PC 83-16RESOLUTION N0. PC 83-16
A RESOLUTIUN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM (A) CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONM[NTAL IMPACT
REPORT N0, 252, (6) MAKING CERTAIN FINOINGS IN
CONNECTIUN THEREWITH, AND (C) ADUPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDIN~ CUNSIDERATIONS.
WHEREAS, Anaheim ;tadium Associates, a California general partnership, has
submitted to the City of Anaheim a proposal for the phased construction of
a commercial office and retail development, together with parking
structures, which would be located on certain real property owned by the
City of Anaheim and known general'ly as the Anaheim Stadium property
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Project") which Project is more
specifically described in Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 252 (pages
16 through 24, and exhibits 1 through 10) prepared for the City of
Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, the City af Anaheim is the lead agency for the preparation and
consideration of environmental documents for said Project as defined in
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, (hereinafter
"CEQA") and the State of California G~idelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act (h~reinafter "State Guidelines")•
and
,
WHEREAS, said Project is subject to compliance with the provisions of CEQA
and the State Guidelines since said Pro,ject requires the discretionary
issuance of a conditional use permit, and variance from off-street parking
requirements by the City of Anaheim, and approval of a phased ground lease
master pian, and approval of a tentative parcel map, and execution of a
development agreement by said City; and
S~lHEREAS, the City of Anaheim Planninq Commission is the designated
decision malcing body for the conditional use permit, and is respsonsible
for forwarding recommendations to the City Council as to other Project
~iscretionary actions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has prepared or caused to be prepared, Draft
EIR No. 252 to address the significant, adverse environmental impacts,
m~*~4ation m^?sures and project alternatives associated with the Project;
a n.:
WHEREAS, tht ,;ity of A~iaheim has consulted with other public agencies, and
the genera'! public and giveri them an opportunity to comment on said Draft
EIR as required by the provisions of CEQA and the State G~~idelines; and
WfIEREAS, on January 24, 1983, a duly noticed public hearing was held by
the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim t~ provide a further
opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond to the Draft
EIR; and
IVHE~tEAS, the City of Anaheim has evaluated the cornments rec:~ived from
public agencies and persons who reviewed the O~aft EIR; and
-1-
PCt33-16
WHERE~S, said comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIk,
~ither verbatim or in summary, a list of persons, organizations and public
ayencies commentiny on the Uraft EIR, and the responses of the City of
Anaheim to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process have been attached to and made a part of said Draft
EIR to form the Final EIR for said Project as reyuired by Section 15146 of
the State Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, said Final EIR has been presented to the Planning Commission of
the City of Anaheim for review and consideration prior to the final
approval of, and commitment to, said Project;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Ananeim as follows:
1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim does hereby
certify that Final EIR No. 252 for said Project nas been completed in
compliance with CEQA and the State Guidelines and that the Planning
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in
Final EIR No. 252 prior to approval of, or commitment to, said
Project. Said Final EIR is composed of the following elements:
A. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 252 and all appendices
thereto:
~. Comments and respon~es to camments on Draft EIR No. 252;
C. City of Anaheim staff report dated January 24, 1983; and
D. Minutes of the City of Anaheim Planning Commission hearing of
January 24, 1983.
2. That the Planning Cornmission of the City of Anaheim does hereby find
that chanyes or alterations have been reyuired in, or incorporated
into, the Project which wili mitigate or avoid the significant adverse
effects identified in the final EIR as specifically itemized below.
A. Landform/Topography
Impacts: Project construction will require further permanent
modifications tu the topography of the project site and the
importa~ion of approximately 2U,000 cubic yards of fill material.
Fill materials will raise the project site's elevation an
approximate average of .62 feet. (Draft EIR pages 25-25) Grading
operations will increase noise and dust levels in the immediate
vicinity and alor~g the future haul route.
Findings: Grading operations will be conducted in conformance
will all applicable City of Anaheim gradiny codes. (Draft EIR
page 26). Given the present asphalt paved condition of the
nroject site and the relatively minor amounts of earthwork and
fill materials required for project construction, significant
landforrn impact.s will be avoided when adopted mitigation measures
identified i,~ the final EIR are applied.
