20 (02)
Susana Barrios
From:Maria Bessem <maria.v.bessem@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 11:21 PM
To:Christine Nguyen; Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Subject: Opposition to Anaheim Pursuing Prohousing Designation and
Concerns Regarding Cumulative Growth Impacts
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.
Mayor and Members of the Anaheim City Council,
I am writing to express serious concerns regarding any effort by the City of Anaheim to pursue
California's Prohousing Designation and the policies that typically accompany such a designation.
While Anaheim has long supported housing development and continues to approve significant
residential projects throughout the city, many residents question why the City would further commit
itself to a framework that prioritizes housing production above other critical community considerations
such as traffic, parking, infrastructure , public safety, and quality of life.
Anaheim has already demonstrated substantial housing production. If the City is meeting or exceeding
its housing obligations, residents deserve a clear explanation of why additional Prohousing
commitments are necessary and what public benefits justify the potential loss of local planning
flexibility.
Citywide Concerns Across Anaheim,: residents are experiencing the consequences of policies that
encourage higher density while reducing traditional development standards.
One of the most visible impacts is parking.
State and local policies increasingly support reductions in parking requirements based on assumptions
about traffic use and changing
transportation habits.
The reality experienced by residents is very different. Families continue to own vehicles, visitors require
parking, and many neighborhoods already face significant parking shortages. Overflow parking spills
into surrounding residential streets, creating frustration and conflict among neighbors.
Traffic congestion has similarly worsened throughout Anaheim. Residents routinely encounter longer
travel times, increased cut-through traffic, and growing strain on roadways that were not designed to
accommodate continued population growth without corresponding infrastructure improvements.
Many residents feel that planning decisions are increasingly driven by housing production targets rather
than balanced consideration of all community needs.
East Anaheim and Anaheim Hills
1
These concerns are magnified in East Anaheim, where geography, wildfire risk, and limited evacuation
routes create unique public safety challenges.
Residents are particularly concerned that projects are evaluated individually while the real-world
impacts are cumulative.
The proposed Deer Canyon development, the approved 447-unit Festival Center apartment project,
future Housing Element sites, accessory dwelling units, and other anticipated development all add
residents, vehicles, and evacuation demand to the same constrained transportation network.
Yet each project is typically analyzed as a standalone proposal.
Residents do not experience these projects individually. They experience them collectively.
The critical question is not whether one project can be accommodated in isolation. The question is
whether the entire Santa Ana Canyon corridor can safely accommodate the cumulative population
growth that results from all approved, proposed, and anticipated projects combined.
This concern is particularly important in areas affected by wildfire hazards.
During a major wildfire event, residents may have only a limited number of evacuation routes available.
Existing congestion already affects Santa Ana Canyon Road and surrounding corridors during ordinary
daily conditions.
Residents have legitimate concerns regarding what evacuation conditions would look like after full
buildout of multiple high density I residential projects.
Prohousing and Local Control
Many residents view Prohousing designation as a signal that the City intends to further reduce barriers
to development through measures such as reduced parking requirements, increased density
allowances, streamlined approvals, and diminished opportunities for community input.
While these policies may be promoted as tools to increase housing production, they can also weaken
the City's ability to address
neighborhood-specific concerns and respond to infrastructure limitations.
Residents deserve assurance that Anaheim's planning decisions will continue to prioritize public safety,
infrastructure capacity, traffic management, and neighborhood livability-not
a prohousing designation , short-sighted and motivated by grant monies.
REQUEST:
Before pursuing Prohousing designation or adopting additional policies intended to accelerate
residential development, we respectfully request that the City:
• Conduct a comprehensive cumulative impact analysis of approved, pending, and anticipated
residential projects.
• Evaluate cumulative traffic and evacuation impacts throughout East Anaheim and Anaheim Hills.
• Demonstrate consistency with Anaheim's adopted Safety Element and wildfire planning policies.
• Assess the citywide impacts of reduced parking requirements on existing neighborhoods.
• Provide residents with meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions that will permanently serve
Anaheim's future.
Anaheim's responsibility is not merely to approve housing. It is to balance housing with public safety,
infrastructure capacity, mobility, environmental constraints, and the quality of life of existing residents.
We urge the City to reject any Prohousing policies that prioritize development incentives over these
equally important responsibilities.
"The issue before us is not whether Anaheim should build housing. The issue is whether Anaheim
should continue increasing density without first proving that our roads, parking supply, infrastructure,
and evacuation systems can safely support the cumulative growth that has already been approved."
2
Respectfully,
Maria Bessem
130 N AVENIDA CORDOBA
ANAHEIM, CA 92808-1001
3