Resolution-PC 95-58
RGSQ,~I 1Q~..NO..,~ PCgS-5a
A R~'r.SOLUTION OF 'rF'IE ANAHEINI CIN PI.ANNING COMMISSION
qDOF~TING AND RECOM~IIENDINCa TO T'H~ ~ITY rOUNCIL ADO~'TION OF
QENER/~l. F'I.A\ AMENDM~NT N0. ~3a PE~a'TAINlNG TO Th1E LAN[? USE;
PARhCS, RECRI".~1TION ANI~ COMMUNITY SF(aViCES; AND
ENVIRQNNIENTAL RESnUR~ES ANn MA~IAGGM~NT FI_EMCNTS
WHEREAS, the Cfty Co~n~ral descrCi~i nfand extentlof pos IbeA ut~re~developmentlwitlbn
Rosalutlon No. 69Fi-~44, sh~wing tha g p
th~ City, and ha3, fram timo to tirne, ado~~ted amendrnents thereta; end
WMEREAS, ~n October 17, 1995 the nlann(ng Cammi~sion directod st~tff to init(~te ~n
amendment ta the Land Use; Park~, Recreadon ~nd Community 8orvices; and Envlronrnental Resaurcos
and Manaflement (Cansarvati ho Develo pmont Arc~a idontl i~d in praposod Spocific P anf94-1 Narthoast
betweon the Gonorml Plan c~nd t p
Area Specific Pl~n:'
W}-~~~EAS, a8116rA~ Pand Ernvir~ montal Resoupce and Manaqemer~t (Conse ation/Op~n
Recreation ~nd Community Ss~vices,
Spac~a) Clarnants of tha Goneral PIAn as follows:
~NQ U~F.~.~.~'~T.
~. 'I'he Ciry nf .4nah~im Goneral Plan currently designates the Northeast Area far ~wneral lndustriat,
General Cornmercial, Wator Use, and npon Slx~aco land usHS. This amc~ndrnent revises the i~nd Use
Eloment text to r~co~nize that the Nartheast Area Spocific Plan, as proposod, will establfsh bc~ildlr~g
intensity des(gnatlon~ (i.o., (loar area ratios or FAR's) f~r each of tho proposed Dovelopmant Areas
(Indu~trial, Induatrial/Recycling vverlay, Cxpanded Industrial, La F'almc~ Care, Tr~nsit Care,
Cr~mmercial, and Open 5paco), The building intansity iimits implernentod by the FAR's will rosult in
an ar~~ bulldout significant{y le~s th~n the oxistinb land use gcanarfo of th~ General f'lan.
~. 7his propos~l furthor amencis the Gonerai Plan f~y rodesignating i 7 areas within th~ Specific F'tan 94-
1 boundarios as tolfows and as pr~P htednth aroa,1F gure 4,~was delleted dur ng the publ~c heariv~lg)t
A(pr~posed redesignatlon af an ~a g
Figure 1. G9nerei Industrisal to f3usfness Office/Service/Industri~l: Approximatoly113.5acres
gonerally located ~outh of Mir~loma Avenue, west ot 7ustin Avonus, r~orth af the ~R 91 /Rivarsid~
Freew~y and east of Miller Streot.
Ftgure 7. General Open Spac ~~ W83~rUfi ~ho Atchis n Torpe a and SantarFe Rail~oad righttof-
south of ihe SR 91 /Riversfde Free y,
way and north ~f th~ Santa Ana Rivar Chs~nnol.
Figiire 3. Cen~ral Opon Space to Cai~s~rvatlon/Wate~ Use: Approximately11.9~cresgonerelly
Inr,Ated snuth of the ~R 91 !R he San4aTA a F~vereChannol~ tirxl easR of he A chison 7ope Ruand
Avenuo interct~ange, no~~th o
Santa Fe Ra~~rn~d ri~ht-nf-way.
F~gu~e .a. Genoral Open Space to Gonor~l Commerc~al: Apprn~cimaialy2.aacrASgeneral{y
Ioca?eci soulh and easl of the SR 91 /Riverside Freeway a~d Tustin Avenue interchange.
PC95-58
CR~355MS.WP '
~j~;~ ' ~
Fi~ure 5, G~n~ar~l Industrlal ta Gen~ral Gomm~rcial: Approximately 11.3 acre~ gen~rally locttted
on the oast sic9a of Tustin Avenue between La Pelma Avonua and the SR 91 /Riversido Freeway.
Figur6 F. Conservatian/Water Use ~and Genc~ryal Industr(al to General Commorcial t~nd Ganeral
industrial: /~ppraximately 0.0 acras ~enarnlly located at th~ Tustin Avonua/Mlr~lor~~H Avonue
IntersoGtlon, and north and w~st af sr~icl Intorsoction.
Figure 7. Cons~srvation/Water Usa to Gone~ai Comrneralal: Apnroxirn~tely2.1 acrnsgAri~rz~lly
located between Orangsch~arpg Avanue and the Atw~~d Channel, and wASt of the City Iimits.
Figure ~. Ger~eral Industrfal t~ G~neral ~ommorcial: Approxim$tely 7.~ acres ger~erally located
on bnth sides of Mill~r Streat, immediately north nf the Miralama AvenuQ/Mill~r StreAt interaectlan
Figure 9. Gendr~l In~ustrial to ConservatlonJW~ter Use: Approximately ~tG.B ar.ros g~narally
lacated south ~f L.n Jolla Streot, west af the Carbon Creel< Channol, north af Miraloma Avenue and
east af Kraemer Boulouard.
Figu~ro it1. Generai Industr~al tu General Commercial: Approximately iQ.7 acres gr~nerally locatod
ai all four legs af the Kraomor Baulsvarci/Miraloma Avonue intersection.
Fi~ure 11. General Industrial to G~ner~l Commercial: Approxin~atAly j0.7 acres generally located
at the northoast, sou~heast and southwest cornors of lh~ F'.n1 ~'.~~ Stre~t/Miraloma Av9nu~
intersection.
Ffgurc~ 12. Gonerai indu3trial to GanAral Comm~rclal: A~-r sxi~ na:ely 5.0 acre3 genera!!y located
at th~ northeast and 3autheast Gorners of the Blue Gum StreF~LjMl~alom~ Avenue intersection.
~igure 13. G~neral Indus~rial to Generai Cammercial: Apprr~a:mately 56,8 acros gener~lly locat~d
on both sid~s af 5hopard Street, oast of White Star Avenue, and tastween La Paima Avernle and the
SFt g1 /Rivvrside Freoway.
Flgure 14. (Deloted cluring public hearin~7)
Figure 15. Gerieral Industrial to Gener2~l Commercis~l: Approximat~fy 11.7 ar,res generally iocated
at aii four leys of the La Palma Avenus/Richfield ~ioad fntersect(on.
Figure 1~. ~en~ral I~dustrial to G~neral Commercial: Approximateiy 23.K acres generally Ic~cated
ai all f~ur leg~ of tho La Palm~ ~Avenue/Lakevi~w Avanue intersoction.
Fi~ure 17. Ge:ieral Industrial to Conservatfon/Water Use: Approximately~8.1 acrgs ~enerally
located south of La palma Avenue, west of Fee Ana ~treet, north af th~ Santa Ana ~iver Channel and
approximately 570 feet east of the cente~line of l.a Pdlma Avonue and Van Buron StreQt.
Figure 18. 4eneral Industriai to laaneral Comme~cla{: Ap~roximat~ly 15.7 acres gener~lly locatac!
on ti~e south side af La Paima Avenue, ~pproximately 468 ieet we~t of the centerlfne of the La Paima
Avenue and lmNeriai Hfghw~y intersection, and riorth af the Santa Ana River Cfiannel.
PARKS R~~REATION AND C,Q~_NLZNlT'Y~SERVIr~~ EI.~MF~
Th(s prnpo~l amends Figure 5.1 "Park Facilities Plan" of the Pa~ks, Recreation .~ Cammunfty Services
El~ment to delete tho Communfty !'ark designation iram a site locateci soutl~ _~ the SR ~1/Riverside
Freeway, wesi of the Atchisan Topeka and Sant~ Fe Railroad ~ight-of-way and north of the Santa Ana River,
as proposodi on tha two maps citled Genere! Alen Amendment No. 33~, Parks and Schaols, Exhfbii A and
Gener~l Plan Amendment No. 334, Exhlbli A.
_2_ PC95-58
;'~M
t~
,i'V' i
~.t1l~Nl~.-JJ.~~-~2-4.~..~4-~-N-~.~Q.~ Y ~~~~I
1, ~~~p~g; 7hig amendrnent deletes tho 4pen Sp~cE dosi~nation (currently shown on th~
"~nvirar~mental Rosourcea and Managom~nt Open S{~ce/Consorvation ~iement" map) fr~m ~n
apprnximately 38.7•~cre area ~enerally locata~ south of the SR 91 /Riversida FreawAy, ~outheast oncl
southwest of the SR 9~1 /Riversi~de Freeway and Tustin Avonue interchange, and north of the Santa
Ana River, as proposed~m~nt (? en Spacef/C nservatlo~fEla~nt,d~ hlblNA ~Ope n Spa e~and
Rasources and Manag A
Gonera! Plan Amondment Na. 334, Exhlbli A.
2, ~nration: 'fhis am9ndmont modifles the W~tnr Use areas currently shown on the "~nvironrnontal
Resourc~es and Managome~it Open Space/~onservation EIQm~nt" map, as failows:
(a) adds the Wat~r Use desfgnatlari to approximately 11.9 ~crea generally loratad 5outh ot tt~e
gFi 81 /Riverside Freoway, w~st of t.he SR 51 /Rivnr~ldo Fr~ew~y and 7usti~i Avenue
interchange, nnrth of tho Santa Ana Rivor ~hannel, and ~a~t of the Atchlson 7opek~ ~nd
Santa Fe Railroad riqht-ai-way, as propo~c.~d on the two maps titisd Gereral P/Rn Am~ndment
No. 33~, Envlranmental Resnurces ~nd Managament Open Spac~/ConsarvaNon Element,
Exhlbii A- Watar Relafed and Genaral PlAn Amendment No. 334, L-xhlbl~ A.
(b) Adds the Water U~e deslgnatfon to tha existing Sand and Gravel design~tian on tho
apprnxim~taly 18A-acre Warnar Basin th~t is genAraliy located oast af Tustin Av~anuo, south
of L.a p~lma Avenuo, west o~ Feo Ana Strec~t and north of the Santa Ana River Chrannel, as
proposAd ctin the two m~ps tltied General Plan Amendment No. 334, ~nvlronmenta! Resaurc~s
and Man~yamonf. Open Space/Consaivatlor~ Element, ~hibitA- Snnc11~ ~ravel ~nd General
plan .4mendmer~t Na. 33~, ~uh1b11 A.
WHEREA~, tha Anahelm Cfty Plann!ng (:ommiss~nn did hold a pubfic hearing at the Anahaim
C(vic Center, Councll Chember, 200 South Anahoim Roc~l~vard, on May ~, 1895, at 1:3q p.m., notice af said
public hearin~ having boen duly ~ivAn as requireci by law ~nd in aacordance ~vith the provisions of the
Anaheim Municipal ~aie, to hear and consider evldence for an~! against said General Pian Amendment and
to investigate and make findlnqs and recommendations 1n connection thorewith; and that said public haaring
was continued to thn May 15, and May 31, 1395 Planning Cammission meetings; and
WNCHEAS, said Commission, after due considoration, inspection, investigation and study
ao~s
made by itself, an~ after due consi~ier~tion of all evidynGe and reports offored at said hearing,
HEREBY FIND that the evldenco presented substantiates the need for amencimont tn the Anahefm Gen~ral
Plan and that, therefore, the Land Use Eleinent text pArtttlning to "Industrlal Areas" should be amended to
incorporate text regarding building i~tenstty designatfans, and th~t the exhibits herein described, mnd as
modffied by th9 Plannnng Communf~nSsrv~cns band Envi o mental Resour~ce & AAa agemen~t. Elome ~nd
Use, Parks, Recr~a4io Y
CA4IFQRNi-~A ENVfRQN~1~NTAl. _ A~IJ L~N -AGT F~~~ Tha4 tf~e Anaheim Ciry Plann(ng
Commission has reviewed the propasal to amond tt~s Lmnd Use; Pµrks, Recreati~n and Community
Sorvices; and Environrnental Flesources and Management (Conservation/Open S~ace) ~Isments af the
General Pian to establfsh consi~tency behNeen the General Plan arxi ihe Develapmnrrt Areas identifiecl in
the proposed Specffic Plan No. 9~-1 "Northeast Area Specific Plan" on praperty consisting of ?.,645~ acres
g~nerally boundQd by the SR 67/Oranfle Freeway, Or~ngethorpe Avenu~, Imperiai E~ighway, and the SR
g1 /~tiverside Freeway (including the Canyon Industriai Are~ and praportles within and surrour~ding the
boundaries af Redevelopment P~oject Area Alpha), and af 26 acres loaatad at the ~outhw~st corn~r nf Tuatin
Avenue and La Palrna Avenue n~d whtch 26 acres are atso located with{n thA boundarfes af 5po~ific Pian
No. f~8 3(PaciflCentRr Anaholm); and that aft~r considering Flnal EIR Na. 317 as p~epared bY th~ l.ead
~. PC95-58
, r~i
'~'~i'~~ :'ii
/
Agency (City Af Anaheim ~od~+velqpm~iz4 Agencyj, the P~~nning Commission, ~+cting as a~iespanaible
Agency, finds that:
1. The proJoGt N~ 3~~Sfor~the~hrohect sitetandtvuelll bi~ycompatibla wlith~sur ounding and u~~0ral Flen
~1mondment , p 1
2, Section t~0~1 of tho State C~C~A Guidelines requires thAt one or more findings bg made far eiach
siyniflcAnt enviranmental effect id~ntified and that three ~indin~ categorf~s are p~ssible. Tho iollowing
sectians (a), (b) and (c) state each ~indin~, ~~id klontify tho impact r,atogorles for wi~fch the~e findings
~re appropriate.
(~) All patent(~I si~~ificarit Impacts havo been mftigated ta a level of inaigniflcanc~. To the oxtent
feasib~e, changeg or ~It~rations have ~ia~n raquire~J in, ar lnGarpUr~atad into, the P'rojer.t which
mitfgate ur av~id the sign(ticant effects on the envlronment.
Yhis finding rHi~s~oric ~Resour osg aUn~ projecttspecff~i Schools, Wateraaind Solfd Wastempacts!
Cultu~al a d
~b~ Chan~es ar alta ~at~kin a ho f(ndin~Jl~ S9 ch~chani gas va ~ite~ations have b en~ or clan an d should
not the agency g
be adopted by such other agency.
Tl~is finding relates to: R~gional FOaod Cantrol Paciliti~s (e.g. Army Cprp of Enginaers, the nrange
County Flood Control DistrEci and the Orang9 Co~nty Water District); Ciraulatfan (regfonal, caunty,
state and feder3l agencies); Air Quality (South Coast Air Quality Managem~nt ~istrict~; Regional
Sewer trunk Iine3 and treatment facilitiES (Oran9e County Sanitailpn Distrfo4 No. 2); F~ubiic Health
(Environmr~ntaf prot9ction Agoncy and Orangn County Wator Distric;t); 5choola (t'lacenti3•Yarba
Linda 5choal Distr{ct~; Water (Yorba Linda Water District); Natural Gds (Southern Cali~ornia Gas
Company); and Solid Wast~ (Cc~unry of OrangO Intagrated Waste Managenient).
(c) Specffic econamic, legai, soclai, techr~olagicai, or other considnra4ions, inclucling cc~nsiderations
fUr tho provisfon of nmplayment opportunities for hl~hly irainecl worlcars, make infe~sibte the
mitigatfan measure~ ~~• pro~ect alt~rnatives identified in the Finai EIR.
This iinding relates to praject specffic and cumulative Air 4uality and cumulatNe Schuols, Water,
ar~d ~ofid Waste fmpacts. Att~chment C(attached) t~ the May 31, 1995 titaff Report to the
Planrdn~ C~mmissenation ot he r~tonale for fincling thesQ altamat(vesVinfeasibiR ~nc /or jecEn~
fo .owod by an expl
same.
WHER~AS, the Pianning Cammissfon hereby appraves and recomrr~end~ that the City Cuuncil
adopt the Statement of Findings ~nd Facts (which ircludes the RRJectlorti of ~Iternativea) as s~t farth in
Sactions 2, 3, ~ end 5 of Attachment C;
WHER~AS, thE P{~.nning Cornmission funher cl~iermines that ihe t~nefita ~f tha pr~ject c~utwPigh
tho un~voldable adverse environ n enta~(BCplo ~~ 50 ~ ~fr herSta epCE~A Guidel nes, a opt at Stattem~~ tc~of
in accordance wlth the provis o s
Qvorrlding Consfdoratio~s which is set forth (n Secti~n 6 of Attaahment C;
~. PC95-5a
:~;,~~'~ '~~n
WHEREAS, Section 21081.6 of the F'~b{ic I~esourcAS Code roquires that when a publlc agency
is making the findinys rsqufred by Ssction 21081 (~i) ~uf the Public Resources Codo, tne pu~ilic agency shali
adopt a reporting or mon(torinfl nr~gram for tha ah~nges to the project which tt has ac;~pted or made a
cnriditlon of prajoct approval in ordor to mltigato or avaid slgn(ficant efiec~s on tlie onvironment. Further,
5ection 21081.~ (2) (b) states that conditionR oi~ ~faject appruval m~y be sot farih fn a plan, p~licy,
regulatian or ather ~ubifc project, by inaorpc~ra~(ny the mitigation moasure;~ into tlie plan, pc,ifcy, r~gula~ion
or project desfgn;
WHEREAS, Specific Plan N~. ~n-1 "Nortt~e~st Ar~ Specific Plan" incorparates mitigatE;,^ measures
to miti~ate or avaid sir~nificant ~ffe~ts on the environment and will itself ~act as effect(ve mitic~ation for
~otnntlal environmental Ompacts i~:entified !n the Finai E9R. 3horefore, the Pl~nning ~Ammissfon hsreby
approves and recommends that Cfty Council adopt the NArthaa:,t Area Specific Plan ~s the r~port{ng or
monitoring plan for the project, and incorparates !i hereln by reference; and
WHEREAS, 6n summary, the Planning Commisslon hereby approves and recommen~is that tho
City Councii consid~r E!R No, ~1'7 as prepareci by the Load A~ency (Redevelapment A~ency) and approve
and adupt the Statemen~ ~f Findings of Fact (which lncludes the Rejectian of Alternatives), ~dopt the
Staternent of Qverrlding Cansidorations, and, pursulnt to Sectlon 21081.6 of the PubAc Res~aurcos Coda,
adopt the Specific Pian No. 94-1 "Northeasti Area Speclfic Plan" as th~ reporting or mon{toring plan f~r the
ProJect, f(nding that ~he Northeast ~1rem Specific Plan inaarporates measures ~o miti~ate or avold st~nlficant
(mpacts an the envlronment and will itself nct as effecttve mitigatlon for poteritial environm~ntal impacts
idontiffed in the flnal EIF~.
