20 (14)
Susana Barrios
From:Ekta Parikh <ektadparikh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 20, 2026 10:35 PM
To:Christine Nguyen
Cc:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Comments regarding the Pro Housing Designation
You don't often get email from ektadparikh@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important
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 respectfully ask the City to explain why it would pursue California’s Prohousing Designation when significant
concerns about traffic, parking, infrastructure, and evacuation safety remain unresolved.
This is not a question of whether Anaheim should build housing. It is a question of why the City would
encourage even greater density before demonstrating that our roads, infrastructure, and emergency
evacuation systems can safely support the growth already approved.
The City has already prepared studies, but independent CEQA counsel identified serious deficiencies in the
City’s own analyses, including inconsistencies with Anaheim’s adopted evacuation plans and failures to
adequately account for cumulative impacts.
Even more concerning, the City Council, City staff, and the Fire Chief previously concluded that additional
density on these same roadways would increase evacuation risks and threaten public safety.
East Anaheim and Anaheim Hills are located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, where evacuation is a
matter of life and death. Residents have already experienced the realities of wildfire and gridlock. Seeking
Prohousing Designation and state funding to encourage even greater density while these unresolved safety
risks remain is irresponsible. Public safety must come before development incentives.
Anaheim should not be seeking state incentives to encourage additional density when it has yet to
demonstrate that the growth already approved can be safely accommodated.
Respectfully,
~Ekta Parikh
1