94-234 RESOLUTION NO.94R-234
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM (A) CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 313, (B) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
FINDINGS AND FACTS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND (C)
ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 0085.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.93 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, on August 29, 1994, the Planning Commission by
Resolution No. PC-94-102 initiated the preparation and processing
of Specific Plan No. 92-2 for the Anaheim Resort; and
WHEREAS, as more particularly described therein,
Specific Plan No. 92-2 for the Anaheim Resort, on file with the
Planning Department, includes proposed design guidelines, zoning
and development standards and a public facilities plan to enhance
and guide future development within an area of approximately
549.5 acres covered by the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the city of 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 Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "State Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, said project is subject to compliance with the
provisions of CEQA and the State Guidelines and said project has
been considered in connection with the following discretionary
actions by the City of Anaheim: (i) General Plan Amendment No.
333 pertaining to the Land Use, Circulation and Environmental
Resource and Management Elements of the General Plan; (ii) The
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (including Zoning and
Development Standards, a Design Plan and Guidelines, and a Public
Facilities Plan); (iii) the Anaheim Resort Identity Program; (iv)
the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program; (v) the
Anaheim Resort Nonconforming Signage Program and (vi) future
discretionary actions described in Draft Environmental Impact
Report No. 313, (collectively referred to herein as the
"discretionary actions"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has prepared, or caused to
be prepared, the Draft EIR and has consulted with other public
agencies, and the general public and given them an opportunity to
comment on said Draft EIR as required by the provisions of CEQA
and the State Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has evaluated the comments
received from public agencies and persons who reviewed the Draft
EIR and has prepared responses to the comments received during
the public review period; and
WHEREAS, said comments and recommendations received on
the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary, a list of persons,
organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR,
and the responses of the City of Anaheim to significant
environmental points raised in the review and consultation
process have been attached to and made a part of said Draft EIR
to form the Final EIR for said project as required by Section
15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the city of Anaheim desires and intends to use
Final EIR No. 313 as the environmental documentation required by
CEQA and the State Guidelines for each of the above-referenced
discretionary actions to the extent authorized by law; and
WHEREAS, said Final EIR has been presented to the city
Council 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 City Council of
the city of Anaheim that the City of Anaheim does hereby certify
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 313, adopting the attached
Statements of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, a copy of each of which is attached hereto marked
Attachment 1, and the City Council incorporates said Attachment
herein by this reference as if set forth in full herein, and
determines that said Final Environmental Impact Report No. 313 is
adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the
discretionary actions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 21081.6 of
the Public Resources Code, the City Council hereby adopts that
certain monitoring program described as the "Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 0085 for The Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan," a copy of which is attached hereto marked Attachment 2,
and the City Council incorporates said monitoring program herein
by this reference as if set forth in full herein, and has
included the project design features and mitigation measures in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program as conditions of approval
required for implementation of The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
(No. 92-2).
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this __20th day of September,
1994. M~TH~E C iT O~~F~iM
ATTEST~
T ECITYO
8391.1\SMANN\September 20, ~994
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 94R-234 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council
held on the 20th day of September, 1994, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 94R-234 on ~"
the 21st day of September, 1994.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Anaheim
this 21th day of September, 1994.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original
of Resolution No. 94R-234 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on
September 20, 1994.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN - EIR//313
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pa_Rg~_
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .........................
2.0 CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR
AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS ............................. 2
3.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL ............. 3
3.1 Land Use-Related Plans and Policies ........................ 3
3.2 Land Use Compatibility ................................ 4
3.3 Transportation and Circulation ........................... 5
3.4 Air Quality ....................................... 12
3.5 Noise ........................................... 17
3.6 Earth Resources---Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ............... 19
3.7 Groundwater and Surface Hydrology ....................... 21
3.8 Employment, Population, and Housing ...................... 23
3.9 Public Services and Utilities ............................ 25
3.9.1 Fire Protection ............................... 25
3.9.2 Police Services ............................... 28
3.9.3 Solid Waste Disposal Service ...................... 29
3.9.4 Parks ..................................... 31
3.9.5 Schools .................................... 32
3.9.6 Water Services ............................... 33
3.9.7 Wastewater/Sewer Service ........................ 35
3.9.8 Storm Drains ................................ 37
3.9.9 Electricity .................................. 39
3.9.10 Natural Gas ................................. 41
3.9.11 Telephone Service ............................. 41
3.9.12 Television Service/Reception ....................... 42
3.10 Hazardous Materials ................................. 42
3.11 Visual Resources and Aesthetics ......................... 44
3.12 Cultural Resources .................................. 47
3.13 Energy ......................................... 48
3.14 Construction Impacts ................................. 49
4.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ..................... 51
4.1 Land Use-Related Plans and Policies ....................... 5 l
4.2 Land Use Compatibility ............................... 52
4.3 Transportation and Circulation ........................... 52
4.4 Air Quality ....................................... 54
4.5 Noise ......................................... 55
4.6 Solid Waste ....................................... 56
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
4.7 Schools ......................................... 56
4.8 Visual Resources and Aesthetics .......................... 57
4.9 Construction Impacts ................................. 58
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT .........................
