RES-2007-052RESOLUTION NO. 2007 052
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WITH ADDENDUM AND UPDATED
AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN ARE
ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE REQUIRED
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR GPA NO.
2006 -00448 AND AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE ANAHEIM
RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Council adopted the Anaheim General Plan by
Resolution No. 69R -644, showing the general description and extent of possible future development
within the City; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2004 -95,
adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan for the City of Anaheim (the "2004 General
Plan Update and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2006, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2006 -205,
approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 0085b (hereinafter collectively the "MND for, and approved, General Plan
Amendment No. 2006 -00442 amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify "Table
LU -4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City" to add language relating to
the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay (Amendment No. 7 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
No. 92 -2), which applies to focused areas of the Specific Plan and provides opportunities for the
incorporation of residential uses into hotel developments when such uses are fully integrated into a
minimum 300 -room full- service hotel; and, to modify the description of the Commercial Recreation
land use designation to note that in targeted areas within the Anaheim Resort, residential uses are
allowed by conditional use permit when such uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300 -room
full- service hotel (collectively, the "Project and;
WHEREAS, no challenge was filed against the MND or the Project, and the MND
and Project are therefore conclusively presumed to be valid under California law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapters 18.68 and 18.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
on August 22, 2006, the City Council initiated General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00448 and
Amendment No. 8 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -2 to make minor modifications to
the Project (the "Minor Project Modifications and
WHEREAS, the proposed Minor Project Modifications would (1) amend the Land
Use Element of the General Plan to modify the description of the Commercial Recreation land use
designation to note that in targeted areas within the Anaheim Resort, residential uses are allowed as
a Master Planned Development when such uses are developed on designated properties within the
ARR Overlay, and subject to the affordability requirements of the Anaheim Resort Residential
Overlay; and (2) allow the property owner to increase the proportion of residential uses within a site
to 100% if the application meets the following requirements: the Project is developed on designated
properties within the ARR Overlay and is processed as a Master Planned Development; the Project
meets the affordability requirements of the ARR Overlay; and the Project does not result in
infrastructure impacts greater than those associated with the Project as approved on August 22, 2006,
unless such impacts are analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Minor Project Modifications include modifications to
Table LU -4 and the Commercial Recreation land use designation description in the General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed Minor Project Modifications, the City
has independently reviewed the MND and also undertaken an analysis, and determined that neither
the Minor Project Modifications nor the circumstances under which the Minor Project Modifications
will be undertaken will result in any substantial changes to the Project resulting in any new
significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
identified significant effects from those identified in the MND, or that new information of
substantial importance, which was not known when the MND was adopted, has come to light; and
such analysis and determination is documented in the Addendum to the MND on file with the City
and attached to the staff agenda report regarding the proposed Minor Project Modifications; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed
public hearing on the proposed Minor Project Modifications, and took action both to recommend
that the City Council find the MND and Addendum to be sufficient to analyze any potential
significant environmental impacts from the Project, as modified by the proposed Minor Project
Modifications, and to disapprove the Minor Project Modifications, subject to any appeal or Council
request for review; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2007, the Planning Commission's decision was set for
review before the City Council by two members of the City Council pursuant to Anaheim Municipal
Code Sections 18.60.130, 18.68.050 and 18.72.040; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2007, the City Council voted on the proposed Minor
Project Modifications, and such vote resulted in a 2 -2 tie on the matter in part because
Councilmember Lucille King abstained due to a question regarding a possible conflict of interest;
and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, the City received a request from SunCal
Companies that the Council rehear the proposed Minor Project Modifications pursuant to Anaheim
Municipal Code section 1.12.100 "SunCal Rehearing Request and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2007, after the Fair Political Practices Commission issued
a formal Advice Letter concluding that Councilmember Lucille Kring did not have a conflict of