B. Geoloyy/Soils
Impacts: Structures will likely be subject to yroundshaking from
future offsite seisrnic events (earthquakes). (Draft cIR page 29).
-2-
PC83-16
Findings: Standard engineering practices will be employed to
ensure structural soundness of buildings and parking sL-ructures.
Seismic and peak load considerations will be evaluated in conjunc-
tinn with structural design. Detailed sr'ls and geology reports
will be prepared prior to issuance of building ~ermits. (Draft
EIR page 29). Due to the absence of any significant geological
and soil constraints to development, implementation of the adopted
mitigation measures identified in the final EIR will eliminate
significant, adverse impacts.
C. Hydrology/Water Quality
Impacts: Project construction will cause a short-term degradation
of water quality during construction activities as a result ni
sedimentation, Long-term decreases in runoff water quality will
result fran increased automobile contaminants. (Draft EIR pages
34-35).
Findings: Adverse impacts to water quality will be substantially
reduced with adoption of mitigation ~easures contained in the
final EIR concerning parking lot maintenance and sweeping,
encouragement of public transit, and conformanace with applicable
City and regional programs for surface runoff and sedimentation.
(Draft EIR Page 35). Water quality impacts cannot be completely
avoided with any <nown, feasible mitigation measures. The
remaining level of impact after rnitigation will not be of a
significant level.
Impacts: fhe st~~dy area is located within the floodplain of the
Santa Ana River according to a 1980 study conducted for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (fEMA). The flood designation
is "AO", indicating that the site has approximately a 1~ chance
flooding in any given year to a depth of one-foot. (Draft EIR
pages 33-34).
Findings: The Project will comply with the C~ty's Flood Nazard
Ordinance (No. 4136). The lowest habitable floor of any commer-
cial office building will be elevated above the designated, one
foot base flood elevation. Basements for mechnical equipment or
similar• uses will be flood proofed to conform with applicable
regulations. (Draft EIR pages 35-36). Incorporation of the
mitigation measures contained in the final EIR will avoid any
significant adv~rse impact due te flooding.
D. Cultural Resources
Impact: While no archaeolgical sites have been identified, a
possibility exists that subsurface sites may be present; however,
if sites are present, they would likely be in a disturbed
condition due ta previous grading and urban development. (Draft
EIR page 38).
Findings: If any archaeological deposits are encountered during
construction, an archaeolgist will be contacted and the appro-
priate measures for the salvaging of these resources will be
-3-
PC83-16
implemented under the direction of the City of Anaheim. (Draft
EIR page 38). The incorporated mitigation measure contained in
the final EIR eliminates the potential ~or significant adverse
impacts to archaeological resources.
E. Existin; l.~nd Uses
Impacts: Project construction will require the relocation of
approximatley 'L,953 Anaheim Stadiurn parking spaces and will
require modification tu existi~y stadium access and traffic
circulation. The existing Southern California Edison overhead
transmission lines will require relocation, as will the city's
well No. 33. (Draft EIR pages 39-42).
Findings: If necessary to maintain ccnformance with ground lease
requirements, Anaheim Stadium parking spaces dis~laced by the
Project will be replaced by the project sponsor in offsite parkiny
structures so that the City's obligations to the Angels and Rams
will be maintained. The City of Anaheim will benefit substan-
tially from increased parking availability for weekend, holiday
and evening stadium events when Project parking garages will be
rnade available for the use of stadium patrons. The project
sponsor will underground the SCE overhead lines and will relocate
the city's well No. 33. (Draft EIR page 42). Proposed access and
circulation modifications will maintain acceptable traffic flow
for Anaheim Stadium events and will not result in a significant
adverse impact to stadium operations. Proposed Project design and
incorporation of the mitigation measures contained in the firial
EIR eliminates significant adverse impacts to onsite land uses.
F. E~isting and Planned Uses Surroundiny the Study Area
Impacts: The Project incremenially intensifies the urban charac-
ter of the site and will resultan*ly ~ncrease traffic, air quality
and noise impacts ;n the immediate ar~a, most notably durin,y peak-
hour periods. (Draft EIR pages 51-53).
