RES-2012-030 RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 030
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2011-
00344 AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 303
FOR THE HONDA CENTER ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT.
(DEV2011- 00099)
WHEREAS, in June 1990, the Anaheim City Council approved documents,
including certification of Final Environmental Impact Report No. 299 ( "Final EIR No. 299 "),
which was approved for and in conjunction with the construction of the Anaheim Arena in 1993;
and
WHEREAS, in 2003, the City approved and entered into its current Facility
Management Agreement with Anaheim Arena Management, LLC ( "AAM ") and, in 2006, Honda
Motor Company became the title sponsor and the arena name was changed to Honda Center; and
WHEREAS, Honda Center was originally designed and constructed to be home to
two professional sports franchises, and the City and its facility management partners have
worked throughout the years to bring a second professional sports franchise to Honda Center;
and
WHEREAS, Final EIR No. 299 analyzed up to 162 events per year for the
Anaheim Arena; Honda Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average
attendance at an event of 11,264 attendees; and
WHEREAS, the maximum number of events held in any one year at Honda
Center, during the past five years, was 162 events held in 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City and AAM desire to increase the maximum number of events
by 60 from the previous high of 162 events for a total of 222 events per year, which would
increase these average number events from three events per week to four events per week. The
purpose of the additional events would be to accommodate a second professional sports franchise
at Honda Center without reducing the number of events currently held at the facility. The
proposed increase in events would not result in a change in the Honda Center's maximum seating
capacity of 18,900; and
WHEREAS, AAM has submitted plans to the City for minor improvements on the
south side of the existing facility including an approximate 5,846 square foot restaurant to serve
event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store and a 9,114 square feet open area on the Main
Level (Level 200); and, above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square feet restaurant to
serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level (Level 300).
Other proposed improvements to the interior of the building include locker room, office space,
bunker suite and balcony suite renovations; electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of
the loading dock. None of the proposed improvements would increase the maximum seating
capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would result in the loss of
approximately 15 -20 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim Planning Director on behalf of the Executive
Director of City of Anaheim Department of Sports, Entertainment, and Convention, initiated a
request pursuant to Section 18.76.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to reclassify
approximately 22.5 acrgs utilized as the Honda Center's eastern parking lots from the T (PTMU)
(Transition; Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay) Zone to the PR (PTMU) (Public
Recreational; Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned increase in events, minor improvements and
zone reclassification are collectively referred to herein as the "Honda Center Enhancement
Project"; and
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Honda Center Enhancement Project, as defined in the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ( "CEQA "), and the State of
California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (the
"CEQA Guidelines "); and
WHEREAS, the City submitted a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for preparation
of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Honda Center Enhancement Project ( "Draft EIR
No. 2011 - 00344 ") on September 2, 2011 for a 30 -day review; the scoping period identified in the
NOP was from September 2, 2011 until October 4, 2011; and
WHEREAS, interested parties were invited to attend a public scoping meeting
held on September 2, 2011, at Anaheim City Hall, City Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92805. The purpose of the scoping meeting was to provide
members of the public with an opportunity to learn about the project, ask questions, and provide
comments about the scope and content of the information addressed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2012, Draft EIR No. 2011 -00344 was sent to the State
Clearinghouse, State and local agencies, special districts, public libraries and other known
interested parties, and was made available to the general public, thereby commencing a 45 -day
period, from January 6, 2012 until February 21, 2012, for public review and comment on Draft
EIR No. 2011 -00344 in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the comments received from the public
agencies and persons who reviewed said Draft EIR and has prepared, or caused to be prepared,
responses to the comments received during the public review period; and
-2-
WHEREAS, in conformance with Sections 15132 and 15362(b) of the CEQA
Guidelines, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2011 -00344 ( "Final EIR No. 2011- 00344 ")
shall consist of Draft EIR No. 2011- 00344; the comments and recommendations received on
Draft EIR No. 2011 -00344 either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations and
public agencies that submitted comments on Draft EIR No. 2011- 00344; the responses of the
City, as Lead Agency, to significant points raised in the review and consultation process; and the
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No. 303 prepared for the Honda Center Enhancement Project. A complete copy of Final EIR No.
2011 -00344 is on file and can be viewed in the Anaheim Planning Department and on the City of
Anaheim Planning Department's website at www.anaheim.net /planning (click on the link to
"Planning and Zoning" followed by the link to "Current Environmental Documents "). The
document listed on the webpage and identified as "The Honda Center Enhancement Project ";
and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2012, the Anaheim City Planning Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission ") did hold a public hearing, notice of said
public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions
of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against
Draft EIR No. 2011 -00344 and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission did receive
evidence and reports concerning the contents and sufficiency of Draft EIR No. 2011- 00344; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
studies made by itself and in its behalf and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, did adopt its Resolution No. 2012 -010 recommending that the Anaheim
City Council certify Final EIR No. 2011- 00344; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2012, the City Council did conduct a public hearing,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with
the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for
and against Final EIR No. 2011 -00344 and to investigate and make findings in connection
therewith; and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence and reports received at said public hearing,
and upon the studies and investigation made by itself and in its behalf, the City Council finds and
determines as follows:
That Final EIR No. 2011 -00344 has been presented to and independently reviewed
and considered by the City Council.
That Final EIR No. 2011 -00344 reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
City Council.
That Final EIR No. 2011 -00344 has been processed and completed in compliance
with the requirements of CEQA, and all applicable CEQA Guidelines.
-3-
WHEREAS, in conformance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, the City has prepared, or caused to be prepared, the (i) Honda Center Enhancement
Project Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, relating to Final EIR No. 2011- 00344, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, and (ii) Honda Center
Enhancement Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 303, which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in
full; and
WHEREAS, to the extent authorized by law, the City desires and intends to use
the Final EIR No. 2011 -00344 as the environmental documentation required by CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines for the Honda Center Enhancement Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby certifies
Final EIR No. 2011 -00344 and adopts the Honda Center Enhancement Project Environmental
Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby finds and determines
that Final EIR No. 2011 -00344 has been presented to and independently reviewed and
considered by the City Council, reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City
Council, has been processed and completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines, and is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the
Honda Center Enhancement Project and all related discretionary actions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in conformance with the requirements of CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council hereby adopts the Honda Center Enhancement
Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 303, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by reference.
-4-
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Anaheim this 3nj day of April , 2012, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Tait, Council Members Galloway, Sidhu, Eastman and Murray
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CITY OF ANAHEIM
By:
M YOR OF THE CI Y OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST: Aek
ip
ALI 0 . .40A4Ch■AIP
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF A ' HEIM
88926.v1 /MGordon
-5-
EXHIBIT A
1
2
(To be attached behind this page)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
w 12
Z M
• w
• H
-z 13
a�F, 14
z � �
UQ -J0LZ3`
=o''-71-4-E- 1 5
_¢Cx 1J
• Z
w w 16
lL
o N 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
EXHIBIT A
HONDA CENTER
ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
NO. 344
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
et)
prepared for:
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Contact:
Susan Kim, AICP
Senior Planner
prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTERIDC &E
Contact:
William Halligan, Esq.
Vice President,
Environmental Services
MARCH 2012
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 -1
1.1 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 -1
1.2 Environmental Review Process 1 -2
1.3 Project Summary 1 -4
1.4 Document FOrmat 1 -4
2. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2 -1
2.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping /Project Planning Process 2 -1
2.1.1 Alternative Sites 2 -1
2.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis 2 -2
2.2.1 No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative 2 -3
2.2.2 No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative 2 -3
2.2.3 Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative 2 -4
3. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 3 -1
3.1 AIR QUALITY 3 -1
3.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3 -2
3.3 Land Use and Planning 3 -4
3.4 NOISE 3 -4
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3 -7
3.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3 -14
4. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4 -1 ��
4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 4 -1 et)
4.2 CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 4 -6
5. REFERENCES 10
5.1 REFERENCES Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 WEBSITES 14
5.3 MODELS 17
5.4 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION 17
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page i
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
rkg
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be made by the Lead
Agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project
pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.
This document provides the findings required by CEQA and the specific reasons for considering the project
acceptable even though the project has significant impacts that are infeasible to mitigate.
1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Anaheim, as Lead Agency, is required under CEQA to make written findings concerning each alternative
and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the
project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for
each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall
describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and
project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also
adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially
lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 -1
1. Introduction and Summary
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or
other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its
decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) may include a wide variety of measures or actions as
set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be
in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines, the City of
Anaheim conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. The environmental review process
has included:
• Completion of an Initial Study by the City of Anaheim, which concluded that a "Project EIR"
should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30 -day public
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 -2
1. Introduction and Summary
review period from September 2, 2011 to October 4, 2011. Section 2.4 of the DEIR describes the
issues identified for analysis in the DEIR through the Initial Study, NOP, and public scoping
process.
• Completion of a scoping process in which the public and public agencies were invited by the City
of Anaheim to participate. The scoping meeting for the DEIR was held on September 21, 2011.
• Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of Anaheim, which was made available for a 45 -day public
review period from January 6, 2012 to February 21, 2012. The Draft EIR consisted of two
volumes. Volume I contains the text of the Draft EIR. Volume II contains the Appendices,
including the NOP and Initial Study, responses to the NOP, an air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions technical study, a noise technical study, and a traffic study. Notice of the availability of
the Draft EIR was sent to interested persons and organizations: it was also published in one
newspaper of general circulation, and was posted at the Office of the Clerk of Orange County.
• Preparation of a Final EIR, including the Responses to Comments, the Findings of Fact, and the
Statement of Overriding Consideration on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR/Response to Comments
contains: comments on the Draft EIR; responses to those comments; revisions to the Draft EIR;
and appended documents, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 303 which includes
the measures set forth in Draft EIR No. 344, as modified to reflect changes described in the
Response to Comments.
• Public hearings on the proposed project, including a Planning Commission hearing on February
13, 2012 and a City Council Hearing on April 3, 2012.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 -3
1. Introduction and Summary
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project includes an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center through the addition of
another permanent tenant, as well as other permanent improvements described below. The 1990 Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for Honda Center (formerly Arrowhead Pond) analyzed up to 162 events per year. Honda
Center currently averages up to 153 events per year with average attendance at an event of up to 11,264 people. The
maximum number of events, in any one year, over the last five years was 162 events in 2008.
The proposed project seeks to increase the maximum number of events by 60 from the previous high of 162 events
for a total of 222 events per year. Currently, there are on average three events per week at Honda Center, and the
proposed project would result in four events per week on average. The purpose of the additional events would be to
accommodate a second professional sports franchise at Honda Center without reducing the number of events
currently held at the Honda Center. The Honda Center has a maximum seating capacity of 18,900, and the proposed
project would not result in a change in the maximum seating capacity of current events.
In addition to an increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center, the proposed project would
involve other minor improvements on the south side' of the existing facility including an approximate
5,846 square foot restaurant to serve event attendees, a 5,846 square foot team store and a 9,114 square
feet open area on the Main Level (Level 200); and above the main level improvements, a 9,518 square
feet restaurant to serve event attendees and a 12,436 square foot outdoor terrace on the Club Level
(Level 300). Other interior improvements include locker room, office space, bunker suite and balcony
suite renovations; electrical upgrades and an increase in the capacity of the loading dock.
The Level 200 elevations would have a height of 17 feet 9 inches. The Level 300 at roofline would have a
height of 18 feet for a total overall height of 35 feet nine inches. None of the proposed improvements
would increase the permanent seating capacity of the existing arena; however, the improvements would
result in the loss of approximately 15 -20 parking spaces.
The proposed project includes a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T)
Zone/Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR) Zone/PTMU Overlay
Zone, consistent with the zoning for the remainder of the project site. Additional implementation measures include,
but are not limited to, building permits to allow the improvements listed above and agreements between the City of
Anaheim and OCFCD and between the City of Anaheim and AAM.
1.4 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This document summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project, describes how these impacts are to
be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project, which were developed in an effort to reduce
the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered potentially significant prior to
mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.
This document is divided into five sections:
Section 1.0 — Introduction and Summary provides the CEQA requirements for the Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations, the environmental review process undertaken to date, a summary description of the
proposed project, and a description of the contents of this document.
Section 2.0 — Findings on the Project Alternatives presents alternatives to the project considered in the Draft EIR
and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which
1 Please note a previous proposal located the proposed improvements on the east side of the existing Honda Center.
They have since been relocated to the south side facing Katella Avenue.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 -4
1. Introduction and Summary
allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant environmental effects if the
project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of the specific economic, social, or other considerations.
