RES-2013-150RESOLUTION NO.2 013 - 150
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ADOPT FINDINGS AND A
CONSIDERATIONS AND
PROGRAM 122A FOR TF
REZONING PROJECT
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT NO. 2012 -00346 AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
MITIGATION MONITORING
E HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
(DEV2012- 00118)
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2004 -94 adopted on May 25, 2004, the City
Council of the City of Anaheim ( "City Council ") certified Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 ( "FEIR No. 330 "), adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in
connection therewith, and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 112, which collectively
constituted the environmental documentation under and pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended ( "CEQA "), and the State of California Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA Guidelines ") relating to a
comprehensive update of the General Plan for the City of Anaheim ( "2004 General Plan
Update "); and,
WHEREAS, since the adoption of the 2004 General Plan Update, forty -two (42)
separate General Plan Amendments have been approved by the City Council, including the 2006-
2013 Housing Element; and,
WHEREAS, the 2006 -2013 Housing Element contains Housing Production
Strategy IV: Rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites, which commits the City to develop an
approach to allow "by- right" residential development on non - residentially -zoned properties that
are designated for residential land use by the General Plan and have a strong development or
redevelopment potential to accommodate housing affordable to low and moderate income
households ( "Opportunity Sites "); and,
WHEREAS, a new version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model ( "ATAM ")
was approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority ( "OCTA ") in March, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, Senate Bill ( "SB ") 97 was signed into law on August 24, 2007,
requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be analyzed under CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, SB 226 was signed into law on October 4, 2011, allowing cities to
utilize various CEQA streamlining provisions for infill projects; and,
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project, identified as the Housing Opportunities
Rezoning Project, would implement the Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing
Opportunity Sites contained in the 2006 -2013 Housing Element and consists of (i) updating
Tables LU -5: Residential Buildout Estimates and LU -6: Non- Residential Build -Out Estimates of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan to reflect the 42 General Plan amendments that have
been adopted since the 2004 General Plan Update (herein referred to as "General Plan
Amendment No. 2013- 00488 "); (ii) amending the Zoning Code (herein referred to as "Zoning
Code Amendment No. 2013 - 00110 "); and (iii) amending the Zoning Map (herein referred to as
"Reclassification No. 2013- 00255 "); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency"
for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Housing Opportunities
Rezoning Project; and,
WHEREAS, Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code sets forth the
circumstances under which a supplemental environmental impact report ( "SEIR ") shall be
prepared; and,
WHEREAS, the City has determined that a SEIR is the appropriate environmental
documentation for the Proposed Project because of the changes that have occurred since FEIR
No. 330 was certified in 2004; and,
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for EIR No. 2012 -00346 and the
Proposed Project's initial study were distributed to the public on October 15, 2012. The public
review period for the initial study ended on November 16, 2012. The City held a public scoping
meeting on November 7, 2012 to provide members of the public with an opportunity to learn
about the Proposed Project, ask questions and provide comments about the scope and content of
the information to be addressed in Draft EIR No. 2012- 00346; and,
WHEREAS, Draft EIR No. 2012 -00346 was made available for a 45 -day public
review period from July 15, 2013 through August 28, 2013. The Notice of Availability
( "NOA "), which also included noticing for the public hearing before the Planning Commission
of the City of Anaheim ( "Planning Commission ") and a tentative date for the public hearing
before the City Council, was sent to a list of interested persons, agencies and organizations, as
well as property owners with properties subject to Reclassification No. 2013 - 00255. The Notice
of Completion ( "NOC ") was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to
public agencies. Copies of Draft EIR No. 2013 -00346 were made available for public review at
the City of Anaheim Planning Department and at the Anaheim Central Library. Draft EIR No.
2012 -00346 was also made available for download via the City's website; and,
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and
consider evidence and testimony concerning the contents and sufficiency of Draft EIR No. 2012-
00346 and for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings in
connection therewith; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission did receive
evidence and reports, including all written and verbal comments received during the 45 -day
public review period concerning the contents and sufficiency of Draft EIR No. 2012 - 00346, and
did adopt its Resolution No. PC2013 -0064 containing a report of its findings, a summary of the
evidence presented at said hearing, and recommending that the City Council (a) certify Draft EIR
No. 2012 -00346 as the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed
Project, (b) determine that Draft EIR No. 2012 -00346 fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, and is adequate to serve as the
environmental documentation for the Proposed Project, and (d) adopt Findings and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program 122A for the Proposed
Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the comments received from public agencies
and persons who reviewed Draft EIR No. 2012 -00346 and has prepared responses to the
comments received during the public review period; and,
WHEREAS, in conformance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City has prepared, or caused to be
prepared, (a) Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to Draft EIR No.
2012 - 00346, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as
though set forth in full, and (b) Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 122A relating to Draft EIR
No. 2012- 00346, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference
as though set forth in full; and,
WHEREAS, in conformance with Sections 15132 and 15362(b) of the CEQA
Guidelines, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 2012 -00346 ( "Final EIR No.
2012 - 00346 ") consists of Draft EIR No. 2012 - 00346; comments and recommendations received
on Draft EIR No. 2012 -00346 (either verbatim or in summary); a list of persons, organizations
and public agencies that submitted comments on Draft EIR No. 2012- 00346; and the responses
of the City, as "lead agency ", to significant points raised in the review and consultation process,
and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. I22A; and,
WHEREAS, upon receipt of said Resolution No. PC2013 -0064, summary of
evidence, report of findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council
did fix the 24th day of September, 2013, as the time, and the City Council Chamber in the Civic
Center, as the place, for a public hearing on the Proposed Project and for the purpose of
considering Final EIR No. 2012 - 00346, and did give notice thereof in the manner and as
provided by law; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments (if any) of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Proposed Project, including potential environmental impacts addressed in Draft
EIR No. 2012- 00346, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 122A; and,
WHEREAS, to the extent authorized by law, the City desires and intends to use
Final EIR No. 2012 -00346 as the environmental documentation required by CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual for the Proposed Project.
3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Anaheim as follows:
1. Final EIR No. 2012 -00346 prepared for the Proposed Project has been
completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, all applicable CEQA Guidelines and
the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual.
2. The City Council has carefully reviewed and considered the information
contained in Final EIR No. 2012 -00346 prior to acting upon the Proposed Project.
3. Final EIR No. 2012 -00346 reflects the independent judgment and analysis
of the City Council and the City of Anaheim.
4. Based on the information contained in Final EIR No. 2012- 00346, the City
Council finds that Final EIR No. 2012 -00346 provides an adequate assessment of the potentially
significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and required and related discretionary
actions.
5. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A , which documents and supports
the conclusion that even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures
recommended in Final EIR No. 2012 - 00346, it is infeasible to reduce certain impacts of the
Proposed Project to a level of insignificance, and which further sets forth the overriding benefits
of the Proposed Project, which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Proposed
Project. Accordingly, the City Council finds and determines that the Proposed Project's benefits
outweigh the adverse impacts.
6. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program 122A,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B , as the mitigation- monitoring program for the Proposed
Project.
Based on all of the foregoing, the City Council hereby certifies Final EIR
No. 2012 - 00346.
%%
///
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Anaheim this24t1day of September , 2013, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Tait, Council Members MUrray, Brandman and Kring
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Eastman
ABSTAIN: None
CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAYOR OF THE C TY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NAHEIM
97626v2 /TReynolds
5
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO DRAFT EIR NO. 2012-00346
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF ANAHEIM
HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES
SITES REZONING
PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
SCH # 2003041105
prepared for
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Contact:
Susan Kim, AICP
Senior Planner
prepared ig.
THE PLANNING
CENTER /DC &E
Contact:
William Halligan, Esq.
Vice Principal,
Environmental Services
SEPTEMBER 2013
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OFANAHEIM
HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES
SITES REZONING
PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
SCH # 2003041 105
prepared for.•
CITY OF ANAHEIM
City of Anaheim Contact.
Planning Department Susan Kim, AICP
200 South Anaheim Boulevard Senior Planner
Anaheim, CA 92805
prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTER /DCBE
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Contact:
Santa Ana, CA 92707 William Halligan, Esq.
Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Vice Principal,
E -mail: information @planningcenter.com _Environmental Services
Website: www.planningcenter.com
COA -57
SEPTEMBER 2013
This page intentionally left blank
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Summary ............................................................................................... ............................1 -1
1.1 Findings of fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ......................................... ............................1 -1
1.2 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... ............................1 -3
1.3 Project Summary .............................................................................................................. ............................1 -4
1.4 Document Format ............................................................................................................ ............................1 -6
2. Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the Draft EIR ........................................ ............................2 -1
2.1 Summary of Project Alternatives ..................................................................................... ............................2 -1
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the DEIR/FEIR ............ 3 -1
3.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... ............................3 -1
3.2 Greenhouse gas emissions ................................................................................................ ............................3 -6
3.3 Noise ................................................................................................................................ ............................3 -9
3.4 Traffic and Circulation .................................................................................................... ...........................3 -13
4.
Statement of Overriding Considerations ..........................................................................
-1
4.1
............................4
Significant Unavoidable
Adverse Impacts ....................................................................... ............................4
-1
4.2
Considerations in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations ...................... ............................4
-4
4.3
Conclusion
....................................................................................................................... ............................4
-5
5. References ........................................................................................................................ ............................5 -1
September 2013
The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page i
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
September 2093
Page ii • The Planning Center DC &F
Tntroduction and Summary
This document presents findings that must be made by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the
project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA the Lead Agency (City
of Anaheim) is required to make written findings concerning each alternative and each significant
environmental impact identified in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR)
and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( FSEIR). The City of Anaheim may find that:
■ changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the DSEIR/FSEIR;
such changes or alterations are within the purview and jurisdictions of another agency
and have been adopted, or can and should be adopted, by that agency; or
■ specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the DSEIR/FSEIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
Evidence from the DSEIR, FSEIR, mitigation monitoring program (MMP), and City's General Plan
is used to meet these criteria.
1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub Resc. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the State
CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder,
require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved.
Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR
has been completed which identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or
more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by
a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings
are:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects on the environment.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 1-
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction and Summary
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can or 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 infeasible
the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making
the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with
identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(1), the agency shall
also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it
has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid
or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures
must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the
documents or other materials which constitute the record of the
proceedings upon which its decision is based.
The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the
project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370,
including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
-- --- - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- --- - - - - -- -
Page 1 -2 • The Planning Center I DC&F_ September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction and Summary
Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether
to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposal project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental
effects may be considered "acceptable ".
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least
substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific
reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other
information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency
also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3).
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination.
Having received, reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(FSEIR) for the Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project, State Clearinghouse No.
2003041105, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the
following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings) are hereby adopted by
the City of Anaheim (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the
environmental basis for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City
and responsible agencies for the implementation of the Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites
Rezoning Project (Proposed Project).
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
On May 25, 2004, the Anaheim City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 330
( "2004 Certified EIR ") as the environmental documentation for a comprehensive General Plan and
Zoning Code Update. As part of these actions, General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -00419 was
adopted for the General Plan Update and Ordinance No. 5920 was introduced to amend the Zoning
Code in its entirety. On June 8, 2004, the Anaheim City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance
No. 5920 for the Zoning Code Update. As part of amending the Zoning Code in its entirety, this
ordinance added Chapter 18.32, Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone, to the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Together, these actions are referred to as the "2004 Approved Project."
Since certification of EIR No. 330 for the 2004 Approved Project, a number of changes have
occurred including:
1. 42 separate General Plan amendments have been adopted;
2. A new version of the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) was approved by the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in March 2012;
September 2013 The Planning Center) DC&E • Page 1 -3
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction and Summary
3. Senate Bill (SB) 97 was signed in to law requiring that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
be analyzed in a CEQA document; and
4. SB 226 was signed in to law allowing cities to utilize various CEQA streamlining
provisions for infill projects.
As a result, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) is required to update the 2004
Certified EIR and provide CEQA clearance for the Proposed Project.
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Anaheim CEQA
Guidelines, the City of Anaheim conducted an extensive environmental review of the Proposed
Project. The environmental review process has included the following:
■ Completion of an Initial Study by the City of Anaheim, which concluded that a SEIR
should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) which was released for a 30 -day
public review period from October 15, 2012 to November 16, 2012. Section 2.2 of the Draft
SEIR (DSEIR) describes the issues identified for analysis through the Initial Study, Notice of
Preparation and public scoping process.
