Loading...
24 (12)You don't often get email from concernedanaheimresidents@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Date:3/23/2026 10:15:53 PM From:"Concerned AnaheimResidents" concernedanaheimresidents@gmail.com To:"Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim.net Subject:[EXTERNAL] Fwd: Request for Clarification on Appeal Issues – Festival Project (DEV2023-00043) 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Concerned AnaheimResidents <concernedanaheimresidents@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:57 PM Subject: Request for Clarification on Appeal Issues – Festival Project (DEV2023-00043) To: <aaitken@anaheim.net>, <cleon@anaheim.net>, <rbalius@anaheim.net>, <nrubalcava@anaheim.net>, <nkurtz@anaheim.net>, <kmaahs@anaheim.net>, <nmeeks@anaheim.net>, <publiccomment@anaheim.net> Cc: <cityclerk@anaheim.net> Dear Mayor and Council Members, Ahead of the March 24 meeting, I am writing to request clarification on several significant issues raised in the Request for Rehearing and supporting materials. These questions reflect concerns already raised on the record by residents and outlined in detail in the appeal. Given their direct impact on public safety and procedural integrity, it is important that they are clearly addressed prior to any final decision. 1. Wildfire Evacuation & CEQA How did the City determine that it had sufficient information to approve the project while a comprehensive wildfire evacuation study— addressing the same conditions—was still underway? What analysis demonstrates that a project-level evacuation review adequately accounts for system-wide evacuation capacity? How were real-world conditions, including existing bottlenecks and congestion, incorporated into the evaluation of evacuation feasibility? 2. Consideration of Labor Negotiations Can the Council clarify whether the existence or timing of any labor agreements was considered—formally or informally—in the decision to approve the project? Would the project have been approved under the same conditions if no such agreement had been reached? How does the City ensure that discretionary land-use decisions remain based solely on appropriate planning considerations? 3. Fair Hearing & Due Process Why was the formal public hearing not reopened after January 13, despite continued deliberations and the introduction of new developments? How does the City distinguish general public comment from formal hearing testimony in terms of its role in the administrative record? What opportunity did the public have to formally respond to developments that occurred after the hearing was closed? 4. Completeness of the Record & Public Access Where can the public find complete and up-to-date documentation reflecting the full deliberation process, including developments that occurred after the hearing was closed? How does the City ensure that the administrative record reflects all relevant information considered in its decision-making? When key public records and meeting documentation are delayed or incomplete, how is the public expected to meaningfully engage with and understand the process? 5. Alignment Between the Appeal and the City’s Response The Request for Rehearing provided detailed, issue-specific analysis, including factual context around evacuation conditions, roadway constraints, and known bottlenecks affecting real-world traffic flow. In contrast, the City’s response appears to address several of these issues at a more generalized level. The appeal raised concerns about how real-world evacuation conditions—such as existing bottlenecks, roadway limitations, and congestion patterns—affect evacuation feasibility, while the City’s response appears to rely on broader conclusions without clearly demonstrating how those specific conditions were evaluated. The appeal identified ongoing developments and evolving conditions, including active studies and post-hearing changes, while the City’s response does not clearly indicate how those factors were incorporated into the final decision. The appeal raised process-level concerns about timing, participation, and the completeness of the record, while the City’s response appears to focus on procedural sufficiency without directly addressing whether the process allowed for meaningful engagement with new information. These distinctions are important, as they go to whether the substance and level of detail in the appeal were fully considered. Can the Council identify where in the administrative record the specific, detailed concerns raised in the appeal are directly addressed, rather than summarized at a broader level? How did the City determine that its response fully engaged with the depth and specificity of the issues raised—particularly those involving real-world conditions and infrastructure constraints? Given the level of detail provided in the Request for Rehearing, can the Council explain how the materials we re re viewed, what criteria were used to determine that the issues raised did not warrant further consideration, and where in the re cord the public can see how that review was conducted and how specific concerns were evaluated? Given the level of detail provided in the appeal, ensuring that each issue is directly and spe cifically addressed would help clarify how the City determined that no further review was warranted. Supporting Images – Real-World Conditions Attached images reflect observed, real-world conditions in and around the project site, including: Parking demand at or near capacity during typical peak hours Congestion along primary access and evacuation routes Bottlenecks and constrained traffic flow at key intersections These conditions are directly relevant to the evaluation of evacuation feasibility, infrastructure capacity, and traffic impacts discussed above. Image 1 – Wide Parking Conditions Wide view of parking demand at the project site during typical peak conditions, illustrating sustained high utilization across the lot. Image 2 – Parking at Capacity Festival shopping center parking conditions during peak evening hours (approx. 7:20 PM), showing near full capacity. Image 3 – Traffic Congestion Observed congestion along primary access and evacuation routes (Weir Canyon Rd heading toward 91fwy), showing limited vehicle throughput during peak hours. Image 4 – Intersection Constraint Intersection congestion despite active signal (On Weir Canyon & Monte Vista Rd), illustrating constrained traffic flow and delayed clearing. Closing Many of these questions still lack clear, documented answers. If these issues have already been addressed, I would appreciate being directed to where in the record those responses can be found. Addressing these questions prior to any final vote would help ensure that the Council’s decision reflects a complete, transparent, and fully informed understanding of both the impacts and the concerns raised by the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely , Shelly Robbins Anaheim, CA 92808