Section 3.0 — Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts presents significant impacts of the proposed project that
were identified in the Draft/Final SEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
No. 106C (dated October 2010), the findings for the impacts, and the rationales for the findings.
Section 4.0 — Statement of Overriding Considerations presents the overriding considerations for significant
impacts related to the project that cannot be or have not been mitigated or resolved. These considerations are
required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require decision makers to balance the benefits
of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to approve the project.
Section 5.0 — References identifies all references cited in this document.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 -5
1. Introduction and Summary
This page intentionally left blank.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 -6
2.0 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following discussion is intended to provide a summary of the alternatives analyzed or considered and rejected in
the Honda Center Enhancement Project Draft EIR. These include the Alternative Sites Alternative, No
Project/Existing Land Use Alternative, No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative, and
Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING /PROJECT
PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and
the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR (DEIR).
Alternative Sites
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable
of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the
analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting
the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects
of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (Guidelines Sec. 15126.6[f][2][A]). In general, any
development of the size and type proposed by the project would have substantially the same impacts on air quality,
land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and
utilities and service systems. Without a site specific analysis, impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and mineral resources
cannot be evaluated.
Where a previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental
impacts for projects with the same basic purpose, the lead agency should review the previous document. The EIR
may rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the extent the
circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate to the alternative (Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][C]).
As the California Supreme Court indicated in its decisions in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52
Cal. 3d 553 (1990):
The general plan has been aptly described as the "constitution for all future
developments" within the city or county... "The propriety of virtually any local decision
affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable
general plan and its elements.. ".. To be sure, the general plan is not immutable, far from
it. But it may not be trifled with lightly, as the limitation on the number of amendments to
the general plan in any calendar year attests." (Goleta, 52 cal.3d at 570 -571)
[In] some circumstances, an EIR may consider alternatives requiring a site - specific
amendment of the general plan. However, an EIR is not ordinarily an occasion for the
reconsideration or overhaul of fundamental land use policy. (Goleta, at 573)
The Proposed Project would involve additional events at Honda Center and construct minor enhancements to the
facility. This alternative site analysis considers both existing facilities and undeveloped sites large enough to construct
an arena with a minimum capacity of 18,900 spectators and associated parking. The minimum site size for construction
of a new facility is approximately 40 acres. It should be noted that Honda Center already has adequate capacity for an
additional permanent tenant, including but not limited to, an NBA team or Arena Football.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 -1
2. Findings on Project Alternative
Use of an Alternate Existing Facility
There are no other indoor sports facilities in the City of Anaheim, or in all of Orange County, that provide a minimum
capacity of 18,900 spectators. There is an arena at the Anaheim Convention Center with a capacity of 7,500 spectators;
however, this capacity is too small to host an additional professional sports franchise.
The nearest other facilities with sufficient capacity are in Los Angeles County: Staples Center in downtown Los
Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena in Exposition Park south of downtown Los Angeles, and the Forum
in the City of Inglewood. Staples Center already hosts two NBA teams, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles
Clippers and an NHL team, the Los Angeles Kings. Each NBA team and the NHL team play 41 home games per
season. The NBA and NHL season lasts six months, November through April. Considering the schedule demands of the
existing NBA and NHL teams, it is very unlikely that Staples Center would be able to host a fourth permanent tenant.
The Forum and the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena each formerly hosted one NBA team: the Lakers at the Forum,
and the Clippers at the Sports Arena. Due to the age of these facilities, they are not considered suitable for an additional
professional sports franchise.
Development of a New Facility at an Alternate Site
The Honda Center site is located on approximately 41 acres. Developing a facility with comparable capacity and
amenities elsewhere in Orange County would require assembling a site of similar area. Northern and central urban
Orange County is nearly completely built out; thus, assembling a site of that size would require demolition of
substantial numbers of homes and/or businesses. Two potential alternative sites include the former Tustin Marine Corps
Air Station now known as Tustin Legacy and the Orange County Great Park (formerly Marine Corps Air Station, El
Toro). However, both sites have adopted land use plans which do not currently include sites for a 41 acre sports and
entertainment facility.
Development of a new facility on an alternate site would also result in numerous impacts that would not occur with the
Proposed Project. Since the Honda Center is already constructed, development on an alternative site would commit
non - renewable resources such as petroleum, wood, concrete and steel, which would not be required for the Proposed
Project. In addition, development of an alternative site would result in construction impacts including noise, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic. Operational impacts including air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions,
transportation and traffic, would likely be similar but would occur in a different location and would lack the existing
transportation infrastructure located near Honda Center including freeway access and access to transit. Therefore,
development of an alternative site would result in greater impacts than those associated with the proposed project and
have been rejected from further analysis.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that an EIR must "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives" (Guidelines Sec. 15126.6[a]). Based on those criteria, the following three alternatives have been
determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the project but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project. The alternatives analyzed in the following sections include:
No Project/Existing Land Use Alternative
No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative
Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 -2
2. Findings on Project Alternative
2.2.1 No ProjectExisting Land Use Alternative
This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the structure and operation of the Honda Center would
remain unchanged. No additional tenants or events would occur at the facility, and none of the proposed facility
improvements would be undertaken. Use of the Honda Center would continue to average about 153 events per year,
including Anaheim Ducks NHL events.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the No
Project/Existing Land Use Alternative infeasible. Public Resources Code § 21081[a][3], Guidelines § 15091[a][3]).
Facts in Support of Finding:
• This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project in all six resource areas,
including air quality, GHG, land use and planning, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities.
• This alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the Proposed Project identified in Section
3.2 of the FEIR.
2.2.2 No Enhancements with New Honda Center Events Alternative
This alternative would allow up to 222 events per year at Honda Center but would not construct any of the
renovations and upgrades included in the Proposed Project. As a result, this Alternative would not include the
proposed team store, restaurant space, or outdoor grand terrace. The seating capacity of Honda Center in this
alternative would be the same as for the Proposed Project, 18,900. The slight increase in employees working at the
restaurant and expanded store in the Proposed Project would not occur in this alternative. Employment density in
square feet per employee is estimated as one employee per 617 square feet for both retail (except regional retail) and
service (including restaurant) uses (Natelson Company 2001). Thus, the reduction in operational employment in this
alternative would be (15,364/617), or 25 employees, for the restaurant and (4,046/617), or seven employees, for the
expanded store, for a total of 32 employees. Thirty -two employees would be about 0.16 percent of the total New
Honda Center Event population. The numbers of spectators and team members would be the same in this alternative
as in the Proposed Project.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the No
Project/Existing Land Use Alternative infeasible. Public Resources Code § 21081[a][3], Guidelines § 15091[a][3]).
Facts in Support of Finding:
• This alternative is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project in four of the six resource
areas analyzed in Chapter 5 of the FEIR: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and
utilities and service systems. However, for each of these resources this alternative would reduce
construction impacts but not operational impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, or traffic.
• The significant air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic impacts of the Project would not
be avoided under this alternative. This alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the Proposed Project in land use and planning.
• This alternative would satisfy most but not all of the project objectives. However, this alternative
would not eliminate the significant air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and
transportation /traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 -3
2. Findings on Project Alternative
2.2.3 Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative
The Additional Traffic Improvements Alternative would allow the same number events as the Proposed Project (up
to 222 events), develop all of the enhancements to the facility planned in the Proposed Project and include the
proposed zone reclassification. This alternative would also involve roadway improvements to reduce significant
traffic impacts in the 2011 Baseline, 2013 Opening Year, and 2030 Future Year Conditions for Comparisons 1, 2, and
3, to less than significant levels. The purpose of this alternative is to eliminate the significant transportation and
traffic impacts of the Proposed Project.
All proposed improvements to public roadways would be constructed by the City of Anaheim or its contractor.
Honda Center would be responsible for the full cost of construction of improvements needed for mitigating
significant impacts in the 2011 Baseline and 2013 Opening Year with Project scenarios. Honda Center would be
responsible for fair -share payments toward the cost of construction of improvements needed for mitigating
significant impacts in the 2030 Proposed Project plus Concurrent Angel Stadium Event scenario. The necessary
improvements would result in additional right -of -way and impact existing structures, parking, and landscaping.
Under this Alternative, improvements would be required at 47 locations, including 11 intersections, 26 arterial
roadway segments, 5 freeway ramps, and 5 freeway weaving segments. For a list of improvement locations, see
Tables 5.5 -44 through 5.5-46 in the FEIR.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the No
Project/Existing Land Use Alternative infeasible. Public Resources Code § 21081 [a][3], Guidelines § 15091[a][3]).
Facts in Support of Finding:
• This alternative would be environmentally inferior in four resource areas; air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, land use and planning, and noise, mainly due to construction of the additional
roadway improvements.
• Although significant transportation and traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project would
be avoided, the necessary improvements would result in additional right -of -way and impact
pedestrian connections, existing and proposed bike lanes, existing structures, parking, and
landscaping.
• This Alternative would be in conflict with many of the City's goals and policies included in the
General Plan and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, and SCAG's Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Compass Blueprint which promote the use of alternative forms of
transportation including walking, biking, busses, and trains.
• Although this alternative would meet most of the project objectives established for the Proposed
Project, the proposed roadway improvements would impact adjacent land uses and result in
greater impacts than those associated with the Proposed Project.
• This alternative would reduce impacts that occur when an event at Honda Center and an event at
Angels Stadium happen concurrently. However, "concurrent events" are anticipated to be
infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 -4
2. Findings on Project Alternative
This page intentionally left blank.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 -5
3.0 FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
This section identifies the findings on impact categories analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR, including potentially
significant impacts of the project.
3.1 AIR QUALITY
Impact 5.1 -1: The Proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air
Quality Management Plan.
Impact 5.1 - 1 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
Impact 5.1 -2: The Proposed Project would not generate construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD's
regional construction thresholds or cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the
SoCAB.
Impact 5.1 - 2 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
Impact 5.1 -3: The Proposed Project would generate an increase in daily transportation emissions of
VOC, NO„, and CO that exceed SCAQMD's regional operational thresholds and cumulatively contribute
to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.
Project- related air pollutants come from area -, energy -, and mobile- source emissions. The Proposed Project would
not increase seating capacity at Honda Center. Therefore, maximum daily emissions generated by events at Honda
Center would not increase from baseline conditions as a result of the project. However, it should be noted that these
maximum daily emissions would occur an additional 60 days per year with the proposed project. Therefore, for the
purposes of this EIR, although Honda Center currently generates both average attendance events and sell out events,
impacts are based on the incremental increase caused by sell out events at Honda Center. Significance is based on
the comparison of Sell Out Honda Center Events vs. Average Attendance Honda Center Events. Sell out events
generate substantially more traffic than average attendance events at Honda Center. As a result, these emissions
exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for VOC, NO,, and CO and would cumulatively contribute to
the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are included in Section 5.1 -2, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and would also reduce
criteria air pollutant emissions generated on a day with a sold out Honda Center event.
2 -1 Honda Center shall request a Comprehensive Energy Audit by the Anaheim Public Utilities,
which is a free service offered by the utility. According to the Anaheim Public Utilities,
customers can reduce energy by as much as 10 to 25 percent of month through efficiency
reductions. Energy reductions can be accomplished through retrofits and /or offsets provided
by renewable energy generation onsite. Potential combination of measures that could be
taken to achieve a reduction in energy demand includes:
a. Replacement of indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures with LED or compact fluorescent
fixtures.
b. Retrofitting air conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems and /or calibrating
systems for efficiency (e.g., increasing average indoor temperature settings in
summer and during hockey events).
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -1
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
c. Replacing restaurant refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances with Energy Star
rated appliances to reduce plug -load.
d. Installation of photovoltaic system (e.g., carports with solar panels or rooftop -
mounted solar panels) or wind - energy- system at Honda Center to offset energy use
generated during an event. For example, a 750 kW -ac photovoltaic system is
estimated to produce 1,242,163 kWh per year based on the California Public Utilities
Commission's Clean Power Estimator.