Findings: t4itigatiun measures contained in the fina~ EIR have
been incorporated into the Project to substantially reduce
traffic, air yuality and noise impacts, and resultant adverse
effects to surrounding land uses (refer to subparagraphs H, I and
J below). These impacts to surrounding land uses which are
primarily non-residential will be substantially reduced with
applied mitigation measures. Under certain peak usa conditions,
impacts to surrounding land uses may remain at significant levels.
Impact: Building shadows will be experienced onsite and on the
stadi~~~ parking lots to the north of the study area. Existing
structures offsite will not likely be impacted by Project building
shadows. (Draft EIR pages 52-53).
Findings: t4itigation measures to reduce shadow irnpacts will be
studied furtner with precise building design studiPS. Significant
adverse impacts ~i~il be avoided with appropriate building siting
and desiyr.
- 4 -
PC83-16
G. Socioeconomics
Impacts: Approximately
from ovtside the local
employment opportunities
11,290 persons and a
units, partially within
pages 80-82).
5,983 einployees are estimated to be drawn
labor market. It is estimated tfiat new
will result in a population increase of
demand for approximately 4,390 dwellin3
the affordable price range. (Draft EIR
Finding: The deficiency of af~ordable housing in Orange County
represents a significan~t adverse impact to Future project
employees. To partially mitigate this impact the City ~f Anaheim
will continue to pursue affordable housing within the City through
participation in governmer,t funded affordable housing programs as
identified in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan and
will continue to provide density bonuses and other incentives to
developers who construct affordable housing r.ro.jects in ~he City
(Ur•aft EIR pages 85-86). The City of Anaheim's e~forts to provide
affordable housing will not likely keep pace with the growing
regional demand. The lack of affordable housing could represent a
significant adverse impact to future Project emaloyees for which
no economically feasible mitigation measures are available.
H.
Transpurtation/Circulation
Impact: The Project is expected to generate 31,670 daily
vehicular trips; 3,690 of these trips would occur in the 4:30 -
5:30 p,m, peak hour. Without mitigation, six intersections would
operate at deficient levels during the peak-hour. (Draft EIR
pages 87-89).
Findings: Project impacts to the local arterial highway system
will be mitigated during the normal peak-hour with adoption of the
final EIR mitigation measures (Draft EIR No. 252 pages 94-96,
Appendix A-Chapter IX and "Comments and Responses", responses
(#9, #10, #11, #12, #13 and #20). These m~~asures include 1) de-
velopment and implementation of a Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) program including carpool, vanpool and transit
elements, 2) improvements of roadway geometrics at six locations
(refer to Draft EIR, Appendix A, Chapter IX for details), 3)
negotiation of a transportation improvements program for funding
of identified improvements, and 4) improved coordination of th~
local traffic signal system. Adoption of the mitigation measures
identified in the f~nal EIR will avoid significant adverse impacts
during typical ~eal;-hour periods.
Iinpacts: Under combined office and afternoon baseball conditions
and wi*.hout mit,igation, a total of three additional intersections
would operate at deficient levels. Under combined office and
evening football conditions and without mitigation, a total of
four additional intersections would operate at defic~ient 1PVels.
(Draft EIR pages 92-93).
Findings: The mitigation measures identified in the final EIR
will substantially mitigate traffic impacts during combinQd
- 5 -
P~~II3-16
~y
Project and stadium event periods; however, some ~ntersections
will continue to operate at deficient levels during thes~~ combined
traffic periods. Combined stadium and normal peak-hour traffic is
only anticipated to occur between 0-4 times per year. T~ par-
tially mitigate impacts during these infrequent traffic condi-
tions, the City of Anaheim will pursue scheduling of major events,
wherever possible, so as not to conflict with normal peak hour
traffic. The city will aiso work to expand its future comput-
erized traffic signal system and will develop a Circulation
Management Ptan Manual to better control traffic for combinations
of stadium and normal peak-haur traffic. Improve~ pedestrian and
vehicular ,;gnage w~ll be developed.
I• Air Quality
Impacts: Short-term exhaust emissions from construction equipment
is estimated to total 19,2 tons, or 4.8 tons per each of the four
development phases. Short-term fugitive dust emissions from
construction is estimated to total 1;344 tons, or 0.8 tons/day
during active construction. (Draft EIR pages ?03-105 .
