Loading...
24 (03)You don't often get email from arwinger@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Date:3/23/2026 12:12:11 PM From:"Andrew Winger" arwinger@gmail.com To: "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@anaheim.net, "Norma C. Kurtz" NKurtz@anaheim.net, "Kristen Maahs" KMaahs@anaheim.net, "Natalie Me e ks" NMeeks@anaheim.net Subject:[EXTERNAL] Rebuttal to Request for Rehearing from Petitioner Attachment:Request for Rehearing Rebuttal March 24.2026.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 City Council Members, I submitted the Request for Rehearing, so as the Petitioner I would like this opportunity to address concerns. Under normal circumstances, any of the 6 points raised as reasons to request a rehearing would be sufficient to grant one. Combined they make a compelling case. After reading the document published by the City with regards to denying the Request for Rehearing, I think you need to take a serious look at 3 of the strongest unresolved issues from the response. Summarized below (Attached .pdf explains issues in detail): Issu e 1 – W ild fire Evac uatio n / CEQA The C ity a pproved the project while s imultaneous ly conducting a comprehens ive wildfire eva c ua tion s tudy—es s entially a dmi tti ng i t did not yet fully unders tand eva cuation ris ks in the area . The project directly affects the s a me eva cuati on routes and c ondi tions that the s tudy is eva lua ting . C EQA requires decis ions to be bas ed on the bes t ava ila ble informa tion. Here, the C ity knew c riti cal data was a cti vely bei ng developed but chos e to proceed without it. A project-level analys is cannot replace a s ys tem-wide eva cua ti on s tudy. Approvi ng the project under thes e circums ta nces rais es s erious concerns that the decis ion wa s made without a compl ete unders ta ndi ng of public s afety ris ks . Issu e 2 – Lab or N eg otiatio ns In flu ence The C ity’s res pons e focus es on the abs ence of a written requirement for union labor. B ut tha t mis s es the rea l i s s ue: whether labor neg otia tions influenced the approval in pra ctice. Federal law prohibits loca l g overnments from interfering in labor decis i ons —even indirectly. The record rais es leg itima te concerns . A councilmember publicly linked their s upport to la bor eng a g ement, and a labor a g reement was fina lized while the project wa s under cons ideration. Even if unwritten, s uch influence ma y s ti l l be i mproper. T he C ity has not addres s ed whether the approval depended on tha t agreement, leaving a s ignificant leg a l ques tion unres olved. Video s upport: https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89V2foY9zKc Issu e 6 – Fair Hearin g / Du e P ro cess The core problem is timing a nd fairnes s . The C ity clos ed the forma l public hearing on Ja nua ry 13, but c ontinued delibera ting and cons idering new developments for weeks afterward—ultimately making its decis ion on Ma rc h 3. D uring tha t peri od, the public ha d no opportunity to res pond within the formal hearing proces s , only through genera l comment, whi ch is not equiva l ent. This crea ted a clea r imbalance: the project continued evolving , but the public wa s locked out of mea ni ng ful partic i pa tion. Due proces s requires that when new informa tion or continued deliberation occurs , the hearing be reopened. T ha t didn’t ha ppen here, undermi ni ng the fairnes s a nd leg a lity of the proces s . I appreciate your cons ideration of this , Andrew Wing er Page 1 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 Formal Rebuttal Request for Rehearing Meeting on March 24, 2026 Anaheim Hills Festival Project DEV2023-00043 Prepared Submission Page 2 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 Issue #1: Failure to Consider Material Wildfire Evacuation Information I. The City’s Response Frames the Issue Too Narrowly The City argues that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) properly evaluated wildfire evacuation conditions based on the information available at the time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and that it was not obligated to delay approval until completion of the Citywide Wildfire Evacuation Plan. That framing misses the point. While CEQA analysis is typically based on information available during environmental review, that does not allow the City to ignore relevant information that is actively being developed—especially when it directly relates to the impacts at issue. The question here isn’t whether the City had to wait indefinitely, but whether it moved forward despite knowing that critical evacuation data was in progress and unfinished. II. The City Itself Recognized Gaps in Existing Evacuation Analysis The City chose to initiate a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study, secured funding for it, and began work before approving the Project. That decision matters. It shows the City understood that current information about evacuation conditions—particularly in Anaheim Hills—was not complete. Otherwise, there would be no need for the study. This creates a clear inconsistency: the City acknowledged the need for deeper analysis, yet approved a project that will directly affect evacuation conditions before that analysis was finished or reviewed. III. The Project Directly Affects What the Study Is Evaluating The Festival Project increases residential density, adds traffic, and relies on the same evacuation routes currently under study. These are not tangential issues—they go to the heart of what the Wildfire Evacuation Plan is supposed to evaluate: whether residents can safely evacuate during a wildfire. Approving a project that changes those conditions while the City is still trying to understand them raises a basic concern: the decision may have been made