21 (05)
Susana Barrios
From:Dee Ann Gagliano <deeannmeta@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, August 19, 2026 9:31 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Pro housing Designation
\[You don't o?en get email from deeannmeta@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important at
h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?fica?on \]
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.
Mayor and Members of the Anaheim City Council,
I am wri?ng to express serious concerns regarding any effort by the City of Anaheim to pursue California's Prohousing
Designa?on and the policies that typically accompany such a designa?on.
While Anaheim has long supported housing development and con?nues to approve significant residen?al projects
throughout the city, many residents ques?on why the City would further commit itself to a framework that priori?zes
housing produc?on above other cri?cal community considera?ons such as traffic, parking, infrastructure , public safety,
and quality of life.
Anaheim has already demonstrated substan?al housing produc?on. If the City is mee?ng or exceeding its housing
obliga?ons, residents deserve a clear explana?on of why addi?onal Prohousing commitments are necessary and what
public benefits jus?fy the poten?al loss of local planning flexibility.
Citywide Concerns Across Anaheim,: residents are experiencing the consequences of policies that encourage higher
density while reducing tradi?onal development standards.
One of the most visible impacts is parking.
State and local policies increasingly support reduc?ons in parking requirements based on assump?ons about traffic use
and changing transporta?on habits.
The reality experienced by residents is very different. Families con?nue to own vehicles, visitors require parking, and
many neighborhoods already face significant parking shortages. Overflow parking spills into surrounding residen?al
streets, crea?ng frustra?on and conflict among neighbors.
Traffic conges?on has similarly worsened throughout Anaheim. Residents rou?nely encounter longer travel ?mes,
increased cut-through traffic, and growing strain on roadways that were not designed to accommodate con?nued
popula?on growth without corresponding infrastructure improvements.
Many residents feel that planning decisions are increasingly driven by housing produc?on targets rather than balanced
considera?on of all community needs.
East Anaheim and Anaheim Hills
These concerns are magnified in East Anaheim, where geography, wildfire risk, and limited evacua?on routes create
unique public safety challenges.
Residents are par?cularly concerned that projects are evaluated individually while the real-world impacts are cumula?ve.
The proposed Deer Canyon development, the approved 447-unit Fes?val Center apartment project, future Housing
Element sites, accessory dwelling units, and other an?cipated development all add residents, vehicles, and evacua?on
demand to the same constrained transporta?on network.
Yet each project is typically analyzed as a standalone proposal.
Residents do not experience these projects individually. They experience them collec?vely.
1
The cri?cal ques?on is not whether one project can be accommodated in isola?on. The ques?on is whether the en?re
Santa Ana Canyon corridor can safely accommodate the cumula?ve popula?on growth that results from all approved,
proposed, and an?cipated projects combined.
This concern is par?cularly important in areas affected by wildfire hazards.
During a major wildfire event, residents may have only a limited number of evacua?on routes available. Exis?ng
conges?on already affects Santa Ana Canyon Road and surrounding corridors during ordinary daily condi?ons.
Residents have legi?mate concerns regarding what evacua?on condi?ons would look like a?er full buildout of mul?ple
high density I residen?al projects.
Prohousing and Local Control
Many residents view Prohousing designa?on 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 opportuni?es for community input.
While these policies may be promoted as tools to increase housing produc?on, they can also weaken the City's ability to
address neighborhood-specific concerns and respond to infrastructure limita?ons.
Residents deserve assurance that Anaheim's planning decisions will con?nue to priori?ze public safety, infrastructure
capacity, traffic management, and neighborhood livability-not a prohousing designa?on , short-sighted and mo?vated by
grant monies.
REQUEST:
Before pursuing Prohousing designa?on or adop?ng addi?onal policies intended to accelerate residen?al development,
we respec?ully request that the City:
• Conduct a comprehensive cumula?ve impact analysis of approved, pending, and an?cipated residen?al projects.
• Evaluate cumula?ve traffic and evacua?on 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 exis?ng neighborhoods.
• Provide residents with meaningful opportuni?es to par?cipate 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 exis?ng residents.
We urge the City to reject any Prohousing policies that priori?ze development incen?ves over these equally important
responsibili?es.
"The issue before us is not whether Anaheim should build housing. The issue is whether Anaheim should con?nue
increasing density without first proving that our roads, parking supply, infrastructure, and evacua?on systems can safely
support the cumula?ve growth that has already been approved."
Respec?ully,
Dee Ann Gagliano
I agree 100% with every point made in this email.
Sent from my iPad
2