Findin s: ,
9 Dust emissions will be rnitigated throuyh watering
techniques, covering of trucks filled with soil, and imposition of
speed limits on unpaved surfaces. (Draft EIR a e 109 .
M~tigation measures contained in the final EIR will substantially
reduce construction-related emissions. Impacts remaining after
mitigation may continue to be of significant levels.
Impacts: Assuming buildout in 1987, the Project would produce
6•92 tons/day of air emissior,s, the majority of which (94~) would
result from automobile use. (Draft EIR pages 106-109),
Findings; To mitigate long-term air quality impacts, the Project
will be required to comp]y Nrith AQMD'S Ru1e 708.3 regarding
reduction of mobile-source air emissions during air pollution
episodes. Energy conservation measures which meet or exceed the
requirements of Title 24 will also be imposed. The City of
Anaheim will also implement each of the traffic mitigation
measures contained in the final EIR to improve traffic flow and
encourage the use of transit and rideshare programs. (Draft EIR
page 110 and "Comments and Responses", responses ~8, (~y, #10, #11,
#12, ,~13, ~18, and #20). These measures will substantially reduce
air quality impacts; however, when all economically and
technically feasible rnitigation measures are applied, the
remaining impacts may continue to be of significan: .evels.
J. Noise
Impacts: Short-term construction noise wil? be audible to
surrounding land uses which are primarily nun-residential.
Project-related traff~c will also increase noise levels adjacent
to surrounding arterial highways. Potentially impacted land uses
are either non-residentia~ or transitional in nature. (Draft EIR
pages 111-114).
- 6 -
pCi33-16
Findings: Construction activities will be lirnited to daytime
hours in conformance with applicable City and state policies.
Construction equipment will be muffled or shielded to the extent
feasib~e. (Graft EIR paye 114). Noise-sensitive land uses will
not be impacted significantly by increased traffic volumes and
resultant increases in noise levels. Significant noise impacts
will be avoided.
K. Public Services and Utilities
Impacts: The Project will increase fire department service calls
and operating expenses. The cumulative effects of the Project in
combination with other proximate projects will require a program
of shared costs to provide a new fire station site, station
construction and necessary equipment. (Draft EIR page 120).
Findings: The project will be constructed in conformance with all
applicable building codes and will include fire protection
features. Fire-retardant building and landscaping materials will
be used where possible. The Fire t4arshal will review specific
plans for building design and emergency vehicle access. The
project sponsor will also contribute to a shared cost progra~n for
fire protection facilities. (Draft EIR pages 126-227). Applica-
tion of the mitigation measures contained in tf~e final EIR will
avoid significant adverse i~npacts to fire protection service.
Impacts: An increased number of police service calls can be
expected, thus requiring the need for additional police personnel
and equipment. (Draft EIR page 121).
Findings: Review and approval of security and circulation
features will be rnade by the police department. Adequate security
lighting will be provided. (Uraft EIR page 126). Project impacts
to police services wil~ be reduced to insignificant levels with
thz mitigation measures contained in the final EIR and with
potential additional personnel and equipment funded through
Project generated revenues.
Impacts: ihe Project is expected to consume approximately 65.7
million gallons of water annually. Water supply systems wi?1
require expansion and extention. (Draft EIR pages 121-122).
Findings: Automatic sprinkler systems will be used for landscape
watering during evening and early morniny hours. 4pplicable state
mandated water conservation measures wi11 be implemented. (Draft
EIR pages 127-128 and "Comments and Response", response ~21). The
City anticipates sufficient water supplies to service the project;
however, the project will incrementally reduce the Cit;'s total
water supply and wi11 create ar increased regional demand for
impo~ted potable water. The ~ncreased demand for imported water
may have a cumulative and long-term significant impact.
Reclamation of wastewater for Project irriyation is considered
infeasible for this Project individually ("Comments and Re;ponses,
response #21).
-7-
PC83-16 % '
Impacts: The Project will generate an estimated 66.1 million
gallons of wastewater annually, substantially above wastewater
flows estimated for the project site by the Orange County
Sanitation Districts. Adequate transport facilities are avai'able
in the Sanitation pistri~ts' Santa Ana River trunk sewer (District
#'L). (Draft EIR pages 122-123).
