The URL can be used to link to this page

General (13) Susana Barrios -----Original Message----- From: roark9x@gmail.com <roark9x@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2026 9:25 AM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@anaheim.net> Cc: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net> Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Request for a Ban on Residen?al Fireworks in Anaheim \[You don't o?en get email from roark9x@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?ﬁca?on \] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open a?achments unless you recognize the sender and are expec?ng the message. Dear Mayor Ashleigh Aitken and Members of the Anaheim City Council, I am wri?ng to respec?ully urge the City of Anaheim to enact a complete ban on the use and sale of consumer ﬁreworks within city limits, year-round. Anaheim currently permits "safe and sane" ﬁreworks only around Independence Day. Unfortunately, this policy is diﬃcult to enforce in prac?ce. Fireworks are regularly lit during the days and weeks leading up to and following July 4th, as well as at other ?mes of the year, posing real risks to residents, wildlife, and the environment. I'd also like you to know this isn't an isolated request -- I'm sending this same le?er to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and to each of the other nine OC ci?es that currently permit residen?al ﬁreworks sales, urging a coordinated, county-wide approach. A single city banning ﬁreworks while its neighbors s?ll allow them simply pushes the problem across the city line; a regionally consistent rule would be far easier for residents and law enforcement to understand and enforce than the current patchwork of diﬀering local ordinances. WHY A FULL, YEAR-ROUND BAN -- NOT A PARTIAL OR SEASONAL ONE The current approach, where only certain "safe and sane" ﬁreworks are allowed during a narrow window, creates confusion that undermines enforcement: Residents o?en can't easily tell which ﬁreworks are legal "safe and sane" versus illegal, since both are sold and used in the same neighborhoods during the same week. Fireworks are rou?nely set oﬀ for weeks before and a?er the oﬃcial window, and on other holidays, using product stockpiled during the legal sales period. Illegal, high-powered ﬁreworks are used alongside legal ones and are diﬃcult to dis?nguish or cite in the moment, especially at night and from mul?ple loca?ons -- making the "safe and sane" policy largely unenforceable in prac?ce. SUPPORTING REASONS FOR A FULL BAN 1. Safety risk. Even "safe and sane" ﬁreworks cause serious injuries and ﬁres every year. On July 2, 2025, a ﬁreworks warehouse explosion in California le? mul?ple people missing and ignited a wildﬁre -- a stark reminder of the risks involved even with legally manufactured and stored product. 1 2. Public cost. Fireworks season drives a spike in ﬁre, police, and emergency medical calls, all funded by taxpayers -- costs that are largely avoidable. 3. Insurance and risk exposure. Elevated regional ﬁre risk from ﬁreworks use can be reﬂected in homeowners' insurance costs. 4. Wildﬁre risk. Fireworks were iden?ﬁed as a contribu?ng factor in the Lachman Fire, which preceded the larger Palisades Fire in Los Angeles -- a cau?onary example of how localized ﬁreworks use can cascade into major disaster, especially during dry, windy condi?ons increasingly common across Southern California. 5. Environmental and wildlife harm. Fireworks are documented to disturb and kill migratory birds, and they leave behind heavy metals, microplas?cs, and toxic residue that wash into storm drains and waterways. 6. Air quality. Fireworks smoke contributes to elevated PM2.5 and toxic par?culate levels for hours and even days a?erward, dispropor?onately aﬀec?ng children, the elderly, and people with respiratory condi?ons. 7. Noise and quality of life. Unpredictable, late-night ﬁreworks noise disrupts sleep for weeks at a stretch, with dispropor?onate impact on veterans with PTSD, infants, and pets -- made worse in summer when residents must keep windows open to cope with heat. LEGAL AND LIABILITY EXPOSURE FOR THE CITY Beyond the public-safety case, con?nuing to permit residen?al ﬁreworks sales carries real legal and ﬁnancial exposure for the City itself, separate from any liability borne by individual residents: Permi?ng