5,1 No-Project/Continuing Development Alternative ................ 61
5~2 Modified Land Use Alternative (Hotel Circle) ................. 64
5.3 Disneyland Resort Land Use Alternatives .................... 65
5.4 Lower Intensity Land Use Alternative A: Year 2000 ............. 66
5.5 Lower Intensity Land Use Alternative B: Year 2008 ............. 67
6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ........ 69
6.1 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity ............................... 69
6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ................ 70
6.3 Growthqnclucing Impacts of the Proposed Action ............... 70
7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ............. 72
7.1 Increased Revenues for City, County, trod State ................ 73
7.2 Enhancement of Tourism .............................. 73
7.3 Provision of Visual Amenities ........................... 74
7.4 Provision for Needed Infrastructure Improvements .............. 74
7.5 Enhancement of Commercial-Recreation Area Synergy ............ 75
7.6 Enhancement of the Pedestrian Environment .................. 75
7.7 Streamlined Entitlement Procedure ........................ 75
7.8 Enhancement and Maintenance of Anaheim's Position as a
World-Class Tourist Destination .......................... 76
7.9 Facilitation and Implementation of the General Plan .............. 76
7.10 Deterrenee of Negative Impacts of the No-Project/Continuing
Development Alternative ............................... 77
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR
EACH IMPACT ANALYZED IN EIR NO. 313
Unavoid~l~ly
hnpacts Not Signific:m! Impacts -
Slgnificam or Effcx'ts Which Cannot
IMPACT SI.;BJECT Mitigated to I~.,ss Feasihly Be Mhigated Overrldta
Than Significant
I.iut,I ( xc - Rcliltcd Plans and PNicics
X X X
Land Use Compatibility x x x
Tr~spo~ation ~d Circulation x x x
Air Quality x x x
Noise x
Ear~ Resources x
Groundwater/Surface Hydrology x
Employment/Population/Housing x
Fire Proration x
Police Services x
Solid Waste Dispos~ x x x
Parks x
Schools x x x
Water Service x
W~tewater/Sewer Se~ice x
Storm Drains x
Electricity x
Natural Gas Se~ice x
Telephone Service x
Television Se~ice/Reeeption x
H~ardous Materi~s x
Visu~ Resources x x x
Cul~ral Resourc~ x
Energy x
Const~ction Impacts x x x
h\DOCS\WP\41 \0800AADN .ZT/1
THE ANAHEIM RF3ORT SPECIFIC PLAN - EIR # 313
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF CEOA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
1.1 California Environmental duality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA")
(Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21178.1) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000-15387) require that specific findings be made if a lead agency
decides to approve a project which will have significant impacts. Section 21081 of the California Public
Resources Code states:
"[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact
report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that
would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or
more of the following findings:
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(b) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
(c) 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 environmental
impact report."
The Environmental Impact Report CEIR") for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (EIR No. 313,
State Clearinghouse No. 91091062) identifies significant or potentially significant environmental impacts
which, prior to mitigation, may occur as a result of adoption and implementation of the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan ("Project") (Section 2.0 of the EIR contains a detailed description of the Project). Thus,
in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim hereby
adopts these findings.
The CEQA Guidelines also state that the decision maker must balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project (Cal.
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15093). The Anaheim City Council has carefully considered the
benefits of the Project. The Anaheim Resort EIR identifies significant environmental effects which will
not be mitigated to below a level of significance and which will be allowed to occur by approval of the
Project. Therefore, the Anaheim City Council hereby adopts the statement of overriding considerations
contained in this document, which states the specific reasons that the benefits of the proposed Project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that the unavoidable environmental effects
are considered acceptable.
2.0 CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ADOPTION OF HNDINGS
The Anaheim City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR. Based upon substantial evidence in
the record of administrative proceedings, the City Council of the City of Anaheim finds and declares as
follows:
2.1 The City of Anaheim is the "lead agency" for the Project. The Final EIR has been completed
in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Anaheim Guidelines for
the Implementation of CEQA.