NOW, 7HCREFORE, BE !T RE~aLVED, that pursuant t~ the above findln~s, th~ Anahelrn
t;ity Planning Cammisslon does hereby adopt and recamrrtiend to tho Cfty Caurecil of the Clty of Anaholm
adoptian of Uen~ral Plan Amendment No. 33~ po-ta~ning Ya (a) amsnding the land Use ElOment text
N ~~
pertafnin~ to lndustrial Aroas to incorporate text regarding bufldfng lntensity daslgnatlans and (b) amenclfnc~
the Land Use; Rarks, Recreation and Community Servfces; and Envlronmenta! Resaura~s and Nlanagement
(Consorvatfan/Open Space) Elements of tho Genorel Plar:, as hereln dss~ribed and as sh~wn on thQ
following exhibits:
• G~neral Plan Amendment No. ~34, Exhibit A;
• Ganaral PIRn Amendment No. 334, Parks and Scht~ois, ~xhibi4 ~;
• Gc~nera.l Plan Amendment No. 334, ~nvironmental Re~ourcqs and Management Open
Sp~c~/Conservation Eloment, Exhibit A- O~on Space;
en
nt O
m
d M
• Genoral f'lan Amendment p
anage
e
No. 334, ~nvlronman:al Resources ~n
Spa~e/Canservatian ~lement, Exhlbit A- Water Related; ~nd
en
ment O
M
• Genoral Plan Arn~ndment p
anage
No. 33~, Envlronn~ental Resources and
Space/Conservation Elem~nt, Exhibit A- Sand E~ Grav~el.
T'HE FOREGC~ING RESOLUTION was adapted mt the Al~nnlnq Commissian meeting of
N+1ay 31, 1995. ~ ~ /
r.
/' ~ ~~oJ ~ ~~'~~~.~_____
HAI~'JI'lOM~1N ANAME M CI7Y~PLANNING COt~IN115S{ON
AT7ES1':
_____~_~ ~~L~.~-`~~'-~0 --------
SECRETAFiY, A HEIM CiTY PI.ANNING C(?MMISSION
.5_ PC95-58
~~ TM
J'.
i `~~4~m~`,
STIATC 0~ CAL.IFORNIA )
COUNTV' fJF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAH~IM )
I, Margarita Solarlo, Searetary oi the~~N~n ~~88tti n~ ~~f th4 Ar aheimsCity P1anNn~ Commfs ~on
4hA Earegoing r~solutlon was passed and ~dnp
held on May 31 ~ 1995~ bY the fallowing vate of ~he members therec~f:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOS'NVICK, BOYDSTUN, CAI.DWELL, HENhlIN~ER, MAYER, F"ERAZA
NpE$; COMIVIISSIC~N~RS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMlSSlONFRS: ~ES~~
IN WI'TN~.S~ WH~R~O~, 1 have h~reunto set my hand thfs ~ day ofi ~~f.l~'t~---~_~~
1995. `-. •
_~__.~~. ,~ 1~`K.~ :._~~r~~?'~-._____-------~
SECFiETARY, AHEIM C4TY PI~INNING CONiMIaSI01V
A; `;
~,~
'FC95-=a8
~G-
_v, •~.
~j~ ~ ~
`' . . :p~r~,~i
~' ~ ....
t~Z"~'.A-Cg~G1VZ' C
ST'~T~[~,,1~1'~' OF F]1~1IlINGS ~F ~'A.C:T A1~
ST,~T'l~~V~1T C!~ ~~'~.i~IN~ ~ONSI~D~ItA'~'~C)P~S
~~. PC95-58
4
l'..
i,'I 4~~
~
A7(°JCAI~HIVQ~N'T C
7~'I~[lE leTiDR.7.'I~EA~T ARE~. :~P~C~FI~C P'L~.N -- ~glt NO. ~17
S7~AT~;1Vg~Ie1'T O~' FIfNAXNGS ~F FA,CI' t~ND
ST~-TEM~EIW'T ~~ O~IERR.I~IN~G CUN~Il)IERA~IO~`dS
'T~1~ k~~DLLO~iNG PR4POS~lD ;i~Ct~'~'-EMENT U~~ ~I1~1D~1m1GS O~' FACT
~aND S`~~,,'I'~NiENT OF OV]E12~tl1~-IPdG ~C4NSHDERATI.4DNS FUR '~I-~E
NO][tTI-~EAS'~ ~A SPEC~FIC PI.A1rT ~~R 1~1~.1. 317 VlITLL ~3~'. ~tEVISED AS
~9.PPR~PRIA.1'E 7['U ~•EFLE~C;T EViDE~V~CE FR~~ENri'EU D1CTR.IN~ T~1CF.
~'UBLIC IHEAI~iNG ~'RA~C~'•~5, PIZOJECT ht~FIPd~M~NTg,
~iI:CU1V~MENI~~~I~O1~18 o0F '.CH.E ANA,~i~~1VI CUMM~JN~TY
~E~EVlE1G~]PI~ENT ~qNiN~ISSI~N ANTD'1"~~E CY'TY ~OYJNCXL A.?V~ TkIE
]EiNA.L AC'Y''iUNS TAK.~N ~3Y T~E A~NAHEIM IZEI~E~L~PIVI~NT
AGEN4:Y A-ND CIT'1' CO~J1~dC1I., 'rH1E UO~UMEl-IT ~~Lk~C'x~
1VIYTIGAT'~~N 1Vi~ASLJR.~S SFT ~'U~tT~I IN '.i'~nl[E DRAF`r EIR ,4NL1
INCOTtPORATGD IN'~U 'T~kd1E SIPCC:I~IC PI.AN, W~III~CH IS II~XVD~D
T(~ SERVE AS THE M~TCGt1~TI~N ~~101YITflRIN~ PI~OGRA.t~1f FOkt TH[E
~'ROJE~'T.
~_ PC95-5~
~, ~ "h..,..~''
~~~.~'b '~~ ~:~~~~-5
~. u~.rr~
~.a
2.0
3.~1
~~
nES~~t~ao~ aF c~~A ~r~vnarrGS ~av~
S'TA-'l'C.1VxE~1'JC OT C)VIEIl~DI1~TG Cd~N~II3EYaA7~10NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A~t~~P''I'I()N 4~ F~i]'.~DII'~GS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
~~'F~+C'!'~a D~TERiLidl~ba T~ Bl~ N~'b' 5I~rTIFI~A.N'~ (DDt~
11RI'1'AC~~A'.'1'ClD 7['(~ A ILES~ 'a'~A-PT ~IGl'~TYIg'ICA.~1T L~VEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
5
~.1 ~arth Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 ... ............. .....
Hydrology .. . ... .... ..............
7
3.3 Bialogical Resaurces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
3.4 L.~ad Use ................................ .............. 9
3.5 Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.6 • ~ • • 9 • • ~ • • • • • • ~
rloi.se . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
10
3.7 Air Quality ............................... ............. 10
:3.8 ~.'ublic S~rvices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ , . . .
1 P~lic~ lProtection . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
.
.
2 Fir~ Prot~ctioA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . .
3
$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.
.
. 11
3.8.3 S~chools . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.8.4 Paclcs/Op~n Space . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
.3.8.5 '~'zails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
3.9 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
' 14
ate~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.~ '~N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2 Sewer and Reclaimecl Wastewater . . . . . . .
3
p . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
, 16
3.9.3 Flood Contr~l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.9.4 Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1~
5 N~tural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. 18
3.9.b Solid tiVasie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
3.10 ...
Sc~ciaeconomics ......... .............. ..............
20
1
1
3 ~:ultural and ~-Iistai~c. Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . .
.
. 21
3.12 Public F~IealtYc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.13 As~thetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.14 Growth Managern~nt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
re~
-9- PCJ5-58
\
i j'~~
~ ~~J.rw.J~l.
7CABL,~ ~F G01~11'ENTS (cont~rnu~d)
~~~ ~
~4.0 bT1~T,~iVO1DA~L~~ SYG-NIIFI~CAI~i'J~ ~11~IPA-CY'S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1 Air Quality ............................................ 24
2S
4.2 Public Services-~+choc~ls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
' 27
4.3 a,ter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Utilities-~VE' 2~
4.4 Utilities--Solid V~~~ste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S.0 AI.'I'E~1A.T~ s :~O 'I"k~E PRp~EC'.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1 The "Nu ~'roject" Al~ernative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.1 Existin~ Conditi~ns (I~To ,P~ddit~onal mev~lopment) . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.2 Low G~neral Plau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1.3 ~-Ii~h Gen~ral Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5
2 C~mmerc~ial C:orridors Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
.
5.3 1Vlixed UsP A1terBative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3S
~.h Alterna~ive Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G.Q STA-TE11~NT OF' ~~'1~RhtI~DI1'J~ Cl7~tS1HJ~~I~,ATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6,1 Pr~mote a ].viar~ M~rkst F.espo~iv~ 1V~ix of Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2
6 lProvide a I.ong-Ran.ge, Com~reh~nsive Planning
, Approach to Signi~icant l~evelc,pment . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.3 Provisian o£ Visual Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3'~
4
6 Xncr~ased lRevenues for City, rounty, and Sta~e . . , . . • • • • ~ • • • • • •
,
5
6 Fruvision for Needed Jnfrastructur~e Ini~roveznents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
.
6
6 Enhancement of th~ Pe~estrian EsvironmNnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • ~9
.
7
6 lin~d Entitlement Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Streaz~~ 4U
.
6
$ .
F'acilitatia~n and Impiem~ntation o£ thc Genera~l Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . ~a
,
6 4 easonabl~ Gnntrols an d~evelopment . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • . • • • •
R `~2
6.10 .
ATooltoGuideFt~development ..,....•••••••..••••~~••••• 42
11
6 Deterren~e of Ne~ative Impacts af the
.
. Na-Pr~ject/Cantinuing Develop~.ent Alterna~tide . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • 4~-
ii
-10- PC95-58
/
'IC~E NUR'~'giEAS"C ~A S~'ECI~FIC PL,~1- EIYt I'~T~J. :~~7
S7.'~TEIVYE'.~ OF ~'II~1D-Y1VGS O~' FAC"T A-101~
ST~,`~'~11V1C~PIT 4~F OVE'[~ktIDING ~O1r1SIIyEYt,A-TIONS
1.0 .~F'~1~,.~~5? 'n~ ~'~1~~nINGS _ fiD
~T '~'~~.~~...~.~VE_1~X1~~N,~ ~C~1~TSID~~."TY(~1~
1.1 ~~li ox~ia ~nv~l~n8nentml ()~a 1~ ~~ Ac~. The C~lifornia ~nvironmental Quality Act
{"CEQA,") lPublic Resources Cade Sections 210Q0-21178.1) and ~?~.e State C~QA Guidelines
(Cal. C:ode of lEtegulations,'Title 14, Sections ].5000-15387) requir.~ that specific findings be
made if a public agency decides ta a~,prove a project which will have significant impacts.
~ection 21081 of the Cali~ornia Public Resouress Cade states:
"[N]o public agency sha11 approve or carry out a project for which an
e~vironmental unpact repo:t has been certified whicln identafies one or rnore
sigruucant e£fects on the Pnvironment that wou.ld occux if the project is
approv~d or car~ ied out unl~ss bath af the following accur:
(a) '.t'h~ pu~ilic agency makes one or mo.re o£ tbe foll~wing fi.ndings
with resp~ct to each si~ni~xcant effect:
~1) Changes or ~.ltc;ratians ha~e be~n requi.red ~~, or
izaco~arated intn, the project which miti~ate oz
avoid tb.e significant e££scts an the environn~ent.
(~) Those clzan~es or alte~ations ar~e within the
r.esp~onsibility and jurisdictinn of another public
a~ene}~ and have been, or can and should be,
adapted t~y that other agsacy.
(~) 5pecifc econ~inic, legal, socia~, tschnologic~l, or
other considerarians, including considerations for
the provision of emplayment opporturuti~s f~r
highly trained workers, m~lce infeasibls the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environm~:^+.~1 impact report.
(b) 1~Vith respeGt to significant effects which were subject ~o a
~inding under paragraph (3) af subdivi.siau (a), the public
agency ~inds th~t specific ov~rridi,~g econamic, legal, social,
technplogical, or other bene£its of the project outweigh th~
significant effeces oii the environment."
-11- PC9s-,8
y,
a ~a
`:,..~
1'he En.wu~n.uie~tal ~npact ~eport ~"E~") f~z the I~iorthe~,5t Area S~aecific Plan (EIfH;
~ta. 3l'~, Stac~ +Gl~a.r~ngh~use PJo. 93'~4111'~1) identifies signi~icant or potentiallg~ sign~f,iGan~t
environi~enta~ auip~~ts which, Frior to miti~ation~ niay occur as a rESUIt o~ adoptio~ and
implem~ntation af the Northe~t H.r~:a Sp~ecifi~ Plan No. ~4-1 (tli~ "Projec:t"). (Section 2.0
o~ the: EA.~Z contaia5 a det~iled desc~ription of the Project.) 'Thus, i~ accorci~nce with th~
pravisions of ~~(:Zta- and the State CEQA. Guidelines, the 1~,nah~im. C~t,~r C:ounr,il hereby
ad~pt~~ the findings s~t forth herein.
'lClae CFQA Cuidelines aZso state that tli~ dccision in.ak~er m~st ~alance the benefits
of a pro~osed project against its unavoi~abl~ envirnzunental ri~lc~ i.n ~l~tr.~rmini.ng N~hether
ta approve th~ prc~ject ('Title 1~; Cal, Cad.e af ~tepulations, S~:c~i~azz 150~3;~. "The Ar,~.aheim
City Cauncil has care~a:~ly considere~l the bene~.ts of the Pra~~~t. 'x'Ya~ ~I~ for ehe Northea~t
Area 5pecitic P~an identi~es sigrii.fi~ant enviroumental effects whic.l~ w~Jl nox be rnitinatr•.d
tu below a l~vel of si~nificance ~nd whicY~ will be allaw~d to ~accur by a~proval o~ the
Project. Thr;refore, tbe A.naheim City G~uncil hereby adop~5 t~a~e ;.;tat~~m~nt o€ (Jv~:rri.ding
Considerations contaaned in ~his documPnt, wh~ch states the speci£ic *e~.5~oa~ t~i~~ thkp t~enef~ts
~f the proposecl Praject outweigh the unavoidable aciderse ~nvu'c~nrnental effects, and th~at
the una~-oidable environmental e£fects ~re considered acsepta~a9e.
~
-12- PC95-58
1
~~~"~... ~~I
2,0 ,~PTdON O ~~~.~
Bas~d upon substantial evidence in ~he rzcard of admiiaistrative proce~~ings, th~
An~il~eim Ci~y Council £inds and declares as follows:
2.1 'Che Anaheim Red.evelapm~nt AgEricy is tlie "lead agency" for eh~ ~'zoject.
'The ~~ina.l EIR hfts been campleted in compliance with CEQA, th~ State
CEQ~- Cuidelines, and th~ Anaheim R.edevelopmens Agenry's Gu~deiin~s
for the T_mpl~mentation Af CEQA. T'~ie ~ity ~f Anaheim is actiiig ~s the
Responsible Agency.
'~'he Y~raft ~II~ was circulat~d for public review 1nd comment for a 45-day
period comm~ncing August 5, ].993, a.nd continuing thrr~ugh Septembsr 20,
1993. Z'he Final EII~, in~luding vv~~ittez~ responses to public commsnts
rec~iv~d during the 45•d~y periad, was made available for public rEView on
rlpril 21, 1995. On April 26, 199S, the .4ua~heim ~Zedevelopinent
Comavssion held a public aneeting ~n the Proj~~t and rec~mmended
approval of the Pz~oject, and c~rtificatiox~ of the Final ~LR. Qn May 1, 1995,
th~ City of Anaheim Planning Commission heDd a public hearing ~n the
P.roject and recommended approval af the Project, considerati~n of the
ri.nal EIR, adopti~on of t}us Statement of Findings of Fact and State:ment of
4v~rriding Considerations, and adoption of the Spec'xf'ic Plan as the
lvXiti$ation Moriitoring Flan for the Project.
2.2 '~`lie Final EIR was presented to the Anaheim City Cour_Gil, ~nd the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contain~~ in the Final
EIIt prior to approval of the FrnjeGt. In addition to reviewing and
considering the text of the Draft EIR and the Final EXR, the City Councii
reviewe~i and cunsidered the record of proceedin~s befare the Anaheim
Community Redevelopment Comaussion, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency,
and tb~e Anah~im klanning Commission concerning the Project ~.nd the EIR,
and aU oral and written comments concerning the Project and the ~IR
received by tl~e ~naheim City Couz~cil during and pi~iar to the meeting of
its City Council ~t which these findings were adopte~. ExceFt to the extent
they conflict with the ~ndings and determinations set forth in this document,
the analysis 1nd conclusions of the EIR, includinb buc nut limited to the
rr.spanse~ to comments, are incorporated herein by tinis ref~rence, and are
hereby ad~pted as findings of the Anaheim City Council.
2.3 All feasible mitigation mcasures for the Projec: have been im~oseci. Except
for the iinavoidable significant impacts id~nti~ed in Section 4 0~ the
Findings of Fact and in the Statem4nt of Overriding Considerations (Section
6), thc "mitigation measures" descrihed in the EIR f~ar ea::h impact area
actualiy reflect existing fcdcral, state, and local requirements and the Ciry's
3
-13- PC'95-a$
!
1 'f
J •IJ`~r
~,~ I
standard Projert review procedures and these requi~remPnts s~nd proceduxts
wer~ found adEC,uate to reduce ~o~ential cnviroumeacat impacts assaciated
wi.th 3mplementa~ion of the North~ast krea Speci~c F`lan b~low a~evcl of
significance.
2.A Do~.~mcnts consti~~uting the recnrd of pr4ceecaings on which ap~rov;~l oF the
r'r~Ject and ~onsidera~ion af the ~"inal Elli are b~sad axe ~vail~ble at tk~e
offices of th~ AnahFim ;tedevelopn~ent ~-geacy, 201 S. Anah~~i~i Boulevard,
Anaheirn, CalifQrni~t.
~
_1 q. PC9~•58
. .,,
.~'r, ~ ;
,~~r~~
~.o .F,~.~~'~~1I~R..~~~'~1~~~' ~.~~ttr~~~
.~'~,~'r,~ ~? ' , ,~, ~.F 5 ~~I~NII~[~Al!~1'~_ IL VTI.,
This Sectinn 3.~ contains fiaciin~s and supportin~ f6icts c~ncernin~ eff~cts on th~
environment ~-hich hav~ been detezmined to be not signif.icant or which have been miti~ated
to ~, less than sigmificant level. Impac;ts which cauld r~rnain si$nificant even ~with
implementation of miti~ation measures are d'a:;cussed i.ct detail in Section 4.0 of this
doc~iment.