Findings: Sewer line extensions to connect with the District #2
trunk sewer will be constructed by the project sponsor, The City
of Anaheim wi11 coordinate with the Sanitation Districts in
amending the Uistricts' Master Plan. (Draft EiR page 128). The
Project incrementally intensifies the need to expand local
wastewater treatment facilities. 'fhe cumulative impacts of
increased wastewater treatment may have a significant adverse
impact on existing services which can only be mitigated with
continuing improvements to and expansion of existing treatment
facilities.
Impacts: The Project will generate an estimated 81.7 tons/day of
solid waste. Disposal w~ill be accommodated without significant
adverse impact on solid wastes transport or landfill facilities.
(Draft EIR page 124).
Findings: Trash compactors will be installed onsit~ to mitigate
adversea1impacts9to~solidS~wasteraservEces pand fac8i)lities~wil~l~abe
avoided.
Impacts: The Project intensifies the demand for finite fossil
fuel resources. The Project is estimated to require 83.5 million
cubic feet of natural gas and 37.8 million Kwh annually. Southern
California Gas (SCG) and the City of Anaheim Electrical
Engineering Department anticipate sufficient resources to meet
these energy d~^~art@s, (praft [IR pages i24-126j.
Findings: Energy conservation measures will be employed to meet
or exceed the state's conservation standards. Onsite and offsite
infrastructure will be improved to provide adequate services to
ti72 Project without impact to surrounding land uses. (Draft EIR
page 128). Mitigation meaures identified in the final EIR wtll
substantfally reduce impacts to energy resources; however, the
increased long-term demand for finite fossil fuel resources may
have a significant, cumulative and long-term impact.
Impacr; The Project will create an increased demand for telephone
services and use but is not expected to exceed the Telephone
Company's service capabilities, (Draft EIR page 126).
Findings: Existing underground conduits will be re-rouied as
necessary to maintain telephor!e service to the Anaheim Stadium.
(Draft EIR pages 129). Significant adverse impact to telephone
service is not anticipated,
3. The Planning Comrnission of th~_ City of pnaheim further fi~ds that
aii!~ough change~, alteration~ or conditions have been incorporated
- ~3 -
PC83-16
~_ ---
~
into the Project which will substantially mitigate or avoid
significant effects identified in the final EIR, certain of the
significant effects cannot be mitigated to fully acceptable levels.
The rernaining i~npacts identified beluw may continue to be of
significant adverse irnpact even when all feasibly known and identified
mitiyation measures are applied.
A. Intensification of the urban character of the site and surrounding
area with resultant increases in traffic, air emission and noise
impacts.
B. Traffic congestion and operation below acceptable standards during
combined project and stadium event periods.
Findings (A and B ahove): Intensifieation of the urban area is
considered to be an unavoidable effect of Project implementation.
Transformation of the existing surface parking lot to multi-story
office and retail uses will result in increased traffic, air
emissio~s, noise and public services impacts. Tfiese impacts will
be most significant duriny the PM peak hour when combined with
Anaheim Stadium events.
The Planning Commission finds that it is economically infeasible
to require further mitigation in order to fully avoid significant
impact during combined peak hour and stadium event scenarios. The
frequency of these worst case conditions is estimated to occur
only 0-4 times per year. Traffic conditions (and resultant
impacts to surroundiny land uses) will be equal to or better than
existing conditions during the approximately 100 days per year
when the Anaheim Stadium is in use and when there is no con-
flicting peak hour Pruject traffic. Project reyuired offsite
improvements will provide substantial benefit to the City of
Anaheim by improving traffic flow in the vicinity of the Anaheim
Stadiun during Projec~ non-use periods :•rhen the largest stadium
events will normally continue to occur.
The Project further benefits the public by increasing land use
efficiency and promoting growth within the existiny urban fabric.
The infilling nature of the Project may reduce demands for new
development at the urban fringe, thereby working to prese~ve the
City's and County's open space and agricultural lands. The
Project efficiently utilizes the existing urban infrastructure.
C. Tncreased demand and competition for affordable housing brought on
by the estimated 5,983 project employees drawn from outside the
local labor market.
