25 (020)You don't often get email from thirdaxis@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important
Date:3/9/2026 11:46:26 AM
From:"thirdaxis Cleveland" thirdaxis@sbcglobal.net
To:"Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim.net, "Ashleigh Aitken" AAitken@anahe im.ne t, "kmaas@anaheim.net"
kmaas@anaheim.net, "Natalie Meeks" NMeeks@anaheim.net, "Kristen Maahs" KMaahs@anaheim.net
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Logic and Safety: Why the Festival Center Project need thorough reconsideration
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.
Subject: Thank You for Your Leadership and Request for Continued Review – Anahei m Hi lls Festival C enter Project (DA 2023-
00043)
Dear Mayor Ashleigh Aitken, Councilmember Kristen Maahs, and Councilmember Natali e Meeks,
I am speaking for many community members and am writing to sincerely thank each of you for the thoughtful engagement and
considerations you demonstrated in voting 'No' on March 3, 2026, regarding the Anaheim Hills Festi val Center apartment
proposal (Development Application No. 2023-00043 / FEIR No. 358).
You took the citizens seriously and give careful consideration to the well-founded and seri ous concerns voi ced i n the publi c
testimony, the presented administrative record, and the legitimate safety issues rai sed by resi dents regardi ng wi ldfi re
evacuation capacity, emergency response access, and cumulative infrastructure impacts i n Anaheim Hills. The evacuation maps
clearly show that each evacuation will spill into an impregnatable traffic grid and bring everything to a stop with no way out.
As a homeowner and resident in Anaheim Hills since 2002 I have, along with many other resi dents, experienced multi ple
significant wildfire events including the 1993 Eastern Anaheim Hills Fire, 2008 Freeway Complex Fire, and the 2017 C anyon
Fire 2. These events were proof of immense evacuation vulnerabilities, particularly along Santa Ana C anyon Road, whi ch
remains the primary evacuation corridor for much of the community. In 2017, Serrano feeding i nto Cannon was closed, Nohl
Ranch became an impenetrable grid for those trying to escape our neighborhoods, and i t took many of us up to 3 hours to
escape down the hill, just to have to escape into side roads as Santa Ana Canyon was completely blocked.
It is our understanding that the proposed project introduces 447 residential units within a Very High Fi re Hazard Severity Zone,
replacing a historically commercial use within the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan area and requiri ng a General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment No. 6, Zoning Code changes, certification of Final EIR No. 358, and adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Unlike the prior cinema use, which reflected the already residing population driving to the cinema and home agai n the residential
density introduces:
• A permanent 24-hour sleeping population
• Children and elderly residents
• Mobility-limited and medically vulnerable populations
• Increased demand on EMS transport, fire response, and hospital systems
In the event of a wildfire, not only the infrastructure/vehicle evacuations should deserve seri ous consi derati on, but also children
that need to be picked up from schools, emergency vehicles and fire engines getting access to burning structures, seni or
evacuations from senior citizen facilities, evacuation of horses from the Saddle club.
And please do bear in mind that a fire doesn't respect rush hour traffic, which we are already suffering under daily from school
pick up at El Rancho, to commuters and large commercial vehicles utilizing Serrano, Nohl Ranch and Santa Ana Canyon as
shortcuts to Green River, Corona, Riverside and beyond to avoid grids on the 91
Wildfire evacuations rarely follow orderly traffic modeling assumptions. Real evacuati on scenari os involve:
• Panic-driven departures
• Disabled vehicles blocking lanes
• Smoke-limited visibility
• Simultaneous neighborhood evacuations
• Emergency vehicle ingress while residents attempt to exit
Congestion is enormous and accelerates in no time at all.
Many of us trust your good judgement and we deeply appreciate your willingness to scrutinize whether the record sufficiently
demonstrates a reliable viability with the City’s General Plan Safety Element and adequate wildfire evacuation capacity.
After careful deliberation with concerned residents, we see that there are still Procedural Steps Avai lable Followi ng the March 3,
2026, Vote, as follows:
Although the Council voted 4-3 to approve the project on March 3, 2026, several procedures remai n available before the
decision becomes fully final.
1. Request for City Council Rehearing
Under Anaheim Municipal Code §1.12.100, a party may request a City Council rehearing of a deci si on.
A request must be filed with the City Clerk within seven (7) days of the Council decision and must include a Declarati on of Merit
identifying grounds such as:
• abuse of discretion
• lack of jurisdiction
• denial of a fair hearing
• newly discovered evidence.
Because the Council vote occurred March 3, 2026, the deadline for filing a reheari ng request would be: March 10, 2026
If granted, the rehearing would vacate the prior decision and allow the Council to reconsider the project.
2. Second Reading of Ordinances
Projects requiring General Plan and zoning amendments typically require two readi ngs of the ordi nance before final adoption,
consistent with the City Charter’s legislative procedures.
If the ordinances for this project were introduced on March 3, 2026, the second readi ng is expected to occur at a subsequent
Council meeting later in March.
At that meeting the Council would vote on final adoption of the ordinance, which is a cri ti cal fi nal legislative step before the
approvals become effective.
3. CEQA Judicial Review
If the City files a Notice of Determination (NOD) following certification of FEIR No. 358, the California Envi ronmental Quali ty Act
provides a 30-day statute of limitations for judicial review.
This would allow parties to challenge the environmental review process, commonly on grounds such as:
• inadequate wildfire evacuation analysis
• incomplete cumulative impact analysis
• insufficient mitigation measures
• unsupported Statement of Overriding Considerations.
4. Broader Legislative Options
City councils retain legislative authority to reconsider or rescind certain prior actions where permi tted under procedural rules and
applicable law, provided such actions comply with the same notice and voting requi rements that applied to the origi nal deci sion.
Request for Continued Leadership
Given the significant wildfire evacuation and life-safety concerns raised during the hearing process, I join my nei ghbors to
respectfully ask that you continue to evaluate whether the administrative record sufficiently demonstrates:
• Consistency with the General Plan Safety Element (Gov. Code §65302(g))
• Adequate system-level wildfire evacuation capacity
• Appropriate consideration of cumulative development impacts
• Whether the Statement of Overriding Considerations adequately justifies overriding si gnificant safety impacts
The decision before the Council does not merely approve a single development project; i t fundamentally amends long-standi ng
land-use planning for the Anaheim Hills commercial core.
These decisions will affect wildfire evacuation risk and infrastructure capacity for decades.
Many Anaheim Hills residents greatly appreciate the time you invested in reviewing thi s project, and navigating the complexities
of the proposed development, and ensuring that public safety concerns were and wi ll continually be very carefully examined.
Local governance requires balancing housing policy, environmental law, and life-safety responsi bili ti es. Your vote demonstrated
a commitment to carefully weighing those competing obligations and considering the voi ce of the people. Especi ally after seeing
the dreadful ramifications in the LA fires. Our insurances have either raised the premi ums to almost unaffordable heights or
completely canceled some insured! If a home is lost, just as in the Palisades and Eaton fires, not only would a homeowner have
to continue to pay their mortgage, but also rent for alternative housing, and also wai t for an inordi nate amount of ti me on
insurances (if available) and permitting to rebuild. This would invariably result in homeowners havi ng to give up their homes and
force them to move. Not to mention loss of life and livelihoods.
Thank you again for your service to the City of Anaheim and for representing the voi ces of resi dents who live in wi ldfi re-prone
hillside communities.
Respectfully,
Anna Wentges
Long time homeowner and resident in Anaheim Hills