L~xcep*. ~s expressly provi~ded tu the contracy in this document, nll eftects nf the
~Proje~ct on the cnvironanent ~.re hereby found by the Anaheitn ~iry Council to be nat
sigtificant, both al.one and in combination with ttie effe~ts af other rslated projects,
3.1 ~.~h Resox~~
3.1.A Fotenti~l~,._, S.~ i~can____ t~mms~ts. The project-specific and cuniuiative impacts of ihe
Pr~jecx on eurth rP.sourc~c are discussed in Szc;tions 3.1 and 7.1, respectively, of the EIR,
which ic~Pntihed gr~undshaking and sei5mically-inclu~ed liquefacti.on as tl~e oU.ty potentially
significan~t earth rela~ted impacts un~less careful engineering and site d~~~gn practices are
followed.
3.1.Z .~1l~Il~~•
1. AU potenti~l significant impacts associated w~ith earth resaurces have
been mitigated to a level of iusignificance. To tbe extent feasible,
changes o.r alterations fiave been reqt:ired in, or incorporated inta, the
Project which mitigate or avoid the signi~cant effeGts Qn the
enviracu~ent reiated to emYh resaurces.
3.1.3 ~',~cts ~~,~Do~ Q~',~i. dn ~n¢,~. The discuss~on and anaIysis in aections 3.1 and 7.].
of the FIR provide facts and analysis co support tbe foregning ~nding and canclu.sions. As
discussed in more dstail thtrein., the brading component u~ the Specific Fla.n. requires
g~otechnical and sails studies for £oundations and buildings to reduce n~tential .liqaefaction
and uth~;r earth rel~ted impacts. Implementation of the Specific Plan and other
Red~velo~ment Agency activities is expecr~cl to miti~ate any poteutially signi~cant earth
relateci impacts. The EIR anticipated that approximately 3~9.3 acres of agricultural land
would eventually be eliminated due tA continued url~anixation. Y~owevar, this land is in
multi~le sxnall, isol~ted ar.eas and does nat ~conta~.n prirne <<gricultural soi15.
3.2 .~~Y~tl4.8Y
3.2.I ot ti Si~~~i~,~;r,~~~,~s~cts. 'lChe pro~ect-specific and ~umulative impaets nf th~
Praject on h}~drology are discussed in Section 3.2, 3.9, 7.2, and 7.9, respectively, of the FIF..
5
-15- PC95-5ti
Buildout will intr~duce new pmploye~s into an area subj~ct ta putential floading, or
inundation from dam failur~. ;t will elqmin~te natural percolation fram 117.6 acres of
vacant land, ~nd incrementally increas~ ninoff which may contain a variety of ur.ban
pollutants Tli~ Draina~e System Master I'lan in the In~'rastructure Plan s~ction of the
Specific ~Fxan inch~des a discussion af improv~m~nts needed t4 ~rovide adequate proteceion
~ram ~ocal~xed and regional flo~ding. Implemez~tatian of th~ Spe~~~c Plan and ~tla~r
r~dev~lopznent activities will help provide neecled flnod c~ntrol iinpravements.
Futur~ hydralogical impacts from ~pecific Plan iznpl~mentation and other
redevelopment aati~vities are expe~c+pd to be potent~ally signi~icant but rnit.igable with actians
proposed in the Specific Plan, a.s well as flood c;ontrol projects ~~laruied by respor~sible
county, state, and f~deral ap~ncies.
3.2.2 ~indi~~.
1. ~,l.l patential si~nificane impacts associat~cl with l~ydrolo~y have
been mitigated to a level af insign.ificance. 'l"o the extent
feasible, chan$es or alteratic~zis have been requirecl in, or
incorpa~ated into, the Prc~jecs which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects an ths environment rel~t~ed to hyr~rodogy.
2. With ~cegard tu flc~od control facilities, chan~es nr alterations
ar~ within th~ responsibili~j and junisdiction of the .Army Corps
of Engineers, the Arang~ C,ounty Flood Cantrol District and th~
Orange Cou.nty Water DiskricK. Such ch<<nges or alterations
have been, or can and should be, adppt~d by those other
agettcies.
3.2.3 ~t~~,~ in Sunoc~rt o~~n~lfnQ~. The discussinn and analysi5 in Sections 3.1~ :~.9, '7.?.
and 7.9 of the ~IR, and in Sectinz~ 3.5.3 of the Infrastructiire Plan to the Specific Plan,
provide facts and anatysis to su~pa.rt the for~going findin~s and conclusions. As dis~vs~ed
in more detail therein, the Army Corps of Engin~ers is responsible for implementing
reginnal fload contr4l msasures associat~d with the Santa .t~ia River and has planned
various improvements that will miti~ate and eventually eliminate tlie existing p~atentially
signi~icant ilqod threat. 'The 4range Counry ~~lood Cantrol District and the C~range +County
Water ~istrict are responsible for maintainin~ ~ variety o£ f~o~d control and graundwater
rccharge basin~ in the Specific Plan area, and any future flnad control improvements would
t~e coordinated with those agencies. In addition, the City must comply witl~ a11 federal
National ~ollutio.a I~ischarge Eliminatian System (NPDES) requirerner~ts regarding urban
stormwater runo£f.
The cnajority of stormwater managetrient and flood control facilities in the Speci~c
Pl~.n area recommended by the City's Arainage System Master Plan have already b~en
constnicted with Redevelopment Agensy- funding. The Infcastructure Plan t~ eh~ Sper,i~ic
Plan (Sectit~n 3.5.3) c~niains the follrnvin~ mea.5ure: '"I'he Redev~lopnie.nt Agency will
6
-16- PC95-5E3
i~~ ~~~
,.~~~~
Gontinue tzionitoring the ~rea's flaod control ia~£rastructurs needs as fvtuxe ~tevelopment
occurs, and dvil~ fi~rsd a rnaster study o£ the drdinage system in the Speci£ic Plan a~ea if, as
rJevelapmene occurs, the necd for such a study is deem~d ne~essary:' Cons~quently, the
implern.~ntation of the Sp~ci.fic Plan ~nd other Redevelopment Agency activities is ~xpected
ta mitiga.te ~y potenti~.lly si~nificant ianpacts related to hy~drola~y.
3«3 ~L~~~~~
3.3.1 ~'oter-ti 1 t~ni~cgnt t~nn~a~~. "1C'h~ project-speciiic and c~.imulativ~ impa.cts of ehe
Pro;:ct on bivloEical resou~~ce.s are disr.ussed an Se:ctions 3.3 and 7.3, xespectively, af tl~~ ETiR.
No biological im~acts tc- th~e Santa Ana htivex pr related $raundwater rech~rge facilities are
expected as a result of the irnnle*nentiation of the Project since Fro3ect activities will not
intrude onta those areas. Future d~velopmcnt an~cl other reclevelopm~nt activities will nat
imp~ct any sensidve sp~cies or th;.ir habitat.
3,;3,~ ~~. The project-sp~cific an~ cumulative potential environznerital impacts of
the Project ~n biological r~esour~es have been determin~ed to be less tYian si~nificant. No
mitigatio~ m~asure5 are :eqttired.
3.3.3 Fa,~3ze~..S.uan~,,,, ort o.~'i13.~~• T~~ disc.~u.ssion ~nd analysis in 5ections 3.3 and 7.3
of ihe E!R provide fac~s and analysis to support the for~goin~ ~inding and c~nrlusions. Uue
to its disturbed nature, th~ 5pecific Plaii ~rea does na~ currently suppnrt signi~cant
biolo~ical resouress. The Specific Plan's comprehensive Laxidscape Plan (Sectian 3.b) and
xonin~ and develc~pment st~ndaeds will e~h~uce the Specific Plan area in terms of the
amoLint of l~ndscaping that will, in turii, suppc~rt non-native sp~cies, particulai•ly songbirds.
Cansist~nt with the City's Landscape Water Effici~ncy Ordinance (No. 5349), no plant
s~ecies cansidered weedy ~r highly intrusiv~ will b~ used for landscaping. Altbaugh not
pr~sently conxeznplated, the EIft acknowledges t~iat if, i.n tl~e future, wark is to be performed
acljacent tn the Santa Ana Riv~er channel, Orange County V6~ater Di.~trict retention basins,
or tloud contxoi channels, suc~± work wxll be subject ta eiiviro.nmental review and approval
by the Lounty of Oran~e, the Department of F'ish a~n~i C"~ame and/or the A.nny Corps of
~ngineers.
Although n~t an ~mpact of th~ Praject, the EIR (Section 7.3) .acknowledges that
~evelopment in Anab~~im and Orange Coun.ry as a whole will lik~ly have Gumulative
si~iificant regional impacts on local plants and wildlife.
3.~4 ~~5~
~.~~.1 ~~~~~~~~~~,~. The project-spc;cific and ~umulative ampacts of the
Prt~ject on la~d use are discu~sed in Sections 3.~ and 7.4, r~espe~ctively, of the EIR. Buildaut
will eliminat~ 118.6 acres of vacant land and eveniually produce an additional7.S ~rullion
square feet of n~w industri~l, cammercial, and office uses, and th~ replacement ~,f 3.3
7
_~ ~_ PC95-33
~ ~~~...,,.1,
~
mil~aun ~t~uare feet o£ exisei.r~g u~cs. Impl~mentation af the Speci~c Plan vvould result in
building construcdon totalling 10.8 miUion squ~.re feet.
Appruxirnately 39.3 acres of non-prune agriculhiaal i and will eventually be lost.
~utur~ uses will be sirxiiiar to uses in other urbanized a.rea~. The Project includes two
plaulc-ed c~ncunut~r r~il stations. 'TY~e La.nd Use camponent r,f ti~e Specific Flan is d~signed
to pr.ovid~ the aptimum mix ~f land uses based on anticipatec: market conditian. The TJrban
D~esign and Landscape com}~oa~nts of the Specif.ic P'lan will enha~nce the ~ttractiveness of
the Speeif.ie Plan axea in supPo~t o£ the L,~nd Use c~n~pan~n~..
'~'he Sp~ci~c Plan is generally consistent ~~vith th~ intent o£ the (:ity's Zoning
~prdinanc.°, The Speci~c P~an is consistent v~rith the C~~ty's Gei~eral Plan as amended by
Gen~ral P;an Ameiidment No. ~34 for the project site and will be comp~.tible wiith
sunounding land uses. In summaryi 1an ~~ he~~vo~care~areas wiU be~ sig if~ant but
bene~icial at btulc~out. Land use p
mitigable witl~ implement~tion of the SFecific Plan,
3.a.2 ~i~,~•
1, ,All potent~al si,gni~cant unpacts assc~ci~.teri with land use have
been mitigated to a level of i~.~significance. 'To the extent
feasible, changes or alteratinns have been required in, or
incorporated into, the P~roject which nuitigate or avaid the
significant e£~ects on the envirorunent xeX~ted to land c~se.
3,~,~ i`iArta in SLI~DOR~ O~ R'"indings. 'I'he discussion and analysis in Sect~ons 3.4 and 'l•4
of the EIR pco~vide facts ancl ~n la ysis ta suppo~t the foregoing finding and Conclusions.
A,lthough land usP chan~es propvsecl by tbe Spec.ific ~'la.n. c.~uld be c:nnsidereci sigaifi~ant
becau5e of th~ scop~ (~e.g., the amaunt o£ additional development ~roposed) and extent of
change the Specific Plaa area will experience as it develops, this area is already~ large~y
urbani~ed and i;h~ce changes cio not ~epresent a fu.naam~ntal change from curr~nt uses.
Over ihe long term, the Specific Plan will have beneficial impacts on th~ area by impo~ing
stronger controls on new development and int~n.5ity limits that all~w up ta 6.2 nvllion square
f~e:t ~ of non-resid~ntial developm~nt wi~hin the Sp~ci~c k'lan area thln c~uld take place
under the current General Plan ~nd Zonin~. "fhe I~.nd CJse c~mpnnent of f' .;~p~cific Plan
will hetp prev~nt the developYnent af. incc~mpatib~e uses in the futur~: ~y establishing
consist~nt intensrty and d~velopmei~.t standards. The Cit~- Nlunicipal Code and oth~x City
devel~pment requiremer.tts will furth~r prevent land use un~acts from ~ccurring. While the
Speci.fic Plan represents an a.lteraiion in ~and uses of the Specific Plan axea, its
implc~inentacion will have overall beueficial im~act~ ~n Xand us~.
8
_1II„ PC95-58
~%' , ~}
', ~1f`
'F~.v4anA~M
3.~ ~1[~.~-.D~
3„~.~, ~otP t~ 1 Si~~ ~n~ ~~~s. '~'he project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project un cinculation ar~ discussed in 5ections 3.S aad 7.5, respectively, of the ErR..
~3uildout will prc~duce a total ~of 270,988 ADT and 28,404 peak hour tx~ps. A.t buildout,
prop~sed iAnprovements will niaintau~ local Ynt~rsections at JL~S U or better at all but one
intersecti~n (I.a Palzr~a f Tustin ~+.v~nuP). Since the City accepts LOS E at intersectians
~vithin a c~uai~ter mile af a~trai~sit station, this impac~ is not signifxcant, 1'he Specific Plaar+..
ar~a envisions twc~ commutsr rail5tatiQns ~,nd a shuttle bus s~rvica to help re~uc~ pea.lc hour
cor~mu~.er trips.
~.5.2 lEind~~~.
1. t~ll project-speci£ic potential signi£i~cant impac~s a.ssociated with
cinculnt~on have been miti$ated to a l~v~l of insignificance. TQ
th~ extent fea5ible, chan.~ES or altexations have been requir~d
in, or incorpor~ted i~lto, the I'roject which mi.tigate ar avaid the
sigruficant effects on the environment relatcd to circulation.
2~ ~Vith regard to cumulative circulation imNacts, changes or
s~lterataon.~ are within th~ resp~onsibility and ~urisdiciian of a
number of lac~,~.l, re~ional, roiinty, state, and £ederal a~encies.
Such changes or alterati~ns have been, or c~n ~nd should be,
adopted by thase other. a$encies.
3,5,~ ~'~~~,~,~, S~IDD(9t'~ i?f ~177f~141~• 'I'he discusSZan and analysi.s in Sections 3.5 and '7.5
of the EIR pravide facts and a,~alysis to support the £ar~,~aing findin$s and conclusions.
Implementation of the Speci~ic Plan will have benef~cial impacts on parking, rail transit and
public transit. The Specific Plan praposes a variety o£ roa~way impzov~ments t~ improve
lo~al tr~c conditions primari~y at major ineerse~ction.s during peak periods. ~mplementation
of the Specific Plan's Circulatioa Plan (Section 3.4) will help alleviate peak hour congestion
by providing roadways with adequate numt~~rs of lanes, intersection improvements, ~az~d
other ~design features. In addition, the Redevelopment .Agency may help fitnd needed
improvements. To £urther r~duce potential impacts, a Transport~.ti~an L~ema.nd Mana~ement
Plan was cieveloped c~nsistent witti SCAQIVID requirement~ of Regulation X.V. ~inally, th~
Growth Mlnagement El~:ment of the City's Gen~xal Plan, Transportation Ordinance
requirement~, ~s well as tae ~City~s st~ndard project review procedures, will ~urther prevene
circuladon impacts f~om occurring. Overall, the implerz~entation o~ the Specific ]Plan will
have beae~icial impacts ~n tra£fic and circulation.
3.G ~52.~'- .g
3.q;.~ ~ote _ to~l gtgnit~_ c~n_t I~nDA&~. 'I'he praject-specific and cumiilative i~npacts of the
Projer,t ~n nc~ise a~re discusscd in Sections 3,6 and '7.6, respectively, ~f the FIR. 5hart-term
c)
-19- PC95-58
,,~~
'~~ ~
i °
' radin , ac~d Gonstruction
noise impacts wi.11 occur d~.ring ~construc~ion du~ to demol~txon, ~ g
o~ naw buildings. Buildout will increase ambi~nt ~I'~1EI., noise lewels hy 2.S r1~A w~hi~h is
considered notic~able but not significan.t. Cumulative naise impacts are cc~nsidered
significant but rnitigable.
3.6.2 ~~•
1. .hll patenti~.l signi~cant noise impacts associated wi.th th.e
Project have been mitigatPd to a Ievel af insi~nihcance. To the
extent feasible, chanpes or alterationr have be~en r~quired in, or
incorporated inta, ~he Praject which mitigate or av~id 4.he
significaYrt e£f~cts on t}ie environment relatPd to nois~.
3.6.3 .~.r±~ ~~ ~~~~a~ n~ F~~~~ Tt~e discussian and analysis in Sections ~.6 and 7.6
af th~ EIR provide facts and a,n.alysis to support the foregoin~ findiiig and conclusians. In
addition to the City's standard praject rez~iew proc~dur~s, site desi~n an~.~ building design
~iidelines in the Sp~aific Plan will help minimixe both short-tern~ noise impact~, as well as
a.c-ng»terrr~ noise impacts ta future axses. bll buildings ar~d other acdvities will also conform
~cs applicable pravisions of the City's Naise Ordinanc~.
~.7 ~~..~~.1'.
[S~ee Se~tAOn 4.b belo~v]
3.8 Pt-hlie eivi~,es
~.5.1 ~41_'~
3,~.1.1 ~~a~~ fi~~i~~c~~k ~~. ~~ project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on p~lice.pr~tection s~ervices ar~ discussed in Sectio~as ~.8 and 7.8, respectively, of the
EIR. Dev~lopment within t~e Speci~a Flan area will incrementally increase the need fur
police s~rvices.
3.8.1.~ ~;~,~-L! 'I'he prajec~-s~eGi~i~ an.d cumulative patential environmental impacts of
the Project on polic~e p~otection services have b~en d~terinined t~ be l~ss than signif~cant.
No mitigation measures are required.
3.8.1.~ Facts ,~~~1~B.ort of ~in i~n,,,~, The discussion and analysis in Sections ~.K and 7.8
of the EIR provide ~acts a.nd ~nalysis to support the foregoiiig findings and ~conclusions.
Currently, poldce protectic~n se~vic~s are provide~ to the Specific Plan area £rom both the
m~n ~aolice facility on Harbor Bo~levard and a satellite facility located in the Festival
Centc ~(.near Weir c:anyon Itaad aiid Santa Ana Canyon Road). In aGCOrdanc~ with curr~nt
10
-~~- NC95-58
~ ~ .;~ ~~:,
;~ r~
,, ,,_~,~
~
proc~dbzres ar~d as dis~ussed in the Sectian 1 of the 5pecific Pl~n, the Specific Plan will
enc4ur~,ge new development to provide "defen~sible space" aonaepts, thereby minimizing ~he
need for additional pr~tective services.
The ~ieneral Plans af surrc~unding r,ities identify publxc service needs and proposc
progr~.ms to ensure their continuecl provisian.
3.8.2 i ~
3.8.2.1 ,~~,r~i~, ~ig~if4cant Inn~o~cts. 'I'he groject-sp~ci£ic and cumtalativ~ impacts of the
Project on fire ,~rotection services ~re discussed in Sections 3.8 and 7.5, respectively, of the
EIT~.. 13uildout af the ~peci~ic Y'l~.n area will increase the ileed for fire prutection scrvice.
