Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Transitional Supportive Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces code changes on transitional/supportive housing after heated public comment
Summary
Council introduced an ordinance to amend city zoning definitions and processes for transitional and supportive housing; backers said it is needed to secure state housing‑element certification and funding, while opponents warned of neighborhood impacts. The ordinance was introduced on a 5–2 vote.
The Anaheim City Council on Jan. 14 introduced an ordinance to amend municipal code language about transitional and supportive housing and related land‑use processes, a step staff said is necessary to obtain state certification of the city’s sixth‑cycle housing element and avoid funding and permitting consequences.
Staff framed the change as a limited, state‑driven clarification of definitions and land‑use processes. Heather Allen, acting planning and building director, explained that the amendment updates how “transitional housing,” “supportive housing” and “target population” are defined in city code to reflect state Government Code definitions and to make clear when conditional use permits apply.
Opponents, including residents and members of advocacy groups who spoke during general comment, urged the council to protect neighborhoods. Janine Robbins, a founding member of the People’s Homeless Task Force, told the council, “We have listened to these false presentations for 10 years now and they are the same lies,” and said she believed the city’s prior approaches have not addressed homelessness. Several speakers echoed concerns about concentrations of group homes and community safety.
Why it matters: City staff warned council that without amendments the state may not find Anaheim’s housing element in “substantial conformance,” risking up to about $10 million in near‑term state funding (including allocations for housing production and for homelessness assistance) and exposing the city to “builder’s remedy” development applications that can override local zoning restrictions.
Legal and procedural context: City staff said the proposed code changes respond to HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development) interpretations and to the need to close out an earlier court matter tied to the city’s housing element process. Planning staff noted the city previously required conditional use permits (CUPs) for larger group homes (7 or more residents) while smaller homes (6 or fewer) have been treated as by‑right residential uses; the amendments clarify definitions and the city’s approach going forward.
Council action: Councilmember Kurtz moved the ordinance; Councilmember Maaz seconded. The ordinance was introduced on a 5–2 vote. The council record shows the vote as “5 ayes, 2 nays”; the meeting minutes identify Mayor Pro Tem Meeks and one other council member as voting no. Staff and several council members said the vote does not end advocacy: they urged continued outreach to state legislators and CalCities on local control.
Implementation and oversight: Planning staff said operators remain subject to other city codes — business licenses, building and safety, occupancy standards, nuisance and fire/building codes — and recommended increased monitoring and reporting. Staff suggested operators holding businesses in residential zones are already subject to building and occupancy rules and encouraged residents to report potential safety or occupancy problems to code enforcement.
The council did not adopt the ordinance at second reading; the item was introduced and will return for further action as required by ordinance procedures.