■ Completion of a scoping process in which the public and public agencies were invited by
the City of Anaheim to participate. The scoping meeting for the SEIR was held on November
7, 2012.
Preparation of a DSEIR by the City of Anaheim, which was made available for a 45 -day
public review period (July 15, 2013 — August 28, 2013). The DSEIR consisted of two
volumes. Volume I contains the text of the DSEIR. Volume II contains the Appendices,
including the NOP, responses to the NOP and analysis of the following subjects: air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation and traffic. Notice of the availability of
the DSEIR was sent to interested persons and organizations: it was also published in three
newspapers of general circulation, and was posted at the Office of the Clerk of Orange
County.
Preparation of a Final SEIR ( FSEIR), including the Comments and Responses to
Comments on the Draft EIR. The FSEIR contains the following: comments on the DSEIR;
responses to those comments; revisions to the DSEIR; and appended documents. The FSEIR
was released for a 10 day public review period on September 13, 2013.
■ City of Anaheim Planning Commission hearing on September 9, 2013 and a City Council
hearing on September 24, 2013.
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Proposed Project is comprised of three main elements:
Pa ,ge 14 • The Planning Center I DC &E
September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction and Summary
The City proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties
identified as Opportunities Sites in the 2006 -2014 Housing Element. The overlay zone added
to the subject properties would be consistent with each property's existing General Plan
designation. Therefore, the project will not result in increased residential densities beyond
those anticipated by the City's adopted General Plan. The subject properties and the proposed
Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in Tables 3 -3 and 3 -4.
In addition, the City proposes a Code amendment to permit residential development "by-
right" on designated Housing Opportunity Sites in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The
addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties and the proposed Code amendment
would implement the Housing Element's Housing Production Strategy 1 V: Rezoning of
Housing Opportunities Sites. Properties identified with an "a" (e.g., 12a) are sites that were
not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an Opportunity Site and are also
proposed for rezoning.
2. The City proposes to facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resources
Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain
criteria to be exempt from CEQA. The City would facilitate the Statutory Infill Housing
Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by
Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential
development by the General Plan In addition, the City may utilize the SB 226 CEQA
streamlining provisions that went into effect January 1, 2013.
3. The City proposes to update General Plan Land Use Element Tables LU -5: Residential
Buildout Estimates and LU -6: Non - Residential Build -Out Estimates to reflect all General
Plan amendments that have been adopted since the City's General Plan was adopted in May
2004, as shown on Table 3 -5.
The Proposed Project would not change any of the existing land use designations in the Anaheim
General Plan. Please refer to Chapter 3 of the DSEIR, Project Description for additional information
regarding the Proposed Project.
1.3.1 Project Objectives
The following objectives have been established for the Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites
Rezoning Project ( "Proposed Project ") and will aid decision - makers in their review of the Proposed
Project, its associated environmental impacts, and Alternatives:
• Provide for the implementation of the Housing Element's Housing Production Strategy
IV, to rezone properties identified as Housing Opportunities Sites in the 2006 -2014
General Plan Housing Element and amend the Mixed -Use Overlay Zone, in order to
facilitate "by right" housing development at these locations.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 1 -5
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction and Summary
• Facilitate future use of the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption and Senate Bill (SB) 226
streamlining allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by
providing updated community level environmental review.
Provide an update of General Plan Land Use Element Table LU -5: Residential Build -Out
Estimates and Table LU -6: Non - Residential Build -Out Estimates to reflect all General
Plan amendments that have been adopted since the City's General Plan was adopted in
May 2004.
1.4 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This document summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project, describes how these
impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the proposed project which were
developed in an effort to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are
considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.
This document is divided into the following five sections:
Section 1.0 — Introduction and Summary;
2. Section 2.0 — Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental
Impact Report;
Section 3.0 — Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
Identified in the DSEIR/FSEIR;
4. Section 4.0 — Statement of Overriding Considerations;
Section 5.0 — References.
Section 2.0, Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report,
presents alternatives to the project considered and rejected in the 2004 Certified EIR and evaluates
them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant
environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of the specific
economic, social, or other considerations. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the adopted
General Plan, and various alternatives to the 2004 Approved Project were already considered as part
of the 2004 Certified EIR, no additional alternatives to the Proposed Project are considered
necessary as part of this SEIR. Therefore, these alternatives are provided for informational purposes
only.
Section 3.0, Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the
DSEIR/FSEIR, presents significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the
FEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the MMP, the findings for the impacts, and the rationales
for the findings.
Page 1 -6 • The Planning Center I DO &E
September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction and Summary
Section 4.0, Statement of Overriding Considerations, presents the overriding considerations for
significant impacts related to the project that cannot be or have not been mitigated or resolved. These
considerations are required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require
decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
risk in determining whether to approve the project.
Section 5.0, References, identifies all references cited in this document.
September 2013
The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 1 -7
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOP AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
1. Introduction and Summary
This page intentionally left blank.
1'a ,ge 9 -8 • The Planning Center I llC&E
.September 2013
2. Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the Draft EIR
The following discussion is intended to provide a summary of the alternatives considered and
rejected in the 2004 Certified EIR, including the "No- Project" /Existing General Plan Alternative, the
Reduced Intensity Alternative, and the Corridors Alternative.
The Proposed Project proposes to add one of two possible overlay zones to certain properties
identified as Opportunities Sites in the 2006 -2014 General Plan Housing Element ( "Housing
Element "). The overlay zone added to the subject properties would be consistent with each
property's General Plan designation. The subject properties and the proposed Mixed Use and
Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones are identified in Tables 3 -3 and 3 -4 in the DSEIR. The
addition of the overlay zones to the subject properties would implement the Housing Element's
Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunities Sites. Properties identified
with an "a" (e.g., 12a) are sites that were not identified in the Housing Element but are adjacent to an
Opportunity Site and are proposed for rezoning.
The 2004 Certified EIR identified air quality, noise, and traffic and circulation as significant
unavoidable adverse impacts of the 2004 Approved Project. These impacts are also significant for
the Proposed Project. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the adopted General Plan, and
various alternatives to the 2004 Approved Project were already considered as part of the 2004
Certified EIR, no additional alternatives to the Proposed Project are considered necessary as part of
this SEIR. Therefore, the following Alternatives analyzed in the 2004 Certified EIR are provided
here for informational purposes only.
2.1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA states that an EIR must address "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives." (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15126.6(a).) As described in Section 8.0 of the
2004 Certified EIR, three project alternatives were identified during the scoping process and
analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the 2004 Approved Project:
No- Project/Existing (Pre -2004 Adopted Project) General Plan Alternative
Corridors Alternative
Reduced Intensity Alternative
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 2 -1
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
2. Findings on Project Alternatives
2.1.1 "No- Project" /Existing General Plan Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of
the "No- Project" Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory
plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the No- Project Alternative will be the continuation of the plan,
policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, as
required by the CEQA Guidelines, analyzed the effects of continued implementation of the City's
previous (Pre -2004 Adopted Project) General Plan. This alternative assumed the previous General
Plan would remain as the adopted long -range planning policy document for the City. Development
would continue to occur within the City in accordance with the previous General Plan, Zoning Code,
and specific plans. Buildout pursuant to the previous General Plan would allow current development
patterns to remain. The previous General Plan would not allow for mixed -use developments within
The Platinum Triangle, including residential units, as envisioned in the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Code Update. In addition, previous policy would allow more residential development within
the Hill and Canyon Area, including more development within the Mountain Park Specific Plan
(7,966 dwelling units versus 2,500 dwelling units) and the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan (1,650
dwelling units versus designated open space). The No- Project /Existing General Plan and Zoning
Code Update Alternative would provide 2,338 fewer dwelling units, increase population by 14,736
fewer persons, and provide 14,082 fewer jobs within the City at buildout, as compared to the 2004
Approved Project.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make the No Project /Existing General Plan Alternative infeasible. Public
Resources Code § 21081[a][3], Guidelines § 15091[a][3]).
The City Council finds that the "No- Project" /Existing General Plan Alternative is infeasible and
rejects this Alternative for the following reasons:
■ This Alternative would not achieve many of the objectives established for the project.
■ This Alternative would not protect open space resources in the Hill and Canyon Area.
■ This Alternative would not locate a wide -range of housing opportunities in close
proximity to regional employment and activity centers.
■ This Alternative would have greater environmental impacts than the proposed project in
the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, police and fire, population and
housing, recreation, and transportation and traffic due to the increased intensity of
development.
■ Unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, noise and transportation/traffic would still
occur and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required.
Page 2 -2 -The Planning Center I DC&E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
2. Findings on Project Alternatives
Greenhouse gas emissions were not specifically addressed in the 2004 Certified EIR,
however, they would also be significant under this alternative.
2.1.2 The Corridors Alternative
The Corridors Alternative does not represent a drastic change from the Recommended Land Use
Alternative in terms of the goals and policies that would be defined through the General Plan and
Zoning Code Update. This Alternative would take advantage of existing and potential transportation
linkages throughout the City by assuming that four major transit routes for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
would be established to traverse portions of the City. The first, located along the entire length of La
Palma Avenue, would connect the Hill and Canyon Area and The Canyon to the North Central
Industrial Area and West Anaheim. In addition, this Alternative assumes another major east -west
transit route along Katella Avenue, and two north -south routes along Beach Boulevard and Harbor
Boulevard. This Alternative would provide an additional 29,052 dwelling units, increase population
by 44,261 persons, and provide 67,529 additional jobs within the City at buildout, as compared to
the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update. The additional units, population, and
employment are related to the potential for increased mixed use opportunities along transit routes.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make The Corridors Alternative infeasible. Public Resources Code §
21081[a][31, Guidelines § 15091[a][3]).
The City Council finds that the Corridors Alternative is infeasible and rejects this Alternative for the
following reasons:
■ This Alternative would not achieve many of the objectives established for the project.
■ This Alternative would have greater environmental impacts than the proposed project in
the areas of air quality, biological impacts, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, police and
fire, population and housing, public services and utilities, recreation, transportation and
traffic due to the increased intensity of development.
■ Unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, noise and transportation/traffic would still
occur and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required.
Greenhouse gas emissions were not specifically addressed in the 2004 Certified EIR,
however, they would also be significant under this alternative.
2.1.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the remaining growth potential associated with the
2004 Approved Project by 20 percent. The 20 percent reduction was based on the total remaining
buildout potential of the 2004 Adopted Project as compared to existing land uses and applied on a
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 2 -3
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
2. Findings on Project Alternatives
City -wide basis. This Alternative would reduce total dwelling units at buildout by 5,474, decrease
population at buildout by 13,215 persons, and provide 9,804 fewer jobs at buildout, as compared to
the 2004 Approved Project. Land use designations would remain the same, although allowable
intensities would be reduced. Other components of the project, including creation of a Mixed Use
Overlay Zone for the Platinum Triangle, expansion of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and
increased open space in the Hill and Canyon Area, would remain the same as the 2004 Adopted
Proj ect.
Finding: The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make the Reduced Intensity Alternative infeasible. Public Resources
Code § 21081[a][3], Guidelines § 15091[a][3]).
The City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative is infeasible and rejected this
Alternative for the following reasons:
■ This Alternative would reduce the number of allowable housing units in the City, thereby
impeding the City's ability to achieve its housing goals contained in the adopted Housing
Element.
■ This Alternative would not achieve many of the objectives established for the project.
■ While this Alternative would lessen impacts associated with air quality, noise, police and
fire, public services, recreation and transportation/traffic by approximately 20 %, this
Alternative would contribute fewer housing units to a jobs rich subregion.
■ Unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, noise and transportation/traffic would still
occur and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required.
Greenhouse gas emissions were not specifically addressed in the 2004 Certified EIR,
however, they would also be significant under this alternative.
Page 24 • The Planning Center I DC&E .September 2013
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
Identified in the DEIR/FEIR
This section identifies the findings on impact categories analyzed in the DSEIR/FSEIR including
potentially significant impacts of the project.
3.1 AIR QUALITY
Impact 5.1 -1: Construction emissions associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would, like
the 2004 Approved Project, result in a substantial increase in criteria air pollutants
that could exceed the Southern California Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) emissions thresholds and contribute to the ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the
South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).
Construction activities associated with development of the Proposed Project would cause short -
term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The primary source of NOx, CO, and SO, emissions is
the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation road
construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary source of VOC emissions is
the application of architectural coating and off -gas emissions associated with asphalt paving. A
discussion of health impacts associated with air pollutant emissions generated by construction
activities is included under "Air Pollutants of Concern" in Section 5.1 -1, Environmental Setting
of the DSEIR.
