Laserfiche WebLink
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 9 3 <br /> AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING <br /> CHAPTERS 18.04 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES); <br /> 18.06 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES); 18.08 <br /> (COMMERCIAL ZONES); 18.14 (PUBLIC AND SPECIAL- <br /> PURPOSE ZONES); 18.16 (REGULATORY PERMITS); 18.22 <br /> (BROOKHURST COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (BCC) <br /> OVERLAY ZONE); 18.24 (SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD <br /> CORRIDOR (SABC) OVERLAY ZONE; 18.36 (TYPES OF <br /> USES); 18.38 (SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS); 18.42 <br /> (PARKING AND LOADING); 18.92 (DEFINITIONS); 18.112 <br /> (MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4 (SP 90-4) <br /> ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS); 18.116 <br /> (ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (SP 92-2) <br /> ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS); 18.120 <br /> (ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) <br /> ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS); AND 18.122 <br /> (BEACH BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2017-1 (SP 2017- <br /> 1) ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF THE <br /> ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND FINDING AND <br /> DETERMINING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM <br /> THE REQUIREMENTS TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PER CALIFORNIA <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, <br /> SECTIONS 15060(C)(2) AND 15060(C)(3) BECAUSE IT WILL <br /> NOT RESULT IN A DIRECT OR REASONABLY <br /> FORESEEABLE INDIRECT PHYSICAL CHANGE IN THE <br /> ENVIRONMENT AND IT IS NOT A PROJECT,AS DEFINED IN <br /> SECTION 15378 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. <br /> (ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2020-00170) <br /> (DEV2020-00002) <br /> WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's police power, as granted broadly under Article XI, <br /> Section 7 of the California Constitution and Section 400 of the City Charter, the City Council has <br /> the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace, health and <br /> welfare of the City and its residents; and <br /> WHEREAS, in exercising its police power, the City may act to restrict residential zones to <br /> specified types of uses deemed compatible with such areas to promote public health, safety and <br /> general welfare and preserve the residential characteristics of its residential neighborhoods; and <br /> WHEREAS, both the California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court have <br /> held that cities have the right to regulate both the number of people who may reside in a single- <br /> family home and the manner in which the single-family homes is used, as long as such regulations <br /> do not unfairly discriminate or impair an individual's rights of privacy and association;and <br /> 1 <br />