is an aﬃrma?ve act, not passive inac?on. California public en??es generally have broad immunity for simply failing to ban or enforce against a hazard (Gov. Code Sec?ons 818.2, 821). But by ac?vely licensing ﬁreworks stands, se?ng designated sales and discharge windows, and running a lo?ery for vendor permits, the City is taking aﬃrma?ve regulatory ac?on -- which is a meaningfully diﬀerent legal posture than doing nothing. Aﬃrma?ve permi?ng schemes are more exposed to "dangerous condi?on of public property" theories (Gov. Code Sec?on 835) than a city that has simply never addressed the issue. Inverse condemna?on is a live and ac?ve doctrine in California ﬁre li?ga?on right now. Following the 2025 Los Angeles- area ﬁres, government en??es -- not just u?li?es -- are being named as defendants under California's inverse condemna?on framework, which can hold public en??es liable for property damage connected to their ac?ons or infrastructure decisions even without a showing of ordinary negligence. A municipality that knowingly con?nues a permi?ng scheme ?ed to a foreseeable igni?on source, a?er being placed on no?ce of that risk, is in a diﬀerent posi?on than one that never licensed the ac?vity in the ﬁrst place. Li?ga?on and defense costs are real even when the City ul?mately prevails. Immunity defenses typically have to be li?gated, not assumed -- meaning the City can face signiﬁcant legal costs, staﬀ ?me, and reputa?onal exposure responding to claims even in cases it's likely to win on governmental immunity grounds. Insurance and risk-pool costs. Many California ci?es pool liability and property coverage through joint powers authori?es, and insurers and risk pools increasingly price in wildﬁre-urban-interface exposure when se?ng premiums for member ci?es. A documented pa?ern of ﬁreworks-related ﬁre incidents ?ed to a City-permi?ed ac?vity is the kind of claims history that can aﬀect future premium costs for the City itself, not just residents' homeowner's insurance. Heightened scru?ny a?er a major incident. If a ﬁreworks-sparked ﬁre causes signiﬁcant property loss or loss of life in Anaheim -- something that has already happened elsewhere in the County and state -- the City's permi?ng decisions, 2 enforcement history, and any prior no?ce of risk (including resident correspondence like this le?er) become part of the public record and a focal point for any resul?ng li?ga?on or state/legisla?ve inquiry. None of this means the City is presently liable for ﬁre damage caused by residents' ﬁreworks -- California's governmental immunity framework is real and substan?al. But it does mean that con?nuing an aﬃrma?ve, City-run permi?ng and sales scheme carries a diﬀerent (and arguably growing) risk proﬁle than transi?oning to a fully City-managed, professionally run display model, which removes the City from the permi?ng chain for residen?al use altogether. MODELS THAT ALREADY WORK A number of Orange County ci?es show this can be done without losing the celebra?on: Cypress hosts a free, professionally managed "Salute to America" ﬁreworks display, with no residen?al sales or use permi?ed at all. Irvine bans all personal/residen?al ﬁreworks citywide, while s?ll oﬀering a large public Independence Day show with ﬁreworks at Great Park -- drawing bigger, safer crowds to a single well-managed event rather than sca?ering risk across neighborhoods. Mission Viejo bans residen?al ﬁreworks but hosts a free, city-run July 4th Street Faire and Fireworks Spectacular, complete with shu?le service, that residents can a?end without anyone needing to set oﬀ their own. Laguna Beach and Newport Beach likewise prohibit all personal ﬁreworks while s?ll suppor?ng public Independence Day events. These ci?es prove that a full ban doesn't mean the end of Fourth of July ﬁreworks in the community -- it just means moving them from front yards and driveways to a single, professionally run, much safer show that everyone can enjoy together. MY REQUEST That the Anaheim City Council adopt a full, year-round ban on residen?al ﬁreworks sales and use, redirec?ng Independence Day celebra?ons toward a professionally managed, city-sponsored display similar to those in Cypress, Irvine, and Mission Viejo. I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this further or assist in any way I can. Thank you for your ?me and considera?on. Sincerely, Roark 3