Mitigation Measures:
.Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR
5.2 -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner /developer shall include a
note on all grading plans which requires the construction contractor to implement
the following measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at
the pregrade conference.
■ Use low emission mobile construction equipment.
■ Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned.
■ Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
■ Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC&E • Page 3 -1
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
■ Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
■ Minimize obstruction of through - traffic lanes. When feasible, construction
should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a
minimum.
■ Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off -peak hours.
■ Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from
construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing,
use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service).
Finding: Mitigation measure 5.2 -1 is feasible and would reduce criteria pollutant
emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness of this mitigation
measure is uncertain and cannot be quantified. As a result, Impact 5.1 -1
would remain Significant and Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is required.
Impact 5.1 -2: Long -term operation of the Proposed Project would, like the 2004 Approved
Project, exceed SCAQMD's emissions thresholds and contribute to the 0 3 ,
NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SCAB.
The General Plan guides growth and development within the City. The Proposed Project would
facilitate new development that would increase air pollutant emissions in the City and contribute to
the overall emissions inventory in the SCAB. A discussion of health impacts associated with air
pollutant emissions generated by operational activities is included in the "Air Pollutants of Concern"
discussion in Section 5.1 -1, Environmental Setting of the DSEIR.
The 2004 Approved Project permits the development of land uses throughout the City that would
generate various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing) that could release toxic
air contaminants. Under the Proposed Project, the Mixed Use Overlay Zone could still potentially
result in the development of land uses (e.g., dry cleaners, restaurants with charbroilers) that could
release toxic air contaminants. These emissions are controlled by SCAQMD through their permit
process and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any
necessary air quality permits. Because the nature of these emissions cannot be determined at this
time, and are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will not be addressed further in this
analysis.
Mitigation Measures:
Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR
5.2 -2 The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing
transportation systems management techniques that include synchronized traffic
signals and limiting on- street parking.
Page 3 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
5.2 -3 The City shall encourage major employers, tenants in business parks and other activity
centers, and developers of large new developments to participate in transportation
management associations.
5.2 -4 The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off -peak
periods to alleviate non - recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway
efficiency.
At the individual development project level, it is recommended that the City apply the following
mitigation measures to future development projects:
5.2 -5 The City will encourage the incorporation of energy conservation techniques (i.e.
installation of energy saving devices, construction of electric vehicle charging
stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double -paned windows,
utilization of light- colored roofing materials as opposed to dark- colored roofing
materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) in new
developments.
5.2 -6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and
other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments.
Finding: Mitigation measures 5.2 -2 through 5.2 -6 are feasible and would reduce
criteria pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, the effectiveness
of these mitigation measures is uncertain and cannot be quantified. As a
result, Impact 5.1 -2 would remain Significant and Unavoidable and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Impact 5.1 -3: As compared to the 2004 Approved Project, operation of the Proposed
Project would not expose sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of CO
at intersections.
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots. These
pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1 -hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8 -hour standard of
9.0 ppm. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the SCAB was designated nonattainment under
California and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner
fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the
SCAB and in the State have steadily declined. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attainment
for CO under both the California and National AAQS. As identified within SC AQMD's 2003 AQMP
and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide ( "1992 CO Plan"), peak CO
concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions
and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. A CO hot spot analysis was conducted for
September 2013
The Planning CenterJDC &E • Page 3 -3
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOO
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
four busy intersections in Los Angeles' at the peak morning and afternoon time periods and did not
predict a violation of CO standards. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project
would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per
hour —or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix —in order to
generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). Even the most congested intersections in the
City would not have a volume of 44,000 vehicles per hour and therefore would not produce the
volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot. Based on the above, the Proposed Project, like
the 2004 Approved Project, would not have a significant impact related to exposure of sensitive
receptors to elevated concentrations of CO at intersections.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Impact 5.1 -3 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for
this impact.
Impact 5.1 -4: Operation of the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project may result
in placement of sensitive land uses proximate to major sources of air
pollution.
The 2004 Certified EIR identified that sensitive land uses could be sited near major freeways and
expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of CO but concluded that impacts would be
less than significant. Since completion of the 2004 Certified EIR, air pollution studies have shown
an association between proximity to major air pollution sources and a variety of health effects.
Because sensitive land uses are outside CARB jurisdiction, CARB established the Air Quality and
Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective in May 2005 to address the siting of
sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries,
chrome- plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline- dispensing facilities. This guidance document
was developed as a tool for assessing compatibility and associated health risks when placing
sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB recommendations are based on data that
show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent by following
CARB minimum distance separations, as shown in Table 5.1 -9 of the SEIR. This guidance
document and the recommended buffer distances were not available at the time of the 2004 Certified
EIR.
' The four intersections were Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard
and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and
Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic
volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day and LOS E in the morning peak hour and
LOS F in the evening peak hour.
Page 3-4 • The Planning Center I DCE?E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Mitigation Measures:
Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR
There are no applicable measures from the 2004 Certified EIR.
Additional Mitigation Measure for the Proposed Project
MM 5.2 -7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner /developer for
residential or residential mixed -use projects within: 1) 1,000 feet from the truck
bays of an existing distribution centers that accommodate more than 100 trucks
per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units, or where
transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week; 2) 1,000 feet of
an industrial facility which emits toxic air contaminants; or 3) 500 feet of
Interstate 5 (I -5), State Route 91 (SR -91), State Route 57 (SR -57) or State Route
55 (SR -55), shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance
with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD).
The HRA shall be submitted to the Anaheim Planning Department prior to the
issuance of building permits for any future residential or residential mixed -use
project. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one
hundred thousand (1.0E -05), or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds
1.0, or if the PM10 or PM2.5 ambient air quality standard exceeds 2.5 µg/m the
HRA shall identify the level of high- efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting
Value (MERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to
achieve the cancer and /or noncancer and /or ambient air quality threshold.
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for units that are installed with
MERV filters shall maintain positive pressure within the building's filtered
ventilation system to reduce infiltration of unfiltered outdoor air. The property
owner /developer shall be required to install high efficiency MERV filters in the
intake of residential ventilation systems, consistent with the recommendations of
the HRA. Heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be
installed with a fan unit power designed to force air through the MERV filter. To
ensure long -term maintenance and replacement of the MERV filters in the
individual units, the following shall occur:
a) Developer, sale, and /or rental representative shall provide notification to
all affected tenants /residents of the potential health risk for affected units.
b) For rental units, the owner /property manager shall maintain and replace
MERV filters in accordance with the manufacture's recommendations. The
property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to diesel
particulates when windows are open.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 3 -5
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
C) For residential owned units, the Homeowner's Association (HOA) shall
incorporate requirements for long -term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions
and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the
MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The HOA
shall inform homeowners of increased risk of exposure to diesel particulates when
windows are open.
e) For projects within 500 feet of the freeway, air intakes on residential
buildings shall be placed as far from the freeway as possible.
f) For projects within 500 feet of the freeway, the residential buildings
should be designed to limit the use of operable windows and/or balconies on
portions of the site adjacent to and facing the freeway.
Finding: Mitigation measures 5.2 -7 is feasible and would reduce potential health risks
to a less than significant level.
3.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 5.2 -1: The Proposed Project's GHG emissions would be greater than the 2004
Approved Project's GHG emissions.
The GHG emissions inventory for the Proposed Project compared to the 2004 Approved Project is
included in Table 5.2 -5 of the DSEIR. The inventory includes reductions from federal and state
measures identified in CARB's 2008 Scoping Plan, including the Pavley Standards, LCFS for fuel
use (transportation and off - road), and a reduction in carbon intensity from electricity use (see the
discussion of the inventory methodology). As shown in the table, similar to the 2004 Approved
Project, GHG emissions for the Proposed Project would exceed the proposed SCAQMD's efficiency
threshold. Table 5.2 -5 also shows that the Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in
GHG emissions compared to the 2004 Approved Project's GHG emissions based on SCAQMD's
bright -line threshold.
The City has considered whether there are additional feasible mitigation measures that would reduce
the Proposed Project's increased GHG emissions as compared to the 2004 Approved Project.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce potentially significant impacts of the
Proposed Project. At this time, there is no plan past the year 2020 that achieves the long -term GHG
reduction goal established under Executive Order S- 03 -05. CARB is currently updating the 2008
Scoping Plan to identify additional measures to achieve the long -term GHG reduction targets. In
addition, the City's General Plan includes goals and policies that would reduce GHG emissions.
However, as identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the State cannot meet
the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology (COST 2012). Because no statewide long-
term strategy to reduce emissions beyond year 2020 are available that would reduce impacts below
Page 3 -6 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
SCAQMD's proposed efficiency metric in 2035, GHG emissions of the Proposed Project are
considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures:
Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR
5.2 -2 The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing
transportation systems management techniques that include synchronized traffic
signals and limiting on- street parking.
5.2 -3 The City shall encourage major employers, tenants in business parks and other activity
centers, and developers of large new developments to participate in transportation
management associations.
5.2 -4 The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off -peak
periods to alleviate non - recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway
efficiency.
At the individual development project level, it is recommended that the City apply the following
mitigation measures to future development projects:
5.2 -5 The City will encourage the incorporation of energy conservation techniques (i.e.
installation of energy saving devices, construction of electric vehicle charging
stations, use of sunlight filtering window coatings or double -paned windows,
utilization of light- colored roofing materials as opposed to dark- colored roofing
materials, and placement of shady trees next to habitable structures) in new
developments.
5.2 -6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle racks, bicycle lanes, and
other alternative transportation related infrastructure in new developments.
Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
MM 5.2 -8 The City shall evaluate strategies to reduce truck idling during the peak hour
period of the roadway network, such as staggered work /delivery schedules, truck
routes, and /or intersection improvements.
MM 5.2 -9 The City shall support and promote the use of low- and zero - emission vehicles,
by:
■ Encouraging the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the use of zero -
emission vehicles and clean alternative fuels, such as electric vehicle charging
facilities and conveniently - located alternative fueling stations.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 3 -7
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
■ Encouraging new construction to include vehicle access to properly wired
outdoor receptacles to accommodate zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and /or
plug -in electric hybrids (PHEV).
■ Encouraging transportation fleet standards to achieve the lowest emissions
possible, using a mix of alternate fuels, partial ZEV, or newer fleet mixes.
MM 5.2 -10 The City shall encourage the performance of energy audits of buildings prior to
completion of sale, and that audit results and information about opportunities for
energy efficiency improvements be presented to the buyer.
MM 5.2 -11 The City shall develop protocols for safe storage of renewable and alternative
energy products with the potential to leak, ignite, or explode, such as biodiesel,
hydrogen, and /or compressed air.
MM 5.2 -12 The City shall recognize businesses in the City that reduce GHG emissions (e.g.,
reduced energy use) as a means to encourage GHG reductions and recognize
success.
Finding: Mitigation measures 5.2 -2 through 5.2 -6 and 5.2 -8 through 5.2 -11 are feasible
and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible. However,
the effectiveness of these mitigation measures is uncertain and cannot be
quantified. As a result, Impact 5.2 -1 would remain Significant and
Unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Impact 5.2 -2: The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline the State's strategy to
achieve 1990 level GHG emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB
projected statewide 2020 BAU GHG emissions (i.e., GHG emissions in the absence of statewide
emission reduction measures). CARB identified that the State as a whole would be required to
reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32 (CARB
2008). The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by
21.6 percent from BAU without Pavley and the 33 percent RPS or 15.7 percent from the adjusted
baseline (i.e., with Pavley and 33 percent RPS) (CARB 2012). Table 5.2 -6 of the DSEIR includes a
consistency analysis with existing statewide programs adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions. Compliance with State and local regulations would ensure that the Proposed Project
would not conflict with the 2008 Scoping Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Page 3 -8 • T be Planning Center DCe� F_ September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Finding: The General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes and
regulations are consistent with CARB's Scoping Plan for the reasons set forth
in the DSEIR and no significant impacts are anticipated.
3.3 NOISE
Impact 5.3 -1: As compared to the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would
substantially elevate traffic noise levels above local noise standards at several
noise - sensitive receptors.
To assess the off -site traffic - related exterior noise level impacts associated with the Proposed
Project, the CNEL levels at a distance of 50 feet from the roadway segments included in the traffic
study area were developed for the 2004 Approved Project and the Proposed Project.
