Loading...
10 (41)You don't often get email from hayley@lozeaudrury.com. Learn why this is important Date:2/2/2026 5:39:37 PM From:"Hayley Uno" To: "Amanda Lauffer" ALauffer@anaheim.net, "City Clerk" cityclerk@anahe im.ne t, "The re sa Bass" TBass@anaheim.net, "Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim.net, "Ashle igh Aitken" AAitke n@anaheim.net, "Natalie Meeks" NMeeks@anaheim.net, "Ryan Balius" RBalius@anaheim.net, "Carlos A. Le on" CLeon@anaheim.net, "Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anaheim.net, "Norma C. Kurtz" NKurtz@anaheim.net, "Kristen Maahs" KMaahs@anaheim.net Cc:"Rebecca Davis" rebecca@lozeaudrury.com, "Chase Preciado" chase@lozeaudrury.com, "Emy Lipkind" Emy@lozeaudrury.com, "Leslie Reider" leslie@lozeaudrury.com Subject:[EXTERNAL] SAFER Supplemental Comment Submission on the FEIR for the Anahe im Hills Fe stival Specific Plan Amendment Project (SCH No. 2024010859; Development Application No. 2023-00043) Attachment:2026.02.02 SAFER Supplemental CC Comment - Festival Anaheim Hills - FINAL.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 supplemental comments 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 10 at the City Council meeting on February 3, 2026 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 February 2, 2026 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: Supplemental 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 supplemental comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project (SCH No. 2024010859) (“Project”). The Project is scheduled to be heard at the Anaheim City Council meeting on February 3, 2026 at 5pm as Agenda Item 10. On November 17, 2025, SAFER submitted written comments (“November 17 Comment”) to the Anaheim Planning Commission regarding the EIR’s inadequate mitigation measures and deficient analysis of the Project’s indoor air quality impacts. SAFER’s November 17 Comment included comments from indoor air quality expert and certified industrial hygienist SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project February 2, 2026 Page 2 of 6 Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H., who concluded that the Project would have significant adverse human health impacts related to indoor air quality. On November 18, 2025, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. (“Kimley”), the City’s environmental consultant, prepared and submitted to the City responses to SAFER’s November 17 Comment (“RTC Memo”). After careful review of the RTC Memo, SAFER maintains that the EIR failed to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant indoor air quality impacts. SAFER thus respectfully requests that the City Council deny certification of the EIR and instead require the City to address the EIR’s shortcomings in a recirculated EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), before Project approval. 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 February 2, 2026 Page 3 of 6 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 February 2, 2026 Page 4 of 6 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.) DISCUSSION I. The City must address and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse indoor air quality impacts in a revised EIR. In its RTC Memo, Kimley responded to analysis in SAFER’s November 17 Comment from indoor air quality expert and certified industrial hygienist Bud Offermann, P.E., C.I.H. Mr. Offermann reviewed the EIR and other relevant documents prepared for the Project. He found that the EIR provided no analysis of the Project’s indoor air quality impacts. He concluded that the Project will expose its future residents to significant adverse health impacts related to indoor air quality, particularly emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde from Project building materials. (See November 17 Comment, Ex. A.) Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. A. Under CEQA, the City has a duty to address the Project’s indoor air quality impacts on future residents. In response to Mr. Offermann’s findings, Kimley argued that the Project’s indoor air quality impacts on future Project residents are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA and therefore do not need to be addressed in the EIR. (RTC Memo at 6.) However, 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 SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project February 2, 2026 Page 5 of 6 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 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 thus 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. B. Mr. Offermann’s indoor air quality analysis is based on currently available information from the City. Additionally, Kimley claimed that Mr. Offermann’s analysis is invalid and unsubstantiated because it was based purely on unreasonable speculation and false assumptions regarding the Project’s construction and residential unit specifications. (RTC Memo at 6.) However, Mr. Offermann’s comments are based on the currently available information provided by the City in the EIR and its technical reports. None of the available documents disclosed which building materials will be used to construct the Project. It is the City’s duty to investigate and disclose this information. As Mr. Offermann explained in his analysis, 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 SAFER Comment Re: Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan Amendment Project February 2, 2026 Page 6 of 6 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.” (November 17 Comment, Ex. A at 2-3.) C. The City has provided no evidence that Mr. Offermann’s indoor air quality analyses are based on outdated data. Furthermore, Kimley alleged that Mr. Offermann’s analysis and cited studies are irrelevant and based on outdated data inconsistent with the Project. (RTC Memo at 7.) However, Kimley provides no evidence that Mr. Offermann’s studies are irrelevant or outdated. In light of 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