Loading...
83R-046 RESOLUTION NO. 83R-46 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (A) . CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ?52~ (B) MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THaREWITH~ AND (C) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CON~IDERATIONS. WHEREAS~ Ana~eim Stadium Associates~ a California general partnership~ has submitted to the City of Anaheim a proposal for the phased construction of a commercial office and retail development~ to- gether with parking strUctures~ which would be located on certain real property owned by the city of Anaheim and known generally as the Anaheim Stadium property (herein~fter collectively referred to as IIprojectll) which Project is more specifi~ally described in Draft Environmental Impact Re- port No. 252 (pages 16 through 24~ and exhibits 1 through 10) prepared for the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS~ the City of Anaheim is the lead agency for the prepara- tion and consideration of environmental documents for said Project as defined in the Californ~a Environmental Quality Act of 1970~ as amended~ (hereinafter "CEQA") and the State of California Guidelines for the Imple- mentation of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "State Guidelines"); and WHEREAS~ said Project is subject to compliance with the provi- sions of CEQA and the .State Guidelines since said Project requires the di scret i onary issuance of a conditional use permit ~ and vari ance from off- street parking requirem,nts by the City of Anaheim, and approval of a phased ground lease master plan~ and approval of a tentative parcel map~ and execution of a devel~pment agreement by said City; and WHEREAS~ the City of Anaheim has prepared or caused to be prepared~ Draft EIR No. 252 to address the si gnifi cant ~ adverse envi ron- mental impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives associated with the Project; and WHEREAS~ the City of Anaheim has consulted with other public agencies, and the genercp publ ic and given them an opportunity to COl1l1lent on said Draft EIR as required by the provisions of CEQA and the State Guidelines; and WHEREAS~ on Jfinuary 24~ 1983~ a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning ~ol1l1lission of the City of Anaheim to provide a further opportunity for. the general pub 1 i c to comment on and respond to the Draft EIR; and - WHEREAS~ on February 8~ 1983~ a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Counqil of the City of Anaheim to provide a further opportunity for the gen~ral publ ic to comment on and respond to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS~ the City of Anaheim has evaluated the comments received from public agencies and persons who reviewed the Draft EIR; and - 1 - WHEREAS~ said comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR~ either verbatim or in summary~ a list of persons~ organizations and public agencies comm~nting on the Draft EIR, and the responses of the City of Anaheim to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process have been attached to and made a part of said Draft EIR to form the Final EIR for said Project as required by Section 15146 of the State Guidelines; and WHEREAS, said Final EIR has been presented to the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Anaheim for review and consideration prior to the final approval of~ and commitment to~ said Project; and WHEREAS, on J~nuary 24, 1983, the Planning Commission resolved to certify as complete apd adequate Final EIR No. 252 (Resolution No. PC 83-16), and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2400 for subject Project; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim as fo 11 ows: 1. That the City Co~ncil of the City of Anaheim does hereby certify that Final EIR No. 252 ~or said Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State ~uidelines and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the info~mation contained in Final EIR No. 252 prior to approval of, or commitment to, said Project. Said Final EIR is composed of the following elements: A. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 252 and all appendices thereto; B. Comments and responses to comments on Draft EIR No. 252; C. City of Ana~eim staff reports dated January 24, 1983 and February 8, 1~83; D. Minutes of t~e City of Anaheim Planning Commission hearing of January 24~ 1~83; E. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 83-16 dated January 24, 1983; and F. Minutes of the City of Anaheim City Council hearing of February 8~ 1983. 2. That the Ci ty C04nc il of the Ci ty of Anahei m does hereby fi nd that changes or alterations Have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will mitigate or avoid the significant adverse effects identified in the Final EIR as specifically itemized below. A. Landform/Topography .,.-.,.