without a full picture of the risks. IV. A Project-Level Study Is Not a Substitute for System-Wide Analysis The City points to a project-specific evacuation analysis and notes that it was peer-reviewed. Page 3 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 That may be true, but it doesn’t resolve the issue. Project-level studies operate within a defined scope and set of assumptions. They are not designed to evaluate broader, system-wide evacuation capacity. The City’s own wildfire plan, on the other hand, is intended to do exactly that—using more comprehensive data and a wider lens. Moving forward without that broader analysis risks relying on a narrower and potentially incomplete understanding of evacuation conditions. V. CEQA Requires Agencies to Use the Best Information Reasonably Available CEQA does not require agencies to wait forever for future studies. But it also does not allow them to disregard material information that is actively being developed and directly relevant. Here, the City knew: A comprehensive evacuation study was underway The study addressed the same conditions affected by the Project The results had not yet been completed or reviewed Under those circumstances, it is fair to question whether the City relied on the most complete and reliable information available before approving the Project. VI. Calling the Ongoing Study “Speculative” Doesn’t Hold Up The City characterizes the evacuation plan as speculative because it is not finalized. But this is not a hypothetical study—it is funded, underway, and specifically designed to address evacuation risks in areas like Anaheim Hills. Its completion is expected, not uncertain. Dismissing it as speculative minimizes its significance. In reality, it is a concrete effort to answer the exact questions raised by this Project. VII. Proceeding Without This Information Raises Serious Concerns A prejudicial abuse of discretion can occur when an agency fails to follow required procedures or makes a decision unsupported by substantial evidence. By approving the Project while acknowledging that key evacuation analysis was still incomplete—and without incorporating those forthcoming findings—the City risks having made a decision without fully informing itself. That undermines confidence in the environmental review process and warrants reconsideration. Page 4 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 VIII. Conclusion At its core, this issue is about timing and information. The City moved forward with approval while simultaneously working to better understand the very evacuation conditions affected by the Project. That disconnect raises legitimate concerns about whether the decision was based on a complete and accurate understanding of wildfire risk. For that reason, a rehearing is appropriate to ensure the Project is evaluated using the most complete and reliable information available. Page 5 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 Issue #2: Consideration of Labor Negotiations in Project Approval I. The City Frames the Issue Too Narrowly The City’s response focuses on the claim that union labor was not formally required as part of the Development Agreement. That framing does not address the actual concern raised in the request for rehearing. The issue is not whether a written condition appears in the agreement. The question is whether approval of the project was, in practice, influenced—directly or indirectly—by the status or outcome of private labor negotiations. A public agency cannot avoid scrutiny simply because a condition was not reduced to writing if the record suggests it played a role in the decision-making process. II. Federal Law Prohibits Government Interference in Labor Decisions Federal labor law draws a clear line. Under doctrines such as Machinists preemption, local governments are prohibited from inserting themselves into areas that Congress intended to leave to the free play of economic forces. Decisions about whether to use union or non-union labor—and the terms of those agreements—fall squarely within that protected space. This limitation applies not only to explicit mandates, but also to subtler forms of influence, including pressure tied to discretionary approvals. III. The Relevant Inquiry Is What Occurred in Practice What matters is not just what was written, but what actually occurred. The administrative record raises legitimate concerns on that front. A councilmember publicly connected their support for the project to the developer’s engagement with organized labor. Discussions regarding labor agreements took place alongside deliberations over project approval. Additionally, a Memorandum of Understanding with a union was finalized during the same timeframe that the Council was considering its decision. Taken together, these facts raise a central question: was the project approved based solely on traditional land-use considerations, or did the outcome of private labor negotiations play a role? Page 6 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 IV. The Absence of a Written Condition Does Not Resolve the Issue The City relies on the absence of a formal requirement in the Development Agreement. However, the law does not turn on whether a condition is written down. A decision may be improperly influenced even when the relevant factor is informal, implied, or understood. If a decision-maker signals that their vote is contingent on a labor agreement, and that agreement is then reached prior to final approval, it is reasonable to question whether the approval was based solely on permissible considerations. V. The City’s Response Leaves Critical Questions Unanswered The City’s response does not meaningfully address key issues, including:  Whether councilmembers relied on the existence of a labor agreement in casting their votes  