21 (17)
Susana Barrios
From:Andrew Winger <arwinger@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 24, 2026 3:23 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Pro-Housing Shouldn’t Mean Pro-State-Control
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.
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I want to start by saying that I am pro-housing, but I oppose the Prohousing Designation. It is a
friendly name put on a horrible agreement that is being forced upon the City of Anaheim by the State
of California. It reduces the City’s autonomy to deal with housing and homelessness issues at the
local level and gives greater control to the State.
There are two specific statements in the application that are cause for great concern:
1. The City agrees to “refrain from enacting laws, developing policies, or taking other local
governmental actions that may or do inhibit or constrain housing production.”
2. “Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that its policies for the treatment of homeless
encampments on public property do and will continue to comply with the Constitution and that
it has enacted best practices in its jurisdiction that are consistent with the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness’ ‘7 Principles for Addressing Encampments’.”
If I were to summarize a few major issues affecting all districts, they would be:
The Prohousing Designation incentivizes cities to reduce or eliminate residential parking
requirements.
The City is agreeing to refrain from future policies that may inhibit or constrain housing
production.
Prohousing limits Anaheim’s flexibility to develop its own solutions to homelessness by
requiring continued conformity with prescribed encampment principles.
Even when housing restrictions are necessary for public-safety hazards, the regulations state
that the City should demonstrate, where feasible, “no net loss of density” citywide.
At what point does Anaheim stand up to California and say enough is enough?
Presently, California is tying millions of dollars in homelessness funding to this Prohousing
Designation, which are two subjects that should not be dependent upon one another. Helping our
most vulnerable population should be a basic responsibility, not something conditioned upon passing
an unrelated State housing test.
What prevents the State from expanding this further and making Prohousing a condition for other
discretionary grants involving parks, public safety, or infrastructure? Will Police and Fire funding be
next?
1
We have already demonstrated, without a doubt, that Anaheim is pro-housing. Anaheim’s Housing
Element identifies housing capacity equal to approximately 159% of its State RHNA requirement. We
have 61 points on the application when the minimum required is 30.
This Prohousing Designation is a formality with major strings attached.
I urge you to oppose the Prohousing Designation.
Thanks,
Andrew Winger
2
Susana Barrios
From: Christine Nguyen
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 9:11 AM
To: Andrew Winger <arwinger@gmail.com>
Cc: Heather R. Allen <HAllen@anaheim.net>
Subject: RE: \[EXTERNAL\] Question Regarding Order of Prohousing Public Comments
Good Morning Mr. Winger,
Thank you for your comment. If the application ends up going to HCD, we will reorder the public comments
chronologically.
Sincerely,
Christine Nguyen
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning & Building Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
E-mail: CNguyen2@anaheim.net
Phone: (714) 765-4942
From: Andrew Winger <arwinger@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 2:22 AM
To: Christine Nguyen <CNguyen2@anaheim.net>; Heather R. Allen <HAllen@anaheim.net>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Question Regarding Order of Prohousing Public Comments
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.
Hi Christine,
It is important that we present comments in a consistent neutral order, such as chronologically.
I noticed my June 11 Prohousing submission begins around page 41 of the public correspondence, even
though many comments before it were submitted later.
If the comments were chronological, my original June 11 email would appear around page 8, with my
attached comments beginning around page 9. The comments previously included with the separate
Appendix 6 were presented chronologically.
Since this record may also be reviewed by the State, I am concerned that placing a substantive formal-
review comment so far back reduces its visibility.
Can the correspondence be reordered chronologically, with each attachment kept with its original
email?
1
Thank you,
Andrew Winger
2