival Center Drive.

Location of Festival Center Drive Project, As Shown in City Project Documents) Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 10 ends

While the SALT Project’ s EIR lists the Festive Center Drive Project in its general list of cumulative projects. (EIR, p. 4-5), the Project’ s Evacuation Report does not indicate it included cumulative projects in its analysis. In fact, in describing the “Potential Evacuation Area,” the Evacuation Report states, “ It should be noted that the number of homes in each area were counted using Google aerial maps.” (EIR, Appendix S, p. 3, emphasis added.) It does not appear that the Festival Center Drive Project was included in the Project’ s Evacuation Report or Supplemental Evacuation Modeling Report.

In fact, the EIR admits that the Festival Hills Project “ could result in up to approximately 1,125 additional cars needing to evacuate the area during an emergency.” ( EIR, p. 4.8-18.) However, the EIR declined to include the Festival Hills Project in the Project’ s evacuation modeling, because it “is assumed to evacuate eastbound in the event of a wildfire event, while the Proposed Project would evacuate westbound.” ( Ibid.)
Yet, the analysis in the Evacuation Report is based on “the Potential Evacuation Area Plan for a fire origin located immediately east of the Project site.” ( EIR, Appendix S, p. 3, emphasis added.) To assume that residents would evacuate towards the location of the fire defies logic.

The City’s Fire Chief underscored this reality.

Our firm successfully challenged the City of San Diego’ s similar omission of a neighboring cumulative project in an EIR analysis (Exhibit B [excerpt of Opinion].) The City must recirculate the EIR to correct these unreasonable assumptions and to adequately incorporate the omitted cumulative projects in evacuation modeling.

IV. The Project EIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Impacts to Biological Resources and Impermissibly Defers Mitigation
The Project site features significant biological resources. The City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report explains that “the City of Anaheim is largely urbanized” and “ there are few remaining areas of natural habitat.” ( General Plan EIR, p. 5-35.)9In fact, “the Hill and Canyon Area” that the Project is proposed within “contains the majority of the City’s remaining significant biological resources.” ( Ibid.)
The majority of the Project site lies within land designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as Coastal California Gnatcatcher Critical Habitat. (Project Biological Technical Report, p. 51, Exhibit 9.) Nesting California Gnatcatchers have been observed on site. (Ibid.) The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally-listed Threatened species and a California Species of Special 9 Available at: https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2185/53-Biological-ResourcesbidId=.

Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 11 ends

Concern. (Ibid.) The City’s Habitat Conservation Plan, which provides the City an incidental take permit to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act, did not “evaluate” or provide coverage” on the project site.

The EIR admits the Project’s will significantly impact biological resources on site. However, the EIR relies on an impermissibly delayed mitigation measure (MM-BIO-1):

The Property Owner/Developer shall mitigate for impacts to coastal sage scrub and coastal California gnatcatcher prior to the issuance of a grading permit through one or a combination of the following options, as elected by the Project Owner/Developer and approved by the USFWS and CDFW: (1) payment of the NCCP/HCP mitigation fee10 … ( 2) long-term preservation of existing coastal sage scrub habitat occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers at an on-site or off-site location; and/or (3) restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat at an on-site or offsite location. Coastal sage scrub shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio, or as otherwise determined by the USFWS and CDFW.

In their scoping comments, the wildlife agencies highlighted the need for the City to conduct a detailed analysis of the Project’ s impacts, including an assessment of its consistency with the NCCP, and to fully mitigate the Project’s impacts.

MM-BIO-1 fails to incorporate adequate performance standards in violation of CEQA. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service commented on the insufficiency of MM-BIO-1, stating that while it “appreciate[s] the DEIR appropriately referencing the need for the Property Owner/Developer to seek authorization from the USFWS for incidental take…we generally recommend early coordination between the Property Owner/Developer and the Service (e.g., prior to finalization of a DEIR) so that the Property Owner/Developer has the opportunity to appropriately consider alternative actions to the taking, and can work with us to identify appropriate mitigation measures.” ( Final EIR, p. 2-36.) Fish and Wildlife Service warned that “finalization of the EIR in advance of such coordination could inaccurately portray the project configuration and/or list mitigation measures that will not be implemented.” ( Id. at p. 2-37.)
10 In responding to comments on the impermissible nature of MM-BIO-1, the EIR stated, “ The comment is noted…the City does not believe that the mitigation fee option would be applicable to the Project, unless permitted by USFWS and CDFW. Given that the comment does not raise significant environmental issues beyond that discussed in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary.”
Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 12 ends

Rather than fully assess the Project’s potential impacts, including an analysis of feasible on-site mitigation and Project alternatives, the EIR delays this analysis to a later date. Instead, the EIR provides a suite of vague, varying options, and delays formation of performance criteria until after Project approval. The EIR must revise its analysis and proposed mitigation measure to incorporate clear performance criteria.

V. Project Will Result in Impacts to Vehicle Miles Travelled The Project is located on “the eastern edge of the City of Anaheim limits,” outside of any area close to transit. (EIR, p. 4.15-13, Appendix T, p. 2.) In fact, the Project is within a “ higher VMT than the Orange County average zone.” ( Id. at p. 4.) The State of California has increasingly prioritized the direction of new growth into “infill” areas, close to existing jobs and transit, to move away from car-centric development. Senate Bill 743 requires the evaluation of a project’s impact to “Vehicle Miles Travelled” (“ VMT”).

The EIR admits the Project would result in significant impacts to VMT. (EIR, p. 4.15-13.) Yet, the EIR fails to incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to address VMT. Furthermore, the five professed “ mitigation measures” in the EIR fail to provide any meaningful VMT mitigation, as they rely on “ soft” unenforceable actions like “marketing” and “ providing information.” This is unacceptable, especially given the State’ s climate emergency and the Project’s location in a high VMT area, contrary to the State’ s goals.

The Project must incorporate feasible mitigation, including the VMT-related measures listed in the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan. This includes unbundled parking. The EIR claims “unbundled parking was evaluated; however, it would be inconsistent with AMC Section 18.42.030.0203, which addresses residential parking requirements.” ( EIR, p. 4.15-14.) This conclusory statement about this mitigation measure’ s feasibility lacks any evidence, especially given that the Project is relying on several deviations from other sections of the City’s municipal code.

The EIR improperly dismisses another feasible mitigation measure, claiming that while “the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments can reduce the amount of VMT,” the Property Owner/Developer determined that affordable housing would not be economically feasible given the substantial costs to acquire and develop the Project Site.” ( EIR, p. 4.15-15.) Again, this conclusion is not supported in the EIR. The Project undermines the State’ s goals to reduce VMT and locate development in infill areas close to transit. The EIR must adequately analyze and incorporate feasible mitigation measures, including unbundled parking, expansion of transit service and/or infrastructure near the Project, and incorporate of affordable housing.

Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 13 ends

VI. The EIR Fails to Adequately Analyze, Mitigate, and Disclose the Project’s Geological Hazards
There have been historic landslides within eastern Anaheim, including in 1993 and 2005. The City’s General Plan EIR identifies portions of the Project site as having “earthquake-induced land slide potential.” (General Plan EIR, p. 5.5-3.)
Left: General Plan EIR, “ land slide potential” sites mapped in green, Right: Project EIR Location Map)
The Project’ s Geotechnical Report identified that portions of the site “ are mapped with the potential for earthquake” and have “ a high landslide susceptibility and are considered unstable in place,” “ primarily a result of adverse geologic structure and bedding in the formational materials.” ( Geotechnical Report, p. 14.) The Project’ s Geotechnical Report noted the presence of “Landslide Debris” at the northwestern facing slope between the proposed Hills Club & Preserve and Office/Retail Park sites.

Geotechnical Report, p. 11.) Despite the site’ s mapping for land slide potential and identified landslide debris, “ no borings were drilled in this location.” (Ibid.) The Applicant must fully analyze and identify the proper mitigation by drilling boreholes, which allow determination of the depth (slip plane) of the landslide. If the prior landslide was deep or wide, a tie-back system may be required as mitigation to stabilize the earth. The only way to know is to assess the depth. Yet, the Geotechnical Report admits this analysis was not done.

Furthermore, the Report admitted that “ boring exploration was not performed within the landslide to confirm the presence of the slide” and that “[ w]alking the area during the site Aitken, Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, Meeks
October 28, 2024

Page 14 ends

reconnaissance and boring exploration had limited observation of the ground surface due to the overgrown vegetation…” ( Geotechnical Report, p. 15.)
Thus, the Geotechnical Report failed to fully analyze the identified hazards associated with the Project, which would have allowed for the appropriate mitigation to be identified and required by the EIR.11
The Geotechnical Report ultimately determine there is a potential for “slope instability” and stated the need for mitigation. In particular, “Permanent ground anchor walls are recommended to mitigate slope instability of the western and northern facing cut slopes.” ( Geotechnical Report, p. 32.; see also p. 22 [“ Evaluations for the northern facing retaining walls indicate that the minimum factor of safety for the retaining walls cannot be met …without mitigation of the upper slope. Several mitigation methods can be utilized …”].) Despite the explicit stated need for mitigation – including ground anchor walls – in the Geotechnical Report, the EIR concludes there would be a “less than significant impact” as it relates to landslides, and does not make it clear what mitigation measures are required by the EIR, despite the Geotechnical Report’ s reference to varying mitigation methods in certain instances. Therefore, the EIR must be revised to conduct the adequate analysis and explicitly identify and incorporate the required mitigation measures from the Geotechnical Report.

VII. Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Pettit
Josh Chatten-Brown
cc: City Clerk Theresa Bass, City Attorney Robert Fabela, City Manager James Vanderpool, Principal Planner Heather Allen, Planning and Building Director Ted White 11 The Geotechnical Report further admitted that “Detailed grading plans are not yet available,” at the time of its review. (Id. at p. 21.)

EXHIBIT A
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 § CS ITEM # 01
Ted White, Planning and Building Director
City of Anaheim
September 27, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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

Page 4 ends

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

Page 5 ends

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

Page 6 ends

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

EXHIBIT B

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

MINUTE ORDER
TIME: 04:00:00 PM
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Ronald F. Frazier

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DATE: 02/03/2023 DEPT:

CLERK: Sarah Doski
REPORTER/ERM:

BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
2021CASENO: 37-2021-00033583-CU-TT-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 08/05/ CASE TITLE: PQ-NE Action Group vs City of San Diego [E-FILE] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Toxic Tort/Environmental

STOLOAPPEARANCESSTOL
The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 2/2/23 and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as follows:

Petitioner PQ-NE Action Group's Petition for Writ of Mandate is GRANTED IN PART. (ROA 1, 49.) This proceeding concerns Respondent City of San Diego's approval of a residential development known as a Junipers Project (" Project") located in the Rancho Penasquitos area. Real Parties in Interest Carmel Partners, LLC and Carmel Land, LLC ("RPIs") are the Project applicants.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate vacating the City's approval of the Project.

Whether the EIR Adequately Considers Cumulative Impacts An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") must consider a project's "cumulative impacts."( 14 C.C.R.§ 15130(a).)"[ A] cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts."( 14 C.C.R.§ 15130(a)(1).)" The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects."( 14 C.C.R.§ 15355(b).) Petitioner asserts the EIR failed to adequately consider the cumulative impact of the Project together with the Millennium PQ and Trails at Carmel Mountain Ranch projects. In opposition, Respondent and the RPIs assert these projects did not qualify for inclusion in the cumulative impacts study. Specifically, Respondent and the RPIs assert the City used the Project's Notice of Preparation of the EIR (April 10, 2018) as the cutoff date, and neither the Millennium PQ nor the Trails projects were analyzed because neither of these applications was "deemed complete" before this date. (AR 43:11381-11406; 15:4859.) M]ere awareness of proposed expansion plans or other proposed development does not necessarily require the inclusion of those proposed projects in the EIR."( Gray v. County of Madera ( 2008) 167 DATE: 02/03/2023 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: PQ-NE Action Group vs City of San Diego
E-FILE]
CASE NO: 37-2021-00033583-CU-TT-CTL
Cal.App.4th 1099, 1127 ( emphasis added).) However," any future project where the applicant has devoted significant time and financial resources to prepare for any regulatory review should be considered as probable future projects for the purposes of cumulative impact."( Id. at pp. 1127-28 emphasis added).)" Projects that are undergoing environmental review are reasonably probable future projects."( Id. at p. 1127.)
Here, the administrative record reflects both the Millennium PQ and Trails projects were reasonably probable future projects known to the City well before the draft EIR was published. Although the City attempts to assert it was not obligated to consider these projects because neither of the applications was deemed complete" before the Project's April 10, 2018 Notice of Preparation was issued, the court is not persuaded.

The EIR states the Millennium PQ application was deemed complete on June 14, 2019 and the Trails application was deemed complete on January 31, 2020.( AR 15:4859.) However, the record and judicially noticeable documents demonstrate the City was concurrently evaluating the Project, Millennium PQ, and the Trails for many months prior to the publication of the draft EIR.( AR 225:24408-24412, 15:4991; Pet. RJN at Exh. A.) The City was clearly aware Millennium PQ and Trails were reasonably probable future projects.

The court is sympathetic to the City's desire to apply a bright-line rule. However, the legal authorities reflect a more flexible approach.( 14 C.C.R.§ 15355(b); Gray at pp. 1127-28.) RPIs cited both Gray and South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco ( 2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321 as support for their position that the City's selection of the Notice of Preparation date as the cutoff was reasonable. Notably, however, both these cases are distinguishable on their facts from the case presented here. In Gray, the court noted "the County could not locate any project where an applicant has filed for review with the County Planning Department" before determining the County had reasonably exercised its discretion to set the date of the project application as the cutoff.( Gray at p. 1128.) By contrast, here there is evidence the City was aware of other probable future projects in close proximity to the Project.

Likewise, in South of Market, the plaintiffs asserted the EIR had used an outdated list of projects and made "generalized observations that development is 'rampant,'" but the court noted the lack of evidence that the list was "defective or misleading, or that the City ignored projects that were in the pipeline for the purpose of adjudging cumulative impacts."( South of Market at p. 336-37.) Thus,"[ t]he City had discretion to determine a reasonable date as a cutoff for which projects to include in the cumulative impacts analysis, and plaintiffs have not shown the City's decision to use a 2012 project list was unsupported by substantial evidence."( Id. at p. 337.) Here, Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated Petitioner's decision to exclude Millennium PQ and the Trails projects was not reasonable under the facts. In the court's view, the close proximity of these projects – particularly Millennium PQ, which is adjacent to the Project – renders the City's decision all the more arbitrary.

Thus, the EIR fails to comply with CEQA because it did not adequately consider the cumulative impact of Millennium PQ, Trails, and the Project.

As to these grounds, the Petition is granted.

Whether the EIR Adequately Considers Wildfire Safety Impacts An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment." DATE: 02/03/2023 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: PQ-NE Action Group vs City of San Diego
E-FILE]
CASE NO: 37-2021-00033583-CU-TT-CTL
14 C.C.R.§ 15126.2(a).) This includes " any potentially significant direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts of locating development in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions ( e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas)...."( Ibid., emphasis added.) Within the context of wildfire safety impacts, Petitioner argues the EIR failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the Project together with the Millennium PQ (which will use the same evacuation exit) and Trails projects (which will significantly increase the number of evacuating residents). The court agrees and finds the EIR also fails to comply with CEQA because it did not adequately consider the cumulative impact of Millennium PQ, Trails, and the Project when evaluating the Project's wildfire safety risks.

In their opposition, Respondent and RPIs point out the RPIs commissioned a study on Millennium PQ's impact on evacuation times, and that the study concluded the community's evacuation time would only increase from 3.5 to 3.8 hours if Millennium PQ project were also considered.( AR 21:10659-10662.) As a preliminary matter, this study still does not take the Trails project into consideration. Further, CEQA requires agencies to discuss a project's potentially significant impacts in the draft EIR and final EIR."( Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 103; see also 14 C.C.R.§ 15120.) T]o the extent an agency omits an adequate discussion of a project's potential impacts in its EIR, it cannot afterward make up for the lack of analysis in the EIR through post-EIR analysis."( Ibid., citing Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey Cty. Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 130.) Here, the RPIs submitted the study on the eve of the City Council hearing.( AR 21:10659.) The memo is dated June 11, 2021 and the City Council hearing was held June 15, 2021. No such analysis is contained in either the draft EIR or final EIR. Thus, the EIR fails to comply with CEQA requirements.

This deficiency cannot be cured by post-EIR analysis, and in any event the post-EIR analysis is still insufficient because it does not consider the Trails project.

As to these grounds, the Petition is granted.

At hearing, Petitioner argued the EIR also improperly omitted consideration of Pacific Village in its analysis of cumulative impacts with regard to evacuation and wildfire safety. In response, RPIs asserted this issue was waived because it had not been asserted during the administrative process. However, it appears this issue was raised before the agency.( AR 018319.) The court agrees the EIR also fails to comply with CEQA requirements because it omits Pacific Village from its cumulative impact analysis for evacuation and wildfire safety.

Petitioner also argues the EIR's wildfire analysis is not supported by substantial evidence, challenging several of the assumptions made in evaluating the Project's impact on evacuation. As to these grounds, the Petition is denied.

Third, Petitioner asserts the EIR obfuscates wildfire and evacuation risks because it uses a "voluntary" Fire Protection Plan and Wildfire Evacuation Plan. As to these grounds, the Petition is denied.

Whether the EIR Adequately Considers Transportation Impacts Petitioner asserts the EIR did not adequately analyze and mitigate transportation impacts.

As to these grounds, the Petition is denied. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the EIR's transportation impact analysis.

DATE: 02/03/2023 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: Calendar No.

EXHIBIT 4

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

MINUTE ORDER
TIME : 02 :29 :00 PM
JUDICIAL O F FIC E R PR E SIDIN G : Richard S . Whitney

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CENTRAL
DATE : 10/07 /2021 D E PT : C -68
C LE RK : Richard C ersosimo
R E P O RT E R /E RM : Not Reported
BAILIF F /C O URT ATTE NDANT :
9CASENO: 37-2019-00038820-CU-TT-CTL C ASE INIT .DATE : 07 /25 /201 C ASE TITLE : Petition of Sierra Club [E -FILE ]
C ASE C ATE G O RY : Civil - Unlimited C ASE TYPE : Toxic Tort /Environmental

OAPPEARANCESSTOLO
STATEMENT OF DECISION:

The Court , having taken the above -entitled matter under submission on 9/21 /2021 , and having fully considered the arguments of all parties , both written and oral , as well as the evidence presented , now rules as follows :

A superior court sitting as a court of review in a C E Q A proceeding is not required to issue a " statement of decision " as that term is used in Code of Civil Procedure sections 632 and 634 .( See 2 Kostka & Zischke , Practice Under the C al . Environmental Quality Act ( Cont .Ed .Bar 2d ed . 2011 )§ 23 .116 , p . 1262 .) Conversely , a superior court that chooses to issue a written document explaining its decision to grant or deny a writ of mandate in a C E Q A proceeding is not prohibited from labeling the document statement of decision ." Regardless of the label used , the rights , obligations and procedures set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 632 and 634 and C alifornia Rules of Court ,rule 3 .1590 do not apply to any such document issued by the court in a C E Q A writ proceeding ."( C onsolidated Irrigation Dist .v . City of Selma ( 2012) 204 C al .App .4th 187 ,196 fn .5 , as modified on denial of reh 'g (Mar. 9 ,2012 ).) 1) PETITIONERS' PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE and PEOPLE 'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE IN INTERVENTION is GRANTED.

Petitioners E NDAN G E R E D HABITATS LE A G U E , C ALIF O RNIA NATIVE PLANT S O CIE TY , C E NTE R

F O R BIOLO GIC AL DIVE RSITY , PR E SE RVE WILD SANTE E , C ALIF ORNIA C HAPARRAL INSTITUTE , and SIE RRA C LUB 's ( collectively " Petitioners ") Requests for Judicial Notice are granted ( Exhibits A , B and C ). Intervenor People of the State of C alifornia ex rel . Rob Bonta , Attorney G eneral's (" A G ") Requests for Judicial Notice are granted . Real Parties in Interest , Jackson Pendo Development Company , et al .'s (" G D CI ")Requests for Judicial Notice are granted . The " JOINT O BJE C TIO N BY TH E PE O PLE AND PE TITIO N E RS T O R E AL PARTIE S IN INTE RE ST 'S NO TIC E O F " O TH E R R ELE VANT E VID E N C E " PURSUANT T O G O VE RNME NT C OD E SE C TIO N 12612 AND SUPP O RTING DATE : 10 /07/2021 MINUTE O RD E R Page 1
D E PT : C -68 C alendar No .

C ASE TITLE : Petition of Sierra Club [E -FILE ] C ASE N O : 37-2019-00038820- CU-TT-CTL D E CLARATIO N O F ELIZABE TH JA C KS O N " is granted . The A G did not intervene via Government Code section 12612 , but 12606 . Further, the evidence is extra -record evidence that post-dates Respondents and Defendants C O UNTY O F SAN DIE G O and B O ARD O F SUPE RVIS ORS O F C O UNTY O F SAN DIE G O 's (" C ounty ") decision to approve the Project , defined below , which renders it irrelevant for purposes of this C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (" C E Q A ") action .( See Western States Petroleum Assn .v .Superior C ourt (1995) 9 C al .4th 559 .)
Backgro und
GD CI's Project is located within the Proctor Valley , approximately one -quarter mile east of Chula Vista and immediately south of the unincorporated community of Jamul .( Administrative Record [" AR "] 1 .) The project is a planned community consisting of 1 ,119 dwelling units ; 10 ,000 square fe et of neighborhood commercial; 2 .3 acre joint use Fire Station /Sheriff storefront ; 9 .7 acre elementary school site ; 24 acres of public/private parks ; 776 acres of open space and a preserve on 1 ,284 acres "( the Project ").( AR 1 .) The C ounty's approval of the Project includes a G eneral Plan Amendment (" G PA ") of the County's G eneral Plan .( AR 1 .) The C ounty approved the Final Environmental Impact Report (" EIR ") as to the Project .( AR 1 .) Petitioners and the A G challenge the EIR under C E Q A as being unsupported by substantial evidence and the approvals as being an abuse of discretion based on a failure to proceed in the manner required by law . Petitioners and the A G also allege the Project is inconsistent with the G eneral Plan .

Standard of Review Under CEQA and Relevant Law
The issue before this C ourt is whether the County abused its discretion ." Abuse of discretion is shown if 1) the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law ,or (2) the determination is not supported by substantial evidence ."( County of Amador v . El Dorado County Water Agency (1999 ) 76 C al .App .4th 931 , 945 [Citation omitted ].)
Under C E Q A , courts review quasi-legislative agency decisions for an abuse of discretion .(§ 21168 .5 .) At both the trial and appellate level , the court examines the administrative record anew .( Vineyard , supra , 40 C al .4th at p .427 ,53 C al .Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P .3d 709 .) An " agency may abuse its discretion under C E Q A either by failing to proceed in the manner C E Q A provides or by reaching factual conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence ."( Vineyard , supra , 40 C al .4th at p . 435 , 53 C al .Rptr .3d 821 , 150 P .3d 709 , citing § 21168 .5 .)" Judicial review of these two types of error differs significantly " however.( Vineyard , at p . 435 ,53 C al .Rptr.3d 821 ,150 P .3d 709 .) For that reason ," a reviewing court must adjust its scrutiny to the nature of the alleged defect ,depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts ."(Ibid .)

1. Procedural Claims
Courts must " scrupulously enforce all legislatively mandated C E Q A requirements ."( Goleta II, supra , 52 C al .3d at p . 564 , 276 C al .Rptr. 410 , 801 P .2d 1161 .) To do so ," we determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures " in taking the challenged action .( Vineyard , supra , 40 C al .4th at p . 435 , 53 C al .Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P .3d 709 .) DATE : 10 /07/2021 MINUTE O RD E R Page 2
D E PT : C -68 C alendar No .

C ASE TITLE : Petition of Sierra Club [E -FILE ] C ASE N O : 37-2019-00038820- CU-TT-CTL

2. Substantive Claims
Compared with review for procedural error ," we accord greater deference to the agency's substantive factual conclusions ."( Vineyard , supra , 40 C al .4th at p . 435 , 53 C al .Rptr.3d 821 , 150 P .3d 709 .) We apply "the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review in Public Resources Code section 21168 .5 " to such determinations .( Western States , supra , 9 C al .4th at p . 572 , 38 C al .Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P .2d 1268 .)" The agency is the finder of fact and we must indulge all reasonable inferences from the evidence that would support the agency's determinations and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the agency 's decision ."( Save Our Peninsula , supra , 87 C al .App .4th at p . 117 , 104 C al .Rptr.2d 326 .) That deferential review standard flows from the fact that "the agency has the discretion to resolve factual issues and to make policy decisions ."( Id .at p .120 , 104 C al .Rptr .2d 326 .) The C E Q A Guidelines define substantial evidence as " enough relevant inform ation and re asonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion , even though other conclusions might also be reached ." (Guidelines , § 15384 , subd . (a ).) C alifornia Native Plant Soc .v . City of Santa Cruz ( 2009) 177 C al .App .4th 957 , 984-85 .) W ]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question . A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an inform ational document without reference to substantial evidence ."( Sierra Club v . County of Fresno Friant Ranch ")( 2018 ) 6 C al .5th 502 ,514 .)" The ultimate inquiry , as case law and the C E Q A guidelines make clear , is whether the EIR includes enough detail ' to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project .'"( Id . at 516 [Citation omitted].)
T ]he petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the record does not contain sufficient evidence justifying a contested project approval ."( Latinos Unidos de Napa v . City of Napa ( 2013) 221 C al .App .4th 192 , 206 .)" To do so , an appellant must set forth in its brief all the material evidence on the point , not merely its own evidence .[ Citation .] A failure to do so is deemed a concession that the evidence supports the findings ."( Id .[ Citation omitted ].)
GD CI asserts Petitioners failed to raise a number of issues , such that the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine precludes the claims .

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a C E Q A action .

The petitioner is required to have ' objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination .'([ Pub . Resourc es C ode ,]§ 21177 , subd .( b).) The petitioner may allege as a ground of noncompliance any objection that was presented by any person or entity during the administrative proceedings ."( Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v . City of Bakersfield 2004) 124 C al .App .4th 1184 , 1199 , 22 C al .Rptr .3d 203 .) The petitioner be ars the burden of demonstrating that the issues raised in the judicial proceeding were DATE : 10 /07/2021 MINUTE O RD E R Page 3
D E PT : C -68 C alendar No .