- Impacts: Proj ect construct i on will requi re further permanent modi fi ca- tions to the topography of the project site and the importation of approximately 20~000 cubic yards of fill material. Fill materials will raise the project site'$ elevation an approximate average of .62 feet. (Draft EIR pages 25-26). Grading operations will increase noise and dust levels in the immediate viicinity and along the future haul route. Findings: Grading operations will be conducted in conformance will all applicable City of Anaheim grading codes. (Draft EIR page 26). Given the - 2 - - present asphalt paved condition of the project site and the relatively minor amounts of earthwork and fill materials required for project construct ion, si gnifi cant 1 andform impacts will be avoi ded when adopted mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are applied. B. Geology/Soils Impacts: Structures wi n 1 ikely be subject to groundshaki ng from future offsite seismic events (e.rthquakes). (Draft EIR page 29). Findings: Standard eng1neering practices will be employed to ensure structural soundness of 'buildings and parking structures. Seismic and peak load considerations will be evaluated in conjunction with structural design. Detailed soils .and geology reports will be prepared prior to issuance of building perm~ts. (Draft EIR page 29). Due to the absence of any significant geolo9ical and soil constraints to development~ implementation of the adqpted mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will eliminate significant, adverse impacts. C. Hydrology/Wat~r Quality Impacts: Project const~uction will cause a short-term degradation of water quality during cons~ruction activities as a result of sedimentation. Long-term decreases in rtunoff water qual ity will result from increased automobile contaminants. (Draft EIR pages 34-35). Findings: Adverse impact$ to water quality will be substantially reduced with adoption of mitigatipn measures contained in the Final EIR concerning parking lot maintenance ~nd sweeping, encouragement of public transit, and conformance with appl ica~l e City and regional programs for surface runoff and sedimentation. (Draf1t EIR Page 35). Water quality impacts cannot be completely avoided with any known, feasible mitigation measures. The remaining level of impact after mitigation will not be of a significant 1 eve 1 . Impacts: The study area is located within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River according to a 1980 study conducted for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The flood des i gnat ion is II AO II, i nd i cat i ng that the site has approximately a 1% chance flooding in any given year to a depth of one-foot. (Draft ErR pages 33-34). Findings: The Project wi!ll comply with the City's Flood Hazard Ordinance (No. 4136). The lowest ~abitable floor of any commercial office building will be elevated above the designated~ one-foot base flood elevation. Basements for mechani cal equi pment or simi 1 ar uses wi 11 be flood proofed to conform with applicabl!e regulations. (Draft EIR pages 35-36). Incor- poration of the mitigatidn measures contained in the Final EIR will avoid any significant adverse impact due to flooding. D. Cultural Resources Impact: While no archaeoilogical sites have been identified~ a possibility exists that subsurface sites may be present; however, if sites are present~ they would likeily be in a disturbed condition due to previous grading and urban development. (Draft EIR page 38). - 3 - Findings: If any archaeological deposits are encountered during construction~ an archae~logist will be contacted and the appropriate measures for the salvagihg of these resources will be implemented under the direction of the City of Anaheim. (Draft EIR page 38). The incorporated mitigation measure contained in the Final EIR eliminates the potential for significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources. E. Existing Land Uses Impacts: Project constr~ction will require the relocation of approxi- mately 2,953 Anaheim Stadium parking spaces and will require modification to existing stadium accesls and traffic circulation. The existing Southern California Edison overhea~ transmission lines will require relocation~ as will the City's well No. 33. (Draft EIR pages 39-42). Fi ndi ngs: If necessary t~ ma i ntai n conformance with ground 1 ease requi re- ments~ Anaheim Stadium parking spaces displaced by the Project will be replaced by the project ~ponsor in offsite parking structures so that the City's obligations to the Angels and Rams will be maintained. The City of Anaheim wi 11 benefit subsitant i ally from increased parking avail abil ity for weekend~ holiday and eve~ing stadium events when Project parking garages will be made available for the use of stadium patrons. The project sponsor will underground the SCE overhead 1 i nes and wi 11 relocate the City's well No. 33. (DrarFt EIR page 42). Proposed access and circulation modifications will mainUin acceptable traffic flow for Anaheim Stadium events and will not result in a significant adverse impact to stadium operations. Proposed Project design and incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR eliminates significant