95-153 RESOLUTION NO. 95R-153
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(A) APPROVING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO. 317, (B) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF. FACT
AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AHD (C)
ADOPTING THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AS A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, on July 19, 1973, the City Council of the City
adopted a Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for
Redevelopment Project Alpha by Ordinance No. 3190, which
ordinance has been subsequently amended; and
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency")has been, and continues to be, engaged in activities
necessary to carry out and implement the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project Alpha; and
WHEREAS, in order to carry out and implement the
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency proposed the adoption of a
specific plan to help redevelop blighted and underdeveloped land
in and around the Northeast Area of Redevelopment Project Alpha
and, with the support of the City's Planning Commission and
Community Redevelopment Commission, engaged ~ team of experts to
conduct a comprehensive planning and development study of this
area; and
WHEREAS, this study resulted in the Agency causing a
Specific Plan to be prepared for that area predominantly within
the Northeast Area (the "Northeast Area Specific Plan"), which
includes proposed design guidelines, zoning and development
standards, a land use plan, a circulation plan, a landscape plan,
a public services and facilities plan, and an implementation plan
to enhance and guide future development within an area of
approximately 2,645 acres covered by the Northeast Area Specific
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has, as the lead agency for the
Northeast Area Specific Plan (the "Project"), prepared an
Environmental Impact Report No. 317 (the "EIR"); and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 1995, the Anaheim Community
Redevelopment Commission reviewed and considered the Project and
the Final EIR and recommended their approval; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 1995, a public hearing was held by
the Anaheim Planning Commission ("Commission"), which hearing was
continued to May 15, 1995, and May 31, 1995, for the purpose of
soliciting comments to the Project and the Final EIR, following
notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all
interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or
object thereto have been heard, and having considered the Project
and the Final EIR and all comments, objections and responses
thereto the Commission recommended their approval; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Agency, in its Resolution No.
ARA95-11 acting as Lead Agency, considered Final EIR No. 317,
certified Final EIR No. 317, and approved and adopted the
Statement of Findings of Fact (which includes the Rejection of
Alternatives), adopted the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and, pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public
Resources Code, adopted the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1
as the monitoring plan for the Project, finding that the
Northeast Area Specific Plan incorporates measures to mitigate or
avoid significant impacts on the environment and will itself act
as effective mitigation for potential environmental impacts
identified in the Final EIR; and that said Final EIR addressed
the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with
(i) General Plan Amendment No. 334 pertaining to the Land Use,
Parks Recreation and Community Services and Environmental
Resources and Management (Conservation/Open Space) Elements of
the General Plan; and (ii) the Northeast Area Specific Plan No.
94-1 (including Zoning and Development Standards, a Design Plan
and Guidelines, and a Public Facilities Plan); and
W~EREAS, the Final EIR has been considered by the City
Council of the City in connection with the following
discretionary actions of the Council acting as a Responsible
Agency for the project: (1) the adoption of the Northeast Area
Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 94-1), (2) General Plan
Amendment No. 334, (3) approval of future development consistent
with the Specific Plan area, and (4) issuance of permits and/or
granting of approvals necessary to serve development in the
Specific Plan area, as well as the future consideration and
adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project Alpha.
~OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the
Final EIR.
Section Z. The City Council, acting as a
Responsible Agency, hereby makes and adopts the Statement of
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Relating to the Environmental Impact of the Northeast Area
Specific Plan attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated
herein by this reference (including without limitation the
2
mitigation measures therein set forth). Based on the Statement
of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
the City Council hereby finds that significant environmental
effects have been reduced to an acceptable level in that all
significant environmental effects have been eliminated or
substantially lessened except for the following: the Project
will result in potentially significant adverse cumulative impacts
on air quality, public services (schools), and utilities (water
and solid waste). Based on the foregoing, the City.Council finds
and determines that the Project will have a significant effect
upon the environment.
Seotion 3. As to each of the significant
environmental effects identified in Section 2 of this Resolution
which are not eliminated or substantially lessened, the City
Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations
attached hereto as Attachment A.
Section 4. Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code, the City Council hereby adopts, as the
reporting or monitoring plan for the Project, the Northeast Area
Specific Plan and incorporates it herein by reference. The City
Council finds that the Northeast Area Specific Plan incorporates
mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on
the environment and will itself act as effective mitigation for
potential environmental impacts identified in-the Final EIR.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this 22nd day of
Auqust , 1995.
MAY~R OF THE C~TY OF ~EIM
11751.1\SHA#N\Juty Z8, 1995 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 95R-153 was Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council
held on the 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL: Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolutlon No. 95R-153 on
the 22nd day of August, 1995.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Anaheim
this 22nd day of August, 1995.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original
of Resolution No. 95R-153 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on
August 22nd, 1995.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTACHMENT A
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
ATFACHMENT A
THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN -- EIR NO. 317
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NO. 317 WILL BE REVISED AS
APPROPRIATE TO REFLECT EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, PROJECT REFINEMENTS,
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ANAHEIM COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
FINAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL. THE DOCUMENT REFLECTS
MITIGATION MEASURES SET FORTH IN THE DRAFT EIR AND
INCORPORATED INTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH IS INTENDED
TO SERVE AS THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
PROJECT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pace
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ................. 1
2.0 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS ..................................... 3
3.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL ............... 5
3.1 Earth Resources ......................................... 5
3.2 Hydrology ............................................. 5
3.3 Biological Resources ..................................... 7
3.4 Land Use .............................................. 7
3.5 Circulation ............................................. 9
3.6 Noise ................................................. 9
3.7 Air Quality ............................................ 10
3.8 Public Services ......................................... 10
3.8.1 Police Protection .................................. 10
3.8.2 Fire Protection ................................... 11
3.8.3 Schools ......................................... 11
3.8.4 Parks/Open Space ................................. 13
3.8.5 Trails ........................................... 14
3.9 Utilities .............................................. 14
3.9.1 Water .......................................... 14
3.9.2 Sewer and RecJaimed Wastewater ..................... 15
3.9.3 Flood Control .................................... 16
3.9.4 Electricity ....................................... 17
3.9.5 Natural Gas ...................................... 18
3.9.6 Solid Waste ...................................... 18
3.10 Socioeconomics ........................................ 19
3.11 Cultural and Historic Resources ............................ 20
3.12 Public Health .......................................... 21
3.13 Aesthetics ............................................ 22
3.14 Growth Management .................................... 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
4.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ........................ 24
4.1 Air Quality ............................................ 24
4.2 Public Services--Schools .................................. 25
4.3 Utilities--Water ........................................ 27
4.4 Utilities--Solid Waste .................................... 28
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ............................. 30
5.1 The "No Project" Alternative .............................. 30
5.1.1 Existing Conditions (No Additional Development) ......... 30
5.1.2 Low General Plan ................................. 31
5.1.3 High General Plan ................................. 32
5.2 Commercial Corridors Alternative .......................... 33
5.3 Mixed Use Alternative ................................... 34
5.4 Alternative Sites ........................................ 35
6.0 STATEMENT OF OVERR/DING CONSIDERATIONS ................ 37
6.1 Promote a More Market Responsive Mix of Uses ............... 38
6.2 Provide a Long-Range, Comprehensive Planning
Approach to Significant Development ........................ 38
6.3 Provision of Visual Amenities .............................. 39
6.4 Increased Revenues for City, County, and State ................ 39
6.5 Provision for Needed Infrastructure Improvements .............. 39
6.6 Streamlined Entitlement Procedure ......................... 39
6.7 Facilitation and Implementation of the General Plan ............ 40
6.8 Reasonable Controls on Development ....................... 41
6.9 A Tool to Guide Redevelopment ........................... 42
6.10 Deterrence of Negative Impacts of the
No-Project/Continuing Development Alternative ............... 42
ii
THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN . EIR NO. 317
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF CEOA FINDINGS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1.1 California Environmental Ouality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21178.1) and the State CEQA Guidelines
(Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000-15387) require that specific findings be
made if a public agency decides to approve a project which will have significant impacts.
Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code states:
"[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
enviromnental impact repor~ has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the envh'onment that would occur if the project is
approved or carried out unless both of the following occur:
(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings
with respect to each significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be,
adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including considerations for
the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make /nfeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report.
(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a
finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public
agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment."
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Northeast Area Specific Plan (EIR
No. 317, State Clearinghouse No. 93011041) identifies si~it~cant or potentially significant
environmental impacts which, phor to mitigation, may occur as a result of adoption and
implementation of the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (the "Project"). (Section 2.0
of the EIR contaim a detailed description of the Project.) Thus, ha accordance with the
provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Anaheim City Council hereby
adopts the findings set forth herein.
The CEQA Guidelines also state that the decision maker must 15alance the benefits
of a proposed project agaimt its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether
to approve the project (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15093). The Anaheim
City Council has carefully considered the benefits of the Project. The EIR for the Northeast
Area Specific Plan identifies significant environmental effects which will nqt.be mitigated
to below a level of significance and which will be allowed to occur by ~/pproval of the
Project. Therefore, the Anaheim City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding
Cousideratious contained ha this document, which states the specific reasons that the benefits
of the proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that
the unavoidable environmental effects are considered acceptable.
2
2.0 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS
Based upon substantial evidence in the record of administrative proceedings, the
Anaheim City Council finds and declares as follows:
2.1 The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency is the "lead agency" for the Project.
The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines, and the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency's ~Guidelines
for the Implementation of CEQA. The City of Anaheim is acting as the
Responsible Agency.
The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a 45-day
period commencing August 5, 1993, and continuing through SeptemI~e'r 20,
1993. The Final EIR, including written responses to public comments
received during the 45-day period, was made available for public review on
April 21, 1995. On April 26, 1995, the Anaheim Redevelopment
Commission held a public meeting on the Project and recommended
approval of the Project, and certification of the Final EIR. On May 1, 1995,
the City of Anaheim Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Project and recommended approval of the Project, consideration of the
Final EIR, adoption of this Statement of Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and adoption of the Specific Plan as the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project.