C ASE TITLE : Petition of Sierra Club [E -FILE ] C ASE N O : 37-2019-00038820- CU-TT-CTL Wildfire Ignition Risk
The A G and Petitioners assert the EIR fails to properly acknowledge the incre ased risk of wildfire ignition from the additional people who will be in the area as a result of the Project . The EIR states "the Project Area , in its current condition , is considered to be vulnerable to wildfire ignition and spread during extreme fire weather."( AR 32172 .) The EIR goes on to states that the " introduction of up to 1 ,119 new homes would not increase the potential likelihood of arson , off-road vehicle -related fires , or shooting-related fires ."( A R 32173 .) The body of the EIR does not acknowledge an incre ase in risk of wildfire ignition as a result of more humans being in the area from the Project .However, a County expert acknowledges " southern C alifornia 's increasing population will make it more likely that ignitions will occur , which could potentially cause large areas of chaparral to type -convert into grasslands ."( AR 104506 .) Further, it is known humans are the primary cause of wildfires , especially in Southern C alifornia .( AR 89718 -23 .) The EIR does not address this issue , but notes "[ p ]ost-construction ignition sources would include vehicles , although roadside FMZs would be provided ,reducing the potential for a vehicle -related fire escaping into the Otay Ranch RMP /MS C P Preserve fuels ."( AR 32173 .) This does not acknowledge or analyze the impact of adding more than 1 ,100 new homes to the area as to humans being an ignition cause of wildfires . This is combined with the fact the EIR does not clearly , in the body of the EIR , acknowledge the area 's designation as a Very High Fire H az ard Severity Zone .( AR 32172-77 .) The EIR does not includes enough detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issue of wildfire ignition raised by the Project .

The above issue is accompanied by an improper compressing of the analysis . Instead of independently acknowledging all the significant impacts of the Project as to wildfire risks and subsequently discussing mitigating measures to address such impacts , the mitigation measures are characterized in the EIR as being part of the project .( Lotus v . Department of Transportation ( 2014) 223 C al .App .4th 645 , 656 .)" By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue , the EIR disregards the requirements of C E Q A ."( Id .) Here , the EIR considers the impacts of wildfire to be less than significant because the Project's " landscaped and irrigated areas and FMZs , as well as the paved roadways and ignition-resistant structures , would result in reduced fire intensity and spread rates around the Project Area , creating defensible space for firefighters ."( AR 32173 .)" Additionally , provisions for a fire station in the area would reduce the response time to wildfire ignitions and increase the likelihood of successful initial attacks that limit the spread of wildfires ."( AR 32173 .) The EIR also states "[ u]nauthorized activities such as off-road vehicles and shooting may still occur , but there will be more ' monitors'( i .e ., future residents ) in the area to discourage and report such activities , resulting in an anticipated decreased occurrence ."( AR 32173 .)"' C E Q A EIR requirements are not satisfied by saying an environmental impact is something less than some previously unknown amount .'"( Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v . City of Ukiah ( 2016) 248 C al .App .4th 256 , 264 [ Citation omitted].) The adoption of the Fire Protection Plan F FP ) and compliance with applicable fire codes do not obviate the need for the EIR to analyze significant impacts that would exist prior to the implementation of any mitigation measures . The EIR fails to comply with Lotus .

Multiple Species Conservation Program
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (" MS C P ")" is a multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation DATE : 10 /07/2021 MINUTE O RD E R Page 8
D E PT : C -68 C alendar No .

C ASE TITLE : Petition of Sierra Club [E -FILE ] C ASE N O : 37-2019-00038820- CU-TT-CTL meritorious .( C alifornia Rules of Court , Rule 8 .54 (c).) Public Resources Code section 21167 .6(e ) sets forth the types of records to be included in a record of proceedings .( Pub . Resources C ode ,§ 21167 .6 (e ).)"[ T ]he Legislature intended courts to generally consider only the administrative record in determining whether a quasi-legislative administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence ." Western States Petroleum Assn . v . Superior C ourt (1995) 9 C al .4th 559 , 571 .)"[ E ]xtra -record evidence is generally not admissible in traditional mandamus actions challenging quasi-legislative administrative decisions on the ground that the agency ' has not proceeded in a manner required by law' within the meaning of Pub . Resources C ode ,§ 21168 .5 ."( Id . at 561 .) The potential exceptions acknowledged in W estern States do not apply here .( Id . at 575 , n . 5 .) Petitioners explain how the documents included after the fact were considered by G D CI's consultant , but were not presented to the agency decision-makers and did not become part of the record . G D CI does not dispute this . The documents do not fall into a category under Public Resources Code section 21167 .6(e ). The motion is granted .

Judge Richard S . Whitney
D A T E : 1 0 / 0 7/ 2 0 2 1 MI N U T E O R D E R P a g e 1 4 D E P T : C - 6 8 C a l e n d a r N o .

D A T E : 1 0 / 0 7/ 2 0 2 1 MI N U T E O R D E R P a g e 1 4 D E P T : C - 6 8 C a l e n d a r N o .

EXHIBIT 5

ome people who received this message don't often get email from phynuly@hotmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 8:49:13 AM
From:" Sharon A" phynuly@hotmail. com
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Sharon Adams
Anaheim Hills Resident
ate: 3/3/2026 8:56:07 AM
From:" Paul Dohmann" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Festival Shopping Center
You don' t often get email from rvrdoh1@gmail. com. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms/ LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

I vehemently oppos e the plans currently propos ed for the Fes tival Shopping Center. This would add untold dures s on our already exis ting poor infras tructure. Jus t las t Thurs day, it took me one hour to go from SAC and Mohler to the 91 onramp at Weir Canyon. During our las t fire, our daughter who teaches at Running Sprimgs Elementary was evacuated. It took the bus with she and her students 2 hours to get to the staging area at Canyon High School. This is totally unacceptable.

Pleas e don’ t put politics ahead of people’ s lives .

Thank you,
Paul and Maureen Dohmann
Sent from my iPad
ou don't often get email from love2stayhm@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 9:22:08 AM
From:" Elizabeth Lozano" love2stayhm@gmail. com
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lozano, a 25 year resident of Anaheim Hills.
ou don't often get email from meskoalex39@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 9:35:05 AM
From:" alex mesko" meskoalex39@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Cc:" alex mesko" meskoalex39@gmail. com, "doloresmesko420@gmail. com" doloresme [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Oposition to the festival Center
Attachment: Festival shopping center letter 3.pdf;
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
arch 2, 2026
Oposition to the Festival Center – Public Safety
Evacuations and other Concerns
Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed Festival Center High Density Housing Project due to unresolved Public safety and evacuations concerns.

This area already suffers from limited access and egress and is located within an Extremely High Fire Hazzard Safety Zone.

Evacuation is currently known as a mayor problem, and the City of Anaheim has not demonstrated that the Festival Center High Density Housing project will have improved evacuation safety for existing and future Residents.

Traffic is a major issue, with constant gridlocks that will become significantly worse if more than a thousand additional cars are introduced to the area, particularly during emergency situations such as fires.

Granting approval for a significant development without an established and effective evacuation plan may compromise the safety of both current and prospective residents.

The unproven method of evacuation by zone is just that unproven and questionable since fire under windy conditions can propagate much faster than one can evacuate.

We need to do this the right way in the right order first fix the infrastructure for evacuation and safety and then add new development projects.

There are currently eighteen registered sex offenders in the 92808-zip code, and adding over four hundred rental units could increase this number.

For these reasons, I urge the city of Anaheim not to approve the Festival Center Project until every issue related to evacuations, emergency planning, and traffic has been fully and transparently addressed.

I really hope city official side with residents and not big businesses developers that all they care about is money.

Alex and Dolores Mesko (Moonridge ln, Anaheim CA. 92808) ou don't often get email from jbz4jc@aol. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 9:46:37 AM
From:" [email protected]" [email protected]
To:

Subject: Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue Dear Council Member,
I am writing to you as a resident of Anaheim to ask you to please vote "No" on the proposed apartments at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center. Ilived here during the Canyon Fire 2 in 2017, and Iwill never forget the feeling of being stuck in my car, watching the smoke get closer, and literally not moving for over an hour. It wasn't just "traffic"—it was a total standsti ll. The thought of adding hundreds of new apartments and about 1000+ more people to that exact same escape route is terrifying to those of us who have actually been in that situation.

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely.

Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
James Ball
637 S Glenhurst Dr
Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
ou don't often get email from yoponcha@hotmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 9:48:08 AM
From:" Yolanda Trujillo" yoponcha@hotmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL SHOPPING CENTER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

To the City Council,
My husband and I have been homeowners and residents in Anaheim Hills since June 1982 and have seen various unsuccessful proposed development projects during these years . We have been opposed to these past projects for what we considered valid reasons .

Now, once again we are opposed to the new development of 447 units in the Festival Center due to the fact that this area is in a very high fire hazard severity zone. In the past when residents were required to evacuate due to fires it has taken way too long for evacuations to be completed.

Additional residents living in this propos ed development would only create much much more time for evacuations to be completed with the occurrence of a fire emergency.

Sincerely,
Yolanda and Fermin Trujillo
ome people who received this message don't often get email from taluzzi@msn. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 9:56:27 AM
From:" Tina Aluzzi - Lounsbury" [email protected]
To:"
Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, " City Clerk" [email protected], "Ashleigh Aitken" [email protected]
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Comprehensive Public Health, Safety, and Legal Objection – Development Application No. 2023-00043 / FEIR No. 358 – March 3, 2026, Hearing
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Date: March 3, 2026
City of Anaheim
Mayor and Members of the City Council
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Via email address: publiccomment@anaheim. net; cityclerk@anaheim. net; aaitken@anaheim. net Subject: Comprehensive Public Health, Safety, and Legal Objection – Development Application No. 2023-00043 / FEIR No. 358 – March 3, 2026, Hearing
Mayor Aitken and Members of the City Council,
I submit this correspondence for inclusion in the administrative record regarding Development Application No. 2023-00043, including certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 358, adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 (Specific Plan No. 90-1), the associated General Plan Amendment, and Development Agreement No. 2025-00001.

I previously submitted written opposition on February 3, 2026, and appreciate acknowledgment of that communication – although it took 4 weeks for a response and was the same response exact generic response sent to other. After reviewing the full administrative record, the CEQA findings, and the City’s Safety Element obligations, I remain in strong opposition based on public health, emergency medical system capacity, wildfire evacuation risk, and long-term cumulative hazard exposure.

I. Professional Qualifications and Public Health Context I am a licensed Registered Nurse (RN) and Public Health Nurse (PHN) in the State of California, a former Emergency Department nurse, and a Clinical Consultant with direct experience in emergency care operations, hospital throughput, surge planning, and system-level healthcare coordination.

From both a clinical and population- health perspective, the proposed 447-unit high-density residential development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone presents foreseeable and preventable risk amplification.

Wildfire risk in hillside communities is not theoretical. It is predictable, recurring, and historically documented in Anaheim Hills.

II. Anaheim Hills Wildfire History and Public Lessons
Anaheim Hills has experienced multiple significant wildfire events, including:
1982 Gypsum Canyon Fire
Destroyed dozens of homes and demonstrated rapid fire spread in canyon topography. 1993 Eastern Anaheim Hills Fire
Significant structural loss and mass evacuations.
2008 Freeway Complex Fire
Forced large- scale evacuations and demonstrated regional evacuation strain. 2017 Canyon Fire 2
Destroyed 25+ homes and forced evacuation ofthousands ofresidents.

Residents reported severe congestion on Santa Ana Canyon Road and surrounding arterials.

Publicly documented lessons from Canyon Fire 2 include:

Limited egress capacity
Freeway cut-through congestion
Communication delays
Evacuation bottlenecks
Simultaneous ingress of emergency vehicles
These are not isolated anomalies. They are recurring structural vulnerabilities in a hillside evacuation environment.

III. CEQA – Wildfire Evacuation Adequacy
Under CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.2 and 15126.4, the EIR must contain substantial evidence supporting conclusions regarding environmental impacts.

The FEIR acknowledges:

Increased evacuation times
Significant Unavoidable VMT impacts
Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations under § 15093 In a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, evacuation modeling must reflect:

Simultaneous multi-neighborhood departure
Panic behavior under threat
Disabled vehicles blocking lanes
Smoke- reduced visibility
Power outages affecting signals
Nighttime evacuations
EMS ingress while residents egress
Mobility-limited residents requiring assistance
Modeling orderly traffic flow does not replicate wildfire evacuation reality.

Evacuation thresholds are nonlinear. Once roadway capacity is exceeded, congestion accelerates exponentially, not incrementally.

IV. Medical and Emergency System Implications
Residential density materially alters risk conditions compared to intermittent commercial occupancy.

A vacant or intermittently used cinema does not create:
24-hour sleeping populations
Medically fragile residents
Oxygen- dependent patients
Individuals requiring mobility devices
Pediatric evacuation logistics
Assisted evacuation requirements
During wildfire emergencies:

EMS response times increase due to roadway congestion
Ambulance access becomes delayed
Emergency Departments experience surge volume
Hospitals may activate diversion status
Evacuation shelters must accommodate medically vulnerable populations As a former ER nurse, I have personally managed disaster surge events. Minutes matter. Delayed transport correlates directly with increased morbidity and mortality.

In wildfire smoke conditions:

Asthma exacerbations spike
COPD patients decompensate
Cardiac events increase
Anxiety and panic attacks surge
Pediatric respiratory distress increases
These are evidence- based public health consequences.

Increasing residential density increases exposure burden on:

Anaheim Fire & Rescue
EMS transport capacity
Regional hospitals
Urgent care and ED throughput
Public health infrastructure
V. General Plan Safety Element Consistency
Government Code §65302(g) requires that the Safety Element address fire hazards and evacuation routes.

Safety Element principles include:

Minimizing wildfire exposure
Ensuring adequate evacuation capacity
Maintaining emergency responder access
Avoiding intensification in high-risk zones without infrastructure capacity A legislative amendment intensifying residential density must remain internally consistent with these adopted policies ( Gov. Code §65300.5).

Compliance with fire code setbacks and hydrant spacing does not equate to evacuation sufficiency.

Evacuation capacity is a system-level issue — not a parcel-level building code issue.

I respectfully request that Council explicitly articulate findings demonstrating how adding 447 units in this location remains consistent with Safety Element wildfire and evacuation policies.

VI. Cumulative Risk & Infrastructure Timing
Referenced infrastructure improvements extending to 2029 cannot justify risk today.

Risk exposure occurs immediately upon occupancy.

Cumulative development must be analyzed not only for traffic but for wildfire evacuation system saturation.

Risk accumulation is incremental until a tipping point is reached.

Anaheim Hills is approaching threshold vulnerability.

VII. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA Guidelines § 15093 allows approval of projects with significant unavoidable impacts only when benefits outweigh risks.

In this case, Council must override:

Significant Unavoidable VMT impacts
Increased evacuation time impacts
Overriding life- safety impacts in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone requires compelling evidence.

Conclusive statements without robust record support risk judicial scrutiny.

VIII. Housing Accountability Act Context
Gov. Code §65589.5 permits denial where a specific, adverse health or safety impact is supported by substantial evidence and no feasible mitigation exists.

Wildfire evacuation constraints in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone constitute a potential specific adverse health and safety risk if supported by record evidence.

IX. Ethical and Fiscal Considerations
Ifapproved:

CEQA litigation likely
Taxpayer- funded defense
Long-term infrastructure strain
Ifevacuation failure results in injury or loss oflife, moral and legal consequences extend beyond CEQA compliance.

As healthcare professionals, we are trained to prevent foreseeable harm — not normalize incremental risk accumulation.

X. Request
I respectfully request that the Council:

Decline certification of FEIR No. 358 absent stronger evacuation adequacy findings; OR
Continue the matter for enhanced wildfire evacuation and cumulative hazard analysis; OR
Adopt explicit, evidence- supported Safety Element consistency findings addressing system-level evacuation capacity.

This is not opposition to housing.

It is opposition to high-density residential siting in a documented wildfire- prone, evacuation- constrained hillside environment.

Public safety must remain paramount.

Respectfully submitted,
Tina R. Aluzzi-Lounsbury, BSN, RN, PHN
Anaheim Hills Resident
The preceding email message ( including any attachments) may contain information that is confidential, protected, or constitute nonpublic information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient( s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Use dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ate: 3/3/2026 10:06:49 AM
From:" Brian Rinehart" bgolfhart@sbcglobal. net
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue You don' t often get email from bgolfhart@s bcglobal. net. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms/ LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

In addition our main roads are not built for the current traffic let alone more vehicles. This project will make a growing problem of gridlock wors e .

Sincerely,
Brian and Lynn Rinehart
Sent frommy iPhone
ou don't often get email from forgetnotpal@yahoo. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 10:16:21 AM
From:" pallavi tadwalkar" forgetnotpal@yahoo. com
To:

Dear Council Member, I am writing to you as a resident ofAnaheim to ask you to please vote "No" on the proposed apartments at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center. I lived here during the Canyon Fire 2 in 2017, and I will never forget the feeling of being stuck in my car, watching the smoke get closer, and literally not moving for over an hour. It wasn't just "traffic"— it was a total standstill. The thought of adding hundreds of new apartments and about 1000+ more people to that exact same escape route is terrifying to those of us who have actually been in that situation. The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen. I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here. Sincerely,
ou don't often get email from mlheistand31@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 10:20:04 AM
From:" Mary Heistand" mlheistand31@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Festival Center Development
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

As Iam unable to attend the City Council meeting tonight, Iwould like to express my opposition to the project at the Festival Center. We remember the past fires in our area and the difficulties in evacuation. Santa Ana Canyon Road and the 91 freeway already operate under heavy congestion. This is about evacuation times and every additional vehicle matters. We appreciate all measures the city of Anaheim has taken, but the evacuation plan is not enough. Traffic issues must be addressed before more housing is built.

The Specific Plan adopted in 1990 intentionally preserved this area as commercial core. That planning decision reflected infrastructure constraints unique to Anaheim Hills. By amending the Specific Plan to allow high-density residential in this core, you are undoing these planning safeguards.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where safe evacuation is compromised. Please prioritize the s Thank you for considering public safety.

Mary Heistand
Resident of The Highlands Development- 92808
ou don't often get email from misty15schu@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 10:25:47 AM
From:" Misty Schumacher" misty15schu@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected], "publiccomments@anaheim. net" publiccomments@anaheim. net Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Opposition to Festival Center Project Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

We are writing today to express our opposition to the Anaheim Hills Festival Development that is slated for the Festival Shopping Center Edwards Movie Theater site).

We have been residents of Anaheim Hills, specifically Deer Canyon since 2001, my husband 20 years before that having grown up surrounding the Anaheim Hills Golf Course. We are incredibly fond of our “ town” as Anaheim Hills really is a town; a small community that has a “ small town” feel.

Recently our beloved small town has changed into more of a metropolitan city despite the opposition from almost all residents. We will cite a few examples of these changes:

1. Years ago while commuting to South County for work, I was unable to take the costly toll road home due to the thousands of Inland Empire commuters blocking access to the 91 Westbound lanes.

2. Years later, IE commuters now choose to travel through our neighborhoods via Serrano Avenue and Santa Ana Road, often blocking residents from access to their streets. In addition, it is increasingly difficult and time consuming to do simple errands such as school drop offs, sports practice and grocery shopping during rush hour as our streets are jam packed with commuters who do not live in our neighborhoods.

3. Due to our time living in Anaheim Hills, we have been subject to multiple fire evacuations. The last big fire, in October of 2018, was an evacuation nightmare. Schools were not evacuated in time putting our children as risk. I was in my child’ s classroom at Canyon Rim Elementary and saw flames charging down the hill, thankfully being putting out just before reaching the campus. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. Students who were not able to be picked up by their parents in time were ushered onto busses for a 2 hour journey down to Canyon High School; enduring a bus ride with no bathrooms, no access to needed medication in some cases. I’m sure you are aware of the short distance between Canyon Rim and Canyon High. That trip took 2 HOURS. Why? Because evacuation routes off this hill are limited and our resident numbers are already maxxed out. Too many people, too many cars, too much needless risk to residents. Our family was evacuated from Serrano and Sunset Ridge… it was a 2 hour and 25 minute drive to reach the Orange Mall off Tustin Avenue. Our young children were terrified as we were surrounded by black smoke, falling ash, racing firetrucks, siren, helicopters, and flames. We can only imagine with fear what will happen during the next fire when there are thousands more people and cars added to the mix.

We are asking for the City to not approve this development. Please stop the needless destruction of our neighborhood and please do not allow an increased safety risk and quality of life decline to this residents who already live here.

Misty and John Schumacher
ou don't often get email from jdow100@linkline. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 10:37:23 AM
From:" jdow100@linkline. com" jdow100@linkline. com
To:

Dear Council Member,
I am writing to you as a resident and homeowner in Anaheim to ask you to please vote "No" on the proposed apartments at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center. I lived here during the Canyon Fire 2 in 2017, and I will never forget the feeling of helplessly watching the fire approach and not knowing where to go or being able to get there. The thought of adding hundreds of new apartments and about 1000+ more people to that exact same escape route is terrifying to those of us who have actually been in that situation.

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills ; we all end up on the same few lanes . Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing , but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely.

Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Janet Downey ( res ident and homeowner in Ana heim Hills for over 30 years ) ou don't often get email from ribbletts@hotmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 10:56:03 AM
From:" Scott Ribble" ribbletts@hotmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Proposed Festival Project - Opposed Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Good Morning City of Anaheim:

I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Festival Project in Anaheim Hills.

This development would increase the evacuation time for existing residents in a fire or other emergency.

It would put additional stress on the existing infrastructure including schools and roads.

It would also alter the quiet, upscale, bedroom community vibe that attracted my family and I to Anaheim Hills.

The City of Anaheim already has a thriving downtown with many apartment complexes. Adding new apartments to Anaheim Hills is unnecessary for the City and would lower the quality of living for existing residents.

Please oppose the development of the Festival Center.

Most Sincerely,
Scott Ribble
8825 E Fallbrook Way,
Anaheim CA 92808
714) 851-8873
Get Outlook for iOS
ome people who received this message don't often get email from gquartucy@rsi- installations. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 10:58:43 AM
From:" Glen Quartucy" gquartucy@rsi-installations. com
To:

Dear Council Members,
I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition to the proposed apartments at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center.

Here is a list of my reasons:

1. As a resident of Anaheim for 25+ years (Canyon Vista & Rosebud Ct.) Ihave experienced numerous fires in our area and dealt with the chaos associated with the evacuation. Based on my location, the quickest way to exit my tract is to travel down Canyon Vista to Weir Canyon, which is what we have done in the past. Driving down Larkwood to Santa Ana Canyon is not a good option as it puts us closer the hills and in more danger. The last time our plan was to travel to a relatives house inSouth Orange County. Unfortunately, the streets were at a stand still in virtually every direction. After 90+ minutes we gave up and pulled into the Target Parking lot, which is where we spent the night. We obviously only have a few options to evacuate our home and adding more cars to an already overcrowded area is not safe for the current residents.

2. It appears that the city has developed a plan that will add only 7 minutes to our evacuation in case of emergency. I find this difficult if not impossible to believe for the following reasons:
a. If the number of lanes on our streets are not going to increase, how can 1,000 additional cars add only 7 minutes to our evacuation time? Justifying this by saying the movie theater had approximately this many cars at a given time is not a valid point. Were any studies done to determine how many patrons of the movie theater lived in the immediate area? What about the fact that the theater didn’t wasn’t open 24 hours a day? If you were under a fire watch, would you go to the movies…I highly doubt it. Unless you have data to suggest otherwise, you are approving adding 1,000 additional cars to an already overcrowded area.
b. Based on past experiences in dealing with the city and traffic issues, Idoubt any evacuation plan will work (the Evacuation Route” signs on Weir Canyon must be a joke). The enforcement of traffic laws in our area is virtually nonexistent on a regular basis. At any given time, people run red lights and block intersections at Weir Canyon/Serrano, Weir Canyon/Santa Ana Canyon and Roosevelt/Santa Ana Cayon to name just a few examples.

This is my typical route home from work and Ihave NEVER seen someone cited for these violations. As a matter of fact, Ioften see two police cars parked by the movie theater talking at approximately 5:30pm on weekdays. How does this make sense? Why are two officers taking a break at the same time during the worst traffic of the day? And you want to add 1,000 more cars to our area?

3. What is going to be done to address the traffic issues on a daily basis if this project is approved? Anytime the 91 eastbound around our area has an issue, people use our neighborhood as a way to avoid the traffic. It’s not uncommon for traffic to back up Weir Canyon all the way to Canyon Vista. When traffic is really bad and backs up onto Serrano is when the issues really start. People find it acceptable to proceed up Weir Canyon and cut through the residential area. This often includes people driving 40+ mph and running stop signs. Again, this is an ongoing issue that never seems to be addressed by APD no matter how many times we have complained.

I could go on and on about the various traffic issues in our area but Ifeel that it will fall on deaf ears. Idon’t understand how the City Council, who should be representing the best interests of the current residents, can support this new complex. Between the evacuation issues and the poor traffic conditions, this project is just not in the best interest of the community. I will take this one step further, if this is approved, Ibelieve that every person on the Council should be thoroughly investigated regarding taking kickbacks. This project just doesn’t make sense for the current residents in our area.

Sincerely,
Glen Quartucy
ou don't often get email from tju22003@yahoo. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:29:45 AM
From:" TomUrbaniak" tju22003@yahoo. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Opposition to 447-Unit Development at Festival Shopping Center Attachment: Opposition Letter to AH Festival_TomUrbaniak.pdf; Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Members of the Anaheim City Council,
I am writing to share the attached letter regarding my opposition to the proposed 447-unit development at the Festival Shopping Center site. My concerns center primarily the project site is located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) as well as evacuation and infrastructure capacity.

Additionally existing traffic congestion caused by routine 91 Freeway spillover onto surface streets routinely creates gridlock conditions well beyond normal retail congestion.

Given the evacuation safety concerns and already significant strain on local roadways and emergency access routes, I believe approving additional highdensity housing at this location presents serious public safety and quality- of-life concerns for current residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I respectfully ask that these concerns be carefully weighed before any approval is granted.

Sincerely,
Tom Urbaniak
860 S. Cedar Point Drive
Anaheim, CA 92808
tju22003@yahoo. com

ou don't often get email from rberry2100@outlook. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:35:09 AM
From:" Robert Berry" RBerry2100@outlook. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Public Safety Concerns Regarding Proposed 445-Unit Apartment Development inAnaheimHills Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council,
I am writing regarding the proposed 445-unit apartment development in Anaheim Hills , which is being discussed at tonight’s public hearing . My comments are offered respectfully and with sincere concern for the long -term safety of our community.

As you know, Anaheim Hills experienced a major wildfire in October 2017. The Canyon Fire 2, a fast-moving Santa Ana wind–driven brush fire, broke out on October 8–9, 2017 and burned for several days . The blaze scorched thousands of acres , forced the evacuation of more than 16,000 residents across Anaheim Hills and neighboring communities , and destroyed or damaged homes . Those of us who lived through that event remember vividly how quickly the fire advanced and how difficult evacuation became under extreme wind conditions .