interest precluding her participation in the proceedings relating to the proposed Minor Project
Modifications, the City Council voted to accept the SunCal Rehearing Request and notice a public
hearing on April 24, 2007 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code sections 1.12.100, 1.12.099,
18.68.060, 18.72.060, to consider the proposed Minor Project Modifications; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2007, the City Council
reviewed the proposed Minor Project Modifications, and the MND and Addendum, and considered
all public testimony submitted regarding these matters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Anaheim as follows:
Section 1. The City Council declares that it has considered the MND and the
Addendum to the MND prior to making a decision on the Project, as modified by the proposed
Minor Project Modifications, and that the MND and the Addendum reflect the independent judgment
of the City Council, as the lead agency with respect to the Project and the Minor Project
Modifications. Based upon the MND and Addendum, and such other documentation and other
evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds and declares that, in accordance with
Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no
subsequent environmental documentation is required in connection with action on the proposed
Minor Project Modifications for the following reasons:
(a) No substantial changes are proposed in the Project by reason of the proposed
Minor Project Modifications, because the Minor Project Modifications do not involve any
new significant effects not identified in the MND or a substantial increase in the severity of
any significant effects previously identified in the MND. This conclusion is based upon
evidence in the proceedings relating to the MND, the Project and the Minor Project
Modifications, including but not limited to the following:
(1) The Addendum to the MND reviews each of the environmental factors
listed in Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, and determines that the proposed
Minor Project Modifications will not create any impacts with respect to
environmental factors which were not identified in the MND, and that the proposed
Minor Project Modifications will not result in a substantial increase in the severity of
any environmental impacts that were identified in the MND as resulting from the
Project.
(2) The MND analyzes aesthetics and concludes that inclusion of residential
uses in conjunction with hotel uses would not substantially alter the visual condition
of the site from what was considered in EIR 313 and EIR 330, previously certified by
the City, and which are incorporated by reference into the MND. The MND also
concludes that no scenic highways or scenic views are in proximity to the Project site
(MND, p. 8). The MND does acknowledge that EIR 313 had concluded that the
aesthetic impacts to Site A were considered significant and unavoidable, and the
MND notes that the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with
respect to aesthetic impacts relating to Site A. Although no specific project proposal
has been submitted regarding either the Project as approved on August 22, 2006, or as
proposed to be modified, no evidence has been submitted demonstrating that
development under the Project as modified by the Minor Project Modifications will
have any greater aesthetic impact than development under the Project as approved on
August 22, 2006.
-3-
(3) With respect to air quality impacts, EIR 330 (which is incorporated by
reference into the MND) sets forth project emissions associated with buildout by land
use type in its Table 5.2 -5. Calculation of the emissions concentrations by the
number of multiple family dwelling units and hotel rooms establishes that multiple
family residential uses produce significantly lower contaminant emissions, on a per
unit basis, than do hotel uses on a per -room basis, for all of the analyzed emissions
(i.e., CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, and PM10) (EIR 330, p. 5 -25). In addition, EIR 330
concludes that "The 2003 AQMP recognizes that emissions due to trips and mode
choices are not only a function of the transportation system, but also relate to the
proximity of housing and job generating land uses, and proximity of jobs to
transportation infrastructure and transit" (EIR 330, p. 5 -29). The Project as modified
by the Minor Project Modifications will increase the proximity of housing to
employment locations; in this regard, the Minor Project Modifications will help
implement two General Plan policies recognized in EIR 330: `Encourage the
development of commercial, office and residential uses in appropriate mixed -use and
multiple use settings" (Green Element, Goal 9, Policy 5), and "Encourage retail
commercial uses in or near residential areas and employment centers to lessen vehicle
trips" (Green Element, Goal 11.1, Policy 3) (EIR 330, p. 5 -26, 5 -27). EIR 330
concludes that air quality impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation,
and that the siting of sensitive land uses near major freeways also results in a
significant unavoidable adverse impact (EIR 330, pp. 5 -28, 5 -32). The MND
concludes that the construction activities associated with the proposed residential uses
would be roughly equivalent to those analyzed in EIR Nos. 313 and 330 for the
Project sites, that implementation of the Project including residential uses could
create significant air quality impacts, but the provision of housing near existing
employment under the Project is consistent with the AQMP and other regional
strategies to reduce regional vehicle trip volumes and improve the jobs/housing
balance (MND, p. 10). There is no indication that the Project, as modified by the
Minor Project Modifications, will have any greater air quality impacts than the
Project as adopted on August 22, 2006.