The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a 45-day period commencing
June 15, 1994 and continuing through ~luly 29, 1994. The Final EIR, including written
responses to public comments received during the 45-day period, was made available for public
review on August 19, 1994. On August 29, 1994, the City of Anaheim Planning Commission
held a public hearing on the Project and adopted Resolution Nos. PC94-113, PC94q14,
PC94-115, PC94-116, and PC94-117, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No.
333, certification of the EIR, adoption of these Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Considerations, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan, the Anaheim Resort Identity Program, the Anaheim Resort Public Realm
Landscape Program and the Anaheim Resort Non-Conforming Signage Program prepared in
connection therewith.
2.2 The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and the City Council has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project. In addition
to reviewing and considering the text of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, the City Council
reviewed and considered the record of proceedings before the Planning Commission concerning
the Project and the EIR, and all oral and written comments concerning the Project and the EIR
received by the City of Anaheim during and prior to the City Council meeting at which these
findings were adopted. Except to the extent they conflict with the findings and determinations
set forth in this document, the analysis and conclusions of the EIR, including but not limited to
the responses to comments, are incorporated herein by this reference, and are hereby adopted
as findings of the City Council.
2.3 Both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City Council.
2.4 All feasible mitigation measures for the Project have been imposed. Each of the mitigation
measures, conditions of approval and other exactions to be imposed on development under the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is reasonably related to and proportional to the incremental
impacts and burdens created by the subject development.
2.5 Documents constituting the record of proceedings on which approval of the Project and
certification of the EIR are based are available at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200
S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California.
3.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR MITIGATED TO A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
This Section 3.0 contains findings and supporting analysis concerning effects on the environment
which have been determined to be not significant or which have been mitigated to a less than significant
level. Impacts which could remain significant even with implementation of the mitigation measures are
discussed in detail in Section 4.0 of this document.
Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this document, all effects of the Project on the
environment are hereby found by the City of Anaheim to be not significant, both alone and in
combination with the effects of other related projects.
3.1 Land Use-Related Plans and Policies
3.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The Project's potential land use impacts related to plans and
policies are discussed in Section 3.1 of the EIR. Cumulative land use impacts related to plans and
policies are discussed in Section 4.1 of the EIR. Implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
could result in project-specific and cumulative significant impacts related to future development of the
56 acres of land designated as prime agricultural land by the California Department of Conservation, as
discussed in Section 4.0 of these Findings. There are no other significant impacts to land use-related
plans and policies.
3.1.2 Findings. All significant impacts associated with land use-related plans and polices have been
mitigated to a less than significant level except for the potential loss of prime agricultural parcels due to
development. Except for the loss of prime agricultural land, changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment
relating to land use-related plans and policies.
3.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the EIR
provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions. As discussed in more detail
therein, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will allow for the development of land uses which are
consistent with the existing Commercial Recreation designation for the area in the City of Anaheim
General Plan.
As discussed in greater detail in the EIR and in Section 6.0 of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan,
the Project is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of Anaheim General Plan.
Amendments to the General Plan (including the Circulation Element and the Environmental Resource and
Conservation Element) and the City of Anaheim Zoning Ordinance are being processed together with the
Specific Plan in order to maintain consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan; however,
no significant impacts (other than the loss of prime agricultural land) are anticipated as a result of the
amendments.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will serve to lessen or avoid project impacts,
and the potential effects (other than the loss of prime agricultural land) will be reduced to a level that is
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Prior to approval of each Final Site Plan, Final Site Plans will be
reviewed for future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area for consistency
with the Specific Plan.
By providing enhanced landscaping, street, signage and other infrastructure improvements
pursuant to the Project mitigation measures and the Public Facilities Plan in the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan, while accommodating future hotel/motel, convention center and related development, the Project
will be complementary to development in adjacent areas under the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and
the Hotel Circle Specific Plan.
Consistency with other City, County, regional, and State plans and policies is discussed in
Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the EIR.
The unavoidable significant impact of the potential loss of 56-acres of prime agricultural lands
is discussed in Section 4.1 below in this document.
3.2 Land Use Comnafibility
3.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The Project's potential land use compatibility impacts are
discussed in Section 3.2 of the EIR. Cumulative land use compatibility impacts are discussed in Section
4.2 of the EIR. Significant Project and cumulative impacts are identified related to the juxtaposition and
proximity of commercial and residential uses. The loss of prime agricultural land within the Specific Plan
area (56 acres) is a significant Project impact, and could, together with development under the Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan, contribute to a cumulative loss of 80 acres of prime land in agricultural production.