During that emergency, evacuation times were prolonged and chaotic. It was widely reported that some residents required up to three hours to exit the area . Anaheim Hills has limited evacuation routes , and those routes were heavily congested during Canyon Fire 2. The speed of the fire, fueled by Santa Ana winds , left little margin for delay.

The addition of a 445-unit apartment complex will reasonably translate into approxima tely 1,000 additional vehicles within the community. In a future wildfire scenario, those added residents and vehicles would inevitably increase evacuation time. In an area already constrained by limited exit corridors , this represents a significant public safety concern.

The tragic wildfire in Para dise, California , serves as a sobering reminder of what can occur when evac uation capacity is overwhelmed.

A staggering number of lives were los t there under fast-moving fire conditions . While Ana heim Hills is a different community, the underlying risk factors —wind-driven fire, topog raphy, and limited egres s routes —are not unfa miliar to us . It is critical that we not place our res idents in a situation where evacuation timelines could become dangerous ly extended.

I respectfully urge the Council to carefully evaluate the cumula tive impa ct this development will have on emerg ency evac uation capacity and wildfire safety. Growth and revenue cons idera tions mus t be balanced against the funda mental respons ibility to protec t the safety and lives of exis ting res idents .

Thank you for your time and thoughtful cons idera tion of this matter.

Sincerely,
Robert M. Berry
Ana heim Hills Resident
ome people who received this message don't often get email from tgtaguchi@hotmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:37:10 AM
From:" TG Taguchi" tgtaguchi@hotmail. com
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Vote " NO" on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue and would save families from future injury and loss of lives
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Council Members,
Good afternoon, I am writing to you as a resident ofAnaheim to ask you to please vote "No" on the proposed apartments at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center. This area is unique in that it borders the 261 and 91 freeways and the fires seem to always come from east to west due to the Santa Ana winds. This creates a huge issue for this exact area as there are only a couple ways to get out if the two freeways are completely closed which they have been at times in the past fires). I lived here during the Canyon Fire 2 in 2017 and other fires before that, and I will never forget the feeling of being stuck in my car with my family, watching the smoke get closer, and literally not moving for over an hour and a half. It wasn't just traffic"— it was a total standstill. My wife and I and our two daughters were stuck in the Vons parking lot trying to get away from the fire. When I think of adding hundreds of new apartments and about 1,500+ more people to that exact same escape route, it is terrifying to those of us who have actually been in that situation in the past.

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. As having living through it in the past, this will certainly add significantly more than seven minutes. But when I have experienced it and you're already stuck for two hours and the fire is moving towards you, seven minutes is a lifetime ( and could be the end of ours). We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of this Anaheim Hills area; we all end up on the same few lanes usually heading west. Also, the freeway was exiting cars and they too were heading west on the same few lanes as the freeway was closed. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a proven huge bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy and lawsuits waiting to happen. Your estimates need to include the cars exiting the 91 freeway at Weir Canyon since the freeway would typically be closed off due to the fires. This is informational for you so that ifin the future there is a lawsuit from residences due to this exact hazard for loss of lives and property and your knowledge of this area condition before adding apartments. This is a written document informing you of what has happened in the past and will surely happen again as approving the proposed apartments will make this future issue much worse.

I am writing this as a plea for the safety of my family. I really do understand that the city of Anaheim needs housing, however it should NOT be built in an area where people have been already struggling to get out safely in the past. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here. Please, help our community in our time of need for the safety of our families. I'msure you can relate as most of you probably have families yourselves and would do the same for your family.

Thank you for your time to read this and caring for existing Anaheim families, Thomas Taguchi
7908 E. Altair LN
Anaheim, CA 92808
East Hills community right behind Anaheim Hills Festival Center) ou don't often get email from jeanne.gonzalves@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:37:35 AM
From:" Jeanne Gonzalves" jeanne.gonzalves@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Public comment Mar 3
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully urge you to vote no on the proposed festival project.

My children were stuck at Canyon Rim elementary. They drew pictures of how their day was showing flames on the hill behind their school. A bus could not make it through traffic to take remaining children and they sat on the floor of buses already there. It took the nurse an hour to make it to the high school with medications and she left earlier than most. Parents were desperate to figure out if their kids made it out. My husband could not join us and help get the kids out because of the road closures. Our neighbor' s elderly mother could not leave because they could not get to her.

We prayed the fire would not jump the road. The sky was red and angry. It is not something we will forget soon.

There are alternative development sites that present significantly less fire risk. Moving forward with this location would place current residents and future tenants in a vulnerable position, particularly given the increasing challenges around fire insurance availability and affordability. Future tenants could face serious burdens if coverage becomes limited or unattainable.

I also strongly encourage the council to require a realistic emergency preparedness assessment before considering approval. A mock evacuation conducted during normal, high-traffic conditions — not during light traffic — would provide a more accurate understanding of potential gridlock and response times in the event of a real emergency.

Public safety must remain the priority. Please do not move forward with a project that could endanger families and constituents.

Thank you for your consideration.
ate: 3/3/2026 11:39:01 AM
From:" khaled elian" khaledelian@yahoo. com
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Concerns about the Festival Center Project and Wildfire Safety You don' t often get email from khaledelian@yahoo. com. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms/ LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Dear Council Member,
I moved to Anaheim Hills becaus e it is a beautiful, family- oriented community, but I am very concerned about the propos ed Shea/ Fes tival Center apartment project.

Since moving here, I've learned that our neighborhood is in a high- ris k fire zone with very limited ways to get out. I was shocked to read that it already takes over three hours to evacuate this area during an emergency. Adding over 1,000 more people and their cars to our streets seems like a huge ris k to everyone' s safety.

The project' s environmental report admits that thes e new apartments will make evacuation times even longer. As a parent, I think about what would happen if a fire broke out while I was trying to get my [ kids /pets / elderly parents ] to safety. If the roads are already failing, adding hundreds more cars into the mix will make a bad situation impos sible. It feels like the city is hoping for the bes t rather than planning for the worst.

I am not agains t new hous ing in general, but it has to be built in the right places . Putting high- dens ity hous ing at a known bottleneck in a fire zone is not res pons ible.

I am as king you to pleas e put our safety firs t and vote " No" on this project until we have a real solution for getting people out of the Hills safely.

Sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
ou don't often get email from amy.netzky@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:44:54 AM
From:" Amy Netzky-Wolken" [email protected]
To:

Dear Council Member,
I am writing to you as a resident of Anaheim Hills to ask you to please vote "No" on the proposed apartments at the Anaheim Hills Festival Center.

I lived here during the Canyon Fire 2 in 2017. When the evacuation order came, my husband was at work and I was alone with our 2 year old daughter. We were terrified when we tried to evacuate but were just stuck on the road. Stuck in the car for hours by myself with a hungry, crying 2 year old, with the fear of fire coming towards us. My husband' s work is in Irvine and he was beside himself, knowing that we couldn't get out of the gridlock with smoke and ash all around us. It wasn't just "traffic"— it was a total standstill. The thought of adding hundreds of new apartments and about 1000+ more people to that exact same escape route is terrifying to those of us who have actually been in that situation.

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Amy Netzky
ou don't often get email from cnb777@ymail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:45:23 AM
From:" C Bartunek" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Against the Festival Shopping Center Development Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Council and Planning commission,
I would like to express my opposition to the proposed development of housing at the Festival Hills Shopping Center.

Adding the housing will bring additional people, cars, congestion, and strain on inadequate existing infrastructure. If you want to continue to build out the area, ENHANCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FIRST. This is the correct order of development. Having the infrastructure in place before adding units will minimize the impact of the development and also provide necessary and adequate evacuation routes in the event of an emergency ( e.g. fires which we have experienced several times in the Hills),
Once adequate infrastructure is in place, with the ability to effectively evacuate the region, then you can consider further development.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Chuck Bartunek
231 N Avenida Malaga
Anaheim, CA 92808
Susana Barrios
From: DavidWalser <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March3, 202611:46AM
To: AshleighAitken <[email protected]>; CarlosA. Leon <[email protected]>; NatalieMeeks [email protected]>; NatalieRubalcava <[email protected]>; RyanBalius <[email protected]>; Kristen Maahs <[email protected]>; NormaC. Kurtz <[email protected]> Cc: PublicComment <publiccomment@anaheim. net>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] PleaseVoteNOOnTheShea/FestivalCenterApartments – It'sASafetyIssue Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Dear Council Member,
Iamwriting toyouasa35year resident ofAnaheim Hills toask youtoplease vote "NO" ontheproposed apartments attheAnaheim Hills Festival Center. Ilivedhereduring the Canyon Fire2in2017, andwhileIwas inNapa County trying tofigure out how toleave thevalley firearea, driving back toAnaheim was tense whilereceiving phone calls asking ifIknew what was happening inAnaheim Hills.

Thethought ofadding hundreds ofnew apartments andabout 1000+ morepeople tothe escape routes isterrifying tothose ofuswhohaveactually beeninthat situation.

Normal weekday rushhour traffic lasts forhours anditwould beimpossible tothink of adding awildfire evacuation process tothealready overburdened escape routes.

Thereports forthisproject say that adding these carswill "only" addabout 7minutes totheevacuation time. But when you'realready stuck forthree hours andthefireis moving toward you, 7minutes isalifetime. Wedon'thaveextraroads or "secret" ways outoftheHills; weallenduponthesame fewlanes. Adding morepeople toa neighborhood thatisalready abottleneck during afirejustfeels likeatragedy waiting tohappen.

Iunderstand thatthecity needs housing, butitshouldn'tbebuiltinaplace where people arealready struggling togetoutsafely. Please don'tmake anexisting danger even worse justforanew development. Weareasking youtoprioritize thelives and safety ofthepeople whoalready livehereandpay taxes here.

Sincerely,
David Walser
391SHenning Way
1 ou don't often get email from baseballwyf@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:50:59 AM
From:" Su Thome" baseballwyf@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Anaheim Hills
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the
proposed construction of additional apartment buildings in an area that is already heavily congested.

The current level of traffic, limited road capacity, and high pedestrian activity make this area increasingly unsafe.

Adding more residential units will significantly increase vehicle traffic, parking demand, and foot traffic, further straining infrastructure that is already overburdened.

Emergency vehicle access, pedestrian safety, and overall quality of life are at risk if development continues without adequate planning and mitigation. Just getting to Costco on average afternoon can take 15-20 to get to Weir
canyon we live off SAC/Madison Square Storage.

Before any further construction is approved, I strongly urge a thorough review of traffic safety, infrastructure capacity, and emergency access. Without meaningful
improvements to roads, public transport, and safety
measures, this development poses a real risk to residents and the surrounding community.

I ask that these safety concerns be taken seriously and carefully considered before moving forward with any
additional approvals. Dont forget the fires of 2017 or even Pacific Palisades Fire.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Dan and Su Thome
ou don't often get email from reneegillespie@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:52:28 AM
From:" Renee Gillespie" reneegillespie@gmail. com
To:

Anaheim City Council members,
I am urging you to vote NO to this proposed development in the AH Festival center. This is not the right time for this. The infrastructure is not in place to accommodate this number of additional residents and cars in Anaheim Hills.

We have lived here for 33 years and have experienced fear of losing our home to more than one fire. In those instances, the traffic in and around AH was gridlocked. Police were preventing access to certain areas with active fire, while many of us were trying to get home to another family member and for the chance to grab important items at home. It was frightening and eye opening. The routes are very limited and nothing has changed to improve egress from AH in the event of another fire (which will certainly happen again).

If you approve this now, without first working with CalTrans or whatever state and federal agencies that can move forward plans for the Fairmont overpass ( which was on a map as proposed when we moved here), you are showing disregard for human life.

Over the years, we have seen the traffic in AH get progressively worse and not much has been done to avoid daily congestion. With so many drivers using navigation apps, the roads in our community have turned into a shortcut and a way to avoid tolls. In the case of a fire, this annoyance becomes a matter of life and death.

Please do NOT approve this development at this time. We need our City Council members to represent us and what is best for the Anaheim residents.

Again, I urge you to vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments.

Renee Gillespie
ou don't often get email from jrb4772@outlook. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:53:28 AM
From:" Robert Berry" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Wildfire Evacuation Capacity and Proposed Anaheim Hills Development Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council,
I am submitting this message regarding the proposed 445-unit apartment development in Anaheim Hills . My concern centers on emergency preparednes s and evacuation capacity in a high fire-risk area .

Many of us who live here remember October 2017 all too well. Canyon Fire 2 ignited during strong Santa Ana wind conditions on October 8–9 and spread rapidly over several days . Thousands of acres burned. More than 16,000 residents were ordered to evacuate.

Homes were lost or damaged. For those of us navigating the evacuation routes at that time, the experience was deeply unsettling .

Traffic congestion during that event was significant. Reports indicated that some residents required up to three hours to leave the area .

Anaheim Hills is served by a limited number of primary exit routes , and under wind-driven wildfire conditions , those routes quickly become strained.

Introducing a development of 445 residential units would likely add close to 1,000 vehicles to the same constrained road network. In a future wildfire emergency, that increase could materially impact clearance times . Evacuation planning must account not only for current residents but also for the cumulative effect of additional density.

Please be mindful that a prior proposal of similar scale in this vicinity received Council approval but ultimately did not move forward beca use the Fire Chief declined to authorize it due to safety concerns . Tha t history sugges ts that wildfi re evacuati on capac ity has already been identified as a serious issue.

The tragedy in Paradis e, California demons trated the devas tating cons equences that can occur when evac uation routes are overwhelmed during extreme fire behavior. While no two communities are identical, Anaheim Hills shares characteristics that demand careful, evidence- bas ed planning .

I respectfully ask that the Council does not approve this project. The safety of residents — both current and future — must remain the foremos t cons idera tion.

Thank you for your time and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Marilyn Berry
Ana heim Hills Resident
Susana Barrios
From: BarbaraGreenfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March3, 202612:10PM
To: CarlosA. Leon <[email protected]>; NatalieMeeks <[email protected]>; RyanBalius [email protected]>; NormaC. Kurtz <[email protected]>; KristenMaahs <[email protected]>; Natalie Rubalcava <[email protected]>; AshleighAitken <[email protected]> Cc: PublicComment <publiccomment@anaheim. net>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Fwd: PleaseVoteNOOnTheShea/FestivalCenterApartments – It'sASafetyIssue Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Thethought ofadding hundreds ofnew apartments andabout 1000+ morepeople tothe escape routes isterrifying tothose ofuswhohaveactually beeninthat situation.

Normal weekday rushhour traffic lasts forhours anditwould beimpossible tothink of adding awildfire evacuation process tothealready overburdened escape routes.

Thereports forthisproject say that adding these carswill "only" addabout 7minutes totheevacuation time. But when you'realready stuck forthree hours andthefireis moving toward you, 7minutes isalifetime. Wedon'thaveextraroads or "secret" ways outoftheHills; weallenduponthesame fewlanes. Adding morepeople toa neighborhood thatisalready abottleneck during afirejustfeels likeatragedy waiting tohappen.

Iunderstand thatthecity needs housing, butitshouldn'tbebuiltinaplace where people arealready struggling togetoutsafely. Please don'tmake anexisting danger even worse justforanew development. Weareasking youtoprioritize thelives and safety ofthepeople whoalready livehereandpay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Barbara Greenfield
391SHenning Way
1 ou don't often get email from odowdj@hotmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 12:23:39 PM
From:" John O'Dowd" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Public Comment – Neighborhood Evacuation and Traffic Safety Concerns Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Mayor and City Council,
I am submitting this public comment regarding the serious and ongoing life safety risks affecting our neighborhood’ s ability to evacuate during a wildfire or medical emergency.

During weekday rush hours, Serrano, W ier Canyon, Santa Ana Canyon, and the surrounding streets routinely bec ome so congested that residents cannot reliably exit the neighborhood. Intersections are frequently blocked by drivers attempting to bypas s the 55/91/241 bottlenecks, which prevents traffic from clearing even when signals turn green. This is not an oc cas ional inconvenience— it is a systemic failure that directly compromises emergency response and evacuation capability.

On many recent evenings, it has taken 25–35 minutes to travel just 1.4 miles from my home to reac h the 91 freeway. That is not normal congestion; that is complete operational breakdown. W hen a neighborhood cannot move even short dis tanc es , it means residents would be unable to evacuate in a timely manner during a wildfire or medical emergency, and fire/EMS vehic les would have no guaranteed access.

W hile the proposed 1,000 unit apartment project would further strain this already failing network, thes e conditions require immediate action regardless of future development. Before any additional projects proceed, and to address the existing safety risks , the City should require:

A formal evacuation and emergency access analysis that includes the City’ s benc hmark evac uation time for our area. W hat evacuation time does the City consider acceptable, what is the current modeled tim e under peak hour conditions , and how would additional development affect that time?
A traffic operations and safety study evaluating intersection blocking, queue spillback, and cut through routing patterns.

Mitigation measures such as physical diverters, peak hour turn restrictions with enforc ement, anti gridloc k markings, signal timing adjustments, and other design changes that prevent the neighborhood from functioning as a bypass for freeway congestion.

Coordination with Caltrans, OCTA, and TCA to evaluate tolling or access control strategies on key 91 eas tbound on ramps or arterial approaches during peak hours to prevent non local cut through traffic from overwhelming Lake View, Imperial, Serrano, Gypsum Canyon, and adjacent residential streets. Any required mitigation, tolling adjus tments, access control infras tructure, or traffic management improvements must be fully funded by the developer— not existing residents .

This is not about convenience or travel time. It is about ensuring that residents can safely exit their hom es and that emergenc y responders can reach us when needed. The current conditions do not meet that standard, and additional development without mitigation will make the situation significantly worse.

Thank you for including this comment in the public record.

John O’Dowd
928 S Camerford Ln
Anaheim, CA92808
714-307-3878
ou don't often get email from shelly.n.robbins@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 12:26:39 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Public Comment – CEQA Wildfire, Evacuation, and Transportation Analysis (Festival Proposal DEV2023- 00043 )
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
3-3-26
12:27pm
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Irespectfully submit the following comments regarding the Festival Proposal and the adequacy of its environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Given the unresolved evacuation and wildfire analysis issues, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023-00043.

The project site is located within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and lies in close proximity to the burn area of the 2017 Canyon Fire 2, as well as multiple wildfire events originating east of Weir Canyon. Following Canyon Fire 2, the City developed the “Know Your Way” evacuation initiative in recognition of documented evacuation challenges in this region.

Given the site’s hazard designation, wildfire history, and constrained roadway network, CEQA requires a particularly rigorous analysis of wildfire exposure and emergency evacuation performance. Based on my review of the EIR, several critical analytical gaps appear to remain.

1. Evacuation Clearance and Roadway Capacity
For several evacuation zones in this area, the primary egress route funnels down Weir Canyon Road toward the 91 West freeway interchange. This corridor already experiences significant commuter bypass traffic associated with regional growth in Riverside County, Corona, and the Inland Empire, frequently resulting in congested operati ng conditions.

The Festival Proposal introduces substantial new residential population and mixed- use activity into this constrai ned evacuati on network. However, the EIR does not appear to include:

Quantitative evacuation clearance time modeling;
Analysis incorporating current baseline traffic volumes; Scenario- based modeling of wildfire events originating east of Weir Canyon with westbound evacuation demand toward the 91 freeway;
Evaluation of roadway throughput, interchange bottlenecks, and queue formation during emergency condi tions; Transparent assumptions regarding evacuation performance under red flag or peak occupancy scenari os.

Although California does not prescribe a statewide evacuation performance threshold, CEQA nevertheless requires substantial evidence demonstrating that a project would not impair safe emergency access. In a Very High Fire Hazard Severi ty Zone that relies heavily on a limited roadway funnel, the absence of evacuation clearance modeli ng raises concern that emergency egress feasibility has not been fully evaluated.

2. Relationship to the City’ s “Know Your Way” Initiative Following Canyon Fire 2, the City acknowledged evacuation vulnerabilities and implemented the “Know Your Way” initiative. The EIR does not appear to reconcile:

The evacuation challenges identified after Canyon Fire 2; With the increased density and vehicle load proposed under the Festival Proposal; On evacuation routes that remain constrained and heavily utilized.

CEQA requires agencies to address inconsistencies between a project and adopted safety planning efforts. Where a city has previously recognized evacuation limitations, the addition of substantial new population warrants careful, evidence-based analysis.

3. Transportation Demand, VMT, and Infrastructure Constraints The EIR evaluates transportation impacts using Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT), as required under current CEQA guidelines.

However, even if VMT thresholds are met, that metric does not evaluate roadway capacity, interchange bottlenecks, or emergency evacuation performance.

Regional growth over the past decade has significantly increased commuter traffic along Weir Canyon Road and the 91 corridor, without corresponding expansion of evacuation infrastructure. While VMT may address regional travel patterns, it does not substitute for analysis of:

Emergency roadway throughput,
Evacuation clearance times,
Bottleneck performance at freeway interchanges,
The interaction between project-generated trips and an already constrained evacuation network.

Where evacuation performance has not been quantitatively evaluated, reliance on VMT compliance alone may not constitute substantial evidence that emergency access impacts are less than significant.

4. Cumulative Wildfire Exposure and Population Risk
The EIR must evaluate cumulative impacts when the Festival Proposal is considered alongside existing development and reasonably foreseeable growth. Increasing mixed-use density within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone may:

Increase the number of residents exposed during extreme fire events; Compound evacuation congestion;
Increase demand on fire protection resources during simultaneous emergencies.

It is not evident that cumulative wildfire exposure and evacuation performance have been fully evaluated with substantial evidence.

5. Fire Protection Capacity and Mitigation Effectiveness The EIR should demonstrate, with project-specific evidence, that:

Fire response times remain adequate during extreme wind events; Water supply and hydrant flow are sufficient under peak wildfire demand; Emergency services can accommodate increased density during concurrent incidents.

General statements of compliance with fire code requirements do not substitute for a robust, scenario-based wildfire impact analysis under CEQA. If wildfire impacts are deemed less than significant with mitigation, the record should clearly demonstrate that mitigation measures are enforceable, supported by evidence, and effective in reducing impacts to a legally sufficient level.

Given the site’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation, proximity to multiple wildfire events near Weir Canyon, reliance on a constrained evacuation corridor toward the 91 West freeway, and the apparent absence of evacuation clearance modeling, Irespectfully urge the Council to ensure that wildfire and emergency access impacts have been fully analyzed and supported by substantial evidence before making CEQA findings.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd,
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
shelly.n.robbins@gmail. com
14-793-7447
ou don't often get email from shelly.n.robbins@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 12:42:18 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Ashleigh Aitken" [email protected]
Cc:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] District 6 Resident – Request to Vote NO (Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023-00043) & CEQA

CONCERNS
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1 2:43pm
Dear Mayor Ashleigh Aitken,
As a District 6 resident, this proposal directly affects my family’s evacuation safety. Iwant to be clear that I am not opposed to housing or new development. However, growth must be accompanied by infrastructure that ensures safe evacuation in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In this case, that analysis and infrastructure do not appear to be in place. Ilive in Zone 4 of the Know Your Way Evacuation plan and have witnessed first hand fire on the hillside directly across the street from me (Basil & Kennedy Rd) during the Canyon Fire 2 of 2017 and have went through the challenges of attempting to evacuate only to be met with hours of gridlock. If it weren’t for the direction of the fire changing at the last minute heading toward the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda, our family would have been unable to evacuate. While Iappreciate efforts to fix the Know Your Way Plan, it does not account for human behavior and has not been tested.

For that reason, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023- 00043 in its current form.

The project site is located within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and lies near the burn area of the 2017 Canyon Fire 2, as well as multiple wildfire events originating east of Weir Canyon. Following Canyon Fire 2, the City implemented the “Know Your Way” initiative in recognition of evacuation challenges in this region.

Given this documented fire history and hazard designation, CEQA requires careful analysis of wildfire exposure and emergency evacuation feasibility. Based on my review of the EIR, significant analytical concerns remain unresolved.

Evacuation Performance and Constrained Egress
For several evacuation zones in this area, primary egress funnels down Weir Canyon Road toward the 91 West freeway interchange — a corridor that already experiences substantial commuter bypass traffic due to regional growth in Riverside County, Corona, and the Inland Empire.

The EIR does not appear to include:

Quantitative evacuation clearance time modeling;
Analysis reflecting current baseline traffic conditions; Scenario-based modeling of wildfire events originating east of Weir Canyon; Evaluation of bottlenecks at the 91 interchange during emergency demand.

Although California does not prescribe a statewide evacuation time standard, CEQA nevertheless requires substantial evidence demonstrating that a project would not impair safe emergency access. In a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone dependent on a constrained evacuation funnel, the absence of evacuation clearance modeling raises serious concern.

VMT Does Not Resolve Evacuation Feasibility
While the EIR evaluates transportation impacts using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), that metric does not measure roadway capacity, interchange throughput, or evacuation performance.

Regional growth has increased baseline congestion along Weir Canyon and the 91 corridor without corresponding expansion of evacuation infrastructure. Compliance with VMT thresholds does not address whether emergency egress can function safely during wildfire conditions.

Consistency with Prior Safety Planning
After Canyon Fire 2, the City acknowledged evacuation limitations through the “Know Your Way” initiative. The EIR does not appear to reconcile those recognized constraints with the additional population and vehicle load introduced by this project.

Cumulative Wildfire Exposure
Increasing mixed-use density within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone increases population exposure and evacuation demand during extreme fire events. It is not evident that cumulative wildfire and evacuation impacts have been fully evaluated with substantial evidence.
support thoughtful growth in Anaheim. But adding density in a constrained wildfire evacuation corridor without first ensuring adequate infrastructure and emergency modeling is not responsible planning.

Given these unresolved concerns, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shoppi ng Center Proposal.

Thank you for your service to District 6 and for carefully considering the safety of the famili es you represent.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd,
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
shelly.n.robbins@gmail. com
714-793-7447
ate: 3/3/2026 12:54:23 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Carlos A. Leon" [email protected]
Cc:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Fwd: District 6 Resident – Request to Vote NO (Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023-00043) &

CEQA CONCERNS
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1 2:55pm
Dear Council Member Leon,
As a District 6 resident, this proposal directly affects my family’s evacuation safety. Iwant to be clear that I am not opposed to housing or new development. However, growth must be accompanied by infrastructure that ensures safe evacuation in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In this case, that analysis and infrastructure do not appear to be in place. Ilive in Zone 4 of the Know Your Way Evacuation plan and have witnessed first hand fire on the hillside directly across the street from me (Basil & Kennedy Rd) during the Canyon Fire 2 of 2017 and have went through the challenges of attempting to evacuate only to be met with hours of gridlock. If it weren’t for the direction of the fire changing at the last minute heading toward the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda, our family would have been unable to evacuate. While Iappreciate efforts to fix the Know Your Way Plan, it does not account for human behavior and has not been tested.

For that reason, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023- 00043 in its current form.

The EIR does not appear to include:

Given these unresolved concerns, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shoppi ng Center Proposal.

