General (33)You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Date:2/19/2026 3:09:00 PM
From:"Tina Low"
To:
"cwalkeranaheimplanning@gmail.com" cwalkeranaheimplanning@gmail.com, "jtranmartin@gmail.com"
jtranmartin@gmail.com, "abgorashi@gmail.com" abgorashi@gmail.com, "Michelle Lieberman"
mlieberman92805@gmail.com, "luisbperez@outlook.com" luisbperez@outlook.com, "commissioneracastro@gmail.com"
commissioneracastro@gmail.com, "commissionerdeirdrekelly@gmail.com" commissione rde irdre kelly@gmail.com,
"Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim.net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.ne t, "Carlos A. Leon"
CLeon@anaheim.net, "Ryan Balius" RBalius@anaheim.net, "Natalie Rubalcava" NRubalcava@anahe im.net, "Norma
C. Kurtz" NKurtz@anaheim.net, "Kristen Maahs" KMaahs@anaheim.net, "Natalie Meeks" NMe e ks@anaheim.net
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Please Vote NO – Renaissance Canyon Acres Project (233 S. Quintana Dr.) DEV2025-00027
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, Counc il Members, and Planning Commissioners,
I am writ ing t o you as an Anaheim Hills resident and a parent whose c hildren at t end I respec t fully urge you t o
vot e NO on t he proposed Renaissanc e Canyon Ac res development loc at ed at 233 S. Quint ana Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 (DEV2025-
00027).
While I underst and t he Cit y’s need for housing, t his projec t raises serious c onc erns regarding t raffic c ongest ion, wildfire evac uat ion
safet y, and neighborhood c ompat ibilit y t hat must be addressed before any approval is c onsidered.
Ac c ording t o t he developer’s own mat erials, t his projec t would int roduc e 140 new vehic les int o an area t hat already func t ions as a
t raffic and evac uat ion c hoke point . Quint ana Drive is a narrow c orridor wit h no viable alt ernat e rout es, and it serves as t he sole
exit for four narrow privat e roads, inc luding T rail Drive homes, all merging int o S. Quint ana Drive. T here has been no c redible
evidenc e present ed t hat exist ing Canyon Ac res t raffic c ondit ions have ever mat c hed t his level of added volume, nor t hat t he
roadway c an safely ac c ommodat e it —espec ially during an emergenc y.
My family and I lived t hrough Canyon Fire 2 in 2017 and experienc ed c omplet e gridloc k while smoke was approac hing. T his was not
a minor inc onvenienc e—it was fright ening and dangerous. Projec t report s suggest t he added t raffic would inc rease evac uat ion t ime
by “only” seven minut es; however, when resident s are already t rapped for hours during a wildfire, seven minut es c an be t he
differenc e bet ween safet y and t ragedy.
Beyond public safet y, t his development is not c ompat ible wit h t he surrounding neighborhood. Alt hough t he proposed projec t zoning
is labeled Low Densit y (RS-2), t he exist ing RS-2 homes were not built t o t he sc ale, massing, or set bac k int ensit y proposed here. In
addit ion, t he majorit y of t he projec t propert y is c urrent ly zoned RH-2 and abut s similar est at e-st yle RH-2 zoning. A 25-unit projec t
does not blend wit h t he surrounding single-family homes and does not reflec t t he est ablished c harac t er or values of t he c ommunit y.
Growt h should never c ome at t he expense of public safet y. Approving addit ional densit y before addressing evac uat ion rout es,
t raffic infrast ruc t ure, and emergenc y response c apac it y plac es exist ing resident s at unac c ept able risk.
I invit e you t o visit t he sit e and surrounding st reet s t o bet t er underst and t he physic al c onst raint s and safet y c onc erns out lined
above. T he sit uat ion is not as t he developer is present ing it in t heir submit t al doc ument s.
I respec t fully ask you t o priorit ize safet y, infrast ruc t ure, and c ommunit y c ompat ibilit y by vot ing NO on t he Renaissanc e Canyon
Ac res projec t .
T hank you for your t ime and c onsiderat ion.
Sinc erely,
T ina Low