03
Theresa Bass
From:aneutrum <aneutrum@protonmail.com>
Sent:Monday,
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Agenda Item 3 Public Comment
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Hello Anaheim City Council,
I write to support Agenda Item #3.
While I support conducting the study, I did want to make sure that the scope of the study is well defined and
includes appropriate stakeholders. My concerns are outlined below:
1. Key Stakeholders (Task 4.1, page 22-23) – All the key stakeholders seem to be community organizations.
Unlike the resort area, there’s no central association/consortium of business or residents in the area. All the
identified groups are just community groups. If one of the potential outcomes is a Business Improvement
District, there should be some business stakeholders. Ideally, I would like to see representation from all
groups in the corridor: residents, business owners, property owners, cultural and religious institutions,
service organizations and other nonprofit organizations.
2. Community Walking Tour (Task 4.2, page 23-24) – While the proposal champions Bushra Bangee as an
added value of having personal knowledge of the corridor, the selected familiarity of “unique” attributes
suggest Dudek is not familiar with the staples of the community. There are missing cornerstones like
Cortina’s, In-N-Out, and Al Amir to name a few. Additionally, there’s inclusion of New Horizon but not
Madison Park which is one of the larger apartment communities in the corridor. Additionally, the study
makes several references to Tacos Pasadita, a new pop-up taco stand that’s been in the city for 11 months
but neglects inclusion of Taquería San Martin, who has been here for almost 10 years. The method Dudek
used to identify these “destinations that are the critical ingredient of \[the Brookhurst Corridor’s\] unique
identity” need to be reevaluated as they are not actually reflective of the corridor’s unique identity.
3. Community Outreach (Task 4.5, page 24-25) – I would like to see more direction given to where in-person
outreach activities should be. Common Ground Community Garden and Tacos Pasadita are not ideal places
to do outreach and are also centered south of the corridor. I would like to see outreach events hosted in the
Little Arabia plaza, in the Stater Brothers shopping center which captures In-N-Out and Cortina’s, as well the
northern portion of the corridor such as Linbrook Bowl which is close to Madison Park.
The data and findings we receive will only be as good as the inputs of the process. I hope that you will consider
redefining or placing the charge on Dudek to be more intentional about the inclusion of stakeholders for the study.
I also apologize if I have misunderstood the purpose of the study because while Tasks 1-5 seem to focus on
studying the corridor agnostically, Task 6 establishes the deliverable from Dudek as “\[developing\] and \[sharing\] with
staff the full range of possible cultural designations, branding strategies, governance structures, and regulatory
frameworks” that seem to suggest the focus is only on a formal implementation of Little Arabia, design standards for
Little Arabia, and governance structures for Little Arabia rather than the full economic development of the area by
need, which may explain why the key stakeholder group is proposed in such a way. However, the intention wasn’t
clear in the beginning.
1