Thank you for your service to District 6 and for carefully considering the safety of the famili es you represent.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd,
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
ate: 3/3/2026 12:56:33 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Ryan Balius" [email protected]
Cc:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] District 6 Resident – Request to Vote NO (Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023-00043) & CEQA

CONCERNS
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1 2:57 pm
Dear Council Member Balius,
As a District 6 resident, this proposal directly affects my family’s evacuation safety. Iwant to be clear that I am not opposed to housing or new development. However, growth must be accompanied by infrastructure that ensures safe evacuation in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In this case, that analysis and infrastructure do not appear to be in place. Ilive in Zone 4 of the Know Your Way Evacuation plan and have witnessed first hand fire on the hillside directly across the street from me (Basil & Kennedy Rd) during the Canyon Fire 2 of 2017 and have went through the challenges of attempting to evacuate only to be met with hours of gridlock. If it weren’t for the direction of the fire changing at the last minute heading toward the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda, our family would have been unable to evacuate. While Iappreciate efforts to fix the Know Your Way Plan, it does not account for human behavior and has not been tested.

For that reason, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023- 00043 in its current form.

The EIR does not appear to include:

Given these unresolved concerns, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shoppi ng Center Proposal.

Thank you for your service to District 6 and for carefully considering the safety of the famili es you represent.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd,
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
ate: 3/3/2026 12:58:38 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Natalie Rubalcava" [email protected]
Cc:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] District 6 Resident – Request to Vote NO (Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023-00043) & CEQA

CONCERNS
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1 2:59pm
Dear Council Member Rubalcava,
As a District 6 resident, this proposal directly affects my family’s evacuation safety. Iwant to be clear that I am not opposed to housing or new development. However, growth must be accompanied by infrastructure that ensures safe evacuation in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In this case, that analysis and infrastructure do not appear to be in place. Ilive in Zone 4 of the Know Your Way Evacuation plan and have witnessed first hand fire on the hillside directly across the street from me (Basil & Kennedy Rd) during the Canyon Fire 2 of 2017 and have went through the challenges of attempting to evacuate only to be met with hours of gridlock. If it weren’t for the direction of the fire changing at the last minute heading toward the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda, our family would have been unable to evacuate. While Iappreciate efforts to fix the Know Your Way Plan, it does not account for human behavior and has not been tested.

For that reason, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023- 00043 in its current form.

The EIR does not appear to include:

Given these unresolved concerns, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shoppi ng Center Proposal.

Thank you for your service to District 6 and for carefully considering the safety of the famili es you represent.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd,
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
ate: 3/3/2026 1:03:00 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected]
Cc:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] District 6 Resident – Request to Vote NO (Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023-00043) & CEQA

CONCERNS
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1 :03pm
Dear Council Member Campos-Kurtz,
As a District 6 resident, this proposal directly affects my family’s evacuation safety. Iwant to be clear that I am not opposed to housing or new development. However, growth must be accompanied by infrastructure that ensures safe evacuation in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In this case, that analysis and infrastructure do not appear to be in place. Ilive in Zone 4 of the Know Your Way Evacuation plan and have witnessed first hand fire on the hillside directly across the street from me (Basil & Kennedy Rd) during the Canyon Fire 2 of 2017 and have went through the challenges of attempting to evacuate only to be met with hours of gridlock. If it weren’t for the direction of the fire changing at the last minute heading toward the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda, our family would have been unable to evacuate. While Iappreciate efforts to fix the Know Your Way Plan, it does not account for human behavior and has not been tested.

For that reason, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023- 00043 in its current form.

The EIR does not appear to include:

Given these unresolved concerns, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shoppi ng Center Proposal.

I’d like to remind you that you hold a duty to protect ALL Anaheim Residents regardless of their district. Thank you for your service to Anaheim and for carefully considering the safety of the families you represent.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd,
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
ate: 3/3/2026 1:10:24 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Natalie Meeks" [email protected]
Cc:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Fwd: District 6 Resident – Request to Vote NO (Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023-00043) &

CEQA CONCERNS
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1 :11 pm
Dear Council Member Meeks,
As a District 6 resident, this proposal directly affects my family’s evacuation safety. Iwant to be clear that I am not opposed to housing or new development. However, growth must be accompanied by infrastructure that ensures safe evacuation in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In this case, that analysis and infrastructure do not appear to be in place. Ilive in Zone 4 of the Know Your Way Evacuation plan and have witnessed first hand fire on the hillside directly across the street from me (Basil & Kennedy Rd) during the Canyon Fire 2 of 2017 and have went through the challenges of attempting to evacuate only to be met with hours of gridlock. If it weren’t for the direction of the fire changing at the last minute heading toward the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda, our family would have been unable to evacuate. While Iappreciate efforts to fix the Know Your Way Plan, it does not account for human behavior and has not been tested.

For that reason, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023- 00043 in its current form.

The EIR does not appear to include:

Given these unresolved concerns, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shoppi ng Center Proposal.

I'd like to remind you that as a representative of District 6, you uniquely hold a much stronger requirement to speak out agai nst this project to represent the residents that you represent. Remember you were elected to represent us, no matter how much lobbyists try to pressure you. We expect you to represent the residents of the communi ty you were elected into and will remember this vote at the next election for District 6 this year in determining if you are the best representati ve to conti nue representing District 6.

Thank you for your service to District 6 and for carefully considering the safety of the families you represent.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd,
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
ate: 3/3/2026 1:12:59 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Fwd: District 6 Resident – Request to Vote NO (Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023-00043) &

CEQA CONCERNS
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Forwarded message ---------
From: S R <shelly.n.robbins@gmail. com>
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 1:05 PM
Subject: District 6 Resident – Request to Vote NO (Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023- 00043) & CEQA CONCERNS To: <kmaahs@anaheim. net>
Cc: <publiccmment@anaheim. net>
Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1 :05pm
Dear Council Member Maahs,
As a District 6 resident, this proposal directly affects my family’s evacuation safety. Iwant to be clear that I am not opposed to housing or new development. However, growth must be accompanied by infrastructure that ensures safe evacuation in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In this case, that analysis and infrastructure do not appear to be in place. Ilive in Zone 4 of the Know Your Way Evacuation plan and have witnessed first hand fire on the hillside directly across the street from me (Basil & Kennedy Rd) during the Canyon Fire 2 of 2017 and have went through the challenges of attempting to evacuate only to be met with hours of gridlock. If it weren’t for the direction of the fire changing at the last minute heading toward the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda, our family would have been unable to evacuate. While Iappreciate efforts to fix the Know Your Way Plan, it does not account for human behavior and has not been tested.

For that reason, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal DEV2023- 00043 in its current form.

The EIR does not appear to include:

Consistency with Prior Safety Planning
fter Canyon Fire 2, the City acknowledged evacuation limitations through the “Know Your Way” initiative. The EIR does not appear to reconcile those recognized constraints with the additional population and vehi cle load introduced by this project.

I support thoughtful growth inAnaheim. But adding density in a constrained wildfire evacuation corridor without first ensuring adequate infrastructure and emergency modeling is not responsible planning.

Given these unresolved concerns, Irespectfully urge you to vote NO on the Festival Shopping Center Proposal.

Thank you for your service to District 6 and for carefully considering the safety of the families you represent.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd,
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
ate: 3/3/2026 1:48:36 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Supplemental Information and Clarification of Prior Public Testimony – Festival Shopping Center Environmental Review - Vote No
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1:49pm
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I previously provided verbal testimony during public meetings regarding the proposed Festival Shopping Center project and its Environmental Impact Report. This letter is submitted as supplemental information to clarify and expand upon issues raised during that testimony so they may be considered as part of the administrative record for the project’s environmental review.

My prior testimony addressed concerns regarding traffic congestion, regional commuter patterns, wildfire evacuation conditions, and safety constraints affecting Anaheim Hills residents. The information below summari zes and clarifies those points so that they may be clearly documented in the record.

Several of the issues discussed below were previously raised during public testimony and are included here to ensure the record clearly reflects those concerns.

1. Traffic Study Timing and Peak Hour Analysis
The Draft Environmental Impact Report indicates that traffic data used for the project’s analysis was collected during a weekday period between approximately 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

During prior public testimony, it was noted:

The study was conducted on a Tuesday between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., yet our community’s actual peak traffic often begins around 6:00 p.m. and continues until at least 7:00 p.m.” Residents inAnaheim Hills regularly experience congestion extending beyond the study window identified in the DEIR. In recent years, regional commuting patterns have shifted due to hybrid and remote work schedules, resulting in extended or shifted peak travel periods rather than the traditional peak windows historically used in traffic studies.

Because the transportation analysis appears to rely on a limited study period, the DEIR may not fully capture actual peak congestion conditions experienced by the community.

Clarification would be helpful regarding:

The basis for selecting the 4:00–6:00 PM study period
Whether traffic data was collected or analyzed beyond 6:00 PM Whether post-pandemic commuting patterns were considered in determining the study methodology Whether extended peak-hour conditions currently experienced by residents were evaluated

2. Limited Corridor Scope and Regional Pass-Through Traffic The DEIR appears to analyze a limited set of local intersections while omitting several major corridors that residents experience as part of the same congestion network.

During prior public testimony, it was noted:

The study only included a narrow selection of streets and did not appear to account for commuters from Yorba Linda or regional drivers bypassing freeway congestion by using Santa Ana Canyon Road.” Anaheim Hills functions as a regional pass-through ( cut-through) corridor for drivers traveling between Orange County, Riverside County, Corona, Yorba Linda, and surrounding communities. Many drivers use Santa Ana Canyon Road, Imperial Highway, Weir Canyon Road, and Gypsum Canyon Road as alternative routes to bypass freeway congestion.

This regional pass-through traffic significantly affects congestion conditions inAnaheim Hills but does not appear to be fully reflected in the DEIR’s transportation analysis.

Because these corridors function as interconnected commuter and evacuation routes, it is important that transportation modeling incorporate these regional travel patterns when forecasting project impacts.

Clarification would be helpful regarding:

Whether regional pass-through commuter traffic was incorporated into the traffic forecasts Whether origin-destination travel patterns from surrounding counties were evaluated Whether the study area boundaries adequately capture regional corridors affecting congestion in Anaheim Hills Whether corridors such as Santa Ana Canyon Road, Imperial Highway, Weir Canyon Road, and Gypsum Canyon Road were considered in the analysis

3. Consideration of Regional Transportation Modeling
The transportation analysis appears to rely primarily on localized intersection analysis and tradi tional trip-generation methods.

While such approaches are commonly used in project-level traffic studies, they may not fully capture regional travel behavior affecting Anaheim Hills roadways. The Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) maintains regional travel demand models designed to analyze cross-jurisdictional commuter flows across Southern California.

These regional models incorporate broader travel patterns, including cross-county commuter flows, regional housing growth trends, origin–destination travel patterns, and extended peak travel periods.

Because Anaheim Hills experiences traffic influenced by regional commuting patterns, clarification would be helpful regarding whether regional modeling data or SCAG forecasts were considered when preparing the DEIR transportati on analysis.

4. Regional Growth and Cumulative Traffic Effects
Anaheim Hills roadways are increasingly affected by regional population growth and commuter patterns extending beyond the City of Anaheim.

Over the past decade, significant residential development has occurred in nearby communi ties within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, including areas such as Corona and the Inland Empire. These growth patterns have increased commuter traffic traveling through Anaheim Hills as drivers seek alternative routes between counties or bypass freeway congestion.

As a result, corridors such as Santa Ana Canyon Road, Imperial Highway, Weir Canyon Road, and Gypsum Canyon Road function not only as local streets but also as regional travel routes connecting multiple jurisdictions.

Under CEQA, environmental review must consider cumulative impacts, including reasonably foreseeable growth and travel demand affecting the transportation network. Because regional population growth contributes to the traffic conditions experienced inAnaheim Hills, it would be helpful for the environmental analysis to clarify how regional growth trends and crossjurisdictional commuter patterns were considered in evaluating transportation and evacuation conditions.

Because regional commuter traffic and population growth directly influence congestion conditions on evacuation corridors, consideration of these cumulative effects is important for accurately evaluating both transportation and wildfire evacuation impacts.

5. Baseline Assumptions Related to the Former Edwards Theater The DEIR appears to rely in part on historical assumptions related to activity levels associated with the former Edwards Theater located at the Festival Center site.

During prior testimony, it was noted:

That theater had been declining for years prior to closing. A thousand parking spaces does not equal a thousand people.” The Edwards Theater closed in September 2022 and had experienced declining attendance for several years prior to closure. If the transportation analysis assumes traffic levels associated with full parking capacity or peak theoretical theater attendance, the baseline conditions used in the DEIR may not accurately reflect actual site activity in recent years.

Clarification would be helpful regarding whether baseline conditions reflect observed traffic levels or theoretical maximum parking capacity.

6. Evacuation Conditions, Wildfire Risk, and Evacuation Modeling Anaheim Hills residents have experienced significant evacuation challenges during past wildfire events affecting the area.

During prior testimony, it was noted:

Seven minutes may seem negligible to the builders, but it is already over three hours for residents attempting to evacuate.”
Residents have also described emergency conditions during prior wildfire events where individuals sought refuge in commercial areas such as the Festival Shopping Center because evacuation routes were severely congested.

Additionally, discussions with fire officials have indicated that the State of California has not established a specific evacuation time threshold that is considered “ safe.” Because no statewide evacuation time standard exists, it is particularly important that environmental review clearly disclose the methodology used to evaluate evacuation conditions.

It is currently unclear from the DEIR what benchmark or performance standard was used to determine that evacuation conditions are acceptable.
esidents have also observed that wildfire events affecting Anaheim Hills have historically origi nated from multi ple directi ons.

During prior testimony, it was noted:

In the past, many fires affecting Anaheim Hills have come from the east, from Corona, not only from Deer Canyon.” Clarification would be helpful regarding:

Whether evacuation modeling incorporated historical wildfire scenarios affecting Anahei m Hills Whether the analysis considered fire events originating east of Anaheim Hills under Santa Ana wind conditions What methodology was used to evaluate evacuation performance in the absence of a statewide evacuation safety standard Whether evacuation modeling incorporated realistic human behavioral factors during emergency evacuation events Whether evacuation modeling evaluated congestion points or bottlenecks within the Anaheim Hills road network Whether the analysis evaluated the time required for vehicles to clear known congestion points along primary evacuation routes Clear disclosure of evacuation modeling assumptions is particularly important in wildfire-prone areas where roadway capacity and evacuation timing directly affect public safety.

7. Consistency With Prior Safety Evaluations for Similar Projects During previous development proposals affecting nearby areas, concerns regarding wildfire evacuation capacity were raised by public safety officials.

During prior testimony, it was noted:

A similar project in the Deer Canyon area raised evacuation concerns from public safety officials. It is unclear what safety conditions or infrastructure improvements justify a different conclusion for the Festival project.” If evacuation constraints influenced prior planning decisions regarding nearby developments, clarification regarding any changes in safety conditions, infrastructure improvements, or emergency response capabilities would be helpful in understandi ng how safety considerations are being evaluated consistently across projects affecting the same evacuation network.

Conclusion
The issues described above relate to conditions experienced by Anaheim Hills residents and may assist in ensuring that the environmental analysis accurately reflects real-world traffic patterns, evacuation conditions, and regional travel behavior.

This information is provided to assist the City in ensuring that the environmental analysis accurately reflects the conditions experienced by residents and that the administrative record fully documents these concerns.

These comments are provided to ensure that the administrative record accurately reflects the conditions experienced by Anaheim Hills residents and to assist the City in ensuring that the environmental analysis fully evaluates transportation, evacuation, and cumulative impact considerations relevant to the project.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd, Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
Anaheim Hills Resident
District 6
ate: 3/3/2026 1:49:23 PM
From:" S R" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Fwd: Supplemental Information and Clarification of Prior Public Testimony – Festival Shopping Center Environmental Review - Vote No
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Forwarded message ---------
From: S R <shelly.n.robbins@gmail. com>
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Supplemental Information and Clarification of Prior Public Testimony – Festival Shopping Center Environmental Review - Vote No To: <publiccomment@anaheim. net>, < aaitken@anaheim. net>, < cleon@anaheim. net>, < rbalius@anaheim. net>, < nrubalcava@anaheim. net>, nkurtz@anaheim. net>, < kmaahs@anaheim. net>, < nmeeks@anaheim. net> Date: 3-3-26
Time: 1:49pm
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I previously provided verbal testimony during public meetings regarding the proposed Festival Shopping Center project and its Environmental Impact Report. This letter is submitted as supplemental information to clarify and expand upon issues raised during that testimony so they may be considered as part of the administrative record for the project’s environmental review.

Several of the issues discussed below were previously raised during public testimony and are included here to ensure the record clearly reflects those concerns.

During prior public testimony, it was noted:

Because the transportation analysis appears to rely on a limited study period, the DEIR may not fully capture actual peak congestion conditions experienced by the community.

Clarification would be helpful regarding:

During prior public testimony, it was noted:

This regional pass-through traffic significantly affects congestion conditions in Anaheim Hills but does not appear to be fully reflected in the DEIR’s transportation analysis.

Clarification would be helpful regarding:

3. Consideration of Regional Transportation Modeling
The transportation analysis appears to rely primarily on localized intersection analysis and traditional trip-generation methods.

4. Regional Growth and Cumulative Traffic Effects
Anaheim Hills roadways are increasingly affected by regional population growth and commuter patterns extending beyond the City of Anaheim.

During prior testimony, it was noted:

Clarification would be helpful regarding whether baseline conditions reflect observed traffic levels or theoretical maximum parking capacity.

6. Evacuation Conditions, Wildfire Risk, and Evacuation Modeling Anaheim Hills residents have experienced significant evacuation challenges during past wildfire events affecting the area.

During prior testimony, it was noted:

Seven minutes may seem negligible to the builders, but it is already over three hours for residents attempting to evacuate.”
esidents have also described emergency conditions during prior wildfire events where individuals sought refuge in commercial areas such as the Festival Shopping Center because evacuation routes were severely congested.

It is currently unclear from the DEIR what benchmark or performance standard was used to determine that evacuation condi tions are acceptable.

Residents have also observed that wildfire events affecting Anaheim Hills have historically originated from multiple directions.

During prior testimony, it was noted:

In the past, many fires affecting Anaheim Hills have come from the east, from Corona, not only from Deer Canyon.” Clarification would be helpful regarding:

Whether evacuation modeling incorporated historical wildfire scenarios affecting Anaheim Hills Whether the analysis considered fire events originating east of Anaheim Hills under Santa Ana wind conditions What methodology was used to evaluate evacuation performance in the absence of a statewide evacuation safety standard Whether evacuation modeling incorporated realistic human behavioral factors during emergency evacuation events Whether evacuation modeling evaluated congestion points or bottlenecks within the Anaheim Hills road network Whether the analysis evaluated the time required for vehicles to clear known congestion points along primary evacuation routes Clear disclosure of evacuation modeling assumptions is particularly important in wildfire-prone areas where roadway capacity and evacuation timing directly affect public safety.

During prior testimony, it was noted:

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Shelly Robbins
[email protected]
8141 E. Kennedy Rd, Anaheim, CA 92808
714-793-7447
Anaheim Hills Resident
District 6
ate: 3/3/2026 12:27:15 PM
From:" Kerilyn Barton" [email protected]
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote No on the Festival Center Project You don' t often get email from kerilyn15@aol. com. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms/ LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Dear Council Member,
I am writing to as k you to vote " No" on the Anaheim Hills Fes tival Center apartment project. You don' t need to be a traffic expert to see that Santa Ana Canyon Road is already at its limit. Mos t days , jus t getting to the store or work is a challenge. He will not be able to add over 400 apartments and about 1300 people to this area without jeopardizing the quality of life and safety of its res idence.

The city' s own reports admit that it already takes res idents over three hours to get out during a fire. To then say that adding another 7 minutes of delay is " not a big deal" is incredibly frus trating to thos e of us who live here. By approving this , the city is bas ically admitting the evacuation plan is broken but choos ing to make it even more crowded anyway.

We need our leaders to look at the reality of our streets , not jus t the numbers on a developer' s spreadsheet. Pleas e do the res pons ible thing and protect the res idents who are already here and their quality of life. Pleas e vote " No" on this project.

Sincerely,
Kerilyn Counter
Longtime res ident of Anaheim Hills
Sent frommy iPhone
ate: 3/3/2026 12:46:08 PM
From:" Carolina Medina" medinacarolina58@yahoo. com
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue You don' t often get email from medinacarolina58@yahoo. com. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Sincerely,
Carolina Medina
Sent frommy iPhone
ou don't often get email from youngfamily01@sbcglobal. net. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 12:46:38 PM
From:" TomYoung" youngfamily01@sbcglobal. net
To:

Ashleigh Aitken" [email protected], " Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" [email protected], " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], Kristen Maahs" [email protected], "Natalie Meeks" [email protected], " Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Cc:" Lisa Stoehr Young" lisayoung01@sbcglobal. net, "Katherine Novich" knovich1103@gmail. com Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggli ng to get out safely.

Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Tom Young
912 S Creekview Ln
Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
ou don't often get email from peteramazz@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 12:57:50 PM
From:" Peter A. Mazzarella" peteramazz@gmail. com
To:

De ar Madam Mayor and Counci l Members,
As the only othe r reside nt of Anaheim to attend all 6 District Community me etings in February, I se cond the re marks be low of my brothe r, John L. Mazzare lla.

Since rely,
Pe ter A. Mazzare lla
From: John L. Mazzare lla <johnlmazz@gmail. com>
Se nt: Monday, March 2, 2026 11: 18 PM
To: ' Ashle igh Aitke n' <AAitken@anahe im. ne t>; 'Natalie Me eks' < nme eks@anahe im. ne t>; rbal ius@anahe im. ne t; cl eon@anahe im. ne t; nrubalcava@anahe im. ne t; nkurtz@anaheim. net; ' Kriste n Maahs' < KMaahs@anaheim. net> Cc: ' Be re ni ce Bal linas' < BBallinas@anaheim. net>; 'Came ron Wessel' < CWessel@anahe im. ne t>; RCAREY@ANA HEIM. N ET; SV AN N HA @A N AHEIM. NET; MMoreno1@anaheim. net; agomez3@anaheim. net; ktran4@anahe im. ne t; vsandoval @anahe im. ne t; dhe rnande z6@anahe im. ne t; mcuevas@anahe im. ne t; nvillafana@anahe im. ne t; rmendoza@anahe im. ne t; nbartash@anahe im. ne t; publiccomme nt@anahe im. net
Subje ct: Vote No on the Anaheim Hills Festi val Spe cific Pl an De ar Mayor and Council Me mbe rs,
Thank you for me eting w ith me at each of the your Di stri ct Communi ty meeti ngs in Fe bruary. My brothe r, Pete r, and I we re the onl y Anahe im re si de nts to atte nd eve ry si ngle District Community me eting. It was extremely useful and he lpful to unde rstand the di ffere nt ne eds and chal lenge s of each District.

Wi ld Fire is the ove rw he lmi ng challenge and evacuation is the most desperate need for the re si de nts of Di stri ct 6. Fortunate ly, Di stri ct 6 doe sn’ t have the challe nge s of prostitution, gang acti vity, narcotics, and crime that other Di stri cts of Anahe im may be faci ng, but addi ng more housing in the High Fire Ri sk Zone in East Anaheim Hills will gre atl y magni fy the already extre me ly te rri fyi ng aspe ct of tryi ng to evacuate duri ng an inte nse Wild Fire .

I echo Mayor Aitke n’ s comments in the January 13, 2026 Anahe im City Counci l Meeti ng at 6:45: 30, “ I am extre me ly conce rne d about adding housing to this part ( East Anahe im Hills) of District 6 if we have other available options in The Canyon or in are as that are not in the High Fire Zone .”
The re are a multi tude of other areas to build housi ng in Di stri ct 6 and at 6:10:25 in the January 13th me eting Anahe im Planni ng & Bui lding Director He athe r Allen state s, “ The bulk of the sites in D6 that were actual candidate site s are North of the 91 in District 6” ( on the La Palma side).

Eve n the de ve lope r She a Bui lde rs acknowledge d the delete rious effe ct of adding more housi ng in the Fe sti val Shoppi ng Ce nte r, at 2:42:57 of the January 13th me eting by stating, “ Re ducing the unit count has the single bigge st impact on traffic and evacuation time s,” and at 2:50: 40 She a Bui lde rs we nt on to say, “ The project exce eds City adopte d VMT per service population thre shold and the re fore doe s cre ate a significant navoidable impact.”
By atte ndi ng all the District meeti ngs I did eventually learn that the State Housi ng Mandate doe s not force the City of Anahe im to rezone and build re side nti al apartme nts in the Fe stival Shopping Cente r in East Anaheim Hills, and as Di re ctor Al len state d in the January 13th me eting, the bulk of the candi date site are N orth of the 91 Fre eway. There fore , to build more residenti al uni ts in East Anahe im Hi lls w he re Fire Evacuati on duri ng the 2017 Canyon 2 Fire took 3 hours is tantamount to wi llful ne glige nce .

Mayor Pro Te m Le on, thank you for al l your efforts for District 6 as you are a Board Member of the OCTA , how eve r, Di stri ct 6 ne eds to have the evacuation infrastructure of Weir Canyon Road linked to Jamboree Road and the Fai rmount Boul evard fly-ove r in pl ace first be fore eve n ente rtaining the ide a of more re si de ntial housing in East Anahe im Hi lls.

Council Me mbe r Maahs, thank you for listening to me at your District meeti ng and letti ng me know that you gre w up in Anahe im Hi lls and that your pare nts still live in Anaheim Hills. You are probably more that aware of the traffic gri dl ock al ong Santa Ana Canyon Road and how that can transl ate into she er catastrophe duri ng an intense Wild Fire dri ven by hi gh East to West Santa Ana Wi nds.

Council Me mbe r Me eks, at your District 6 meeti ng you told me that you have “ fai th in the Know Your Way Pl an,” how eve r, it is just that, onl y a the ore tical pl an, it has not be en te sted or stre ss te sted. Now, the onl y way to test the plan in re al life is for anothe r Wi ld Fire evacuati on to occur and that’ s w hat w ill have to happen in orde r to se e if the plan works and the n have fai th in it. I mi ght have be en bl unt wi th you at the Di stri ct 6 me eting, be cause you need to unde rstand that the vast majori ty of your District 6 consti tue nts are absol ute ly te rri fied of more housing in East Anahe im Hi lls addi ng to alre ady unte nable evacuati on time s. Your first duty as an Anahe im City Council Me mber is to your constituents and to re present the m and the ir conce rns, and they do not want the de velopme nt at the Fe stival Shopping Ce nte r. If you are thi nking of supporting thi s proje ct then you ne ed to re si gn from the Anaheim Ci ty Council be fore the vote of the Anahe im Hi lls Fe sti val Spe cific Pl an be cause you do not re present the vast majority of constitue nts in Di stri ct 6. Your approval rati ng is alre ady ne ar ze ro in Di strict 6, but you can re de em yourse lf by voting No on thi s proposal. If you do othe rwi se , the n the onl y concl usi on that the re si de nts of Di stri ct 6 w ill come to is that you are involve d in some form of illicit acti vity.