3.3.1 Off -site Traffic- Related Noise Contours
To quantify the Proposed Project's traffic noise impact on the surrounding off -site areas, the changes
in traffic noise levels on the study area roadway segments were determined based on the anticipated
changes in the ADT volumes compared to the 2004 Approved Project.
The purpose of the off -site noise contours is to assess the Proposed Project's incremental off -site
traffic- related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways. Noise contours represent the
distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the
60, 65 and 70 dBA noise levels. The traffic noise model calculations that include the distance from
the centerline of the roadway to the CNEL noise level contours are included in Appendix E. The off -
site traffic noise contours do not take into account the effect of any existing noise barriers or
topography that may affect ambient noise levels. In addition, they do not include the noise
contribution from commercial and industrial activities within proximity to receptors along each
roadway segment.
3.3.2 Off -site Proposed Project Traffic- Related Noise Level
Contributions
Based on the significance criteria presented earlier in Section 5.8 -2, Thresholds of Significance, a
change of 5 dBA would denote a significant impact if their resultant noise level were to remain
within the objectives of the General Plan (e.g., 65 dBA CNEL at a residential location), or 3 dBA if
the resultant level were to meet or exceed the objectives of the General Plan. Table 5.3 -3 presents an
off -site traffic noise level comparison of the 2004 Approved Project (the baseline) to the Proposed
Project.
As demonstrated in Table 5.3 -3, the Proposed Project, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project,
would result in a change to the off -site traffic noise levels of between -9.4 and 4.2 dBA CNEL on the
September 2013 The Planning CenterJDC &E • Page 3 -9
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
roadway segments analyzed. Based on the criteria to deterine potential significant impacts outlined
above, only the uses adjacent to the segment of Disney Way between Clementine Street to Interstate -
5 (I -5) Freeway would experience a significant noise increase. Land uses along this roadway
segment consist of hotels and commercial uses. The Noise Compatibility Guidelines included in the
Noise Element shows that, for transient lodging- motels and hotels, an ambient noise level of up to 65
dBA CNEL is normally acceptable, an ambient noise level from 60 to 70 dBA CNEL is
conditionally acceptable, and an ambient noise level from 70 to 80 dBA CNEL is normally
unacceptable. Under normally acceptable conditions, the noise level exposure for the specified land
use is satisfactory and no special noise insulation would be required. Under conditionally acceptable
conditions, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are
determined. Under normally unacceptable conditions, new construction of development should
generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed insulation features must be included in the
design.
Mitigation Measures:
Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR
5.10 -1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project generating over 100 peak hour
trips, the project property owner /developers shall submit a final acoustical report
prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall show that
the development will be sound - attenuated against present and projected noise
levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter and railroad, to meet City interior
and exterior noise standards.
Finding: Mitigation measures 5.10 -1 is feasible and would reduce noise volumes on
area roadways to the extent feasible. However, project related noise impacts
at several locations are considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Impact 5.3 -2: Like the 2004 Approved Project, stationary sources of noise generated by the
Proposed Project would comply with the City's Noise Element and Municipal
Code Standards and would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at
sensitive receptors proximate to proposed Opportunity Sites.
Project - related stationary source noise impacts would include activities associated with development
of the 166 Housing Opportunity Sites to be developed as residential land uses, as presented in Tables
3 -3, Parcels to Apply Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone, and Table 3 -4, Parcels to Apply Residential
Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone of the DSEIR. Of the 166 Housing Opportunity Sites, five are zoned
for mixed use and the remaining are zoned residential. The stationary sources related to residential
land uses generally include air conditioners, yard care equipment, trash trucks, delivery vehicles,
street sweepers, and outdoor neighborhood recreation activities. The mixed -use sites are currently
Page 3 -10 • The Planning Center I DC &E Seplemher 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
utilized for commercial uses. The stationary- source noise impacts expected from the Proposed
Project are consistent with existing sources and /or those identified in the 2004 Certified EIR, as
residential and mixed -use uses are not major sources of noise; rather they typically generate noise
levels compatible with noise - sensitive uses.
The development of residential projects at each of the 166 Housing Opportunity Sites would be
required to be designed to meet City's noise standards. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
property owner /developer would be required to demonstrate that project's noise levels would be less
than 65 dBA CNEL for future proposed outdoor use areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project's impacts
concerning stationary noise and noise - sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
See Mitigation Measure 5.10 -1 above.
Finding: Adherence to Mitigation Measure 5.10 -1, the proposed General Plan Goals
and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing codes and regulations will reduce
potential noise impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth
in the DSEIR.
Impact 5.3 -3: Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not result in
exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.
Buildout of the 2004 Approved Project or the Proposed Project could potentially cause vibration
impacts during construction of individual projects on the 166 Housing Opportunity Sites. Excessive
groundborne vibration is typically caused by activities such as blasting, or the use of pile drivers
during construction. Construction under the 2004 Approved Project may require blasting activities in
the Hill and Canyon Area of the City, and pile driving could occur which would produce vibration
that could be felt at nearby land uses. These vibrations pose not only a nuisance, but also a risk to
proximate structures. However, these impacts would be assessed at the time specific development
applications are submitted.
As a reasonable worst -case scenario, an impact pile driver, which would generate greater vibrations,
is assumed. While the City has no vibration standards, the California Department of Transportation
( "Caltrans ") sets the criterion level for pile driving at between 0.2 and 2 inches per second. A
reasonable worst -case scenario assumes the use of the 0.2 inch per second criterion. Caltrans
presents the vibration produced by a 50,000 foot -pound force with distance for both clayey and
sandy /silt soils as a function of distance. Caltrans indicates that the distance to the 0.2 inch per
second minimum criterion falls at a distance of approximately 50 feet. Still, like construction, pile
driving carries a high nuisance factor and vibration related to pile- driving activities is considered as
potentially significant if these activities are perfonned within 200 feet of any permanent structures.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 3 -11
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Impact 5.3 -3 was not found to be significant and no findings are required for
this impact.
Impact 5.3 -4: Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not result in
exposure of persons to or generation of excessive noise levels during
construction.
Based on the noise levels generated by typical construction equipment listed above, construction
activities would have the potential to cause substantial noise increases at noise - sensitive uses
surrounding a construction suite when compared to a typical urban environment of 50 to 70 dBA. As
most construction equipment would have the potential to cause noise increases over 5 dBA, which is
a noise increase considered clearly perceptible. Without mitigation, construction activities could
cause significant noise impacts at noise sensitive uses adjacent to construction sites. Mitigation of
these impacts to a level that is less than significant would be conducted both at the project level
through the enforcement of the Anaheim Municipal Code and in a broader sense through the policies
of the General Plan Noise Element. With implementation of the General Plan goals and policies
included in the 2004 Approved Project, these impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding: Adherence to the General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code, and existing
codes and regulations will reduce potential noise impacts to a less than
significant level for the reasons set forth in the DSEIR.
Impact: For a Project Located Within an Airport Land Use Plan or, Where Such a
Plan has not been Adopted, Within Two Miles of a Public Airport or Public
Use Airport, Would the Project Expose People Residing or Working In the
Project Area to Excessive Noise Levels; For a Project Within the Vicinity of a
Private Airstrip, Would the Project Expose People Residing or Working in
the Proiect Area to Excessive Noise Levels
The Fullerton Municipal Airport is located approximately 2 miles away from Anaheim. In the most
current data available, the Airport projected a maximum of 265,500 total operations for the year
2000. However, the 65 CNEL Noise Contour for Fullerton Airport does not extend into the City of
Anaheim and no significant impacts are anticipated. Several heliports within the City of Anaheim
are utilized for helicopter take -off and landing. According to the Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics, the City of Anaheim contains five heliports. These include two heliports
Pa ,ge 3 -12 • The Planning CenterI DC&E
Seplemher 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
associated with the Anaheim Police Department (police use), Boeing Anaheim B /250 (corporate
use), Northrop Anaheim Heliport (CN 22) (corporate use), and North Net Fire Training Center (fire
department use). There are no private airstrips within the City.
Mitigation Measures:
Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR
5.10 -2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, new development project property
owner /developers shall use the most current available Airport Environs Land Use
Plan (AELUP) as a planning resource for evaluating heliport and airport
operations as well as land use compatibility and land use intensity in the
proximity of Los Alamitos Joint Training Base and Fullerton Municipal Airport.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts to a less -than-
significant level for the reasons set forth in the DSEIR.
3.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Impact 5.4 -1: Traffic volumes associated with buildout of the proposed project would
impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system, as compared to
the 2004 Approved Project.
As shown in Tables 5.4 -4 and 5.4 -5 in the DSEIR, the following locations are forecast to operate at
LOS E or F for either the AM peak hour, the PM peak hour or both AM and PM peak hours in the
year 2035 with the Proposed Project:
■ Euclid Street / Lincoln Avenue (AM)
■ Euclid Street / Cerritos Avenue (AM and PM)
■ Euclid Street / Katella Avenue (PM)
■ Disneyland Drive / Ball Road (PM)
■ Disneyland Drive / Katella Avenue (PM)
■ Harbor Boulevard / La Palma Avenue (PM)
■ Harbor Boulevard / Lincoln Avenue (AM)
■ Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road (AM and PM)
■ Anaheim Boulevard / Vermont Avenue (AM)
■ East Street / Lincoln Avenue (PM)
■ Lewis Street / Ball Road (PM)
■ State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue (PM)
■ State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue (PM)
■ Sunkist Street / Miraloma Avenue / La Palma Avenue (PM)
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E - Page 3 -13
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
■ SR -57 SB Ramps / Orangewood Avenue (PM)
■ Rio Vista Street / Lincoln Avenue (AM)
■ Tustin Avenue / SR -91 WB Ramps (AM)
■ Fairmont Boulevard / La Palma Avenue (PM)
The number of intersections that are performing at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour worsened
from six to seven with implementation of the Proposed Project using the ATAM (2012) model.
However, the number of intersections that are performing at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour
improved from 18 to 13 with implementation of the Proposed Project using the ATAM (2012)
model. Boxes indicates in red and yellow in Tables 5.4 -4 and 5.4 -5 in the DSEIR depict those
intersections with either LOS E or LOS F.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures were included in the 2004 Certified EIR. These mitigation
measures are proposed for inclusion in the Proposed Project, and additional mitigation measures
have been added for the purposes of this DSEIR. This DSEIR proposes to make certain
modifications to the mitigation measures adopted by the City for the 2004 Approved Project.
Modifications to the original mitigation measure are identified in strikeeut text to indicate deletions
and underlined to signify additions.
Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR
MM 5.15 -2 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadway Network
Map (Figure C -1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned
to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land
Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as
funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned
Roadway Network Map, the following improvements will be necessary to
maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated theoretical buildout
identified in the General Plan:
■ Intersection of Dale Avenue /Lincoln Avenue; add an additional east bound
right turn lane
■ inter of Harbor- B Ball Read; --add a 4 th
lie
■ Intersection of Sportstown Way /Katella Avenue; change north bound lane
configuration from 1 / 1 /2 to 1.5/.5/2
Page 3 -14 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
■ Intersection of Tustin Avenue /La Palma Avenue; change south bound lane
configuration from 2/3/1 to 2/4/0 (would r e t-Fip °'°ft tufn lanes, and add
a third left turn lane on the north bound approach to mitigate to
LOS D
■ Intersection of Tustin Avenue /SR -91 west bound ramps; add a second
north bound left turn lane
■ Intersection of Imperial Highway /Santa Ana Canyon Road; add a north
bound right turn lane (a 4th through lane north bound to mitigate PM peak
hour to LOS D)
■ Intersection of Weir Canyon Road /SR -91 east bound ramps; add a 4th
south bound through lane
MM 5.15 -3 The City shall pursue all available funding, including Measure M2 funding,
necessary to implement the circulation improvements identified in the City's
Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15 -2. Implementation of
transportation improvements identified in the City's Circulation Element and
Mitigation Measure 5.15 -2 shall be conducted in coordination with Caltrans, the
County of Orange, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and
surrounding jurisdictions. To qualify for Measure M2 funds, the City of Anaheim
must comply with the Countywide Growth Management Program component
requirements and have an established policy framework for the required Growth
Management Program through the adoption of a Growth Management Element.
The updated Growth Management Element will maintain provisions of the
existing Growth Management element which: 1) establishes policy statements that
identify acceptable traffic levels of service (LOS); 2) commits the City to
implement a development mitigation program; and 3) commits the City to
implement a development phasing and monitoring program.