2.2 The Final EIR was presented to the Anaheim City Council, and the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
EIR prior to approval of the Project. In addition to reviewing and
considering the text of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, the City Council
reviewed and considered the record of proceedings before the Anaheim
Commnnity Redevelopment Commission, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency,
and the Anaheim Planning Commission concerning the Project and the EIR,
and all oral and written comments concerning the Project and the EIR
received by the Anaheim City Council during and prior to the meeting of
its City Council at which these findings were adopted. Except to the extent
they conflict with the findings and determinations set forth in this document,
the analysis and conclusions of the EIR, including but not limited to the
responses to comments, are incorporated herein by this reference, and are
hereby adopted as findings of the Anaheim City Council.
2.3 All feasible mitigation measures for the Project have been imposed. Except
for the unavoidable si~tmificant impacts identified in Section 4 of the
Findings of Fact and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section
6), the "mitigation measures" described in the EIR for each impact area
actually reflect existing federal, state, and local requirements and the City's
3
standard project review procedures and these requirements and procedures
were found adequate to reduce potential environmental impacts associated
with implementation of the Northeast Area Specific Plan below a level of
significance.
2.4 Documents constituting the record of proceedings on which approval of the
Project and consideration of the Final EIR are based are available at the
offices of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, California.
3.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
This Section 3.0 coataim findings and supporting facts concerning effects on the
environment which have been determined to be not significant or which have been mitigated
to a less than si~tmificant level. Impacts which could remain significant even with
implementation of mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section 4.0 of this
document.
Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this document, all effects of the
Project on the environment are hereby found by the Anaheim City Council to be not
significant, both alone and in combination with the effects of other related projects.
3.1 Earth Resources
3.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on earth resources are discussed in Sections 3.1 and 7.1, respectively, of the EIR,
which identified groundshaking and seismically-induced liquefaction as the only potentially
significant earth related impacts unless careful e~neering and site design practices are
followed.
3.1.2 vi .
1. All potential significant impacts associated with earth resources have
been mitigated to a level of insignificance. To the extent feasible,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment related to earth resources.
3.1.3 Facts in Sunport of Findings, The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.1 and 7.1
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions. As
discussed in more detail therein, the grading component of the Specific Plan requires
geotechnical and soils studies for foundations and buildings to reduce potential liquefaction
and other earth related impacts. Implementation of the Specific Plan and other
Redevelopment Agency activities is expected to mitigate any potentially significant earth
related impacts. The EIR anticipated that approximately 39.3 acres of agricultural land
would eventually be eliminated due to continued urbanization. However, this land is in
multiple small, isolated areas and does not contain prime agricultural soils.
3.2 Hydrolo~v
3.2.1 Potential Significant Ironacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on hydrology are discussed in Section 3.2, 3.9, 7.2, and 7.9, respectively, of the EIR.
5
Buildout wfil introduce new employees into an area subject to potential flooding or
inundation from dam failure. It will eliminate natural percolation from 117.6 acres of
vacant land, and incrementally increase runoff which may contain a variety of urban
pollutants. The Drainage System Master Plan in the Infrastructure Plan section of the
Specific Plan includes a discussion of improvements needed to provide adequate protection
from localized and regional flooding. Implementation of the Specific Plan and other
redevelopment activities will help provide needed flood control improvements.
Future hydrological impacts from Specific Plan implemeritation and other
redevelopment activities are expected to be potentially si~tmificant but mitigable with actions
proposed in the Specific Plan, as well as flood control projects planned by responsible
county, state, and federal agencies.
3.2.2 Findings. "'
1. All potential significant impacts associated with hydrology have
been mitigated to a level of insignificance. To the extent
feasible, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment related to hydrology.
2. With regard to flood control facilities, changes or alterations
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Army Corps
of En~neers, the Orange County Flood Control District and the
Orange County Water District. Such changes or alterations
have been, or can and should be, adopted by those other
agencies.
3.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.1, 3.9, 7.2
and 7.9 of the EIR, and in Section 3.5.3 of the Infrastructure Plan to the Specific Plan,
provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions. As discussed
in more detail therein, the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for implementing
regional flood control measures associated with the Santa Ana River and has planned
various improvements that will mitigate and eventually eliminate the existing potentially
significant flood threat. The Orange County Flood Control District and the Orange County
Water District are responsible for maintaining a variety of flood control and groundwater
recharge basins in the Specific Plan area, and any future flood control improvements would
be coordinated with those agencies. In addition, the City must comply with all federal
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements regarding urban
stormwater runoff.
The majority of stormwater management and flood control facilities in the Specific
Plan area recommended by the City's Drainage System Master Plan have already been
constructed with Redevelopment Agency funding. The Infrastructure Plan to the Specific
Plan (Section 3.5.3) contains the following measure: 'The Redevelopment Agency will
6
continue monitoring the area's flood control infrastructure needs as future development
occurs, and will fund a master study of the drainage system in the Specific Plan area if, as
development occurs, the need for such a study is deemed necessary." Consequently, the
implementation of the Spedfie Plan and other Redevelopmere Agency activities is expected
to mitigate any potentially si~i~cant impacts related to hydrology.
3J Biological Resources
3.3.1 Potential Significant lmoacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on biological resources are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 7.3, respectively, of the EIR.
No biological impacts to the Santa Ana River or related groundwater recharge facilities are
expected as a result of the implementation of the Project since Project activities will not
intrude onto those areas. Future development and other redevelopment ac(i~ities will not
impact any sensitive species or their habitat.
3.3.2 Fi~. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on biological resources have been determined to be less than significant. No
mitigation measures are required.
3,3.3 Facts in Supnort of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.3 and 7.3
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions. Due
to its disturbed nature, the Specific Plan area does not currently support significant
biological resources. The Specific Plan's comprehensive Landscape Plan (Section 3.6) and
zoning and development standards will enhance the Specific Plan area in terms of the
amount of landscaping that will, in turn, support non-native species, particularly songbirds.
Consistent with the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (No. 5349), no plant
species considered weedy or h~ghly intrusive will be used for landscaping. Although not
presently contemplated, the EIR acknowledges that if, in the future, work is to be performed
adjacent to the Santa Aria River channel, Orange County Water District retention basins,
or flood control channels, such work will be subject to environmental review and approval
by the County of Orange, the Department of Fish and Game and/or the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Although not an impact of the Project, the EIR (Section 7.3) acknowledges that
development in Anaheim and Orange County as a whole will likely have cumulative
significant regional impacts on local plants and wildlife.
3.4 Land Use
3.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on land use are discussed in Sections 3.4 and 7.4, respectively, of the EIR. Buildout
will eliminate 118.6 acres of vacant land and eventually produce an additional 7.5 million
square feet of new industrial, commercial, and office uses, and the replacement of 3.3
7
million square feet of existing uses. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in
building construction totalling 10.8 million square feet.
Approxqmately 39.3 acres of non-prime agricultural land will eventually be lost.
Future uses will be similar to uses in other urbanized areas. The Project includes two
planned commuter rail stations. The land Use component of the Specific Plan is designed
to provide the optimum mix of land uses based on anticipated market condition. The Urban
Design and Landscape components of the Specific Plan will enhance the attractiveness of
the Specific Plan area in support of the Land Use component.
The Specific Plan is generally consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning
Ordinance. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan as amended by
General Plan Amendment No. 334 for the project site and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses. In summary, land use impacts of the proposed Specifld Plan will be
beneficial at buildout. Land use impacts in the two core areas will be significant but
mitigable with implementation of the Specific Plan.
3.4.2 Findings.
1. All potential significant impacts associated with land use have
been mitigated to a level of insignificance. To the extent
feasible, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment related to/and use.
3.4.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.4 and 7.4
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions.
Although land use changes proposed by the Specific Plan could be considered significant
because of the scope (e.g., the amount of additional development proposed) and extent of
change the Specific Plan area will experience as it develops, thi~ area is already largely
urbanized and these changes do not represent a fundamental change from current uses.
Over the long term, the Specific Plan will have beneficial impacts on the area by imposing
stronger controls on new development and intensity limits that allow up to 6.2 million square
feet less of non-residential development within the Specific Plan area than could take place
under the current General Plan and Zoning. The Land Use component of the Specific Plan
will help prevent the development of incompatible uses in the future by establishing
consistent intensity and development standards. The City Municipal Code and other City
development requirements will further prevent land use impacts from occurring. While the
Specific Plan represents an alteration in land uses of the Specific Plan area, its
implementation will have overall beneficial impacts on land use.
3.5 Circulation
3.5.1 Potential Sitmificant lmnacts. The project-specific and cnmulative impacts of the
Project on circulation are discussed in Sections 3.5 and 7.5, respectively, of the EIR.
Buildout will produce a total of 270,988 ADT and 28,404 peak hour trips. At. buildout,
proposed improvements will maintain local intersections at LOS D or better at all but one
intersection (La Palma/Tnstin Avenue). Since the City accepts LOS E at intersections
within a quarter mile of a transit station, this impact is not sJ~ificant. The Specific Plan
area envisions two commuter rail stations and a shuttle bus service to hel~p reduce peak hour
commuter trips.
3.5.2 Findings.
1. All project-specific potential significant impacts associated witl~ '
circulation have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. To
the extent feasible, changes or alterations have been required
i~ or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the
w significant effects on the environment related to circulation.
2. With regard to cumulative circulation impacts, changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a
number of local, regional, county, state, and federal agencies.
Such changes or alterations have been, or can and should be,
adopted by those other agencies.