Fi nally Madam Mayor and Counci l Members, at the District 3 Community Me eting, in spe aki ng w ith Anahe im Chi ef Communi cati ons Off ice r, Mike Lyste r about the Anahe im Hi lls Spe cific Pl an, he tol d me, “ If you don’ t like living in a Hi gh Fire Zone are a, the n you shoul d leave .” I don’ t thi nk this shoul d be the me ssage or motto of Anahe im, “ If you don’ t like it leave.” I woul d rathe r like to he ar, “ Le t’s work toge the r to make it be tte r.”
The refore, I believe the first duty of all of you as Council Me mbe rs for the City of Anahe im is to prote ct the live s and safe ty of all Anahe im re side nts, and in orde r to do so and work toge ther to make it be tte r, is to vote NO on the Anahe im Hills Fe stival Spe cific Plan. Thank you.

Si nce re ly,
John L. Mazzare lla
307 S. Basi l Stre et
Anahe im Hills, CA 92808
From: John L. Mazzare lla <johnlmazz@gmail. com>
Se nt: Sunday, De ce mbe r 14, 2025 11: 44 PM
To: aaitke n@anahe im. ne t; 'Natal ie Meeks' < nmeeks@anaheim. net>; rbal ius@anaheim. net; cl eon@anahe im. ne t; nrubal cava@anahe im. ne t; nkurtz@anahe im. ne t; kmaahs@anaheim. net
Cc: ' Be re ni ce Bal linas' < bballinas@anaheim. net>; cwessel@anahe im. ne t; RCAREY@ANAHEIM. NET; SV ANNHA@ANA HEIM. N ET; MMore no1@anahe im. ne t; agome z3@anahe im. ne t; ktran4@anahe im. ne t; vsandoval @anahe im. ne t; dhe rnande z6@anahe im. ne t; mcue vas@anahe im. ne t; nvillafana@anahe im. ne t; rmendoza@anaheim. net; nbartash@anahe im. ne t; publ iccomme nt@anahe im. ne t; fire inf o@anahe im. ne t
Subje ct: Anahe im Hi lls Fe stival Specifi c Plan
De ar Mayor and Council Me mbe rs,
Afte r any major disaste r in which human live s are lost, the first que stion always is: What we re the warning signs? Approving the Anahe im Hills Spe cific Plan and adding any future residential buildings in Anaheim Hills without any traffic mitigation is your first and only warning sign.

Anahe im Hills is Hi gh Fire Risk area and currentl y when a major fire hits, fueled and spread by high Santa Ana wi nds, the reside nts do not have ne arly any ade quate or ne ce ssary fire emergency escape routes.

During the Octobe r 2017 Canyon 2 Fire whe n reside nts of Anahe im Hi lls had to evacuate, the re are mul tiple accounts that it took reside nts 3 hours to only trave l 2 mi les along Santa Ana Canyon Road. Since the n the City of Anahe im has insti tute d the “Know Your Way” plan, but thi s plan is compl etely unte ste d and the one undeniabl e fundamental fact that Anahe im Fire Chi ef Pat Russe ll will testify to is that whe n the re is a large scal e reside ntial fire evacuati on, eve ryone tends to evacuate all at once which will resul t agai n in entire gri dlock along the curre nt vacuation route s and if large fire balls sweep through those are as, pe opl e sitting in traffic will die .

I know the City of Anahe im is be ing mandated by the State of Cal iforni a to bui ld more housi ng, but if it wi ll jeopardi ze the safe ty of the curre nt reside nts in Anahe im Hills, which the Anahe im Hi lls Spe cific Plan will do, the n it doesn’ t justi fy or val idate the State of Cal iforni a’ s mandate .

Prope r fire eme rge ncy evacuation route s need to be in place be fore any further building in Anahe im Hi lls can be done . We ir Canyon Road has not be en linke d to Jamboree Road and the Fai rmount Boulevard fly- over has been bui lt ove r the Santa Ana Ri ve r to conne ct to Fai rmount Boule vard in Yorba Linda. Anahe im Hi lls reside nts ne ed to have both of those vital fire eme rge ncy evacuati on route s avai labl e . In short, the State of Calif ornia, the County of Orange, and the City of Anaheim has not done the ir due di lige nce to prope rly prote ct the reside nts of Anahe im Hills and provi de ade quate amounts of eme rge ncy evacuati on routes to allow for more reside nti al bui lding in Anahe im Hi lls to occur.

If the City Anahe im vote s for the Anaheim Festi val Spe cific Plan which will allow for 1,000 addi tional reside nts and ve hi cles in Anahe im Hi lls without having any additi onal eme rge ncy fire evacuation route s, the n the City of Anahe im wi ll be willful ly ne gl ige nt whe n the ne xt large scale reside ntial fire occurs in Anaheim Hills and as a result reside nts will be trappe d in gri dlock traff ic and human live s will be lost.

The Cine ma in the Fe sti val Shoppi ng Ce nter has always be en a cinema since its ince ption many ye ars ago, but it can be some thi ng else comme rci ally. In the same shoppi ng ce nter, a former Stein Mart store was subdi vided into two store s: Nordstrom Rack and Ulta Be auty and both of those store s now are doing ve ry we ll . 20 years ago a Supe r K- Mart in Anahe im Hi lls on Pul lman Stre et be came a Home De pot, whi ch is thrivi ng and is the se cond largest Home De pot in the Uni ted State s. The former cinema at Impe rial Hi ghway and La Palma Ave nue is now a Te sla Se rvice Ce nte r and the former Big Lots on Santa Ana Canyon wi ll be a Trader Joe ’s, whi ch I know many reside nts are looki ng forward to.

The important poi nt is that the cinema building in the Festi val Shoppi ng Ce nter remain for comme rci al use be cause whe n the ne xt large reside ntial fire eve nt occurs, especial ly a Re d Flag Warni ng, those busi ne sse s wi ll be close d and no traff ic will be comi ng or goi ng from the m.

Finally, what is extre me ly vital to point out is if there is a large residenti al bui lding instead, 1000 pe opl e wi ll de sce nd on that are a by comi ng home from work afte r pi cking up their childre n from school and the n evacuating al l at once and addi ng to the paral yzi ng traff ic gri dlock along Santa Ana Canyon and many of the m could lose the ir lives as a result.

The refore , be cause the lives of the residents of Anaheim Hills are in gre at danger duri ng a large scal e reside nti al fire due to the fact that curre ntl y ade quate eme rge ncy evacuati on routes do not ex it is the Warning Sign staring you al l directl y in the face and in orde r to mi tigate the gre at risk that the reside nts of Anahe im Hi lls face, you have to vote “ No” on the Anahe im Hi lls Fe sti val Spe cific Plan.

Since rely,
John L. Mazzare lla
307 S. Basi l Stre et
Anahe im Hills, CA 92808
Susana Barrios
From: MelissaHillon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March3, 20261:11PM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Apartment projectconcern
Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Dear Council Member,
Iamwriting toaskyoutovote "No" ontheAnaheim Hills Festival Center apartment project. You don'tneed tobeatraffic expert toseethatSanta Ana Canyon Road isalready atitslimit. Most days, justgetting tothestore orwork isachallenge. The idea that wecanadd over 400apartments and about 1300 people tothisarea without creating adisaster during awildfire evacuation justdoesn'tpass the "common sense" test.

The city'sown reports admit thatitalready takes residents overthree hours togetoutduring afire. Tothen say that adding another 7minutes ofdelay is "notabigdeal" isincredibly frustrating tothose ofuswho livehere. Ifabucket isalready overflowing, youdon'tkeep pouring more water intoitand sayit'sfine. Byapproving this, thecity isbasically admitting the evacuation planisbroken but choosing tomake iteven more crowded anyway.

Weneed ourleaders tolook atthereality ofour streets, notjust thenumbers onadeveloper' sspreadsheet. Please dothe responsible thing and protect theresidents who arealready here. Weneed better ways togetoutoftheHills, notmore people trapped inthem. Please vote "No" onthisproject.

Sincerely,
Melissa Hillon
1 ou don't often get email from sunset.310@hotmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:10:22 PM
From:" Leona S" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Festival Shopping Center - Opposition Letter Attachment: Festival - Opposition Letter.doc;
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

To All Council Members ,
I strongly oppose to the Festival Project. Please see my letter attached. In addition to public hearing , the city should also mail out a form to all the residents affected by the proposal. Those who cannot attend the meeting will have an opportuni ty to voice their opinion. Otherwis e, all the oppos itions received do not reflect the actual counts .

Leona Sheriff
321 S Basil St
Anaheim Hills , CA 92808
Virus-free.www.avg.com
arch 2, 2026
EVACUATION AT RISK!
Dear Council Members of City of Anaheim,
I am writing to express my opposition to the development of the affordable housing in the Festival Shopping Center. This is a very high fire hazard area and I am VERY concerned regarding evacuation. Case in point, AAA Auto Club home insurance underwriter declined my application for this reason. As I recall the 2017 fire near Canyon Rim Elementary School, I still feel the terrifying moments when I went to pick up my kid. Traffic was jammed in every street nearby and none of the cars can move. My hands and knees trembled as I tried to figure out how to get out of the grid lock on the one main street “ Serrano Ave”. I also remember vividly two fire trucks were stuck in the traffic on the opposite side and had to move inch by inch to squeeze through certain spots as some of the cars were forced to go over the sidewalk curb to make way.

I live a few blocks from Festival Shopping Center and do my running exercise daily along Festival Drive. This is where senior living center is also located. Packing with more people to the area will create an unsafe environment for these seniors as well as all the residents in this already crowded community. Many of them walk their dogs on this street. With more units to be built on the block will likely to cause an accident for some as their will be more vehicles.

Also, El Rancho Middle School is located close by. Imagine what the evacuation is like with parents and students trying to escape the only street available (Santa Ana Canyon Road)? There are about 1200 students in that school alone which means there will be almost the same number of cars to pick up the kids. Adding these students to the thousand of students at Canyon High School located a mile away along the same street will definitely put everyone in danger, not to mention these are kids. They will be scattered everywhere looking for their parents’ cars, adding to the grid lock.

Based on just these few facts along should paint a terrifying picture of an escape when a blaze of fire breaks out. People will be running on foot due to cars unable to move since there is only ONE main street (Santa Ana Canyon Road)! Therefore, I urge all the city council members to reject this senseless development. Everyone’ s live in this tight community matters. We pay high taxes to live here and expect our voices of opposition to be heard and delivered. The CEO, management and employees of the developing company do not live here. No matter how convincing their presentations are, bear in mind that their objective goal is to make profit. Once the project is complete, they are gone and the residents continue to live in fear for as long as they are here. Lastly, insurance companies will likely not to cover this area!! Many residents are opposed to this project but are unable to deliver their messages due to various reasons… work, kids, illness, travel, etc.

Regards,
Leona and Gary Sheriff
321 S Basil St, Anaheim Hills CA 92808
ou don't often get email from sborgese@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:16:40 PM
From:" Suzanne Borgese" [email protected]
To:

Sincerely, Suzanne Borgese
ou don't often get email from arthurrx@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:39:30 PM
From:" Arthur Dominguez" [email protected]
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" [email protected], Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Strong Opposition to Festival Development Attachment: Festival development Dominguez Letter 3.3.2026.docx; Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
rthur and Victoria Dominguez
851 South Sapphire Lane
Anaheim, CA 92807
March 2, 2026
Anaheim Planning Commission and the Anaheim City Council Anaheim City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
To the Anaheim Planning Commission and the Anaheim City Council:

We are Arthur and Victoria Dominguez, residents of the Horizon HOA community in Anaheim Hills. We have lived here since June 2022. Our recent move to Anaheim Hills from Rowland Heights allowed us to experience a more serene and open landscape, and a wonderful way of life. The Festival Development is a definite threat to our community because it is in a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, we are vehemently opposed to the Festival Development Project.

We have thoroughly reviewed the project documents. The reasons we are opposed to this development are as follows:

1. Dangerous Traffic Levels and Evacuation Process
A three-hour evacuation time is unacceptable to all residents of Anaheim Hills. As detailed by the attorney opposing this project, “the Project’s Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is fatally flawed in that its analysis of evacuation hazards rests on a misinterpretation of the City’s Know Your Way plans. Indeed, the EIR assumes that all traffic to the west of the Project would evacuate westbound, including the nearly 500-unit Hills Preserve project, without interfering with the Project’s evacuation on already constrained roadways. Yet, the City’s plans provide the exact opposite: that this traffic would evacuate eastbound towards the Festival Center.”
The Hills Preserve project and Festival Center Project are less than 800 feet apart at their closest points, and is assumed to have no measurable impact (0 minutes) on the cumulative evacuation times presented. This is an impossibility.

2. Emergency Access
Due to the extremely limited egress options during an emergency, this new development will be placing our community at great risk. Historically, there have been at least three times in the past 30 years that evacuation out of Anaheim Hills has been necessary.

Safely exiting Anaheim Hills during an emergency already takes a dangerous and difficult three hours, this development will add seven more minutes to this time. This is a truly unacceptable risk for the community.

Approval of this project will only provide profits for the City of Anaheim, a city which already collects immense profits from the Disneyland and California Adventure roperties. The risk of lives lost is much greater than the profits to be earned by the Festival Development Group.

Sincerely,
Arthur Dominguez ( 626) 484-6221 [email protected]
and
Victoria Dominguez ( 626) 827-3521 [email protected]
ou don't often get email from manuel714742@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:41:42 PM
From:" Manuel Doblado" manuel714742@gmail. com
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you' re already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don' t have extra roads or " secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes.

Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn' t be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don' t make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Juan Manuel Doblado
Veronica Doblado
ou don't often get email from baker13@msn. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:48:46 PM
From:" Bob Baker" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] New447 unit development inAnaheim Hills Attachment: City Council.docx;
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Walter Baker
368 S.Auburn Heights Lane
Anaheim, CA 92807
Subject: City Council Public Comments
Dear City Council,
I was chagrined to hear that, once again, another residential development is even being considered. Not too long ago, there was a large housing development planned inAnaheim Hills, which appeared to have given little consideration to various impacts fire, police, traffic, pollution, etc).

Again, though smaller in size, the current development has faults that the other displayed – little consideration to what will likely happen in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. One only has to look back a few more years (~2007??) when APD came knocking on doors telling residents of a mandatory evacuation.

Living next to the 91 Freeway at the time, the fire had jumped the freeway, forcing us (and all others) to forget trying to enter the freeway at Weir Canyon or any road headed east. Going west to the 55 or staying on surface roads were the only options ( along with ridiculous traffic either way.) We saw no police or fire personnel – nor did the crazy drivers who were intent on going the way they wanted, when they wanted, and how they wanted ( rules and safety be damned).

You can’t seriously be calling for residents to “shelter in place” for three hours – seriously?? Sincerely,
Walter Baker
alter Baker
368
S.Auburn Heights
Lane
Anaheim, CA
92807
Subject: City Council Public Comments
Dear City Council,
I was chagrined to hear that, once again, another residential development is even being considered. Not too long ago, there was a large housing development planned in Anaheim Hills, which appeared to have given little consideration to various impacts (fire, police, traffic, pollution, etc).

Again, though smaller in size, the current development has faults that the other displayed – little consideration to what will likely happen in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

One only has to look back a few more years (~2007??) when APD came knocking on doors telling residents of a mandatory evacuation.

Living next to the 91 Freeway at the time, the fire had jumped the freeway, forcing us and all others) to forget trying to enter the freeway at Weir Canyon or any road headed east. Going west to the 55 or staying on surface roads were the only options (along with ridiculous traffic either way.) We saw no police or fire personnel – nor did the crazy drivers who were intent on going the way they wanted, when they wanted, and how they wanted (rules and safety be damned).

You can’t seriously be calling for residents to “shelter in place” for three hours – seriously??
Sincerely,
Walter Baker
ou don't often get email from thehillfamily@sbcglobal. net. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:50:12 PM
From:" Charles Hill" thehillfamily@sbcglobal. net
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, " Berenice Ballinas" BBallinas@anahe im.net, "Cameron Wessel" [email protected], " Ryan Carey" [email protected], "Stacy Vannha" SVannha@anahe im.net, "Magnolia Moreno" [email protected], " Angie Gomez" [email protected], "Kellie Tran" [email protected], Valeria Sandoval" [email protected], "Daniel Hernandez" DHernandez6@anahe im.net, "Melissa O. Cuevas" [email protected], "Nadia Villafana" [email protected], "Robert Mendoza" [email protected], NamBartash" [email protected], "Fire Info" [email protected] Subject:[
EXTERNAL] * URGENT ~ FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ATTONIGHT'S COUNCIL MEEETING * 3:30 PM DAILYTRAFFIC SOUTHBOUND ON WEIR CANYON AT MONTE VISTA * Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

THIS IS EVERYDAY... WITHOUT FIRE IN THE AREA!
ate: 3/3/2026 1:54:50 PM
From:" Karen Tippin" yeskikidear@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Housing at Festival
You don' t often get email from yes kikidear@gmail. com. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms/ LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

We vehemently regis ter our dis approval of the large hous ing project being proposed for The Fes tival shopping center in Anaheim Hills .

Traffic is already terribly conges ted from cars utilizing Serrano Avenue to bypass the 91 freeway.

We’ re unable to exit our hous ing tract any night between 4 and 6:00 in a timely fashion. Serrano and Weir Canyon are backed up for miles .

Adding more cars to this conges tion will caus e uns afe conditions and impos sible ingress and egres s during emergencies , such as a fire.

Anaheim Hills cannot carry this load and should not be forced to do so.

Pleas e vote No on this propos al.

Paul & Karen Tippin
982 S Vas sar Circle
Anaheim Hills , CA 92807
Sent from my iPhone
ou don't often get email from hercgovka1@aol. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:58:10 PM
From:" [email protected]" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Festival Project
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Mayor Aitkin and Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Festival development.

My primary concern is the high fire danger in this area. INcreasing residential density in a high-risk fire zone creates a significant safety threat,, especially regarding emergency evacuation routes and the added strain on our fire services.

I urge you to prioritize the safety of residents.

Sincerely,
Melba Anderson
ou don't often get email from debichristensen@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 2:15:27 PM
From:" Debi C" debichristensen@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Anaheim Hills development
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

To the city council members of Anaheim who voted against the Salt development in Dear Canyon, thank you for keeping safety a priority for those you serve. We were all thinking of your vote again and grateful for you again when the LA fires were so devastating last year. To the city council members who were in favor of building large developments near Santa Ana Canyon Road in Anaheim Hills, we know your districts have been negatively impacted by recent growth. We know the pressure and need for more housing. I am all about shouldering the burden and accepting change but not at the cost of safety. The geography is what it is, Santa Ana Canyon Road is a major artery for thousands of homes.

Know Your Way Out' doesn't help when you can not get out. Let's make this work and keep Anaheim great and let's do it responsibly, smart and put safety as a top priority. This doesn't mean just more fire hydrants. Please search for and listen to the specialists who are not partisan to developers and find a safe solution.

Something that I did not hear brought up the last time there was a push for large development in Anaheim Hills was the concern for evacuating schools. El Rancho is a block from Santa Ana Canyon Road and has over a thousand students. We also have three elementary schools that would use our two exit routes of Weir Canyon and Imperial. We don't choose when the fire comes. Parents will be rushing to pick up their children and adding to the congestion and undoubtedly confusion of getting out. Data is greater than opinion. Planning responsibly does not mean planning for the best case imagined scenario. The proposed 447 unit development in Festival Shopping Center is no different than the Salt project. Sadly our country has an increasing history of making poor decisions in the name of profit. To those in a position of leadership please lead wisely. Thank you council members for your service to our community.
ou don't often get email from douglasmessierjr@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 2:25:28 PM
From:" Douglas Messier" douglasmessierjr@gmail. com
To:

I was shocked to read that it already takes over three hours to evacuate this area during an emergenc y. Adding over 1,000 more people and their cars to our streets seems like a huge risk to everyone' s safety. The project' s environmental report admits that these new apartments will make evacuation times even longer. As a parent, I think about what would happen if a fire broke out while I was trying to get my [ kids /pets/elderly parents] to safety. If the roads are already failing, adding hundreds more cars into the mix will make a bad situation impossible. It feels like the city is hoping for the best rather than planning for the worst. I am not against new housing in general, but it has to be built in the right places. Putting high-density housing at a known bottlenec k in a fire zone is not responsible. I am asking you to please put our safety first and vote "No" on this projec t until we have a real solution for getting people out of the Hills safely. Sincerely, Douglas Messier ate: 3/3/2026 2:41:16 PM
From:" kelly bluemel" kellybluemel7@gmail. com
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue You don' t often get email from kellybluemel7@gmail. com. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms/ LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Sincerely,
Kelly Bluemel
Sent from my iPhone
ate: 3/3/2026 3:23:55 PM
From:" Scott Bluemel" rybluemel@gmail. com
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue You don' t often get email from rybluemel@gmail. com. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms/ LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Sincerely,
Ryann Bluemel
Sent frommy iPhone
ou don't often get email from rabasu10@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 3:01:48 PM
From:" Annesha Basu" rabasu10@gmail. com
To:

Dear Council Member,
I am writing to ask you to vote "No" on the Anaheim Hills Festival Center apartment projec t. For those of us who live nearby, it is evident that Santa Ana Canyon Road is already extremely congested. Most days, even driving less than a mile can be a challenge at certain times. Adding over 400 apartments and about 1300 people to this area would be disastrous during a wildfire.

You voted no on the Deer Canyon project, in part due to concerns that adding so many cars to the roads here would increase evacuation times during fires. The proposed development would add a similar number of cars to the same road, so I’m not sure why we should consider it. I heard some arguments during the February council meeting that the development wouldn’ t add significantly to evacuation times because not everyone returns home from work to pack in the event of an evacuation. That is an impossible thing to predict with any degree of certainty, bec ause wildfires don’ t break out only on weekdays during working hours. Also, as the fire chief pointed out during one of the meetings when the Deer Canyon projec t was under disc ussion, actual evacuations always take longer than models predict.

In addition, Mayor Aitken mentioned that there are other more suitable sites where additional housing could be built in Anaheim – let’ s please consider other options before choosing a location that would certainly endanger current residents and also the people who would move into this apartment complex if it came to pass.

Sincerely,
Annesha Basu
ou don't often get email from steve@diamondcase. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 4:23:49 PM
From:" Steve Hartfelder" steve@diamondcase. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Against housing at Festival Center
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

I live in Anaheim behind the Festival Center and am firmly against high density housing. We are already impacted with traffics and more could be incredibly dangerous.

Steve Hartfelder
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Susana Barrios
From: SharonMcAfee <sharonmcafee@rocketmail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, March3, 20264:26PM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] PleasevoteNOontheShea/FestivalCenterapartments – It'sasafetyissue Youdon'[email protected]. Learnwhythisisimportant Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

The reports forthisproject saythat adding these carswill "only" add about 7minutes tothe evacuation time. Butwhen you're already stuck forthree hours and thefireismoving toward you, 7minutes isalifetime. Wedon'thave extra roads or "secret" ways outoftheHills; weallend uponthesame fewlanes. Adding more people toaneighborhood thatisalready abottleneck during afirejustfeels likeatragedy waiting tohappen.

Iunderstand thatthe cityneeds housing, butitshouldn'tbebuilt inaplace where people arealready struggling togetout safely. Please don'tmake anexisting danger even worse justforanew development. Weareasking youtoprioritize thelives and safety ofthepeople who already livehere and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
Len McAfee
Sharon McAfee
1 ou don't often get email from bulmanwc@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 4:41:48 PM
From:" B Bulman" bulmanwc@gmail. com
To:

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,
William Bulman
ou don't often get email from mzonitch@sbcglobal. net. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 4:47:44 PM
From:" Marcia Zonitch" mzonitch@sbcglobal. net
To:

Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, " Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected] Cc:" Marcia Zonitch" mzonitch@sbcglobal. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Please vote NO on the Shea/Festival Center apartments – It's a safety issue Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

The reports for this project say that adding these cars will "only" add about 7 minutes to the evacuation time. But when you're already stuck for three hours and the fire is moving toward you, 7 minutes is a lifetime. We don't have extra roads or "secret" ways out of the Hills; we all end up on the same few lanes. Adding more people to a neighborhood that is already a bottleneck during a fire just feels like a tragedy waiting to happen.

I understand that the city needs housing, but it shouldn't be built in a place where people are already struggling to get out safely. Please don't make an existing danger even worse just for a new development. We are asking you to prioritize the lives and safety of the people who already live here and pay taxes here.

Sincerely,

MARCIA ZONITCH
Susana Barrios
From: SeanMcEachern <sean.mceachern@sheaproperties. com> Sent: Tuesday, March3, 20264:37PM
To: Amanda Lauffer <[email protected]>; HeatherR. Allen <[email protected]> Cc: Fogg, AndrewK. <[email protected]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Festival - LetterResponse
Warning: This email originated from outside theCityofAnaheim. Donotclick links oropen attachments unless you recognize thesender andareexpecting themessage.

Heather / Amanda,
Perourdiscussion, pleaseseeattachedletterresponsetotherecentletterreceivedfromChattenBrown.

Iwillalsobringaphysicalcopytothehearing.

Thankyou,
Sean
SheaProperties
SeanMcEachern
VicePresident, Development | MultifamilyDevelopment & Acquisitions O: 949-389-7078
130VantisStreet, Suite200 | AlisoViejo, CA92656
SheaProperties.com | Facebook | LinkedIn
CABLBRE# 01382566. Thise-mailismeantonlyfortheintendedrecipientandmaybeconfidentialorprivilegedbylaw. Ifreceivedinerror, anyreview, use, dissemination, distribution, orcopyingisstrictlyprohibited. Pleasenotifyusimmediatelyoftheerroranddeletethemessagefromyoursystem. 1 City Council, City of Anaheim March 3, 2026
c/ o Theresa Bass, City Clerk
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
2nd Floor, Suite 217
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear City Council members,
This letter responds to an Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Project comment letter submitted by Chatten Brown Law (the “Chatten Brown Letter”) dated February 27th, 2026 and received earlier today. The comments focus on the Evacuation Time Analysis and raises issues related to the fire evacuation report - specifically, whether the SALT project is in evacuation area 8 or 9. Their basic argument is that SALT is “ partially” in evacuation area 8 and, as such, will evacuate to the east, along the same route as the Festival project, rather than to the west, as the evacuation study assumes.