Eventually, tlle City will construct an additiunal ~Zre stati.on in Anah~im I3ills, which will
ser~re the ~ar east end of the City.
~.8,~.2 ~;~. '1Che project-specific and c~unulativ~ pot~ntial enviranmental impacts of
th~ ~'roject on ~ire protec~i~on services have been detez~mi.ned to be les:, than signifiGant, I~To
mitigatian measures ar~ required.
3.8.2.3 ,~#~~t~.,in Su~, o~i of F'r~pdine~,. 'Tlie discussion an~ an~.lysis ui Sections 3.8 and 7.8
t~f the IEI~t and Section 3.$.2 0£ the Spec~fic Plan provide facts and anal; sis ta support the
faregaing findings and conclusions. Buildout of the 5pecific Plan ~rea will increase the need
far fire protection servic~. F3uildout ot the Speci£ic Plan will be adequately served '~y
exi.sting ~i~e protection servi.ces (Fire Stations No. 5, 8, 9 and 10). 'Cl~e Gity anticipates
constructzon of an additional fire station in Anaheim ~Iills area. In accordance with cunent
pracedures, all individual development propasals wiihin the Sp~cific ~'lau a.rea ~vill be
evaluated by the Fir~ Department and required to meet all applicable saf~ety standards.
~'he General Plans af surraunding c~ties identify public ser/ice needs and propose
programs t~ ensure their cautinued pravision.
3.8.3 ~chaols
3,g,:~,1 .~qtentig~,~ig~~f.,cant Imaacts. Tl1e proj~ct-specif-ic and cumulative unpacts of the
Proje~^t on schools are dis~cussed in Sections 3.8 and 7.8, respectiv~ly, of the EII2. 1'h~
Speci.fic Plan area is presently served by the Piacentia-~lorba Linda LTnified S~hoal District.
Although the Specific Plan area is adjacent to the Anaheim City School District and
A.naheim't,jnian ~-Ii~h Schoal District boundaries, na Anaheim facilities serve students fr~m
the Specific Plan ~rea. Students frazn drvellin~ unii:. within the 5pecific Plan area attend
T}-Yi~s and Gle,~.view elementary schools (grades !C-6), Kraen:~:r and ~iernardo Yorba Junior
Highs (7-8), and Valenci.a and Esperaz-za High achools ($rades 9-12). rnrollments at ttiese
schaols are presently at nr near their curxent capacities, and relocatable classrooms have
11
_21 _ PC95-58
~ ~ '~.._,f`
b~een installed to augm~nt perma.nent capacity. The 5chool District is also consiclering
various bound~dry ~hannges or facility modifi~atXOns ta acconunod~ate futuxe enrollments.
~Vhile the SpP~cifir, Plan will not ~ntroc~uce any new residents into the Specific k'lan
area, workers employed in n~w industrial develapment may ezu~oll their child~en in local
sc~~ools, increm~n4al.ly increasin~ impacts on local educati~nal facilities. Based ~n historical
tren~ds, the total number of students will iikely be low. Due to recent recPSSionar,y
conditi.nns and t.~e lack of stable ftxnding sources necessary for constructi~n Uf school
£acilities, the IE~.R acknowl~dged that cumulative school impacts c~uld b~ considered
cumulativel.y si~nificant.
~uring and followin$ the puUlic review on the TJraft ]EIR, the Placentia-Yorba I..inda
LTnified Schoal District providea written comment~ statin.g that the Sp~cific Plan would
result in potenti~.l fzs~al imp~,cts upon the Schonl District due to new stud~nt generation
from househ~olds relocati~~ to the District's jurisdiction because of job opportun.ities created
by implert~entation of the Specific Plan. These cot~n~nts, ancl the lead agency's responses
to them, have been incorporated~ into the ~inal JEXIi a.5 `Jalume IV-~esponses to
Comments.
~.~.~.z ~ •s +~ .
The follo~vi.ng finciing:: r~ m~..de with r~gard to t~e projc.ct-specific impacts of the
Projcct on schools.
1. Changes or al~erations have been requir~d for, or incorporated
into, th~ Praject that avoid or substantially lessen ~atential~y
significant envir~nmental effects identified in th~ ~inal F,IR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the res~onsibility and
jurisdiction of the Placentia-Yorb~ Linda Uni~i~ed School
I~istrict and not the lead agency making the f~nding. Such
changes or alterations have been adopted by the ?'lacentia-
Yozba Linda YJ~nified Scliool District, or can and should be
adopted by ~the I'lacentia-Yocba Linda Unifi~d School District.
3.8.3.3 ,~~ct 3~ unnort ~[..~'i yn . The discussian and analysis in Sections 3.8 and 7.8
af the EIR, and the lead agency's written responses ta the placentia-~Corba I.inda Unified
School District's caanments contained in the Final EIR (Volume iV Responses to
Comments, Section 3.2.3), provide facts and a.naly~sis to support the foregoin~ £indi.n~s and
canclusions. Th~ Redevel4pment Agency has previously enterec~ into an agreernent with the
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District £or th~ purpose of offsettin~ the ~chool
District's fiscal cletriment associated witla cammercial ~nd industr.ial develapment within the
area. By 1992, p~yments under that agreement prov"rded the Plac~ntia-'Slorba Linda Unified
School Disirict with $18,191,541.U0 for capital facilities.
lx
-22- PC95-58
~ ~~ ,~~....~'
Oth~r changes ac~ within the respor~sibi~i¢y and juris~liceion of the Placentia-Yorb~,
t.,ind~ Unifisd 5choc~l District and the State o£ C~.li£ara~ia. Thcse changes include th~ School
I7istrict electing to continue r~Geivin~ its shax~ ~f the prnperty tax a5 permitted, maki.ng
regular and timely applic~,tions £ox State cons~t~uction fiinds, pursuing alternate means of
financing schaals as thos~ are made availabl~ throu~h changes in stata law, ancl using
year-round schedules and d~ub~e sessions as n~cessary and ~ppropriare. Atso, these cha.nges
include the State continuing to finance constnxction of new s~chools and classrooms in
response to enrollment incr~~ases.
'Y'he Pl~tcentia-~orba Linda Unified ~choo? Distri.ct presently levies a developer fee
of 27¢ pcr square foot f4r new iion-residential developmeat. At that rate, ne~Y~ develapment
within. the ~peci~ic ]Plan axea .a.lone would eventually can.tribl.. ,.,.. over $2.8 n~illion ta help
alleviat~ gotential unpacts to the District, and it is likely th~se fees will incr,;,ase in the
future as costs incre~.c~. Accarding to state law, these fees axe con.;;~dered adequate
mitig~tion under (;E(ZA for schao~ impacts from nan-residential proje-~ts. In order to
m.onitor compliance in payin~ tlie d~velAper fee, the Specifi~ I~'!ar provides the fal.lowing
znitig~tion measure:
1&.-~.040.050 Sc~io~i Impact ~ees. Prior to the issuance of each
building permit, proof of compliance ~Nith st~te st~.tfat~(s) (as may be
amenc~ed from tirale to time) relating to ~,chool impact ~ees for tk~e Placentia-
Yorba Linda Unified Schoal lJistrict, shall be submitted to the Building
]~ivision of the 3'lannin~ Department;.
The for~going aneasures will reduce t2.e pr~ject-specific impacts of the Project on
the ~'lacentia~Yorba Lin~ia Unified School Di~trict to a less than significant level. Thie
Project's cantribution to cumulative i.mpacts on ~'he ]Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified Sck~ool
District may not be r~itigated to a less than si~ai~cant level, Uut wi~l be mitigated to the
exteut allowed by 5tate law. The ~ossibility of potc:,t~al;; sigruficant cumulative impacts to
schaols identifi~d in Se~tion 7.8 of the ]EIR a,re discusse,~i belaw in S~ctian h.2 of this
document, and will require the ~doption of a Statement af i..~vezxi.ding Gonsideratians.
3.5.4 ~~rk~,(Qg~.~ S~ace
3.8.4.1 ~'otential S~i,~pg~,~,r~t Imbac&s. Z'kie project-specific anrl cumulatiye impacts of the
ProjeCt on pr.~rl~r/open space are discussed in Sections 3.$ and ;~.8, re~t~ectivsly, of the EIIt.
Additional non-residential develapment will generate a mizum3l increase in the need for
open space resources and r~creation faCilities. No additional park or ~~pen space resources
are proposed.
3.8.4.2 Fin Yn ~. 1fie project-specific and ~umulative potential environmental imparts of
the Project on pcrrks/open space have been deternun.ed to be less tha.n significant. No
m.itigation measures are required.
13
,~3- PC95-58
•,
,/ ~ ~%~;
~ ~ ~
'~
~,g,~,?~ a.a ir~,~~-~~ of indtna . The discussion ~.n.d analysis in Sections 3.8 and 7.8
of the EI~t pro~%1e facts and anal,ysis tc~ support the foregoing, f~nding and c~nclusions. Yn
xh~ futur~, the City may wish to a~quire land and co~struct a sports facility in the Specific
Plax~ area tu s~rv~ adult recreati~ar~ n~eds. I~[o~~vever, no additional sites bav~ beei~ identi~.ed
and no funcis h~v~ b~en a11oc.~ted to dat~. Th~ Soecific Plan allows for re~reation~ fa~cilities
in a110~ ~ch~ D~velopment ~.reas to provi.de the City with the ability to locate a spurts facility
in this area i~ the £uture. 'I'he ~pecific Plan propases bicycle trails that are consistent with
County and City master plans.
3.~3.5 _ aits
3,g.g.~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~n~ ~xn acts. The project-speci~c and cumulativ~ impacts of the
Praject on trails a,re discussed in Sectians ~.8 anc~ 7.8, respectively, of the ~.IR. The Specific
Plan will generate an increrlental n~ed for txails in this aroa.
3,g~5,2 '~.,i ' r,~. '1"he project•s~ecific and cumulative poteatial snaironment~l impacts af
the Project on traads have been determined to be less than significaut. No mitigation
measures are rer~uir~d.
3,g,~,~ ~~,e+~ a~+ St~taDqx~ 4~ Findin~s. The discussion and analysis iu~ Sections ~.8 and 7.8
of th~ ~IR provid~ facts and analysis ta support th~ foregaing findinS and canclusions. 'Ifie
Specific Plan proposes bic~cle paths and other trail features that are cansistent with County
and ~:ity master piaans.
3.9 3Lt~1~
3.9.1 W~
3.9.1.D. ~atent3a Sigmi~5c~nt I3.nnacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on water are discussed in ~ection.S 3.9 az~d 7.9, respectively, of the EIR. Buildout will
ultimately require the commitmPnt of 7.8 million g~ons per day (m~d) of potable water.
This represents an ir~crease of U.5 m~d over p~cisting ~onsumption levels or ~. seven percent
increase in curxent local water consumptzon. The P'ublic Faci.lities and Services component
of the Speci~ic Plan contains utility plans to assure that adequate infrastructure and uti!ity
services will be available to fisture develo~ment. R.~developmsnt funds may also be use~d
to help finance needed studies and util~ity impr~vements.
No signi£icant impacfis an re~ional water r~sources axe anticipated at this time.
However, until there is a statewide drought contingency or .ma.nagement plan, cumulativ~
impacts o£ water resources from future growth should still be considered at 1~ast potentially
significant.
14
_`~. PC95-58
r
3.9.1.~ .~s~il~•
; it
Th~ followiag findings are m~de r~vith regard to the project-sp~cific impacrs af the
Project on wat~r.
1. With regard to ~ctions that may be taken ~t the local level,
chan$es or alteratious have, ta the extent feasit~l~, U~en
req~uired f~r, or incarporated into, th~ Pr~jecti which
substantially r~duce the si~nifi~ant eff~cts on the environm~nt
relate~i to water.
2, Chnnges or alterati~ons are wit~iin the cesponsibility ar~d
jurisdiction of th~e Yorba Lind~ Water ~istrict and iios the lead
agenCy makin8 the finding. Such cha~ges or alt~rations have
been adopted by the Yorba I.inds~ VVater Aistxicf, or can and
shoulci be adopted by the Yarba Linda Water District.
~.g.~.3 ~~y~~~n*~+ o~ ~i~ain~,. The siiscussion. and analysis in Secti~ns 3.9 ~nd 7.4
of the ETR. provxde ~a~ts ~nd analysis ~o support the foregoi.~q fin~ings and conclusia~ns, 1'kie
Specific Plan's L.aridsc~Pc Plan (Secuon 3.G) requires all landscaping to be in accUrdance
with the City's L.andscape Wate.r Effici~ncy Orciin~nc~ (No. 53~9). All new devel~pment
will b~ required io camply with Title 24 ancl the ~ity's Municipal Code (Sections 10, 19)
relating to water con.servadon, and the City's standaxd pr~ject zeview proceduras require
applicants to d~monstrate that ad~quate service can be provided to new deve).opment. 'The
Yorba .L.inda Wat~:r District serves a 130 acr~ portion of the Speci~ic Plan area and is, alonR
with the City and f ar Kedevelopment Agcncy, planning ~ertain impravements te~ provide
adequate long-term water service to planned land uscs in the 5pe~i~iic Plan ar~a.
The possibiliry of potentially significant cumulative itnpacts to watrr resvuvr.e~
i~tentified in Sectinn 7.9 of tha rIR ar~ discussed belaw in Section 4.3 of this ~~cument and
will require tha adoption of a Statesnent of C?verriding Cnnsideratac~ns.
3.9.~ ,~~11S1..~.~l~ii.~--.~ ~.~...~w'ater
3.9,2.1 ,~,~,ti:S~.~1~~~eant [~gu~r~t~. The project-specific anc~ cumulative impacts af the
Proje~ct on sewer a-cd reclaimed wcrstewater are discussed in Secti4ns 3.9 and 7.9, resp~ctively,
of the EI.R. La,nd us~s at Uuil~out wlll ultimately producc 7.52 million gallons per daY
(.mgd) of s~wage. This represents an increase of U.8 mg~l or an ~.l.b percent incrense over
current levelx. ~Ihile this amount of additional ws~ste can be accommodated by plt~nned
treatment f~cilities operated by County Sanitation Aistrict No. 2 of rDran~e County, th~
llistrict's lbility to providc contirtued sewage colleCtian, treatment and d'-sposal services ~or
future development is dependent on the eventu~t ex~~ansion of its t.reatment p~ancs and
di~posal capaciry. Currently, there is no rr.claimed wast~wat~r availablc to land uses within
15
~25~ PC95-68
~4
1,
tl~e S~ecifir. Plan Area. 'X"h~ Speci~'ic: Plan daes not propose uscs that incorporate reclaimed
water, or justiFy th~ con.gtruction of a reclaimcd wastewater system.
3.9,2.2 ~,~;~~,~. 'I'h~ ~rQje ~t•speeific and cumulativs potential environcnPntal impacts of
ths Project on sewer ancl reclairned wuter have beEn determiiied ta b~ less than si~nifiGant.
No mitigati~n measures are required,
2, With re~ard t~ regional sewage trunk lines and treatment
facilities, chan~es or alteratians are within the resp~z~.~ibility :~nd
jurisdiction of the Count~- S.uutation Distr~ct No. 2 of Orang~
Couzity. Such changes or alterations have b~eu, or ca.n and
should l~e, adapted by that a~ency.
~.9.2.3 ,~~ct~.~n 5~~~4~.~f Fin_ dir~~. The discussion and a~alysis ui Sections 3.9 and 7.9
o£ the FIR, and in Section 3.5.2 ~f'tlae Inf7astructur.e Plan ta the Specific Plan, provicl~ facts
~nd analysis to support the faregoina ~inding,~ and conclusxon.5. As ~dis~ussed in more detail
ther~in, Couz~ty Sanitatir~n D.istci.ct I~1o. 2 of C)r°in~e County is responsible far operatxn~
re~ional sewer collectioa and treatment services and is undcrt$ldng a vigaz~ous expansian
program to increase capacity fxom 249 mgd to 480 mgd by the year 2~0(3. Bath t~eatment
and outfall dis~osal facilities are sufficient to serve proposed land uses in the Speci~c glan
area. All new development w~ll in~;lude ultra-low flaw water 5xtures to recluce the volume
of sewage to tl~e system.
'X'!xe Infrastr.ucture Pl~n to the Speci£ic Plan (Section 3.5.2) cuntains the follawing
rn~easure: "1'he Red~vel~pment Agency wrill continue monitoring th~; area's sewer system.
a~~ds as future development occurs~ and will fund a master study of ~he sew~r system in the
Speci~ic Plan area if, as development occurs, the need for such a study is deemed neces5ary."
Consequently~ the implement~tion o~ the Specific Plan ana other Redevelopinent Agency
a~tivities is sxpected to mitigate any patentially si~nificant impacts related to sew~r.
~.9.3 F194d~~ro1
3.~.3.1 Fot n~tips ~i~g~tcr~nt imoscts. T'he project-speci£ic and cumuiativ~ impacts of the
Proj~ct on , flood control are discussed in Sections 3.2, 3.9, 7.2, ~and '1.9, respectively, of the
EIR. The propo~ed ~project wilT produce signi~cant az~aucts of additional runoff, At some
point, existing i~ood control structuxes will nat be able to accommodate additional runoff,
sincc several local Channels are at or near their design~d capacities (e.g. Carbon Creek
Ci~annsls). The Orange Counry Flood CQntral Distri~t may not aliow additional run-Off ~nto
these draina~e faGilities. I)etention facilides may be required, either by utiiizing storm drain
pipes for stora~e, or providirig detention facilities on-site, or both.
.4dditional flood contra! facilities wili need ta be ~onstructed to adequately protect
future dev~l~pm~nt. The Pi-blic Facilities and Services r.~mpon~nt of the Specific ~Plan
contains utility plan,s to assure that adequate infrastruciure ~nd utiliry ~ervice$ will be
lb
.~. 1~C95-58
`
' ~;
'~~....,~
a.v~lable to future development. Redevelopment Agen.cy funds may also he used to Y~elp
fina~xce needed studies and utility improvem~encs.
~.9.3.2 ~i:t~;,~.
i., ~-ll potentia,l signi~ic~nt impacts associated with , flood contr~l
have been miti~ated ta a level of insi~nificanc~. To the exten~t
feasible, changes or altcr~tions have been xe~uired in, or
iucarparateci inta, the ]ProjecC which miti~ate o.r avoid th~
significant effects an d.e envi,.ronment relat~d to flood cor~trol.
2, W~th re$ard ta flood ~cantral facilities, chaa~~{es or al.~eratio:~s
a~re within the respoa~sibil~ty and jurisdiction of tki~ ~Az~my ~c~zps
of En~ineers, the Orange County Flood Contxol Distri~ and the
4ra.nge County Water ~istrict. Such changes ar alteratiaris
have beei~, or can and shauld be, ad~pted by those oth~r
agencies.