MM 5.15 -4 Prior to issuance of building permits for new development forecast to generate
100 or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the
property owner /developer shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all
costs associated with updating the applicable Transportation Model to include the
trips associated with their proposed development. This model update will be used
to determine and program the extent and phasing of improvements necessary to
accommodate the proposed development.
If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an
intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS "E" or "F"
depending on the location), the property owner /developer shall be responsible for
constructing its fair share of necessary improvements to maintain acceptable
September 2013 The Planning Ceaterl DC&E • Page 3 -15
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
levels of service for the anticipated theoretical buildout of the General Plan as
identified in the City's Circulation Element and Mitigation Measure 5.15 -2.
MM 5.15 -5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate T a ffi e C;,.aa4 Assessment
F ee s and TraffieTransportation Impact and Improvement Fees shall be paid by the
property owner /developer to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the
City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit
with credit given for City- authorized improvements provided by the property
owner /developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit
districts which have been established.
MM 5.15 -6 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance•of the first building
permit, whichever occurs first, and subject to nexus requirements, the property
owner /developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of
easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial
highway right(s) -of -way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim
General Plan adjacent to their property.
MM 5.15 -7 Prior to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during project
operation, the property owner /developer of projects anticipated to employ 250 or
more employees shall join and participate in the Anaheim Transportation
Network/Transportation Management Association.
Additional Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
MM 5.15 -8 The General Plan Circulation Element and associated Planned Roadwav Network
Map (Figure C -1 of the General Plan), identifies those roadways that are planned
to accommodate current development and future growth established by the Land
Use Element. Roadways will be constructed as development occurs and as
funding becomes available. In addition to the roadways identified on the Planned
Roadway Network Map, the improvements identified in fable 5.4 -7 will be
necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service within the anticipated
theoretical buildout identified in the General Plan.
Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and avoid or substantially lessen potentially
significant traffic and circulation impacts to a less- than - significant level for
the reasons set forth in the Draft SEIR. The General Plan Circulation
Element includes improvements necessary to maintain adequate levels of
service in the City at buildout. However, the improvements necessary to
maintain adequate levels of service at seven intersections could impact
adjacent land uses. As a result, a significant impact would remain if the City
chooses not to implement the required improvements.
Page 3 -16 • The Planning Center i DC& E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Impact 5.4 -2: The Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature or incompatible uses.
Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would result in changes to the circulation
network, but would not increase hazards due to a design feature. The City has roadway design
standards which would preclude the construction of any unsafe design features. Therefore, no impact
is anticipated.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code,
and existing codes and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any
significant impacts related to traffic hazards for the reasons set forth in the
DSEIR.
Impact 5.4 -3: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
With regards to emergency access, the adopted Circulation Element has been designed to provide
and maintain a comprehensive circulation system within the City at buildout. Adequate levels of
service are maintained with the exception of seven intersections after mitigation. As a result, like the
2004 Approved Project, no significant impacts to emergency access are associated with the Proposed
Project.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code,
and existing codes and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any
significant impacts related to emergency access for the reasons set forth in
the DSEIR.
Impact 5.4 -4: The Proposed Project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs
for alternative transportation.
Like the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project includes goals and policies to promote
alternative modes of transportation. In addition, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Orange
County Subregional Sustainable Communities Strategy, which includes measures to reduce
dependence on the automobile (see Table 5.2 -7 of the DSEIR). Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 3 -17
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
3. Findings on Potentially Significant Impacts
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Finding: Adherence to the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, Zoning Code,
and existing codes and regulations will prevent the occurrence of any
significant impacts related to alternative transportation programs for the
reasons set forth in the DSEIR.
Page 3-18 0 The Planning Center I DC&E September 2013
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable"
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). However, in this case CEQA requires the agency to
support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant
impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR
or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's
statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations."
The City of Anaheim is proposing to approve the Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning
Project and has prepared and certified a FSEIR that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The
following adverse impacts of the project are considered significant and unavoidable based on the
DSEIR, FSEIR, updated and amended MMP, and the findings discussed previously in Section 2.0
and 3.0 of this document.
4.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
4.1.1 Air Quality
Impact 5.1 -1: Construction emissions associated with buildout of the Proposed Project
would, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, result in a substantial increase
in criteria air pollutants that could exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's emissions thresholds and contribute to the ozone (0 3 ),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin. [Thresholds AQ -2,
AQ -3, and AQ -41
Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, due to the scale of development activity associated with the
Proposed Project, emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations
of the Southern California Air Basin (SCAB). Mitigation Measure 5.2 -1 would reduce construction
emissions to the extent feasible. However, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.1 -1 for
the Proposed Project would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation.
September 2013 The Planning Center) DC &E • Page 4 -1
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Impact 5.1 -2: Long -term operation of the Proposed Project would, similar to the 2004
Approved Project, exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's emissions thresholds and contribute to the ozone (03), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment
designations of the South Coast Air Basin. [Thresholds AQ -2 and AQ -3]
Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, criteria air pollutants generated by the Proposed Project
would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for all criteria air pollutants, except sulfur dioxide (SOZ).
Due to the increase in development intensity associated with the Proposed Project, the magnitude of
the increase in criteria air pollutants compared to the 2004 Approved Project would be significant.
Mitigation Measures 5.2 -2 through 5.2 -6 would reduce operational phase air quality impacts to the
extent feasible. However, like the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.1 -2 for the Proposed Project
would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation and would result in greater impacts
compared to the 2004 Approved Project.
4.1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.2 -1: The Proposed Project's GHG emissions would be greater than the 2004
Approved Project's GHG emissions. [Threshold GHG-11
The 2004 Certified EIR did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts because this was
not included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G checklist
and the City did not have adopted GHG thresholds at the time of preparation. In accordance with the
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, inventories were compiled to forecast GHG emissions
generated by the 2004 Approved Project as well as the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project's
GHG emissions were compared to the 2004 Approved Project's GHG emissions, which constitute
the CEQA baseline.
As identified in Impact 5.2 -1, similar to the 2004 Approved Project, GHG emissions for the
Proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD's proposed GHG efficiency threshold. Table 5.2 -5 in
Chapter 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DSEIR, shows that the Proposed Project would
result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to the 2004 Approved Project's GHG
emissions based on SCAQMD's bright -line threshold. Due to the increase in development intensity
associated with the Proposed Project, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions compared to
the GHG emissions of the 2004 Approved Project would be significant. Mitigation Measures 5.2 -2
through 5.2 -6 would reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible. New proposed Mitigation Measures
5.2 -8 through 5.2 -12 would further reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. However, like the
2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.2 -2 of the Proposed Project would remain significant and
unavoidable even after mitigation and would result in greater impacts compared to the 2004
Approved Project.
Page 4 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
4.1.3 Noise
Impact 5.3 -1: Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, the Proposed Project would
substantially elevate traffic noise levels above local noise standards at several
noise- sensitive receptors. [Thresholds N -1 and N -31
Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, due to the scale of development activity associated with the
Proposed Project, many roadways within the City would still be expected to generate significant
noise impacts. Mitigation Measures 5.10 -1 and 5.10 -2 would reduce operational noise impacts to the
extent feasible. Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.3 -1 of the Proposed Project would
remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation.
4.1.4 Transportation and Traffic
IMPACT 5.4 -1: Traffic volumes associated with buildout of the Proposed Project
would impact levels of service to a greater degree for the existing roadway
system, as compared to the 2004 Approved Project. [Thresholds T-1 and T-2]
The 2004 Certified EIR concluded that, under the 2004 Approved Project, all intersections and
roadway segments would operate at acceptable levels of service after the implementation of existing
or planned improvements, with the exception of the Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road intersection.
As shown in Table 5.4 -7, of the DSEIR, recommended improvements at the following intersections
may not be feasible due to impacts to adjacent land uses:
■ Euclid Street / Katella Avenue
■ Disneyland Drive / Ball Road
■ Disneyland Drive / Katella Avenue
■ Harbor Boulevard / Ball Road
■ Lewis Street / Ball Road
■ State College Boulevard / Katella Avenue
■ State College Boulevard / Orangewood Avenue
Similar to the 2004 Approved Project, Impact 5.12 -1 of the Proposed Project would remain
significant and unavoidable even after mitigation and would result in greater impacts compared to
the 2004 Approved Project.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 4 -3
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
4.2 CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
4.2.1 Consistency with AQMP Land Use Strategies
Although the Proposed Project will result in significant air quality impacts, the project is consistent
with the adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and AQMP land use strategies to reduce
the number of trips (i.e., through encouraging HOV usage) and the length of trips (i.e., by reducing
regional VMT by reducing home -to -work commute distances through jobs/housing balance
policies). The assumptions regarding land use -based air quality measures is that trips and mode
choices are not only a function of the transportation system, but also relate to housing density,
relative locations of residential and commercial land uses, and the proximity to regional
transportation systems.
The Proposed Project improves the jobs/housing balance of the Orange County Subregion, which is
presently identified by SCAG as "jobs- rich." Providing a wide -range of housing opportunities closer
to areas with concentrated employment centers will provide people with the opportunity to live
closer to their work, resulting in fewer VMT and less traffic congestion. Under, the "no- project"
scenario, housing demand generated by Orange County employment increases would have to be met
by areas such as Riverside and San Bernardino Counties which would result in an increase in
regional VMT, increased congestion, and corresponding increases in CO, ROG, NOx and PM 10
emissions from mobile sources. Therefore, as discussed previously, the Proposed Project promotes
regional AQMP attainment policies relating to jobs/housing balance and the promotion of
HOV /transit use by introducing a wide -range of housing opportunities within The Platinum Triangle
and The Colony and Downtown area. In addition, the Proposed Project implements the City's
adopted Housing Element and promotes the construction of affordable housing units within the City.
4.2.2 Implements the Objectives Established for the Project
The Proposed Project implements the various objectives established for the project, including the
following:
Provide for the implementation of the Housing Element's Housing Production Strategy 1 V, to
rezone properties identified as Housing Opportunities Sites in the 2006 -2014 General Plan
Housing Element and amend the Mixed -Use Overlay Zone, in order to facilitate "by right"
housing development at these locations.
Facilitate future use of the Statutory Infill Housing Exemption and Senate Bill (SB) 226
streamlining allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by providing
updated community level environmental review.
Page 4 -4 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
■ Provide an update of General Plan Land Use Element Table LU -5: Residential Build -Out
Estimates and Table LU -6: Non - Residential Build -Out Estimates to reflect all General Plan
amendments that have been adopted since the City's General Plan was adopted in May 2004.
4.2.3 Transportation and Traffic Considerations
Although traffic increases are associated with the Proposed Project, traffic improvements have been
identified as part of the City's Circulation Element to mitigate the traffic impacts. The Circulation
Element proposed as part of the General Plan also reflects changes which have occurred in the Hill
and Canyon Area which have resulted in reductions in potential development intensity. Without the
Proposed Project and the updated ATAM Traffic Model, improvements would be completed which
are no longer necessary, and other improvements identified in the SEIR would not be completed,
which could result in greater environmental impacts.
4.3 CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the City of Anaheim concludes that the Anaheim Housing Opportunities
Sites Rezoning Project will result in a beneficial mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional, recreation and open space uses providing significant housing, recreational, and public
services benefits of local and regional significance, as well as various public infrastructure
improvements, which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. Therefore, the City of
Anaheim has adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E - Page 4 -5
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations
This page intentionally left blank
Page 4 -6 • The Planning Center I DC&E
September 2013
5. References
The following reference materials were reviewed to obtain information included in or considered during the preparation of this
environmental impact report. To arrange for the review one or more of these references, please contact Susan Kim, AICP, City
of Anaheim Planning Department, at (714) 765 -4958.
Anaheim, City of 2011, May (amended). City of Anaheim Municipal Code.
2004a, May 25 (amended). City of Anaheim General Plan Update.
2004b, August 17 (amended). The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan.
2010, October. Revised Platinum Triangle Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
Auffhammer, Maximilian and Carson, Richard T. 2008, May. Forecasting the path of China's CO2 emissions
using province -level information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Volume 44,
Issue 3, Pages 229 -247.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011, Updated May. California Environmental
Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines.
Berger, Elliott, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Madden. 2006, February. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database
with over 1,700 Measurement Values. Version 1.0. E -A -R 88- 34/HP.
Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2003. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. New
York: Spon Press.
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC.
California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA). 2010, August. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective.
2008, June. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
2000, October. California's Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.