Long-term cumulative construction impacts on land use are considered significant due the adjacency of
existing residences to development sites within the Specific Plan area. No other significant impacts will
occur as a result of implementation of the Project.
3.2.2 Findines. All significant impacts associated with land use compatibility have been mitigated to
a less than significant level except for the following: (i) juxtaposition and proximity of commercial and
residential land uses; (ii) loss of prime agricultural land; and (iii) Project and cumulative construction
impacts on adjacent land uses. Except as to the unavoidably significant impacts noted in the previous
sentence, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate
or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to land use compatibility.
3.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the EIR
provide facts and analysis to support the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Land use restrictions, setbacks, landscaping and other development standards and design
guidelines set forth in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, together with the existing Commercial
Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Ordinance, will mitigate many of the land use
compatibility impacts. In most cases, the proposed Zoning and Site Development Standards and Design
Guidelines in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, including but not limited to the Anaheim Resort Identity
Program, Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscaping Program, and Anaheim Resort Nonconforming
Signage Program, will have a beneficial impact on adjacent properties because of the resulting upgrade
in the appearance of the streetscape.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 (see Section 3.1.3 above in this document) will
serve to lessen or avoid the land use compatibility impacts.
Land use compatibility impacts resulting from construction activities are discussed in greater
detail in Section 3.14 below in this document.
The unavoidable land use compatibility impacts identified in Section 3.2.2 above are discussed
in greater detail in Section 4.2 below in this document.
3.3 Transportation and Circulation
3.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
transportation and circulation are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of the EIR. Development under the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will result in increased traffic volumes both within and outside the Specific
Plan area. Without implemantation of additional circulation improvements and other mitigation measures,
the project-specific and cumulative impacts on vehicular traffic flow would be significant at numerous
locations. Increased numbers of pedestrians crossing at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Katella
Avenue could also have a significant impact on traffic flow at that intersection without additional
improvements. The disruption and congestion of streets and intersections produced by construction
activities pursuant to the Specific Plan and related projects would be significant. No other significant
transportation and circulation impacts would occur.
3.3.2 Findines. All significant impacts associated with transportation and circulation have been
mitigated to a less than significant level except for the following:
A. Unavoidable significant Year 2010 impacts may occur at the following five intersections
even with completion of all feasible transportation and circulation improvements:
· Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road · Lewis Street and Katella Avenue
· Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue · Haster Street and Chapman Avenue
· Anaheim Blvd./I-Iaster Street and Katella Avenue
B. In the event that the transportation and circulation improvements identified in the EIR,
including improvements which are part of Caltrans' 1-5 widening program or OCTA's Katella Smart
Street program, are not completed as anticipated in a timetable commensurate with the pace of
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, then additional unavoidable significant impacts on
levels of service at the study intersections may result.
C. In the aggregate over the 16-year buildout period from 1994-2010, temporary disruption
and congestion of streets and intersections resulting from construction of street improvements and
individual development projects will be significant and unavoidable.
Except as to the unavoidably significant impacts noted above in this Section 3.3.2, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment relating to transportation and circulation.
3.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.3 and 4.3 of the EIR
explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional discussion
regarding disruption and congestion arising from construction activities. The unavoidable significant
transportation and circulation impacts identified in Section 3.3.2 above are discussed further in Section
4.3 below in this document.
The methodology used in the EIR provides a complete and reasonable assessment of future traffic
conditions with and without development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Based on trip
generation data analyzed by the City's traffic consultants, a total of 38 intersections within and outside
the Specific Plan area were selected for study.
First, existing levels of service at the 38 study intersections were calculated. Two intersections
(Walnut & Ball, Anaheim & Ball) were determined to be worse than the City's current operating standard
(LOS "E" along routes on the State Congestion Management Program highway system and LOS "D"
along the balance of arterials under the City's General Plan Circulation Element).
Second, local and regional traffic growth projections with and without development under the
Project were analyzed for the Years 2000 and 2010. Future growth in non-Project, or "baseline" traffic,
was projected and analyzed in order to accurately assess the cumulative and project-specific impacts of
development under the Project. This is because development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
will not be the only future contributor of traffic to the study intersections. The development of related
projects in the vicinity, such as the Disneyland Resort, as well as other development in the City and the
region will also contribute increased traffic to some or all of the study intersections.