Findings: The lack of adequate affordable housing for new
employees of this project and other projects with:n the C'ty of
Anaheim can be anticipated into the foreseeable future. The
Planning Commission f~nds that it is infeasible to pr~~vide
mitigation through this Pruject beyond what is already being
imposed. The roots of the impact extend to national economic
levels and cannot be fully mitigated on an individual Project
basis. The Project at hartid will pravide substantial economic
benefit to the City and other local jurisdictions through
increased revenues which may assist the City in implementiny
- 9 - PC83-16
future affordable housing projects or in developing new affordable
housing policies within ~ts jurisdictional boundaries. To the
extent that the Project creates new business and employment
opportuniTies within the City of Anaheim, the positive effects of
reduced local unemploument may result.
D. Short-term cons`:ruction equipment emiss?ons and long-term mobile
and stationary _~nissions associated with project implementation.
Findings: The Project will result in increased air pollutants
caused prim~rily by increased automobile use, As with any new
development project, air quality impacts cannot be completely
avoided, The remaining impacts after mitigation may persist at
significant levels, The Planning Commission finds that it is
economically and technically infeasible to further mitigate the
Project's potential air quality impacts. The camplete mitigation
of air quality ~mpacts requires the combined efforts of federal,
state, regional and local agencies. In approving the Project
subject to the conditions and mitigation measures set forth, the
City has done all that is feasibly and reasonably possible at the
local level. it is further noted that until technological
improvements occur to the automobile, or until alternative
transportation modes are developed and receive user acceptance,
air quality impacts will likely persist.
The Project is expected to encourage the use of ~ublic transit and
rideshare and is expected to result in a smaller percentage of
single-occupant vehicles than other Orange County Frojects of
similar use. This finding is based upon the following considera-
tions: 1) the density of employees onsite, 2) the development of
a conven:ent bus turnout with passenger shelter along Orangewood
Avenue, 3) Project proximity to tne RmtraK train station being
developed on the stadium property, 4) Project proximity to the
future fixed-location transit lines being proposed by OCTD and the
City of Anaheim, and 5) the requirements for a Transportation
Systems Management Plan to be developed as a part of this project.
These factors wil"I provide alternatives to single-occupant
vehicles and will partially mitigate air quality impacts.
E. Increased demand for limited regional water resources.
Findings: The Project necessitates increased water use, and
therefure, increased demand for regional imported water. The long-
terrn impacts for imported water cannot be fully avoided if growth
and development is to continue within the region. This impact
cannot be mitigated on a.n individual project basis although the
City will require implementation of all feasible conservation
mechanisms as a partial mitigation.
F. Increased demand on currently limited wastewater treatment facili-
ties.
Findings: The Project will increase the demand on wastewater
treatment facilities which cannot be avoided. The cumulative
effect of this increased demand may be significant if County
- 10 -
PC83-16
wastewater treatment fa;ilities are not expanded in the future.
The Planning Commission finds that it is not possible nor
economically feasible to further mitiyate this potentially
sigriificant i~npact. Ful; mitiyation of impacts to wastewater
tr•eatment facilities will reyuire actions by agencies other than
tne City of Anaheim (refer to Paragraph 4(C) below).
~. Increased long-term demand for ~inite fossil fuel resources
resulting from Project electrical and natural gas requirements.
Findings: The Project (as with any new d2velopment project)
necessitates an increased demand for finite fossil fuel resources.
Althouyli servicing agencies anticipate adequate fuel supplies for
the Project, the long-term demand for fossil fuel resources will
be unavoidably increased. Increased dernand for and dependence
upon these non-renewable resources may have a significant long-
term impact. The Planning Commission finds that it is not
technically nor economically feasible to further mitigate this
irnpact through any measures available to the City.
H. Growth inducments to surrounding developed properties; the project
may encourage redevelopment to higher intensity levels.
Findings: The Project may have the secondary effect of
encouraging intensified yrowth and urban infilling in proximity to
the study area. Potential growth inducements may cause
significant cumulative impacts which cannot be yuantified with
reasonabie accurracy at this time. The urban infilling nature of
the Project ~nay have the positive benefit of reducing growth
pressures at the urban fringe where significant open space and
agricultural opportunities still exist. The Planning Commission
finds that the benefits of the Pro;ect outweigh the potential
environmental risks of growth inducement. The City will continue
to mon9tor develop~~ent proGosals within the study area and will
consider individual projects under existiny planning and
environmental regulations.