(4) With respect to land use and planning impacts, EIR 330 finds that the
inclusion of residential uses near employment centers creates beneficial impacts,
provides a range of housing opportunities consistent with SCAG's regional policies,
is consistent with the City and regional goals to provide additional housing
opportunities to balance jobs within a major employment center, and facilitates
implementation of a number of General Plan Goals and Policies, including Green
Element Goal 5, Policy 9, Green Element Goal 11.1, Policy 3, and Growth
Management Element Goal 1.1, Policy 2 (EIR 330, p. 5 -210). The proposed Minor
Project Modifications also implement Land Use Element Goal 2.1 "Continue to
provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City's diverse
housing needs Policies 1, 4 and 5; Goal 5.1, Policy 2; and Goal 7.1 "Address the
jobs- housing relationship by developing housing near job centers and transportation
facilities Policies 1 and 2. The MND concludes that the Project will not conflict
with land use policies because the Project includes amendments to the General Plan
to create uniform development area that will be consistent with the area's General
Plan and Zoning designations" (MND, p. 22), as do the Minor Project Modifications.
There is no indication that the Project, as modified by the Minor Project
Modifications will have any greater land use impacts than the Project as adopted on
August 22, 2006.
(5) With respect to noise impacts, EIR 330 concludes that hotels and
residential uses are essentially the same in terms of noise sensitivity and maximum
allowable noise levels. For purposes of freeway noise issues, the Federal Highway
Administration categorizes residential and hotel uses as having the same sensitivity,
with the same maximum allowable noise limits (EIR 330, p. 5 -174), and the State
Office of Noise Control designates both multi family residential uses and hotels for
the same range of "normally acceptable" and "conditionally acceptable" noise levels
(EIR 330, p. 5 -178). Further, EIR 330 acknowledges that sensitive noise land uses
can be impacted by roadway noise, and the siting of such uses requires a separate
noise study to determine the level of impacts and required mitigation, based upon
General Plan policies (including Noise Element Goal 1, Policies 2, 6 and 7) to
minimize potential impacts on these sensitive land uses (EIR 330, pp. 5 -185, 5 -194,
5 -195). Based upon this and other information, the MND concludes that noise
impacts relating to construction activities would be less than significant with
incorporation of recommended mitigation (i.e., muffling, noise study, etc.) in the
MND; and there is no indication that the Project, as modified by the Minor Project
Modifications, will have any greater noise impacts than the Project as adopted on
August 22, 2006 (MND, p. 23). Further, the MND concludes that development of
Site A with residential uses would expose the resident population to ambient noise
levels in excess of City established standards; and, while implementation of the
MND's recommended mitigation would reduce these potential impacts to the
maximum extent feasible, the impact to residential uses along Katella remains
significant and unavoidable. There is no indication that the Project, as modified by
the Minor Project Modifications, will result in significantly more severe roadway
noise impacts than those associated with the Project as adopted on August 22, 2006
(MND, p. 23).
(6) With respect to public services, the MND concludes that residential uses
would create a similar demand for fire protection and police protection in comparison
to what was assumed with hotel and non residential uses (MND, p. 25). The MND
further concludes that the introduction of a residential population into an area where
currently few residential uses exist could necessitate reassignment of certain types of
police and fire resources; however, with the implementation of the mitigation
measures listed in the MND, these potential impacts are reduced to a level of
insignificance (MND, p. 25). There is no indication that the Project, as modified by
the Minor Project Modifications, will create any new or different police and fire
impacts than those associated with the Project as adopted on August 22, 2006.
