20 (18)
Susana Barrios
From:Betty Farnsworth <bettypfarnsworth@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 22, 2026 8:48 AM
To:cnugyen2@anaheim.net; Ashleigh Aitken; Carlos A. Leon; Natalie Rubalcava; Kristen
Maahs; Norma C. Kurtz; Ryan Balius; Natalie Meeks
Cc:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Prohousing Designation
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 understand the city is considering submitting for Prohousing
designation.
Please take the necessary time to review the parameters of this
designation carefully.
California’s Prohousing Designation Program incentivizes local governments
to streamline development. However, critics and policy experts highlight
notable drawbacks: it can bypass vital local input and safety reviews,
fails to directly force physical construction, and awards points for
loosely related criteria that don't always accelerate housing supply.
Here is a breakdown of the main criticisms:
1. Weak Direct Impact on Actual Housing
The designation provides state funding preferences and priority
processing, but it does not actually build units or force private
developers to break ground. A policy analysis from the Terner Center notes
that some jurisdictions struggle with market-rate labor and material
costs, making the designation ineffective at truly boosting housing supply
without deep subsidies.
2. Bypass of Community Input & Safety Reviews
For many residents, particularly in hazard-prone areas like Anaheim Hills,
the biggest negative is that "prohousing" policies often force cities to
fast-track dense development in zones facing severe wildfire risks or
traffic bottlenecks. Critics argue these top-down state pushes disregard
vital resident feedback and community-specific safety constraints.
3. Flawed Point and Scoring Systems
1
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
scores jurisdictions across various policy categories to grant the status.
However, the Terner Center's evaluation concluded that several qualifying
criteria (such as adopting universal design ordinances, reducing
alternative transportation barriers, or counting ADU policies twice) do
not explicitly or directly increase a city's housing production.
4. Financial Strain on Municipal Budgets
Some local municipalities and advocacy groups have pushed back because
adding large volumes of rental housing or affordable units doesn't
inherently expand a city's local property tax base. Because new
residential units bring increased infrastructural demands (schools, roads,
utilities) but generate less revenue, existing homeowners often worry they
will shoulder the burden of rising municipal expenses down the road.
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.
Please do not submit for this designation, retain your power and support
your constituents.
Respectfully,
Anaheim Resident
Betty Farnsworth
2