Loading...
20 (01)You don't often get email from hayley@lozeaudrury.com. Learn why this is important Date:12/12/2025 12:52:45 PM From:"Hayley Uno" hayley@lozeaudrury.com To: " Subject:[EXTERNAL] SAFER Comment Submission with Expert Exhibit on the FEIR for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project (SCH No. 2024010859; Development Application No. 2023-00043) Attachment:2025.12.12 FEIR CC Comment - Festival Anaheim Hills - FINAL with Exhibit.pdf; 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. Dear Mayor Aitken, Honorable Members of the Anaheim City Council, Ms. Bass, and Ms. Lauffer, On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), please find attached comments, including an expert exhibit, regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project (SCH No. 2024010859; Development Application No. 2023-00043) ("Project"). The Project is scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 20 at the City Council meeting on December 16, 2025 at 5pm. If you could please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Best regards, Hayley Uno -- Hayley Uno (she/her) Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Office: (510) 836-4200 hayley@lozeaudrury.com VIA EMAIL December 12, 2025 Ashleigh Aitken, Mayor Amanda Lauffer, Senior Planner Natalie Meeks, Mayor Pro Tem Planning Services Division Ryan Balius, Council Member City of Anaheim Carlos Leon, Council Member 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Natalie Rubalcava, Council Member Anaheim, CA 92805 Norma Campos Kurtz, Council Member alauffer@anaheim.net Kristen Maahs, Council Member Anaheim City Council Theresa Bass, CMC, City Clerk 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, 7th Floor Anaheim City Clerk’s Office Anaheim, CA 92805 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Room 217 publiccomment@anaheim.net Anaheim, CA 92805 aaitken@anaheim.net cityclerk@anaheim.net nmeeks@anaheim.net tbass@anaheim.net rbalius@anaheim.net cleon@anaheim.net nrubalcava@anaheim.net nkurtz@anaheim.net kmaahs@anaheim.net Re: Comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project (SCH No. 2024010859; Development Application No. 2023-00043) Dear Mayor Aitken, Honorable Members of the Anaheim City Council, Ms. Bass, and Ms. Lauffer: This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project (SCH No. 2024010859) (“Project”). The Project involves amendments to the General Plan and the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan to build a new 447-unit, multi-family residential building in the Anaheim Hills area of the City of Anaheim, California. The Project is scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 20 at the Anaheim City Council meeting on December 16, 2025 at 5pm. SAFER is concerned that the EIR violates CEQA because: (1) it relies on improper deferred mitigation for the Project’s fire and evacuation safety impacts, which is prohibited SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 2 of 11 under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), without evidence of the measures’ effectiveness; (2) its mitigation measures for soil stability impacts are inadequate; (3) it fails to include all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s transportation impacts; and (4) it fails to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant indoor air quality impacts. SAFER requests that the City Council deny certification of the EIR for the Project and instead require the City to address the EIR’s shortcomings in a recirculated EIR, before Project approval. SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H. Mr. Offermann’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project involves the demolition of an existing movie cinema on the Project site and the construction of a new, 447-unit, multi-family residential building with a five-level wraparound parking structure with one level of subterranean parking on 16.2 acres of a 85.7-acre site, located in the Anaheim Hills area of the City of Anaheim. The Project site is bounded by Santa Ana Canyon Road and SR-91 to the north, Roosevelt Road to the east, single family residences to the south, and undeveloped land to the west. Surrounding land uses include commercial uses to the north, office and institutional uses to the east, residential uses to the south, and undeveloped private parcels, a park preserve, and a utility transmission corridor to the west. The site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Regional Commercial. The site consists of the entirety of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”), which currently includes four different commercial Development Areas (“DAs”). The Project includes amendments to the Specific Plan and General Plan. The Specific Plan amendment would create a new development area, DA 5, within the existing Specific Plan boundaries to allow for the development of residential uses mixed in with existing commercial development. DA 5 would reduce DA 2 from 48 acres to 31.8 acres. The net reduction of 16.2 acres from DA 2 would be used to create DA 5 and build the Project. The General Plan amendment would change the Project site’s land use designation from Regional Commercial to Mixed-Use Medium. LEGAL STANDARD I. CEQA and Environmental Impact Reports CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. [“CCR”] § 15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. Of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 3 of 11 Berkeley Jets Over the Bay Com. V. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1354; Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), except in certain limited circumstances. (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004), 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2).) Critical to this purpose, the EIR must contain an “accurate and stable project description.” (Cnty. of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192-93 (“An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”) The project description must contain (a) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project, (b) a statement of the project objectives, and (c) a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics. (14 CCR § 15124.) II. Standard of Review The California Supreme Court has emphasized that: When reviewing whether a discussion is sufficient to satisfy CEQA, a court must be satisfied that the EIR (1) includes sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises [citation omitted] . . . (Sierra Club v. Cty. Of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510 (2018) [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at 405].) The Court in Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno also emphasized that another primary consideration of sufficiency is whether the EIR “makes a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” (Id. at 510.) “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one-paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” (Id. at 516.) Although an agency has discretion to decide the manner of discussing potentially significant effects in an EIR, “a reviewing court must determine whether the discussion of a SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 4 of 11 potentially significant effect is sufficient or insufficient, i.e., whether the EIR comports with its intended function of including ‘detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’” (Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 516 [citing Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197].) “The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” (Id. at 516.) As the Court emphasized: [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 informational document without reference to substantial evidence. (Id. at 514.) Additionally, “in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project.” (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.) III. Mitigation Measures In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (14 CCR § 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved. If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (PRC § 21081; 14 CCR § 15092(b)(2)(A) and (B).) DISCUSSION I. The EIR relies on improper deferred mitigation measures for the Project’s fire and evacuation safety impacts, without evidence that the measures are effective. An EIR’s mitigation measures must be fully enforceable and must actually rectify, reduce or eliminate an impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15370, 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).) “Mitigating conditions are not mere expressions of hope.” (Sierra Club v. Cnty. of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167 [quoting Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508].) The purpose of having mitigation measures is that they SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 5 of 11 “actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded.” (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508.) A lead agency must determine, based on substantial evidence, that mitigation measures are effective. (Lotus v. Dep’t of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 656-658.) In addition, “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) “Deferred mitigation violates CEQA if it lacks performance standards to ensure the mitigation goal will be achieved.” (Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Cnty. of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 520.) Here, the EIR’s mitigation measures for fire and evacuation safety impacts do not meet these fundamental standards. A. The EIR relies on improperly deferred mitigation measures for the Project’s fire and evacuation safety impacts. Lead agencies may defer formulating mitigation until after project approval only “when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); see also POET, LLC v. State Air Res. Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 736.) An EIR must also explain an agency’s decision to defer finalizing the specifics of mitigation. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281.) In the limited circumstances where deferring mitigation is justified, the EIR must (1) commit itself to the mitigation, (2) adopt specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identify the types of potential actions that can feasibly achieve that performance standard. (Guidelines § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B); See Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. Cnty. of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 671.) CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. Cnty. of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309.) An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses “‘meaningful information’ reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance.” (Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only “for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible”).) An agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water was available).) This approach helps “insure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935.) Moreover, “mitigation measure[s] [that do] no more than require a report be prepared and followed” do not provide adequate information for informed decisionmaking under CEQA. SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 6 of 11 (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) By deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the City has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the court in Communities for a Better Env’t v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92: [R]eliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA’s goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and[,] consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment. Here, the EIR offers three mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s adverse impacts related to fire and evacuation safety. These include: (1) PDF HAZ-1, in which the Project Applicant will prepare a construction fire prevention plan to be submitted to Anaheim Fire & Rescue for review and approval before Project construction begins; (2) PDF HAZ-2, in which the Applicant will develop a wildfire evacuation and awareness plan to be submitted for review and approval by the City of Anaheim Planning Department, Anaheim Police Department, and Anaheim Fire & Rescue before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first multiple- family residential