The analysis of future conditions in the EIR examined conditions in both 2000 and 2010, in
order to consider impacts at two different stages of Project and "baseline" growth. The Year 2000
analysis forecasts impacts at a relatively early stage of Project buildout, where only about 1,005 additional
hotel/motel rooms have been built and opened on top of existing conditions. The Year 2010 analysis,
by contrast, examines future intersection performance when virtually all of the development which could
be permitted under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan has taken place (approximately 16,978 additional
hotel/motel rooms and various other development was assumed in the 2010 traffic analysis -- see Table
3.3-8 in the Draft EIR). The Year 2010 analysis represents a reasonable "worst case" scenario with
respect to increases in traffic volumes at the study intersections.
Transportation and circulation improvements which will maintain, to the extent feasible, adequate
levels of service through the year 2010 with buildout of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan are described
in Tables 3.3-2, 3.3-4 and 3.3-6 of the EIR. Even with these improvements, however, adequate levels
of service will not be maintained in the year 2010 at the following five intersections:
· Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road · Lewis Street and Katella Avenue
· Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue · Haster Street and Chapman Avenue
· Anaheim Blvd./Haster Street and Katella Avenue
Many of the improvements listed on Tables 3.3-2, 3.34 and 3.3-6 are needed to mitigate
existing conditions and baseline growth with or without future development under the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan. Accordingly, it is anticipated that various sources of funding will be available for these
improvements, including Disneyland Resort mitigation, OCTA's Katella "Smart Street" Program,
Caltrans' 1-5 Widening Program, and mitigation/impact fees imposed by the City on new development.
Although the funding and timing of some of these funding sources are uncertain, the Project mitigation
measures set forth below will allow the City to insure that development under the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan does not outpace the implementation of necessary transportation and circulation
improvements. Implementation of policies in the City of Anaheim General Plan Growth Management
Element will provide additional coordination between the pace of private development and the completion
of transportation and circulation improvements. If the necessary improvements cannot feasibly be
implemented in a timely fashion, then additional unavoidable significant impacts may result.
Except for the unavoidable impacts discussed in Section 4.3 below in this document,
implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid Project and cumulative
transportation and circulation impacts, and the potential effects will be reduced to a level that is less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Prior to the first final site plan approval (excluding signage plans),
the property owner/developer of 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, shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all
costs associated with updating the City of Anaheim Resort 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.
a. ff the model demonstrates that the proposed development will cause an intersection to
operate at LOS E or worse, prior to the issuance of whichever building permit
necessitates an improvement(s), the construction contract for said improvement(s) must
have been awarded; and, prior to the final building and zoning inspections for the
applicable building permit, the improvement(s) shall be accepted by the City. The extent
of improvements required for full buildout of the Anaheim Resort are listed in Tables
3.3-2, 3.3-4 and 3.3-6 of Section 3.3, Transportation and Circulation, of EIR No. 313.
The property owner/developer shall have the option to: (1) wait until the improvement(s)
is constructed by others or, (2) construct or pay the actual total costs of the
improvement(s) which shall include the payment for consultant/contractor services for
preliminary and final engineering, soils analysis, right-of-way acquisition, demolition,
relocation, construction and inspection, and any other related expenses. The City
Engineer may make the determination that Option (2) may be waived based on the status
and phased implementation of the planned improvement(s) and based on the supporting
environmental analysis contained in EIR No. 313 or in supplemental environmental
documentation.
The City may have the ability to reimburse for the additional expense beyond the
property owner/developer's fair share contribution of improvement(s) based on the
collection of other transportation improvement fees or funding through other public
sources. However, if a reimbursement or fair share program has not been established
by the City, to the extent that the property owner/developer's costs exceed their "fair
share" contribution for said improvement(s), the property owner/developer may petition
the City Council to establish a reimbursement agreement or benefit district to include
other benefiting properties. All costs associated with the establishment of any such
agreement/district shall be at the expense of the property owner/developer.
b. If the updated model demonstrates that LOS E will not be exceeded, no additional
transportation improvement(s) will be required of the proposed development. In this
instance, the property owner/developer shall, prior to the issuance of each building
permit, pay to the City of Anaheim all applicable transportation fees in an amount
determined by City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building
permit and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have
been established.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2. Prior to issuance of each building permit, appropriate Traffic Signal
Assessment Fees and Traffic 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.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3. Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of
the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably
offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction
easements, the ultimate right(s)-of-way as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim
General Plan adjacent to their property.