4. Certain changes or alterations (e.g., mitigate measures) required in
or incorporated into the Project are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City of Anaheim and can
ar should be adopted by the respective agency as itemized below:
A. The Project adds one to eight percent more traffic to surrounding
freeways (I-5, SR 22 and SR 57) during ~he typical peak hour
period. (Draft EIR, Appendix A pages VIII-4 through VIII-10).
Combined weekday evening football yaine and Project demand would
represent between 2 and 31 percent of potential freeways peak
traffic. (Draft EIR, Appendix A payes XI-19 through XI-21).
Freeway operations and improvements are the responsibility of the
State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS).
Mitigation measures contained in the final EIR such as ramp
metering would substantially reduce Project related freeway
impacts (Draft EIR pages IX-28 through IX-29 and "Comments and
Responses, response #15, and ~16).
- 11 -
PC83-16
g. Rule 403 and Rule 708.3 of the Air Quality Management Plan are
applicable to the Project and when implemented would provide
partial mitigation of air quality impacts. The South Coast Air
Quality Management District is responsible for compilance with and
implementation of these rules.
C. The Project's est~mated wastewater generation exceeds the Project
site's projected flow as shown on the 1975 Master Plan adopted by
the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The County
Sanitation Districts is responsible for updating its Master Plan
of Services and providing continuing wastewater treatmer~t and
disposal to the City of Anaheim.
5. That the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim has balanced the
benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
risks in determining whether to approve said Project. The Planning
Commission does hereby furtf;er find, determine and state, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 15089 of the State Guidelines, that the
occurrence of those certain significant environmental effects
identified in the final EIR and set forth in Paragraph 3 above have
been found acceptable and will be permitted without further mitigation
due to the following overriding considerations:
A. The Project will result in the f~~llowing substantial economic and
social benefits to the City of Anaheim and the surrounding
community.
(1) At full operation, the Project will result in a positive
fiscal impact to the City of Anaheim estimated at $559,330.00
annually, (Draft EIR, pages 83-85 and Appendix B),
(2) The Project will generate an estimated property tax revenue to
other local jursidictions in the amount of $1.8 million annually.
Local school districts will receive the largest single portion of
these revenues. (Draft EIR, Appendix B, page 13).
(3) Approximately 7,820 long-term, employment opportunities will
be created on the Project site with annual combined wages (in 1981
dollars} estimated at 5186.3 million. (Draft CIR, page 73).
(4) The Project will generate an estimated short-term construction
employment of 2,670 man-years with annual combined wages (in 1981
dollars) of $8.8 million over the estimated ten year construction
phasing period. (Draft EIR, page 73).
{5) The City of Anaheim will receive over $1.0 million in one-time
revenues which will offset costs associted with City engineering,
15)pection and processing services. (Draft EIR, Appendix B, page
(6) The Project makes a substantial contribution toward5
implernentation of the City of Anaheim General P1an (Land Use
Element, page 2), which designates the study area for multistory
office development. The Project contributes to the City's desire
to promote the growth and the continued economic: vitali±y of the
Anaheim Stadium Industrial Area.
G+,~ _ _
- 12 -
PCS3-16
(7) The Project promotes land use efficiency by replacing the
existing asphalt parking lot with higher intensity and more
economically productive land uses. Through intensification and
infilling within an existing urban area, the Project is consistent
with ttie state's urban development policy, The Proje~t may reduce
development demands on other City and County open space and
agricultural lands. (praft EIIt, page 141).
(8) Pedestrian plazas and outdoor amenities included within
Project design will provide useable open space features to future
site use,•s. The existing parking lot is of no recreational value
or visual interest to the public. (Draft EIR, pages 23, 39 and
130-133).
(9) The existing 36-inch storm drain located in Orangewood Avenue
is inadeq~ate during peak flow periods. The Project will repla~e
the existing pipe with a 54-inch storm drain at no cost to the
City. (Draft EIR pages 32 and 33). This public improvement will
benefit all surrounding property owners.