2 -2 The City of Anaheim shall continue coordinating with the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCRRA), which operates Metrolink service on Orange County Line in conjunction
with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The City of Anaheim shall
coordinate with SCRRA to discuss the potential for providing special event service to Honda
Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim on weekends and during the week. A list of events,
including the day or the event, time of the event, and duration of the event at Honda Center
and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim shall be provided to SCRRA to initiate these discussions.
Barriers to implement Special Event Service on the Orange County Line shall be discussed.
Potential funding options to overcoming barriers to implement special event Service on the
Orange County line should be indentified and considered, including funding for additional
train operators and trains that coincide with commuter service.
2 -3 To encourage use of transit by visitors to Honda Center, ticket holders shall be provided
information on the Metrolink and Amtrak services available on the day of the event, including
Metrolink and Amtrak scheduling.
Finding: Mitigation measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 are feasible and would reduce criteria pollutant
emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures is
uncertain and cannot be quantified. As a result, Impact 5.1 -3 would remain Significant and
Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Reference: FEIR Section 5.1, Pages 5.1 -13 through 5.1 -19.
Impact 5.1 -4: Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact 5.1 - 4 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
Impact 5.1 -5: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive land uses to substantial pollutant
concentrations from mobile sources.
Impact 5.1 - 5 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
Impact 5.1 -6: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive land uses to substantial pollutant
concentrations from stationary sources.
Impact 5.1 -6 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
3.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 5.2 -1: The Proposed Project would increase the number of events held at Honda Center,
resulting in a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -2
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
The proposed project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from transportation sources, offsite
energy production required for onsite activities, natural gas used on site for heating and cooking, water
use, and waste disposal.
The proposed project would generate a net increase of 14,967 MTons of GHG per year compared to
existing conditions. In other words, the total emissions associated with an additional 69 events per year at
sell out capacity would generate a net increase in 14,967 MTons of GHG per year. The total increase in
GHG emissions onsite from the project would exceed SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold of 3,000
MTons for all land use types. When the proposed screening threshold is exceeded, SCAQMD provides
another tier of evaluation with the per capita threshold of 4.8 MTons per service population. The increase
in GHG emissions cited above does not include gradual reductions in GHG emissions from an increase in
fuel efficiency and higher utilization of renewable power in the local energy grid by year 2020 in
accordance with AB 32, which is the efficiency target year. For the purpose of this assessment, service
population includes average daily employees and average daily visitors based on historic annual
attendance at Honda Center. The proposed project would result in annual emissions of 5.0 MTons per
service population with the project. An increase in the number of annual events at Honda Center results in
a decrease in per capita GHG emissions because the building generates emissions regardless of whether
it is in use or not. Thus, increase the number of events per year increases the intensity and efficiency and
the existing land use. However, GHG emissions associated with the project would exceed SCAQMD's
proposed per capita significance threshold. A total of 1,819 MTons would need to be reduced in order to
achieve a per capita efficiency goal of 4.8 MTons per service population in accordance with SCAQMD's
proposed efficiency metric.
Mitigation Measures:
2 -1 Honda Center shall request a Comprehensive Energy Audit by the Anaheim Public Utilities,
which is a free service offered by the utility. According to the Anaheim Public Utilities,
customers can reduce energy by as much as 10 to 25 percent of month through efficiency
reductions. Energy reductions can be accomplished through retrofits and /or offsets provided
by renewable energy generation onsite. Potential combination of measures that could be
taken to achieve a reduction in energy demand includes:
a. Replacement of indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures with LED or compact fluorescent
fixtures.
b. Retrofitting air conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems and /or calibrating
systems for efficiency (e.g., increasing average indoor temperature settings in
summer and during hockey events).
c. Replacing restaurant refrigerators, freezers, and other appliances with Energy Star
rated appliances to reduce plug -load.
d. Installation of photovoltaic system (e.g., carports with solar panels or rooftop -
mounted solar panels) or wind - energy- system at Honda Center to offset energy use
generated during an event. For example, a 750 kW -ac photovoltaic system is
estimated to produce 1,242,163 kWh per year based on the California Public Utilities
Commission's Clean Power Estimator.
2 -2 The City of Anaheim shall continue coordinating with the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCRRA), which operates Metrolink service on Orange County Line in conjunction
with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The City of Anaheim shall
coordinate with SCRRA to discuss the potential for providing special event service to Honda
Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim on weekends and during the week. A list of events,
including the day or the event, time of the event, and duration of the event at Honda Center
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -3
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim shall be provided to SCRRA to initiate these discussions.
Barriers to implement Special Event Service on the Orange County Line shall be discussed.
Potential funding options to overcoming barriers to implement special event Service on the
Orange County line should be indentified and considered, including funding for additional
train operators and trains that coincide with commuter service.
2 -3 To encourage use of transit by visitors to Honda Center, ticket holders shall be provided
information on the Metrolink and Amtrak services available on the day of the event, including
Metrolink and Amtrak scheduling.
Finding: Honda Center would need to reduce GHG emissions by 1,819 MTons in order to achieve
an efficiency metric of 4.8 MTons per service population. Mitigation Measures 2 -1 through 2 -3 are
feasible and would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness of
these mitigation measures is uncertain and can not be quantified. Therefore, Impact 5.2 -1 would
remain Significant and Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Reference: FEIR Section 5.2, Pages 5.2 -14 through 5.2 -21.
3.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 5.3 -1: The proposed zoning reclassification for a portion of the project site would not conflict
with the Public Recreational (PR) zoning or the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
Impact 5.3 - 1 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
3.4 NOISE
Impact 5.4 -1: Build -out of the Proposed Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation 4)
of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies.
Impact 5.4 - 1 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
Impact 5.4 -2: Build -out of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent
increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
The operations phase of the project would generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. Traffic noise
modeling is based on average daily traffic volumes on roadway segments within the analysis conducted by Parsons
Brinkerhoff (2012).
2011 Existing Traffic Noise plus Project (Sellout Event)
Traffic noise modeling was compiled for year 2011No Event and 2011 Plus Project (sellout event). The significance
criteria for roadway noise impacts are based on whether the proposed project would result in a substantial increase
(3 dB or more) in the ambient noise environment along the roadways when the ambient noise environment exceeds
60 dBA CNEL (daily noise levels). The proposed project would result in similar noise levels along the roadways
within the study area of the project, and no traffic noise impacts due to the project would occur.
2013 Traffic Noise with Project Event
Traffic noise modeling was compiled for year 2013 with an average attendance event and then compared to a sellout
event. The Proposed Project would increase the number of events from an average of 153 events to a maximum of
222 events per year. The significance criteria for roadway noise impacts are based on whether the Proposed Project
would result in a substantial increase (3 dB or more) in the ambient noise environment along the roadways when the
ambient noise environment exceeds 60 dBA CNEL (daily noise levels). While the number of Honda Center events
would increase from an average of 3 events per week to an average of 4 events per week, average daily noise levels
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -4
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
generated by a sellout event would not cause substantial noise increases. The Proposed Project would result in noise
levels increases along the roadways within the study area of the project below significance levels, and no traffic
noise impacts would occur under 2013 conditions.
e8
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -5
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Year 2030 with Project Events
Traffic noise increases associated with the Proposed Project were also assessed under future Year 2030 with the
buildout of the General Plan. Similar to the Existing with Project Event analysis, traffic noise impacts from project -
generated traffic under Year 2030 conditions would be comparable to traffic noise impacts of events currently
permitted at Honda Center. As previously discussed, the generally accepted level at which changes in community
noise levels become "barely perceptible" typically occurs at values of greater than 3 dBA, and changes of 5 dBA are
readily perceptible. The significance criteria for roadway noise impacts are based on whether the proposed project
would result m a substantial increase (3 dB or more) in the ambient noise environment along the roadways when the
ambient noise environment exceeds 60 dBA CNEL (daily noise levels). Noise increases on Year 2030 event days
compared to existing average attendance events will range from 1.5 to 10.8 dBA. The only noise sensitive land uses
where audible noise increases would occur are the residential uses adjacent to the segment of Sunkist Street between
Cerritos Boulevard and Ball Road. It shall be noted that the long -range noise increases presented for 2030 conditions
will occur over a number of years, unlike the comparisons laboratory environments where human reaction to noise
studies are derived from. While overall changes in the noise environment that are considered perceptible ( +3 dB),
the project itself would cause noise increases of up to 0.2 dBA, well below the 3 dBA threshold for project impacts
The Proposed Project would result in noise levels increases along the roadways within the study area of the project
below significance levels, and no traffic noise impacts would occur under 2030 conditions.
Summary
As analyzed above, while general noise increases for Year 2013 and Year 2030 are anticipated for the Honda Center
and its vicinity, increases due particularly to the Proposed Project are not expected. The Proposed Project will not
cause substantial traffic noise increases to off -site sensitive receptors during sellout events, and is not expected to
generate discernable stationary noise levels beyond those already in existence.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise impacts occur when multiple sources of noise, though individually not substantial, combine and
lead to excessive cumulative noise exposure at noise - sensitive uses.
Traffic Noise modeling was conducted to identify cumulative impacts from concurrent scheduling of events at the
Honda Center and the Angel Stadium of Anaheim for year 2013 and year 2030 (General Plan buildout) conditions.
Noise increases on Year 2030 with sellout event plus an Angels Stadium event day compared to existing without
events will range from 1.5 to 10.8 dBA. The only noise sensitive land uses where audible noise increases would
occur are located along Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road. MM 5.4 -1 would reduce the
anticipated cumulative noise increase of 3.8 dBA to the sensitive receptors along this roadway segment. The
estimated 6 dBA noise reduction provided by the pavement would offset the cumulative increase, eliminating the
cumulative noise impact. With implementation of MM 5.4 -1, cumulative noise impacts to noise sensitive receptors
would be avoided.
Mitigation Measures
4 -1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall contribute fair -share funding
to repave Sunkist Street between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road with rubberized asphalt.
Studies have shown that asphalt rubber overlays resulted in a reduction in road noise in the
order of 6 dB. (Rymer and Donavan, 2005)
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.1 is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen cumulative
impacts related to ambient noise. With its implementation, cumulative noise impacts would be
less than significant.
Reference: FEIR Section 5.4, Pages 5.4 -10 through 5.4 -19.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -6
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Impact 5.5 -1: Trip generation associated with the proposed project would impact levels of service on the
existing arena roadway system.
To assess the traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project a total of five (5) scenarios under three
horizon years were considered, as outlined below:
2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario:
1) 2011 Baseline (No Events)
2) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event
3) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium
Event
4) 2011 Baseline with Project
5) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event
2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near -Term Impacts Scenario:
1) 2013 Opening Year (No Events)
2) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event
3) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium
Event
4) 2013 Opening Year with Project
5) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event
2030 Future Year Long -Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout):
1) 2030 Future Year (No Events)
2) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event
3) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium
Event
4) 2030 Future Year with Project
5) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event
Upon completion of the traffic conditions assessment for each scenario above, Project impacts and
mitigation were identified through an evaluation of the following three comparisons of with and without
Project conditions:
1) No Events vs. Project
2) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project
3) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and
Concurrent Angel Stadium Event
3.5.1.1.1.1 2011 Baseline Conditions
The traffic study determined that five intersections and one freeway ramp are significantly impacted by the proposed
project under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for these
impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5 -46 of the FEIR. Feasible
2 Average Attendance Honda Center Event is assumed to be an average attendance event or 11,264 seats as
described in the September 2, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for
Honda Center Enhancement Project. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic
counts.
3 Angel Stadium Event is assumed to be an average Angel Stadium baseball game attendance of 29,402 based on
year 2010 season attendance figures provided by the City of Anaheim. Traffic conditions are adjusted accordingly
from traffic counts taken for the August 24, 2011 event.
° Project is assumed to be an 18,900 seat sold out capacity condition. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from
April 6, 2011 event traffic counts.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -7
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant
level:
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road
• Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
Impacts were also identified under Comparison 3 at the following intersections:
• State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• SR -57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring
at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events" are anticipated to
be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic
improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way acquisition and funding, and
result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would
conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a
pedestrian- friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has
determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures
associated with Comparison 3.
3.5.1.1.1.1.1 Caltrans Facilities
In addition, one additional impact for Comparison 3 was identified the following Freeway Ramp under the
jurisdictional control of Caltrans:
• SR - 57 Southbound Off - Ramp to Katella Avenue
A mitigation measure to mitigate this impact was identified in Table 5.5 -46 of the FEIR. However, as stated above,
Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring
at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events" are anticipated to
be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic
improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way acquisition and funding, and
result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would
conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a
pedestrian- friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has
determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures
associated with Comparison 3.
Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements to Caltrans Facilities
lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may
not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control
(e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction or the City
cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right -of -way without Caltrans approval). Consequently, the impact at
this location would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.5.1.1.1.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions
The study determined that the same locations with project impacts under the 2011 Baseline conditions continue to
experience project impact under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -8
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
proposed for these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5 -47 of
the FEIR. Feasible mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less
than significant level:
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road
• Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
Impacts were also identified under Comparison 3 at the following intersections:
• State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue
• Sunkist Street / Ball Road
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• SR -57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring
at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events" are anticipated to
be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic
improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way acquisition and funding, and
result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would
conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a
pedestrian - friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has
determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures
associated with Comparison 3.
3.5.1.1.1.2.1 Caltrans Facilities
208
In addition, one additional impact for Comparison 3 was identified the following Freeway Ramp under the
jurisdictional control of Caltrans:
• SR - 57 Southbound Off - Ramp to Katella Avenue
A mitigation measure to mitigate this impact was identified in Table 5.5 -47 of the FEIR. However, as state above,
Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring
at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events" are anticipated to
be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic
improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way acquisition and funding, and
result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would
conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a
pedestrian - friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has
determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures
associated with Comparison 3.
Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and /or completing certain improvements to Caltrans Facilities
lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may
not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control
(e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction or the City
cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right -of -way without Caltrans approval). Consequently, the impact at
this location would remain significant and unavoidable.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -9
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
3.5.1.1.1.3 2030 Future Year Conditions
The traffic study determined that implementation of the proposed project results in significant impact at 25 study
intersections, seven study arterial segments, five study freeway weaving segments, and five study freeway ramps
under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for all these
impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5 -48 of the FEIR. Feasible
mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant
level:
• Manchester Avenue (1 -5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue
• Lewis Street / Katella Avenue
• State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive
• Sportstown / Katella Avenue
Chapter 7 of the traffic study contains an extensive review of proposed mitigation and feasibility. For the reasons
stated therein, the City of Anaheim has determined that all other proposed mitigation identified in Table 5.5 -48 is
infeasible due for the reasons stated Chapter 7 of the traffic study and summarized in Section 5.5.7.1 of this Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
In addition, Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous
events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events"
are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the
physical traffic improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation
necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way
acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition,
these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals
and policies to provide a pedestrian- friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result,
the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the
mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3.
3.5.1.1.1.4 City of Orange
Table 5.5 -48 of the FEIR identifies impacts and proposed mitigation at the following City of Orange intersections
and segments:
• State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue
• State College Boulevard / 1 -5 Northbound Ramps
• State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue
• Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue
• Main Street / Katella Avenue
• SR -55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Street
• Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street
• Main Street n - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue
Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the
inability to undertake right -of -way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental
constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time,
it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of
some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain
improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange),
there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for
reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -10
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction). Should that occur, the project's traffic impact would remain significant. Tables
5.5 -48 of the FEIR present mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts,
including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. Consequently, Impact 5.5 -1
would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.5.1.1.1.4.1 Caltrans Facilities
As identified in Impact 5.5 -1, there are several deficiencies to Caltrans facilities. A summary of impacts and
mitigation strategies for impacted Caltrans's facilities are shown in Tables 5.5 -46 through 5.5 -48 of the FEIR.
Deficient freeway segments within the study area fall under two categories of impacts, (1) project related impacts
and (2) cumulative deficiency impacts. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements would be required
to maintain an acceptable LOS for the State Highway System. Potential improvement measures would include the
addition of one, two, or three lanes to freeway mainline segments. However, capacity improvements to the freeway
mainline are not feasible improvement options at a project - level. Caltrans has not identified any further
improvements through a Corridor Study beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for 1 -5 and SR -57,
and the City has no control over State facilities. Additional capacity improvements are infeasible due to physical,
right -of -way, and other environmental constraints. For example, the expansion of the identified freeway segments
would involve significant right -of -way acquisition, which would involve either the acquisition of residences and/or
businesses, or this would involve bringing the freeway facilities close to such residences and businesses.
Potential improvements to reduce weaving impacts include the implementation of an auxiliary lane within the
weaving area to improve operations although this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding and
adjacent mainline segment. Standard capacity improvements, through the addition of one or more lanes on the
freeway ramps, will not necessarily result in acceptable ramp operations for ramps that are forecast to operate
deficiently. The density of the ramps is influenced by both the mainline and ramp volume, therefore, the traffic on
the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an
auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance.
Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the
inability to undertake right -of -way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental
constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time,
it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of
some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain
improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there
is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for
reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements
outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right -of -way without
Caltrans approval). Should that occur, the project's traffic impact would remain significant. Tables 5.5 -46 through
5.5 -48 of the FEIR present mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts,
including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. Consequently, Impact 5.5 -1
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures:
5 -1 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy and /or prior to the amending of any
agreements between the City and AAM that results in a new tenant that would cause the
current event cap to exceed 162 events per year (whichever occurs first), AAM shall update
their existing Traffic Management Plan to include operational improvements designed to
improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic
management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs,
interconnect infrastructure upgrades) at the following intersections:
SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -11
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
5 -2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy and /or prior to the amending any
agreements between the City and AAM that results in a new tenant that would cause the
current event cap to exceed 162 events per year (whichever occurs first), AAM shall provide
fair -share funding to the City of Anaheim for the following operational improvements designed
to improve traffic flow (e.g. ITS improvements, signal phasing, CCTV, adaptive traffic
management systems, upgraded controllers and cabinets, changeable message signs,
interconnect infrastructure upgrades) at the following intersections:
Manchester Avenue (1 -5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue — Operational Improvement
Lewis Street / Katella Avenue
State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive
Sportstown / Katella Avenue
5 -3 With respect to the physical improvements that are located in the City of Orange that are
deemed feasible in Table 5.5 -48 of the FEIR, the City of Anaheim shall continue to work
collaboratively with the City of Orange through the efforts initially established in 2009 with the
Joint Community Facilities District to construct its share of improvements or provide shared
cost payments for projects the City of Orange intends to build (consistent with the obligations
imposed by the Mitigation Fee Act). The feasibility determination included in Table 5.5 -48 of
the FEIR is a preliminary determination based on a review of current right -of -way constraints.
However, additional mitigation strategies may become feasible over time as development
conditions change; and therefore, cost share commitments will apply to all mitigation
improvements identified for intersections and arterials within the City of Anaheim and the City
of Orange for projects creating impacts within both cities. Actual feasibility and cost -share
responsibility will be determined through coordination and verification by both Agencies
through detailed review at the time of implementation. As a result, the City of Anaheim will
have to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for these improvements located in the
City of Orange.
Finding: Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of
reasons such as the inability to undertake right -of -way acquisitions as a matter of policy to
preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In
addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time, it is anticipated that a
number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of some
of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing
certain improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of
Anaheim, there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such
improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control. Should that
occur, the project's traffic impact would remain significant. Therefore, Impact 5.5 -1 would remain
Significant and Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Reference: FEIR Section 5.5, Pages 5.5 -18 through 5.5 -171.
Impact 5.5 -2: Adequate parking is provided on and in close proximity to the project site and no
pedestrian safety hazards are anticipated.
Events at Honda Center generate substantial pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians traveling to and from events at Honda
Center from offsite locations include those who travel from offsite parking to Honda Center or those who access
Honda Center as a result of use of alternative modes of transportation (rail, bus, etc.). In both cases, these
pedestrians would utilize existing pedestrian facilities, as they do currently. For those Honda Center patrons that take
public transit, most would walk from the existing Anaheim Transit Station or the future ARTIC (on Douglass Road
south of Katella Avenue) to Honda Center, crossing Katella Avenue en route.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -12
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Opened in 1993, Honda Center was developed with a significant parking supply both on -site and off -site in the
proximity to the venue. An agreement, referred to as the 1993 Consent, Traffic and Parking, and Non - Disturbance
and Attornment Agreement, between the City and Anaheim Arena Management, LLC established the parking
requirements and parking areas for Honda Center. This agreement specially identifies that Honda Center parking
will be provided in two defined geographical areas, defined as Tier 1 and Tier 2.
Tier 1 area includes parking areas surrounding Honda Center that are bounded between Cerritos Avenue to the north,
the Santa Ana River to the east, and SR -57 to the west. Tier 1 is targeted to provide not less than 3,900 parking
spaces. The City of Anaheim has fulfilled its obligation to date, and in fact provide a total of 4,239 parking spaces
within the Tier 1 area. The 4,239 parking spaces are made up as follows: 3,775 spaces provided within six on -site
parking lots on the north side of Katella Avenue immediately surrounding the Honda Center building; 464 additional
spaces provided off -site on a lot presently owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on the
south side of Katella Avenue immediately across from the Honda Center. The parking on the OCTA property is
secured through current leases and sublease agreements between the City, OCTA, and AAM. While off -site parking
is occurring on OCTA owned property it is noted that the current parking agreements and leases are based on fixed
terms and are subject to future modification. It is further noted that the responsibility for addressing Honda Center
parking is a City of Anaheim responsibility and does not obligate the OCTA to provide the parking and/or the land to
accommodate parking. In addition to these 4,239 parking spaces, the City has indicated that AAM has secured a
lease agreement with the adjacent Corporate Arena business park located just north of the venue for approximately
1,200 additional parking spaces. These additional spaces are assumed for use under peak event conditions. With this
additional agreement, the total parking supply within Tier 1 is 5,439. The parking spaces are managed and available
to patrons, event staff, and team members.
Parking for the Tier 2 area consists of three off -site parking areas that are within a reasonable walking distance of the
facility and include a total of approximately 4,085 spaces. As shown in Figure 5.5 -18 the designated parking areas
include portions of Angel Stadium parking lots, which include 488 spaces, and two business /commercial centers.
One center is located west of SR -57 and generally bound by Katella Avenue on the north and the railroad tracks to
the south. It features approximately 1,173 spaces. The second center is located immediately east of the Santa Ana
River within the City of Orange and is generally bound by Katella Avenue on the south, the Santa Ana River on the
west, Main Street on the east, and a private drive on the north. It features approximately 2,424 spaces. Under the
Tier 2 requirement, the City shall not provide less than 1,500 spaces within the identified off -site parking lots.
Pedestrian access between the Tier 2 off -site parking areas and Honda Center is provided by sidewalk along Katella
Avenue and Douglass Road.
Combining the Tier 2 area with those within Tier 1, there are approximately 6,939 parking spaces available to Honda
Center.
Not inventoried, but nonetheless important to the overall supply of parking available for Honda Center events, are
the numerous privately -owned commercial/business area parking lots in the vicinity of Honda Center. As these lots
have peak usage during typical weekday business hours (i.e. 7:OOam — 5:OOpm), they are generally underutilized
during Honda Center evening events and weekend day events and therefore are being used as "entrepreneurial"
parking lots for Honda Center. Pedestrian access between these lots and Honda Center is available along sidewalks
on Katella Avenue. Patrons accessing the offsite parking areas and entrepreneurial lots would cross Katella Avenue
to access Honda Center. The majority of these pedestrians would cross at the intersection of Katella Avenue and
Douglass Road.