In response, the Dudek team offers:

1. The Know Your Way Plan has the Hills Preserve Project Evacuating to the east under the Deer Canyon Fire scenario:

If afireoccurs in Deer Canyon, theevacuation study assumes thatthe Hills Preserve project wouldevacuate to the west, away from the fire area, instead of driving towards the fire to the east. The Chatten Brown Letter claims that if the ignition point is located further to the southwest in the canyon that the fire may not reach east Santa Ana Canyon Road and, thus, residents from the project would still evacuate to the east. This assertion is incorrect. As Figure 4b in the Chatten Brown Letter shows, there would be a much lower fire risk to the Hills Preserve project under this scenario and they would most likely shelter in place instead of evacuating. However, if such a fire reached a point where the residents of the Hills Preserve project would need to evacuate, they would still need to evacuate to the west, away from the oncoming fire, as at that point it would be closer to the east side of the project and Santa Ana Canyon Road. As the comment pointed out, the Hills Preserve Fire Plan also identified this same issue, and notes that residents would need to evacuate west, away from the fire, under these conditions. While the Hills Preserve Project was denied due to evacuation concerns, it does not invalidate this aspect of its evacuation study, as the comment suggests. Also, it is important to note that the Know Your Way program indicates routes may change depending on fire progression, which is the basis for the Evacuation Analysis conclusions based on the fire scenario considered worst-case.

2. The approach ignores the differences between commercial uses and residential uses:

The Chatten Brown Letter notes that residents will take longer to prepare for evacuation than commercial users. While this may be the case, it would present a more desirable scenario than what was analyzed. This scenario would result in a more staggered pattern of evacuators reaching the roadway network, creating less of a bottle neck at critical points, such as the Wier Canyon Road / Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection. The evacuation memo takes a more conservative approach assuming all users within the TO: ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
2 project, as well as the adjacent neighborhoods would all leave at the same time, creating a larger bottle neck at the choke points. As noted in the Evacuation Memo, the full evacuation is anticipated to take over 3 hours to evacuate the area, this time would account for the time it would take for residents within the area to prepare to evacuate. Additionally, the comment cites no sources, standards, or studies that confirm their claims, nor does it cite any evidence thatthebehaviors of thedifferent groups will meaningfully impact evacuation times.

3. The comment also suggests that the Project is indicated inthe wrong fire hazard severity zone. At the time of the report’s preparation, the fire hazard severity zone was consistent with the technical memorandum.

CAL FIRE updated its mapping and later, the City adopted the new mapping, which does include the Project site within a high and very high fire hazard severity zone. This map change does not impact the Project’s evaluation. The project’s fire protection plan and the evacuation study considered the project directly adjacent to very high fire hazard severity zones and required the same restrictive ignition resistant requirements as a project directly within one of these zones. The map change does not impact any of the critical evacuation procedures or approaches as detailed in the evacuation study. Therefore, although the Project’ s mapped FHSZ is inaccurately portrayed in the Evacuation Time Analysis, it is only a map edit that would be needed and no other changes would be triggered. Most importantly, though, this mapedit would not change any of the analysis or conclusions detailed in the Evacuation Study.

Sincerely,
Michael Huff
Senior Director – Fire Protection Planning
Michael Huff
ou don't often get email from rwande@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 6:25:25 PM
From:" Rwand Teffaha" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] NewDevelopment - 447 Unit /Shea
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, My husband and I, along with our two teenagers, purchased our home in Anaheim Hills in 2021. We feel fortunate to live in this community and care deeply about preserving its safety, livability, and quality of life. We reside on near the intersection of Serrano and Taylor Court.

We write to formally express our opposition to the proposed development due to serious concerns regarding traffic congestion, public safety, infrastructure capacity, and strain on community resources.

Traffic conditions in our area are already significantly impacted. Serrano Avenue, Weir Canyon Road, Imperial, Nohl Ranch Road, and Santa Ana Canyon Road experience substantial daily congestion, much of which appears to be through- traffic from outside the immediate neighborhood.

Exiting our street has become increasingly difficult and, at times, unsafe. Transporting our children to and requires us to leave considerably earlier each morning, yet traffic remains heavily congested during peak hours. What should be routine, short trips frequently take up to thirty minutes due to gridlock. Additional residential development would only exacerbate these conditions.

Public safety is another critical concern. Living adjacent to the hills places our neighborhood in a high fire-risk area. During fire season, evacuation routes are already limited and heavily traveled. Under current traffic conditions, a large- scale evacuation would be extremely challenging.

Increasing population density without meaningful roadway expansion and infrastructure improvements raises serious concerns about emergency response times and safe evacuation capacity.

Furthermore, existing community resources are already strained. When our children attempt to enroll in programs at the there are consistently waitlists and limited availability. This reflects a community operating at or near capacity. Expanding residential development without corresponding investment in recreational facilities, roads, and essential infrastructure will further diminish access to services for current residents.

Anaheim Hills is valued for its balance of residential living, open space, and manageable infrastructure. Any proposed development should first demonstrate that roads, emergency access, schools, and community facilities can safely and effectively support additional population growth.

For these reasons, we respectfully oppose the proposed project in its current form and urge the City to prioritize infrastructure improvements, public safety, and preservation of community quality of life before approving further expansion.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Taj and Rwand Teffaha
ou don't often get email from vanpattenk710@aol. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 2:51:43 PM
From:" Vanpattenk710" vanpattenk710@aol. com
To:

Ashleigh Aitken" [email protected], "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.net, "Natalie Meeks" [email protected], " Natalie Meeks" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Ryan Balius" [email protected], " Carlos A. Leon" [email protected], "Carlos A. Leon" CLeon@anahe im.net, "Natalie Rubalcava" [email protected], " Norma C. Kurtz" NKurtz@anahe im.net, "Norma C. Kurtz" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], "Kristen Maahs" [email protected], " Theresa Bass" [email protected], " Theresa Bass" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], City Attorney" cityattorneysoffice@anaheim. net, "[email protected]" jsvanpatte [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Festival Center/Redesignating Use of Movie Theater Property Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Honorable Councilmembers, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Designated Staff Members:

My husband and Ilive in the eastern part of the city; and, we are less than a mile away from the Featival Center. Anaheim has been our home for over twenty-four years and we have seen a lot of changes. In full disclosure, I attended and spoke against the Salt development proposal at the critical planning committee meeting. Due to health issues, I am unable to attend the upcoming council meeting. As a result, Iam once again writing my concerns/issues within an email.

My first concern is the influx of approximately 447 units of "multi-family residenti al community" members. I am shocked that you are all, once again, considering an exponential population increase. This issue has already been debated and rejected. It was determined that adding mutliple reaident living facilities with the potential of exponenti ally increasing the existing volume of traffic and people in this specific area has the potential to further exacerbate an already dire set of circumstances. More people, potentially hundreds, means hundreds more who will panic in an evacuation situation. The citizens that already live in this area only have ONE thoroughfare to utilize in order to evacuate a fire or disaster. In the past fires, much like Lahaina, we were prevented from evacuating by the local authorities. Additionally, please consider just how dire our situation is at present: we currently CANNOT evacuate in a timely or safe manner! Adding hundreds of more people will make an exisitng bad situation worse. You have already been informed by your Chief of Police and your own Fire Department Chief that they WOULD NOT recommend or support adding hundreds of addi tional living domiciles in this area. You are literally playing with fire AGAIN.

Secondly, the existing land use designation is such to provide services to the current populati on living east of the 55 freeway. Since the "mandatory lock-downs" of the COVID-19 era, we have yet to see a resurgence in services and/or businesses available to the citizenry here in Anaheim. In fact, we have considerably less servi ces/busi nesses available now than we did over five years ago. It is plainly obvious by the graphics on the city's website that you seem to be focused on select BIG MONEY entertainment businesses ( e.g., Disneyland, Honda Center, etc.). However, you HAVE NOT created a pro-business environment in which to lure lucrative, job producing and service provision focused businesses to our city and district. Nor do we get the impression that you are pro-resident in your recent actions. We have lost two significant entertainment/theater businesses within the last five years in District 6 and nothing has been proposed to fill those service/ business voids. Yet, you continually seek to be courted by carpet bagging businesses who are not vested in or pay taxes to Anaheim...why is that? We are starting to believe that large, dark and corrupt money is the only thing that gets our city councimembers' attention. You consistently defer to big pocket corporations and I'm starting to question your motives. Seriously, you literally had two planning commission members admit on the dais during a public hearing that they participated in back hallway discussions that favored the proposing corporation -- this could be misconstrued as a violation of the Brown Act.

My third concern is that a high density apartment building has the potential to further strain existing and quite limited public services currently available to us. For example, this most recent past Fourth of July you centralized the phone reporting system regarding illegal fireworks usage. However, when we called to report illegal firework usage, the person answering the call didn't even know our street or where we lived in the city! Shameful!! You have not implemented or allocated sufficient services in our area. This proposal you are now considering will lead to further service limitations. We are losing our faith and trust in Anaheim' s City Council to make decisions in our best interest.

Lastly, our concern with a four-story commercial structure is not needed! At present, we already have at least 5 apartment complexes within one mile of each other. It is superfluous to add yet another! Further, it would lessen police and fire services available to us. Irecently was confronted by two angry people in the Target parking lot. Not having done anything other than just physically being there they were outraged by my presence at Target. They veered out of their lane, pulled in ront of my vehicle and prevent me feom moving. They blocked me in with their truck and prevented me from leaving. One person exited the the truck and began yelling at me all while using obscene figure gestures. The other person, the driver, continued inching closer to my vehicle. Iwas concerned for my safety and called for help from the police. In the current climate of public shooters and displays of violence, Iwas extremely scared. It took 20 to 30 minutes for any law enforcement help to arrive. They had another emergency to handle. Services are already stretched to the breaking point! We DO NOT need additional apartments further expanding our population out Please consider the thousands of people who already live and work in this particular area of your city. The lack of support for and the severe dislike of this current proposal is immense! Why do you keep pursui ng these types of proposals? Please DO NOT ignore the existing zoning and land use designations for this particular area. Please make a decision in the best interest of those who will be directly affected" PLEASE prohibit the passage of this proposal!! Please fight for your existing residents, taxpayers and citizenry. Please vote "No;" and, support your existing citizenry! Thank you in advance for your consideration and help!
Respectfully,
Karen Van Patten
312 South Anise Street
Anaheim, CA 92808
714-331-3313
ate: 2/25/2026 4:01:37 AM
From:" Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com
To:

The White House" communications@mail. whitehouse. gov, " Greggo Soto" greggosoto611@gmail. com, "Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubselnad@gmail. com, "U.S. Department of Justice" [email protected], "OC Women2Women" confirmations@godaddy. com, "Olivia Selmanson" olivia.selmanson@ocpubde f.com, [email protected]" [email protected], " webmaster@riversideca. gov" webmaster@riverside ca.gov, [email protected]" [email protected], "donald.wagner@ocgov. com" [email protected], Mhines" [email protected], "Public Comment" publiccomment@anahe im.net, "Arthur M. Guo" [email protected], " marystss@guardiansc. com" marystss@guardiansc. com, management@parishiltonentertainment. com" management@parishiltonente rtainment.com, mayor.scheduling@lacity. org" mayor.scheduling@lacity. org, " Mayor" [email protected], "Tax Mail" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected] .gov, " Bruns, Melanie" MBruns@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], "Tigtacommunications" TIGTAcommunications@tigta. treas.gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], "Cervantes, Clarissa" ccervantes@riversideca. gov, " Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea+newsletter@mail8. housecommunications. gov, " Granicus Custome rSupport" support@granicus. com, "City Clerk" [email protected], " Castrejon, Jacob" JCastrejon@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" leads@wilshire lawfirm.com, "legal@ane dot.com" [email protected], "Forever 21" reply-fefb1370726105- [email protected], fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov" fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov, " Fox News" [email protected], "Facebook" security@facebookmail. com, "FidelityNotification@fmr. com" FidelityNotification@fmr. com, "Fraser, Kelsy" [email protected], " Ralphs" reply-fe9217757666037871- [email protected], Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com, "ratings@martindale. com" ratings@martindale. com, "Robert" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], " Rare Beauty" hello@rare beauty.com, [email protected]" [email protected], "Natnatnathalie@gmail. com" Natnatnathalie@gmail. com, Nadiarosesoto1220" nadiarosesoto1220@gmail. com, "Nostonersallowed1" nostonersallowed1@gmail. com, "Voiceofoc" voiceofoc@protonmail. com, "info@ocwomen2women. org" info@ocwomen2women. org, " [email protected]" [email protected], "info@anwarlawoffices. com" info@anwarlawoffices. com, "[email protected]" Inspections_ Helpdesk@rivco. org, " lola.hahn@mail. house. gov" lola.hahn@mail. house. gov, " Lori Smith" esquiresmith1089@yahoo. com, " Lisa Speranzo" lsperanzo@forthepeople. com, " Berenice Ballinas" BBallinas@anaheim. net, " Babeerue" Babeerue@sbcglobal. net, " Johnny Ogata, Esq." attorneyjohnny@wilshirelawfirm. com, " Jacquelyn@adrianasinsurance. com" Jacque lyn@adrianasinsurance. com, [email protected]" [email protected], "Kylie jenner" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], "pughflorencerose@gmail. com" pughflorence [email protected], paysoninn@gmail. com" paysoninn@gmail. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], " Apetrousian" apetrousian@forthepeople. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], " steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov" steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Riverside City council meeting l shaming men Christians Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
https://youtube. com/watch?v=X8qaZei8BE8& feature= shared ate: 2/26/2026 8:57:02 AM
From:" Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com
To:

The White House" communications@mail. whitehouse. gov, " Greggo Soto" greggosoto611@gmail. com, "Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubselnad@gmail. com, "U.S. Department of Justice" [email protected], "OC Women2Women" confirmations@godaddy. com, "Olivia Selmanson" olivia.selmanson@ocpubde f.com, [email protected]" [email protected], " Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, " [email protected]" [email protected], "paysoninn@gmail. com" paysoninn@gmail. com, "pughflorence [email protected]" pughflorencerose@gmail. com, "[email protected]" [email protected] .gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" Inspections_Helpdesk@rivco. org, " Rare Beauty" hello@rarebeauty. com, "Ruben Hood" [email protected], webmaster@riversideca. gov" webmaster@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "Cervantes, Clarissa" ccervantes@riversideca. gov, " Rep. Lou Correa" [email protected]. gov, Granicus Customer Support" support@granicus. com, "City Clerk" [email protected], " Castrejon, Jacob" JCastrejon@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], " Johnny Ogata, Esq." attorneyjohnny@wilshirelawfirm. com, "[email protected]" jeff.gennette@gmail. com, Jacquelyn@adrianasinsurance. com" Jacquelyn@adrianasinsurance. com, "Kylie jenner" [email protected], Mhines" [email protected], " marystss@guardiansc. com" marystss@guardiansc. com, "Mayor" [email protected], mayor.scheduling@lacity. org" mayor.scheduling@lacity. org, " management@parishiltone ntertainme nt.com" management@parishiltonentertainment. com, "Tax Mail" [email protected], " Bruns, Melanie" MBruns@riversideca. gov, " Fraser, Kelsy" [email protected], "ratings@martindale .com" ratings@martindale. com, Robert" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], " Ralphs" reply-fe9217757666037871- 188_HTML-304964379-7201046-2246@e .krogermail.com, Forever 21" reply-fefb1370726105- [email protected], steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov" steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov, " Lori Smith" esquiresmith1089@yahoo. com, Lisa Speranzo" lsperanzo@forthepeople. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], "Fox News" [email protected], "Natnatnathalie@gmail. com" Natnatnathalie@gmail. com, "Nadiarosesoto1220" nadiarosesoto1220@gmail. com, "Nostonersallowed1" nostonersallowed1@gmail. com, "Arthur M. Guo" AMGuo@anaheim. net, " Apetrousian" apetrousian@forthepeople. com, " adam.shaw2@fox. com" adam.shaw2@fox. com, fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov" fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov, " FidelityNotification@fmr. com" FidelityNotification@fmr. com, Facebook" security@facebookmail. com, " Berenice Ballinas" BBallinas@anahe im.net, "Babeerue" Babeerue@sbcglobal. net, " info@ocwomen2women. org" info@ocwomen2wome n.org, " info@kroge r.com" [email protected], "info@anwarlawoffices. com" info@anwarlawoffices. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "Tigtacommunications" TIGTAcommunications@tigta. treas.gov Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Watch "# going to taste a little of Paris Hilton Delight FULLNESS" onYouTube Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
https://youtube. com/shorts/9V7hhQBUXIw? si=UBumQ1aPVk7JkEbV ate: 2/26/2026 4:01:15 PM
From:" Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com
To:

The White House" communications@mail. whitehouse. gov, " Greggo Soto" greggosoto611@gmail. com, "Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubselnad@gmail. com, "U.S. Department of Justice" [email protected], "OC Women2Women" confirmations@godaddy. com, "Olivia Selmanson" olivia.selmanson@ocpubde f.com, [email protected]" [email protected], " webmaster@riversideca. gov" webmaster@riverside ca.gov, [email protected]" [email protected], "donald.wagner@ocgov. com" [email protected], "Public Comment" [email protected], "Arthur M. Guo" [email protected], "fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov" fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov, " Fraser, Kelsy" [email protected], " FidelityNotification@fmr. com" FidelityNotification@fmr. com, "Forever 21" reply-fefb1370726105- 340_HTML-105120244-515011048- [email protected], "Ralphs" reply-fe9217757666037871- 188_HTML-304964379-7201046-2246@e .krogermail.com, [email protected]" [email protected], "Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea+newsletter@mail8. housecommunications. gov, " [email protected]" legal@ane dot.com, "Lori Smith" esquiresmith1089@yahoo. com, "Lisa Speranzo" lsperanzo@forthepeople. com, "[email protected] .gov" [email protected], " Berenice Ballinas" [email protected], " Babeerue " [email protected], " Rare Beauty" hello@rarebeauty. com, "Bruns, Melanie" MBruns@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "Cervante s, Clarissa" ccervantes@riversideca. gov, " Granicus Customer Support" support@granicus. com, "City Clerk" [email protected], Castrejon, Jacob" JCastrejon@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], Johnny Ogata, Esq." attorneyjohnny@wilshirelawfirm. com, "marystss@guardiansc. com" marystss@guardiansc. com, Mayor" [email protected], "mayor.scheduling@lacity. org" mayor.scheduling@lacity. org, management@parishiltonentertainment. com" management@parishiltonente rtainment.com, [email protected]" [email protected], " Tax Mail" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], "Tigtacommunications" TIGTAcommunications@tigta. treas.gov, " Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com, "ratings@martindale. com" ratings@martindale. com, "Robert" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], " steelM18LD3341@mail. house .gov" steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], "paysoninn@gmail. com" paysoninn@gmail. com, " pughflorencerose@gmail. com" pughflorencerose@gmail. com, " piar@dss. ca.gov" piar@dss. ca.gov, " jeff.gennette@gmail. com" jeff.gennette@gmail. com, " Kylie jenner" kylie jennerkj26@gmail. com, " Fox News" email@inbox2. foxnews. com, " Nadiarosesoto1220" nadiarosesoto1220@gmail. com, " Natnatnathalie@gmail. com" Natnatnathalie@gmail. com, " Nostonersallowed1" nostonersallowed1@gmail. com, " Inspe ctions_ Helpdesk@rivco. org" Inspections_Helpdesk@rivco. org, "info@ocwomen2women. org" info@ocwomen2women. org, " [email protected]" [email protected], "Facebook" security@facebookmail. com, "info@anwarlawoffice s.com" info@anwarlawoffices. com, Voiceofoc" voiceofoc@protonmail. com
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Watch "this is your consequencefor your actions everybody involved not godly at all" on YouTube Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
https://youtube. com/shorts/Jvf_axIQevw?si=NLkSa19qa9impKgP ate: 2/26/2026 7:29:59 PM
From:" Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com
To:

The White House" communications@mail. whitehouse. gov, " Greggo Soto" greggosoto611@gmail. com, "Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubselnad@gmail. com, "U.S. Department of Justice" [email protected], "OC Women2Women" confirmations@godaddy. com, "Olivia Selmanson" olivia.selmanson@ocpubde f.com, [email protected]" [email protected], " webmaster@riversideca. gov" webmaster@riverside ca.gov, [email protected]" [email protected], "donald.wagner@ocgov. com" [email protected], info@ocwomen2women. org" info@ocwomen2women. org, "[email protected]" info@kroge r.com, info@anwarlawoffices. com" info@anwarlawoffices. com, "[email protected]" Inspections_Helpdesk@rivco. org, "[email protected]" taisa.theandra@gmail. com, "Tigtacommunications" TIGTAcommunications@tigta. treas.gov, " Tax Mail" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "Cervante s, Clarissa" ccervantes@riversideca. gov, " Granicus Customer Support" support@granicus. com, "Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea+newsletter@mail8. housecommunications. gov, " City Clerk" [email protected], " Castrejon, Jacob" JCastrejon@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], " Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com, "ratings@martindale. com" ratings@martindale. com, "Rare Beauty" hello@rarebeauty. com, Robert" [email protected], "Forever 21" reply-fefb1370726105- 340_HTML-105120244-515011048- [email protected], "Ralphs" reply-fe9217757666037871- 188_HTML-304964379-7201046-2246@e .krogermail.com, [email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], " Lori Smith" esquiresmith1089@yahoo. com, "Lisa Speranzo" lsperanzo@forthepeople. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], "mayor.scheduling@lacity. org" mayor.scheduling@lacity. org, " [email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], " Johnny Ogata, Esq." attorneyjohnny@wilshirelawfirm. com, Jacquelyn@adrianasinsurance. com" Jacquelyn@adrianasinsurance. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], "Kylie jenner" kyliejennerkj26@gmail. com, "Natnatnathalie@gmail. com" Natnatnathalie@gmail. com, "Fox News" [email protected], "Nostonersallowe d1" nostonersallowed1@gmail. com, "Nadiarosesoto1220" nadiarosesoto1220@gmail. com, "Fraser, Kelsy" [email protected], " Mhines" [email protected], "Public Comment" publiccomme nt@anahe im.net, marystss@guardiansc. com" marystss@guardiansc. com, " Mayor" mayor@ocfl. net, management@parishiltonentertainment. com" management@parishiltonente rtainment. com, Mariana.Perera@mail. house. gov" Mariana.Perera@mail. house. gov, " Bruns, Melanie " MBruns@rive rsideca. gov, Berenice Ballinas" BBallinas@anaheim. net, " Babeerue" Babeerue@sbcglobal. net, " fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov" fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov, " Facebook" security@facebookmail. com, "FidelityNotification@fmr. com" FidelityNotification@fmr. com, "Arthur M. Guo" [email protected], "Apetrousian" apetrousian@forthepeople. com, amerilegalparalegainc@gmail. com" amerilegalparalegainc@gmail. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov" steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov, " Voiceofoc" voiceofoc@protonmail. com, paysoninn@gmail. com" paysoninn@gmail. com, "pughflorencerose@gmail. com" pughflorence [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected]
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Watch "# nothing but abuse senior abuse family abuse Christian abuse Financial abusea true patrio tUSA" on YouTube
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
https://youtube. com/shorts/VfwtNbybIXc? si=ZPBhgO_ Let9TsYSw ate: 2/28/2026 8:24:57 AM
From:" Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com
To:

The White House" communications@mail. whitehouse. gov, " Greggo Soto" greggosoto611@gmail. com, "Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubselnad@gmail. com, "U.S. Department of Justice" [email protected], "OC Women2Women" confirmations@godaddy. com, "Olivia Selmanson" olivia.selmanson@ocpubde f.com, [email protected]" [email protected], " webmaster@riversideca. gov" webmaster@riverside ca.gov, info@ocwomen2women. org" info@ocwomen2women. org, " Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com, [email protected]" [email protected], "Robert" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], " Rare Beauty" hello@rarebeauty. com, "Ralphs" reply-fe9217757666037871- 188_HTML[email protected], "Forever 21" reply-fefb1370726105- 340_HTML-105120244-515011048- [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "Granicus Custome rSupport" support@granicus. com, "Lisa Speranzo" lsperanzo@forthepeople. com, "Jacquelyn@adrianasinsurance .com" Jacquelyn@adrianasinsurance. com, "Kylie jenner" kyliejennerkj26@gmail. com, "Fraser, Kelsy" [email protected], Lori Smith" esquiresmith1089@yahoo. com, "[email protected]" [email protected] .gov, " Berenice Ballinas" [email protected], "Babeerue" Babeerue@sbcglobal. net, "Bruns, Melanie " MBruns@riversideca. gov, Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Arthur M. Guo" AMGuo@anahe im.net, "[email protected]" [email protected], "Apetrousian" apetrousian@forthepeople. com, "steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov" steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov, " info@anwarlawoffices. com" info@anwarlawoffices. com, "Cervante s, Clarissa" ccervantes@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected] .gov, [email protected]" [email protected], "Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea+newsletter@mail8. housecommunications. gov, " City Clerk" [email protected], fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov" fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov, " Fox News" [email protected], FidelityNotification@fmr. com" FidelityNotification@fmr. com, "taisa.theandra@gmail. com" taisa.theandra@gmail. com, Tax Mail" [email protected], " Tigtacommunications" TIGTAcommunications@tigta. treas.gov, [email protected]" Inspections_Helpdesk@rivco. org, "[email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" donald.wagner@ocgov. com, "Nadiarosesoto1220" nadiarosesoto1220@gmail. com, "Johnny Ogata, Esq." attorneyjohnny@wilshire lawfirm.com, "Nostonersallowed1" nostonersallowed1@gmail. com, "Natnatnathalie@gmail. com" Natnatnathalie @gmail.com, "[email protected]" chris.pandolfo@fox. com, " pughflorencerose@gmail. com" pughflorencerose@gmail. com, " piar@dss. ca.gov" piar@dss. ca.gov, " paysoninn@gmail. com" paysoninn@gmail. com, " Mariana.Perera@mail. house. gov" Mariana.Perera@mail. house. gov, " leads@wilshirelawfirm. com" leads@wilshire lawfirm.com, " legal@ane dot.com" legal@anedot. com, " ratings@martindale. com" ratings@martindale. com Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Watch "# Leon Thomas I'ma dog not a mutt" onYouTube Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
https://youtube. com/shorts/rjj6VSiYEps? si=lC_z3vog6cwi4gyx ate: 2/25/2026 1:42:39 PM
From:" Craig ADurfey" [email protected]
To:

Craig Durfey" [email protected], "Ryan Durfey" [email protected], "Nick Dibs" [email protected], Waldoch, Sam" [email protected], " PIO Department" pio_department@ggusd. us, " Senator Gonzalez" senator.gonzalez@senate. ca.gov, " Boman, Adam" [email protected], " david.ochoa@se n.ca.gov" [email protected], " shea.committee@senate. ca.gov" shea.committee@senate .ca.gov, " Assemblymember Davies" assemblymember.davies@assembly. ca.gov, " sedn.committee@senate. ca.gov" sedn.committe [email protected], reploucorrea@mail. house.gov" reploucorrea@mail. house.gov, " ocbe@ocde. us" ocbe@ocde .us, " WalterMuneton" [email protected], " Gabriela Mafi" [email protected], " Teri Rocco" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], "'" [email protected]"'" [email protected], " Bob Harden" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], assemblymember.muratsuchi@assembly. ca.gov" assemblymember.muratsuchi@asse mbly.ca.gov, " Don Barnes" [email protected], " LizVasquez" [email protected], " vicente.sarmiento@ocgov. com" [email protected], Nguyen, Janet" janet.nguyen@ocgov. com, "Lan Nguyen" [email protected], " Dina Nguyen" [email protected], " Haldor Larum" hlarum@cityofirvine. org, " JONATHAN@GGPD. ORG" [email protected], ggpdpio@ggcity. org" ggpdpio@ggcity. org, " Lisa Kim" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine. org" irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine .org, " Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, " COB_Response" response@ocgov. com, "Supervisor Donald P. Wagner" donald.wagner@ocgov. com, "admin@voiceofoc. org" [email protected], " Jim Tortolano" orangecountytribune@gmail. com, "Flynn, Lara" [email protected], " Hess, Logan" [email protected], " King, Riana" [email protected], " Murawski, Lisa" [email protected], " Brooks, Eliza" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], Kelley, Chelsea" [email protected], " Public Records Request" [email protected], Whill@Cityofirvine. org"'" whill@cityofirvine. org, " Lieberman, Tanya" [email protected], " Look, Debbie" [email protected], " Ries, Marguerite" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " George Brietigam" [email protected], "Gabriela Mafi" [email protected], " Jeffrey Layland" [email protected], " stephaniek" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], joedovinh@gmail. com" joedovinh@gmail. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], " Bob Harden" bob.harden@ggusd. us, " Lan Nguyen" lan.nguyen@ggusd. us Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Fw: Big Tech’s Big Tobacco Moment Has Arrived Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unle ss you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

From: Crai g A Durfe y <cadurfey@gmail. com>
Se nt: We dne sday, Fe bruary 25, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Craig Durf ey <cadurf ey@gmai l .com>; Maure en Blackmun < maureen. ggna@gmail. com> Subje ct: Fw : Big Te ch’ s Big Tobacco Mome nt Has Arri ved From: Mothe rs Agai nst Me di a Addicti on <info@wearemama. org> Se nt: We dne sday, Fe bruary 25, 2026 12: 00 PM
To: CRA IG A DURFEY < CaDURFEY@GMAIL. COM>
Subje ct: Bi g Te ch’ s Bi g Tobacco Moment Has Arrive d Parents who say their children died because of social media harm stood outside the courthouse where Meta CEO Mark Zuck erberg testified last week . PHOTO BY TOM EDWARDS, COURTESY OF HEAT INITIATIVE Dear CRAIG,
The world’ s eyes were on a California courtroom last Wednesday, when Meta CEO Mark Zuc kerberg took the stand in a landmark lawsuit alleging ( with overwhelming evidenc e) that his company ’ s produc ts are intentionally designed to addict children.