1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
California Air Resources Board (CARE). 2009, June. Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard, Volume I, Initial Statement of Reasons.
2008a, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
September 2013 The Planning CenterlDC &E • Page 5 -1
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. References
— 2008b January. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions under CAFE Standards and ARB
Regulations Adopted Pursuant to AB1493.
2008c February. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada Under
US CAFE Standards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations.
2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
1999, December. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2007, April 20. CAT Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate
Change in California.
2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Important Farmland. Map.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002. Transportation
Related Earthborne Vibration: Caltrans Experiences. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV- 02 -01-
R9601. Prepared by Rudy Hendricks.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998, October. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
- -. 1997, December. Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. UCD- ITS- RR- 97 -21.
Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and
Jennifer Allen, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update.
California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC- 600 - 2005 -025. Sacramento, California.
2006, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report
CEC-600-2006-013-SF.
2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California's Energy and Climate Change Goals. Report CEC -
600- 2007 - 008 -SD.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2007. The Role of Land Use in Meeting California's Energy and Climate
Change Goals. Report CEC- 600 - 2007 - 008 -SD.
2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report
CEC- 600 - 2006 - 013 -SF.
2006b. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report. California
Climate Change Center, California Energy Commission Staff Paper, Sacramento, California, Report
CEC -500- 2006 -077.
2005a, June. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update. California Energy Commission
Staff Paper CEC- 600 - 2005 -025. Sacramento, California.
2005b, November. California's Water- Energy Relationship. CEC- 700.2005- 011 -SF.
Page 5 -2 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. References
Energy Information Administration, United States (EIA). 2008. International Energy Outlook 2008.
Enstrom, James. 2005, December 15. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Total Mortality Among Elderly
Californians, 1973 2002. Inhalation Toxicology. 17(14):803 16.
Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN). 1997, June. Effects of Aviation Noise on
Awakenings from Sleep.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States
Department of Transportation.
2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of
Transportation. FTA- VA- 90- 1003 -06.
2007, Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet.
http: / /www.fta.dot.gov /planning/ environment /planning_environment_2233.html
Holland, David. 2007, December. Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick "Affair and
its Implications. Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7 +8, Pg. 954.
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate
Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press.
International Energy Agency. 2006. World Energy Outlook 2006.
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2010, October. OCSD Capital Improvement Plan — Fiscal Year
2009 -10 Update.
Public Economics, Inc. 2006, June 5. Addendum to March 17, 2004 Fee Justification Study.
Rymer, Bruce and Donavan, Paul. 2005, November. California Tests Show Pavement Selection Influences Noise
Levels. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology (HMAT) Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 6, Pg. 25 -33.
November/December 2005.
Singer, S. Fred. 2008, March. Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the
Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Nongovernmental International
Panel on Climate Change, The Heartland Institute.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise — Reduction Aleasurements for Use
in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1995. Intergovernmental Review Procedures
Handbook.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008, October. Regional Comprehensive Plan.
September 2013 The Planning Center) DC&E • Page 5 -3
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
5., References
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008, May. 2008 Regional Transportation Plan:
Making the Connections.
Southern California Regional Rail Authority. 2007, January 26. SCCRA Strategic Assessment.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) User's Guide.
2008, September. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III).
. 2013, February. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan.
. 2006, October. Final Methodology to Calculate PM2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds.
2003, June. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
1993, April. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (GOPR). California Environmental Quality Act
Statutes and Guidelines. Adopted December 30, 2007, effective March 18, 2010.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010, February. Final 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan.
The Economist. 2008, June 5. Melting Asia. The Economist.
The Planning Center. 2004, May. Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 330.
2010, October. The Revised Platinum Triangle Expansion Project Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (FSEIR) No. 339.
The Planning CenterlDC &E. 2013, June. Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Air Quality
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Study.
2013, June. Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project Noise Technical Study.
Tot, Richard S. 2007, December. Biased Policy Advice From The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Energy & Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7 -8, Pg. 933.
U-S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
U.S. Senate Minority Report. 2008, December. More than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man -Made
Global Warming Claims; Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus.
Websites
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Update & Affordable Housing Commission. City of Anaheim, Live and
Archived Media Resource, Workshop Meeting Videos, August 21, 2007.
http: // anaheim. granicus. comNiewPublisher.php ?view_id =2. Accessed on September 7, 2007.
Aimav, LLC. 2007. Airport Information. http: / /www.aimay.com/airports.
Page 54 • The Planning Center I DC&E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. References
Amtrak. 2011, July 15. Timetables.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/I 237405732505/1237405732505.
Anaheim Regional Transit (ART). 2011. Route 15 Schedule. http: / /www.rideart.org /schedules /route -15/
BBK News. 2007, December. US sets terms for climate talks. BBK News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7145608.stm.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2006. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Anaheim. Jurisdiction
Diversion and Disposal Profile: California Waste Stream Profiles.
http:// www. ciwmb. ca .gov /Profiles /Juris /JurProfile2 .asp ?RG= C &JURID= 15 &JUR= Anaheim Accessed
on January 26, 2006.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2007. Solid Waste Landfilling Data: 2005 Landfill Summary
Tonnage Report. http: / /www.ciwmb.ca.gov /Landfills /Tonnage. Accessed on January 26, 2007.
California Department of Education. Education al Demographics Unit. DataQuest Graph. Time Series — Public
School Enrollment. http: / /dq.cde.ca. gov / dataquest /SearchName.asp ?rbTimeFrame=
oneyear &rYear = 2006- 07 &cName= anaheim &Topic = Enrollment &Level = School. Accessed on March
14, 2007.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,
and 2008).
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4b.d2w/start.
California Air Resources Board (CARE). 2011. Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010).
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /adam/index.html
2010, August. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.jzov/research/aMs/aaqs2.pd
March. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http: // www .arb.ca.gov /desig /adm/adm.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010, January. Ambient Air Quality Standards.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
California Air Resources Board (CARE). 2007, July. Area Designations: Activities and Maps.
http: // www .arb.ca.gov /desig /adm/adm.htm.
California Air Resources Board (GARB). 2010, March. 2010 State Area Designations.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/201 Ostatedesig.htm.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle). Revised 2008. Contractor's Report to the
Board, California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
http: / /www.calrecycle.ca. gov /Publications /default.asp ?pubid =1346
California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. Clean Power Estimator.
http: / /www.gosolarealifomia.org /tools /clean_power estimator.php
Delingpole, James. 2009, November 20. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of Anthropogenic Global
Warming? Telegraph.co.uk. http: /iblogs. telegraph .co.uk /news /J*amesdelingpole /100017393 /climategate-
the- final - nail -in- the - coffin- of- anthropogenic- global - warming /.
September 2013
The Planning Center) DC &E • Page 5 -5
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. References
Environment Canada. 2010, May. A Summary of Trends: 1990 -2008. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-
ghg/ default .asp ?lang= En &n= 0590640B -1.
Gotickets.com. 2011, September 22. Arco Arena Tickets. http: // www. gotickets .com /venues /ca /arco_arena.php.
Gray, Louise. 2010, April 14. Hockey stick" graph was exaggerated. Telegraph.co.uk.
http: // www.telegraph.co.uk/ earth /environment /climatechange /75 89897/14ockey- stick - graph -was-
exaggerated.html.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2010, January 20. IPCC statement on the melting of
Himalayan glaciers. http: // www. ipcc .ch /pdf /presentations/himalaya - statement- 20january2010.pdf.
Kestenbaum. 2007, October 1. Japan Wrestles with Kyoto Accord Promises. National Public Radio (NPR).
http: / /www.npr.org/ templates /story/story.php ?storyld= 14087783.
Leake, Jonathan. 2010, February 7. Africagate: top British .scientist says UNpanel is losing credibility. The
Times. http:/ /www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news /environment /article70l7907.ece.
Malcolm Pirnie. 2011, June. City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/waterservices/10
Metrolink. 2011, July 5. Schedules: Orange County Line.
http://www.metrolinktrains.com/schedules/html.php?id=1 111.
Natelson Company, The. 2001, October 31. Employment Density Study Summary Report. Prepared for the
Southern California Association of Governments.
http://www.seag.ca.gov/pdfs/Employment
Office of the California Attorney General (AG). 2008, May. The California Environmental Quality Act
Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2011, June 12. Route 50 Schedule.
http://www.octa.net/pdf/pdf/feb20l l /route050.pdf.
201 lb, June 12. Route 153 Schedule. http: / /www.octa. net /pdf/pdf /june20l I /routel53.pdf.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008, December. Economy -Wide Cap & Trade Proposals in the 110th
Congress. http: // www .pewclimate.org /federal/analysis /congress /110 /cap- trade - bills.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). South Coast AQMD List of Current Rules.
California Air Resources Board.
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /drdb /sc /cur.htm.
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III) Model Estimated
Carcinogenic Risk. http: / /www2.agmd.gov /webappl /matesiii /. Accessed 2011.
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http: / /www.agmd .gov /cega /handbook/signthres.pdf
Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Updates to CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html.
Page 5 -6 • The Planning Center I DC &E September 2013
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CITY OF ANAHEIM
5. References
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2007. 2% Strategy Opportunity Area Maps. Compass
Blueprint, Strategic Opportunity Areas Maps. http: / /www.compassblueprint.org /files /orange- county.pdf.
. 2011. 2012 RTP Development Timeline. http: / /www.seag.ca.gov /rtp2012 /index.htm.
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2011. Renewable Energy.
http://www.sce.com/powerandenvironment/renewables/default.htm
The Times of India. 2009, December 10. China emissions could double by 2020. The Times of India.
http:// timesofindia .indiatimes.com /world/china/ China - emissions - could - double by -2020-
Experts /articleshow /5321352.cros.
US Census Bureau. Fact Sheet. 2000. Anaheim city, California. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights.
http: / /factfinder. census. gov /servlet/SAFFFacts ?_event= &geo_id=
16000US0602000 &_ geoContext= Ol000US %7C04000US06 %7C 16000US0602000 &_street= &_county
= anaheim &_cityTown= anaheim &_state= 04000US06 &_ zip = &_ Lang= en &_sse= on &Acti = & _
useEV= &pctxt =fph &pgsl= 160 &_submenuld= factsheet_1 &ds _name= ACS_2005_SAFF &_ci_nbr=null
&gr_name= null ® = &_keyword= &_industry =.
Data Profile: Anaheim city, California. Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005 American Community
Survey
http: // factfinder. census.gov /servlet/AC SSAFFFacts ?_event= Search &geo_id = &_geoContext= &_street=
&_ county= anaheim &_cityTown=anaheim &_ state= 0 &_zip= &_lang en &_ss on & =f
&pgsl =010.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html.
2010, June. US Climate Policy and Actions. http: / /www.epa.gov /climatechange /policy /index.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric
Lifetimes. Non CO Gases Economic Analysis and Inventory.
http: // www. epa. gov / climatechange /glossary.html #GWP
2008, April. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http:// www. epa. gov / climatechange /emissions /index.html
2008. Criteria Pollutants. http: // www. epa. gov /oar /oaqps /greenbk/o3co.htmll
Watts, Jonathan. 2007, June 4. China unveils climate change plan. Guardian.co.uk.
http:// www. guardian. co.uk / world / 2007 /jun/0 /china.j onathanwatts.
Webster, Ben. 2010, February 4. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri under pressure to go over glacial error, The
Times http : / /www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news /environment /article
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Santa Ana Monitoring
Station (ID No. ID 049087). http: // www. wrcc . dri.edu /summary/Climsmsca.html. Accessed June 2011.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Anaheim Monitoring
Station (ID No. 040192). http: // www. wrcc .dri.edu /summary/Climsmsca.html. Accessed 2009.
Models
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006, November 1. EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3.
September 2013 The Planning Center IDC &E • Page 5 -7
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SITES REZONING PROJECT FOF AND SOC
CIi'Y OF ANAHEIM
�. References
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic A'oise Prediction Model,
U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Report No. FHWA -RD77 -108.
Rimpo and Associates, Inc. 2007. URBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.2.4.
Sonoma Technology, Inc. CALINE4 Computer Model, Version 1.31.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod), Version 2011.1.1.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, August. Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
Paffe 5 -8 • The Planning Center DC &E
.September 2013
H
W
T
w 1 w
ti
u
O
d'
M
O
O
ct
N
N
u,
O
O
U
a
w
U
a
v
a�
A
U
�O
a
bA
O
0
0
.