Based on the parking demand of 6,877 spaces compared to the available parking supply of 6,939 spaces, there is a
surplus of 62 parking spaces available for Honda Center. It is further noted that all inventoried parking spaces are
assumed to be available for Honda Center for all additional events, therefore, the increase in number of annual
events at Honda Center would not require any additional parking supply. Factoring in the regular practice and
availability of additional entrepreneurial parking in the vicinity of Honda Center on event days, there is an extensive
surplus of parking available for Honda Center.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -13
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Traffic at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road during travel times to and from Honda Center
events is controlled by active traffic management personnel, cones, and signage to effectively manage arriving and
departing event - related traffic. In addition, this intersection is also controlled by uniformed police officers before,
during, and after events. As stated previously, Honda Center implements a traffic management plan to actively
manage arrival and departure of event - related traffic through operational and traffic control strategies. The traffic
management plan is refined, as necessary, in the field to ensure efficient management of both pre- and post -event
traffic operations. Mitigation Measure 5 -4 requires that Honda Center prepare a new traffic management plan for the
New Honda Center Events and present such plan to the City of Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Services
Division for review and approval. The traffic management plan shall include signal and intersection control by
uniformed police officers, signage, lane control, access control, and pedestrian control, to mitigate potential
pedestrian safety impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
5 -4 At least four months before the first event in excess of 162 events at Honda Center, the
management entity for Honda Center shall prepare a new traffic management plan for the New
Honda Center Events and present such plan to the City of Anaheim Traffic and Transportation
Services Division for review and approval. The traffic management plan shall address signals,
intersections, signage, lanes, access, ingress, egress, and pedestrian features. The City of
Anaheim will work together with the City of Orange during the preparation of the updated traffic
management plan.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 5 -4 is feasible and would reduce project - related pedestrian safety
hazards to the extent feasible. With its implementation, pedestrian safety impacts would be less
than significant. No Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Reference: FEIR Section 5.5, Pages 5.5 -116 through 5.5 -117, Page 5.5 -171.
3.6 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 5.6 -1: Project - generated sewage would be adequately treated by the Orange County Sanitation
District.
Impact 5.6 - 1 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
Impact 5.6 - 2: Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements.
Impact 5.6 -2 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for this impact.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 -14
4.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093 {a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable
when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final
EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement
is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." The following sections provide a description of the
each of the project's significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of
overriding considerations.
4.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The following adverse impacts of the project are considered significant and unavoidable based on Draft EIR No.
344, the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 303, and the findings discussed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of
this document.
Air Quality
Impact 5.1 -3
Measure 2 -1 through 2 -3 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, the
effectiveness of these mitigation measures is uncertain and cannot be quantified. Therefore, regional criteria air
pollutant emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.2 -1
Honda Center would need to reduce GHG emissions by 1,819 MTons in order to achieve an efficiency metric of 4.8
MTons per service population. Mitigation Measure 2 -1 through 2 -3 would reduce GHG emissions to the extent
feasible. However, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures is uncertain and cannot be quantified. Therefore,
GHG emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Transportation and Traffic
Impact 5.5 -1
To assess the traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Project a total of five (5) scenarios under three
horizon years were considered, as outlined below:
2011 Baseline Analytical Project Direct Impacts Scenario:
6) 2011 Baseline (No Events)
7) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event
5 Average Attendance Honda Center Event is assumed to be an average attendance event or 11,264 seats as
described in the September 2, 2011 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 344 for
Honda Center Enhancement Project. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from April 6, 2011 event traffic
counts.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -1
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
8) 2011 Baseline with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium
Event
9) 2011 Baseline with Project'
10) 2011 Baseline with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event
2013 Opening Year Analytical Impacts Scenario and Near -Term Impacts Scenario:
6) 2013 Opening Year (No Events)
7) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event
8) 2013 Opening Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium
Event
9) 2013 Opening Year with Project
10) 2013 Opening Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event
2030 Future Year Long -Term Impacts Scenario (General Plan Buildout):
6) 2030 Future Year (No Events)
7) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event
8) 2030 Future Year with Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium
Event
9) 2030 Future Year with Project
10) 2030 Future Year with Project and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event
Upon completion of the traffic conditions assessment for each scenario above, Project impacts and
mitigation were identified through an evaluation of the following three comparisons of with and without
Project conditions:
4) No Events vs. Project
5) Average Attendance Honda Center Event vs. Project
6) Average Attendance Honda Center Event and Concurrent Angel Stadium Event vs. Project and
Concurrent Angel Stadium Event
4.1.1.1.1.1.1 2011 Baseline Conditions
The traffic study determined that five intersections and one freeway ramp are significantly impacted by the proposed
project under the 2011 Baseline conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for these
impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5 -46 of the FEIR. Feasible
mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant
level:
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road
• Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
Impacts were also identified under Comparison 3 at the following intersections:
• State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• SR -57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
6 Angel Stadium Event is assumed to be an average Angel Stadium baseball game attendance of 29,402 based on
year 2010 season attendance figures provided by the City of Anaheim. Traffic conditions are adjusted accordingly
from traffic counts taken for the August 24, 2011 event.
' Project is assumed to be an 18,900 seat sold out capacity condition. Traffic forecasts are adjusted accordingly from
April 6, 2011 event traffic counts.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -2
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring
at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events" are anticipated to
be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic
improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way acquisition and funding, and
result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would
conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a
pedestrian- friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has
determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures
associated with Comparison 3.
Caltrans Facilities
In addition, one additional impact for Comparison 3 was identified the following Freeway Ramp under the
jurisdictional control of Caltrans:
• SR - 57 Southbound Off - Ramp to Katella Avenue
A mitigation measure to mitigate this impact was identified in Table 5.5 -46 of the FEIR. However, as stated above,
Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring
at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events" are anticipated to
be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic
improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of- -way acquisition and funding, and
result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would
conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a
pedestrian - friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has
determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures
associated with Comparison 3.
Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements to Caltrans Facilities
lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may
not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control
(e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction or the City
cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right -of -way without Caltrans approval). Consequently, the impact at
this location would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.1.1.1.1.1.2 2013 Opening Year Conditions
The study determined that the same locations with project impacts under the 2011 Baseline conditions continue to
experience project impact under the 2013 Opening Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and
proposed for these impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5 -47 of
the FEIR. Feasible mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less
than significant level:
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Ball Road
• Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
Impacts were also identified under Comparison 3 at the following intersections:
• State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue
• Sunkist Street / Ball Road
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• SR -57 Northbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -3
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Douglass Road / Katella Avenue
Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring
at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events" are anticipated to
be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic
improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way acquisition and funding, and
result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would
conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a
pedestrian - friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has
determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures
associated with Comparison 3.
Caltrans Facilities
In addition, one additional impact for Comparison 3 was identified the following Freeway Ramp under the
jurisdictional control of Caltrans:
• SR - 57 Southbound Off - Ramp to Katella Avenue
A mitigation measure to mitigate this impact was identified in Table 5.5 -47 of the FEIR. However, as state above,
Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous events occurring
at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events" are anticipated to
be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the physical traffic
improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation necessary to maintain
acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way acquisition and funding, and
result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition, these improvements would
conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals and policies to provide a
pedestrian- friendly, transit- oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result, the City of Anaheim has
determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the mitigation measures
associated with Comparison 3.
Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements to Caltrans Facilities
lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may
not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control
(e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction or the City
cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right -of -way without Caltrans approval). Consequently, the impact at
this location would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.1.1.1.1.1.3 2030 Future Year Conditions
The traffic study determined that implementation of the proposed project results in significant impact at 25 study
intersections, seven study arterial segments, five study freeway weaving segments, and five study freeway ramps
under the 2030 Future Year conditions. Mitigation measures have been identified and proposed for all these
impacted locations under each of the comparison scenarios and are presented in Table 5.5 -48 of the FEIR. Feasible
mitigation has been identified for the following intersections and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant
level:
• Manchester Avenue (1 -5 Southbound Ramps) / Katella Avenue
• Lewis Street / Katella Avenue
• State College Boulevard / Gateway Center Drive
• Sportstown / Katella Avenue
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -4
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Chapter 7 of the traffic study contains an extensive review of proposed mitigation and feasibility. For the reasons
stated therein, the City of Anaheim has determined that all other proposed mitigation identified in Table 5.5 -48 is
infeasible due for the reasons stated Chapter 7 of the traffic study and summarized in Section 5.5.7.1 of this Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
In addition, Comparison 3 involves simultaneous events at the Honda Center and Angel Stadium. Simultaneous
events occurring at Honda Center due to the Proposed Project and at Angel Stadium known as "concurrent events"
are anticipated to be infrequent and only occur a limited number of times throughout the year. Although, some of the
physical traffic improvements /mitigation listed in Comparison 3 may be considered feasible; the mitigation
necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for Comparison 3 would require substantial right -of -way
acquisition and funding, and result in numerous impacts to adjacent private properties and land uses. In addition,
these improvements would conflict with the City's General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan goals
and policies to provide a pedestrian- friendly, transit - oriented environment within the Platinum Triangle. As a result,
the City of Anaheim has determined that it is economically, socially, and technologically infeasible to implement the
mitigation measures associated with Comparison 3.
4.1.1.1.1.1.4 City of Orange
Table 5.5 -48 of the FEIR identifies impacts and proposed mitigation at the following City of Orange intersections
and segments:
• State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue
• State College Boulevard / 1 -5 Northbound Ramps
• State College Boulevard / The City Drive / Chapman Avenue
• Katella Avenue / Struck Avenue
• Main Street / Katella Avenue
• SR -55 Southbound Ramps / Katella Avenue
• Katella Avenue - Struck Avenue to Main Street
• Katella Avenue - Main Street to Batavia Street
• Main Street n - Katella Avenue to Struck Avenue
Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the
inability to undertake right -of -way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental
constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time,
it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of
some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain
improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange),
there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for
reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements
outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction). Should that occur, the project's traffic impact would remain significant. Tables
5.5 -48 of the FEIR present mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts,
including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. Consequently, Impact 5.5 -1
would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.1.1.1.1.1.5 Caltrans Facilities
As identified in Impact 5.5 -1, there are several deficiencies to Caltrans facilities. A summary of impacts and
mitigation strategies for impacted Caltrans's facilities are shown in Tables 5.5 -46 through 5.5 -48 of the FEIR.
Deficient freeway segments within the study area fall under two categories of impacts, (1) project related impacts
and (2) cumulative deficiency impacts. Improvements beyond the planned system improvements would be required
to maintain an acceptable LOS for the State Highway System. Potential improvement measures would include the
addition of one, two, or three lanes to freeway mainline segments. However, capacity improvements to the freeway
mainline are not feasible improvement options at a project - level. Caltrans has not identified any further
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -5
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
improvements through a Corridor Study beyond those already assumed in the buildout analysis for I -5 and SR -57,
and the City has no control over State facilities. Additional capacity improvements are infeasible due to physical,
right -of -way, and other environmental constraints. For example, the expansion of the identified freeway segments
would involve significant right -of -way acquisition, which would involve either the acquisition of residences and/or
businesses, or this would involve bringing the freeway facilities close to such residences and businesses.
Potential improvements to reduce weaving impacts include the implementation of an auxiliary lane within the
weaving area to improve operations although this does not satisfy the capacity needs of the corresponding and
adjacent mainline segment. Standard capacity improvements, through the addition of one or more lanes on the
freeway ramps, will not necessarily result in acceptable ramp operations for ramps that are forecast to operate
deficiently. The density of the ramps is influenced by both the mainline and ramp volume, therefore, the traffic on
the mainline must be reduced or the capacity of the mainline facility must be enhanced through the addition of an
auxiliary lane to improve freeway ramp performance.
Although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the
inability to undertake right -of -way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses, environmental
constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have not been completed at this time,
it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of
some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain
improvements located outside of Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Caltrans), there
is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed for
reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements
outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction or the City cannot construct improvements in the Caltrans right -of -way without
Caltrans approval). Should that occur, the project's traffic impact would remain significant. Tables 5.5 -46 through
5.5 -48 of the FEIR present mitigation measures identified through analysis of the Proposed Project traffic impacts,
including those locations that are expected to remain significant due to infeasibility. Consequently, Impact 5.5 -1
would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.2 CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the project that outweigh the project's unavoidable adverse effects
and provides specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the Final EIR has indicated that
there will be significant project impacts that are infeasible to mitigate.
Use of an Existing Facility Reduces Potential Environmental Impacts
The Honda Center site is located on approximately 41 acres. Developing a facility with comparable capacity and
amenities elsewhere in Orange County would require assembling a site of similar area. Northern and central urban
Orange County is nearly completely built out; thus, assembling a site of that size would require demolition of
substantial numbers of homes and/or businesses. The DEIR looked at two potential alternative sites include the
former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station now known as Tustin Legacy and the Orange County Great Park (formerly
Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro). However, both sites have adopted land use plans which do not currently include
sites for a 41 acre sports and entertainment facility.