adverse impacts to onsite land uses. F. Existing and ~lanned Uses Surrounding the Study Area Impacts: The Project incrementally intensifies the urban character of the site and will resultantly increase traffic~ air quality and noise impacts in the i mmedi ate area, m<<>st notably duri ng peak-hour peri ods. (DrarFt EIR pages 51-53). Findings: Mitigation m~asures contained in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the Propect to substanti ally reduce traffic~ ai r qual ity and noi se impacts, and r.sultant adverse effects to surroundi ng land uses (refer to subparagraphs ~, I and J below). These impacts to surrounding land uses which are primarily non-residential will be substantially reduced with application of the mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR. Under certain peak use conditions, impacts to surrounding land uses may remain at significant levels. Impact: Building shadow~ will be experienced onsite and on the stadium parking lots to the nortH of the study area. Existing structures offsite will not likely be impacted by Project building shadows. (Draft EIR pages 52-53) . Findings: Mitigation me~sures to reduce shadow impacts will be studied further with precise buil~ing design studies. Significant adverse impacts will be avoided with appr<<>priate building siting and design. - 4 - G. Socioeconomics Impacts: Approximately ~~983 employees are estimated to be drawn from outside the local labor market. It is estimated that new employment opportunities will result in a population increase of 11~290 persons and a -- demand for approximately 4,390 dwelling units~ partially within the affordable price range. (Draft EIR pages 80-82). Finding: The deficiency 'of affordable housing in Orange County represents a significant adverse irrjpact to future project employees. To partially mitigate this impact the City of Anaheim will continue to pursue afford- able housing within the City through participation in government funded affordable housing progr~ms as identified in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan and will continue to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers who construct affordable housing projects in the City. (Draft EIR pages 85-86). The City of Anaheim's efforts to provide affordable housing will not likely keep pace with the growing regional demand. The lack of affordable housing could represent a significant adverse impact to futune Project employees for which no economically feasible mitigation measutes are available. H. Transportatio./Circulation Impact: The Project is ~xpected to generate 31,670 daily vehicular 3,690 of these trips wou~d occur in the 4:30 -5:30 p.m. peak hour. out mitigation, six inte~sections would operate at deficient levels the p.m. peak-hour. (Draft EIR pages 87-89). Findings: Project impac'h to the local arterial highway system will be mitigated during the normal peak-hour with adoption of the Final EIR mitigation measures. (Dr.ft EIR No. 252 pages 94-96, Appendix A - Chapter IX and "Comments and Re~ponses"~ responses #9, #10~ #11~ #12, #13 and #20). These measures imclude 1) development and implementation of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program including carpool~ vanpool and transit elements~ 2) improvements of roadway geometrics at six locations (refer to Draflt EIR, Appendix A~ Chapter IX for details), 3) negotiation of a transportation improvements program for funding of identified improvements~ and 4) improved coordination of the local traffic signal system. Adoption of the mitigation measures identified in the Final ErR will avoid sigmificant adverse impacts during typical peak-hour periods. trips; With- during Impacts: Under combined office and afternoon baseball conditions and without mitigation, a total of three additional intersections would operate at defi ci ent 1 evel s. Under combi ned offi ce and eveni ng football conditions and without mitigation, a total of four additional intersec- tions would operate at deficient levels. (Draft EIR pages 92-93). Findings: The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will sub- stantially mitigate traffic impacts during combined Project and stadium event periods; however~ some intersections will continue to operate at deficient levels during these combined traffic periods. Combined stadium and normal peak-hour traffic is only anticipated to occur between 0-4 times per year. To partially mitigate impacts during these infrequent traffic conditions~ the City of Anaheim will pursue scheduling of major - 5 - c',........... events~ wherever possible~ so as not to conflict with normal peak hour traffic. The City will also work to expand its future computerized traffic signal system and will develop a Circulation Management Plan Manual to better control traffic for combinations of stadium and normal peak-hour traffic. Imp~oved pedestrian and vehicular signage will be developed. I. Air Quality Impacts: Short-term ex~aust emissions from construction equipment is estimated to total 19.2 tpns, or 4.8 tons per each of