Loading...
RES-2007-224RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 224 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PROPOSED ACTIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL REPEALING ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -00448 AND AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, AND WITHDRAWING A REFERENDUM MEASURE CONCERNING SAID GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE JUNE 3, 2008 ELECTION, DO NOT INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY CONSTITUTE A "PROJECT" SUBJECT TO, AND WITHIN THE MEANING OF, THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT "CEQA AND THAT SAID PROPOSED ACTIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA, AND THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS THEREFORE REQUIRED 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 On September 20, 1994, the City Council, by Resolution Nos. 94R -235 and 94R -236, amended the General Plan and adopted the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan "ARSP to regulate and entitle development within the area generally west of Interstate 5, south of Vermont, east of Walnut and north of Chapman in the City of Anaheim. In conjunction with the adoption of the ARSP, the City Council certified as complete and adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. "CEQA Environmental Impact Report No. 313 ("EIR 313 to analyze and mitigate the environmental impacts related to the ARSP and the uses authorized therein; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2004R -95, adopted a comprehensive General Plan Update, which incorporated the entitlements and regulations of the ARSP, and concurrently certified Environmental Impact Report No. 330 "EIR 330 to analyze and mitigate the environmental effects of such General Plan Update; and 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 the "MND for, and approved, General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00442 amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan relating to the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay (Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -2) which provides opportunities for the incorporation of residential uses into hotel developments in certain targeted areas when such uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300 -room full service hotel; and which modified 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 1 uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300 -room full- service hotel (collectively "Amendment No. 7 to the ARSP 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 the "MND for, and approved, General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00442 amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan relating to the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay (Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -2) which provides opportunities for the incorporation of residential uses into hotel developments in certain targeted areas when such uses are fully integrated into a minimum 300 -room full- service hotel; and which modified 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 "Amendment No. 7 to the ARSP and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, on August 22, 2006, the City Council initiated General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00448 "GPA No. 2006- 00448") amending the Commercial- Recreation land use designation description in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and also initiated Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -2 "Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP to allow for wholly residential development, fifteen percent of which must be composed of rental units affordable to low or very -low income households, on a designated 26.7 -acre site within the Anaheim Resort; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council (i) adopted its Resolution No. 2007 -052 finding and determining that the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration with Addendum and Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program (collectively the "Addendum was adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for GPA No. 2006 -00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP, (ii) adopted its Resolution No. 2007 -053 approving GPA No. 2006 00448, and (iii) introduced and gave first reading to Ordinance No. 6058 approving Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6058 approving Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP; and WHEREAS, the following described litigation has been filed, and is currently pending, seeking to set aside the actions taken by the City Council pursuant to its adoption of (i) Resolution No. 2007 -052 approving the Addendum, (ii) Resolution No. 2007 -053 approving GPA No. 2006 00448, and (iii) Ordinance No. 6058 adopting Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP: Walt Disney World Co. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Cases No. 07CC01293 and 07CC01293; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2007, Save Our Anaheim Resort Area "SOAR submitted a referendum petition (the "referendum petition to the City Clerk's Office containing approximately 21,245 signatures seeking to require the City Council to reconsider Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 2007 -053 approving GPA No. 2006 00448; and 2 WHEREAS, Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 2007 -053 approving GPA No. 2006 -00448 is a legislative act which is subject to referendum pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution, the Anaheim City Charter, and the Elections Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Elections Official heretofore delivered its certificate to the City Council finding and determining that said referendum petition contained the requisite number of valid signatures to require the City Council to reconsider GPA No. 2006 -00448 pursuant to Section 9240 and 9114 of the Elections Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, based upon the certification of said referendum petition, the effective date of GPA No. 2006 -00448 was suspended and the City Council was required to reconsider Resolution No. 2007 -053 approving GPA No. 2006 -00448 pursuant to Section 1303 of the City Charter and Sections 9237 and 9241 of the Elections Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council reconsidered its Resolution No. 2007 -053 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00448 and, as a result of such reconsideration, did adopt its Resolution No. 2007 -161 "Calling and Giving Notice of a Special Election to be Held on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, for the Submission to the Voters of the City of Anaheim of a Referendum Measure Relating to Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 2007 -053 Approving Anaheim General Plan Amendment No. 2006 00448" (the "referendum election and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2007, the City did receive a written notice from the proponent of the project which is the subject of said Addendum, GPA No. 2006 00448, and Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP that it would not continue to seek or advocate City approval of Amendment No. 8 (to the ARSP) or the Addendum for such project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the referendum petition and the provisions of Section 9241 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the City Council desires to (i) repeal Resolution No. 2007 -053 and General Plan Amendment No. 2006 00448, (ii) withdraw a referendum measure regarding General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00448 from the June 3, 2008 special municipal election, and (iii) repeal Resolution No. 2007 -052 thereby rescinding its prior approval of the Addendum (collectively, the "City Actions and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared a CEQA Assessment of the City Actions to determine the manner in which the City Actions must comply with CEQA, and that CEQA Assessment provides City staff's findings and determinations that: (1) the City Actions, either individually or collectively, are not a "project" under Public Resources Code Sections 21065 and 21080, and, alternatively, (2) even assuming the City Actions could be deemed a "project," that the City Actions, individually and collectively, are exempt from the requirements of CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3). Furthermore, this assessment demonstrates that each of these CEQA determinations, standing alone, would be sufficient in and of itself to support the City' s action to approve the City Actions without further environmental review. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based upon the CEQA Assessment, and the evidence and reports presented to the City Council, the City Council finds and determines as follows: (a) The proposed City Actions are not a "project" with the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065 because the actions of repealing GPA No. 2006 00448, rescinding the Addendum, canceling the referendum election, and repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP will merely keep the status quo of the Anaheim General Plan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan as currently existing (due to the fact the referendum petition has resulted in GPA Amendment No. 2006 -00448 not becoming effective) and will return such General Plan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to their respective contents which existed immediately prior to adoption of said amendments. (b) The proposed City Actions do not provide for any new development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area; therefore, there is no possibility that the proposed City Actions may have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed actions merely repeal and rescind certain actions previously taken to amend the Anaheim General Plan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and rescind the Addendum recently adopted. (c) The proposed City Actions repealing and rescinding such prior approvals are not a voluntary and discretionary actions but are the result of the referendum petition and the mandatory requirement of Section 9241 of the California Elections Code which requires that the City Council either repeal said GPA No. 2006 -00448 in its entirety or call an election with regard thereto. (d) In 2004, the City prepared a programmatic and project level EIR (i.e. EIR 330) to analyze and mitigate all of the environmental impacts related to the City' s adoption of a comprehensive City -wide General Plan Update. The City also prepared and adopted a programmatic and project level EIR (i.e. EIR 313) related to the City' s adoption of the ARSP, and the uses authorized therein. The EIR prepared for the City's General Plan Update post -dated the City's adoption of the ARSP, and thereby encompassed the uses previously authorized by the ARSP within those geographical areas covered by the ARSP. (EIR 330 is hereby incorporated by reference herein, including all of its technical appendices.) (e) There is no possibility that the proposed City Actions may have any significant effects on the environment that were not already fully analyzed in EIR 330 or 313 because the City Actions would merely return the authorized uses for the property in question to those which existed immediately prior to the adoption of such amendments, thereby preserving the status quo. (f) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. 4 (g) The proposed City Actions do not change the development densities or permissible uses allowed under the General Plan or ARSP from those currently in effect in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. (h) The proposed City Actions do not and cannot have any significant effect on the environment because the actions do not result in any change or changes to existing land uses or authorized uses currently in effect in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. (i) The proposed City Actions do not effect a change to any of the development standards, requirements or restrictions set forth in the General Plan or ARSP, with respect to any proposed development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, and makes no change to the substance of any allowable use of or development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. SECTION 2. Based on the findings in Section 1 above, the City Council finds and determines that the proposed City Actions, individually and/or collectively, do not constitute a "project" within the meaning of, and subject to, the California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA generally, or Public Resources Code Section 21065 in particular. The City Actions are not an activity which may cause any direct physical change in the environment, or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. SECTION 3. Based on the findings in Section 1 above, and separate and independent of the findings and determinations in Section 2 above, the City Council does further find and determine that the proposed City Actions, individually and /or collectively, are exempt from the provisions of CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as the City Actions do not have the potential for causing any significant effect on the environment, and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the City Actions may have any significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. Based on the findings in Section 1 above, and separate and independent of the findings and determinations in Sections 2 and 3 above, the City Council finds and determines that the City Actions are exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(i) and (c)(ii). The City Council finds that EIR 313 and EIR 330 each fully and completely analyzed all of the potential and actual impacts that may result from the City Actions because the City Actions would merely return the authorized uses for the property in question to those which existed immediately prior to the adoption of such amendments, thereby preserving the status quo. Because the proposed actions do not change the development densities or permissible uses allowed under the General Plan or ARSP from those currently in effect in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area and analyzed in EIR 313 and EIR 330, and would instead only return the authorized uses for the property in question to those which existed immediately prior to the adoption of such amendments, the City Council finds that there are no possibility that the City Actions would have any reasonably 5 foreseeable direct or indirect effect on the environment. Further, the City Council finds that the City Actions would not have any effects that were not examined in EIR 313 and /or EIR 330, and that the circumstances contained in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have not been met, such that no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required as a result of any of the proposed actions. SECTION 5. Based on the findings in Section 1 above, and separate and independent of the findings and determinations in Section 2, 3 and 4 above, the City Council finds and determines that the City Actions are exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 because the actions of repealing GPA No. 2006 00448, rescinding the Addendum, canceling the referendum election, and repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP will merely keep the status quo of the Anaheim General Plan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan as currently existing (due to the fact the referendum petition has resulted in GPA Amendment No. 2006 -00448 not becoming effective) and as such General Plan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan existed immediately prior to the adoption of said amendments. Further, program EIR 313 and program EIR 330 were certified for the General Plan and all impacts that might result from the City Actions were previously assessed because: (a) there are no effects peculiar to the City Actions that were not addressed in EIR 313 or EIR 330; (b) the proposed actions do not change the development densities or permissible uses allowed under the General Plan or ARSP that were not previously analyzed in EIR 313 or EIR 330; and (c) the proposed actions do not effect a change to any of the development standards, requirements or restrictions set forth in the General Plan or ARSP, with respect to any proposed development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, and makes no change to the substance of any allowable use of or development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which were not discussed in EIR 313 or EIR 330. SECTION 6. To the extent that State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 does not constitute an exemption from compliance with CEQA, the City Council finds and determines that, based upon EIR 3113, EIR 330, and the findings in Section 1 above, and separate and independent of the findings and determinations in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, no further environmental review of the City Actions is required under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The analysis, findings and determines set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution are hereby incorporated by this reference. The City Council further finds and determines that the City has previously certified EIR 313 as a programmatic and project level EIR to analyze and mitigate all of the environmental impacts relating to the City's adoption of the ARSP, and the uses authorized therein and that the City thereafter adopted a comprehensive Citywide General Plan update and concurrently therewith certified EIR 330, which encompasses the uses previously authorized by the ARSP within its geographic boundaries. By reason of the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that no further environmental review of the City Actions is required under CEQA because the City Actions would not have any affects that were not examined in EIR 313 and EIR 330, and the circumstances contained in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have not been met such that it 6 can be determined that the proposed actions could not foreseeably cause any direct or indirect significant effects that were not previously analyzed in EIR 313 and /or EIR 330. SECTION 7. To the extent that State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 does not constitute an exemption from compliance with CEQA, the City Council finds and determines that, based upon EIR 313, EIR 330, and the findings in Section 1 above, and separate and independent of the findings and determinations in Section 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, no further environmental review of the City Actions is required under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. The analysis, findings and determinations set forth in Section 5 above are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. Further, the City Council finds that, because the proposed actions do not change the permissible uses allowed under the ARSP and the General Plan, the City Actions are consistent with the densities established by the General Plan and the ARSP. Further, program EIR 313 and program EIR 330 were certified for the General Plan and all impacts that might result from the City Actions were previously assessed because: (a) there are no effects peculiar to the City Actions that were not addressed in EIR 313 or EIR 330; (b) the proposed actions do not change the development densities or permissible uses allowed under the General Plan or ARSP that were not previously analyzed in EIR 313 or EIR 330; and (c) the proposed actions do not effect a change to any of the development standards, requirements or restrictions set forth in the General Plan or ARSP, with respect to any proposed development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, and makes no change to the substance of any allowable use of or development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which were not discussed in EIR 313 or EIR 330. SECTION 8. That, for each of the reasons hereinabove set forth, the City Council does hereby find and determine that no further environmental review is required for any of the proposed City Actions. SECTION 9. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs City staff to file a Notice of Exemption with respect to the City Actions based upon the City Actions not constituting a "project" within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065 and the City Actions being exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061, 15168, and 15183. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 27th day of November, 2007, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Sidhu, Kring NOES: Council Members Hernandez, Galloway ABSENT: NONE 7 ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CIT 67195.1 IM 8 CITY OF ANAHEIM By OR OF TH IT 1 F ANAHEIM