Development of a new facility on an alternate site would also result in numerous impacts that would not occur with
the Proposed Project. Since the Honda Center is already constructed, development on an alternative site would
commit non - renewable resources such as petroleum, wood, concrete and steel, which would not be required for the
Proposed Project. In addition, development of an alternative site would result in construction impacts including
noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic. Operational impacts including air quality, noise, greenhouse
gas emissions, transportation and traffic, would likely be similar but would occur in a different location and would
lack the existing transportation infrastructure located near Honda Center including freeway access and access to
transit. Therefore, development of an alternative site would result in greater impacts than those associated with the
proposed project.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -6
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Locates Jobs Growth near Transportation Corridors and Areas Planned for Residential Growth
The proposed project concentrates employment growth in a location near areas planned for residential growth and
major transportation corridors. Transportation corridors immediately near the project site include I -5, SR -57, and the
future Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). Implementation of the proposed project would
create employment opportunities within wallcing distance of ARTIC, allowing workers who could not afford to live
within the Platinum Triangle to commute to work. Thus, the proposed project provides more jobs without the
negative effects of increased congestion.
Provides Employment Opportunities for Highly Skilled Workers
The implementation of the Project will provide employment opportunities for a highly skilled workforce, especially
opportunities within the trades and construction industries.
As of December 2011, unemployment in the City stood at approximately 10.0 percent and unemployment in Orange
County stood at 7.8 percent (Employment Development Department, 2012). California and the United States have
faced the most severe recession since the great depression. The construction sector was particularly affected.
Implementation of the proposed project will generate approximately 20 temporary full -time and 950 permanent jobs
an additional 60 times per year.
Fulfills Goals, Objectives, and Policies Outlined in the Economic Development Element of the General Plan
The Economic Development Element of the City of Anaheim's General Plan outlines both policy strategies and
specific policies aimed at maintaining and expanding the role of major visitor attractions so that they function as
engines of the local economy. Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the Economic
Development Element, particularly the policy below:
• Continue to market Anaheim as a business - friendly city and implement the following
strategies to promote the City's special activity areas and neighborhoods: (ED 1.1.1)
o Market The Anaheim Resort, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, The Grove Theater and
the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim [sic] as major entertainment amenities for local
regional and national businesses.
o Promote The Platinum Triangle as a unique and special urban place where a wide
variety of people come together to work, live, shop and recreate.
In general, the proposed project would contribute to the overall vision of the Economic Development
Element, including the following goals:
• Continue to support and enhance tourism as a driving force in Anaheim's economy.
• Retain, expand and diversify the economic base of the City.
Implements the Objectives Established for the Project
The following objectives have been established for the Honda Center Enhancement project. The implementation of
these project objectives is a legal prerogative of the City.
• Implement the City's applicable General Plan Goals and Policies including, but not limited to,
establishment of the Platinum Triangle as a thriving economic center that provides residents,
visitors and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping and entertainment
opportunities that are accessed by arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian
promenades.
• Implement the Planning Principles of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP).
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -7
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Provide additional entertainment opportunities within a mixed -use environment in close proximity
to arterial highways, transit systems and pedestrian promenades consistent with regional
planning goals and policies.
• Approve a zone reclassification for a portion of the project site from the Transition (T)
Zone /Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone to the Public Recreational (PR)
Zone /PTMU Overlay Zone, so that the zoning is consistent throughout the Project Site.
• Increase the number of events at Honda Center including, but not limited to, a possible NBA
team.
• Implement various improvements to Honda Center to accommodate and enhance current and
future additional event activity.
• Expand the entertainment sporting options at the Honda Center to continue to position the City as
a world class entertainment destination.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the implementation of the Honda Center Enhancement project will contribute toward the
expansion of a world -class entertainment venue that will create hundreds of temporary and permanent jobs; spur
new investment and consumer activity in the City of Anaheim and in the region; and utilize an existing facility rather
than construct a new facility, reducing environmental impacts, all of which outweigh the unavoidable environmental
impacts.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -8
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
This page intentionally left blank.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 -9
5.0 REFERENCES
The following reference materials were reviewed to obtain information included in or considered during the
preparation of this document. To arrange for the review of one or more of these references, please contact the agency
listed or Susan Kim, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Anaheim Planning Department, at (714) 765 -4958.
Anaheim, City of. 2011, May (amended). City of Anaheim Municipal Code.
. 2004a, May 25 (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan Update.
. 2004b, August 17 (amended). The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan.
. 2005, May. Platinum Triangle Draft Environmental Impact Report, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.
Auffhammer, Maximilian and Carson, Richard T. 2008, May. Forecasting the path of China's CO2
emissions using province -level information. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management. Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 229 -247.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011, Updated May. California Environmental
Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines.
Berger, Elliott, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. 2006, February. Noise Navigator Sound Level
Database with over 1,700 Measurement Values. Version 1.0. E -A -R 88- 34 /HP.
Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. New
York: Spon Press.
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, DC.
California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA). 2010, August. Quantifying Greenhouse
Gas Mitigation Measures.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective.
. 2008, June. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
. 2000, October. California's Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.
. 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009, June. Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon
Fuel Standard, Volume 1, Initial Statement of Reasons.
. 2008a, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
. 2008b January. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions under CAFE Standards and ARB
Regulations Adopted Pursuant to AB1493.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 10
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
. 2008c February. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada
Under US CAFE Standards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations.
. 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
. 1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2007, April 20. CAT Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate
Change in California.
. 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Important Farmland. Map.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002.
Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration.
TAV 02- 01- R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998, October. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
. 1997, December. Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. UCD- ITS- RR -97-
21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis,
Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to
2002 Update. California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC- 600 - 2005 -025. Sacramento,
California.
. 2006, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004.
Report CEC- 600 - 2006 - 013 -SF.
. 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California's Energy and Climate Change Goals. Report
CEC-600-2007-008-SD.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California's Energy and
Climate Change Goals. Report CEC- 600 - 2007 - 008 -SD.
. 2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004.
Report CEC- 600 - 2006 - 013 -SF.
. 2006b. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report. California
Climate Change Center, California Energy Commission Staff Paper, Sacramento, California,
Report CEC- 500 - 2006 -077.
. 2005a, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen,
Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update. California
Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC- 600 - 2005 -025. Sacramento, California.
. 2005b, November. California's Water- Energy Relationship. CEC- 700.2005- 011 -SF.
CH2MHill. 2009, June. Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers (CCAAMPSS) —
Analysis of Models for the Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project (DSEIR NO. 339).
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 11
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
DRC Engineering, Inc. 2011, December. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Honda Center
Enhancement Project.
Energy Information Administration, United States (EIA). 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008.
Enstrom, James. 2005, December 15. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Total Mortality Among Elderly
Californians, 1973 2002. Inhalation Toxicology. 17(14):803 16.
Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN). 1997, June. Effects of Aviation Noise on
Awakenings from Sleep.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United
States Department of Transportation.
. 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of
Transportation. FTA- VA -90- 1003 -06.
. 2007, Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet.
http: / /www.fta. dot. gov / planning / environment /planning_environment_2233.html
Holland, David. 2007, December. Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey - Stick "Affair
and its Implications. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7 +8, Pg. 954.
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate
Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change
2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.
. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press.
International Energy Agency. 2006. World Energy Outlook 2006.
Monckton, Christopher. 2008, September. Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick? Science and Public Policy
Institute (SPPI), Commentary and Essay Series.
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2010, October. OCSD Capital Improvement Plan — Fiscal Year
2009 -10 Update.
Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas. 2010, May. Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Traffic Study
Report. May 2010.
Parsons Brinkerhoff. 2012, January. The Honda Center Traffic Study Report.
Psomas. 2009, June. The Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment.
Public Economics, Inc. 2006, June 5. Addendum to March 17, 2004 Fee Justification Study.
Rymer, Bruce and Donavan, Paul. 2005, November. California Tests Show Pavement Selection
Influences Noise Levels. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology (HMAT) Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 6, Pg. 25-
33. November /December 2005.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 12
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Singer, S. Fred. 2008, March. Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers
of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change, The Heartland Institute.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise — Reduction Measurements for
Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1995. Intergovernmental Review Procedures
Handbook.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008, October. Regional Comprehensive Plan.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008, May. 2008 Regional Transportation Plan:
Making the Connections.
Southern California Regional Rail Authority. 2007, January 26. SCCRA Strategic Assessment.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model
(CaIEEMod) User's Guide.
. 2008, September. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES Ill).
. 2007, June. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan.
. 2006, October. Final Methodology to Calculate PM2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds.
. 2003, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
. 1993, April. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). California Environmental Quality
Act Statutes and Guidelines. Adopted December 30, 2007, effective March 18, 2010.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010, February. Final 20X2020 Water Conservation
Plan.
The Economist. 2008, June 5. Melting Asia. The Economist.
The Planning Center. 2004, May. Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 330.
. 2005, October. The Platinum Triangle Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) No.
332.
The Planning CenterIDC &E. 2011, November. The Honda Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Technical Study.
. 2012, January. The Honda Center Noise Technical Study.
Tol, Richard S. 2007, December. Biased Policy Advice From The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7 -8, Pg. 933.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 13
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
U.S. Senate Minority Report. 2008, December. More than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man -
Made Global Warming Claims; Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus.
5.1 WEBSITES
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Update & Affordable Housing Commission. City of Anaheim, Live and
Archived Media Resource, Workshop Meeting Videos, August 21, 2007.
http: // anaheim .granicus.comNiewPublisher.php ?view_id =2. Accessed on September 7, 2007.
Airnav, LLC. 2007. Airport Information. http: / /www.airnay.com /airports.
Amtrak. July 15. Timetables.
http: / /www. amtrak .com /servlet/ContentServer/ Page /1237405732505/1237405732505.
Anaheim Regional Transit (ART). 2011. Route 15 Schedule. http: / /www.rideart.org /schedules /route -15/
BBK News. 2007, December. US sets terms for climate talks. BBK News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7145608.stm.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Anaheim.
Jurisdiction Diversion and Disposal Profile: California Waste Stream Profiles.
http: / /www.ciwm b.ca.gov/ Profiles /Juris /JurProfile2.asp ?RG =C &J URID =15 &J UR= Anaheim
Accessed on January 26, 2006.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2007. Solid Waste Landfilling Data: 2005 Landfill
Summary Tonnage Report. http:// www. ciwmb.ca.gov /Landfills/Tonnage. Accessed on January 26,
2007.
California Department of Education. Education al Demographics Unit. DataQuest Graph. Time Series —
Public School Enrollment. http:// dq. cde.ca.gov /dataquest/SearchName .asp ?rbTimeFrame =
oneyear &rYear = 2006- 07 &cName= anaheim &Topic= Enrollment &Level = School. Accessed on
March 14, 2007.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, and 2008).
http://wvvw.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2006, 2007, 2008,
2009, and 2010).
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /adam /index.html
. 2010, August. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /research /aaas /aaas2.pdf.
. 2010, March. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig /adm / adm.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, January. Ambient Air Quality Standards.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007, July. Area Designations: Activities and Maps.
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /desig /adm /adm.htm.
California Air Resources Board (GARB). 2010, March. 2010 State Area Designations.
http:// www. arb. ca .gov /desig /2010statedesig.htm.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 14
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
California Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle). Revised 2008. Contractor's Report to
the Board, California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http: / /www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ Publications /default.asp ?pubid =1346
California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. Clean Power Estimator.
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/tools/clean_power_estimatorphp
Delingpole, James. 2009, November 20. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of " Anthropogenic Global
Warming? Telegraph.co.uk.
http: / /blogs. telegraph .co.uk /news /jamesdelingpole/ 100017393 /climategate- the - final - nail- in -the-
coffin-of- anthropogenic - global- warm ing /.
Environment Canada. 2010, May. A Summery of Trends: 1990 -2008. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-
ghg/ default .asp ?fang= En &n= 0590640B -1.
Gotickets.com. 2011, September 22. Arco Arena Tickets.
http://www.gotickets.com/venues/ca/arco_arena.php.
Gray, Louise. 2010, April 14. Hockey stick" graph was exaggerated. Telegraph.co.uk.
http: / /www.telegraph.co. u k/earth /environment/cl imatechange/ 7589897 /Hockey- stick - graph -was-
exaggerated.html.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2010, January 20. IPCC statement on the melting of
Himalayan glaciers. http: / /www.ipcc.ch /pdf /presentations /himalaya- statement- 20january2010.pdf.
Kestenbaum. 2007, October 1. Japan Wrestles with Kyoto Accord Promises. National Public Radio
(NPR). http: / /www.npr.org /templates/ story /story.php ?storyld= 14087783.