the four development phases. Short-term fugit~ve dust emissions from construction is estimated to total 1~344 tons, or '0.8 tons/day during active construction. (Draft EIR pages 103-105). Findings: Dust emission~ will be mitigated through watering techniques, covering of trucks fill~ with soil, and imposition of speed limits on unpaved surfaces. (Draft EIR page 109). Mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR will substantially reduce construction-related emissions. Impacts remaining after mitigation may continue to be of significant levels. Impacts: Assuming buildout in 1987~ the Project would produce 6.92 tons/day of air emission$, the majority of which (94%) would result from automobile use. (Draft EtR pages 106-109). Findings: To mitigate lqng-term air quality impacts~ the Project will be required to comply with ~QMD'S Rule 708.3 regarding reduction of mobile- source air emissions durijng air pollution episodes. Energy conservation measures which meet or e~ceed the requirements of Title 24 will also be imposed. The City of Apaheim wi 11 al so implement each of the traffic mitigation measures conta~ned in the Final EIR to improve traffic flow and encourage the use of trartsit and ri deshare programs. (Draft EIR page 110 and IIComments and Respon$es", responses #8, #9~ #10~ #11~ #12~ #13~ #18, and #20). These measure$ will substantially reduce air quality impacts; however~ when all ecor1lomically and technically feasible mitigation measures are applied~ the remaining impacts may continue to be of significant levels. J. Noise Impacts: Short-term constructi on noi se wi 11 be audi bl e to surroundi ng land uses which are pritnarily non-residential. Project-related traffic will also increase noise levels adjacent to surrounding arterial highways. Potentially impacted land, uses are either non-residential or transitional in nature. (Draft EIR pates 111-114). Findings: Construction iictivities will be limited to daytime hours in conformance with appli~able City and state policies. Construction equipment will be muffled or shielded to the extent feasible. (Draft EIR page 114). Noise-sensitiive land uses will not be impacted significantly by increased traffic volumes and resultant increases in noise levels. Significant noise impacts will be avoided. - 6 - K. Public Services and Utilities Impacts: The Project will increase fire department service calls and operating expenses. The cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other proximate propects wi 11 requi re a program of shared costs to provide a new fire station site~ station construction and necessary equipment. (Draft EIR page 120). Findings: The Project will be constructed in conformance with all applicable building codes and will include fire protection features. Fire- retardant building and l~ndscaping materials will be used where possible. The Fire Marshal will review specific plans for building design and emergency vehicle access~ The project sponsor will also contribute to a shared cost program for fire protection facil ities. (Draft EIR pages 126- 127). App 1 i cat i on of the mit i gat ion measu res conta i ned in the Fi na 1 E IR will avoid significant adverse impacts to fire protection service. Impacts: An increased number of police service calls can be expected~ thus requiring the need for additional police personnel and equipment. (Draft EIR page 121). Findings: Review and approval of security and circulation features will be made by the pol ice ~epartment. Adequate security 1 ighting will be provided. (Draft EIR page 126). Project impacts to police services will be reduced to insignific~nt levels with the mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and with potential additional personnel and equipment funded through Project ge~erated revenues. Impacts: The Project is expected to consume approximately 65.7 million ga 11 ons of water annualljY. Water supply systems will requi re expansion and extension. (Draft EI~ pages 121-122). Findings: Automatic sprinkler systems will be used for landscape watering during evening and early morning hours. Applicable state mandated water conservation measures will be implemented. (Draft EIR pages 127-128 and "Comments and Response"~ response #21). The City anticipates sufficient water supplies to service the project; however, the project will incre- mentally reduce the City's total water supply and will create an increased regional demand for imp~rted potable water. The increased demand for imported water may have a cumul at i ve and long-term si gni fi cant impact. Reclamation of wastewater for Project irrigation is considered infeasible for this Project individually. (IIComments and Responses~ response #21). Impacts: The Project will generate an estimated 66.1 million gallons of wastewater annually~ substantially above wastewater flows estimated for the project site by the Orange County Sanitation Districts. Adequate transport facilities are available in the Sanitation Districts' Santa Ana River trunk sewer (District #2). (Draft EIR pages 122-123). Findings: Sewer line extensions to connect with the District #2 trunk sewer wi 11 be constructed by the project sponsor. The City of Anaheim will coordinate with the Sanitation Districts in amending the Districts' Master Plan. (Draft EIR page 128). The Project incrementally intensifies the need to expand local wastewater treatment facilities. The cumulative impacts of increased wastewater treatment may have a si gnifi cant adverse - 7 - ,.."","- - impact on existing services which can only be mitigated with continuing improvements to and expansion of existing treatment facilities. ....,-- Impacts: The Project will generate an estimated 81.7 tons/day of solid waste. Disposal will be accommodated without significant adverse impact on solid wastes transport or landfill facilities. (Draft EIR page 124). Findings: Trash compactors will be installed onsite to mitigate potential storage impacts. (Draft EI R page 128). Si gni fi cant adverse impacts to solid waste services and facilities will be avoided. Impacts: The Project intensifies the demand for finite fossil fuel re- sources. The Project is estimated to require 83.5 million cubic feet of natural gas and 37.8 million kwh annually. Southern Cal ifornia Gas (SCG) and the City of Anaheim Electrical Engineering Department anticipate sufficient resources to meet these energy demands. (Draft EIR pages 124- 126 ) . Findings: Energy conserv~tion measures will be employed to meet or exceed the state's conservation standards. Onsite and offsite infrastructure will be improved to provide adequate services to the Project without impact to surrounding land uses. (Draft EIR page 128). Mitigation meaures identified in the Final EIR will substantially reduce impacts to energy resources; however, the increased long-term demand for finite fossil fuel resources ma:y have a significant, cumulative and long-term impact. Impact: The Project will create an increased demand for telephone ser- vices and use but is n!ot expected to exceed the Telephone Company's service capabilities. (Draft EIR page 126). Fi ndi ngs: Exi sti ng underground conduits wi 11 be re-routed as necessary to maintain telephone servic~ to the Anaheim Stadium. (Draft EIR pages 129). Significant adverse impact to telephone service is not anticipated. 3. The City Council of the City of Anaheim further finds that although changes~ alterations or conditions have been incorporated into the Project which will substantially mitigate or avoid significant effects identified in the Final EIR, certain of the significant effects cannot be mitigated to fully acceptable levels. The remaining impacts identified below may continue to be of significant adverse impact even when all feasibly known and identified mitigation measures are applied. A. Intensification of the urban character of the site and surrounding area with re!sultant increases in traffic~ air emission and noi se impacts. .- B. Traffic cong~stion and operation below acceptable standards during combined project and stadium event periods. Findings (A and B above): Intensification of the urban area is considered to be an unavoidable eff~ct of Project implementation. Transformation of the existing surface parking lot to multi-story office and retail uses will result in increased traffic, air emissions, noise and public services - 8 - impacts. These impacts will be most significant during the p.m. peak hour when combined with Anaheim Stadium events. The City Council finds that it is economically infeasible to require further mitigation in order to fully avoid significant impact during combined peak hour and $tadium event scenarios. The frequency of these worst case conditions is estimated to occur only 0-4 times per year. Traffic conditions (and resultant impacts to surrounding land uses) will be equal to or better than existing conditions during the approximately 100 days per year when the Anaheim Stadium is in use and when there is no conflicting peak hour Pr(j)ject traffic. Project required offsite improve- ments will provide subst~ntial benefit to the City of Anaheim by improving traffic flow in the vicinity of the Anaheim Stadium during Project non-use periods when the largest stadium events will normally continue to occur. The Project further benefits the public by increasing land use efficiency and promoting growth within the existing urban fabric. The infilling nature of the Project may reduce demands for new development at the urban fringe~ thereby working to preserve the City's and County's open space and agricultural lands. The Project efficiently utilizes the existing urban infrastructure. C. Increased qemand and competition for affordable housing brought on by the estimated 5,983 project employees drawn from outside the 1 oca 1 1 abor market. Findings: The lack of 4dequate affordable housing for new employees of thi s project and other p~ojects within the City of Anaheim can be antici- pated into the foreseea~le future. The City Council finds that it is infeasible to provide mitigation through this Project beyond what is al ready being imposed. The roots of the impact extend to national eco- nomic levels and cannot be fully mitigated on an individual Project basis. The Project at hand will. provide substantial economic benefit to the City and other local jurisdictions through increased revenues which may assist the City in implementing future affordable housing projects or in devel- oping new affordable ho~sing pol icies within its jurisdictional bound- aries. To the extent tha!t the Project creates new business and employment opportunities within the City of Anaheim~ the positive effects of reduced local unemployment may re~ult. D. Short-term construction equipment emissions and long-term mobile and stationary emissions associated with project implementation. Findings: The Project will result in increased air pollutants caused primarily by increased automobile use. As with any new development pro- ject~ air quality impacts cannot be completely avoided. The remaining impacts after mitigation may persist at significant levels. The City Council finds that it is economically and technically infeasible to further mitigate the PrQject's potential air quality impacts. The com- plete mitigation of air 'quality impacts requires the combined efforts of federal ~ state~ regional and local agencies. In approving the Project subject to the conditions and mitigation measures set forth~ the City has done all that is feasibly and reasonably possible at the local level. It is further noted that until technological improvements occur to the auto- mobile, or until alternative transportation modes are developed and receive user acceptance~ air quality impacts will likely persist. - 9 - -...~......- The Project is expected to encourage the use of public transit and rideshare and is expected to result in a smaller percentage of single- occupant vehicles than o~her Orange County projects of similar use. This finding is based upon Ue following considerations: 1) the density of employees onsite, 2) thie development of a convenient bus turnout with passenger shelter along 'Orangewood Avenue ~ 3) Proj ect proximity to the Amtrak train station being developed on the stadium property, 4) Project proximity to the future fixed-location transit lines being proposed by OCTD and the City of Anaheim~ and 5) the requirements for a Transpor- tation Systems Management Plan to be developed as a part of this project. These factors will provide alternatives to single-occupant vehicles and will partially mitigate air quality impacts. E. Increased dem.nd for limited regional water resources. Findings: The Project n!ecessitates increased water use, and therefore~ increased demand for regional imported water. The long-term impacts for imported water cannot be fully avoided if growth and development is to continue within the regi$n. This impact cannot be mitigated on an indi- vidual project basis altHough the City will require implementation of all feasible conservation mec~anisms as partial mitigation. F. Increased demand on currently limited wastewater treatment facilities. Findings: The Project ~ill increase the demand on wastewater treatment facilities which cannot be avoided. The cumulative effect of this in- creased demand may be si gnifi cant if County wastewater treatment facil i- ties are not expanded in the future. The City Counci 1 fi nds that it is not possible nor economically feasible to further mitigate this poten- tially significant impa4t. Full mitigation of impacts to wastewater treatment facilities will require actions by agencies other than the City of Anaheim (refer to Paragraph 4(C) below). G. Increased lo~g-term demand for finite fossil fuel resources resulting from Project electrical and natural gas requirements. Findings: The Project (~s with any new development project) necessitates an increased demand for finite fossil fuel resources. Although servicing agencies anticipate adequlate fuel supplies for the Project. the long-term demand for fossil fuel r~sources will be unavoidably increased. Increased demand for and dependence upon these non-renewabl e resources may have a significant long-term i~act. The City Council finds that it is not technically nor economic~lly feasible to further mitigate this impact through any measures available to the City. H. Growth inducm,nts to surrounding developed properties; the pro- ject may encourage redeve10pment to higher intensity levels. Findings: The Project mav have the secondary effect of encouraging inten- sifi ed growth and urban infi 11 i ng in proximity to the study area. Poten- tial growth inducements may cause significant cumulative impacts which cannot be quantified with reasonable accuracy at this time. The urban i nfill i ng nature of the Project may have the positive benefit of reduci ng growth pressures at the urban fringe where significant open space and - 10 - agricultural opportunities still exist. The City Council finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh the potential environmental risks of growth inducement. The City will continue to monitor development proposals within the study area and will consider individual projects under existing planning and environmental regulations. 4. Certain changes or alterations (e.g., mitigation measures) required in or incorporat~d into the Project are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City of Anaheim and can or should be adopted by the respective agency as itemized below: A. The Project adds one to eight percent more traffic to surroundi ng freeways (1-5. SR 22 and SR 57) duri ng the typi ca 1 peak hour period. (Draft ErR, App~ndix A pages VIII-4 through VIII-I0). Combined weekday evening football ~ame and Project demand would represent between 2 and 31 percent of potentUl freeways peak traffic. (Draft EIR~ Appendix A pages X 1-19 through X 1-21). Freeway operati ons and improvements are the responsibility of the State of California Department of Transportation (CAL TRANS) . Mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR such as ramp metering would substantially reduce Proj~ct related freeway impacts. (Draft EIR pages IX- 28 through IX-29 and IICommients and Responses, response #15~ and #16). B. Rule 403 and Rule 708.3 of the Air Quality Management Plan are applicable to the Proje~t and when implemented would provide partial mitigation of air quality impacts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for compliance with and implementation of these ru 1 es . C. The Project'$ estimated wastewater generation exceeds the Project site's projected flow as shown on the 1975 Master Plan adopted by the County Sanitation Di sitri cts of Orange County. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County is responsible for updating its Master Plan of Services and providing continuing wastewater treatment and disposal to the City of Anaheim. 5. That the City Co~ncil of the City of Anaheim has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental ri sks in determi ni ng whether to approve sai d Project. The City Council does hereby further find, determine and state~ pursuant to the provisions of Section 15089 of the State Guidelines, that the occurrence of those certain significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and set forth in Paragraph 3 above have been found acceptable and will be permitted without further mitigation due to the following overriding considerations: A. The Project will result in the following substantial economic and social benefits to the City of Anaheim and the surrounding community. (1) At full operation~ the Project will result in a positive fiscal impact to the City of Anaheim estimated at $559~330.00 annually. (Draft EIR, pages 83-85 and Appendix B). - 11 - - (2) The Project will generate an estimated property tax revenue to other local jursidictions in the amount of $1.8 million annually. Local school districts will receive the largest single portion of these revenues. (Draft EIR, Appendix B~ page 13). (3) Approxim.tely 7,820 long-term~ employment opportunities will be created on the ~roject site with annual combined wages (in 1981 dollars) estimated at $186.3 million. (Draft EIR~ page 73). (4) The Project will generate an estimated short-term construc- tion employment of 2,67Q man-years with annual combined wages (in 1981 dollars) of $8.8 million over the estimated ten year construction phasing period. (Draft EIR~ page 73). (5) The City of Anaheim will receive over $1.0 million in one- time revenues whi ch wi n offset costs associ ated with City engi neeri ng, inspection and processing services. (Draft EIR~ Appendix B~ page 15). (6) The Project makes a substantial contribution towards imple- mentation of the City of Anaheim General Plan (Land Use Element~ page 2), which anticipated multistory office development within the study area. The Project contributes to the City's desire to promote the growth and the continued economic vitality of the Anaheim Stadium Industrial Area. (7) The Proj~ct promotes land use efficiency by replacing the existing asphalt parking .lot with higher intensity and more economically productive land uses. Through intensification and infilling within an existing urban area~ the Project is consistent with the state's urban development policy. The Project may reduce development demands on other City and County open space and agricultural lands. (Draft EIR, page 141). (8) Pedestrian plazas and outdoor amenities included within Project design will prolJiide useable open space features to future site users. The existing parking lot is of no recreational value or visual interest to the public. (Draft EIR, pages 23~ 39 and 130-133). (9) The exis~ing 36-inch storm drain located in Orangewood Avenue is inadequate during peak flow periods. The Project will replace the existing pipe with a 54-inch storm drain at no cost to the City. (Draft ErR pages 32 and 33). This public improvement will benefit all surrounding property owners. (10) Mitigati!on measures contained in the Final EIR require the project sponsor to fl,lnd for both major and minor roadway improvements that have an estimated construction costs, in 1981 dollars~ of $4.05 million. These improveme!nts will implement~ in part, the areawide traffic improvements identified in the City's Commercial Recreation Area Trans- ortation and Circulati n Mana ement Stu J Assoclates 19 0 . Project required improve .ents will be of substantial benefit to the City of Anaheim by improving traffic flow in Anaheim Stadium area during Project non-use periods. (Draft EIR~ pages 94 and Appendix A pages IX-6 - IX-28 and pages XI-23 -XI-24). Approximately 100 events will occur at the Anaheim Stadium during alii average year of which a maximum of 4 could be expected to occur in conjunction with Project peak hour traffic. Project requi red onsite and offsite traffic improvements wi 11 ~ therefore, benefit - 12 - .