Mitigation Measure 3.34. Prior to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during
project operation, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean
fuel shuttle program, if established; and, shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation
Network/Transportation Management Association.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-5. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the property owner/developer
shall coordinate rideshare services for construction employees with the Anaheim Transportation
Network (ATN), and shall implement ATN recommendations to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-6. For a hotel or motel development in the area designated Convention
Center Medium density (see Exhibit 3.3.3b of the Specific Plan, "C-R District Development
Density Plan"), which exceeds i00 rooms per gross acre, the property owner/developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager and City Attorney's office to implement TDM measures sufficient to reduce the actual
trip generation from the development to no more than the trips assumed by the City's traffic
model.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-7. Ongoing during construction, the Anaheim Police Department or
Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic
control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare basis,
if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-8. Prior to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during
project operation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. Objectives of the
TDM program shall be:
® Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.
~ · Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-generated trips.
A menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employee
commute options include, but are not limited to, the following:
· Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail and other services be provided.
· Ridesharing. A computer listing of all employee members be developed for the purpose
of providing a "matching" of employees with other employees who live in the same
geographic areas and who could rideshare.
· Vanpooling. A computer listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers
of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a
vanpool.
· Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County
Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes be promoted through financial
assistance and onsite sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus
services from throughout the region.
· Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands throughout the region,
passes for use on these lines may be provided for employees who choose to use this
service. Financial incentives be provided.
· Shuffle Service. A computer listing of all employees living in proximity to the project
be generated, and a local shuffle program offered to encourage employees to travel to
work by means other than the automobile.
· Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to
employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers be provided as part of this
program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential
bicyclists of these options.
® Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program be developed to provide employees who
travel to work by means other than an automobile with access to automobiles in case of
emergency medical appointments, etc. This service would help employees use alternative
modes of transportation by ensuring that they would be able to have personal
transportation in the event of special circumstances.
Guaranteed Ride Home Program. A program to provide employees who rideshare, or
use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a
taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work
shift.
· Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentives program for ridesharing and
other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest
employee commute trips.
· Stagger shifts.
· Develop a "compressed work week" program, which provides for fewer work days but
longer daily shifts as an option for employees.
· Explore the possibility of a "telecommuting" program that would link some employees
via electronic means (e.g. computer with modem).
· Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare
or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work.
· Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuffles may be provided.
· Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. (Currently, Federal law
provides tax-free status for up to $60 per month per employee contributions to employees
who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools).
· Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial incentives for bicycling
to work.
· Special "Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Ticket/passes
to special events, vacations, etc. be offered to employees who recruit other employees
for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs.
· Actively recruit prospective employees residing within a 30~minute commute shed.
· Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so
as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips.
In addition to providing for the implementation of the feasible transportation and circulation
improvements, the foregoing mitigation measures act to reduce traffic impacts by reducing peak hour trip
generation from specific development projects in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. This will be
accomplished by, among other things, increasing vehicle occupancies through ridesharing, vanpooling
and shnttle programs.
Potentially significant impacts on levels of service at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue due
to increased pedestrian crossings will be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of the
proposed right-turn lanes on all approaches.
3.4 Air Ouality
3.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
air quality are discussed in Sections 3.4 and 4.4 of the EIR. The following significant impacts could
A. Construction Emissions: Without mitigation, peak day construction emissions associated
with development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would exceed South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), and fine particulate matter (PM10). Cumulative construction emissions from
development under the Project and related projects will be significant for sulfur oxides (SOx) and for all
of the foregoing pollutants.
B. Operational Emissions: Emissions from motor vehicle travel associated with
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would, prior to mitigation, exceed SCAQMD
thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO and PM10. These operational emissions are regional in nature (i.e.
contribute to deteriorated air quality in the South Coast Air Basin as a whole); no significant localized
air quality impacts will occur on a Project-specific or cumulative basis.
No other significant air quality impacts would occur.
3.4.2 Findinp_s. All significant impacts associated with air quality have been mitigated to a less than
significant level except for the following:
A. Construction Emissions: Even with all feasible mitigation measures, peak day
construction emissions on both a Project-specific and cumulative basis are expected to exceed SCAQMD
thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10. Cumulative construction emissions of SOx may also be
unavoidably significant.
B. Operational Emissions: Even with all feasible mitigation measures, emissions from
motor vehicle travel, utility usage, stationary sources, and ohsitc service engines associated with
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for
ROG, NOx, CO and PMI0, both on a Project-specific and cumulative basis. These are impacts on
regional air quality; no significant localized air quality impacts will occur.