Leake, Jonathan. 2010, February 7. Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility.
The Times. http : / /www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news /environment/article7017907.ece.
Malcolm Pirnie. 2011, June. City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
http: / /www.anaheim. net / utilities /waterservices /10_UWMP.pdf.
Metrolink. 2011, July 5. Schedules: Orange County Line.
http: / /www.metrolinktrains.com /schedules /html.php ?id =1111.
Natelson Company, The. 2001, October 31. Employment Density Study Summary Report. Prepared for
the Southern California Association of Governments.
http: / /www.scag.ca.gov /pdfs /Em ployment_Density_Study.pdf.
Office of the California Attorney General (AG). 2008, May. The California Environmental Quality Act
Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2011, June 12. Route 50 Schedule.
http://www.octa.net/pdf/pdf/feb2011/route050.pdf.
. 2011 b, June 12. Route 153 Schedule. http: / /www.octa. net /pdf /pdf /june2011 /route153.pdf.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008, December. Economy -Wide Cap & Trade Proposals in the
110th Congress. http: / /www.pewclimate.org/ federal /analysis /congress /110 /cap- trade - bills.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 15
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). South Coast AQMD List of Current Rules.
California Air Resources Board.
http: // www.arb.ca.gov /drdb /sc /cur.htm.
. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES Ill) Model Estimated
Carcinogenic Risk. http: / /www2 .aqmd.gov /webappl /matesiii /. Accessed 2011.
. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http: / /www.agmd. gov /cega /hand book/signthres.pdf
. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
http : / /www.agmd.gov /cega /hdbk.html.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2007. 2% Strategy Opportunity Area Maps.
Compass Blueprint, Strategic Opportunity Areas Maps.
http: / /www.compassblueprint.org /files /orange- county.pdf.
. 2011. 2012 RTP Development Timeline. http: / /www.scag.ca.gov /rtp2012 /index.htm.
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2011. Renewable Energy.
http://www.sce.com/powerandenvironment/renewables/default.htm
The Times of India. 2009, December 10. China emissions could double by 2020. The Times of India.
http : / /timesofindia.indiatimes.com /world/ china / China - emissions - could - double -by -2020-
Experts /articleshow /5321352.cros.
US Census Bureau. Fact Sheet. 2000. Anaheim city, California. Census 2000 Demographic Profile
Highlights. http: / /factfinder. census. gov /servlet/SAFFFacts ?_event = &geo_id=
16000 U S0602000 &_geoContext= 01000US %7C04000 US06 %7C 16000 US0602000 &_street = &_c
ou nty= anaheim &_cityTown = anaheim &_state =04000 US06 &_zi p= &_tang= en &_sse =on &ActiveGe
oDiv = &_useEV= &pctxt= fph &pgs1= 160 &_submenuld= factsheet_1 &ds_name= ACS_2005_SAFF&
_ci_n br =n u I l &q r_n a m e =null & reg = &_keyword = &_industry=.
. Data Profile: Anaheim city, California. Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005 American
Community Survey
http: // factfinder .census.gov /servlet/ACSSAF FFacts ?_event= Search &geo_id = &_geoContext = &_st
reet = &_county =ana heim &_cityTown= anaheim &_state= 04000U S06 &_zip= &_tang= en &_sse =on&
pctxt= fph &pgs1 =010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
http : / /www.epa.gov /climatechange /emissions /index.html.
. 2010, June. US Climate Policy and Actions. http : / /www.epa.gov /climatechange /policy /index.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Global Warming Potentials and
Atmospheric Lifetimes. Non CO Gases Economic Analysis and Inventory.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP
. 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http : / /www.epa.gov /climatechange /emissions /index.htm1
. 2008. Criteria Pollutants. http: / /www.epa.gov /oar /oagps /greenbk/o3co.htmll
Watts, Jonathan. 2007, June 4. China unveils climate change plan. Guardian.co.uk.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/04/chinajonathanwatts.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 16
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Webster, Ben. 2010, February 4. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri under pressure to go over glacial error,
The Times http : / /www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news /environment/article7014203.ece.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Santa Ana
Monitoring Station (ID No. ID 049087). http: / /www.wrcc.dri.edu /summary /Climsmsca.html.
Accessed June 2011.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Anaheim
Monitoring Station (ID No. 040192). http: / /www.wrcc.dri.edu /summary/Climsmsca.html. Accessed
2009.
5.2 MODELS
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006, November 1. EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model, U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Report No. FHWA -RD77 -108.
Rimpo and Associates, Inc. 2007. URBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.2.4.
Sonoma Technology, Inc. CALINE4 Computer Model, Version 1.31.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model
(CaIEEMod), Version 2011.1.1.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, August. Waste Reduction Model
(WARM).
5.3 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Kevin Starkey, Vice President of Operations, Honda Center. 2011, June. Personal Communications and
Honda Center Operational Survey.
EIR No. 344 Findings of Fact and City of Anaheim
Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 17
1 EXHIBIT B
2
3 (To be attached behind this page)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Z
OC F
o �� 13
a woo
> 14
Z U n n
Iu
° Way 15
wwva ¢ LL 16
o N 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
CO "0
L
m a) 0 ti) 0 a) IR O 0 +� C
Z7. a) p Z. o U) •-
c O-. d C O N 0 0 (,) O ca
L11 O _c C O co E c E 'a .O — E
co —c C a) 2 p N O O U
p'= a) O x a(Q a)
0 1_ _
O C E p L .e a) -o _c as
y= C O N O cA a) O L C C
0 O a) > v- N — cU O <
0 (� 0 0 O N OO C) 0 0 C p
N
0) 000U0 ,- .0 0. :5
O E 0 re .� co O .E C a) N�
M L U L_ 1.6 0 + 0) O N '� C -it M ,_ a ,_ NCO a) CL 0 C )
• a .0 ( 6 o vi �EO 0 L • m
W CEL 0 a)oi>o o 0E = Q
O 0 (j c a C > -p 0 O O N O N c O O 0
O E� 0 0 °� a � ~ E O o 0
cp =� E.- C.p Boa . a)
g E.
5604 z )7 aa) E g cE. 0 - o N.E
o a) _ _
E. .r >��� =c
U Z �E m. X � a>) ��� � 3 a
O W o m o m L o Q E
o a) a) 3
1:4 >m� cEa � �_ � (1) -4' taco
a W a ) O N a 00 o o a)-c
� Vo a) • - E.eu) ca
U p L >.0 • a) � O a) O •co Y C
Z C C 0 0CC C)0 L �.�
�j � C a� cacti o o �� cot
I� .� O O C> p O E L , . O q f6 +,
(� (� . c).17), a) .E V C 0)
QQ uo a)
O „ o o rn
' 4 1) a ) a) 0 a) _c a) _ p N -o p co - v
F a) L "0 L y .+
rte. W E co a) C L p> N O L >, E N C
ti C U O V r p Q O O O O � O O
_ 03 --I N-- O W ° - ~c - -c >, U 0 c 0 � 0 C � �'
[--� apl— O c a - pOvQ , cti 0- • O = 0)a oa 0 O O 2 E o 2(A
4 W co I-- to o �H =.� 1'1
O r a) a) =CON C Qa oO co
*.1 > 1.6 O cv a) C c Fl .E a) L C $ a>) „a) , r L_ O —
A C O O o a) C O v� 0 oN co C cu
cn O co a) E N 'X o a) CO O f1 .2 f"( O a C 3 0 � OL a) L O Cu a a)
"C) 0) W w � c -D- 0 0 0 �
Et M -
U C N .� E ca ca M O> a C co O w
W co O fa '-
0 - a) c6 N C a) O rn Q) O C 0 2) >, 0 0)
E 0 L C O N cC U U
� . Q ,_ N C 'a C a) O ELL a) cv
O 0 " a 0 a) C O O L o 0 0 O O- CO C
a a) N o O 0) O C O Q to • L a 'O
A w E O -c ai=0 N a) c 00NC a)
co as
0 0 u , ° = � "''• ° � a E_E c
CI) a) ca c a) C a) 0 N -0 O O C LO >; c
E 1-3 >-0 u) °).- ._ a) : : . ca a)
o aNC� 2 u) a) = co N .( (B O 15 C o Q s p '"'
/ �ri��►` "; i •> 0 p co 3 N C N a C o a) O 0 o ~ U 2
� � /� j +� °a il o W 0 . 0 o C o= v v 2 >, a : o rn�
'4
d ° o p Q +�C aim p p EE
o w '
CC O a) 0 . L
W `O N 0 . O o C> a .0 0_ D 0 0 co c
O a aaaa 5 co ca a) co H - Q.0 dQQ
C _o i- co N U L N • c ' O O _ O C
` co L c �+ c - o ::. . -p 3 C ca
'p a) — _ ca p C
a) _c C a• E ) "EL E rn� ° �' c ° cu
c 3 ca E U a) - o 0) a m o p ' o c
` o
_c v). - cQ 00 --c °L
- p,c a) c — L co �' c
3 v i_ a) o v �� c.0 °� E c °�• c
L C .. • •= L U as ca O' (a U `5 L 73 _ ` L
U= CO N •p to C O ca p U p
3 o a) , ° a) •— mrn - > , m�L - 0 -0
c...) al nc -, o :« , 3 ca a) 1.
> :.• U a co (I') �c'g °� � O �Q° a)� 0 c CO co s
U �c "-' E n 0 a al m° E o a)
ca) t— . oa ._o a)� — -0 o'cn N
�. �a ° (I) _0 a) N E
w Cc` cOU U ca Z' o • m
O ca m' m 3'c — o -0 ca a) �:r c O.E
La) 3 coo �L =0 a)
= N U C
° 0 o ^ .r •5 ) 0 p U = to >.
p
Q co ._ > o 0 U N a (a � c c . L= O U a fa
o "c O'O L O ca S = E U) O °� 3 m ° U a
c o O v o i c V , u) .—° m .� N c o w c L O U
o n - a c co o p o) c a) c> a) 0 3 a) W •
.. ca >, 0 mE ocEcco a)o
v H O (1) t c= • E c o "> c o L O o o L c
�' ° ' U °- •n a) c a) a) o `c U c� E �
= a >,>> E 03 _c fa co ca o 3 a) � To
0 c C Q a) 0 U a = c F 0 0 0 L O C u) c E c aQ a) z U ea o •— 3 E rnE !cs c o - o EC op.�LV c a ) cn ca a) m E .. p a0 > O . 7) >, ° o ° m a) °-'QO E 0) - c>> �U c E 1' o CO c o a)�•�ocA cox coVo c
" c N O E L a) p c a .s O N a 3 a) U c L v
E' • 0) O o li C °) L a) a) c V c ca .. c L
0 E o O U a) 0 E Q �'(° m ELa)a) .0
0 V 0 (1 03 Q- = =c ca > O . c -�
O c U OC Q 0L rn ca 3 0. = +--'- =�` c•
o
LL
^ 'a a) L - c CO L .• ._ 3 O C fa o V (a = .". 0 X "a
QQ = i C N 0• 3 'a) O U a)
o Q "° � - rn E •� 0 0 0 a sc C� _
.0
c ac E a)c V �'3 0 L iaU �
U a)Qo U ���E... E u) 2. 0 2 2 )
O J E O p O = . . U a o EE 0 `° c c �° co c c `'
co 0 + L (1) c) c +.
0 c L a) ca O O to + O .
C c L c v o � — � + - ° E cc E t a 2c
ca c c U ..