With respect to schools, EIR 330 acknowledges that residential uses place an
additional burden on existing school facilities, but concludes that, as a matter of
legislative mandate, the school impact fee structure enacted by Government Code
Section 65995, et seq. precludes the City from considering school overcrowding as a
significant impact: "While the City acknowledges that future growth will result in
increased need for school facilities, the City is precluded per SB 50 to consider this a
significant impact for the purposes of CEQA. The payment of developer fees will
offset the costs to each District of providing educational facilities to these students.
(EIR 330, p. 5 -234). Based on this determination, the MND concludes that the
payment of school impact fees offsets costs of each school district providing
educational facilities for these students, and includes mitigation measures requiring
the payment of the school impact fees to further reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance. (MND, p. 26). There is no indication that the Project, as modified by
the Minor Project Modifications, will create any new or different school impacts than
those associated with the Project as adopted on August 22, 2006.
(7) With respect to transportation and traffic impacts, EIR 313 indicates that
multi family residential uses generate significantly less daily and peak traffic than
traditional hotel uses. Technical Appendix A to the Circulation Study included as
part of EIR 313 applies ITE trip generation rates to conclude that hi- density
residential uses generate only about two- thirds of the daily trips that traditional hotels
generate; and these residential uses also generate fewer a.m. and p.m. inbound and
outbound trips. Assuming that Site A might be developed as a resort hotel (with a
trip generation rate approximately 15% lower than high- density residential), the
MND concludes that the increase in local population generated by implementation of
the residential overlay would cause an increase in traffic, but the limitation on
residential densities to the environmental equivalent of each parcel's maximum hotel
density results in the impacts from residential uses to the existing traffic load and
street system capacity being consistent with the findings contained in EIRs 313 and
330. As the MND concludes, "Due to the use of traffic generation equivalency, the
impact would be no greater than anticipated with development of resort land uses"
(MND, p. 29). There is no indication that the Project, as modified by the Minor
Project Modifications, will create any new or traffic impacts than those associated
with the Project as adopted on August 22, 2006.
(b) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the Project, as modified by the proposed Minor Modifications, is undertaken which
will require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant effects
not identified in the MND or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects
previously identified in the MND. This conclusion is based upon evidence in the
proceedings relating to the MND, the Project and the Minor Project Modifications, including
but not limited to conclusions in the September, 1994 EIR 313 and September, 2004 EIR 313
Validation Reports, the analyses of existing environmental conditions in EIR 330 and the
MND, the analysis contained in EIR 311 and the analysis contained in the Addendum, as
well as all related supporting documentation.
(c) No new information of substantial importance, which was not known or could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MND was
adopted, shows any of the following:
-6-
(i) The Project, as modified by the proposed Minor Project Modifications,
will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND;
(ii) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the MND;
(iii) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative; or
(iv) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in the MND would substantially reduce the one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
While information regarding a January, 2007 U.S.C. study on the effects of freeway
air emissions on children was referenced in connection with the consideration of the
proposed Minor Project Modifications, this study has essentially the same conclusions
regarding the effect of air emissions on sensitive receptors that are contained in the California
Air Resource Board's March 2005 "Proposed Air Quality and Land Use Handbook" and
South Coast Air Quality Management District's May 2005 "Guidance Document for
Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning," both of which either
were known or could have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the
MND was adopted in August, 2006.
Section 2. Based upon the findings in Section 1 above, and pursuant to Sections
15162, 15164, 15168 and 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the
Project, as modified by the Minor Project Modifications, conforms in all respects to the regulations
and entitlements studied in and contemplated by the MND. Therefore, the Project, as modified by
the proposed Minor Project Modifications, falls within the scope of the MND and the approved
Project, and no further environmental documentation or findings are required in connection with the
consideration of the Project, as modified by the Minor Project Modifications.
Section 3. In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, City
staff is authorized and directed to attach the Addendum to the MND, and, if the Minor Project
Modifications are approved, to file a Notice of Determination with respect to the Minor Project
Modifications.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim this 24th day of Apr; 1 2007, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Hernandez, Galloway, Kring
NOES: Mayor Pringle, Council Member Sidhu
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
CITY LERK OF THE C T
CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Mayor Pro Tem