O
b
'c3
tz,
O
M
O
O
03
r-�
cd
W
ctS
N
N N
z
� �
U a
N
O
O
i
M
0
N
O
0
w
Ld
U
O
b4
0
N
O
tz,
00
00
d'
O
O
M
O
N
O
v
d
a
O
r-
O
O
O
M
O
N
0
v
b
d
N
O
U
cn
0
N
v
O
. .
V)
N
0
U
v
O
�3
v
0
t
O
O
N
TS
s.,
O
O
0
v
C.
O
A
a
O
G.
O
i.
a
N
cd
cz v
b0 � C
> �
� v En
cd' ' v�
O
v .O
ti
cd
o ^,
O co U
v .d
C m 3 ct
v O
no
to O �>1'
~_ s
o o v
.., o C,3 v �
Cl) cd
Cd
cl
� v
o b a
O O� y O
W O U v C CZ
w
U
O
0
J O O
O
y + ' l o
O
by Ln O bD
0
-o
to v �'
.� c
cd +� O
CO
• � O O " �,
O O O rn '� •�
O
•� � 3 0 0 �
3` °
En
y U 3
C
a
W
Q
fi
U
Q
0.
M
0
N
U
0
0
z
a
0
U
O
CL
0
z
0
N
W
w
co
Lu
z
ZD
OW
a=
CLs
oz
0 ¢
z0
o~
2 U
O
d
Ln
3
ct
o 'o a4 0
-d
C�3
-C
CIS
o o p ° >
cb
�
DTs
o a o�
o ai rs 3
ct
s'
cd
o on
.
ct
U U C J ""
•''r 3..
bA
U •'"' � N O O
� ' ~
9b ^ cy N
Q O YC
'C7 O
U
O 0 U
o
o 0
3
0
0
03
C ° o
o
cd
a3
�
00 � Q
cn
p by
a�
to
o bA
o
o
L , Qn
wct'
cz
cz
yr
U
-
C13
: Go�
s,
En
cn
y
rA
bA Lt
3-
0 R; b
L6
vi
O
d
Ln
Ug
0
O Q
Z Z
Q Q
LL LL
00
LL r
F.. H
U U
W
O
K
fl-
0
O
LU
w
CO
Lu
cn
co
z
0
0
z
O
Q�
U
C
Q)
L
W
6
w
[:;
►]
M
C
N
N
O
W o o
o
H o
° V
u I
3
•4 cn
° -•
aQQ(- a,QQ
aE- �1aQ
a� E�
ca
0
Y
;o�
U
`�F,
b O
8
O
=`„
O4 cl
Ca . 0
a ��
I
cc
C °
O
v
3
fl Y
Cd
it '�
U
N
W
a 05 E
a-0
3 U
o
O > a�
= -o.
>
°°
r.
cc
U)
E a
P>.°
—°' °
O
Wit*
v
N
to
^o
v
y
U
-D +'�
a� O
N �+ N
b
c O
t: — 0 -o
c N
U C.
w
p
` "It
04
it �,,,•
a^
N
to
> C
.,, C
N
U
O O
O y
¢b0 Y
O
a DMA
O
a 04
r.
y + O
y
to
N
Ln
�•
co
N c�
q❑
v tw b
ai r. N
o
�,
O
O Q
V) b4
•y
O
CZ ti O
•a
w
a0 "b v
•a'
w O
y
O
L YOn
p
cz (D
°o'
o o°
o
o. '
o
o
.,
o
-o
OA 'o
s.
" EA
t as O y
= ° 04
�. of
.N
V 0 '
o b°
°'
U
U U
U a 3
O N G '�
o
N =�
C (D-
O=
G ro
�^
• y
y °
o
>
'
• • •
• • •
•
•
N U
M L, h
O
W �••
Cd
i4 VD
w
0
U U
b4
y°
°
c4
0
0.
0
0
u
O
O �
cL4 0
O
M
C
N
N
to
w
Z
pw
a - =
o Z
Q
z
Z
�Y
o�
2 U
a
0
a�
E
0
U
o
•� o
o
•° Q •°
t •° a t •°
a
a�1�1E- �aCaCa
a�1(�F- �aCal�
x �
C13 cz
m
b o ct
U A p 0 b
U ti
w
U
U cn
CC
GUJ p to N
CA
N 1 bA Q O
p
O
d
4J
O GL
^.. 12
S."
i O O 'O
pp cc
4c
C r F
v ° ��
U R7
a G m o
y w
cc
U
h ..O O
w
O
o
c
V
M
It
C
a;
Q)
a
N
W
V
v
r
�J
U �
O LL
N =
� Q
2 2
¢a
LL LL
0 °
LL
)
)
)
C
O
)
U
oo
N
U
w O
�
�
Q
U . r y Q O Q O
O COD p ° _° C."7 Cl Q
k p b- Uol 'ca d b on
o�
,G
,A,, �?a,�°
at E
o
Yo ^ °
N
N a
O
cz
v
y
cn
M
O
N >
O
CC co-r cn N
cts
y O
cd
O
G.' '.' x "" N ° -O 4" . G
N O
4. �1. �, • .
O °Q cOV
`
ox
O'
to cz 0
O U
QI N U—
N OU Z
Q O
>
,� Z N y U Q ccS L:.
O . N �.
'
s ao b
x' c^
N Q
E N>
.c .
y_ o 5 V
co
O ' 8 1
-fl
tb
s.. - X
Oro
O is
_
CZ U
�
o t En
-o
o a a N
'� 0
o 0
' y O
A 'C
on a� b 0
O N .�
E
R. 4°
U
_N
N N
�" bA
�Q
Q
w
U
q
fi
.
N
W
z
° w
CL=
n. a
oZ
d
z LL
Z O
c }
O
= U
a
0
o
o
o
o
o"
a" >
>
. o
>
>
w >
th
top.,
w
0
U
_ to
_ w
on
op
O;
O;
�QNQNQN
O�
O ;.
O �.
QN
O
O
� 0 0
0 0
O O
,� � • O • O
,�
G�
0
°a QQ Q
w Q Call
a�lA Q
a Q Q Q
aQC�G1
L
w
o
.�
C > o
°
�
CIO
w
i
I°
w
I D
O
CZ
UD
W
v a cd a)
ca
.0 Q o c
o
t o
LI D
b '3 .
o
o .
�.�
❑ o
„
Y
on
o o `� •
cc
°
c
0
VI ;t
o o
-o ti
p
a r Q
0
o
.�
°
to 7E
cz
o o
y
� 'b
o
U LID
° a
Ln
I t
p
w
cn
Cj
O
.q
O
G 3 >, a
L o v
U c z
3 cc°
O
o
° 0
>
o
• >
�
•
'Y
U U y V
p p, .o
a��i
v� ai w � r,
� y
a�i v im,
�
CL
n
cn an
j
o..�' = 'O
3 c,
w
cn N
O
ca :
Y
CZ - .
o> v.
a 3 O aj
on
ao U
O Oq
O U
O t
°
a
rA
O
a. U o
(
a ao
O O U
O U cc
° U
O U ca
y)
U
cz
A a� o
CA
O
�
�
Lt cz
i
.o o
H
a�
U
C
N
LL
m
M
N
V
o�
o
o
o
o
o"
a" >
>
. o
>
>
w >
th
top.,
w
to
an
_ to
_ w
on
op
O;
O;
�QNQNQN
O�
O ;.
O �.
QN
O
O
� 0 0
0 0
O O
,� � • O • O
,�
G�
,O � O • O
°a QQ Q
w Q Call
a�lA Q
a Q Q Q
aQC�G1
o
.�
C > o
°
�
CIO
w
i
I°
w
I D
CZ
UD
o
v a cd a)
ca
.0 Q o c
o
t o
LI D
b '3 .
o
o .
�.�
❑ o
„
Y
on
o o `� •
°
c
0
VI ;t
n cq
N cq �
cd
0
Q.
.�
to 7E
°
o o
y
� 'b
o
U LID
° a
p
w
U
Cj
O
.q
O
G 3 >, a
o
U c z
3 cc°
O
o
° 0
>
o
• >
y
U U y V
L."
cz
CL
n
cn an
j
3 . cs
14
on
ao U
O Oq
O U
O t
°
a
ca
i` a on
O
a. U o
(
a ao
O O U
O U cc
° U
O U ca
M
N
V
o�
U �
Ow
� Q
Z Z
Q Q
00
U CJ
w
0
a
cr
C
Qi
Q�
T*
aLl
O
U
�o
a
a
B
M
ti
O
N
D]
d
d
�d
�i
O
U
�"
a� Q
U
a� Q >
"O O •^
o ao • ^ a� Q
q b O
co • ^ a� Q
a� Q
o
bA
�.
CA 4-i
to r to
o m.
bA ... ..
O
� > A
-o o
> F 0 0
�-o
W O > A
x�
v O > C
�b
pa O
b
o.��•�
o
��b o
o
o.
o
o
�QN
tw
o 3 °3
�Q, �QN
o
�a �QN
3a
c
, °�
��,o�
U�•o�, o
��,a o
Vi
C1. ' � �
�+ > .O O
L'a
.fl O. > Q. > >
-0 � '> C1. > >
O" > >
aC��1�1a,C�E�a
aC�Ca�1Q�1
" "a.�1QCa
m
to b4
O
p
Y O O
r
W
O ca
U
U
ct
G (r)
cam
u b
a o
3
o
al ctj
")
°� ao
g U
'Y ° o
rA as
° w u a
o
cc y
O
,,
to
cd
o y) x..1•• ..+ tom.+ C
O O
W O
Y
!].
N
U t
cz
O O
O Q O t °
O
4°
N G
cd
z
o°
ca
`° ° °
co o
° CC U
o~ o
o — o
a cc i
.° a' U
co
U°�.
rn a •
O .�
a
u 0 bA O O y
R O
a�i 14
-
a p
O U U c
N O
-d W
at O Q a*
W bA �.
V)
v �i
° Z' CC
•:
V a) cC
U N
O. to
bA
a�O.r
N O W O w
U cC
^. O r
Vi
O ," m 0 h
to
O O' U U O a O 7.
O �'
may„
W y
cz
� aoi
� w
o � C7 0 v�
o a �
�
>, ° o
Ts •''^ a�i
Q, cC 'C7�1 O
¢, .c � ° / '
��
,� � I a" • i .
cc
0 to cu
cz
U
oc
b .b M
vi aq
vi CL
ai [ Q U w U
C7
4 ay
o"
co n
v1 O
v
cn b
N
u
a)
N
U
Ca.
OA
to
O
O AA
O Oo
O Oo
H
a co
a
a ao
a. to
'
a o0
Q�
T*
aLl
O
U
�o
a
a
B
M
ti
O
N
D]
d
d
U
O
0
LL
0
U
O
CL
0
z
0
N
W
K
co
w
en
w
z
0
CL _
as
oz
z u
—0
U }
O ~
Z U
U
C
ow
c ao a '>
'> 0 bA rY O��A
w � ; ; Q O p
0
o M :y ,C
�; aQC -1�1 aCaCa�1 ,,,:aGal� ,;; aE•� ac) aU u.v�
> on �
v ._ o 'd o 'i. w 3? o r o
U N OA U D O
O
l
U O 0 .� C3 > a 3 O O
p O bA N° U. r. O O s
G b G7 O
cl, O .� U > O> w �^ O O O U Q y sue, Cc
p a C . id •� «S ti O U 0 O U O' >
O N�� y0 U � •+ . U � y ,� � W N O S N
o i> V
Jz > U U
OU 0 6i _ C fl o n N O
o U '0 O
oomc� ��� °moo ° >a ��'� Cc
c0 U 'o C L, f3 y ° O o b
N Q ¢ C L" O� ¢ U On U U O, ° Ci 0
o 0 c v° p
o on ? ' o r o N a o o¢ u o N o '� > 3 0
a O b O .o N •U 4. cl fV a cd > Cl, > O: V O E U v, ! U
ccS (/j • Q' N V7 > N Z '•� U «7 O +' C7 W °0 +� °
:O ^; /—� U /—� N 3 U U cC', �
b O b . 4r n
_ O _ O
is to C O O O U O O q 0 O ci
v CC ' yam U ai O O co
60 cc
ct 11
7s m
U U bA d • E" v O N bid E"^ . O [—+ • bA RS y bD .� �" bJJ E•' U O H >
• N U 00 % Q `,Q;: '.J O U O _V cc ' C CG Y cc
—14 U -
o O b
> U N .. 0� Q C 0 .fl 0 y ('V ° Q" N O
° ° v ,u d d n v> W > o v,
v b 4,
o
V CD
Ln O Q m G
O bA O dA O bA Z O p t�
O o
.° c ° � �] •° c .� C '° •" � O
to Ls, bq� P. bA V O pr O O
N
Um
ow
o�
z
LL LL.