Except as to the unavoidably significant impacts noted above in this Section 3.4.2, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment relating to air quality.
3.4.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.4 and 4.4 of the EIR
explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional discussion
regarding construction impacts. The unavoidable significant air quality impacts identified in Section 3.4.2
above are discussed further in Section 4.4 below in this document.
The significance of air quality impacts is determined with reference to criteria promulgated by
SCAQMD in its CEOA Air Ouality Handbook. The following types of air quality impacts were
analyzed:
· Construction emissions (fugitive dust, exhaust from construction equipment, etc.).
n~,~~ · Regional operational emissions (contribution of pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin
as a result of onsite activities, vehicular travel associated with the project, etc.).
· Localized CO impacts from associated vehicular emissions.
· Air Quality Management Plan conformity.
· Cancer risk from toxic air contaminants.
Air quality impacts from construction activities are summarized in Tables 3.4-3 and 3.4-4 of the
EIR. The analysis shows that peak day construction impacts from development under the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan will be significant, prior to mitigation, for all analyzed pollutants except SOx. When
combined with construction emissions from related projects, impacts are significant for all tested
pollutants. Although implementation of the mitigation measures described below will reduce these
construction impacts, they may still be significant after mitigation on both a Project-specific and
cumulative basis.
Regional operational impacts are analyzed on pages 3.4-21 through 3.4-24 of the EIR.
Operation impacts will result from "mobile source" emissions (i.e. vehicle trips associated with
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and related projects); SCAQMD regulations will
insure that stationary source (ohsitc equipment) and utility generation emissions do not increase as a result
of the Project. Mobile source emissions are expected to exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds on a
Project-specific and cumulative basis prior to mitigation for ROG, NOx, CO and PM10. Even after
mitigation, these impacts are expected to remain significant.
Because of its dispersal characteristics, which create the potential for significant concentrations
to accumulate on congested streets, a localized analysis of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions was
performed. Tables 3.4-6 through 3.4-9 present the results of this analysis, which demonstrate that
localized carbon monoxide impacts will not be significant. The localized CO analysis is based on future
traffic flow assumptions in Years 2000 and 2010, and includes the combined impacts of Project, baseline
and cumulative traffic growth at the study intersections.
The Project conforms to the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) approved by
SCAQMD and SCAG. Consistent with AQMP requirements, the Project (i) will not have a long term
significant negative impact on air quality as defined by the AQMP, (ii) incorporates land use,
transportation, and energy conservation control measures to mitigate to the extent possible adverse air
quality impacts, and (iii) has been analyzed for both local and regional air quality impacts.
The maximum individual cancer risk resulting from exposure to toxic air contaminants from the
Project and all related projects has been calculated to be less than SCAQMD's significance threshold of
one in one million.
Except for the unavoidable impacts discussed in Section 4.4 below in this document,
implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid the significant air quality
impacts, and the potential effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1. Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer
shall implement measures to reduce emissions to the extent practicable, schedule goods
movements for off-peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles and other equipment, as
practicable.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2. Prior to the issuance of each building permit; and, ongoing during
construction, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and
coatings are utilized in the design of buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD regulations. This
information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The p~operty owner/
developer shall also implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and
asphalt usage:
a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate.
b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary, in ways that minimize solvent
emissions.
c. Encourage use of high-solid or water-based coatings.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3. Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall
implement measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. These measures shall
include, but are not limited to:
a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative measures shall
be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in
compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical
soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing ground cover in
disturbed areas as quickly as practicable.
b. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders, according
to manufacturer's specification, to exposed stock piles.
c. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export
materials at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall
~ be cleared as needed if spills of materials exported from the project site occur.
d. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept ohsitc when not in
operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering
and exiting the project site.
e. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall be covered prior to
entering public streets.
f. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on tires onto public
streets, including treating ohsitc roads and staging areas.
~ g. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes.
h. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the
vegetation as soon as planting is completed.
i. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.
j. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25
miles per hour and during first and second stage smog alerts.
k. Comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient
to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from
construction.
1. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.)
where practicable.
m. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than
temporary power generators, where practicable.
n. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned.
o. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Prior to approval of each grading plan (for Import/Export) and prior
to the issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property owner/developer shall
submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Works/
Engineering Department, Traffic Engineering Division and/or Maintenance Department. The
plans shall include identification of offsite locations for materials export from the project and
options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials onsite,
sake to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an
environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The
property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete,
for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects,
if not all can be reused on project site.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and implementation of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology
(BARCT) for any new or modified stationary source. Copies of permits shall be given to the
Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-6. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are being taken
to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
1. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of
automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
2. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
3. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such
as appropriate passive solar design.