3,g.3,~ Facts,~~,~, ~.~~l~rt of ~'ind~n~. The disc~.issi~n and analysis in Section.s 3.1, 3.9, 7.:
and 7.9 0£ the EYR, and in ~~ction 3.5.3 of the In~rastnicture Plaa to the Specific Plan,
provide facts and a.~aalysis to sup~aort tl~e foregain$ find'ulgs and canclusions. A,s discussed
in more detail th~rein, tr :: Army Loz~s of Engi.neers is xespantiible for implementing
regional flood cont~Ql rneasur~es associated with tlie Santa Ana Riv~r and h:as plailned
various irn.provements th~t wil.l mitigate and eventu~lly ~liminate the existing potentially
significant fl~orl t6reat. 'The Qrange Countjr Flood ~n~ttr~~ DistriG~t and the Oran~e County
Water Di~trict are responsible For maintaining a variety of flaod conirol and groundwater
recharge basins ia the SpeGif.iG P~an area, and ~any futuxe flaad contral impruvements would
be caordinated with those ag~ncies. In addition, the City :must cump~y with all federal
NPDFS requirements regarding urban storm~vater quality
'I'he m~jority of starmwater manag~emen~t and flood control facilities in the 5p~cific
Plan area r~co~umendeci by the City's Draiaage System Master Plan have already be~n
constructed with lRedevelopment Agency funding. The Ynfrastructure Plan to the Specif'ic
Pla~ (Section 3.5.3) contains the following rneasure: "'I'he Redevelopment Agency wi11
continue monitaring the area's fload control infrastruccure needs as futu~re developz~~~nt
occurs, and will fund a ma~ter study of the dra.inage systern in the Specific Plan area if, as
devslUpment occt~rs, the nee~ for such a study is deemed n~cessary:' Consequently, the
implement.~tion ~f the Speci.fi~ Plan a.nd atner RP~evelopment Agency activities is e~pected
to mitigate ~ny potentially si~nificant impacts related to liydrology.
3.9.4 ~lg~.&~
3.9.4.1 got~~,~~~ Si ~l~,m,l~~t,~. The pr~ject-speci~c aisa cumulative impacts of the
Project un electricity are aiscussed in Secti~r,s 3.5 anc17.9, respectively, ~f the EIR. Buildout
17
-27- PC95•5t3
f..
( J ,~Y ~~.
W
will ultimately r~quix~~ the com~nitments of an addit~~n~l 728,GG~ kilowatt-h~ours of
eleccricity. ~'~-t som~ point iu the ~uture, proposed dev~lopn~eni may require modi£ications
to electric lines.
3.9.4.2 ,~,in~c~inp~. 'i'~e project-specific znd cum~-l~tive potential environn~ental impacts of
the Project on electrici~y have b~en detennined ta be less than signifcant. No mitigati~n
measur~s are required.
3.9.4.3 ~'~~~s_in 5~~gr~.rt ~#' ~~ d~t~. The discussian and analysis in Sectians 3.9 and 7.9
of the 8IR provide facts ~nd analysis to support the f~oregoing ~inding aand canclusions. A11
new develapm.ent will be served ry iindergcound electrical facilities in accordance with City
poli~y ~nd the L~'lectric Rates, Itttites and Regul ations. The City o~ Anah~im plans to
continue providing service to the Specif~c Plan axea .as d~velapment occurs. F.xcept £or
aaii~cipa.ted upset cUnditions, adequate supplies of energy sht~uld bs a~~ailable to the Speci£ic
Plan area for the foresFeable f~iture.
3.9.5 rdatura! Ga^
3.9,5.1 ~'Qtep~,~ial~~ortt ~muacts. ~'he project-sPe~ific ~an~i cumulative impacts af tbe
P~oject ~on natau~al gas are discussed fn S~etions 3.9 and 7.9, respecti~-~ly, of the ETR.
nuildaut will ultinn.ate.ly rs~uire an ~ddi~ional ?,.33 millien cubic feet of natural gas per day.
Natural gas is provided io the Spec'if'ic Ptan area by the Southern California ~Cas Cc~mpany.
3.9.5.~ ,~'i, ~din,~. 'The project-specific anci c~unulativ~ potez~tial ~nvironmental impacts of
t~e Project nn natural gas bave been de~emun~d ta be less than significant. No uutigation
rrieasures are required.
2. With regard to natural gas, changes or ~lterations ~re within the
responsibility asqd jurisc~icti~n o~ the ~outhern California Gas
Company. Such changes ox alterati~ns have been, or can and
should be, 1~opted by the Southern Calif~orni~a Gas Company,
3.9.5.3 .~„~.~n 5iiuu„~r~o~,~i~in¢s. The discus~ion and analysis in Sections 3.9 and 7.9
of the EIR pravid~ facts and an~lysis to support the foregvin~ findings and concJusions. Tbe
Southern ~alifornia Gas Company plans to continue providing servicc to the Sgecific lPlan
arez as devel~pm~nt oc~u.rs. ~MCept for anticipa~ed upset ~~nditions, adequate suppli~s of
energy should be availab~c to the SpeGific Plan area for the foreseeable future.
3.9.6 $~tid VVaste
3.9.6.1 ,~.'Qten~i~l Si~,~f~~t ~r,~Q ets. The project-sp~cific and cumulative impact~ o.f the
I'rajeci on solid waste are discussed in Sections 3,9 and 7.9, ~~:Spectively, of the EIIt. The
City's Source Reduction and Recyciing Element (SRRF) indicates that izadustrial us~s
~a
.2g. PC~.5-58
i.
~~ ` ....,J`
genexat~ ap~roxi.mately 24.6 tons pe.r acre per year of wasie. 'T.her~£ore, the 109 acres of
additional uses will ultin~~.ately genexate 2,893 tans per year or 11.G tons per day of additional
svlid waste (b~sed on 2.50 annual. work days).
3.9.6.2 ~,~l~t;~.
'~'li~ £allawing ~inding is mad~ witTi regard tc~ the praj~ct-specific imp&CtS 0~ 1~18
Praject on. soYid waste:
2. Changes or a.Iternatians are within the responsibility and jurisdiction nf other
agencies and not the lead agency makin~ th~ ~inding. Such ~~hanges or
aZter~tions have bsen adopt~d by thase agenries, or can and should be
ad~apted by those agencies.
~,~,~,~ ~~,~~ S~~q~ oF FindinQS. 'I'he discussion and analysis in Section.5 3.9 ai~d ~.9
o£ the E~IR provide facts and analysis to support the £oregaing fandin~ and conclusions.
Solid wastes within tbe ~Gity af A~aheim are px~sently tran5port~d to the Brea-Ulinda
I.~,~ndfill, which has ~ufficient capaci~y te accou~modate the ne~dS o£ the City ~f Anaheim
and i.ts other customer users t2uough the ~year 2010.
Not enough lang-term land fill ~capacity presently exists witfnin the Count}- to
accommadate a.ll futur~ wa.stes, even with waste reau~ctions that will oGCUr ~s a result of
AB 939. 'I'he County and othe:r re~ional vvaste ag~encies ar~ cur~ently investigating long-term
disposal optians, sucb as xail-haul or ~ddition~l l~ocal land tills. Until ~h~ County's Solid
V~ast~ TVLanagement Plan identifies adequat~ c~isposal capacir,/, solid waste impacts fram
cumulati~e develapme~t xn the County (and the regian) should be considex~d poteneially
si~na.£ic~tnt.
The passibility o£ potentially signi~icant solicl waste cumul.ative impacts referen~ed
abave has c;au~ed the A,naheim City Council, as a precaution, to consider and make Finding
No. ~ above. Findin~ I'Jo. ~ wi.ll require the adaption of a Statement of Overriding
Gonsideratians.
~.10 .~s~~~~
3.10.1 .~'~.itt~~! S~~I~ificant muR~~. The projec~-speci~ic a~d cumulative impacts of khe
Praject on socioeconomics are di~clissed in ~ections 3.10 and 7.10, respectiv~ly, of the EIR.
Cour.~y prapulatioa and housing projections indicate the Specific Ylan ar~a v~ll grow by .14-18
percent in t~ie fixture, while employm~nt could increase by almost 50 pecccnt over the sarne
period. ~ow~ver~ it should Ue noted that County proiections ~re based c~n regional growtll
assumpti~ns. F3ased on cxisting and a.nticipated local cond.iti~ns, the Specific ~'lan area will
probably not experience significant growth in population or housing in the futur~. As
d~vel~pme~t oc~curs, isolated homes lacated in inciustrial areas iz~ the Specific Plan area wiil
eventually be removed.
19
-29- hC~S-58
` ~~+~' .,.~~
r
D~vel~Pment under the propos~cl Speci~c Y'lan will increa.~e local ernploymeut by
a minimum of 16,365 w~rk~rs~ I3owever, estimates U~ed on prajcct lan.d uses indicate that
18,58:. addition,al empl~yees will be generat~d. N~~~ development and r~develapr:z~nt vvill
hav~ tieneficial impacis on employment and will have no adverse innpacts on Popul~tion nr
housing.
~,~p,~ ~~~~,, '~e project-specific aitd curn.ulative potential environmen.tal ixnpacts a!
the Project on populatiarc and housing have been determined to be less than si$nific~nt. h1o
nvtigation measures are required.
3.10.3 ~a~r~ 6~ Su~~r~rt ~' ~ d~• '~e discussion ~.nd a:nalysas in Sections 3.14 and 7,1~
of the ~1F~ pr.ovide f.aGts and analysis to suppart the foregaing finding and conclusions.
~te~iaents di~placed by redevplopment activiti~s will be assisted with relocation as reyuired
by State law ~nd the R+~develapment Pl1n for Red~velopment Project Alpha. A.5 long as
municipal revenues rema.in relatively stable, grovvth should produce no sign.ificantly adverse
cumulative impacts to t~e regional population nr housing markets, and shoulcl have
beneficial 'vmpacts to re~ional eniplnyment and th~ ~coiiomy~
3.11 rieltur~ ~~~ .d.._..HiStAl~i~ $~,~.,R.YU:~.~
3.~1.~ ~~pr;A~ S~ _n~ 6,~yc~r~~i,~ c~ts. 'I'he praject-s~~ecific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on cultural czn~d historic resour~es ar~ discussed in Sections 3.11 a.nd 7.11, respectiyely,
of the FIR. IBuildvut will not signif.icantly impact pal~ontc~Iogical or archaeological
resaurcus. Development uf vacant and n~on-r~sidenti~.l areas will not sagni~icantly impact
historic resources. Reccn~strucrion or removal of ce.rtain structtues c~u~ld pr~duee si~nnificant
im.pacts an histori~.l. resoure~s. As lor~g as potential archaeological and historical resocirc~s
are investigated prior to dev~ldpment, no signi~icant cumuYativz impacts should occur from
grnwth in thPSe areas.
3.11.2 Fi~i~.~~•
1. Changes or alteratiazbs have be~n r~quired for, or zr_corporated
into, xhe Project that avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant environmenta? effects id~entified in the Fiaal EIR.
3011.3 ,~ cts i Su~~c Q.f Fi~+din~s. The discussian and an~lysis in S~ctions 3~1]. and 7.11
t~F the ~IR provide facts and anaiysis to su~poz~t the foregoin~ finding and Gonclusions. In
order ta mitigate auy potential futur~ impacts upon t~istorical or ~~aleomological resvurces,
the Specific Plan provides that the i'nllawing site developnnent standarc~s shall apply:
28.•-.070.Od41 Prior to issuance of any demolition p~rmit or
building permit (which~ver occurs first), pruperty identified by che City as
an historical resaurce shall comply wich all applicable fecieral, state and
local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to historical resourGes.
2U
-~Q- PC95-58
74 ',' xi'
ayn:/'
a. P.roAf ~£ complzance s~all be submitt~d to the Planning
t7e~artment p~ior tu issuance af said permit.
b. 1'tie propeciy lacated a2 1500 N. L.a.keview ~.venu.e
4range County A,ssessor's ~'arc~1 Num~ er ~.~4P'N) (346-2~1~~1
aiad AZ), bounded on tl~e north t~y 4ranret2;orp~ A,venue, on Che
sc~uth and es~sst by the OranEe County Fl~~od Cuntrol Iaistrict
channel and on th~ we~t by Lakeview A-venue, has been
ident~fied as a l~istorical resuurce.
1$.--.07~.06~2 Priar to issuance of any gradin~ permit or
building pernut (which~ver oc~v.rs first), property id~ntifi~d by
the Cit~ as a paleantulogical resource sh~l.l comply wi.tl~ all
applicable fedexal, state ~.nd .lacal laws, s~rdinances and
xe~ulatxons relating to paleontolo~ical resources iiicluding, but
not limiteci to: a ~ualified pal~ont~lagist present duri.ng a.ny
subsurface disturba: ice/grading.
z. Praof of complianc~ shall be subrnitted to the Planning
Department prior to issuaiice Qf said permit.
b. '~'he thirt~en (13) acre parcel, (~+1PN ~46-~i02-11)
baundPd on the north by ~.andon I~rive, on the ease by ICe~la~
Drive, I.a P~lma ~venue on the south, and a comsn~xcial
buildin~ on the west, has becn identified as a paleoratolo~i.cal
resource~
3.~ ~'u6ii~.I~~~th
3.12.1 ,~i tential ~ismi~5ca~t I,..~~.~. '~`he ~roje~t-s~e~ific and cumulative impacts of the
Praject on public health are discusse~d iu Sections 3.12 and 7.~2, respectivel.y, o£ the ]EIR.
The Sp~cific F11n will assist in the devel~pme~t af the Speci~ic Plan area, whiclY may include
the r~mediation o£ contaircinated sites. Redevelopzne~nt may h~lp fund cleanup ar
develapment activities. The County is pz~esently pursuing cleanup of tbe Orange Caunty
Stee.l S~Ivage site just south ~f the Santa .Ana Rive.c. The ~Jran~e ~:ounty Wat~r District has
a Croundwater Management Plan which is ~desi$neci to monitor and eventually eliminate
tocal grouadw~ter contaminatian. ~
3.12.2 'in ir4p,~. The project-speci£ic and cumulativ~e potential envir~nm~ntal impacts af
the Proje~t on pccblic health have been determi.ned to be less than significant. No mitigation
, rneasures are required.
~ 2. Changes or alterations ~re within ~he r~esponsibiiity and
jurisdiction of other a~encies and not the public agency making
21
-31- ?C~5-`,~i
}~ f
1 •
k~~~i
t.~le ~lACllil$. Such changes ar alt~rations have b~en adapted ny
those a~e~nci~s, or c~an and should bc aclopted by those agencies.
3,:12a3 .~,.~.~~~~• ~e discussiaz~ ~uid an~lysis in Sectaons 3.12 and 7.12
of the E?~R provide ~acts and analysis to support tl~~ ~oregoing findings and conclusions. The
Fin.al ~.I~ found that existin~ fsderal, state, an.d laca~ requirement5 and th~ City's standard
review procedures will re~uce public health ef£scts in most ~.reas of concern. '~Vith
implementation of the Speci.~c Plan and other redevelapnien~t activitie~, including continued
rrionitoring by adm~inistrating agencies xhrou~ an-site inspections as required by fed~ral,
state and lac;al regulations, codes and ordinances, potential impacts from hazardaus
materials will nQt be significant.
3.1~ .A~c~ h~i
3.13.1 ,~t.,,g~' '~'"~"t~c~ t Tmu~Ct~• The praject-spec.~~ and cumul~,tive impacts o£ the
Project on aesthetir.s are discussed in Sectians 3.13 a:nd 7.13, respectively, of the EI~?. The
5pecific Plan will improve local views into the are~, by providiix~ a comprehensive
or,ga.nixatior- for new development as well as redevelopm~n~ in o~der ar~as, Tha Y~andscape
Plan will increase tlie amoun~ and quality of ~alantings tbroughout the Specific Plan area,
thus enbancing the overall business envixonment and improvuig views into the area.
3.~,3~2, ~sdin~s. 'I.'he ~rojecL-specific and cumulative potential environmental iYnpacti.~ ~~
the Proj~ct Qn aestlzetir.s have been determined to ~e bene~icial. No miti~ation measur.es
are r~quired.
~,~g~~ ~,. ~~ r,,~p~ Q~ ~n s. The discussion and a.nalysis i.n Sections 3.13 and 7.13
o~ the E1R provid~ facts and analysis to suppor~ the foregoing finding and canclusions.
Innplementation of the Spe~i~ic; Plan will its~lf enliance the local visu~.l chaxacte.r, ar~d
even,tual.ly le;zd to a better quality visual envir~nment. ~"he Specific Plan will 'amplem~nt the
enhanced aescheNc ~riteria c~urrent~y part of the Scenic Corridoz~ ("SC") overlay zone, a.nd
through landscape guidelines for new developr~ient o£ older parcels. Therefore, the
proposed Specific Flan ~a~~ill have beneficial iznpact~ on the aesthetic resources in the area
and ~no additianal mitigatian measur~s are proposed.
3.14 x~owt~ Nit~~R _ men
3.l4.1 .~R,~gntia! ~i l~cant Im~aS~• ~~e Pr~ject-spec'~f'ic and cumulativ+e irnpacts of the
Proj~ct on growth rnanu~ernent are discussed in Sections 3.14 and 7,14, respectively, of the
EIR. The Specifi~ Plan area will eventually support growth. of non-residential uses and
introdu~ce aeiditional employ~ees in numbers consistenk with City estimates a~nd gener~lly
~consistent with County projections. The Specific: Plan is ~.lso cot~sistent with relevant
re~ional transpartatian and p~annin$ pro~rams such as those of the SCAI~Mi? and 5(:AG,
and th~ City's Growth Man.agement E:ement.
22
-~2- PC95-58
~'+~..~~. *}~
3,1~b~2 ~y~, The project-specifi~ and cumulaeiv~ pot ~atial environmenta.l impact~ of
thc Fraject on g~wth martagement hav~e been determined to be less than sig~.ificant. No
nuti~ation ~seasures ar~ xequired.
~,~4,~ ~~,~rg ~~ g~~DO~_~j'~j,~. ''Y"he discussiou a~d ~.nalysis in Sec~ians ~.14 and 7~1~l~
¢~f the ~IR provide f~~s and analysis to support the foregaing ~inding ~.nd conclusions. The
Fina11E,1R found t~at exis~.ing federal, stats, and 1oca.1 requirernents ancl the Gity's standar.d
revie~v procedures will adequately addr~ss and man~.~e ~rowth a.s it accurs. Ympleinentatian
af the Speci~c Plan will further assist the City in managing g,7awth in the Specific plan area
and will have a be~ie~iGial impact on gxowth management.