- the City by substantially improving traffic conditions for approximately 96% of the total stadium events. Further~ the City of Anaheim will benefit from substantially increased parking availability for weekend~ holiday and evening stadium events when Project parking garages will be made avail ab 1 e for the use of Stadi um patrons. (Draft EIR page 90 and Appendix A page XI-25). (11) The intensity and location of the project increases the viability of fixed-guideway public transit systems being considered by both the City of Anahei", and the Orange County Transit Di stri ct (OCTO). Both agencies are studying fixed-guideway systems in proximity to the project site. (Draft EIR page 63). (12) The proJect will increase the number of stadium entry gates (from 9 to 13) at !the Orangewood Avenue entrance and will substan- tially increase queuing distances, thereby improving traffic flow on Orangewood Avenue duri ngstadi um events. These improvements will occur at no cost to the City of Anaheim. (Draft EIR, Appendix A, page X-8). B. The City Council finds that the following economic and social considerations make infeasible implementation of the project alternatives identified in the Final EtR: (1) The no-project alternative (Draft EIR page 136) would result in a complete loss, of revenue to the City~ would fail to implement the City's General Plan~and would not provide the City with the substan- tial transportation system improvements it desires. This alternative would fail to recognize the unique opportunity that exists for increased land use efficiency and ~rban infilling. Finally~ this alternative would create no City benefits relative to economic growth and employment opportunities. (2) The expanded site alternatives (Draft EIR pages 137-138) as previously addressed in Draft No. 232 fails to provide adequate assurance that potentia l1!y si gnifi cant adverse effects wi 11 be mitigated to acceptable levels, pa~ticularly with respect to Anaheim Stadium event traffic and parking. T~ City Council finds that it is in the public interest to reduce the _creage within the initial development block to that shown in the current Project while maintaining the opportunity for development expans i on on other proximate city-owned 1 and. In thi s way ~ development impacts can be more closely monitored and more effective mitigation measures can be developed for any subsequent ground lease master plan approvals. (3) No design alternatives have been developed which provided the same level of public .and Project benefits as contained in the Project plan. (Draft EIR pages 138-139). (4) The alterhatives for modified densities (i.e.~ greater or lesser development total$) fail to provide adequate economic return to fund offsite improvements~ or fail to demonstrate that impacts can be adequately mitigated. The City Council finds that the proposed devel- opment density best balances the economic objectives of the project sponsor and the planning. social and economic objectives of the City of Anaheim. - 13 - .- C. For the reasons hereinabove set forth~ it is not economically feasible to further mitigate or avoid the environmental effects hereinabove identified. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION. is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this $ th day of February~ 1983. ~4~ ATTEST: ~~~ I LERt ~F I . E I ~- - 14 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SSe CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Cl~rk of the City of Anaheim~ do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 83R-46 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the 8th day of February, 198B, by the following vote of the members thereof: -, AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Nbne ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None AND I FURTHER certify that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 83R-46 on the 8th day of February, 1983. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Anaheim this 8th day of February, 1983. ~.~~<~ CITY LERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (SEAL) I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the originall of Resolution No. 83R-46 duly passed and adopted by the Anaheim City Council on February 8, 1983. ~k-/~:tz-/ CITY CLERK ' - -,