08.11.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 1
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-00223
Location: Citywide.
Request: City-initiated clarifying technical amendments related to implementation of the Sixth Cycle Housing
Element, including a General Plan Amendment to update
the General Plan Land Use Element Table LU-2
(Residential Land Use Designations); amendments to
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code)
modifying Chapters 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential
Zones); 18.12 (Mixed-Use Zone); and 18.52 (Affordable
Housing).
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether the proposed action is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional
environmental documentation per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section
15061(b)(3).
Recommended City
Council approval and
approved Resolution No.
PC2025-021.
MOTION:
(Abdulrahman/Perez)
VOTE: 7-0
Chairperson Walker and
Commissioners
Abdulrahman, Castro,
Kelly, Lieberman, Perez,
and Tran-Martin voted
yes.
Project Planner:
Heather Allen
[email protected]
Item 1 Audio
Heather Allen, Planning and Building Department Director, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 11, 2025. She stated that the item before the Commission was a follow-up to the City Council’s adoption of the sixth cycle housing element, focusing on four narrow, clarifying technical amendments to the zoning code and General Plan as required by the State for final certification. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the housing element in March 2025, and the Council adopted the complete package of actions over two meetings between April and May 2025, including the full list of candidate housing sites. The adopted document was submitted to the State in May 2025, and within the 60-day review period, the State provided technical assistance and issued a comment letter identifying four minor modifications to ensure continued compliance with State housing law. These changes are administrative in nature and do not alter, add, or remove any candidate sites already approved.
The first amendment is a zoning code change that applies to any sixth-cycle candidate site where at least 20% of units are affordable to lower-income households. It ensures such projects are eligible for a by-right review process, which the City already applies in practice. This amendment simply codifies the requirement to make it explicit, while subdivisions would still come before the Planning Commission as allowed by state law.
08.11.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
The second amendment is a General Plan Update that sets a minimum density requirement of 20 dwelling units per acre for qualifying lower-income projects on identified candidate sites. This affects only certain land use designations—specifically medium density and mixed-use medium—without changing the existing maximum density of 36 units per acre. In practice, projects in these categories already tend to develop at or above this 20-unit threshold.
The third amendment is another zoning code change that affects qualifying mixed-use projects on identified sites. It requires that at least 50% of the project’s total area be dedicated to residential use. This reflects current trends, as most mixed-use projects in these zones already prioritize residential development over commercial components.
The fourth amendment responds to a State requirement for by-right review of sites listed in both the fifth and sixth cycle housing elements. It introduces a reference in the zoning code to a separate, publicly available planning standard document that lists these sites, making it easier for interested parties to access this information without embedding it directly into the zoning code.
Staff, with technical guidance from HCD, prepared these clarifying amendments to align with State housing element law and address the State’s review comments, which arose during evaluation of the City’s implementation programs rather than during prior housing element reviews. The City aims to return these changes promptly within the state’s 60- day review window.
Director Allen concluded the presentation, stating that staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval.
Commissioner Lieberman asked staff for clarification about the minimum density requirement for certain sites earmarked for at least 20% lower-income housing. Would the minimum density requirement still apply for a market rate project.
Director Allen responded that it would not apply.
Commissioner Lieberman confirmed her understanding that only the maximum density would apply.
Director Allen provided an example: If a site identified for lower-income housing is developed as market-rate, the minimum density does not apply, but the City must track such instances to ensure replacement sites are identified if the surplus associated with the candidate sites is reduced below the City’s allocated need by income category.
Conversely, if a site designated for lower-income housing proposes more than 20% lower-income housing, the minimum density would apply.
Commissioner Perez asked if, after Council approval and resubmission to HCD, would any new issues be anticipated.
08.11.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Director Allen responded that no new issues are anticipated.
Chairperson Walker opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to comment. There was one speaker.
Marc Herbert provided public comment regarding rezoning and public participation.
Chairperson Walker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lieberman asked if staff would address Mr. Herbert’s question regarding rezoning.
Director Allen explained that the rezoning effort was part of a broader package of general plan amendments and zoning code changes approved by the Commission and Council in the spring of 2025, which collectively met and exceeded the City’s housing allocation of over 17,000 units. No rezoning items were currently before the Commission because that process concluded earlier in the year. The Stadium property, once considered, was previously removed due to uncertainty about development within the planning period.
Director Allen also clarified that Attachment 1 (of the Planning Commission Agenda packet for Item No.1) was the Planning Commission’s resolution for a General Plan Amendment, while Attachment 2 (of the Agenda packet for Item No.1) was a Draft Ordinance for zoning actions, on which the Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council. Procedurally, the municipal code requires the Commission to act on General Plan Amendments by Resolution and on Zoning Code Amendments by motion.
Commissioner Abdulrahman made a motion to approve the recommendation.
Commissioner Perez seconded the motion.
Motion carried by a vote of 7-0.