(10) Mitigation measures contained in the final EIR require the
project sponsor to fund for both major and minor roadway
improvements that have an estimated constrcution costs, in 1981
dollars, of $4.05 million. These improvements will implement, in
part, the areawide traffic improvements identified in the City's
Commercial Recr~ation Area Trans ~rtation and Circulation
Mana ement Stud JHK & Associates 1980 . Project required
improvemen s w~ e o su s an ia ene i o the City of Anaheim
by improving traffic flow in Anaheim Stadium area during Project
non-use periods. (Draft EIR, pages 94 and Appendix A pages IX-6 -
IX-28 and pages XI-23 -XI-24). Approximately 100 events will
occur at the Anaheim Stadium during an average year of which a
maximum of 4 could be expected to occur in conjunction with
Project peak hour traffic. Project required onsite and offsite
traffic improvements will, therefore, benefit the City by
substantially improving ±raffic conditions for approximately 96%
of the total stadium events. Further, the City of Anaheim wili
benefit from substantially increased parking availability for
weekend, holiday and evening stadium events when Project parking
garages will be made available for the use of Stadium patrons.
(Draft EIR page 90 and Appendix A page XI••25).
(11) The intensity and location of the project increases the
viability of fixed-guideway oublic transit systems being
considered by both the City of Anaheim and the Orange County
Transit District (OCT~), Both agencies are studying fixed-
guideway syste~r~s in proximity to the project site. (Draft EIR
page 63).
(12) The project will increase ~he number of Stadium entry gates
(from 9 to 13) at the Qrangewood Avenue entrance and will substan-
tially increase queuing distances, thereby improving traffic flow
on Orangewood Avenue during Stadium events. These improvements
will occur at no cost to the City of Anaheim. (Draft EIR,
Appendix A, page X-8).
- 13 -
PC83- 16
z '
B. 'fhe Planning Commission finds that the following economic and
social considerations make infeasible implementation of the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR:
(1) The no-project alternative (Draft EIR page 136) would result
in a complete loss of revenue to the City, would fail to implement
the City's General Plan, and would not provide the City with the
substantial transportation system improvements it desires. This
alternative would fail to recognize the unique opportunity that
exists for increased land use efficiency and urban infilling.
Finally, this alternative would create no City benefits relative
to economic growth and employment opportunities.
~„
(2) The expanded site alternatives (Draft E1R pages 137-~38) as
previously addressed in Draft No. 232 fails to provide adequ~te
assurance that potentially significant adverse effects will be
mitigated to acceptable levels, particularly with respect to
Anaheim Stadium event traffic and parki,g, The Planning
Commission finds that it is in the public intF•rest to reduce the
acreage within the initial development block to that shown in the
current Project while maintaining whe op,~or:unity for development
expansion on other proximate city-owned land. In this way.
development impacts can be mere closeiy monitored and more
effective mitigation measures can be develuFed for any subsequent
ground lease master plan approvals.
(3) No design alternatives have been developed which provided the
same level of public and Project benefits as contained in the
Project plan. (Draft EIR pages 138-139),
(4) The alternatives for modified densities (i,e „ greater or
lesser development totals) fail to provide adequaLe econoc~ic
returrt ta Pund offsite improvements, or fail to demonstrate that
impacts can be adequately mitfgated. The Planning Cammission
finds that the proposed development density best balances the
economic objectives of the project sponsor and the planning,
social and economic objectives of the City of Anaheim.
C. For the reasons hereinabove set forth, it is not economically
feasible to further mitigate or avoid the environmental effects
hereinabo/e identified.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim this 24th day of January, 1983.
ATTEST: ~
CHAIRMAN
./J AMAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS ON
~ /_ ' ~A.t~t~
SECRETARY
ANAHEIM CITY PLANN4NG COMM{SSION
- 14 -
PC83-16
;j STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
t' COUNTY OF pgANGE ) ss.
i CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~'i
I;
I, Edith L. Harri~, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Comm.ission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing reaolution was passed and adopted at a
meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Co~unission held on January 24, 1983, by
' the following vote oi the members there of:
~
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOURS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA Q,plgg~
MC BpRNEY
NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE
AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of January,
1983.
SECRETARY, ,~AH IM CZTY PLANtvINr, ~p~SSION
f~
-15- PC83-16