00
LL }
H N
U U
w
O
a
c�
0
uj
LU
N
cn
co
Lu
H
Z
0
CL
0
0
p
a�
c
m
��
ry
Z
� q
C7 b d ca v >, v ^C7 w bq a`"i y W
xi U U ,� C' r-, �j
ca v 3 a o$ '°
cc (t m• 3 4
6 t ct3 4.
w�
.'6 t U
ct ca ° y, —O — O 2 O v 0 3 L" � dA bC
0. i ~ O x
y • t ti 0 L1
cc CL.
CZ Co
'd O p .�� d y
N ; id cd Cc c0 '� ..� v p N GL co
7 v O >
tA
O v
-0 r ;.: s ,� O Q v .fl v O >O U
ti U O U w N O - b Q"
bio
«3 v
cc U v L]
U cQC o 00 " Q CO v U O
C3 h O
U v� CJ
cc
N a N a O w p U U b Cd
42 m
to U w a 2 rn o o Q a .0 ai .
s
al - N
Cn y U N L.
C6 (D C�.� N
C
�
d
w
O
d
N a
b O
C�
aU
FaQQ
C7 b d ca v >, v ^C7 w bq a`"i y W
xi U U ,� C' r-, �j
ca v 3 a o$ '°
cc (t m• 3 4
6 t ct3 4.
w�
.'6 t U
ct ca ° y, —O — O 2 O v 0 3 L" � dA bC
0. i ~ O x
y • t ti 0 L1
cc CL.
CZ Co
'd O p .�� d y
N ; id cd Cc c0 '� ..� v p N GL co
7 v O >
tA
O v
-0 r ;.: s ,� O Q v .fl v O >O U
ti U O U w N O - b Q"
bio
«3 v
cc U v L]
U cQC o 00 " Q CO v U O
C3 h O
U v� CJ
cc
N a N a O w p U U b Cd
42 m
to U w a 2 rn o o Q a .0 ai .
s
al - N
Cn y U N L.
C6 (D C�.� N
U
U
O
0
z
0
U
O
W
CL
U
z
z
0
2
LU
W-
co
LLJ
w
z
O LL
CL =
as
O Z
a
LL
Z O
cn >
O~
2 L
on
a
8 o
v,
bq
Z c '
• y pQ r
O O O
_ .�
ai C1. Q Q Q
at id M w Ln
2 l l� °
uo
H h
p a w^ U cd o
a�
on
ct
ct
CO ° ° o
> 3 o
y y° p ^O
CO
a. . a) cc °'
oj
n
°
N�-75 o o �� as b �c a¢ �w
b n s O VV y iC N 5 S ¢ L Cd ~ p v
id O .� .� O
a) C�, b bA C6 y cc b s, x ^ b x ? cy
S3, y
b4 a) Ur O �. a) > cz c U U �' 0
EL
cc cd r ^d t~ cA
cd t] w CIS v 0 U a) Y cd G
pi
C; N N a)
w cd a
O O is U N .., cd cd O U C
c a o¢ o . H H a o
Y
:Ej 11 cd
Q)
U
N
W
N
LC)
a
tt N c, O yN N
t -d w p o cc cd
ccc O O
ct M3
o ° 'pdY a te'; c N
CL. .p w 3 cd 4, 5 O .0
N
d
h
W
V
Q
v
C
U
v
H
A
U m
O w
w =
oQ
z
Q Q
LL LL
O O
LL }
H H
U U
w
O
CL
0
z
z
O
N
W
H
0
a
n.
0
z
0
Q�
U
C
N
L
W
a
a a
c 0 m
w
w
o
bD
bD
bD
pD Q+
bq
b4
U
U
C
p cc
o a of
�'C3 O
'y
�
+�
t'�
��'��
..fir
� adN
..3
a
a
a
to
,x�•��'�
° aw aQ
3
-���
o aa. a
o as a
o o
o
o
0
o3
o 03
a o
a, cd p 0 3
a .n
a .o
x
O
w on a aD
Q(�6 Q
C4 a�1C�Ca
a,Q�l
aQl�
aC��l_
a�1CaCaa,aG�QCa�a4
O Y U - r. ' o "
p yU > v v p cc
cj ��� � di �.0,..� ,��.� �•� � y� a c�>U a�i
o o o k > o U o, ° �- w o (1)
.> b o °: a o cad ca 0
a a
f ,• � a� . � U c? a W � U � c° � cc � w
ca
m y t g
1
a 2 o . o o
V) aD on � (v d '� 0 3
a ~d °' a i
r, ,a
Y 72 uo
cn
y
^d ° G1 v'Si o 'b U CC G1+ .}^..' -� U F " �, „�.� w
> O cS cd ,� a�
co
p 0 a U U= 0 8 O b O O a cd - v " C
`° Y cd .� ° o c �Ua b y cc
o •� .., y . a a 4. CD •.� � aD o � �' w ° o� "; o o ar •.. >, `�' s.
cc
ca cd
cc o d H w on b U
N 64
r
a a y¢' w m 0H .tea o F, �� F. �
co Q) v W
M
O
N
.a
c 0 m
w
w
o
0 0
U
p cc
•°
cn
4° 7� 3
•o a
oD
•° a
CD
oD
a
4
�
o
o aD o an
a � a
�
ce
a, cd p 0 3
a .n
a .o
x
O
w on a aD
M
O
N
.a
w
2
p LL
a=
CL a
O z
a
LL
Z C
_
O~
= L
G
Q
C
C
d
d
lye
1
N
>�;>
��. >
a�1Qa
a �1C�LaCa
a°
m
-o
`^ ca
y
3
0`U)
i7,
oj
o
`-.
CC 6
Q.)
b
-
ca
03
u c
4�
'2)
U
U
c0
•21 .�
s�U..
y
0
ca
� °
3 0
m
=�
L
E m
G
w
• i.
a�
`
Lt
p
= =
0
v ca
>
rA
�
co
o
3
cl
0 �
'o
i U
ca
i_
o
_„ w
Y u C Q
C O
cC
3
U
a U V CL
tn
o Cc)
°�' �- a
3
°' c an .
�
° -0 0 N Q.
a�
p
O 3
L
Cj
pp !
° E a)
,�
bA
S3. U al
��-�
. • 3
C) . 4. It
C,3 3
o
O .U. .
' p,
TJ a� 3
t/1
Y cc w p v
o
c t 3
3 p w
.p
U
3 O
cc
p
p
0
y
in.
�•��
„U�a
°tea
°���3��G°
CS
Al
U
o
o
U
r Cc
U «+
O
N
0 m
oW
cn =
o¢
z
V U
0
a
aD
U
C
N
C
O
s
O
U
C
a
ooa,a
os~aa
oots,a
� a ° Y o o o
3q�a
03
one ° ° ;Ur-
a;
a
o � ��, CA u ad a�� . o�
�
o a s
bq,y .0 N �, � c v � s.. • p • y Vi � U `*�"'' .�" O
M
kr)
CC Q t V
C,3
o v ., - cs �.
CJ °
u '> a o on .� a >, >
o V �,
U 9 a cu o a ao'v
. b '., p
.-. L..
cz Q)
C'1' „[ ' k M > �••' .b U .. Y a)
w la
w ao
Q.°;
G.
Ep
0 0 of U
CZ
3 ti;
3
0
U a
m 8 o
fl o o
:� v
,X, o b
co
cn
o
N
cc
c
a� CC o °
U `� U • '� cd s O N ,s;
H '
U C� N
U O O
•� O Q > a) }; y t� U 2
Lo
0
cz
CZ
o 3 o
o v
C CL
o ., 3 >, O b U to > s:
p" o N p
R. s� a v al °
>
> U .
M
U O W O
v v
�,t;•"", a' 00 cUd U
y
CC U N .
vi cd <C m� ccsQ
w
0o
03
o
cz a te,
. " 0
w �n 3
E ° 3
'
o to
s an a o
M
O
N
o�
Ln
w
Z
0
o:
z
o`.
N
Ln
Q
L
r°
a
ti
e
0
a�
0
U
O
•�
U �
s.,
O �
x
�b
as
to
°
U
Q U o 0
-o
W o ?
�
^cy In u -�
�=
b
i
Y
7 o «S
Y
cd Q° R O
C
C. cd
y U 6J [�
M
Uo
C'1 0
^O
o
CZ$
Q,
O A
b
U
CL
U
v b o b �' o
�• v
o v
'°
>
° o
eq b
aoi oo.a
>
U �,
o
Lt
w c3 > y¢ C
C7 b
¢
a o o
W
cn ° �t
�^+
o U° 3 m o o
sU,�.+ N ""
G
°
>
h
N fi t-'
0 (Z '"
o
N O
.'� rOi 40
U p U 3
3
> O °�
Q
0 0 t.
U- O
as p
-
O
Y�
b
1
v
CA c U D
W m
N W U y O .4
to
°
H
C°
w Q w �.'
b a4
U Q - d
o
ti
O
p O q
.b
t
C-4
cz
0
u
u
u
U p
• o
j H
O
N
Ln
Q
L
r°
a
ti
e
U �
O w
cn =
oQ
z
Q Q
LL LL
00
LL ,
cn
CD
U
C
L
^ ?
W
LO
a
0.
W
Q
U
Q
N
M
O
N
d
^ O
O
U
a
cd
N U
6J G�
N
°
��
��
EA
aQF�aQa
aC F� :. C)
aCaF�rZ
to
-tj
U > U
3
Y o o O
Q) aH b
- E.�
o
m o y
" CO O O �, O y T
i .o
O U O tY .--� ca N
ca c
N W N U
cz -4
�'
N Q� O" Q•' > N U OU ' U �' ' N
Q" ¢ H
y °"
ce
O LL
^
to
m (7 LY
p
E >
U v D
Gq > N cci cc
U
q a> cC N O
f3 p p q O
H O cci (1 y a�
V
a�
y 0 !�
G v = ty O = '= ^ O
a..�
� � CO
�., V s.. r
E U Q `3 ct
`�'� H /-. M
O O
U •� .� N C/] bA
O b p �44� C7 O O ^O p O¢
(1) cz N ,� .' O G.
v �� fl
'� s y' U
O
0 °
° 3 o 0 ° �.°
- o o .o
W y
ca U
b an n C p C
y
O. N O O U U
N
°
O O O � .d 00 c3 4-
O N O G E
� M O i; p
0 p 4)
o 0 E '^
o m a o Q W
6
o U v t co
th
° v E
p ' E ° a� °
> cn t3 v
ca cc ° °
0
�t a w O N °: O
° w
O s�
p o v >>
v a
C y c° o d Y Q
U U H C7 ^c ^c
ao H C7 u° o.
o
Q v n
c
vi
.o
0
0
OA
E
O
Q
to
C
b
LO
a
0.
W
Q
U
Q
N
M
O
N
d
W
z
K �
O w
a=
as
C) z
LL
z
o—
= U
G7
U
C
CD
N
I t
M
L
a
a�
-t
F:
i
0
0
U
on �
a
o o >
b N cc
o
cn
c ' an > Q
c ° p-
N
o
aooao
3�
b
3o�aU3
r. <
CEO=
R:
o;Q�1QQ
aQHaQQ¢a
ca - co 0 . v
cc
•
�, cd
N
�"'
0.
U �'" i
p
3•
E o
'-�'
Q) E:a
Y 3 ':
0 o
O M
H
'.�' 0 H Cd
° o
0 th > 'd Y
°
— o
co '.� .s
: y y
�'o o
o .� U o b U
a .° o
Y
M .o
a
o o
s
0
co
.° V)
W- a 0
o
N
c �
cz
C U �
U
" `�
�" U Cc
Q
v u � co �
°
M o
c a' U o c��o ccz a
a v b
co
o >
a�
Q i
�
1
co Z ° 0
o
a
a o.
cn
a F"
o �
v d
�� o "
w�
on o
O
c � �
a+ 00 O U
U ..
V) -0 a0 3�
kr; o Z
p
dc.•; a x a
cz t+r N
U " U
Q
N ^O OA.�
� 0 o 0 0.
al M i
co . o
w co o s�
o
o
En
G7
U
C
CD
N
I t
M
L
a
a�
-t
F: