Loading...
RES-2008-016RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007 -00052 REPEALING PREVIOUSLY APPROVEDAMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A "PROJECT" SUBJECT TO, AND WITHIN THE MEANING OF, THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT "CEQA AND THAT SAID PROPOSED ACTION IS 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 WHEREAS, on September 20, 1994, the City Council, by Resolutions 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 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 1 WHEREAS, 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 ofAnaheim, 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 WHEREAS, 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 2 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, thereafter, in accordance with the referendum petition and the provisions of Section 9241 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the City Council initiated action to (i) repeal Resolution No. 2007 -053 and General Plan Amendment No. 2006 00448, (ii) withdraw the 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 did prepare a CEQA Assessment of the City Actions to determine the manner in which the City Actions must comply with CEQA, and that CEQA Assessment provided City staffs findings and determinations that: (1) the City Actions, either individually or collectively, did not constitute 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, were exempt from the requirements of CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3). Furthermore, this assessment demonstrated 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; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2007, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council (i) adopted its Resolution No. 2007 -224 finding and determining that (1) the City Actions, either individually or collectively, did not constitute 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, were exempt from the requirements of CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3), (ii) adopted its Resolution No. 2007 -225 repealing Resolution No. 2007 -052 thereby rescinding its prior approval of the Addendum approved in connection with GPA No. 2006 -00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP, (iii) adopted its Resolution No. 2007 -226 repealing Resolution No. 2007 -053 and General Plan Amendment No. 2006 00448, (iv) adopted its Resolution No. 2007 -227 withdrawing the referendum measure regarding General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00448 from the June 3, 2008 special municipal election, and (v) initiated an amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to repeal Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP "Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 00052 and referred such matter to the City staff and Planning Commission for further proceedings and recommendation; and 3 WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on January 23, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 which repeals Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2008, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all oral and written evidence and reports offered at said hearing, did adopt its Resolution No. PC2008 -9 finding and recommending that the City Council approve proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007- 00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP based upon the findings and facts as set forth in Resolution No. PC2008 -9; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP, and did find and determine and recommend, by its duly adopted motion, that the City Council, based upon its independent review of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 00052, and unless additional or contrary information is received during the City Council's public hearing, find and determine that (1) Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP does not constitute a "project" under Public Resources Code Sections 21065 and 21080, and, alternatively, (2) even assuming that Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 could be deemed a "project," that Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 is exempt from the requirements of CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3); and WHEREAS, upon receipt of said Resolution No. PC2008 -9, summary of evidence, report of findings and recommendations of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, the City Council did fix the 26th day of February, 2008, as the time, and the City Council Chamber in the Civic Center as the place for a public hearing on said proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007- 00052 and did give notice thereof in the manner and as provided by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council did duly hold and conduct such public hearing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to be heard, and did receive evidence and reports and did consider the recommendations of the Anaheim City Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Based upon the CEQA Assessment prepared in connection with the City Actions, including proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP, and the evidence and reports presented to the City Council, the City Council finds and determines as follows: 4 (a) That proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP is not a "project" within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065 because the previously- approved City Actions and proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007- 00052 will merely keep the status quo of the 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. Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to its contents which existed immediately prior to adoption of said Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP. (b) That proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP does not provide for any new development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area; therefore, there is no possibility that proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 may have a significant effect on the environment because said action merely repeals Amendment No. 8 to ARSP recently adopted. (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 proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP may have any significant effects on the environment that were not already fully analyzed in EIR 330 or 313 because Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007- 00052 would merely return the authorized uses for the property in question to those which existed immediately prior to the adoption of Amendment No. 8 to ARSP, 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. (g) That proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 does 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) That proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP cannot have any significant effect on the environment because said action does not result in any change or changes to existing land uses or authorized uses currently in effect in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. 5 (i) That proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP does not effect a change to any of the development standards, requirements or restrictions set forth in the 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 that proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP does 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. That Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP is 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 proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP is exempt from the provisions of CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 does 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 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 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 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP is 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 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 because said action would merely return the authorized uses for the property in question to those which existed immediately prior to the adoption of such amendment, thereby preserving the status quo. Because the proposed action does not change the development densities or permissible uses allowed under the ARSP from those currently in effect in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area and analyzed in EIR 313 and EIR 330, the City Council finds that there is no possibility that Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 would have any reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect effect on the environment. Further, the City Council finds that Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 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 the approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 00052. 6 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 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP is exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 because said action would merely return the authorized uses for the property in question to those which existed immediately prior to the adoption of Amendment No. 8 to ARSP thereby preserving the status quo. Further, the City Council finds that Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 would not have any effects that were not examined in EIR 313 and /or EIR 330 and that all impacts that might result from the approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 were previously assessed because: (a) there are no effects peculiar to Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 that were not addressed in EIR 313 or EIR 330; (b) the proposed action does not change the development densities or permissible uses allowed under the ARSP that were not previously analyzed in EIR 313 or EIR 330; and (c) the proposed action does not effect a change to any of the development standards, requirements or restrictions set forth in the 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 313, 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 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 is required under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The analysis, findings and determinations 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 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP is required under CEQA because said amendment 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 can be determined that the proposed action could not foreseeably cause any direct or indirect significant effects that were not previously analyzed in EIR 313 and /or EIR 330. 7 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 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP does not change the permissible uses allowed under the ARSP, said amendment is consistent with the densities established by the General Plan and the ARSP. Further, Program EIR 313 and program EIR 330 were certified for the ASRP and all impacts that might result from said amendment was previously assessed because: (a) there are no effects peculiar to Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 that were not addressed in EIR 313 or EIR 330; (b) the proposed action does not change the development densities or permissible uses allowed under the ARSP that were not previously analyzed in EIR 313 or EIR 330; and (c) the proposed action does not effect a change to any of the development standards, requirements or restrictions set forth in the 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 proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 repealing Amendment No. 8 to the ARSP. SECTION 9. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs City staff to file a Notice of Exemption with respect to Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007 -00052 based upon said amendment not constituting a "project" within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065 and said amendment being exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061, 15168, and 15183. 8 THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 26th day of February, 2008, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Hernandez, Sidhu, Kring NOES: Council Member Galloway ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: CITY LERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 68063.v2 9 CITY OF ANAHEIM By