unit; and (3) MM HAZ-1, in which the Applicant will prepare a construction management plan to be submitted for review and approval by Anaheim Fire & Rescue before the issuance of grading permits. However, all three measures constitute improper deferred mitigation, because all three of the plans would not be formulated until after Project approval, thereby depriving the public and the CEQA decision-making body of any opportunity to review the plans to ensure they are adequate. The EIR does not explain why it is impossible to prepare each of these mitigation plans now, during the EIR process. Furthermore, the EIR deferred the preparation of the plans until after completion of CEQA review without imposing any substantive standards. Such deferred mitigation is invalid under CEQA, and the Project’s impacts on fire and evacuation safety thus likely remain significant. A revised, recirculated EIR is required to develop clear, enforceable mitigation measures to address the Project’s significant adverse impacts on fire and evacuation safety. Additionally, the City may not delegate the formulation and approval of mitigation measures to address environmental impacts to the applicant, as it does here. An agency’s legislative body must ultimately review and vouch for all environmental analysis mandated by CEQA. (Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 306-308.) Thus, the EIR may not rely on safety plans to be developed and implemented later without approval by the City Council. Yet, that is precisely what the EIR’s mitigation measures do. The City has therefore improperly delegated its legal responsibility of determining what constitutes adequate mitigation to the Applicant, in violation of CEQA. SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 7 of 11 B. There is no evidence that the EIR’s mitigation measures for the Project’s fire and evacuation safety impacts are effective. A lead agency must determine, based on substantial evidence, that mitigation measures are effective. (Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 656-658.) “[M]itigation measure[s] [that do] no more than require a report be prepared and followed” do not provide adequate information for informed decision-making under CEQA. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) Here, the City failed to provide any evidence that the three abovementioned mitigation measures for the Project’s fire and evacuation safety impacts will actually be effective to meaningfully reduce the Project’s impacts because the City failed to quantify the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The City also failed to compare the measures’ effectiveness against a numerical threshold of impact significance. Nor could they, since the plans do not have to be created until after the EIR is certified and the Project is approved. As a result, the public has no way to evaluate whether the plans will actually decrease the fire and evacuation safety impacts. Moreover, the three mitigation measures do not provide the City adequate information to conclude that these measures will be effective. Therefore, the EIR violates CEQA because there is no evidence the mitigation measures will be effective and actually reduce fire and evacuation safety impacts. II. The EIR relies on inadequate, deferred mitigation measures for the Project’s adverse soil stability impacts. Here, the EIR offers one mitigation measure, MM GEO-1, for the Project’s adverse soil stability impacts. MM GEO-1 requires that, before the issuance of grading and building permits, the City’s Building Division and Public Works Department review all Project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Exploration and Feasibility Report prepared for the Project in 2022 by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. However, this constitutes insufficient, deferred mitigation because the City’s review of the Project plans for compliance with the Geotechnical Exploration and Feasibility Report must be conducted before Project approval, especially since this Report is presently available. Otherwise, there is no way to determine whether the mitigation is sufficient to reduce impacts and the CEQA decision-making body will be deprived of the opportunity to review the plans for compliance, in violation of CEQA. III. The EIR fails to require all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s adverse transportation impacts. CEQA prohibits a lead agency from approving a project with significant environmental effects if there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. (PRC § 21002; Mountain Lion Found. V. Fish & Game Comm’n (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134; Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 403 [“The chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 8 of 11 avoidance of environmental harm”].) CEQA defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” (PRC § 21061.1; 14 CCR § 15364.) “The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.” (Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) When an EIR concludes that a project will have significant impacts, the lead agency has two duties: (1) to meaningfully consider feasible mitigation measures and alternatives, and (2) to identify mitigation measures and alternatives rejected as infeasible. (See, Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1353.) When a comment suggests “better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental impacts” (14 CCR §§15088(c), 15204(a)), the lead agency must respond to the comment by either explaining why further consideration of the alternative or mitigation was rejected or by providing an evaluation of the alternative. (Marin Mun. Water Dist. V. KG Land Cal. Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1666; see Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz [“CNPS”] (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 992.) “‘[A]n adequate EIR must respond to specific suggestions for mitigating a significant environmental impact unless the suggested mitigation is facially infeasible.’ [citation omitted] ‘While the response need not be exhaustive, it should evince good faith and a reasoned analysis.’” (CNPS, 177 Cal.App.4th at 992, citing L.A. Unified School Dist. V. City of L.A. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1029; see also, Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, fn. 8.) When an EIR has identified significant environmental effects that have not been mitigated or avoided, the agency may not approve the project unless it first finds that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” (PRC § 21081(a)(3); see 14 CCR §15091(a)(3).) Rejected alternatives and mitigation measures must be “truly infeasible.” (City of Marina v. Bd. Of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.) Infeasibility findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (PRC § 21081.5; 14 CCR § 15091(b).) “The required findings constitute the principal means chosen by the Legislature to enforce the state’s declared policy ‘that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. . .” (City of Marina, 39 Cal.4th at 350 [quoting PRC § 21002].) The City has labeled the Project’s transportation impact as “significant and unavoidable,” providing two mitigation measures, PDF TRANS-1 and PDF TRANS-2, to reduce the adverse impacts of the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). PDF TRANS-1 requires the Project to include 45 moderate-income level housing units, estimating that this will reduce Project- generated VMT by about 2.86%. PDF TRANS-2 requires the Project to provide 893 residential parking spaces total, which is expected to reduce Project-generated VMT by 1%. However, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) suggested additional transportation mitigation measures in its August 4, 2025 comment on the Project’s draft EIR to further mitigate the Project’s adverse transportation impacts and reduce the Project’s VMT. These additional measures include, among other things: (1) encouraging the use of public transit SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 9 of 11 among future residents, visitors, and workers; (2) implementing high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, including safety measures like physically separated sidewalks and bike lanes, pedestrian-oriented LED lighting, and raised crosswalks; and (3) strategic placement of short- and long-term bike parking. In its responses to Caltrans’s comment in the FEIR, the City failed to meaningfully respond to these suggested mitigation measures. The City neither explained why further consideration of the measure was rejected nor provided any evaluation of the measure; it merely “noted” the comments. The FEIR provides no evidence that any of these measures are infeasible. The EIR must be revised to consider these measures and adopt all these additional mitigation measures to further reduce the Project’s significant transportation impacts. IV. The EIR failed to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant indoor air quality impacts. Certified industrial hygienist Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H., has reviewed the Project, the EIR, and other relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. The EIR provides no analysis of the Project’s indoor air quality impacts. Mr. Offermann concluded that the Project will expose its future residents to significant health impacts related to indoor air quality, particularly emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials commonly found in residences and commercial spaces contain formaldehyde-based glues which release formaldehyde gas over a very long period of time. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential, office, and retail building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Ex. A at 2-3.) Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen, classified by the State as a Toxic Air Contaminant. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) has established a CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Mr. Offermann found that future Project residents may be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde emissions of about 120 per million, even assuming that all materials comply with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id. at 4-5.) This exceeds the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk. (Id. at 2.) Mr. Offermann concluded that the Project will have significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed in a revised EIR, and that mitigation measures must be imposed to reduce the raised cancer risk. (Id. at 12-13.) Mr. Offermann prescribed a methodology for estimating the Project’s formaldehyde emissions for a more project-specific health risk assessment. (Id. at 6- 10.) He also identified several feasible mitigation measures to decrease the significant health risks, like installing air ventilation systems and requiring the use of composite wood materials only for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB-approved no-added formaldehyde SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 10 of 11 (“NAF”) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (“ULEF”) resins. (Id. at 12-14.) When a project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g. Schenck v. Cnty. of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also CEB, 103 Cal.App.4th at 110-11 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].) The California Supreme Court has shown the importance an air district significance threshold has in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [estimated emissions in excess of air district’s significance thresholds “constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”].) Since expert evidence shows the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. (See Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.) The City’s failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). The Court held in CBIA that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. (Id. at 800-01.) However, to the extent that a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those effects would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801 [“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”].) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language requires lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800.) The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions that Mr. Offermann has identified are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions will be from the Project. Residential tenants will be the Project’s users. Currently, there is presumably little to no formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once built, the Project will start emitting formaldehyde at levels posing significant direct and cumulative health risks to the Project’s users. The California Supreme Court in CBIA expressly found that this air emission and health impact from the Project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed under CEQA. The California Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project December 12, 2025 Page 11 of 11 on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emphasis in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment — that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d).) It goes without saying that the Project’s future residents are human beings, and their health and safety must be subjected to CEQA’s safeguards. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cnty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597-98. [“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts.”].) The Project will have significant effects on indoor air quality and health risks by emitting formaldehyde that will expose future residents to cancer risks exceeding SCAQMD’s significance threshold for cancer risk of 10 per million. In light of this impact and the City’s lack of any evidence to the contrary, the EIR does not comply with CEQA, and the Project must undergo CEQA review through a revised EIR instead before Project approval. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council require the City to revise the EIR to adequately address and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse impacts and ensure compliance with CEQA. The City should then recirculate the EIR so that the public will have a full opportunity to review and comment on the analysis and mitigation measures. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rebecca Davis LOZEAU DRURY LLP     EXHIBIT A  INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: November 15, 2025 To: Hayley Uno Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Festival Anaheim Hills Project, Anaheim, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-912) Pages: 18 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well- recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2 of 18 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2021). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. 3 of 18 In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019) and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to the Festival Anaheim Hills Project, Anaheim, CA, the buildings consist of residential spaces. The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks 4 of 18 resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million. Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures. Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 362 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from 5 of 18 composite wood products. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not ensure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 6 of 18 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. 7 of 18 CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the 8 of 18 total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. 𝐶!"= #!"!#$ $"# (Equation 1) where: Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non- Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. 9 of 18 Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test 10 of 18 Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. The Festival Anaheim Hills Project, Anaheim, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Riverside Freeway I-91, East Santa Ana Canyon Road, South Festival Drive, Roosevelt Road etc.). Thus, the Project is located in a sound impacted area. The Draft Environmental Impact Report - Festival Anaheim Hills Project, Anaheim, CA (Kimberly-Horn and Associates, 2025) states in Table 4.13-5 that the modeled existing with Project traffic noise levels will range from 60.5 to 73.2 dBA CNEL. In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a minimum of a one-week period and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be required. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Festival Anaheim Hills Project, Anaheim, CA 11 of 18 (Kimberly-Horn and Associates, 2025), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 362 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic. An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. at least MERV 13, or possibly MERV 14 or 15 depending on the results of the Project ambient PM2.5 concentrations) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 12 of 18 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not ensure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. 13 of 18 PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. References BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview Caja Environmental Services, 2025. City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Categorical Exemption\: 5424 Carlton Way Project, Environmental Case Number: ENV- 2024-915-CE California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm 14 of 18 California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Kimbery-Horn and Associates. 2025. Draft Environmental Impact Report - Festival Anaheim Hills Project, Anaheim, CA. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. 15 of 18 OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 16 of 18 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”. Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Singer et. al., 2020 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.3 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health, 17 of 18 Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates, I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 18 of 18 cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not ensure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can ensure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to ensure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.