23
-33- f'C95-58
, ~
;~~y~~:
,
~.0 tmT'`~~~~, ~IG1~L~fF~CANT IM~~
The potential significant adv~rse impacts assoc~i~.ted with the adoption uf th~
rlortheast Area Speai~ic Plan whiGh caniiot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures or proj~ect altern~,tives a~re described and ~.nalyz~d below. "I'he A-naheim
Redeve~opment ,A.g~ncy fiuds that these potential significant adverse im~aces ~vou.ld be
substa.ntially rsduced with the ~mpl.ementation of the ~peci£'ie Plan and compliance wi~h
existing ffederal, state and local requirements aiid tY~~N City's standard praject review
proc~dure~. &iowever, it may still b~ the case that cert~in aspects of these impacts would
not he r~c~uced to a less than signi~icant l~vel. The Anaheim ~C~ty Coiincil will adapt a
Statement of Oveniding Considerati~ns pursua.nt ta 5ecticr ].5093 of th~ CEQA Guidelines
for cumulative impacts related to a.ir quality, scho~uls, water and solid waste and groject
speci~ic air quality impa~ts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is in~luded a.5
Sectian 6.0 of this document.
4.~, Air OuaX~t!~
4,1.1 Po~ nl~iai ~'~~~C 1'1~ Il9TD~1C_~. The praject-specific and curnulative impacts of 2~ie
Project on air c,~caliry are discussed in Sections 3.7 and 7.'7, respectively, of the EIR.
Buildout will ev~entually p~oduce a tot~,l of 24 tons per day af aiz' pollutants, almost all fro~n
vehicular souxces. Con.titruction emissians o£ ~'arti~:ulate Matter (PM) 10 ~nd I~iitro,~en
Oxide (NO,~ as well as lon~-term emissions of all cz~teria pnllutants, exce~d the South Caast
.Air Qu~lity Management ~istrict's (At~MD's) significa.n~ce thresholds. Howev~er, the Sp~cific
Plan is consistent with the .Air Qualit~y Man~,gement Pl~.n (AQN.iP') bY minimizing vehicular
trips and employing a variety af Transportation Dema.nd Ma.nagement (TDIv1) measures.
Constructioa of future uses will generate signifi.cant levels af p~rticulates and oxides of
nitrag~n. 'Y'he proposed lanci use plan will not worsen any identified carban mon~xide (CO)
hot spots. However, air q~zality impacts from lo~al and ~ity-wide dev~lopment will be
cumu~atiwely sigxAificant.
4.1.2 ,~..~II~•
1, With regard to ~ctions that may be talcen at the local level,
changes or alteratiQns ha~ve, to the extent feasible, been
r~qui~ced far, or incarporated into, th~ Pr.oje~t which
substantially reduce the signif~cant e~fects on the ~nvironment
rela~ed tc~ air~ quality.
~. With reg~.rd to reginnal and aumulative a.ir quality effects which
depend on re~ional strategies and standards, ~hanges or
alteranons are within the xesponsibiLity and jurisdictian of t~ie
Sauth Coast ~ir Quality Mana~em~nt District. Such chan~es
hav~ been ad4pted by the SCAC2M~ in the Regional A.ir
24
PC95-S8
-~a-
'~ti .,..~'`,
Quality ~rianagem~nt Pl1n, R~~llation XV requirin~ employee
rid~sha.rin~, and Rule 403 regulating construction emissions.
3. Specific ec~nomic, legal, sacial, technological, or other
consid~rations, in.cludin~ considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for hi~hly trained workers, m~ke
infea.sible the mitigatian measures or praject alrenx~.tives
identified in the Cinal IEIR.
4.1.~ F~acxs in ~un~t4r~Qf Fir~ding~. 'I'he SpecifiG Plan, and discussion and analysis in
Sections 3.7, 4.4, and 7.7 of the EIR, provide fa,cts and analysis to support the foregoing
l~indings and canclusions. Long-term eznissions asSOCiated with buildout within the Specific
Plan area will be subst~ntially lessened hy imple.mentatian o£ the Specific Plan. 1'he Specific
plan's Circulatian JPlan (Section 3.4) includ~s roadway and intersectioa improvements tlzat
w~ill hel~ reduc~ peak hour congestion to tlae gxeatest de~ree passiUle. Tn adciition, the
proposed TDM Plan and rail statioi~s wi~ll further ~e~uce peak hour commuter traffic,
Other mitigation measures are ~nithia~ ths responsibili~y and jurisdiction of the South
Coast .Air Quality M~.nag~ment Distriat arid the U.S. ~nviranrnen4al Protection A~ency.
These measur~es include: (1) SCAQMp ~tule 403 requiring Gontrol of construction-related
emissian; (2) SCAQMb Re~uXation XV requiring all developmeuts in the Speeific Plan ar~a
to pr~pare and implement Transportation De~nand Managen~.ent (TDNI) programs at their
sites; and (3) other measures and pr~~rams to redu~e cumu~ative ~ffects af growth in th~
re~i.on on air quality that have be~n a~opted by those a~~nci~s and includ~: ~a) steadily
improving vehicles emissions aud~ (b) ema.ssion cnntrols on statianary sources. Only ~the "No
Project-Existing ~onditiuns and No lProject-Low Genexal Flan" alternatives are capable o~
mitigating aiz qual.ity in~pacts. ]However~a Fe~~ ~~ tives ct~ not meet tbe Project
objectives as outlined uc the Speci~ic Plan
'I'he pot~ntially sign.i.ficant air quality impacts identified above have caused tl~e
Anaheim City Council, as a preGaution, to consicler aad xnake Finding Na. 3 above. Findin~
P~To. 3 will r~q.ure th~: adoption af a Statemen.t af (3verr~ding Cansiderations.
~.z . cnoo~s
4.2.1 P2~,.~ntial ~i~ne#~cant in~nacts• 'The project-speci£ic and cumulative irnpacts of th~
Proj~ect nn schaols are discussed in Sectians 3.~ a.nd 7.8, respectively, of the EIR.
Vyhile the 5pecific P1an will not introduce any new residents intca the SpecifiC Plan
axea, workers employed in new inc~ustrial d~velopment may ~nroll their children in Iocal
schools, ~ncrementally increasin~ impacts on lacal educatic.~n~.l faci.~ities. Based on historica!
tren~s, tl~e tatal number of students will likely be low. Due to recent rcc~ssionary
conditions and the lack of stable fundi~g sources necessary for ec~.nstruc.tion of schoAl
25
Pc~~-~a
~J-
~. I
~
facilities, thc EII~t acknowl~dged that cumulative school impacts cc~ul'~d be ~onsidered
cumulatively signi~icant.
~8.202 ,~~..l~•
'I'he followi~g findings are made with regard to the cumulative imp~c~.s c~f th~e Project
on sch~ols:
1, Cha.n$es or alterations have been required for, ar in~corporat~~d
into, the Project that avoid or subst~~tially l~ssen potential~~'y
significant environmental effects identi~i~d in the Final ~IR.
2. Such changes ar alteraiians~ as~ withi~n the respon~ibility and
jurisdxction of the Placentia-Yarba I~i.nda Unified Schoal
District and not the lead agency maki.ng the ~~iding• Such
changes o~r alteratioz~ have be~n ~do~ted by the Placentia-
Yorba Linda LJni.fi~d Scho~~l Y~istrict, ar can and should be
adoptec~ by the Flacentia-Yorba ][...inda ~Ini~ied School Uistrict.
3. Specific ecanomic, le~al, social, technological, or othe.r
c~nsidecations, iiicluding considerations for the provision of
~naployment oppoztunities for highly tr~.ined work~rs, make
infeas~ble the m.i.ti~ation measures or project altcruatives
id~nti~ied by the Placen.tia-Yorba Linda Unified School ~istrict
in the Final EIR.
~.2,3 ~'~c~ ~uD~~V.~'~ ~~~n...~• Th~ Specific Pla~n, the discussion and analysis in
5ections 3.8 ~.nd 7.8 uf the ]Ea~t, and the lead agency's written responses ta the l?lacentia-
Yorba Linda Uni~ed School Dist S tction 3,~2,3 nts~p~a~t~ ~dand analysis t ~ upp~
(~ o l~~ m e N R~ s p o n s e s t ~ C o m m e n t s, e ) P
t h~ f o~ e goin g fin~iin gs and canclusi4ns. 'I`he Redevelopment A.~ency has previous l;,~ entere d
int~ an agreement with the ~'lacentia~Yorba Linda Unified School ~District for t he purpose
of o~fsettin~ the School District's ~iscal detriment associated witl~ commercial and industrial
development within the area. By 1992, ~aymen.ts under that agreem~nt prov.ided the
Placenti~,-Yarba Y.,inda ti.J'nified S~hool Y7istrict witk~ $18,191,541.00 for capital f.acalities.
Other ck~an~es are wi.thin the responsibility and jurisdiction ~f the Flaceati~-Yorba
I.~nda Unif'ied "chool'Uistrict and the State of ~alifornia. These changes include tbc: School
~istrict ~lecting tn continue receiving its share of the property tax as permitt~d, making
regular and time~y ~pplications for Stat~ construction funds, pursuing alternate ~i~ans of.
financia~g schaols ~s thos~ are made available thraugh cl~anges in state law, arid using
year-round schedul~s and d~uble sessions as necessary and appropriate. Also, thes~ changes
include the 5tate continuing to finance ~unstruetion of new schools and classrooms in
respons~ to earollment in~reases.
26
-3C- pC95-50
The Yl~.ccntia-~arb~. I.indm LJri~fied Schoc~l District presently l~vi~s a devel~per fee
af 27a per squar~ foot far new n~n-re~idential developnzcnt. At that rate, mew develapmen~
witl~in tha Sp~ci~ic Plan ar~a alone wauid ev~ntu~lYy contribiite ov~r $2.8 r.~iUinn to he~p
~ileviate potential iinpacts t~ the District, and it is likely these fc;es will it..ccea.5~e in t}~e
future as costs increase. AccardinA to state law, these fe~s are considere.d adequa.te
rmitigation under CE(~A for school uupttcts from non-residenti~l projects. I.n order ta
monitar compliaacc in paying the d~veloper fee, th~ Sp~ecific 'Plan provicles the foll~win~
n~itigation in.e~sure:
18....04~0.0~0 Schaol Impact Tees. Prior to tt~e issu~nce of ea~h
building penx~it, proof of cainpliaace with sta.te statute(s) (~s may be
amended frc~m time to tiins) relating to scho~al impact fees £or the Placentia-
~larba Linda Clnified 5chool District shall be submitted to the Buil~iing
Divi.sion of t~e Pl~nning IaPpartment.
The: foregoing measures will reduce the project-spec~c impacts of the Project on
th. Plac~ntia-Yorba Lincfa Unified Sch~ol District to a less than signi~icant lcvei. 'Y'he
Praj~c~t's contribution to curnulativ~ ungact~ on thc P~acentia-Yoxba Linda ~.Tnified Schnol
District may not be mixigat~ed to a Ies~ than significant level, but will be z~tigate~l to th~
extent allowed by stutP 1aw. 'fhis possibility of potentially signi~Gant cumulative impacts to
schools has caused the ~nahei~ City Coun:,'il, as a precaution, to consider and rnake
Findi.ngs No. ~ above.
Fandings No. 3 will requzr~ ~~he adoption of a Statement of Overrir~ing
Conside.rations as a cnndition of Project approval.
~.3 ~,t4~•
q.3.1 ~~4m i~i,~.~~.~I.~,~i.r~.~. Tlae cumulative imp~acts of the Project on water are
discussed in Section 7.9 of the EIK.
P'o signi~icant irnpac~s on r+~~ional watex .r~sources are anticipate~ at this time.
I-~owevcr, until t~sere i5 ~ statewids drought contingencyr or management plan, cumulative
impact~ uf water resaurces from future grow4.h should still be consid~red at least potentially
significant.
4.3Z ,~j114~,~.,&~.•
The foUowing findin~ are rnade with re~ard to the cumulat~ve impacts of the Projcct
on water.
t, With raga~cd co action.s that may be ta~cen at the lucal Ievel,
cf~angcs or alterations hav~, to the ~xtent fcasible, bten
rsquired far, or inco~p~rated into, the Project which
27
-37- F'C95-56
;; ~~
~. ,' `~~.,...~''
suhstantially rec~uc~; the signif~cant eff~cts on the envixranment
relatcd to water.
2. Chang~s or aiterati~ns are wi~hin the respUnsibi~ity and
jucisdiction of th~ Yorba Linda VVater District and not the lead
agency making the findi~n~. Such changcs ar alterdtions hav~
been adopted by the Yc~rba Linda Wate.r Distr~ct, or c~.ta a.~nci
sh~ulci be adq~ted by the Yorb~ Linda Water Aistri~t.
3, Specific ~conoraic, legal, socia~y tcchnolagical, or other
c~i~sid~ratin.ns, i,acludi.ng considerarions f.or the prnvision uf.
emplaym~nt opportunaties far highly tx~i.ied workcrs, ~nake
infeasible the miti~atinn mcasures ox project alt~xnatives
identi.fi~d in the F'inal ETR.
4.3.~ ~'.~~,~,~„~, Su~tt~rt og ~'ind n~. The Spe~ific Plan, and discussioil and analysis in
S~cti~ns 3.~~ and 7.9 of the ~iR, provide fac~S an~ analysis to support the foregoing ~ndings
and ~onclusions. 'The S~ecifi~ Plan's Lan~lscape Plan (Section 3.G) requires all Iandscaping
to be in ~ccordance with the City's I~andscape Water Ef~iciency ~rdina.nce (No. 5~4y), A-ll
ne~v d~velopmcnt wil.l be r~quirerl to comply with Title 24 and the City's Miuucipal CQde
(Title 10.19) relating to ~vater conservation, an.c~ the ~~ty's siandard projFCt review
pro~edures require applicants ta demonstrate that a.dequat~e service can be Provi~ied to new
development. The ~forba Linda Water District serves a 13~1 ac~ce portion of the Specific
Plan area and is, alon~ with the City and/ar Redevels~pment Agen~cy, plannin~ certain
ixnprovements to provide ad~equat~ long-Yerm water service to planned land uses in the
Spe~ific Plaia area
Z'h~ possibility of ~oteniialty signi~cant crumulative impacts to tivute; resources
referenced above has c,auscd thc Anaheim City Cauncil, as a precaution, to cnnsider and
m~ake Finding No. 3 abov~. Tinding No. 3 wil~ require the adoption of a Stat~inent of
Overriding Considerati~ns.
a.a .~Q~..'~~.
~3.4.1 Pat~n~Sal Si,~fficant Im~u~ts. Th~ ~cumulative impacts af the Project on svlid waste
are discussed in Section 7.9 of the EIR.
r~ot enough long-t~erm land fill capaci~}+ presently exists within the Couitty t~r
ac~onunodate alI future wastes, evc;n with waste reductions that will c~ccu.~ as a result of
A,B 939. 'J'he County and other regianal w~ste 3gencies are cvrrently investigatin~g laag-tsrr_-°-
disposai opt;ons, such aS rail•haul oc add.itional local lanci ~lls. Until the County's Solid
Wa.ste Ma.ia~ement Plan identifies adequate disposal capacity, suiid wast~ impacts from
cumulative development in the County (and the re~ion) should bc consider~ed potentia~ly
signihcant.
28
-3s- I'C95-58
~ii
~~~~ ~i.A~ii1A~K~~
The followi.n~ ~udin$s ~xe mmde wi~t~ re~ard tm t~e cumul~,tive impacts c-F the Prnject
ar~ salid waste:
2. Changes or alterat~ons are wi2hin the responsibiliry and
juria~iiction of ather agencies a.nd not ~he lead agency making
the ~ndinR. Such cban~es nr alterations hav~ been adopted by
those ~gen~cies, or can and sh~uld l~e adopted hy those agen~ies.
3. Specific ecpnamic, le$al, soci~l, technolo~i~;~l, or ~tlier
considerations, including consider~.ti~ns for the provision of
~mployment ~pporxunities f~r hi~ly trained. work~rs, make
infea~iblE the znitigatian measures or project alx~matives
identified in the F'inai EI~..
4.4.3 ,~acta ~n Suenor.~ q~'Ij.~~ n s. The Specific PI~.n, and discussion and analysis in
Sections 3.g and 7.9 of #he ~IR, provide ~acts and analysis tcy su~port thE faregoing findin~s
and conclusions.
'Th~ possibiliiy of potenti~.lly signifacant svlid waste cuxnu~ative impacts referenced
above has caused the A~aheun Ciry Councril, as a precau~ion, to ~onsid~r a.nd make Finding
No. 3 ab~ve, Finding N~. 3 will require the ~.doption of a Statement of C?verriding
Cc~~nsxderations as a. condition o£ Project approval.
29
-3~- PC95-r'a8
, ..~
1~,`~~~
5.0 ,~~NArTI VC~~'~.~,4aT.l~S~
1'k~~ EIR has ava.luated a reasonable range of alternatives to tue pro~osed Fr~ject.
Section 4.0 af th~e ~'~IR p.ro~vides descri~*ians and analysis ~of ea~h alternative in ~,dequ~te
deta.il for a decision on whether the altei~latives sh~ul~. be adopt~d in lieu o~ t11~ Project,
as wel~ as an analysis of the environmenta~ly superior alte~nativ~.
5.1 'Y'~I~ "I~tO PROJI~CT" AI,TFRNA'I'I'VC
Sectio~xs ~+.2 and h.4 of th~ EIR describe and discuss the "No Project" Alterna~i~•F..
Under ths "1"~a Praject" Altern~tive, three scenarios were exarzuned: 1) F~xisting conditions
(impacts a£ no additional building) 2) }3uild.oue at moderate CTeneral lPlan densities; and 3)
Buildout at Yiigh ~General JPlan dPnsities.
5.1.1 ~ xifi i ft~nditi ns
g,1.1,1 Descr~~tton of Al Prn~kive. This alternative examined the impacts af no :~dditianal
develor~aent of the Specifia Plan area. Th~ E~. provided ~xtensive infnr.mation on existing
(baseline) ~~nditions, whicU is equivalent to those c:~nditions tx~at wauld exist if n~
additinnal develo~ment occuned. Therefare, the "No ~'roj~ct" Alt~rnativ~ ~or the ELR
examin~d not only the impacts c~f no additional. development on th~ site, but also the
impacts that w~ould occur ~f no Specific Plan was approved ar-d development continued to
accuc according to the present General plan and ZoninB Ordinance. For Uzis analysis,
e~cistin.g c~nditxons were provided to illustrate tbe impacts of not allowing any additional
development within the 5pe~i~ic 'Pla.a7. azea,
5,1.1,2 Fi~dil~..g~. Ba.sed on ~he administrative r~ecord and tbe atatement of Overriding
Consideratio~LS, specific ec;onomic, legal, social, techuo.lo~ic~l, or other consideratis~ns,
including consic~erations for the provisiar~ of employment opporturuties for hi~hly tx~ined
work~ers, make infeasible the No Praject--Existing Conditions Alternative identified in the
EIR,
This fiYidin~ requires the adoption of a 5forth b~low~Se tion 6.O~l~~~ations. 'fhe
5tat~ment of Overridin~ Cnnsideratians is s~t
5.1.1.3 .F.~ ~R «n..~ ..~~'~• ~~ mandatory Existing Conditions (no additional
development) E1lternative considers the i e P~~ a 50~is alternat v~~istus cl lto ~st bl sh a
beyond what currently exis~s in the Pra~
baseiine to which all other alternatives, including the proposed Proje~t, can be carnpareci.