3.5.3 Facts in Sunport of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.5 and 7.5
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Implementation of the Specific Plan will have beneficial impacts on parking, rail transit and
public transit. The Specific Plan proposes a variety of roadway improvements to improve
local traffic conditions primarily at major intersections during peak periods. Implementation
of the Specific Plan's Circulation Plan (Section 3.4) will help alleviate peak hour congestion
by providing roadways with adequate numbers of lanes, intersection improvements, and
other design features. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency may help fund needed
improvements. To further reduce potential impacts, a Transportation Demand Management
Plan was developed consistent with SCAQMD requirements of Regulation XV. Finally, the
Growth Management Element of the City's General Plan, Transportation Ordinance
requirements, as well as the City's standard project review procedures, will further prevent
circulation impacts from occurring. Overall, the implementation of the Specific Plan will
have beneficial impacts on traffic and circulation.
3.6 Noise
3.6.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on noise are discussed in Sections 3.6 and 7.6, respectively, of the EIR. Short-term
noise impacts will occur during construction due to demolition, grading, and construction
of new buildings. Buildout will increase ambient CNEL noise levels by 2.5 dBA which is
considered noticeable but not significant. Cumulative noise impacts are considered
significant but mitigable.
3.6.2 Findings.
1. All potential significant noise impacts associated with the
Project have been mitigated to a level of insi~tmificance. To the
extent feasible, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment related to noise.
3.6.3 Facts in Supoort of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sectiotas 3.6 and 7.6
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions. In
addition to the City's standard project review procedures, site design and building design
guidelines in the Specific Plan will help minimize both short-term noise impacts, as well as
long-term noise impacts to future uses. All buildings and other activities will also conform
to applicable provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance.
3.7 Air Ouality
[See Section 4.1 below]
3.8 Public Services
3.8.1 Police
3.8.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on police protection setvices are discussed in Sections 3.8 and 7.8, respectively, of the
EIR. Development within the Specific Plan area will incrementally increase the need for
police services.
3.8.1.2 F'n~ The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on police protection setvices have been determined to be less than significant.
No mitigation measures are required.
3.8.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.8 and 7.8
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Currently, police protection services are provided to the Specific Plan area from both the
main Police facility on Harbor Boulevard and a satellite facility located in the Festival
Cemer (near Weir Canyon Road and Santa Aaa Canyon Road). In accordance with current
10
procedures and as discussed in the Section 1 of the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan will
encourage new development to provide "defensible space" concepts, thereby minimizing the
need for additional protective senrices.
The General Plan~ of surrounding cities identify public service needs and propose
programs to ensure their continued provision.
3.8.2 Fire
3.8.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on fire protection services are discussed in Sections 3.8 and 7.8, respectively, of the
EIR. Buildout of the Specific Plan area will increase the need for fire protection service.
Eventually, the City will construct an additional fire station in Anaheim Hfl~s, which will
serve the far east end of the City.
3.8.2.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on fire protection services have been determined to be less than significant. No
mitigation measures are required.
3.8.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.8 and 7.8
of the EIR and Section 3.8.2 of the Specific Plan provide facts and analysis to support the
foregoing findings and conclusions. Buildout of the Specific Plan area will increase the need
for fire protection service. Buildout of the Specific Plan will be adequately served by
existing fire protection services (FLre Stations No. 5, 8, 9 and 10). The City anticipates
construction of an additional fire station in Anaheim Hills area. In accordance with current
procedures, all individual developmere proposals within the Specific Plan area will be
evaluated by the Fire Department and required to meet all applicable safety standards.
The General Plans of surrounding cities identify public service needs and propose
program~ to ensure their continued provision.
3.8.3 Schools
3.8.3.1 Potential Significant lmoacts. The project-specific and cnmulative impacts of the
Project on schools are discussed in Sections 3.8 and 7.8, respectively, of the EIR. The
Specific Plan area is presently served by the Placentia-Yorba l.inda Unified School District.
Although the Specific Plan area is adjacent to the Anaheim City School District and
Anaheim Un/on High School District boundaries, no Anaheim facilities serve students from
the Specific Plan area. Students from dwelling units within the Specific Plan area attend
Tynes and Glenview elementary schools (grades K-6), Kraemer and Bernardo Yorba Jun/or
Highs (7-8), and Valencia and Esperanza High Schools (grades 9-12). Enrollments at these
schools are presently at or near their current capacities, and relocatable classrooms have
11
been installed to augment permanent capacity. The School District is also considering
various boundmy changes or facility modifications to accommodate future enrollments.
While the Specific Plan will not introduce any new residents into the Specific Plan
area, workers employed in new industrial development may enroll their children in local
schools, incrementally increasing impacts on local educational facilities. Based on historical
trends, the total number of students will likely be low. Due to recent recessionmy
conditions and the lack of stable funding sources necessary for construction of school
facilities, the EIR acknowledged that cumulative school impacts coiald be considered
cumulatively si~tmificant.
During and following the public review on the Draft EIR, the Placentia-Yorba 1 .inda
Unified School District provided written comments stating that the Specific Plan would
result in potential fiscal impacts upon the School District due to new studffit generation
from households relocating to the District's jurisdiction because of job opportunities created
by implementation of the Specific Plan. These comments, and the lead agency's responses
to them, have been incorporated into the Final EIR as Volume IV--Responses to
Comments.
3.8.3.2 Findings.
The following findings are made with regard to the project-specific impacts of the
Project on school&
1. Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated
into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Placentia-Yorba linda Unified School
District and not the lead agency making the finding. Such
changes or alterations have been adopted by the Placentia-
Yorba I/nda Unified School District, or can and should be
adopted by the Placentia-Yorba l.inda Unified School District.
3.8.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.8 and 7.8
of the EIR, and the lead agency's written responses to the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified
School District's comments contained in the Final EIR (Volume IV--Responses to
Comments, Section 3.2.3), provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and
conclusions. The Redevelopment Agency has previously entered into an agreement with the
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District for the purpose of offsetting the School
District's fiscal detriment associated with commercial and industrial development within the
area. By 1992, payments under that agreement provided the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified
School District with $18,191,541.00 for capital facilities.
12
Other changes are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Placentia-Yorba
Linda Unified School District and the State of Calffomia~ These changes include the School
District electing to continue receiving its share of the property tax as permitted, making
regular and timely applications for State construction funds, pursuing alternate means of
financing schools as those are made available through changes in state law, .and using
year-round schedules and double sessions as necessary and appropriate. Also, these changes
include the State continuing to finance construction of new schools and classrooms in
response to enrollment increases.
The Placentia-Yorba l.inda Unified School District presently levies a developer fee
of 27e per square foot for new non-residential development. At that rate, new development
within the Specific Plan area alone would eventually contribute over $2.8 million to help
alleviate potential impacts to the District, and it is likely these fees will increase in the
future as costs increase. According to state law, these fees are consid%~ed adequate
mitigation under CEQA for school impacts from non-residential projects. In order to
monitor compliance in paying the developer fee, the Specific Plan provides the following
mitigation measure:
18.--.040.050 School Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of each
building permit, proof of compliance with state statute(s) (as may be
amended from time to time) relating to school impact fees for the Placentia-
Yorba l.inda Unified School District shall be submitted to the Building
Division of the Planning Department.
The foregoing measures will reduce the project-specific impacts of the Project on
the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District to a less than significant level. The
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on the Placentia-Yorba l .inda Unified School
District may not be mitigated to a less than si~ificant level, but will be mitigated to the
extent allowed by state law. The possibility of potentially si~ificant cumulative impacts to
schools identified in Section 7.8 of the EIR are discussed below in Section 4.2 of this
document, and will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
3.8.4 Parks/Open Soace
3.8.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project onparks~open space are discussed in Sections 3.8 and 7.8, respectively, of the EIR.
Additional non-residential development will generate a minimal increase in the need for
open space resources and recreation facilities. No additional park or open space resources
are proposed.
3.8.4.2 Findings. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on parkx/open space have been determined to be less than significant. No
mitigation measures are required.
13
3.8.4.3 Facts in Sunport of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.8 and 7.8
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing fancling and conclusions. In
the future, the City may wish to acquire land and construct a sports facility in the Specific
Plan area to serve adult recreation needs. However, no additional sites have been identified
and no funds have been allocated to date. The Specific Plan allows for recreation facilities
in all of the Development Areas to provide the City with the ability to locate a sports facility
in this area in the future. The Specific Plan proposes bicycle trails that are consistent with
County and City master plans.
3.8.5 Trails
3.8.5.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on trails are discussed in Sections 3.8 and 7.8, respectively, of the Ell(.' The Specific
Plan will generate an incremental need for trails in this area.
3.8.5.2 Find..~.O~. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on trails have been determined to be less than si~ificant. No mitigation
measures are required.
3.8.5.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.8 and 7.8
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions. The
Specific Plan proposes bicycle paths and other trail features that are consistent with County
and City master plans.
3.9 Utilities
3.9.1 Water
3.9.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on water are discussed in Sections 3.9 and 7.9, respectively, of the ErR. Buildout will
ultimately require the commitment of 7.8 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water.
This represents an increase of 0.5 mgd over existing consumption levels or a seven percent
increase in current local water consumption. The Public Facilities and Services component
of the Specific Plan contain~ utility plans to assure that adequate infrastructure and utility
services will be available to future development. Redevelopment funds may also be used
to help finance needed studies and utility improvements.
No significant impacts on regional water resources are anticipated at this time.
However, until there is a statewide drought contingency or management plan, cumulative
impacts of water resources from future growth should still be considered at least potentially
significant.
14
3.9.1.z
The foRowing findings are made with regard to the project-specific impacts of the
Project on water.
1. With regard to actions that may be taken at the local level,
changes or alterations have, to the extent feasible, been
required for, or incorporated into, the Project which
substantially reduce the significant effects on the environment
related to water.
2. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Yorba Linda Water District and not the lead
agency making the finding. Such changes or alterations havi '
been adopted by the Yorba Linda Water District, or can and
should be adopted by the Yorba I.inda Water District.
3.9.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9 and 7.9
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions. The
Specific Plan's Landscape Plan (Section 3.6) requffes all landscaping to be in accordance
with the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (No. 5349). All new development
will be required to comply with Title 24 and the City's Municipal Code (Sections 10, 19)
relating to water Conservation, and the City's standard project review procedures require
applicants to demonstrate that adequate service can be provided to new development. The
Yorba Linda Water District serves a 130 acre portion of the Specific Plan area and is, along
with the City and/or Redevelopment Agency, planning certain improvements to provide
adequate long-term water service to planned land uses in the Specific Plan area.
The possibility of potentially significant o,mulafive impacts to water resources
identified in Section 7.9 of the EIR are discussed below in Section 4.3 of this document and
will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
3.9.2 Sewer and Reclaimed Wastewater
3.92.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on sewer and reclaimed wastewater are discussed in Sections 3.9 and 7.9, respectively,
of the EIR. Land uses at buildout will ultimately produce 7.52 million gallons per day
(mgd) of sewage. This represents an increase of 0.8 mgd or an 11.6 percent increase over
current levels. While this amount of additional waste can be accommodated by planned
treatment facilities operated by County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, the
District's ability to provide continued sewage collection, treatment and disposal services for
future development is dependent on the eventual expansion of its treatment plants and
disposal capacity. Currently, there is no reclaimed wastewater available to land uses within
15
the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan does not propose uses that incorporate reclaimed
water, or justify the construction of a reclaimed wastewater system.
3.9.2.2 Findings. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on sewer and reclaimed water have been determlned to be less than significant.
No mitigation measures are required.
2. With regard to regional sewage mmlc lines and treatment
facilities, changes or alterations are within the responsibiliby and
jurisdiction of the County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange
County. Such changes or alterations have been, or can and
should be, adopted by that agency.
3.9.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Secti6fis 3.9 and 7.9
of the EIR, and in Section 3.5.2 of the Infrastructure Plan to the Specific Plan, prov/de facts
and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions. As discussed in more detail
therein, County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County is responsible for operating
regional sewer collection and treatment services and is undertaking a vigorous expansion
program to increase capacity from 249 mgd to 480 mgd by the year 2000. Both treatment
and outfall disposal facilities are sufficient to serve proposed land uses in the Specific Plan
area. All new development will include ultra-low flow water fixtures to reduce the roll,me
of sewage to the system.
The Infrastructure Plan to the Specific Plan (Section 3.5.2) contains the following
measure: 'Whe Redevelopment Agency will continue monitoring the area's sewer system
needs as future development occurs, and will fund a master study of the sewer system in the
Specific Plan area if, as development occurs, the need for such a study is deemed necessary."
Consequemly, the implementation of the Specific Plan and other Redevelopment Agency
actMties is expected to mitigate any potentially significant impacts related to sewer.
3.9.3 Flood Control
3.9.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on flood control are discussed in Sections 3.2, 3.9, 7.2, and 7.9, respectively, of the
EIR. The proposed project will produce significant amounts of additional runoff. At some
point, existing flood control structures will not be able to accommodate additional runoff,
since several local charmels are at or near their designed capacities (e.g. Carbon Creek
Channels). The Orange County Flood Control District may not allow additional run-off into
these drainage facilities. Detention facilities may be required, either by utili ~zing storm drain
pipes for storage, or providing detention facilities on-site, or both.
Additional flood control facilities will need to be constructed to adequately protect
future development. The Public Facilities and Services component of the Specific Plan
contains utility plans to assure that adequate infrastructure and utility services will be
16
available to future development. Redevelopment Agency funds may also be used to help
finance needed studies and utility improvements.
3.9.3.2 Findines.
1. All potential si,~niflcant impacts associated with flood control
have been mitigated to a level of insi,~onificance. To the extent
feasible, changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the
si~i~eant effects on the environment related to flood control.
2. With regard to flood control facilities, changes or alterations
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Army Corps
of Engineers, the Orange County Flood Control District and th~ '
Orange County Water District. Such changes or alterations
have been, or can and should be, adopted by those other
agencies.
3.9.3.3 Facts in Sul)port of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.1, 3.9, 7.2
and 7.9 of the EIR, and in Section 3.5.3 of the Infrastructure Plan to the Specific Plan,
provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions. As discussed
in more detail therein, the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for implementing
regional flood control measures associated with the Santa Arm River and has planned
various improvements that will mitigate and eventually eliminate the existing potentially
significant flood threat. The Orange County Flood Control District and the Orange County
Water District are responsible for maintaining a variety of flood control and groundwater
recharge basins in the Specific Plan area, and any future flood control improvements would
be coordinated with those agencies. In addition, the City must comply with all federal
NPDES requirements regarding urban stormwater quality
The majority of stormwater management and flood control facilities in the Specific
Plan area recommended by the City's Drainage System Master Plan have already been
constructed with Redevelopment Agency funding. The Infrastructure Plan to the Specific
Plan (Section 3.5.3) contain~ the following measure: "The Redevelopment Agency will
continue monitoring the area's flood control infrastructure needs as future development
occurs, and will fund a master study of the drainage system in the Specific Plan area if, as
development occurs, the need for such a study is deemed necessary." Consequently, the
implementation of the Specific Plan and other Redevelopment Agency actMties is expected
to mitigate any potentially significant impacts related to hydrology.
3.9.4 Electricity
3.9.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on electricity are discussed in Sections 3.9 and 7.9, respectively, of the EIR. Buildout
17
will ultimately require the commitments of an additional 728,663 kilowatt-hours of
electricity. At some point in the future, proposed development may require modifications
to electric lines.
3.9.4.2 Findings. The project-specific and cnmulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on electricity have been determined to be less than si~ificant. No mitigation
measures are required.
3.9.4.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9 and 7.9
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions. All
new development will be served by underground electrical facilities in accordance with City
policy and the Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations. The City of Anaheim plans to
continue providing service to the Specific Plan area as development occurs. Except for
anticipated upset conditions, adequate supplies of energy should be available ~o the Specific
Plan area for the foreseeable future.
3.9.5 Natural Gas
3.9.5.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on natural gas are discussed in Sections 3.9 and 7.9, respectively, of the EIR.
Buildout will ultimately require an additional 2.33 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.
Natural gas is provided to the Specific Plan area by the Southern California Gas Company.
3.9.5-2 Findines. The project-specific and o~mulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on natural gas have been deterrained to be less than si,~nlflcant. No mitigation
measures are required.
2. With regard to natural gas, changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Southern California Gas
Company. Such changes or alterations have been, or can and
should be, adopted by the Southern California Gas Company.
3.9.5.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9 and 7.9
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions. The
Southern California Gas Company plans to continue providing service to the Specific Plan
area as development occurs. Except for anticipated upset conditions, adequate supplies of
energy should be available to the Specific Plan area for the foreseeable future.
3.9.6 Solid Waste
3.9.6.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on solid waste are discussed in Sections 3.9 and 7.9, respectively, of the EIR. The
City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) indicates that industrial uses
18
generate approximately 24.6 tons per acre per year of waste. Therefore, the 109 acres of
additional uses will ultimately generate 2,893 tons per year or 11.6 tons per day of additional
solid waste (based on 250 annual work days).
3.9.6.2 Findines.
The following finding is made with regard to the project-specific impacts of the
Project on solid waste:
2. Changes or alternations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other
agencies and not the lead agency making the finding. Such changes or
alterations have been adopted by those agencies, or can and should be
adopted by those agencies.
3.9.6.3 Facts in Supnort of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9 and 7.9
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions.
Solid wastes within the City of Anaheim are presently transported to the Brea-Olinda
Landfill, which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the needs of the City of Anaheim
and its other customer users through the year 2010.
Not enough long-term land fill capadty presently e:dsts within the Cotmty to
accommodate all future wastes, even with waste reductions that will occur as a result of
AB 939. The County and other regional waste agencies are currently investigating long-term
disposal options, such as rail-haul or additional local land fills. Until the County's Solid
Waste Management Plan identifies adequate disposal capacity, solid waste impacts from
cumulative development in the County (and the region) should be considered potentially
significant.
The possibility of potentially significant solid waste cumulative impacts referenced
above has caused the Anaheim City Council, as a precaution, to consider and make Finding
No. 3 above. Finding No. 3 will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
3.10 Socioeconomics
3.10.1 Potential Significant Ironacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on socioeconornics are discussed ha Sections 3.10 and 7.10, respectively, of the EIR.
County population and housing projections indicate the Specific Plan area will grow by 14-18
percent in the future, while employment could increase by almost 50 percent over the same
period. However, it should be noted that County projections are based on regional growth
assumptions. Based on existing and anticipated local conditions, the Specific Plan area will
probably not experience significant growth in population or housing in the future. As
development occurs, isolated homes located in industrial areas in the Specific Plan area will
eventually be removed.
19
Development under the proposed Specific Plan will increase local employment by
a minimum of 16,365 workers. However, estimates based on project land uses indicate that
18,882 additional employees will be generated. New development and redevelopment will
have beneficial impacts on employment and will have no adverse impacts on population or
housing
3.10.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on population and housing have been determined to be less than significant. No
mitigation measures are required.
3.10.3 Facts in Supnort of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.10 and 7.10
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions.
Residents displaced by redevelopment activities will be assisted with relocat4.'9n as required
by State law and the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha. As long as
municipal revenues remain relatively stable, growth should produce no significantly adverse
cumulative impacts to the regional population or housing markets, and should have
beneficial impacts to regional employment and the economy.