Whether the project would have been approved absent such an agreement  How the timing of the Memorandum of Understanding factored into the decision These are not peripheral concerns—they go directly to whether the process complied with governing law. VI. Applicable Legal Standard Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, a decision constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion if it is based on improper considerations or if the agency fails to proceed in the manner required by law. If project approval was influenced by labor negotiations that fall within an area preempted by federal law, that standard may be satisfied. VII. Conclusion This issue warrants further examination. A rehearing is both appropriate and necessary to ensure that the City’s decision was grounded exclusively in legitimate land-use considerations and free from impermissible influences. Because the City’s response does not fully address these concerns, denying rehearing would leave a significant legal issue unresolved. The request should therefore be granted. Page 7 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 Issue #6: Denial of a Fair Hearing I. The City Treats Public Comment as a Substitute for a Formal Hearing The City’s response suggests that a fair hearing occurred because the public was allowed to speak at later meetings and submit written comments. But that misses the point. Those are not the same thing as a formal public hearing, and they shouldn’t be treated as interchangeable. A formal hearing is where evidence is presented, testimony is structured, and the official record is built. It allows for clarification, follow-up, and meaningful engagement with the issues that actually matter to the decision. General public comment is different. It’s more limited, less structured, and doesn’t provide the same opportunity to engage with the substance of what’s being decided. Relying on general comment as a substitute for reopening the hearing is not adequate. II. The City Continued Deliberating After Closing the Hearing The public hearing was closed on January 13, 2026. But the decision-making process didn’t stop there. The City Council continued discussing the project over multiple meetings, considered new developments—including the status of a labor agreement—and ultimately made its final decision on March 3, 2026. In other words, the process was still active and evolving after the hearing was closed. When that happens—when new information and ongoing deliberation continue after a hearing ends— basic fairness requires reopening the hearing so the public can respond within the proper framework. That didn’t happen here. Instead, the hearing stayed closed, and the public was limited to general comment, even as important developments continued to unfold. III. Allowing Public Comment Did Not Fix the Problem The City points to the number of participants—111 speakers and 522 emails—as evidence that the public had an opportunity to be heard. But this isn’t about volume. It’s about whether the process itself was fair. Page 8 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 The key question is whether the public had a meaningful opportunity to participate at the right time and in the right setting. General comment doesn’t allow people to respond to new developments in a structured way. It doesn’t provide an opportunity to formally rebut new information. And it doesn’t ensure that what’s said is treated as part of the official evidentiary record in the same way as hearing testimony. So while people were able to speak, their ability to meaningfully influence the outcome was limited. IV. The Process Was Not Evenly Balanced There was also a clear imbalance in how the process unfolded. During the deliberation period, the applicant was able to continue engaging with the City, and developments related to the project—including the labor agreement—continued to take shape. Meanwhile, the public had no comparable opportunity to respond within the formal hearing process. That creates a situation where one side can continue shaping the outcome, while the other is restricted to a less effective channel. That kind of imbalance raises serious concerns about fairness. V. The Timing of the Decision Shows Prejudice The City argues that no prejudice has been shown. But prejudice exists when a procedural flaw prevents meaningful participation, and the decision is made after that flaw occurs. That’s exactly what happened here. Deliberations continued for weeks after the hearing was closed. Relevant developments occurred during that time. And the final vote took place without ever reopening the hearing. Under those circumstances, it’s not necessary to prove the outcome would have changed—only that the public was denied a fair chance to influence it. That standard is clearly met. VI. The City Did Not Follow Required Procedures A fair hearing isn’t just about allowing comments. It requires a proper process. That includes a structured forum, an opportunity to respond to new developments, and a decision based on a complete and fairly developed record. Page 9 of 9 Request for Rehearing Rebuttal: March 24, 2026 By closing the hearing too early and refusing to reopen it as the situation evolved, the City failed to follow that process. This amounts to a prejudicial abuse of discretion under Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5. VII. Conclusion The core issue remains unaddressed: the hearing was closed while the decision-making process was still ongoing. Allowing general public comment did not provide an equivalent or legally sufficient opportunity for participation. Because the public was denied a meaningful chance to engage at a critical stage, the integrity of the process is in question. For these reasons, the Request for Rehearing should be granted.