11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 3
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2025-00041,
ADJUSTMENT NO. 17 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1, ADJUSTMENT NO. 15 TO
THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2,
ADJUSTMENT NO. 16 TO THE ANAHEIM CANYON
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; ADJUSTMENT NO. 10
TO THE BEACH BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
2017-1 (SP 2017-1) AND TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE – ANNUAL CODE UPDATE
Location: City-wide
Request: A City-initiated amendment to Title 18
(Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code)
modifying Chapters 18.04 (Single-Family Residential
Zones); 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial Zones); 18.10 (Industrial Zone), 18.12
(Mixed-Use Zone), 18.14 (Public and Special-Purpose
Zones). 18.16 (Regulatory Permits); 18.18 (Scenic
Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone); 18.36 (Types of Uses);
18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); 18.39 (Multiple-
Family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards);
18.40 (General Development Standards); 18.42 (Parking
and Loading); 18.44 (Signs); 18.46 (Landscape and
Screening); 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); 18.66
(Conditional Use Permits); 18.92 (Definitions); 18.114
(Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP 92-1)
Zoning and Development Standards); 18.116 (Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and
Development Standards); 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon
Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and
Development Standards); 18.122 (Beach Boulevard
Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and
Development Standards). The proposed amendments
are to provide clarity, create consistency of terms,
definitions, and processing; streamline approval
processes; comply with changes in State law; and amend
development standards to reflect current market trends.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether the proposed action is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional
environmental documentation per California
Recommended City
Council approval of DEV
No. 2024-00050.
MOTION: (Perez/Kelly)
VOTE: 7-0
Chairperson Walker and
Commissioners
Abdulrahman, Castro,
Kelly, Lieberman, Perez,
and Tran-Martin voted
yes.
Project Planner:
Sean Nicholas
[email protected]
Item 3 Audio
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section
15016 (b)(3).
Sean Nicholas, Principal Planner, provided a summary of the staff report and a visual presentation. He stated that the annual code update included amendments to provide clarity, create consistency of terms and definitions, streamline approval processes, comply with changes in State law, amend Code requirements to reflect current market trends, and support City Council Strategic Plan priorities. He highlighted the changes related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), employee housing, landscaping, and Disneyland and Anaheim Resort Specific Plans as notable changes. He concluded that Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve the Annual Code Update.
Chair Walker opened the discussion for Commissioners' questions.
Commissioner Lieberman expressed confusion between Sections 26 and 43 of the draft ordinance regarding how many ADUs are allowed, explaining that Table 38-C of the Zoning Code appears to suggest five total units instead of four, and recommended clarifying the language. She also requested an explanation of the statement regarding height limits on 800-square-foot units.
Principal Planner Nicholas clarified that Table 38C relates to Senate Bill (SB) 9 two-unit developments and urban lot splits, not standard ADUs, and that SB 9 projects can include ADUs but are limited to a maximum of four total units. Staff also explained that state law requires allowing at least an 800-square-foot unit, meaning local height limits cannot prevent construction of that minimum size.
Commissioner Lieberman asked what would happen if someone wanted a 200-foot footprint; could they build a four-story ADU, and Principal Planner Nicholas responded that potentially they could; however, the City would work to develop other alternatives.
Commissioner Lieberman expressed concern regarding the proposed change shown in Section 31 of the draft ordinance, which would result in properties listed in the City’s local historic inventory no longer being subject to certain design standards for ADUs unless such properties are under the Mills Act Contract, and requested clarification on the rationale for this change.
Principal Planner Nicholas explained that the changes are driven entirely by state law and HCD guidance, which only allow historic design standards to apply to properties on the National or California state historic registers, not the local historic inventory. He clarified that cities may require such design standards to Mills Act properties, as they are under a legally binding contract that requires compliance with certain design standards.
11.17.2025
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Lieberman noted a grammatical error in Section 31 (.105) on page 23, where “separate” is used twice incorrectly and suggested that they be revised to “separately.”
Commissioner Lieberman also noted that in Section 49 (.0502–.0503) on page 32, adding the term “drought-tolerant plants” is redundant since “plants” is already mentioned, and recommended removing the duplication.
Chair Walker asked for clarification on the proposed changes related to holiday decorations removal, requesting explanation of what the new requirement is compared to the old requirement.
Principal Planner Nicholas responded that Code Enforcement reports that holiday decorations and lights often remain up long after the holiday, becoming nuisances as they deteriorate in the elements. The proposed rule would require holiday-related items to be removed within 45 days. This requirement does not apply to permanent installations such as patio cover lights or similar structures/lighting fixtures.
Chair Walker asked for confirmation that permanent installations would not be subject to the proposed 45-day removal rule.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill added that the intent of the proposed change is to address safety concerns related to temporary holiday lighting and electrical decorations that are not removed in a timely manner. Because these items are designed for short- term use, leaving cords and decorations in place too long can create health and safety hazards. The updated language reflects issues seen in other cities and by local code enforcement.
Chair Walker opened the Public Hearing; having no speakers, he closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Perez made a motion to recommend approval.
Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion.
Motion carried by a vote of 7-0.