Unsurprisingly, Zuc kerberg’ s testimony was full of spin, evasions and outright lies. Most notably, he lied about the link between social media use and poor mental health among children. In fact, even Meta’ s own research has shown that inc reased time on Instagram worsens anxiety, depression, body- image issues, and the risk of eating disorders, especially for girls.

When asked what his message would be to parents who say their children were harmed by social media, Zuckerberg had no response. The reason is simple: he knows very well the harm that Meta has caused and is desperately trying to avoid admitting it.

I am so proud that members of our MAMA movement, including a Los Angeles Chapter Leader, Julie Frumin, were outside the courtroom on Wednesday, demanding that Zuc kerberg and his fellow Big Tec h leaders face accountability for how their produc ts have exploited and manipulated our children.

The results of this trial will have nationwide implications for how soc ial media companies target kids. But we’re not waiting for the courts to act. All over the country , parents and lawmakers are continuing to push for policies that protect kids from addictive tec h.

Last Thursday , I joined New Jersey parents and advocates to testify at a hearing in support of two essential pieces of state legislation: one that would implement the Kids Code in New Jersey, and another that would require mental health warning labels on social media platforms.

I was deeply moved by the parents who spoke at a press conferenc e before the hearing.

One of them, MAMA member Laura Miranda- Browne, spoke powerfully about how her daughter was able to ac cess violent content via a school- issued tablet, inc luding horrify ing portrayals of her favorite cartoon character, and how this disturbing experienc e inspired Laura to take action:

I am here today, to advocate for my children, and all the kids in New Jersey. Because no child should end up addicted and exploited by online platforms, and in turn, traumatized by violence, hate speech or pornographic images when they are just trying to watch an episode of Hello Kitty.”
Right now, thanks to parents demanding justice and lawmakers responding with ac tion, Big Tec h is having its Big Tobac co moment. The world is clearly seeing how these companies take advantage of our kids, putting children’ s health at risk to boost their bottom lines. If we keep up our fight, we can ensure they are finally held to account.

Not backing down,
Julie
Updates from MAMA HQ
When her child’ s homework bec ame screen- based and exposed him to an AI chatbot, that was the breaking point. In this powerful interview with CBC Radio, MAMA Westlake Village, CA Chapter Leader Julie Frumin speaks out about the gamification of learning, its impac t on kids’ attention, and why every child deserves a real, screen- free option at school.

LISTEN HERE
Above: thatwould Advocates from MAMA, Design it For Us, and Parents Rise! came out in force in Trenton, NJ last week to support bills strengthen protections for children online and increase accountability for social media platforms. Below, Dr. Carol Pak- Teng testified morepredatory, that “ presentations to the emergency department by children have only exponentially grown with the development of addictive algorithms.”
Last week, MAMA Founder Julie Scelfo joined parent activists, Survivor Parent Erin Popolo, Assembly Speaker Craig J. Coughlin, and advocates from Design It For Us in New Jersey to advoc ate for a three- bill legislative package, inc luding the New Jersey Kids Code Act, designed to protec t children from the harms of social media. Introduc ed by Assemblywoman Andrea Katz , the legislation would require platforms to implement strong, safety -by -design protections for minors and limit how children’ s personal data is collected and used.

At an Assembly Scienc e, Tec hnology, and Innovation Committee hearing on the bills, mom and psyc hologist Dr. Lauren Venuto provided testimony underscoring the importanc e of establishing a clear “ duty of care” to children for social media companies – requiring them to create guardrails that protec t young users from harm – and urged lawmakers to shift responsibility for protec ting children from families to the companies building these platforms. Other MAMA members, including NJ business owner Laur a Mir anda- Browne and Dr. Carol Pak- Teng, a board- certified emergency physician, also provided powerful testimony , and the pac kage advanced out of Committee that afternoon! We’re proud to see legislation
moving swiftly to strengthen
protections for children’ s online
privacy and require clear, visible
warnings about the risks
embedded in soc ial media
platforms.

Start a Chapter Today!
Interested in starting your own chapter?
Join us at our next Info Session March 19th, at 1pm ET to learn more or click here to fill out an interest form!

REGISTER HERE
News You Need
SHOCKING Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri testified in the ongoing landmark soc ial media addiction trial that using Instagram for 16 hours a day is not necessarily addic tion, instead saying that it sounds like " problematic use.” After leaving the courthouse, Mosseri was met by protestors, inc luding parents of children whose mental health has been harmed by his company ’ s platform.

LIMITS On Monday , Attorney General Jay Jones announced his offic e will fully enforce the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, a major step toward restoring digital guardrails that would limit kids under 18 to one hour of social media use per day . This " safety by design" vic tory aims to shift the burden of regulation from parents to platforms. The state also filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit from NetChoice seeking to bloc k the polic y, taking a firm stand against tech giants who prioritize addictive engagement over children' s mental health.

ABUSE West Virginia Attorney General John “ JB” McCuskey filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging the company ’ s iCloud and iOS software fail to adequately curb child sexual abuse material ( CSAM). CNBC notes that, unlike some other major tech companies, Apple does not use software that can automatically detect CSAM and report it to authorities.

LEGISLATION A bipartisan group of 40 state attorneys general wrote a letter to Congressional leaders urging passage of the Senate- approved version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). The AGs explain that the legislation is crucial, given that social media companies are “ aware of the adverse mental health consequences imposed on underage users” by their platforms but have not made the necessary changes to stop this crisis.

PARTING The National PTA has officially ended its long- standing partnership with Meta, a move widely celebrated by child safety advocates and survivor families. After receiving funding from Meta sinc e 2017, the organization announced it will not seek renewal of its PTA Connec ted" digital safety program for 2026, citing " heightened public scrutiny " and the ongoing legal trials surrounding Meta’ s impact on youth.

LEADERS Matthew P. Bergman and Laura Marquez- Garrett were honored in TIM E100 Health 2026 for leading the Social Media Victims Law Center in holding tec h companies acc ountable for the mental health harms of social media and AI, inc luding cases where children were driven to suicide.

DEEPFAKES Ac cording to new, large- scale research by UNICEF, ECPAT and INTERPOL through the Disrupting Harm project, at least 1.2 million children ac ross 11 countries report they were victims of sexually explicit deepfakes in the past year.

GLOBAL The UN General Assembly has voted to create the first-ever scientific panel on AI to assess global risks, opportunities, and societal impacts. The U.S. was one of only two nations opposed to the move, say ing it could " stifle the development of cross- cutting and cutting- edge tec hnologies that will determine economic and strategic competition in the twenty- first century .”
BRAIN SCIENCE On a recent episode of Steven Bartlett' s The Diar y of A CEO podcast, entitled Brain Rot Emergency : These Internal Documents Prove They’ re Controlling You!, social psy chologist Jonathan Haidt and Harvard physician Dr . Aditi Ner urkar go deep on the neurobiological processes critical in childhood for well- being — and how tech addiction ( and espec ially short- form content) actively wire the brain for poor mental health and distrac ted thinking. This episode is truly worth a listen.

MERCH Stock up on all Winter items! Enjoy our MAMA
Merch from our online store. All proceeds support MAMA.

MAMA' S BOOKSHOP Looking for resources about raising children with tec hnology? Or may be you're just wanting to know more about the growing impact of AI? Look no further than our bookshop! We have carefully curated essential reads for understanding the impact of tech and media on our children' s lives.

Big Tech continues to put profits over children’ s safety— but together, we’re fighting back. With the support of parents and advocates like you, MAMA is leading a powerful, nationwide movement to protect kids from online harms.

Become a monthly sustaining donor now to fuel this growing movement and create a safer, healthier future for children.

DONATE
Mothers Against Media Addiction, Inc.
700 Columbus Ave
New York, NY 10025
United States
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longerreceive email from us, please unsubscribe. ate: 2/25/2026 8:15:45 PM
From:" durfeycraig778@gmail. com" durfeycraig778@gmail. com To:

Craig ADurfey'" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], "' Teri Rocco'" [email protected], "' PIO Department'" [email protected], "' Bob Harden'" [email protected], "' Dina Nguyen'" [email protected], "' Lan Nguyen'" [email protected], " stephaniek@ggcity. org" stephaniek@ggcity. org, senator.umberg@senate. ca.gov" senator.umberg@senate. ca.gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], "' Gabriela Mafi'" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], [email protected]" sbe@cde. ca.gov, " SHEA.Committee@senate. ca.gov" SHEA.Committee@senate .ca.gov, "' Devon Atkinson'" datkinson@ocde. us, " [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], Lisa Kim'" [email protected], "' Public Records Request'" [email protected], "' George Brietigam'" [email protected], " yeseniam@ggcity. org" [email protected], "Superintendent@cde .ca.gov" Superintendent@cde. ca.gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " SEDN.committee@senate. ca.gov" SEDN.committee@senate .ca.gov, hlarum@cityofirvine. org | cityofirvine.org" hlarum@cityofirvine. org | cityofirvine.org, " [email protected]" [email protected], "admin@voiceofoc. org" [email protected], "irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine. org" irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine. org, "' Jeffrey Layland'" [email protected], " City.Council@surfcity- hb.org" City.Council@surfcity- hb.org, " Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "' Nick Dibs'" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], " Don Barnes" [email protected], " SHEA.Committee@senate .ca.gov" SHEA.Committee@senate. ca.gov, " REPLOUCORREA@MAIL. HOUSE.GOV" REPLOUCORREA@MAIL. HOUSE.GOV, "response@ocgov. com" response@ocgov. com, "ocbe@ocde .us" ocbe@ocde. us, " JONATHAN@GGPD. ORG" JONATHAN@GGPD. ORG, "' Craig A Durfey'" [email protected] Subject:[ EXTERNAL] The Case forScreen-Free Schools: Protecting Kids' Minds & Characte rwith Dr. KathleenO'Toole (#256) Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

P.R. D. D.C.)(

CHILDRENPARENTS PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELELOPMENTALLY OPMENTAL LY DISABLEDED CHIL DREN CRAIG A. DURFEYEY FOUNDER FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C.
42P. P.O.BOX 200101 GARDEN GROVE, CA 92884 2
8CELL CEL L 714- 14 -321-1-8238 23
COMCADURFEY@GMAIL. CADURFEY@ GMAIL. COM
COMSOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS. SOCIAL EMOTIONALPAWS. COM
DURFEYFACEBOOK: FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY
U ..S. HOUSE OU SE OF CONGRESS GRESS H2 40 4 - HONORING HONORING CRAIG DURFEYDURFEY FOROR HIS FIGHT IG HT AGAINST AGAINST AUTISM ... AU TISM ... Ms. ORETTALORETTA L SANCHEZSANCHEZ of Californ California. ia.
dfhttps:// https:// www. goovinfo. fo .gov/v/content/ co nte nt/pkg/ kg /CREC- 2003- 00 3-03-3-27/ 7/pdf/ df/CREC- 200 3-03-27.pdf new website orgsocialemotionalpaws. socialemotionalpaws. org What happens happens when schools schools trade screens screens for books, discussion, discussion, and teacher- teacher- led classrooms? classrooms? In this powerful powerful episode episode of The ScreenStrong ScreenStrong Families Families Podcast, Podcast, host Mandee Hamann welcomes welcomes Dr.

Kathleen Kathleen O’ Toole, Associate Associate Vice President President for K–12 Education Education at Hillsdale Hillsdale College, College, to explore explore whywhy screen- screen- free learning learning is essential essential for children’ children’ s mental health, health, intellectual intellectual growth, growth, and civic formation. formation. classicalDr. Dr. O’Toole leads Hillsdale’ Hillsdale’ s nationwide nationwide K–12 Education Education Office, Office, supporting supporting a growing growing network network of classical schools schools committed committed to teacher- teacher- led classrooms, classrooms, rich curriculum, curriculum, and the cultivation cultivation andof of moral character and incivic civic virtue. virtue. In a culture culture increasingly increasingly driven by devices, devices, personalized personalized learning learning algorithms, algorithms, and now AI in the classroom, classroom, Hillsdale’ Hillsdale’ s approach approach offers a strikingly strikingly different different model— one rooted in wonder, wonder, truth, beauty, and human connection.

Together, Together, Mandee and Dr. O’ Toole discuss: discuss:
learningWhy Why teacher- teacher- led classrooms classrooms can never be replaced replaced by “ student- student- centered” centered” digital digital learning thinkingHow How screen- screen- free education education strengthens strengthens focus, retention, retention, and deep thinking schoolsCommon Common misconceptions about technology in schools discourseReal Real examples examples of students students engaging engaging in thoughtful thoughtful disagreement disagreement and civil discourse ClassroomInsights Insights from Dr. O’Toole’ s article article Citizenship Citizenship Starts in the Classroom quietlyIf If you’ ve ever wondered wondered whether whether all that classroom classroom technology technology is truly helping helping children— children— or quietly harming harming their ability ability to think, reason, reason, and flourish— flourish— this conversation conversation will challenge challenge and encourage you. isYou’ You’ ll walk away with clarity, clarity, practical practical next steps, and renewed renewed confidence confidence that a better path forward forward is possible.
showSupport Support the show
bringDon' Don' t forget to subscribe, subscribe, rate, and leave a review if you enjoy the episode. episode. Your feedback feedback helps us bring you more of the content content you love. Stay Strong! Strong! Get your copy of the BRAND NEW Adventures Adventures of Super Brain book! Start your ScreenStrong Journey today!
Check out our Kids' Brains & Brains & Screens Screens products. products.

ScreenStrongWant Want to help spread the ScreenStrong ScreenStrong message message to your community? community? Consider Consider becoming becoming a ScreenStrong Ambassador!
RecommendationsScreenStrong ScreenStrong Tech Recommendations Canopy— Canopy— Device Filter ( Filter ( use code STRONG for discount) discount) Production Team:

HempeHost: Host: Melanie Hempe
KernekinProducer & Producer & Audio Editor: Olivia Kernekin The Case for Screen- Screen- Free Schoo… - Schoo… - PodcastsScreenStrong ScreenStrong Families - Apple Podcasts ate: 2/26/2026 4:08:52 PM
From:" Craig ADurfey" [email protected]
To:

Craig Durfey" [email protected], "Ryan Durfey" [email protected], "sedn.committee@senate .ca.gov" sedn.committee@senate. ca.gov, " Nick Dibs" [email protected], "Waldoch, Sam" [email protected], " PIO Department" [email protected], " Senator Gonzalez" senator.gonzalez@senate .ca.gov, " Boman, Adam" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " shea.committee@senate. ca.gov" shea.committee@senate. ca.gov, " reploucorrea@mail. house.gov" reploucorrea@mail. house.gov, assemblymember.muratsuchi@assembly. ca.gov" assemblymember.muratsuchi@asse mbly.ca.gov, " ocbe@ocde. us" ocbe@ocde. us, " Assemblymember Davies" assemblymember.davies@assembly. ca.gov, " Walter Muneton" [email protected], " Tyler Peterson" tyler@soutahappraisalservice s.com, "Gabriela Mafi" [email protected], Teri Rocco" [email protected], " Bob Harden" [email protected], " JONATHAN@GGPD. ORG" [email protected], " ggpdpio@ggcity. org" ggpdpio@ggcity. org, " Don Barnes" [email protected], " Haldor Larum" hlarum@cityofirvine. org, " COB_Response" response@ocgov. com, "Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer" terra.lawsonremer@sdcounty. ca.gov, " ocbe@ocde. us" ocbe@ocde. us, " Public Records Request" [email protected], " Public Comment" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine. org" irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine. org Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Instagram plans to notify parents if teens 'repeatedly' search suicide-related terms Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Craig Durfey
To whom it may concern
I thought you would be interested in this story I found on MSN: Instagram plans to notify parents if teens ' repeatedly' search suicide- related terms https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/instagram- plans- to-notify-parents- if-teens- repeatedly- search- suicide- related- terms/ar-AA1X9M3v? ocid=socialshare
ate: 2/26/2026 5:09:38 PM
From:" Craig ADurfey" [email protected]
To:

Craig Durfey" [email protected], "Ryan Durfey" [email protected], "sedn.committee@senate .ca.gov" sedn.committee@senate. ca.gov, " Rosales, Rosie" [email protected], " Nick Dibs" nickdibs1@gmail. com, Waldoch, Sam" [email protected], " PIO Department" pio_department@ggusd. us, " Senator Gonzalez" senator.gonzalez@senate. ca.gov, " Boman, Adam" [email protected], " david.ochoa@se n.ca.gov" [email protected], " shea.committee@senate. ca.gov" shea.committee@senate .ca.gov, " Assemblymember Davies" assemblymember.davies@assembly. ca.gov, " reploucorrea@mail. house.gov" reploucorre [email protected] .gov, assemblymember.muratsuchi@assembly. ca.gov" assemblymember.muratsuchi@asse mbly.ca.gov, " ocbe@ocde. us" ocbe@ocde. us, " Walter Muneton" [email protected], " Gabriela Mafi" [email protected], " Teri Rocco" [email protected], " Don Barnes" [email protected], " Haldor Larum" hlarum@cityofirvine. org, JONATHAN@GGPD. ORG" [email protected], " ggpdpio@ggcity. org" ggpdpio@ggcity. org, " WalterMuneton" [email protected], " Teri Rocco" [email protected], " Dina Nguyen" [email protected], " Lan Nguyen" [email protected], " Jeffrey Layland" [email protected], " Bob Harden" [email protected], " Public Records Request" [email protected], " Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, " [email protected] .ca.us" [email protected], " irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine. org" irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine .org, Whill@Cityofirvine. org"'" whill@cityofirvine. org
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] I tried to manage my kids' screen time, then Irealized my own was out of control Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Craig Durfey
To whom it may concern
I thought you would be interested in this story I found on MSN: I tried to manage my kids' screen time, then I realized my own was out of control - https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/ parenting/i-tried- to-manage- my-kids- screen-time-then-i-realized- my-own-was- out-of-control/arAA1MQB0I? ocid=socialshare ate: 2/27/2026 10:05:18 AM
From:" jodie mosley" jodiemosley@yahoo. com
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] District 1
Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Every new council meeting agenda I wait for something, ANYTHING, mentioning anything helping district 1 in west Anaheim.

There is never, NEVER anything posted for the improvement of district 1.

Pay attention to that, and you will see how Anaheim is ignoring district 1.

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Date: 2/27/2026 1:16: 19 PM
From:" Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea@mail8. housecommunications. gov To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] State of the Union Update
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Hello,
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump delivered the annual State of the Union address to Congress, which I attended. In addition to the State of the Union, I had a busy week in Washington working for my constituents in California’ s 46 Congressional District.

Here are some highlights:

HONORING IMMIGRANTS AT THE STATE OF THE UNION
I was honored to invite Professor Oliver Lopez as my guest to the State of the Union on February 24th, 2026. After coming to this country undocumented at five years old, Oliver’ s strong work ethic led him to earn a PhD in biostatistics and become a mathematics professor at Chapman University. He was a DACA recipient, who became a U.S. Citizen in 2021. Oliver has consistently given back to his communit y by coaching soccer, tutoring kids, and volunteering at his son’s school. He embodies the American Dream and is a shining example of why immigrants make America stronger.

Dr. Lopez was interview ed by several news outlets, including KTLA, National Telemundo, National Univision, and Spectrum News, about his immigrant experience and speaking up for hard working undocumented immigrants who bring tremendous value to their communit ies.

Dr. Lope z and Re p. Correa inte rvie we d by a reporte r ahe ad the Pres ident’ s addres s

DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR EPSTEIN SURVIVORS
Before the President’ s State of the Union address, I spoke with Lisa Phillips, one of the brave Epstein survivors fearlessly pushing for justice. I stand with the victims and my other Congressional colleagues who are putting pressure on the Department of Justice to release all of the files and follow Europe’ s lead in holding Epstein’ s associates account able.

Ms . Phillips speaks with Rep. Correa on the House steps of the U.S. Capitol

LULAC PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD
The League of United Latin American Citizens ( LULAC) held their annual National Legislative Conference and Unity Awards Gala on Tuesday, where they presented me with a National Public Service Award. I am moved by the support, especially from an organization that strongly advocates for immigrants and civil rights.

Today, LULAC is lead plaintiff on a number of lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’ s illegal policies.

Re p. Correa ac cepts an award pre sente d by LUL AC

RECOGNIZING EXCELLENCE AT SANTA ANA HIGH SCHOOL
On Wednesday morning, I spoke on the House Floor to honor and recognize the Santa Ana High School girls wrestling team. These young ladies have a lot to be proud of. They have been Southern CIF, Empire League, Eastern Division, and Division One Duel Champions, and five wrestlers making it to the State CIF Finals. The team accomplished all this while also earning an average GPA of

3.48. I also want to thank their coaches for instilling leadership, hard work, and dedication into these talented athletes.

Go Saints!
R ep. Corre a speaks on the Hous e Floor

WORKING TO SECURE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR WORLD CUP SECURITY I have called on the Department of Homeland Security to release the $ 625M that Congress approved in World Cup security funding. Even with this funding, host cities will likely cover up to 200M in additional costs, and the LA area is set to host 8 matches. With the games starting in less than 4 months, cities need Sec. Kristi Noem to release the money. Nexst ar reporter Gabrielle Caracciolo interviewed me for KTLA on the topic.

KT LA interviews R ep. Corre a
My office is hosting a youth career and resource fair right here in Santa Ana — to connect our kids from grades 9 through 12 to local organizations offering mentorship, internships, employment preparedness, resume assistance, and so much more to help plan their future after high school. If this is something that interests you, or someone you know, please RSVP by filling out this form.

As always, I am committed to serving you, advocating for issues that matter to our community, and connecting you to important resources. If you are experiencing any issues with a federal agency, my office is here to help. Give us a call at (714) 559- 6190.

Sincerely,
Rep. Lou Correa
Member of Congress
Sign up for my newsletter to get updates on this issue and others! Sign Up!
Visit my website to learn more!
correa. house. gov
Contact Me
Washington D.C.
1039 Longworth House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202) 225- 2965
Santa Ana
Rancho Santiago
Community College Building
2323 N. Broadway, Suite 319
Santa Ana, CA 92706
714) 559- 6190
Unsubscribe from future messages.
ate: 3/1/2026 8:03:17 AM
From:" Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com
To:

The White House" communications@mail. whitehouse. gov, " Tax Mail" [email protected], webmaster@riversideca. gov" webmaster@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, "Arthur M. Guo" AMGuo@anahe im.net, "maribel.conteras8@tmobile.com" [email protected], "[email protected] .gov" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], "irene@grandmashouseofhope .org" irene@grandmashouseofhope. org, "Ibarra, Zachary" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], "illveladies5669@gmail. com" illveladies5669@gmail. com, ilovegirls5669@gmail. com" ilovegirls5669@gmail. com, "[email protected]" Inspections_Helpdesk@rivco. org, " Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea+newsletter@mail8. housecommunications. gov, Castrejon, Jacob" JCastrejon@riversideca. gov, " Cervantes, Clarissa" ccervante [email protected], " City Clerk" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], "Granicus Customer Support" support@granicus. com, "Eric O'Connor" ssmclub159@24hourfit. com, "[email protected]" FidelityNotification@fmr. com, "Robin Z" [email protected], "Rare Beauty" hello@rare beauty.com, "Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com, "ratings@martindale. com" ratings@martindale. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], " Robert" [email protected], "Johnny Ogata, Esq." attorneyjohnny@wilshirelawfirm. com, Apetrousian" apetrousian@forthepeople. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], alerts@neighborhoodalerts. com" alerts@neighborhoodalerts. com, "Berenice Ballinas" [email protected], " Bruns, Melanie" MBruns@riversideca. gov, " Babeerue" Babeerue@sbcglobal. net, " Lori Smith" esquiresmith1089@yahoo. com, [email protected]" [email protected], "fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov" fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov, " Facebook" security@facebookmail. com, "Fraser, Kelsy" [email protected], " 4694456508- [email protected]" 4694456508-nuup.fq9c.66mh.gswa@prope rty.booking.com, "Forever 21" reply-fefb1370726105- [email protected], "Ralphs" reply-fe9217757666037871- [email protected], "[email protected]" jeff.gennette@gmail. com, greggosoto611@gmail. com" greggosoto611@gmail. com, "[email protected] .gov" [email protected], Olivia Selmanson" olivia.selmanson@ocpubdef. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], "Vivian Johnson" vivanjohnson54455@gmail. com, "Johnny" [email protected], "Kylie jenner" kyliejennerkj26@gmail. com, " Jacquelynram@adrianainsurance. com" Jacquelynram@adrianainsurance . com, " Lisa Speranzo" lsperanzo@forthepeople. com, " leads@wilshirelawfirm. com" leads@wilshire lawfirm.com, " legal@anedot. com" legal@anedot. com, " Mhines" mhines@fullertonpd. org, " management@parishiltone ntertainme nt.com" management@parishiltonentertainment. com, " marystss@guardiansc. com" marystss@guardiansc. com, [email protected]" [email protected], " Mayor" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], " Natnatnathalie@gmail. com" Natnatnathalie @gmail.com, "Nadiarose soto1220" nadiarosesoto1220@gmail. com, "Nostonersallowed1" nostonersallowed1@gmail. com, "penpheara@gmail. com" penpheara@gmail. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], " pughflorence [email protected]" pughflorencerose@gmail. com, "paysoninn@gmail. com" paysoninn@gmail. com, "Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubselnad@gmail. com, "Sylvia Frias" [email protected], " steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov" steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov, " Tigtacommunications" TIGTAcommunications@tigta. treas.gov, [email protected]" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Amust see movie not Revenge what I'mdoing Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
https://youtu.be/WtbLjd9plDU? si=JIZg5CgXk05QJv45
ou don't often get email from jocelynpacheco14@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 7:52:19 AM
From:" Jocelyn" jocelynpacheco14@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Albert was ambushed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his house. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours. They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeless body onto the sidewalk.

Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working resident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and aspired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today! I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Justice for Albert Arzola!
ate: 3/2/2026 7:54:58 AM
From:" Carina Munoz" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! You don' t often get email from carmungom@icloud. com. Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Albert was ambus hed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his hous e. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours . They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeles s body onto the sidewalk.

Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working res ident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and as pired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today!
I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Jus tice for Albert Arzola!
Sent from my iPhone
ate: 3/2/2026 10:50:42 AM
From:" Ellena Ediss" edissellena33@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! You don' t often get email from edis sellena33@gmail. com. Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Albert was ambus hed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his hous e. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours . They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeles s body onto the sidewalk.

Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working res ident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and as pired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today!
I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Jus tice for Albert Arzola!
Sent from my iPhone
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 3/2/2026 11:39:50 AM
From:" Omaira Lee"
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, " Omaira Lee" Subject:[ EXTERNAL] RE: FOLLOW-UP: Urgent Request for Maintenance/ Removal of City Trees at Attachment: IMG_0680.jpeg;IMG_5418.jpeg;IMG_5372.jpeg;IMG_5420.jpeg; Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

March 2, 2026
City Council of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you today to formally follow up on a grievance Ifirst brought to your attention nearly two years ago, on March 26, 2024. I have been a resident of Anaheim for 26 years, and for the past five years, Ihave struggled with an escalating and neglected issue regarding the city-maintained trees lining my property.

Despite my previous formal letter and 5–6 documented calls to the tree service department, the situation remains completely unresolved. I have previously met with representatives, including Joe Vargas, who acknowledged the issue and stated the tree would be placed on a work schedule. However, to date, no effective maintenance, trimming, or treatment has occurred.

As the enclosed updated photographs demonstrate, the problem has worsened significantly:

Loss of Property Use: The volume of sap falling is so extreme that Iam effectively barred from parking in my own driveway. The stickiness is not just a nuisance; it is a thick coating that attracts debris and damages vehicle finishes.

Property Damage: The concrete of my driveway and the public curb (as seen in the attached photos) are now permanently stained and blackened by the constant dripping and subsequent mold/mildew growth associ ated with tree sap (honeydew).

Maintenance Burden: To prevent permanent damage to our vehicles, we are forced to wash them every three days. This is an unreasonable expectation of labor and water usage for a resident to bear due to unmaintai ned city property.

Deteriorating Tree Health: The excessive sap production suggests an infestation or poor tree health that threatens not only my property but the safety of the street should the tree's structural integrity fail.

I am deeply disappointed that two years have passed since my last formal appeal without a single proacti ve step from the city. I am once again urging the City Council to intervene and direct the Tree Department to:

1. Perform an immediate, expert assessment of the tree's health and the pest infestati on causi ng the sap.

2. Execute immediate mitigation, whether through aggressive trimming, systemi c pest treatment, or complete removal of the tree Which at this point, I would prefer the later.

3. Address the root encroachment that is currently compromising the integrity of my driveway.

As a long-term resident and taxpayer, I expect the city to maintain its infrastructure— including its urban forest—so that it does not infringe upon the basic rights of homeowners to use their own land.

I have attached four new photographs (taken recently) that clearly show the "mist" of sap covering my vehicle and the dark, sticky residue coating the public and private concrete surfaces.

I look forward to a written response and a scheduled date for the commencement of this work within the next ten business days.

Sincerely,
Omaira Lee 0

ate: 3/3/2026 10:44:40 AM
From:" Craig ADurfey" [email protected]
To:

Craig ADurfey" [email protected], "PIO Department" [email protected], " ggpdpio@ggcity. org" [email protected], " JONATHAN@GGPD. ORG" [email protected], "Gabriela Mafi" [email protected], " GGEA President" [email protected], "Senator Gonzalez" SENATOR.GONZALEZ@senate .ca.gov, " George Brietigam" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " sedn.committee@senate .ca.gov" SEDN.committee@senate. ca.gov, " Christopher Aguilera" [email protected], REPLOUCORREA@MAIL. HOUSE.GOV" REPLOUCORREA@mail. house .gov, " Whill@Cityofirvine .org" Whill@cityofirvine. org, " [email protected]" [email protected], " shea.committee@senate .ca.gov" SHEA.Committee@senate. ca.gov, " CITYCOUNCIL" city.council@surfcity- hb.org, " Public Records Request" [email protected], "Assemblymember Davies" Assemblymember.Davies@assembly. ca.gov, " Jeffrey Layland" [email protected], " joedovinh@gmail. com" joedovinh@gmail. com, "Lan Nguyen" [email protected], " Lisa Kim" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " Don Barnes" [email protected], ocbe@ocde. us" ocbe@ocde. us, " COB_Response" response@ocgov. com, "Teri Rocco" [email protected], " Walter Muneton" [email protected], " Pak, Joe" [email protected], " Waldoch, Sam" [email protected], Devon Atkinson" datkinson@ocde. us, " irvinecitycouncil@ci. irvine.ca.us" irvinecitycouncil@ci. irvine.ca.us, [email protected]" [email protected], " Assemblymember.Muratsuchi@assembly. ca.gov" assemblymember.muratsuchi@assembly. ca.gov, " Ariana Arestegui" [email protected], " Bob Harden" [email protected], " Pam Haddad" [email protected], " Haldor Larum" HLarum@cityofirvine .org, CM@cityofirvine. org" cm@cityofirvine. org, " Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net, [email protected]" SENATOR.WIENER@senate .ca.gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " Diane DIXON" ddixon@newportbeachca. gov, " Kelley, Chelsea" [email protected], " Look, Debbie " [email protected], " Ries, Marguerite" [email protected], " Rosales, Rosie " rosie [email protected], OCMentalHealthBoard@ochca. com" OCMentalHealthBoard@ochca. com, "Jim Tortolano" orangecountytribune@gmail. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], " Hess, Logan" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Fwd: News from PAWS for People
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unle ss you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig ADurfey <cadurfey@gmail. com>
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:13 AM
Subject: Fwd: News from PAWS for People
To: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail. com>, Maureen Blackmun < maureen.ggna@gmail. com> Forwarded message ---------
From: PAWS forPeople < info@pawsforpeople. ccsend. com> Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 7:00 AM
Subject: News from PAWS for People
To: <cadurfey@gmail. com>
PAWS for People Community Newsletter : Early March , 2026 PAWS, Presence, And A Profound Impact
Caroline Doran, a mental health therapist, was in awe of the impact dogs /animals had with her patients , lifting their mood and having a positive impact on their behavior. Before joining PAWS, Beau, her golden retriever, would join her patient appointments . The positive benefits on her patient’s well-being were remarkable. With Beau’s gentlenes s and sweetnes s , becoming a PAWS pet therapy team was a natural fit.

Caroline and Beau became a therapy team in September 2024 and began making an impact in the community. Beau’s charming nature is a perfect fit for Radnor Elementa ry School . Caroline and Beau also enjoy volunteering at the Please Touch Museum’s Play Without Boundari es program.

With Beau’s calm nature, he also spreads love to many patients at Penns ylvania Hospital .

While visiting the hospital, Caroline and Beau made a connection with a patient who greatly missed her two beautiful golden retrievers and bulldog while receiving treatment. The patient lit up when Caroline and Beau came to visit and enjoyed talking with Caroline while getting snuggles from Beau. After her passing, the family contacted PAWS to let us know the profound impact Caroline and Beau's visits had on their mother. Their memories of seeing Caroline and Beau creating such a bright light in their mother’s life brought them comfort with her passing .

Thank you, Caroline and Beau, for your dedication and all of the joy and love you bring to those you visit!
Little Learners Meet Big Hearts
On February 25th, PAWS teams were invited to New
Garden Early Care & Education Center to help teach
little learners about pet care. Their conference room was magically transformed into a veterinary clinic —complete with grooming stations , a feeding station, and even a
surgery center!
While the children brought their stuffed animals in for examination, PAWS teams Lois Brooks & Ollie, Tom
Struble & April, Fabiana Dunn & Peanut Butter, and
Rachel Siepeling a & Nova were on hand to share tips on caring for pets and what it’s like to visit hospitals , libraries , and schools .

The PAWS therapy companions were brushed, loved, fed, and thoroughly examined by very serious veterinaria ns -in-training.

Vet Report: Shiny coats , soft fur, full bellies … and BIG hearts !! Two Days Until Do More 24!
Do More 24 Delaware is a 24-hour Day of Giving
designed to help Delaware nonprofits create
new connections and raise funds.

The campaign will be March 5 & 6 ~ 6 PM - 6
PM and is hosted by the United Way of
Delaware and Spur Impact. It offers incentive
funds which can add to organizations’
fundraising totals and provides wide visibility.

How can you help ?
Making a gift at anytime during the campaign will
directly benefit the pet therapy programs of PAWS
for People!
PAWS is targeting a prize for the most donations
to a Newark- based organization. All unique* gifts
of $5 or more anytime between 6pm March 5 and
6pm March 6 will help PAWS in our race to
win $1,000 in bonus funds.

You can help by sharing PAWS socia l media posts
to get the word out to family and friends to help
us make new connections.

PAWS is experiencing unprecedented dema nd for
our pet therapy programs, especially mental health support. New connec tions will help PAWS meet this growing need.

Visit our Do More 24 Delaware to learn more and sign up for a reminder to donate.

A unique donation is a gift from a different donor. While it may seem helpful to divide your 20 gift into four, $5 gifts from you, each contribution must be from a different person to count toward the $1,000 bonus.

Visit Our Do More 24 Website
There is tremendous demand for PAWS programs and support. Please help PAWS meet these critical needs and Do More in 2026.

Thank you for all you do!
Pet Therapy in Action
Shortcake ( Cindy Arrowood) visited the after
school program at Parkesburg Point Youth
Center. The kids loved her and she was
handing out kisses non-stop!
Flour (Alyssa Beaty) provided snuggles and
lots of love with the staff at Helen F. Graham
Cancer & Research Institute during a recent
DeStres s session.

Tickets Are On Sale For the PAWS Spring Fling!
PAWS Annual Spring Fling Lunch & Silent Auction is the perfect setting to learn more abo ut the programs of PAWS for People and meet some of PAW S' wonderful volunteer pet therapy teams. Everyone is invited - including PAWS pet therapy companions!
In addition to a delicio us lunch and a fabulo us silent auction, the Spring Fling sho wcases the power of PAW S pet therapy, with inspirational stories from PAWS pet therapy teams and the people they have visited.

Sunday, April 12
1:00 – 4:00 PM
Hockessin Memorial Hall
610 Yorklyn Road, Hockessin, DE 19707
Tickets
50 per perso n
PAWS Members $ 45 per perso n
Table Sponsor
Table for Eight & Special Recognitio n - $375
Get Your Tickets by March 27th
Buy Tickets
Donate an Auction Item Help
PAWS Spread Comfort
Do you have a restaurant gift card you will never
use? A vacation home with an open weekend? You
can help our Spring Fling raise funds to support
PAWS pet therapy programs by donating items such
as these for the silent auctio n.

Popular items include: experiences such as –
perfo rmance or sports tickets, a round of golf, a stay at a vacation home, a gift certificate from a local restaurant or service provider such as a salon orfitness club, and items such as bottles of wine, new gardening tools, games, cooking equipment or tools, and other items that can be part of larger, themed baskets.

What is Restaurant Roulette?
The Restaurant Roulette is fun ways to support the Spring Fling where everyo ne wins! A $20 donation allo ws guests to draw from a selection of restaurant gift cards. Cards range from $25 in value to $100 or more - so no matter which card you draw, you come out a winner! This is an extremely popular feature at the auction - which is entirely supported by gift card donatio ns! The money raised at the Spring Fling will allow PAWS for Peo ple to continue to provide vital and much- needed pet therapy throughout our community. If you have any questio ns about item donations, please contact Kate Rosenthal at krosenthal@pawsfo rpeo ple.org.

Thank you for your consideratio n and support!
Donate an Auction Item
Would you like to be a Signature Sponsor of the PAW S Sp rin g fling? Ev ent spon sorship opp ortu nities are available at
https:// www.pawsforpe ople.org/ sponsor/
Signs To Never Ignore In Pets
We are pleased to continue our series of PAWS
eNews articles featuring important information
provided by Concord Pet Foods & Supplies , a PAWS
Business Partner with extens ive pet-related
experience. The topic for this month is , "Signs to
Never Ignore in Pets ."
Every pet owner tries to give their pet the best
possible life by providing nutritious food, a safe
environm ent, and proper veterinary care . Pets can’t
tell us when they aren’t feeling well, don’t like something, or are scared, stressed, or in danger, however. A savvy pet owner will continually be on the lookout for clues about their pet’s wellbeing, and will take quick action to handle any problems that arise.

Top 25 Warning Signs Pet Owners Should Never Ignore
All pets are different, and while some pets will react quickly to problems, others may mask the symptoms of discomfort, illness, or stress. Pet owners should always be aware of their pets and watch for red flags such as…
Click here to read full article
PAWS Upcoming Dog Training Classes
Our next PAWS dog training classes for Newark DE and Jenners ville, PA are open for registration! Whether you are just getting started or need to work on specific behaviors , we have the perfect class for you!
Newark, DE
PAWS Puppy (5-weekly sessions)
Friday, April 3, 9:30 AM
PAWS Obedience 1 (5-weekly sessions)
Tuesday, March 31, 7:30 PM
Friday, April 3, Noon
PAWS Obedience 2 (5-weekly sessions)
Tuesday, March 31, 6:15 PM
Thursday, April 2, 5:00 PM
Attention & Focus (5-weekly sessions)
Tuesday, March 31, 5:00 PM
Thursday, April 2, 6:15 PM
Friday, April 3, 10:45
Therapy Dog Prep (5-weekly sessions)
Thursday, April 2, 7:30 PM
Pets & Friends, Jennersville, PA
Therapy Dog Prep (5-weekly)
Monday, March 16, 5:00 PM
PAWS Obedience 1 (5-weekly sessions)
Monday, March 16, 6:00 PM
Attention & Focus (5-weekly sessions)
Monday, March 16, 7:00 PM
PAWS Obedience 2 (5-weekly sessions)
Monday, March 16, 8:00 PM
For More Information or to Sign
Up Now
PAWS Now Offers Private Dog Training Classes
Private Training provides one-on-one sessions to help
develop and hone in on specific skills you want to work on without added distractions of a classroom
environment. These lessons can take place either at
the PAWS Office in Newark or at a community location
that is mutually agreed upon.

Newark PAW S Office:

Tues 4:00 – 5:00 PM
Thurs 4:00 – 5:00 PM
Fri 8:30 – 9:30 AM OR 1:00 – 2:00 PM
PAWS Out & About: Outdoors or mutu ally agreed
upon public location
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday 8:00 AM – Noon
Friday 1:30 – 2:30 PM
These lessons are an excellent opportunity to work on
loose leash walking, over-excitement, Leave-It and more! Private training is by appointment only. Please contact Karen Powell at [email protected] for scheduling of private training only.

Initial Evaluation: $25 (for dogs new to PAWS dog training ) hour private session

50.00 each
Package of 3 for $130
1 hour private session

80.00 each
Package of 3: $220.00
Package of 5: $360.00
Our Teams of the Week
Breanna & Hannah Cathy & Lucy
As a Registered Behavior Technicia n,
Breanna Pickerall works one-on-one with
children who often need crea tive ways to
learn and grow. And sometimes , those
approa ches need a little extra “ something ”.

That “ something” comes in the form of
Hannah — Breanna’ s sweet, cuddly
Australian Cattle Dog /Lab mix. At four years
old, Hannah is full of energy, loves
absolutely everyone she meets , and has a
special place in her heart for kids .

Breanna first learned about PAWS for People
at a community event in 2023 where severa l
therapy teams were sharing what they do.

After looking into it more, she knew she and
Hannah had to be part of it. They officially
beca me a thera py team in May 2024 and
have been on the go ever since. You can find
them vis iting elders at Meadowcres t
Retirement Community and patients at the
Delawa re Hos pital for the Chronically Ill.

They love spending time with children at the
Appoquinimink Community Library and
Elkton Library. Hannah makes sure no one
leaves without a wag, a smile, and of course
a few wet kisses .

Thanks , Breanna and Hannah, for making
our community a better place!
Since joining PAWS in March of 2024, Cathy
Duffus and her precious golden retriever,
Lucy, have had a tremendous impac t on our
community! Visiting both children and
elders , this heartwa rming duo has shared
smiles , comfort, and connection through
many of PAWS’ prog rams — even including
PAWS by Special Request, where their visits
often mean the world to thos e receiving
them.

Cathy' s warm and friendl y pers onality,
coupled with Lucy' s sweet eyes and
irres istibly cuddly golden fur, have made
them a favorite part of the routine at their
regular visiting sites : Rockford at the
Orchards , The Summit, and Forwood
Elementa ry School. They have also added
some golden love to many DeStres s
Community Events , bring ing calm, joy, and
lots of tail wags to busy days . With almost
200 visiting hours already logged, this
dedicated team has quickly become quite
the experienced pet therapy pair!
Thank you, Cathy and Lucy, for choos ing to
share your time, your hearts , and your
golden love to connect and comfort others
through PAWS.

Thanks to Our PAWS Partners
PAW S for People | P .O . Bo x 9955 | Ne w ark, DE 19714 US Unsubscrib e | Update Pro file | C onsta nt C ontact Da ta Notice ou don't often get email from the_khue@yahoo. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 11:32:01 AM
From:" Khue (Yahoo!)" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Speak Up for Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

To Mayor Aitken and City Council Members,
I demand justice for Albert Arzola, killed by Anaheim PD. Release all unedited body camera footage, the autopsy report, and the names of the involved officers. Fire the officer who shot him.

Albert was an innocent 19-year- old Katella High graduate, a hardworking culinary hopeful, and a beloved son and friend with a bright future. He should be alive today.

Officers ambushed Albert, chased him home, and shot him in the back in front of his family. They threatened his family, detained them for hours, and delayed medical aid for ten minutes before dragging his body outside.

Albert deserved to live, and he deserves justice now. The city and Anaheim PD’s lack of transparency is an insult to his family, and it makes us wonder what other evil you’ve been hiding from us. Release the footage and autopsy report. Name the officers. Fire the shooter. Justice for Albert Arzola!
Thank you.
ou don't often get email from ashkii97@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 12:34:55 PM
From:" ashkii kadenehii" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Justice for Albert Arzola!
Thanks,
Ashkii Kadenehii
ate: 3/3/2026 1:10:21 PM
From:" Jeanette Cookmeyer" j.cookmeyer@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Justice for Albert Arzola!
ou don't often get email from debbiecookmeyer56@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:32:31 PM
From:" Deborah Cookmeyer" debbiecookmeyer56@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Justice for Albert Arzola!
ate: 3/3/2026 1:34:02 PM
From:" Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubselnad@gmail. com
To:

The White House" communications@mail. whitehouse. gov, " Public Comment" [email protected], " Olivia Selmanson" olivia.selmanson@ocpubdef. com, "webmaster@riversideca. gov" webmaster@rive rsideca.gov, [email protected]" [email protected], " Mhines" [email protected], " Tax Mail" [email protected], Tigtacommunications" TIGTAcommunications@tigta. treas.gov, " Arthur M. Guo" AMGuo@anahe im.net, [email protected]" [email protected], "fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov" fbi@subscriptions. fbi.gov, " Lori Smith" esquiresmith1089@yahoo. com, "Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea+newsletter@mail8. housecommunications. gov, " Lisa Speranzo" lsperanzo@forthepeople. com, "[email protected]" [email protected] .gov, " maribel.conteras8@tmobile.com" [email protected], "management@parishiltonente rtainment.com" management@parishiltonentertainment. com, "marystss@guardiansc. com" marystss@guardiansc. com, "Bruns, Melanie" MBruns@riversideca. gov, " [email protected]" [email protected], "Cervantes, Clarissa" ccervantes@riversideca. gov, " Castrejon, Jacob" JCastrejon@riversideca. gov, " City Clerk" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], " Granicus Customer Support" support@granicus. com, "[email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" donald.wagner@ocgov. com, "Ruben Soto" 988ilovegirls@gmail. com, "Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubse [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], " Robert" [email protected], "steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov" steelM18LD3341@mail. house.gov, " irene@grandmashouseofhope. org" irene@grandmashouse ofhope.org, " Ibarra, Zachary" [email protected], " [email protected]" [email protected], "illveladies5669@gmail. com" illveladies5669@gmail. com, "ilovegirls5669@gmail. com" ilovegirls5669@gmail. com, "Inspections_Helpdesk@rivco. org" Inspections_Helpdesk@rivco. org, " Berenice Ballinas" [email protected], " Rare Beauty" hello@rarebeauty. com, babeerue@sbcgloba. com" babeerue@sbcgloba. com, "Fraser, Kelsy" [email protected], " Forever21" replyfefb1370726105- [email protected], "Ralphs" reply-fe9217757666037871- [email protected], "Kylie jenner" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected], [email protected]" [email protected], "Johnny" johnny@wilshirelawfirm. com, " Johnny Ogata, Esq." attorneyjohnny@wilshirelawfirm. com, "Jacquelynram@adrianainsurance. com" Jacquelynram@adrianainsurance. com, Nadiarosesoto1220" nadiarosesoto1220@gmail. com, "Nostonersallowed1" nostonersallowed1@gmail. com, greggosoto611@gmail. com" greggosoto611@gmail. com, " Vivian Johnson" vivanjohnson54455@gmail. com Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Robert boss Auto hates me here' s the proof there' s your two Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unle ss you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
https://youtube. com/shorts/DHLV_u0Wl68?si=4kVtxN0mSwcZfvfb ate: 3/3/2026 1:36:08 PM
From:" Ruben Soto" 195619922000rubselnad@gmail. com
To:

Albert was ambus hed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his hous e. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours . They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeles s body onto the sidewalk.

Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working res ident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and as pired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today!
I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Jus tice for Albert Arzola!
Steve Miller
Sent from my iPhone
ou don't often get email from matthewdcompton42@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:42:27 PM
From:" Matthew Compton" matthewdcompton42@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Mayor Aitken and Members of the Anaheim City Council, I am writing to demand justice for the police killing of Albert Arzola. I demand the full, unedited body camera footage from all officers, the immediate release of the autopsy report, the names of the officers involved, and the immediate firing of the officer who shot Albert to death. Albert was ambushed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his house. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours. They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeless body onto the sidewalk. Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working resident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and aspired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today! I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Justice for Albert Arzola!
ate: 3/3/2026 1:45:35 PM
From:" Francesca" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! You don' t often get email from community. franchie@gmail. com. Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Albert was ambus hed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his hous e. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours . They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeles s body onto the sidewalk.

Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working res ident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and as pired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today!
I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Jus tice for Albert Arzola!
ate: 3/3/2026 1:48:52 PM
From:" caligram5446@icloud. com" caligram5446@icloud. com To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! You don' t often get email from caligram5446@icloud. com. Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Albert was ambus hed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his hous e. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours . They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeles s body onto the sidewalk.

Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working res ident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and as pired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today!
I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Jus tice for Albert Arzola!
Sent from my iPhone
ate: 3/3/2026 1:49:20 PM
From:" Jennifer Huber" jenhuber05@yahoo. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! You don' t often get email from jenhuber05@yahoo. com. Learn why this is important at https:// aka. ms /LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Albert was ambus hed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his hous e. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours . They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeles s body onto the sidewalk.

Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working res ident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and as pired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today!
I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Jus tice for Albert Arzola!
Sent from my iPhone
ou don't often get email from erikaarmenta994@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 2:27:56 PM
From:" Erika Armenta" erikaarmenta994@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Justice for Albert Arzola!
ou don't often get email from jennymendozah17@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 1:55:50 PM
From:" Jennifer Mendoza" jennymendozah17@gmail. com
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Justice for Albert Arzola!
ate: 3/3/2026 2:50:53 PM
From:" Marie Perea" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! You don' t often get email from marieej00@icloud. com. Learn why this is important at https :// aka. ms/ LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Warning: This email originated from outs ide the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unles s you recognize the sender and are expecting the mes sage.

Albert was ambus hed by two Anaheim PD officers who leapt out of an unmarked vehicle and chased him to his hous e. One officer shot him in the back, killing him in front of his family. They threatened to shoot his family and then detained them at the scene for hours . They delayed medical attention for ten minutes and dragged Albert’ s lifeles s body onto the sidewalk.

Albert was doing nothing wrong and was not a threat to anyone. He was only 19-years- old and recently graduated from Katella High School. He was a hard- working res ident of Anaheim who took pride in his job and as pired to a career in culinary arts. He was a beloved son, family member and friend with a bright future ahead of him. Albert should be alive today!
I demand the full body camera footage of all officers from the incident. I demand the release of the autopsy report. I demand the names of the officers involved. And I demand that the officer who shot Albert be fired immediately.

Jus tice for Albert Arzola!
Maria Perea
ou don't often get email from ejhirsch@gmail. com. Learn why this is important Date: 3/3/2026 3:24:24 PM
From:" Ed Hirsch" [email protected]
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] No more silence! Justice forAlbert Arzola! Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Justice for Albert Arzola!
Thank you,
Ed Hirsch

Anaheim City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Anaheim City Council
June 9, 2026