This ~iternative is included ~n Section 3. (~.nvirocunental 1~nalysis, of the EIR as the
"Envirocamental Setting" for each impact area.
This alternativ~ is considered ~nviroiirnentally superior to the ~roposed 1'raject,
because it would not genei~ate any additional or new Environmental impact. ~Iowever, this
30
-a0- p~95-58
J.. .
:1
`~4..~wA~,
alt~rnative ~vould n~ot achiev~ tha stated goals and 4bjcctives of bUth tt~e ~tedeve~c~pm~nt
PlaYt £~r Praject Area ~lpha and th~; Specific ~'lan, which include eliminating blighting
comditions, estab~ishing th~ best ~ix of land uses basad on lon~-rauig~ economiG plaiuung,
and environmental considexations, praviding adequate public services anti facilities to all
properti~s, anci imprav~ng the c~verall appe~~.clce o.f the area. More~ver, the ~neci~c Plan
will enha~nce the in~agrity ~nc~ desirahility oC industrial sites and will in turn lead ro the
cx~atian of loc~l jab opportuniti~s for ~killed ~vorkers at tho~e sites. Fai~ure to achieve these
~~~ls and objectives makes this a.lterz~ative infeasit~le. I~~wever, unavoidahle signi~cant
~mp~cts similar to th~se of the prop4sed Project would still uccur, an~ tl~is alt~rnative would
a~at implement many af the project bene~its anticipated ~vith implementation o£ the Speci~c
Plan.
5.1.2 wv C~~~1 ~'lsn
5.1.2.~. ~,s~ ~~,~tion lterna~ive. This scenaxio projects buildou~ of laud usea at the lower
end ~f int~:nsities than cou~d be built under the General Plan (~ven though tk~~ General Plan
daes nat contain aci~aal Ft~R limits). This scenario assumes that inciustrial uses would be
built out with a fl~or-tu-lot area ratio (~AR) of 0.33, o£f'ice uses to FAR Q.51, and retait
use~ to ]FAR Q.~i3. "T~.iis scenacio would hav~ iess office and m-or~ inclustrial uses tlaan th~
prapa~ed Praject. No residential or public uses would be added under this sc~naria, nor
would a rail statian b~ added wit~iin the core area.
~,1,2y ~.i ~lg,~. ~ased ~n tha administrative record and the Statement of Overriding
Cansideratioas, sp~~ific economic, legal, sociai, technological, A~ othe~~ c~r.sideradons,
includin~ considerations for th~ provision of employment opportuni~ies for hig~al~ traimed
worl~ers, inake infeasible the No-Project~-L,ow G~neral. Plan Altemative identified in the
EIR.
This ~indiz~g requir.cs the adoptiun of 1 Staternent af Overriding Consideratrans. The
Sta:tement of Overridi~ng Considerations is set f.ortli below in Section. 6.0.
5,1.y,~ ~cts ~n ~DD~~i~~. ~'h~ No Pxoject-Lov~ Cieneral ~'.lan Alt~rnative has
1.7 rnillion s~ua~~e feet iess o~ buitdinp,s and 2,173 fewer employe~s than the proposed
Projecx. 'X'herefGre, th~ following impacts will be correspon~dingly lower: seismi.ciry; la.nd
~.se; n.oise, air quality; and utilities.
The follc-wing impacts wauld b~ similar ar equivalent to trie pro~aosed Project:
geology; soils; hydrolopy; cultural/historic resources; public services; public ilealth; and
aesthetics.
Due to the lack of rail statians, a shuttle syscem ar.d a comp.reliensive 'i'DM Plan,
traffic, air quality, and nois~ impacts will b~ ,~re~ter than the proposed Project. This
alternati~~e is equivaient to the "Base Case" analyxed in thc B~I traffic satudy.
31
-d1- wC~5-58
;;I, ,~(
~~~!'
'~his altexnativ~e wor.~lti also produce cnixed socioecnnomic and $rowl;h nia.nag~men,t
imp~cts. It would produce fewer ne~x- empl~yees, cr~ate less dem~ld for additional hausin~,
a.nd les5 overall ~rowth ta .manag~. The lower intensity ~f devel~p~x-ent (-5%) ~vc~uld
probably reduce muni~ip~.l rev~n.ues rather th~un sliglttly innprovin$ costs to serve the area.
'Y'he alteniative vvill ~roduce approxiix~a~tely tive percent less con~sumptive (e.g.,
w~ter) and gener~tive (e.g., sewer) impacts campa.r~d to the progosed Pxoject. However,
it wi11 have greater traffic impacts, prin~.arily clue to the lack of tae rail stations and sh~.ittle
system. lft v~rill also have ~reater aesth~tic impacts as it will not provide a compreYaensi.ve
plan for landscaping and othex amenities t~ innprove th~ appeaxance ~of tlie area. '~'his
alternative represents the cnnditions that woulcl occur if the area was a1low~d to continue
developmsnt at a minimum level "on its owa;' without a com.prehensive plan to eliminate
bli~ht ancl imprnve the a,rea. This alternative would alsa pr~tluce less econ~mic benefits to
the City an.d the Agenc,y clue ta the lower int~nsity of development.
Because it rnay involv~ less 4~ta1 nev~- dev~lapment, implementation n€ the No-
Project Low Ceneral Plan Altsrnativ~ mi~ht reduce som~ of the Project's impacts that can
be miti~ated t~ a les~ than sig~u£iGant level. Hc~wever, unavoidable si&mificaa~it ~impacts
similar to those nf tbe proposed Project would still occur. A/xoreaver, this alternative would
not implernent many af the benefits anticipated with implementation rrf the Specific Plan.
Since this alternat~ve ha.c equivalent impacts and does n~t meet the goals of the proposed
1'rojeci, the No Projeci-~.ow Genezal Flan Alternat~ve is rejected in favor of the proposed
F°roject.
S.A.3 ,~,~.h 'Q~er 1 Pla~
5.1.3.1 ~~,. 'n iQ~ 08' A~tel~nat~ve. This sc~nario projects builclout of land uses ~uith the
sam~ distributian as euisting uses, but at highsr intensities than could have been built under
tha G~neral. Plan a~d ~onin~ Or~inance. "I't~e land. uses in this scenazia would be the same
as the "Low" scenario, but built out at hi~tler r~Fts (U.h3 for industrial, O.S7 for office, and
0.54 f~r retail). As v~nth the low s~enario, no residential or public uses w~uld be added
und~r this scenario, although its d~velopment intensity (FAR) wauld be su~cient to support
the development of one rail station.
CFQA not anly requires th~ analysis of "feasible" alternatives, but alternatives tliat
reduce 4r eliminate si~ni£ic~nt environmental impacts caused by tlie proposed pr~ject.
Wtiile this altern~tive does not redu.ce any potential impacts of the proposec~ Sueci£ic Plan,
it does illustrate the extent of development that ~oulci o~cur based an the existing Gen~ral
Plan and Z~~~ning 4rdinance, which is why it is included under the "No Fro}ect" alternati~ve.
It should be nated that the "high" 1a~~d use plan selected for analysis in this alternative is not
the nzaximum that could occur under exist~ng regula:ions, but was d~veloped based on the
CEQA de .finition and limitations on "feasible" alternatives.
32
-~2- PC95-58
., •,,
, '';,
~ 'r ~~
,s ~•.»,,,
s.~.3.2 .~'„~i~g. ~as~d on the administrativ~ r~cor~i, the No l~roj~at--~Iigh Ger~eral Plan
~lterz~ative is faund to b~~ environmentally in£crior to the prop~sed Project and dnf~asibl~.
5.1.3.3 ,~act n_Sua~~a~ Q°i d~in~s• The Nc~ Project ~iigh Gen~ral Piaii Al.ternarive
would have similar im~acts to g~ala~y, soils, tiydrology, cultural resources, and public health
cam~,ared to tYie proposed ~'roject, rnainly Uecause it proposes ~.n equal amount of land to
be devc:lo~ed. Yt shQUld be noted ~hat this 1c;Wel of devel.~pme~t could o~ ur without the
proposed Project, based on the existin~ Genera.l plan and Zonin$ Ordinance.
This altern~a~t~v~ wuu~ci have xner~as~ci impacts rel~ted ta seismacity, la~xld use, public
senrices, utilities, ~esthe~ics, circu.ll~ion, noise, and grpwth mana~ement. '1'his is mainly due
to the inGr~as~d intensity of c~evelop~x~ent, whicb creat~s additional build'angs and employe~s
in the ~.rea. ~ii particular, this alternatiae ws~uld produce ~i~n~ificantly mare txaffic and
r~sulting nuise and air quality inipaats to the City, and therefore £a.ils to meet several ~'roject
goals, ~ux ther, this a]ternative wor.~ld cause incrr~ased inf7'astnzeture impa~ts that cou~d ziot
be adequately miti~ated, primarily ~traffic c~ngestion, ~vhich are key r~asc~ns for
implementing the propased Project.
F'or th~se reasons, the No Project--~High General Plan ,F11te~rnativ~ is rejecte~ in ~avor
~f the proposed lProject.
S.2 ~C.DIV~M~RC-tAA,Y.., CO~AOI~. t~'IC~~TATIVF.
So2.1 ,~~~~~~an 4~ 1 c'n ~tfyg. Sections 4.2 ~nd 4.4~ o£ th~ EI~t describe and discuss the
Commercial Carz~idor ~Lltern:~tive. Tlais ;ilternative proposes 6U m.ore acres o£ reta.il
commerr,ial us~s than the propc~s~~d Fr~ject. By comparison, it ~vauld h~ve 391ess a~cres of
of~ce uses and 24 less acr~s of industrial uses compared tu xhe prapased Project. This
~1 ter. nltive da.ys not propase any additinnal residential or public use~. While its
dsvelopment intpnsities (~l~-Rs) wauld be sufficient to suFp~rt a s~cor~d rail station (in the
core area), it is nct propos~d as part of this alt~;rnativ~ so that retail uses along the arteriats
(such as La ~'alma ~nd 'I'ustin) would be better ab~e t~ take advanta~~ ~f cainmut~er tra£fic
patron~g~.
5.2.2 ~.g,.~i ~. ~ased ~n the administrative recozd, the Commercial Carridox Ellternative
is found to be environmentally inferior ta the praposed ProjFCt and inFeasible.
;i.z.3 ;~ ' r_~~0..?~aon~.r~ ~f ri~,'~.
The Commexcial C.orridor A1t~ern.ative was pruposed to addres:; pvt~ntial land use
and ~canomic constr~in~ts o£ the propos~d ~'roj~ct. It w~uld create retail sales corridors
along several major roadways in th~ Specafic Plan area, maanly La Palma Avenu~, I~[iraloma
Avenue, Oran$ethorpe Avenue, Imperial Highway, Lakeview Avenue, '~e~stin ~1v~nue, ~nd
i{.raemer Boulevard. Vy'liile ihese uses would generate significantiy more revenues to the
City and Redevelopmer,r Agency, they would pr~duce significantly more traffic and r~lated
33
,~3- PC95-58
~l~ 4'
~~n...r~
noise an.d air nuality impacts. ~onsumptive a.nc~ generative impact~ would also increase.
Thz land use ~nd ae~th+~ti~s of the Spec'~f'ic k'lan ar~a would ch~i$e, al.th~u~h ehese cha.nges
might not be advers~, aixly different, ~ependin~ on tlie uses that eventually locate in the
a,r~a, Only one rail station is envisioned in chis alterna~iv~. 'This alternative would k~ave
slightly less impac~5 on seismicity, aad wauld produce mixed impa~cts on noise anti some
~ubli~ sezvices.
While this alternative would rneet some of the goals of the Praject related to land
iise and re~venu~s, it would ~reate significazit impa~ts related to tzaffic. l~or these reasons,
the Canv4iercial Corrid~rs Alt~rnative is rejected in favox o£ the propased Project.
s.~ r~ax~~ vs~ a~~urrAT~
~.~.1 ,~~~,~cP~ ioi~ oP ~tern~~~j~--,ixed Us~ A1t rnatv e~4 opose~l2 0~ multe fanu'lyl dwelling
Mixsd ~Jse .Alternative. 1'he M P
uzuts in 2 areas al.ang with supporti~ng ~commercial uses, ol~ices, and pa,~'ks, with development
in the r~st of the ~p~~cif'ic PIan area as delineate~i in the existing ~Genera1 ~lan.
5,~.2 ,~in~f6ng~, liased on th~ admuustz~a,tive record and the 52atement af Overriding
Cansidez~ations, specific econnmfc, lega~, sacial, technological, or otlier consi.derations,
includiiig consideration5 for the pxovis~or.i of employrnent opp~rtunities for highl.y trai~.~~i
workers, make infsasib~e ths Mixed ~Jse Altemative id~entifi~d in th~e EI~..
'~"his finding rsc~uires the adoption of a Statement of Over~idin~ ConSiderations. '~he
Stat~xnent ~f (7verriding Considerations is s~t forth below in Sectian G.O.
,,~,3 Fs~cac iR ~n~oort ~._.,~.f 1Fi~xdie~~s. Ti~e M[ixed Use Alt~rn.ative was proposed to
reduce potential land use and sociaeconom~ic i.mpac~s, ~Iowever, it would generate a varie~y
of impa~ts that difrfer ~rom xkie ather altsrnativES. The hva residentia~ areas p~oposed for
multi-family housinS would experisnce in~reased tr~flfic and noise, and r$quire additioz~al
public services and utilities. 1'he SI:-57/Orang~thorpe Av~z~ue int~rchange w~uld be
signi~cantly af.~~cted by this incre~.se in~ re~iciential tr~.ff'ic, as woul~ the SD.Z-91/Tustin
Avenue ~interchangE by resid~nces ia the c~re area.
Impacts r~late~ to the amount of land develapcnent would be ~imilar to the
proposed ~'raject, while consumptive and genera~tive u!npacts would be mi~ed, depend~xig on
the usage and produ.ction f~c~tors pr~sented in Section 3.0. 'I'~e introduction of residential
uses adjacent to the freeway would increase noise, land use, and aes~l~etic impacts tc~ these
residents. Additional park £aciliti~s would be needed, ar~d possibly a~iditional~ schoals (at
~east more classroom space) would be required.
~onvezsely, this alternatiwe wuuld procluce sor.ne positive sacioeconorai~ benefits by
praviding housing at densities cot~siderPd affordable by tihe state (minxmum 2S units per
acre), especi~lly in an area that provides a variety of employment opportunities.
34
~~. F'C95-58
i
i~
i.
~; ~~
L~,,,
Whil~ this alternative pravides a more complete mix uf land usPS, it creates a variety
~f impac.~ts primarily r~lated to comp~ ts~al~ lndustrial us sthreclud~s~o~~t l~hast es ncts,~its
of the reasons ~h~s axea is appropn~ ~ P
appropriateness for residential uses.
Far these r~asflns, the Mixed ~.Tse t~lternacive is rejacted in favor of the propospd
Praject.
S.~ ~7'E~LNA~F SI3'~S
5,q,1 lpescriDtion o~' Alkea~s~~. As not~d in Sectioa 4.1 of th~ EIR an alternative: sites
analysis examines if or where there ar~ sit~es that are mare appropriate and available for th~
proposed Project. '1'Y~e EI~t. determiued that alternative sites for the Project were infeasible.
~,4,2 ;n ~, Bassd on the administrative record, alternative sit~s for the Praj~ct are
found to be inf~asible.
5.4.3 ~~~~ -'~"D,.~~ ~c~r ~nvxu~~a.
In an, analysis of alternatives, C~QA often requ~res an exaanination. of ather si~es
that could feasibi~ity support t&e proposed projact. 'This requirement is usually app~:~ed to
proposed d~velopment project~, rather than to progcams or ~uuideline~. ]~iowever, to the
~xt~ent that the proposed Proje~t is a plan. for developm~ent, i~ is instsuct~ve to uiv~sti~ate the
potential for altemative sites, and determine if they are fcasible for this Project accarcli.~g
to CEQA g~udelines.
"~he prapos~ed Specific Plan covers aver 2,500 acres of industa~ial land, attho~gh
almost g5 pexcent af the lan.d is already developed. aimilar specific plans might also be
deve~op~~i for the c~ther ~hree industrial areas in the City (Central, Freeway, azid 5tadium).
However, they would have ta be modi~ied exteusively to accommodlte local conditi~ons, and
in th~ end would prohably not resemble the proposed Spec,~ific Plan. Like the Northeast
area~ the ~tber thxe~ lacal industrial areas axe already mostly built out, but n~n~ has the
unique loc~tion and infrastructure conditians foun~d in th~ Northeast Axea. In addition, n~w
redevelapment plans would hawe to be prepared to assist in the developmPnt of thes~ areas,
whereas the Narth~east area already has the Alpha ]R.edevelopment Project in place on over
90 perGeni of its land.
A key consideratioz~ in the analysisll ~.fpo~rt h~1~Nortlaeast property. th~t p o aes~an
p r o p o s e d P r o j e c t w a s d e v e l o p e d s p e c i fi c a y
~ ptimum mia- and types af land use~ for this property, and would be much l~ss apprnpria te
far or appiicable to any other area in the City. Tl~i.s const~aint a lso app li~s to in du s t r i a l l a n d
in neighboring jurisdictions.
3S
-45• PC95-r8
~ .1
~9 ~~ ~~+.,,,~~/
C~Q~+~, allows for an analysis of alternatives six~s that are "owned" by an applicant
but are outside of ~he jurisdiction in which th~ current grnject is prorosed. VJhile some
portions of the p~ropos~d Speci~c Plaa doc~iment could be appli~d ry some other
organization ta land oiitside of the City, the ~naheim. lSedevelopment A~gency co~~ld not
legally expend fund5 or develap plan.5 for lands outside of th~ City. Even though th~re ar~e
5imilar industr~s~,l areas to th~ ~ast i.rs Yc~rba i.inda, anc~ to the west in F~.illert~n, tlie
praposed Sp~cif'ic Fian wour~l not be f.e~sibla f~r th~se areas.
Finally, aFplication of the prnp~s~d P~~ject to s~m~ ather area would not help the
City achieve it~ goals far this area, and w~uld allow existin~ bli~hting conditions tn continue.
Y~or these reasona, altern.~tive sitPS a,~e not feasible relative ~to the pr~opased Projece, and
e~vere nat analyzed in detail in this BIR.
36
-~6• PC95-58
~
~~y~~
;i
6.0 ~:~~~~'~ Q~ ~~R~?~~~G CON ,jA~F~'~'_~~ 5
~s di5cu~sed above in ~he Sta,tem~nt ~f Findings of Fact, the City Council has
determined that ~ven wit~~ the Project's adherence ta existin~ City polici.es anci standards
and ~doption of all fsasibxe miti~~tion measures, certain i~mpacts of thc Proje~t v~ill continue
to be, or will potentially be, sigruficant. 'I'hese un~.va.dal~Xy significank impacts are discussed
above in Section 4.0 0~ this clocument. ~ directed by 5ection 15A93 of the C~Qt~
r'uidelines, the City Council has weighed chese si~nifi.cant unavoidable adverse impacts
against the benefits af th~ Project and finds that the benefits of the Project, summariz~d
b;low, render the significant unavuid~ble envir~onmental impacts accefltable, and that the
Frojece should be approved d~spite these impacts.
Accordin~ly, t~~e Ci!y Council hereby adopts tihe following Statement of Oveniding
~onsiderations based on inf~rmation in the ~inal ~IR and on other information in the
recard. The City Council recognizes that si~nifi'icant aad unavoidable impacts wiil r~sult
from ixnplementation of the ~'raject. ~Iaving: (1) adopte~i all feasibl~ mitigati.on measures,
(Z) rsjected as infeatssible the alt~rnatives to the Pr.oject discussed above, (3) reco~nized all
significant, unavoidable i*npacts, and (4) balanced the benefits of the Project agai~~st the
Pxoject's significant a.nci unavaidable effects, th~ City Council. hereby finds that the benefits
outw~igh a.nd ovexride the sign.i.ficant ~un~,voidable e£fects faz~ the rea~ons stated belaw.
The reasons disGUSSea~ b~law summarize the benefits, g~als, a.nd objectives of the
propased Project, aad provide, in additian to the abave findin~s, the detailed rationale for.
the projeit. These overritiing considerations o~ e~onarx~ic, social, aesthetic, and
environmental bene~its fox tlle Northeast Area Specific Plan outwsigh its enviroi~ro.ent~,l
costs and justify adoption af t:he Project and certi.fi.cation ~f the Final EI~t. Each of these
avenridin~ c:or~sideratians indiviciually would be suffieient to c~utweigh the unavoidably
signifi~ant impacts of the Project.
In evaluating each af the overriding considerations and comparing them to the
unavoidably significant impacts, the City CoL~ncil has co:~sidered all caf the information
contained in the ~IR, recommendatians of the City of Anaheim's Communi.ty
Redevelopment Commission, Anaheizu Planning Commission and Anatxeim Redevelopment
Agency, public comments, and other documents, t~stimony and proc~cdin~s in canne~tion
with this matter. In some cases, commentators Un the EIR and th~e ~'raject have suggested
that environmental imp~.cts of the ~'~oject ~nay be greater ir~ some respects than those
idez~ti~scl in th~ EIR. Except as acknowledg~d in the ~naheim Redevelopment A~ency's
responses to the comments ~nd in these fincii.ngs, the .Anaheim City Council dnes not agree
with these suggestions. The City Council hereb~ finds and determines, l~owever, that ~ven
if alI af the suggested impacts w~ere assiimed to occur, those impacts would still be
outweighed by and found acceptab~e ia li~he pf the overriding ~onsiderations set farth b~low.
Without limiting the g~;nerality o~F the foregoin~, the City Coun~il finds sp~cifieally
with respect to impacts af tl~e P~o~ect on schools (which ~ver~ determined in Section 3.8.3
37
-47- P~5-58
~ :i~~..r~~(
at~d 4.2 abave in tl~ese Findin~s to be not si~ni~icant), that even if the schools impacts wrere
significa~t, as was sugge~tcc~ by the Placentia-Y~rba Linda Uni~ied School lDist~ict, such
impacts would still i~e du~tweighed anci overridden by the con.5iderations outlined below ia
this S~ction 6, and the Proj~ct would 5ti11 be approvecl without any additional miti$atio~i
measures (there w~uld be no feasible mitigation Yneasures wlrich would not reduce the
viability of and ant~cipated economic bene~its from the P'roject),
I~inally, it should be noted that the potential enviror~mental iYnpacts assnciated with
adoption and implementation o£ the P~Tortheast Are~a Specific Plan have been nverstated xn
the ExR, which cansidered tbe impacts of ~ future development under the Sp~ecific Plan,
rather tran merely the incremental develo~ment above and beyond that which would b~
pemnitted uuder ex~isting land use d~esignati~ns. Nane af the City Council's findings aa~d
ana.lys~s, however, relies on this fact. The City Coun~cil has taken ehe very conservative
(worst-case) approach, of cansiderir~~ th~e unpacts of a11 future clevelopment within the
Specific Plan area to b~ impacts ass~ciated with this Yroject.
6.9. PRO1V~~'I'~ A t~iO~tT 1V~ARI~JET ~SH'~Fd~~E 1WYIX OF 6JS]~S
~G~.irzen~ly, under z~~ ~ity's Zo~ing Cade, except for a small area along Iznperial.
Highway, the entire Speci~ic Plan area is zaned for industrial uses. V41ith this limitation and
to accommodate a mix of business and support ser~~.ce uses, the City processed a signifi~cant
number of Conditional Use Pexrxiits. 'Cli~e Northeast Axea Specific Plan proposzs land use
~on~e ~hanges eo better accQr.nffiodate a market•driven mix of businesses aaa.ticipated in the
next two decades.
Tlie Sp~cific Pl~n adoption process will include an amendmerct t~a the General Plan
Land Use I'.~iap. The ad~ition af designated offic~ a.nd retcail ~~,~s will. raake it possible f.or
the lVortheast Area ta more efficiently accommodate a healthy, market responszve mix af
uses.
6.z P~CDVIDE A LO~T~~I~ANGE, COl~'REI3F.P1SIVlE PY.r~ING A~"IPR~AC~
'TQ~ SIGNIFYC~IV7' 1DEV1C~.~PRriC1'NT
The Speci~c Plaa area curr~ntly consis~ of a patChwork af industrial-related service
uses, cor~orate headqua~ters, aa.d business parres iri addition to limite:d retail and off'ice use~
distribut~d throughout the area. While ~many existi.n~ uses are succ~:ss€ul ~nterprises, there
is little cahesivene~s or consistency aniong developments, particularly wit~ regard to
transportation corrid~r landscape tr~atments and land us~s.
The I~lortheast Area Speci~ic Plan lays ~ut a lang-ran~e, comprehensive plan~aing
apPraach to a significant d~velapment wriich Gannot be accomplisli~d on a parcel-by-pa.rcel
basis. 'I'his comprehensive approach presvides the n~cessary fleacibi.lity for success as well as
consistency with City policies, s~nsitivity t~ existing conditions, a program to pr~vide the
38
~~_ PC95-58
'1
~~*~t
nec~s~ary infr~.Stru~Kur~ for tn~; Project, a.nd a l~hased davel~p~:~e~nt pr~grttm desi~ned ~~ Uc
z~sp~nsiva ~a t?ne dynamic ~uxd chan~.in~ Southern Califarnia ecunomy.
6.3 P~i)VISIOI°~1 OF V1STJ1#~ .AMErJITYC~
'The S~eeifie Pla,n ~rea currently presents a visu~Uy cac~tu~ing id~ntity due to varying
architectural q~ality, the ~resence uf overhead utilities, and th~ l~ck of. con~istent
landscai~ing. Th~ Specific Pl~tin pro~rides a Cor.ridor 7.aiids~a~~ ~nhancement I'rogran~ to
ent~ance ehe overall appeazaiice af the Spe~i~c Plan area. The ~dscap~ Plan includes
enhanced standards far arterial ~treets, including the laridscaping o£ private fronta~e, pa.*king
areas, aild public x, a,h~s-~f-way. In addition, the 91 Freeway edge is to be enhanced to
imp~•ove t~le i.mage ~f the area. 'I'hP Lands+c~pe Plan will be a major factnr c~atributiz~~
tow~rd ~he visuP~l uuification o.f the Specific Pl~n acea.
~ti.4 I1~ICREAS~D I~3~I~1L1~3 FOR CITY, '~;OUIVTY, 51'A'T~ AiNID SC~O~L
By encouraging quality devclopment in a.n aest.hetirally enL~nced environment, the
PJoctheast Area Spe~cific Plan wi.ll produc.e subst~ntial beneficial ~scal impacts. 'I'he Pzoject
w;ill dir~ctly generate revenues in tlne farui of property iaxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, and
misccllaneni~s taxes and fees to th~e City of A.naheun, tlic County of ~range, and the St~-te
of California, and school £ees ~Eo the P1a~e~ntia~Yorba ~..inda School Uistnct.
b,~ PR~VISI~D1~1 FCDR NEEDEIID II'~~'~.S'1'R~7C71'LJRE 1M~'ROVIEIVICN'rS
The Northeast Area Sp~ci.f'ic Plaa makes provision foc variou.s izifrastructure
impro~ements. The planned area impmven:ents pravided under the Specific ~'lan are
pcopos~d to i.nclude aesthetics, circulation, and storm drain upgrades. Ttaese improvem~nts
are planned to be cooxdii~ated with ~ievelopment wi.thin the Speci~c I'lan area. Pc~posed
iynprovem~nts wiil be phased to coincide with azea nee.ds, con.sistent with the pace of
develc;nment in the Specifcc Plan area. Without the coordination, planni.ng and
implem~ntation mcasurGS provid~d in conn~ectiun with tr.~ Nurtbeast A~rea Specific Plan,
these imprcwcments would nat be pravided or, at best, would be pr~avided to a lesser extent
and ~n a l~ss coordinated fashion.
6.6 ENHANCEMEN'~' OF THIE Pl~DES'D.'RIAN ENVI~tONMENT
One of the~ N~rtheast A.-~a Speci~i~c Plaii's Design Obj~c~ive~ is to create "[aJ
distinctive public~realm, creating a pedestrian •oriented ~~mployment setting:' 't'he Specific
Pian will ~ncourage pede~trian ~~ varie r o fus ~Cat the edges of pen srace top reate~an
are~s and plazas by encoura~ng a ty
active pedcstrian-oricnted environment. Cross-walks, drop-aff areas, and acGent materials
39
-49- PC95•58
~
~;
~ '~ ~~ r
w...
alung ped~strian airculation rautes woiild be employed to achieve th~ gaal of a lively and
a~tiv~ ~ed~strian en•lir~nment.
6.7 S'~t#MfLIN]E~A rNl'ITLEM~NT P'~d~CEDUI~
The c.~urrent Anaheim Gener~l Plan designates the entira Nc~rtheast Area for
Ceneral. Industria.l d~velc~pment. ~,,lthcugh ~xce~tiong to th~ industria~ land us~ designafii~n
are allowed under the Cit~s ~oning C:ode, this caethad ~of encouraging ~, diversxty ~f
busin~ss a^.tivity in the Spe:cific Plan arca thraugh issuac~ce of C~r.~litional Use P:rmits has
proy.°n inefficient ~nd time coasumin~.
The Northe~st Ar~a 5pecific ~'lan is a compreh~nsive docume nt ta guic~e fu,ture
develo~rrient in the Sp~ci~ic Plaa Area. It contaias spe~cializ~c~ standards and b~uidelines that
will crea~e ~ high qualxty busin~ss and euaplayment environment. T'he l~ortUeast Area
Spe~if'ic Plan is consistent witih previously-established City policies for the Specific Plan area~
including those policies x~lated to public facilities.
The Northeast ~,r~a Specific lPlan and its accompai~ying Eavironmental Im.pact
Report xeducc ~nnd/or streamlin~ the need for su~sequent and potentially o~verlapping
pl.anr~ing and environmental revi~w, 'The Nartheast Area Spe~cific Plan pr~vides all
necessary regulations and documentatipn for the project area such that fiiture de~-elopment
propos~ls (subdivisi~n r~naps, site plans, grading plans and other discretionary permits) which
are con~sistcnt with the Specific Plan may be ~coc:~ssed ~v~thaut. adclitional envizranmental
documentation. 'i'h~ EIR will serve as a"proje+ct" }~~JP. with respect to dev~e.lopment witlii~a
the scope and conditi~ns aneicipated by tbe LIR. (For develo~~ment prajects which do not
coine wi~hin the candi2ions and parumeters analy~ed in th~e ~IR, additi~nal environmental
dacumentiation may be necessary.) The preparation and certification of thA Final. EIR will
greatly reduca the Cvst anu time requir~d to process a. development project within tb~
~pecif'ic Plan are~, and therefor~ wil~ promote the C;ity's goaJs o~ job growth and economic
revitalization f~r the area.
6.8 FACIIGI~'A'TII~N AND INdPI.EMEr11'A~IC1N a~F THF GENER~+iI, P~AN
The Northeast Area Speci~c Plaa }~as been designed to me~t ~Iie goals of tt~e ~it~r
of An~seim General Plan and Red~velopment Project Ellplta. The I~Tartheast A-rea Specific
Plan will implement the General Plan through the incorporation of follawing ~oals:
F,stablishin~ th~ bcst mix nf land uses based on long-rang~ er,onomic,
plannin~, and environment~l consicJerations;
Improving tl~e mark~tabiliry af existing l~nd uses;
Redeveioping ~nd improving ur.derutilizcd ~arcels;
44
.~. PC95-58
,
~~;
`~~...,~~ .
• Optimizing munirip~i r~v~rnies fram sales ara.d prop~rty taxes;
• Cs~nerating suffici~nt r~venu~ to funa necessary public improvements;
• Establishing apprupriate mecllacaisms to fund improvem.rnts;
• F~rovidi~g adequate public serv~ces and faciliti~s ta ~.il properties;
• Improviiig the ov~rall appearance of the area;
• Protectin~ and eah~ncing tlie integrity and desirability of industr~al sit~s
witl~i:~ the planned indust.ria.l areas of the ~com.nnunity; and
• ~stat~lisl~ing a blueprint to £acilitate a dyn~mic miac of uses and ensur~
compatibility b~twcen the vazious e~ements by cr~ating a distinctive ~ublic-
realm an3 a pPdestrian-orieated employinent setting.
The overal.l objectives ~f tk~e CJeneral Pian will be rr~et througli adcption of the Northe~st
Area Spewific Flan which provi.de~ tY~e regulate~ry frameworl~ to fostcr the dev~lopment o.f
a w~ll-designed, bi~h-qu~lit}- business an~ eniployment ~c~mplex which m~~~ts the needs of
a growing population and is Compatible with existing and future surroun~ir:~ land uses. 'The
I~Iortheast Area Sp~cific Plan contains the following detailed elements:
Design guidelines for architecture, landscaping, arid public ~ac~i.lit~es aim~ed
at c.r~ating a distinctive public realm and a pedestria.n-~riented Pn-~loynlent
setti.ng;
Z.ozung and ~ievelopment standards wlucb, tl~z~~u~h flexibility, wili provide
for a market-responsive development pattern in line with local and r~gional
~~owtb pPOjections;
t~ I..and Use Plan tha~ promotes su~c~ssful enterprises within the Specific
Plar~ area ~nd focuses ou the expansifln, upgradin~, or conversinn of bl:ghted
areas and dilapidated businesses;
~1, Circulati~n Plan which r~llows efficient movement of ~eople, goods and
servic~s within, through ~and around th~ Speci~ic Plan area;
A I..~n.dscape Plan wl~ich provides continuity within the Spec~c Plan are~,
focusin~ on drterials, inters~:~ctions, freeways, and critical developme:rat
potenzials;
A Public Services and Facilities Plan w:nich me~ts th~ n~eds o£ th~ Specifie
Plan area witn adequate resn~irc,~s cleliver~d by all local setvi~e praviders;
Sl] ~1
41
_~~ _ PC95•58
! ,,
t, i
;i
„~~ ~~,~
~.n Implementa~tion Plan which is se.nsitive to market constraints, maximiz~s
municip~.l re~an~a~:s, and optimixes infrastructure expenditures.
~.9 REAS~~1'+TA16LE C~JJN'~L~I~-S CDN DLV~;LaPMf~N`~'
'The Northeast ~1re~ Speci~c Plan pr~poses to allaw only the additian o£'~.S millir,n
sq~are feet ~f building area t~ the existiing iaventory of 21.~ xa~ll~un square feet, for a
buiidaut of 29.3 million square feet. The Speci£ic P1ai1 anticipat~s that this additianal
buifdiz~g area wi11 be provided in several ways.
Approx.imately 3.3 mxllion square feet of ~xaistin~ buiidinAs will be rePlaced by new
developrnent. IVew construction w~i11 account for approxfmately 10.8 rnil.li~e~ squaxe fee2 of
buildin~~ adr~a, a total which includ~s replacem~nt of the 3.3 niillion square feet and the
addition of 7.5 nullion square fest of bui.lding area.
d.~0 ~ TCb~,1X, TO Gll'LYD~ RE~~:~TILOFM[ENT
Th~ Ar~aheim R~development Agency pr~pos~~ ihe ~lartlasast Az~ea Specific Ylan
to effectively ~1~ for land use and other development reqturements in anri axound the
Northeast axea of R.edevelopn~ent Fr~ject ~pha. As a regulatory ~ocum~nt for por.tions
o£ the Northeast ArPa of ~2edev~lup~neiit Project 1~11Ph~, tlie ~pecific Plan controls the
distribution, l~~catian, and sxtent af. land us~s, including industr~al, commercial, public
facil.~ities, and open 5pace. In additi~n, the Nortbeast R.r~a 5pse'~'ic Flan regulates the
lUCati~n o~ maj~r circulatian components anci other essenrial :facilaties necessary to serve the
area. Furthermure, the Speci~c Plan establishes clesi~n and d~velopment stan~ar~ds for new
tlc~vel~pment ancl in~ludes criteria for the review o£ Stat~ Subdivi~ion Map Act submittals.
6.11 DET~~N~E OF NE~ATIVE YM~'ACT5 l~k' THE "P~TU P120,J~C'!'"
ALT'~R,NA,TIVE
Wicbout adopcion af 4.he Nocthe~.st ~ire~. Specific Plan, commercial and industrial
properties in the Sp~~ific Plan area would cuntiuue to d~velop on a parcel-by-paxccl tasis
without an i~eiitity gragram, enhanced design and dev~elopment standards, or coordina~ecl
in~rasYrucnue ~lanrung. Tiie piecemea3. developmeut that wauld occur, in conjun~tion wAth
the loss o£ municipal revenues that would be realiz~d with dev~lapment in ~he Sp~cifiG Plaa
~IP,cI~ Would ss~-ni£icantly detract from the attractiveness and economic vitality of thc ~pecifi.c
Pla.n area.
Given ~he current economi~ situatzun, adequate publi~ fu~ids m~y not b~ ava~lable
:or capital in~rastruct~re improv~m~nts. The r~sult of preventing improver.~znts and
reinr~•estmer~t to the S~ecific Plan ar~a may b~ severe. Without r~investmer~t and
maiztt~~nance.: ~~isting bu~inesses may close and new development wauld be inhibited. It is
reasona.~le t~ assume ~hzt a halt in invc~tmcnt and imprc~vement would resulY in a loss of
42
-52- ~'~•~
ii
~ ~~~\.~..f
attractiv~mess and thus a decline i.n. b~~siness~s locating in the 5pocific Pl~n arra. Thi~ in
turr~ results in a furtb~er de~line in thG attractive~ess of th~ Specific Plan area, a,nd
deterioration of the ixifrastructure and eGOnocnic vitality a£ the S~~~cific Plan arem.
43
PG'.=5-58
-53-