3.11 Cultural and Historic Resources
3.11.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on cultural and historic resources are discussed in Sections 3.11 and 7.11, respectively,
of the EIR. Buildout will not si~ificanfiy impact paleontological or archaeological
resources. Development of vacant and non-residential areas will not significantly impact
historic resources. Reconstruction or removal of certain structures could produce si,~cmificant
impacts on historical resources. As long as potential archaeological and historical resources
are investigated prior to development, no sigrfificant cnmulative impacts should occur from
growth in these areas.
3.11.2 Findings.
~" 1. Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated
into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
3.11.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.11 and 7.11
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions. In
order to mitigate any potential future impacts upon historical or paleontological resources,
the Specific Plan provides that the following site development standards shall apply:
18.-.070.0601 Prior to issuance of any demolition permit or
building permit (whichever occurs first), properly identified by the City as
an historical resource shall comply with all applicable federal, state and
local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to historical resources.
20
a. Proof of compliance shall be submitted to the Pl~nrdng
Department prior to issuance of said permit.
b. The property located at 1500 N. Lakeview Avenue
Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) (346-291-01
and 02), bounded on the north by Orangethorpe Avenue, on the
south and east by the Orange County Flood Control District
channel and on the west by Lakeview Avenue, has been
identified as a h/storical resource.
18.--.070.0602 Prior to issuance of any grading permit or
building permit (whichever occurs first), property identified by
the City as a paleontological resource shall comply with all
applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and'
regulations relating to paleomological resources including, but
not limited to: a qualified paleontologist present during any
subsurface disturbance/grading.
a. Proof of compliance shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to issuance of said permit.
b. The thirteen (13) acre parcel, (APN 346-402-11)
bounded on the north by Landon Drive, on the east by Kellogg
Drive, La Palma Avenue on the south, and a commercial
building on the west, has been identified as a paleontological
resource.
3.12 Public Health
3.12.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and o~mulative impacts of the
Project on £ublic health are discussed in Sections 3.12 and 7.12, respectively, of the EIR.
The Specific Plan will assist in the development of the Specific Plan area, which may include
the remediation of contaminated sites. Redevelopment may help fund cleanup or
development activities. The County is presently pursuing cleanup of the Orange County
Steel Salvage site just south of the Santa Aria River. The Orange County Water District has
a Groundwater Management Plan which is designed to monitor and eventually eliminate
local groundwater contamination.
3.12.2 Findings. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project onpublic health have been determined to be less than significant. No mitigation
measures are required.
2. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other agencies and not the public agency making
21
the finding. Such changes or alterations have been adopted by
those agencies, or can and should be adopted by those agencies.
3.12.3 Facts in $upl}ort of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.12 and 7.12
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions. The
Final EIR. found that existing federal, state, and local requirements and the City's standard
review procedures will reduce public health effects in most areas of concern. With
implementation of the Specific Plan and other redevelopment activities, including continued
monitoring by adminintrating agencies through on-site inspections as iequired by federal,
state and local regulations, codes and ordinances, potential impacts from hazardous
materials will not be significant.
3.13 Aesthetics "'
3.13.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on aesthetics are discussed in Sections 3.13 and 7.13, respectively, of the EIR. The
Specific Plan will improve local views into the area by providing a comprehensive
organization for new development as well as redevelopment in older areas. The Landscape
Plan will increase the amount and quality of plantings throughout the Specific Plan area,
thus enhancing the overall business environment and improving views into the area.
3.13.2 Findings. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on aesthetics have been determined to be beneficial. No mitigation measures
are required.
3.13.3 Facts in Sunoor~ of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.13 and 7.13
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions.
Implementation of the Specific Plan will itself enhance the local visual character, and
eventually lead to a better quality visual environment. The Specific Plan will implement the
enhanced aesthetic criteria currently part of the Scenic Corridor CSC") overlay zone, and
through landscape guidelines for new development of older parcels. Therefore, the
proposed Specific Plan will have beneficial impacts on the aesthetic resources in the area
and no additional mitigation measures are proposed.
3.14 Growth Management
3.14.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on growth management are discussed in Sections 3.14 and 7.14, respectively, of the
EIR. The Specific Plan area will eventually support growth of non-residential uses and
introduce additional employees in numbers consistent with City estimates and generally
consistent with County projections. The Specific Plan is also consistent with relevant
regional transportation and planning programs such as those of the SCAQMD and SCAG,
and the City's Growth Management Element.
22
3.14.2 Findinas. The project-specific and cumulative potential environmental impacts of
the Project on growth management have been determined to be less than significant. No
mitigation measures are required.
3.14.3 Facts in Suooort of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.14 and 7.14
of the EIR provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing finding and conclusions. The
Final EIR found that existing federal, state, and local requirements and the City's standard
review procedures will adequately address and manage growth as it occurs. Implementation
of the Specific Plan will further assist the City in managing growth in th~ Specific Plan area
and will have a beneficial impact on growth managemere.
23
4.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The potential significant adverse impacts associated with the adoption of the
Northeast Area Specific Plan which cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures or project alternatives are described and analyzed below. The Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency finds that these potential si~ificant adverse impacts would be
substantially reduced with the implementation of the Specific Plan and compliance with
existing federal, state and local requirements and the City's stand~d project review
procedures. However, it may still be the case that certain aspects of these impacts would
not be reduced to a less than significant level. The Anaheim City Council will adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines
for cumulative impacts related to air quality, schools, water and solid waste. and project
specific air quality impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations 'is included as
Section 6.0 of this document.
4.1 Air Ouality
4.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on air q,a!ity are discussed in Sections 3.7 and 7.7, respectively, of the EIR.
Buildout will eventually produce a total of 24 tons per day of air pollutants, almost all from
vehicular sources. Construction emissions of Particulate Matter (PM) 10 and Nitrogen
Oxide (NO~) as well as long-term emissions of all criteria pollutants, exceed the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (AQMD's) si~i~icance thresholds. However, the Specific
Plan is consistent with the Air Qual/ty Management Plan (AQMP) by minimizing vehicular
trips and employing a variety of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.
Construction of future uses will generate sJ~ificant levels of particulates and oxides of
n/trogen. The proposed land use plan will not worsen any identified carbon monoxide (CO)
hot spots. However, air quality impacts from local and City-wide development will be
cumulatively sj~vnificant.
4.1.2 Fin.___~![~.
1. With regard to actions that may be taken at the local level,
changes or alterations have, to the extent feasible, been
required for, or incorporated into, the Project which
substantially reduce the significant effects on the environment
related to air quality.
2. With regard to regional and cumulative air quality effects which
depend on regional strategies and standards, changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Such changes
have been adopted by the SCAQMI) in the Regional Air
24
Quality Management Plan~ Regulation XV requiring employee
ridesharing, and Rule 403 regulating construction emissions.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opporttmities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR.
4.1.3 Facts in Supoort of Findings. The Specific Plan, and discussion and analysis in
Sections 3.7, 4.4, and 7.7 of the EIR, provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing
findings and conclusions. Long-term emissions associated with buildout within the Specif/c
Plan area will be substantially lessened by implementation of the Specific Plan. The Specific
Plan's Circulation Plan (Section 3.4) includes roadway and intersection imp~6vements that
will help reduce peak hour congestion to the greatest degree possible. In addition, the
proposed TDM Plan and rail stations will further reduce peak hour commuter traffic.
Other mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the South
Coast Air Quahty Management District and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
These measures include: (1) SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring control of construction-related
emission; (2) SCAQMI) Regulation XV requiring all developments in the Specific Plan area
to prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs at their
sites; and (3) other measures and programs to reduce cumulative effects of growth in the
region on air quality that have been adopted by those agencies and include: (a) steadily
improving vehicles emissions and (b) emission controls on stationary sources. Only the "No
Project-Existing Conditions" and "No Project-Low General Plan" alternatives are capable of
mitigating air quality impacts. However, these alternatives do not meet the Project
objectives as outlined in the Specific Plan and Final EIR.
The potentially significant a/r qua/ity impacts identified above have caused the
Anaheim City Council, as a precaution, to consider and make Finding No. 3 above. Finding
No. 3 will require the adoption of a Statement of Overddlng Considerations.
4.2 Schools
4.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on schools are discussed in Sections 3.8 and 7.8, respectively, of the EIR.
While the Specific Plan will not introduce any new residents into the Specific Plan
area, workers employed in new industrial development may enroll their children in local
schools, incrementally increasing impacts on local educational facilities. Based on historical
trends, the total number of students will likely be low. Due to recent recessionary
conditions and the lack of stable funding sources necessary for construction of school
25
facilities, the EIR acknowledged that cumulative school impacts could be considered
cumulatively significant.
4.2.2 Findinns
The following findings are made with regard to the cumulative impacts of the Project
on schools:
1. Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated
into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility anff '
jurisdiction of the Placentia-Yorba I.inda Unified School
District and not the lead agency making the finding. Such
changes or alterations have been adopted by the Placentia-
Yorba Linda Unified School District, or can and should be
adopted by the Placentia-Yorba Hnda Unified School District.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified by the Placentia-Yorba l.lnda Unified School District
in the Final EIR.
4.2.3 Facts in Su!~port of Findings. The Specific p!an~ the discussion and analysis in
Sections 3.8 and 7.8 of the EIR, and the lead agenc3es written responses to the Placentia-
Yorba Linda Unified School District's comments contained in the Final EIR
(Volume IV--Responses to Comments, Section 3.2.3), provide facts and analysis to support
the foregoing findings and conclusions. The Redevelopment Agency has previously entered
into an agreement with the Placentia-Yorba Hnda Unified School District for the purpose
of offsetting the School District's fiscal detriment associated with commercial and industrial
development within the area. By 1992, payments under that agreement provided the
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District with $18,191,541.00 for capital facilities.
Other changes are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Placentia-Yorba
Linda Unified School District and the State of California. These changes include the School
District electing to continue receiving its share of the property tax as permitted, making
regular and timely applications for State construction funds, pursuing alternate means of
financing schools as those are made available through changes in state law, and using
year-round schedules and double sessions as necessary and appropriate. Also, these changes
include the State continuing to finance construction of new schools and classrooms in
response to enrollment increases.
26
The Placentia-Yorba l ~inda Unified School District presently levies a developer fee
of 27¢ per square foot for new non-residential development. At that rate, new development
within the Specific Plan area alone would eventually contribute over $2.8 million to help
alleviate potential impacts to the District, and it is likely these fees will increase in the
future as costs increase. Accordlng to state law, these fees are considered.adequate
mitigation under CEQA for school impacts from non-residential projects. In order to
monitor compliance in paying the developer fee, the Specific Plan provides the following
mitigation measure:
18.--.040.050 School Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of each
building permit, proof of compliance with state statute(s) (as may be
amended from time to time) relating to school impact fees for the Placentia-
Yorba l.inda Unified School District shall be submitted to the B.~ui. lding
Division of the Pla~ning Department.
The foregoing measures will reduce the project-specific impacts of the Project on
the Placentia-Yorba I.inda Unified School District to a less than si,~nificant level. The
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on the Placentia-Yorba l.~nda Unified School
District may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, but will be mitigated to the
extent allowed by state law. This possibility of potentially significant cumulative impacts to
schools has caused the Anaheim City Council, as a precaution, to consider and make
Findings No. 3 above.
Findings No. 3 will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations as a condition of Project approval.
4.3 Water.
4.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The cumulative impacts of the Project on water are
discussed in Section 7.9 of the EIR.
No significant impacts on regional water resources are anticipated at this time.
However, until there is a statewide drought contingency or management plan, cumulative
impacts of water resources from future growth should still be considered at least potentially
significant.
4.3.2 Findings.
The following findings are made with regard to the entre.dative impacts of the Project
on water,
1. With regard to actions that may be taken at the local level,
changes or alterations have, to the extent feasible, been
required for, or incorporated into, the Project which
27
substantially reduce the sj~ificant effects on the environment
related to water.
2. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the Yorba l.inda Water District and not the lead
agency making the finding. Such changes or alterations have
been adopted by the Yorba l.inda Water District, or can and
should be adopted by the Yorba IJnda Water District.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR. : '
4.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The Specific P!an~ and discussion and analysis in
Sections 3.9 and 7.9 of the EIR, provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings
and conclusions. The Specific Plan's Landscape Plan (Section 3.6) requires all landscaping
to be in accordance with the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance (No. 5349). All
new development will be required to comply with Title 24 and the City's Municipai Code
(Title 10.19) relating to water conservation, and the City's standard project review
procedures require applicants to demonstrate that adequate service can be provided to new
development. The Yorba Hnda Water District serves a 130 acre portion of the Specific
Plan area and is, along with the City and/or Redevelopment Agency, planning certain
improvements to provide adequate long-term water service to planned land uses in the
Specific Plan area.
The possibility of potentially significant cnmulative impacts to water resources
referenced above has caused the Anaheim City Council, as a precaution, to consider and
make Finding No. 3 above. Fhading No. 3 will require the adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
4.4 Solid Waste.
4.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The cnmulative impacts of the Project on solid waste
are discussed in Section 7.9 of the EIR.
Not enough long-term land fill capacity presently exists within the County to
accommodate all future wastes, even with waste reductions that will occur as a result of
AB 939. The County and other regional waste agencies are currently investigating long-term
disposal options, such as rail-haul or additional local land fills. Until the Counggs Solid
Waste Management Plan identifies adequate disposal capacity, solid waste impacts from
cumulative development in the County (and the region) should be considered potentially
significant.
28
4.4.2 Fin._.__~[L~.
The following findings are made with regard to the cumulative impacts of the Project
on solid waste:
2. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other agencies and not the lead agency making
the finding. Such changes or alterations have been adopted by
those agencies, or can and should be adopted by those agehcies.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment oppommities for highly trained workers, make..
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternative~
identified in the Final EIR.
4.4..3 Facts in Support of Findings. The Specific Plan; and discussion and analysis in
Sections 3.9 and 7.9 of the EIR, provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings
and conclusions.
The possibility of potentially significant solid waste c~mulative impacts referenced
above has caused the Anaheim City Council, as a precaution, to consider and make Finding
No. 3 above.' Finding No. 3 will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations as a condition of Project approval.
29
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The EIR has evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project.
Section 4.0 of the EIR provides descriptions and analysis of each alternative in adequate
detail for a decision on whether the alternatives should be adopted in lieu of. the Project,
as well as an analysis of the environmentally superior alternative.
5.1 THE 'NO PROJECT' ALTERNATIVE
Sections 4.2 and 4.4 of the EIR describe and discuss the "No Project" Alternative.
Under the "No Project" Alternative, three scenarios were examined: 1) Existing conditions
(impacts of no additional building) 2) Buildout at moderate General Plan de..nsities; and 3)
Buildout at high General Plan densities.
5.1.1 Existing Conditions
5.1.1.1 Description of Alternative. This alternative examined the impacts of no additional
development of the Specific Plan area. The EIR provided extensive information on existing
(baseline) conditions, which is equivalent to those conditions that would exist if no
additional development occurred. Therefore, the "No Project" Alternative for the EIR
examined not only the impacts of no additional development on the site, but also the
impacts that would occur if no Specific Plan was approved and development continued to
occur according to the present General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. For this analysis,
existing conditions were provided to illnstrate the impacts of not allowing any additional
development within the Specific Plan area.
5.1.1.2 Findings. Based on the administrative record and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make finfeasible the No Project--Existing Conditions Alternative identified in the
EIR.
This finding requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The
Statement of Overriding Considerations is set forth below in Section 6.0.
5.1.1.3 Facts in Supnort of Findings. The mandatory Existing Conditions (no additional
development) Alternative considers the impacts associated with no additional development
beyond what currently exists in the Project Area. This alternative is used to establish a
baseline to which all other alternatives, including the proposed Project, can be compared.
This alternative is included in Section 3. (Environmental Analysis) of the EIR as the
"Environmental Setting" for each impact area.
This alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project,
because it would not generate any additional or new environmental impact. However, this
30
alternative would not achieve the stated goals and objectives of both the Redevelopment
Plan for Project Area Alpha and the Specific Plan, which include eliminating blighthag
conditions, establLqhing the best mix of land uses based on long-range economic planning,
and environmental considerations, providing adequate public services and facilities to all
properties, and improving the overall appearance of the area. Moreover, the Specific Plan
will enhance the integrity and desirability of industrial sites and will in turn lead to the
creation of local job oppommities for skilled workers at those sites. Failure to achieve these
goals and objectives makes this alternative infeasible. However, unavoidable significant
impacts similar to those of the proposed Project would still occur, and this alternative would
not implement many of the project benefits anticipated with implementation of the Specific
Plan.
5.1.2 Low General Plan
5.1.2.1 Description of Alternative. This scenario projects buildout of land uses at the lower
end of intensities than could be built under the General Plan (even though the General Plan
does not contain actual FAR limits). This scenario assumes that industrial uses would be
built out with a floor-to-lot area ratio (FAR) of 0.33, office uses to FAR 0.51, and retail
uses to FAR 0.43. This scenario would have less office and more industrial uses than the
proposed Project. No residential or public uses would be added under this scenario, nor
would a rail station be added within the core area.
5.1.2.2 Findings. Based on the administrative record and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the No-Project--Low General Plan Alternative identified in the
EIR.
This finding requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The
Statement of Overriding Considerations is set forth below in Section 6.0.
5.1.2.3 Facts in Sunport of Findings. The No Project--Low General Plan Alternative has
1.7 million square feet less of buildings and 2,173 fewer employees than the proposed
Project. Therefore, the following impacts will be correspondingly lower: seismicity; land
use; noise, air quality; and utilities.
The following impacts would be similar or equivalent to the proposed Project:
geology; soils; hydrology; cultural/historic resources; public services; public health; and
aesthetics.
Due to the lack of rail stations, a shuttle system and a comprehensive TDM Plan,
traffic, air quality, and noise impacts will be greater than the proposed Project. This
alternative is equivalent to the "Base Case" analyzed in the BAAI traffic study.
31
This alternative would also produce mixed socioeconomic and growth management
impacts. It would produce fewer new employees, create less demand for additional housing,
and less overall growth to manage. The lower intensity of development (-5%) would
probably reduce municipal revenues rather than slightly improving costs to serve the area.
The alternative will produce approximately five percent less consumptive (e.g.,
water) and generafive (e.g., sewer) impacts compared to the proposed Project. However,
it will have greater traffic impacts, primarily due to the lack of the raft stations and shuttle
system. It will also have greater aesthetic impacts as it will not providi a comprehensive
plan for landscaping and other amenities to improve the appearance of the area. This
alternative represents the conditions that would occur if the area was allowed to continue
development at a minimare level "on its own," without a comprehensive plan to eliminate
blight and improve the area. This alternative would also produce less economic benefits to
the City and the Agency due to the lower intensity of development. "'
Because it may involve less total new development, implementation of the No-
Project--Low General Plan Alternative might reduce some of the Project's impacts that can
be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, unavoidable significant impacts
similar to those of the proposed Project would still occur. Moreover, this alternative would
not implement many of the benefits anticipated with implementation of the Specific Plan.
Since this alternative has equivalent impacts and does not meet the goals of the proposed
Project, the No Project--Low General Plan Alternative is rejected in favor of the proposed
Project.
5.1.3 High General Plan
5.1.3.1 Description of Alternative. This scenario projects buildout of land uses with the
same distribution as existing uses, but at higher intensities than could have been built under
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The land uses in this scenario would be the same
as the "Low" scenario, but built out at higher FARs (0.43 for industrial, 0.57 for office, and
0.64 for retail). As with the "low" scenario, no residential or public uses would be added
under this scenario, although its development intensity (FAR) would be sufficient to support
the development of one rail station.
CEQA not only reqnires the analysis of "feasible" alternatives, but alternatives that
reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts caused by the proposed project.
While this alternative does not reduce any potential impacts of the proposed Specific Plan,
it does illustrate the extent of development that could occur based on the existing General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which is why it is included under the "No Project" alternative.
It should be noted that the "high" land use plan selected for analysis in this alternative is not
the maximum that could occur under existing regulations, but was developed based on the
CEQA definition and limitations on "feasible" alternatives.
32
5.1.3.2 Fin~..~!L~gS. Based on the administrative record, the No Project--High General Plan
Alternative is found to be environmentally inferior to the proposed Project and infeasible.
5.1.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The No Project--High General Plan Alternative
would have similar impacts to geology, soils, hydrology, cultural resources, and public health
compared to the proposed Project, mainly bemuse it proposes an equal amount of land to
be developed. It should be noted that this level of development could occur without the
proposed Project, based on the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
This alternative would have increased impacts related to seismicity, land use, public
services, utilities, aesthetics, circulation, noise, and growth management. This is mainly due
to the increased intensity of development, which creates additional buildings and employees
in the area. In particular, this alternative would produce si,~tmificantly more traffic and
resulting noise and air quality impacts to the City, and therefore fails to meet ~e;~eral Project
goals. Further, thi~ alternative would cause increased infrastructure impacts that could not
be adequately mitigated, primarily traffic congestion, which are key reasons for
implementing the proposed Project.
For these reasons, the No Project--High General Plan Alternative is rejected in favor
of the proposed Project.
5.2 COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE
5.2.1 Description of Alternative. Sections 4.2 and 4.4 of the EIR describe and discuss the
Commercial Corridor Alternative. This alternative proposes 60 more acres of retail
commercial uses than the proposed Project. By comparison, it would have 39 less acres of
office uses and 20 less acres of industrial uses compared to the proposed Project. This
alternative does not propose any additional residential or public uses. While its
development intensities (FARs) would be sufficient to support a second rail station (in the
core area), it is not proposed as part of this alternative so that retail uses along the arterials
(such as La Palma and Tnstin) would be better able to take advantage of commuter traffic
patronage.
5.2.2 Findings. Based on the administrative record, the Commercial Corridor Alternative
is found to be environmentally inferior to the proposed Project and infeasible.
5.2.3 Facts in Sul~l~ort of Findings.
The Commercial Corridor Alternative was proposed to address potential land use
and economic constraints of the proposed Project. It would create retail sales corridors
along several major roadways in the Specific Plan area, mainly La Palma Avenue, Miraloma
Avenue, Orangethorpe Avenue, Imperial Highway, Lakeview Avenue, Tnstin Avenue, and
Kraemer Boulevard. While these uses would generate significantly more revenues to the
City and Redevelopment Agency, they would produce significantly more traffic and related
33
noise and air quality impacts. Consumptive and generative impacts would also increase.
The land use and aesthetics of the Specific Plan area would change, although these changes
might not be adverse, only different, depending on the uses that eventually locate in the
area. Only one rail station is envisioned in this alternative. This alternative would have
slightly less impacts on seismicity, and would produce mixed impacts on noise _and some
public services.
While this alternative would meet some of the goals of the Project related to land
use and revenues, it would create significant impacts related to traffic. 'For these reasons,
the Commercial Corridors Alternative is rejected in favor of the proposed Project.
5.3 MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE
5.3.1 Description of Alternative. Sections 4.2 and 4.4 of the EIR describe and discuss the
Mixed Use Alternative. The Mixed Use Alternative proposes 1,200 multi-family dwelling
units in 2 areas along with supporting commercial uses, offices, and parks, with development
in the rest of the Specific Plan area as delineated in the existing General Plan.
5.3.2 Findings. Based on the administrative record and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the Mixed Use Alternative identified in the EIR.
This finding requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The
Statement of Overriding Considerations is set forth below in Section 6.0.
5.3.3 Facts in Su0port of Findings. The Mixed Use Alternative was proposed to
reduce potential land use and socioeconomic impacts. However, it would generate a variety
of impacts that differ from the other alternatives. The two residential areas proposed for
multi-family housing would experience increased traffic and noise, and require additional
public services and utilities. The SR-57/Orangethorpe Avenue interchange would be
significantly affected by thi~ increase in residential traffic, as would the SR-91/Tustin
Avenue interchange by residences in the core area.
Impacts related to the mount of land development would be similar to the
proposed Project, while consumptive and generative impacts would be mixed, depending on
the usage and production factors presented in Section 3.0. The introduction of residential
uses adjacent to the freeway would increase noise, land use, and aesthetic impacts to these
residents. Additional park facilities would be needed, and possibly additional schools (at
least more classroom space) would be required.
Conversely, this alternative would produce some positive socioeconomic benefits by
providing housing at densities considered affordable by the state (m/nlmnm 25 units per
acre), especially in an area that provides a variety of employment opportunities.
34
While this alternative provides a more complete mix of land uses, it creates a variety
of impacts primarily related to compatibility of uses with the constraints of this area. Many
of the reasons this area is appropriate for industrial uses precludes, or at least restricts, its
appropriateness for residential uses.
For these reasons, the Mixed Use Alternative is rejected in favor of the proposed
Project.
5.4 ALTERNATIVE SITES
5.4.1 Description of Alternative. As noted in Section 4.1 of the EIR an alternative sites
analysis examines if or where there are sites that are more appropriate and available for the
proposed Project. The EIR determined that alternative sites for the Project ~re infeasible.
5.4.2 Findings. Based on the administrative record, alternative sites for the Project are
found to be infeasible.
5.4.3 Facts in Support of Findings.
In an analysis of alternatives, CEQA often requires an examination of other sites
that could feasibility support the proposed project. This requirement is usually applied to
proposed development projects, rather than to programs or guidelines. However, to the
extent that the proposed Project is a plan for development, it is instructive to investigate the
potential for alternative sites, and determine if they are feasible for this Project according
to CEQA guidelines.
The proposed Spedtic Plan covers over 2,500 acres of industrial land, although
almost 95 percent of the land is already developed. Similar specific plans might also be
developed for the other three industrial areas in the City (Central, Freeway, and Stadium).
However, they would have to be modified extensively to accommodate local conditions, and
in the end would probably not resemble the proposed Specific Plan. Like the Northeast
area, the other three local industrial areas are already mostly built out, but none has the
unique location and infrastructure conditions found in the Northeast Area. In addition, new
redevelopment plans would have to be prepared to assist in the development of these areas,
whereas the Northeast area already has the Alpha Redevelopment Project in place on over
90 percent of its land.
A key consideration in the analysis of potential alternative sites is the fact that the
proposed Project was developed specifically for the Northeast property. It provides an
optimum mix and types of land uses for this property, and would be much less appropriate
for or applicable to any other area in the City. This constraint also applies to industrial land
in neighboring jurisdictions.
35
CE(~A allows for an analysis of alternatives sites that are "owned" by an applicant
but are outside o£ the jurisdiction in which the current project is proposed. While some
portions of the proposed Specific Plan document could be applied by some other
organization to land outside of the City, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency could not
legally expend funds or develop plans for lands outside o£ the City. Even though. there are
similar industrial areas to the east in Yorba I.inda, and to the west in Fullerton, the
proposed Specific Plan would not be feasible for these areas.
Finally, application of the proposed Project to some other area'would not help the
City achieve its goals for this area, and would allow existing blighthag conditions to continue.
For these reasons, alternative sites are not feasible relative to the proposed Project, and
were not analyzed in detail in this EIR.
36
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As discussed above in the Statement of Findings of Fact, the City Council has
determined that even with the Project's adherence to existing City policies and.standards
and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, certain impacts of the Project will continue
to be, or will potentially be, significant. These unavoidably significant impacts are discussed
above in Section 4.0 of this document. As directed by Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, the City Council has weighed these significant unavoidable adverse impacts
against the benefits of the Project and finds that the benefits of the Project, summarized
below, render the s~.?ificant unavoidable environmental impacts acceptable, and that the
Project should be approved despite these impacts.
Accordingly, the City Council hereby adopts the following Stateme~i ~f Overriding
Considerations based on information in the Final EIR and on other information in the
record. The City Council recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts will result
from implementation of the Project. Having: (1) adopted all feasible mitigation measures,
(2) rejected as infeasible the alternatives to the Project discussed above, (3) recognized all
significant, unavoidable impacts, and (4) balanced the benefits of the Project against the
Project's significant and unavoidable effects, the City Council hereby finds that the benefits
outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effects for the reasons stated below.
The reasons discussed below summarize the benefits, goals, and objectives of the
proposed Project, and provide, in addition to the above findings, the detailed rationale for
the Project. These overriding considerations of economic, social, aesthetic, and
environmental benefits for the Northeast Area Specific Plan outweigh its environmental
costs and justify adoption of the Project and certification of the Final EIR. Each of these
overriding considerations individually would be sufficient to outweigh the unavoidably
si~i~qcant impacts of the Project.
In evaluating each of the overriding considerations and comparing them to the
unavoidably significant impacts, the City Council has considered all of the information
contained in the EIR, recommendations of the City of Anaheim's Community
Redevelopment Commission, Anaheim Planning Commission and Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency, public comments, and other doc~ments, testimony and proceedings in connection
with this matter. In some cases, commentators on the EIR and the Project have suggested
that environmental impacts of the Project may be greater in some respects than those
identified in the EIR. Except as acknowledged in the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency's
responses to the comments and in these findings, the Anaheim City Council does not agree
with these suggestions. The City Council hereby finds and determines, however, that even
if all of the suggested impacts were assumed to occur, those impacts would still be
outweighed by and found acceptable in light of the overriding considerations set forth below.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City Council finds specifically
with respect to impacts of the Project on schools (which were determined in Section 3.8.3
37
and 4.2 above in these Findings to be not significant), that even if the schools impacts were
significant, as was suggested by the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, such
impacts would still be outweighed and overridden by the considerations outlined below in
this Section 6, and the Project would still be approved without any additional mitigation
measures (there would be no feasible mitigation measures which would not reduce the
viability of and anticipated economic benefits from the Project).
Finally, it should be noted that the potential environmental impacts associated with
adoption and implementation of the Northeast Area Specific Plan have ~been overstated in
the EIR, which considered the impacts of all future development under the Specific Plan,
rather than merely the incremental development above and beyond that which would be
permitted under existing land use designations. None of the City Council's findings and
analyses, however, relies on this fact. The City Council has taken the very conservative
(worst-case) approach of considering the impacts of all future developme'h/within the
Specific Plan area to be impacts associated with this Project.
6.1 PROMOTE A MORE MARKET RESPONSIVE MIX OF USES
Currently, under the City's Zoning Code, except for a small area along Imperial
Highway, the entire Specific Plan area is zoned for industrial uses. With thl.q limitation and
to accommodate a mix of business and support service uses, the City processed a si,?ificant
roLmbet of Conditional Use Permits. The Northeast Area Specific Plan proposes land use
zone changes to better accommodate a market-driven mix of businesses anticipated in the
next two decades.
The Specific Plan adoption process will include an amendment to the General Plan
Land Use Map. The addition of designated office and retail areas will make it possible for
the Northeast Area to more efficiently accommodate a healthy, market responsive mix of
uses.
6.2 PROVIDE A LONG-RANGE, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING APPROACH
TO SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
The Specific Plan area currently consists of a patchwork of industrial-related service
uses, corporate headquarters, and business parks in addition to limited retail and office uses
distributed throughout the area. While many existing uses are successful enterprises, there
is little cohesivehess or consistency among developments, particularly with regard to
transportation corridor landscape treatments and land uses.
The Northeast Area Specific Plan lays out a long-range, comprehensive planning
approach to a significant development which cannot be accomplished on a parcel-by-parcel
basis. This comprehensive approach provides the necessary flexibility for success as well as
consistency with City policies, sensitivity to existing conditions, a program to provide the
38
necessary infrastructure for the Project, and a phased development program designed to be
responsive to the dynamic and changing Southern California economy.
6.3 PROVISION OF VISUAL AMENITIES
The Specific Plan area currently presents a visually confusing identity due to varying
architectural quality, the presence of overhead utilities, and the lack of consistent
landscaping. The Specific Plan provides a Corridor Landscape Enhancement Program to
enhance the overall appearance of the Specific Plan area. The Landscape Plan includes
enhanced standards for arterial streets, including the landscaping of private frontage, parking
areas, and public rights-of-way. In addition, the 91 Freeway edge is to be enhanced to
improve the image of the area. The Landscape Plan will be a major factor contributing
toward the visual unification of the Specific Plan area. ., ·
6.4 INCREASED REVENUES FOR CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND SCHOOL
By encouraging quality development in an aesthetically enhanced environment, the
Northeast Area Specific Plan wiI1 produce substantial beneficial fiscal impacts. The Project
will directly generate revenues in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, and
miscellaneous taxes and fees to the City of Anaheim, the County of Orange, and the State
of California, and school fees to the Placentia-Yorba Linda School District.
6.5 PROVISION FOR NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The Northeast Area Specific Plan makes provision for various infrastructure
improvements. The planned area improvements provided under the Specific Plan are
proposed to include aesthetics, circulation, and storm drain upgrades. These improvements
are planned to be coordinated with development within the Specific Plan area. Proposed
improvements will be phased to coincide with area needs, consistent with the pace of
development in the Specific Plan area. Without the coordination, planning and
implementation measures provided in connection with the Northeast Area Specific Plan,
these improvements would not be provided or, at best, would be provided to a lesser extent
and in a less coordinated fashion.
6.6 STREAMLINED ENTITLEMENT PROCEDURE
The current Anaheim General Plan designates the entire Northeast Area for
General Industrial development. Although exceptions to the industrial land use designation
are allowed under the City's Zoning Code, this method of encouraging a diversity of
business activity in the Specific Plan area through issuance of Conditional Use Permits has
proven inefficient and time consuming.
39
The Northeast Area Specific Plan is a comprehensive document to guide future
development in the Specific Plan Area. It contains specialized standards and guidelines that
will create a high quality business and employment environment. The Northeast Area
Specific Plan is consistent with previously-established City policies for the Specific Plan area,
including those policies related to public facilities.
The Northeast Area Specific Plan and its accompanying Environmental Impact
Report reduce and/or streamline the need for subsequent and potentially overlapping
planning and environmental review. The Northeast Area Specific~ Plan provides all
necessary regulations and documentation for the project area such that future development
proposals (subdivision maps, site plans, grading plans and other discretionary permits) which
are consistent with the Specific Plan may be processed without additional environmental
documentation. The EIR will serve as a "project" EIR with respect to development within
the scope and conditions anticipated by the EIR. (For development projects which do not
come within the conditions and parameters analyzed in the EIR, additional environmental
documentation may be necessary.) The preparation and certification of the Final EIR will
greatly reduce the cost and time required to process a development project within the
Specific Plan area, and therefore will promote the City's goals of job growth and economic
revitalization for the area.
6.7 FACILITATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PI_AN
The Northeast Area Specific Plan has been designed to meet the goals of the City
of Anaheim General Plan and Redevelopment Project Alpha. The Northeast Area Specific
Plan will implement the General Plan through the incorporation of following goals:
Establishing the best m/x of land uses based on long-range economic,
planning, and environmental considerations;
Improving the marketability of existing land uses;
Redeveloping and improving underutilized parcels;
Optimizing municipal revenues from sales and property taxes;
Generating sufficient revenue to fund necessary public improvements;
Establishing appropriate mechanisms to fund improvements;
Providing adequate public services and facilities to all properties;
Improving the overall appearance of the area;
40
Protecting and enhancing the integrity and desirability of industrial sites
within the planned industrial areas of the community; and
Establishing a blueprint to facilitate a dynamic mix of uses and ensure
compatibility between the various elements by creating a distinctive public-
realm and a pedestrian-oriented employment setting.
The overall objectives of the General Plan will be met through adoption of the Northeast
Area Specific Plan which provides the regulatory framework to foster the development of
a well-designed, high-quality business and employment complex which meets the needs of
a growing population and is compatible with existing and future surrounding land uses. The
Northeast Area Specific Plan contains the following detailed elements:
Design guidelines for architecture, landscaping, and public facilities.'almed
at creating a distinctive public realm and a pedestrian-oriented employment
setting;
Zoning and development standards which, through flexibility, will provide
for a market-responsive development pattern in line with local and regional
growth projections;
A land Use Plan that promotes successful enterprises within the Specific
Plan area and focuses on the expansion, upgrading, or conversion of blighted
areas and dilapidated businesses;
A Circulation Plan which allows efficient movement of people, goods and
services within, through and around the Specific Plan area;
A Landscape Plan which provides continuity within the Specific Plan area,
focusing on arterials, intersections, freeways, and critical development
potentials;
A Public Services and Facilities Plan which meets the needs of the Specific
Plan area with adequate resources delivered by all local service providers;
and
An Implementation Plan which is sensitive to market constraints, maximizes
municipal revenues, and optimizes infrastructure expenditures.
6.8 REASONABLE CONTROLS ON DEVELOPMENT
The Northeast Area Specific Plan proposes to allow only the addition of 7.5 million
square feet of building area to the existing inventory of 21.8 million square feet, for a
buildout of 29.3 million square feet. The Specific Plan anticipates that this additional
building area will be provided in several ways.
41
Approximately 3.3 million square feet of existing buildings will be replaced by new
development. New construction will account for approximately 10.8 million square feet of
building area, a total which includes replacement of the 3.3 million square feet and the
addition of 7.5 million square feet of building area.
6.9 A TOOL TO GUIDE REDEVELOPMENT
The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency proposed the Northeast. Area Specific Plan
to effectively plan for land use and other development requirements in and around the
Northeast Area of Redevelopment Project Alpha. As a regulatory document for portions
of the Northeast Area of Redevelopment Project Alpha, the Specific Plan controls the
distribution, location, and extent of land uses, including industrial, commercial, public
facilities, and open space. In addition, the Northeast Area Specific Plan-regulates the
location of major circulation components and other essential facilities necessary to serve the
area. Furthermore, the Specific Plan establishes design and development standards for new
development and includes criteria for the review of State Subdivision Map Act submittals.
6.10 DETERRENCE OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE 'NO PROJECT'
ALTERNATIVE
Without adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan, commercial and industrial
properties in the Specific Plan area would continue to develop on a parcel-by-parcel basis
without an identity program, enhanced design and development standards, or coordinated
infrastructure planning. The piecemeal development that would occur, in conjunction with
the loss of municipal revenues that would be realized with development in the Specific Plan
area, would significantly detract from the attractiveness and economic vitality of the Specific
Plan area.
Given the current economic situation, adequate public funds may not be available
for capital infrastructure improvements. The result of preventing improvements and
reinvestment to the Specific Plan area may be severe. Without reinvestment and
maintenance, existing businesses may close and new development would be inhibited. It is
reasonable to assume that a halt in investment and improvement would result in a loss of
attractiveness and thus a decline in businesses locating in the Specific Plan area. This in
turn results in a further decline in the attractiveness of the Specific Plan area, and
deterioration of the infrastructure and economic vitality of the Specific Plan area.
42