0 E a)a)c c"_a - a) E m =c o o) o a-0 oQ o „_ n
0 0 . E a) c E2 c Q ° C = E °•c O
_ V 0)
E a) co ^
C ca d 2 . c o) ca as E � � coo t
ca >, o o`" 45 ac)r ca a) .g. E OL O- = o� °_ v)
• +'. . - = .0 a) V (a r- 0. O Q (a > N = 3 C E 20 a)
c a = — a) CO U 0 fa i a) "t C -co " E o ( c co CO L L L CO IL) j O L 0 C
E N C! > o cans 2. co U co V E N (I) i U) O L I- c a) _ = U +. .(7) ca
E • L _ fl- a) -2 cn b 9 c o
C L c N o cn a) c c 0 _a= N U E L M N 0 N C o N Q to
ca c E •E• >, 0 ) 0 0 L 3 O_ 2 . a ,-, 3 ` p° E o ox,
•c 3 U u) a) cr, Q o , E me m 42) a? +.. Cc o, o o c m o N = rn n� v
> ¢ ,' ` oEO E ° ° -cao E °) v) mEa)„_o Qc
U U •0 2.00.- co N O c a) ) c • C C N N O C O L O C
I a . , z 2. ca c i fl. - O= ' c Cr) a) U ( .7 )
h W W O o • c E 3 w v w ° co a) = O 2.
o = C c = Q c cv co • � ' a� c$ E 2.-.- > � c o a I- c _ c
)-
O F. a) a)N0Va)c H •• 0)=0) :12 •' m 0)•QE= a�
C >, < E c o ca - V I ,, E� S 0. c a> ( �c E � o 0) 2 E
_ C•L L
0 a) d e L.a)2E0)rn C 0coa� 0_crm • °c °u 2 a)
30
I 0. a ` M W a 03v E 0 H C c 3 v CL c 0 c o E. m ca•F_
a7
E
1
H v N M (N 4 4 L CO
O o
w- c°)
• o
0. Z
E o
0 a
0)
c
ti o
,°
a) o
41 c a $ = E O
,O C a�
U O V •
a)
' a a 0
a)oa)TO r) ` ° oo 0 0 0c`oa) c°cc ovo a)-°cc)orn
L 2) as L. a) m O O c o o C y C • a
c° C Y C C > ' w >' 3 0 � O o f6 @ .-. - �O > W C C C V
C V1 U a) c ° c° ' a) C 0 Y a) 4 U p « o, Z
Q C L c( o y o C d V co ° ' (••) a) u) V a) • o U o C`
°) 'O U O L L O E N c° ` a) ti L o C u) c (n D o m .0 a) ;6 U o
c ° U � o te Z. f c c°5 ( ,c ` L ° L as m c —fn a) 0 c c
>,0030 W >. > . O_ O O aj Y w C I- c " 3 "a a) a . o� U
L Q O '° c p J u) co y c° co = M u) 0,7 3 0 a) V L C C
w as E 2 U L C L "' a CO C O L L c ti o Q. c 0 C CD O CO C : : 2 .+ O O
°
Q T. y mu) a 0 3 a a) ) 0.12.? t o a) c c a) m a) a) a ` ) y
o L a
�) �w 11) 3 a � Y C C o u) = r a) rn o Z� a)Q U 5 o a) •
LS c 0 y > c UO ° o e- . a) O 3 2 c U a) v o O u) 0 c ° -
C as L , O T +- U O a) 2 y C L O : U U
O .0>. U O a E 'ui C C . C) d 7 U c o -3 p O • o c° C a) w E ° o o . . 'p y O
cp CL C C CD '� 7 C °r OL .c (°Y .t°•.mL a) Cw
E.) ° 0 `O m C . ° o o c 0 m CO 1- m - c a 3 c c a m° m M
10 O a) a) U C E E L •U o 2 . T ' c° .0 j Q C Q C) O C C y J O C w
c° N o a) ° y y d c U C Q O -O
a m a) O o u) c ° i T C C o O . U U C d y a) C C.) 7 ° 76 .c.c y c a,
IA '4 7 C) 2 a) o O CO ,_ c° CO CO . y • ` U fn :co ' O L .° o -p 0 o U p '. 'W a) ° +_ C w o. > V° C T C c/) V 7 0 CT _ u) L o .°, o y C V ) C) a3 c° O w u) - o O Q 'oa o 0) C) O a) 72 U _ . L d C • a) U a) C 7 v L U a) 7 U E o ° 1- w O° ....r C C a) 0.
= .-. 7 C j = w ) a M . C c° L C . O . 1- a) O
<° L n C O o ° ` >+ O u) - CO ' w w CD o 0 7 J C E w' O C Q 8 C C
Cl) U E .. y U C o E$ U CO . =° ° c a) N
o° C O N O
C - C E N C C . 7. co ( 3 n C O E :a C c ' = 1— V Q :° ? C c « > C +'
= - L + -' o U '- E w' a) 0 0 w Ct O a) )2 0 O c o c
ow c y g as m e w c ��a a) m co m J. o m o U w c = Q ° -• O
m = m 0 a > 0 m •- a a a i c CO u o u z c a•0 D mce 0 u) a)-0
U o f C f S V) O' L a) 5 O o C .. O C 0 )-0
c2 c a 8 c t Ce = W U Ce W c ° o o.0w ° • -c. 0 CC o c a)
20-< m co ai .0 c.i - o H2 O Q 'aw a aa) ° cn o 0
u) • N
Z
h O
O N
• E • IL
W W
c° • 0 a a ) )
O W •o
C')
CD = d
O O c
m Q c = E
c _ = o Z 0
£' v W m
C7 L
I— Q 1 C7 W
1 d
O c
z N
O 2 O C) 0, v
F o H o 'o c c v
c
o CD CD
0
C W ) v) C W =
)O O
= M
a z
E m
c� ,_ a
o,
c
1 o
.2
•d o
c
To 0 o c o 0 0 o m o
0 c � E E E E m
a 0 a0 a0 a0
73 0 c L m ° ° m L 3 co o >
Cl)) .0 . "'- a o mm 3 " c > ,.-° mm
c � O w I` ab a) o ° ° L a: �o m
E c @ = y a) C O C n N C p >
O> 0 7.0 '6 = 2 O- o a o O = ...- C+ o a L a) m
m C 0. N .c 7 y w , 0 V N
Y 0 C CA Q O O o L m . - O D '-' O C m N -..-• > Y
� = C O L N c a) (> c c m C N D 17 .� . - CO
N L .c) • `. mQ X s �U C m i m ..� a -0 U s m C
x c II a) C ° >, m . .0 -° > 2 ° o v to 0
( j � m c t c c o ° 0 cc rn m Xr 0 C c c rn Y > 0 co
o
E� �a)w a ( 9-1:3 0. 0 , - a- °a)wE•y in 0.
CO
Q 4 -, 0 CD 0 w U > > m O U C o.- O CO 0 0. 0 (n
c E o > a) 8 oz 0 m @ >•c E m w
o a° CO o � - it a) o �w 2 ao m m
2 m c -0 L C , � t> t E N _ _0 V U ° m O w CD 0
o Y m 0 .0 a) m O .. N to - C ,r co m O E C .. U -0 0 +'
c c,, ,r m o o c c m me 0 0 a) o._ me 2 c T c o _
I. o� me ° :) a e.a o ° m - N a? o ac ° m O 3 0
0 y d y u C U L 0 ( O c '. m O 0 0 O r " c .0 w
> 1) c Y 4- a) U a) 0 a) C m a) w N a) t 2 O c a) m 2
m N � m ac_ c r�L - co
> •C C w m ca o c C9 >,
� m 0 m °- o 0 .. y o E,_ 0 a Q a) 0 0 a m a) _
rn V'-' w > a E ° o� ° o > rnm > a m
c ° c ° . m me ° m ° �� a ° � Q c O 2 m o
Ell � aa)o 0c mcE v Y 0 co «3E a)
,� c 1.- (D
C m v� 0 0 E °: c a E cD ° E 0_ E :? c CO O C2 om . • O o`ccn co CO o m c ` � O � a?c > m Th
rn € > °i c o i �� = °o co�3a)m —>vi -C O 0@ Ea) Zvi - 0 o
0) z ` o c v ° i c m` c�c ° v) u) a) c 3 0 �.a�c. a ° ) cn ° E
° m 4 ° a �0it m w rn�s E 3 E �' g co a) 3 E o 0 a) a
«. °
O co u) C c m O N+ 3 C _ c > E o 0 a) •- c 3 .. O
0 0 >, 0 o m 3 >,o °v 3 rn� rnc m a ° �rs' m � rn m m ° ) (13 CO
a C o 'E a) cym Cn 0 o „
co Cn
o a) m a) •c• c E m c) m o c • m m Ow' 'c E c c m m m
H .0 y LL awOC o m V a m c >,2 E E c • • a c 3 Q: EEG . . . •
rn L
M a d' LL tf) cD
0 O Ct
Z .) 1-
a) p
Z 'o Z "5 a o cc� °a)
a < 0 T30°° .U'' 0 'p m a s
0 Z :3ma): a ) a
G o E O o E > m E c � � -,
Q c ° H c L a) c a) .c a a
o) a ) .. a) co a) 0 o m
�0 o "o. c�c ' C ' : - ) .9 aci
0 m
. m W ° C ..- a) N U C m 0 0- 0
E Z- N o Z N° +�+ 0 , � . `= C O O C U u) c
F- g � Z c0i �oaci���E m o m - m c c c OS
t
10 I c I y C co C N •
0 • � c 0 ,- >
al
o > > > y m� 0 00 OmE }?
Z CO Z c z c m 0 > o 0 a) co m� w m
0) D o c QQ O V N o c, L 0 cm 0
p H 0. - 0.c 3 a) -b ` as v c .- • `° o
0) W 0 co W W D 3 m -0 m r 0 c >, ¢ o 0 0 0
0 cn2cna cna o3 a 1
C 0
m 0
O. Z
O c
u a
0,
e
L 0
o1 E E m
Q.O U- U ••t _
O0G� .a .n
a p a 0
0 0 0 .a' -0 cZ'a"6 m= ° rn= m o o m U c 3 y c 0
i' Z m co y� c 0 y co 2 Zr o a '> c y 2 co
y
C C p'p a) U >O E co o 0.L ° - o
A. m c in CL 0
c o m - OI`
•_L' F- m >'0 E 0'o m c,, 0 a) co ,u, c
- oWU•O�.0 o m7OOaE L a>E 0c
m� 0 _' ° °c m 0 0� m y a
c� a) a0 m w s a
U 0 0 co O 0 co �-0 0 - 0 ..
O _c Y C O C w m 0 � L a C e- a C U 0 C
0 o•LL 0 c a) c E 42) a o c U o 4- ° CO co z 0 ° E
m E c O C U O 0 m - C 0 0 C 0 ` a
.. >' , >• C L c 0 U p `" U w m ' U C 0 a f vi s m
tom a) o O ` a) O .. 0 L � O 43 c 'C C w C
.. � ° o n O) co w I- T w C> CO 4) y C W O D 0 m
m @N E c m ° m o 0 o co E> C 0� m,, o o E
oO
E m m o �� ° �s �U m ° a co E CO p
d 0 F- 0 p 0 • .. ;= - c . C m > O m C a) 4 .. c
V O co Lui 3 o v 0 m 0— 00 0 m o 0 0 io
gg nN�c� UTa, > �as � _ as a) o "o °-
m EP o:o.A � ED- y .6 Ec m. c ww= c E -a m
O o
c o >, o C C m m L o EQ c ° �w: ° .c m 0Z ° - m ms m
• - "
"' 0 n o U a ai ' .. a y „ c as c - .. a)
L 0 3Y o o E•° ° }� Cc m co -c, 3a o cL ~`• aiQ °
w
c c U� ov E c c U °_a °10 � E L E �w c c o
a) C • O O n C 7 0 0 0 L > �p t 0 a) L m °° 0 To
U w w ..=. C @ C O O U C N to Q,._ �
N — C O m ._ L O U .0 •O 0 0 o p C m C y U m
m f6 a).... a) C � C a) . =L w E m aQ m O N
o L y -.5 5 E N 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 3 O L E O O O 0 O ce
aE a, ) > 0 € € > o o U a) E > v, 1 a m 4) 2 0.
L °= 0 > 'c - =c O m a; m 0 E 0 c
c c ocoo c .)""—c0 0 3 > a -Ea 2 coa a, ccwva) --''c a)
5-OQ ci o On 3 vv = - o o m 3 E.0 QE QU E ° m �w-o 0) u_
Ill o )
°° N aa))
N O
W U
4 0 •O ' 0 "' V O
•C .+ > CD w 5 a
m•om '-'a CO
0 ca) 0 N o
U E O C r.. E '' ' 0 O 0
a) a?m3 my z •o
c 3 m 4 C Q o a
a) 0 E
C CA 0 0 . m C 0 O N I= - L CO J a C
E C 0 0.2 0 °
C c m
C O 0 a) C O O L
w - o = W
- O C 7 .+ >
• C 0 y 0 0 c 0 r)
a) m E N m N: p X 5 •c) C
`. C a) co m . 0 Z U 0
U c U
oc 2-a)= C V 0 c
aoc a a a) ) v ( i 2 _