I: \DOCS\S~2\41 \08~6AADM.AZC/41 -16-
4. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping
and transporting water.
5. Participate in marketing the existing Anaheim Telecenter (telecommuting/video
conferencing center) to guests in their hotels/businesses.
6. To the extent feasible, provide day care opportunities for employees or participate in a
joint development daycare center.
3.5 Noise
3.5.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
noise are discussed in Sections 3.5 and 4.5 of the EIR. Noise from construction activities pursuant to
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will be significant on a Project-specific and cumulative basis. On a
cumulative level, there will be noticeable (3 dBA or more) increases in traffic noise along two street
segments in the Year 2000 and along nine segments by the Year 2010. Tire squealing, car horns, car
alarms, sweeper noise and similar noise impacts from hotel parking structures adjacent to noise-sensitive
residential uses may be significant without mitigation.
No other significant noise impacts would occur.
3.5.2 ]Findings. All significant noise impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level except
for the following:
A. Construction Noise: Even with all feasible mitigation measures, noise from construction
activities in and around the Specific Plan area will be significant.
B. Operational Noise: Noise from increased vehicular traffic associated with related
projects and background traffic growth in combination with the Project will be cumulatively and
unavoidably significant along two street segments in the traffic study area by the Year 2000 and along
nine segments by the Year 2010.
Except as to the unavoidably significant impacts noted above in this Section 3.5.2, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment relating to noise.
3.5.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.5 and 4.5 of the EIR
explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional discussion
regarding construction impacts. The unavoidable significant noise impacts identified in Section 3.5.2
above are discussed further in Section 4.5 below in this document.
Noise impacts associated with implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will result
from the construction and operation of individual development projects.
Construction activity in connection with buildout under the Specific Plan is anticipated to occur
over the 16-year period from 1994 through 2010, with the majority of activity between 2000 and 2010.
Construction adjacent to any one location, however, will be of shorter duration (generally six months or
less).
In general, noise levels will vary from 79 dBA to 88 dBA from 50 feet away during the erection
phase of construction. Maximum outdoor noise levels at residences 100 feet from the construction site
could be as high as 85 dBA. This will be an unavoidable significant impact.
Operational noise impacts will consist chiefly of increased traffic noise from vehicle trips
associated with development under the Specific Plan. Noise impacts for the Project were calculated by
applying the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model to the projected
roadway segment traffic volumes in Year 2000 and 2010. The future traffic volumes include background
traffic growth and related project trips as well as additional trips added by new development under the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The analysis predicts noticeable (3 dBA or more) increases in traffic noise
along two street segments in the Year 2000 and along nine segments in the Year 2010, although the
increases will be largely due to growth in background traffic, and vehicle trips associated with
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will cause no more than a I dBA increase at any
location. Project noise impacts from traffic are not significant after mitigation. This cumulative traffic
noise impact is significant and unavoidable.
The other potentially-significant noise impact consists of tire squealing, car horns, car alarms,
sweeper noise and similar noise impacts from hotel parking structures adjacent to noise-sensitive
residential uses. These impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.5-5, 3.5-6 and 3.5-7 set forth below.
Except for the unavoidable impacts discussed in Section 4.5 below in this document,
implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid the significant noise impacts,
and the potential effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Ongoing during demolition, grading and construction, noise
generated by construction activity shall be limited by the property owner/developer to 60 dBA
along the property boundaries, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., as governed by Chapter
6.7, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2. Prior to issuance of each building permit, an 8-foot high perimeter
or portable construction barrier shall be provided by the property owner/developer along
boundaries of construction areas which have noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to them to
minimize noise impacts.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3. Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall
ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with
properly maintained mufflers.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4. Prior to the submittal of each final site plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the
satisfaction of the Building Division Manager identifying whether noise attenuation is required
and defining the attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted, to
comply with the Uniform Building Code and Sound Pressure Levels Ordinance. Ultimate noise
attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise-
sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures shall be implemented
by the property owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-5. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, for structures that are
adjacent to noise-sensitive uses such as residences, the property owner/developer shall ensure
that all mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed in compliance with the
Sound Pressure Levels Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-6. Ongoing during project operations, engine noise from sweeping
equipment used in any parking facilities located adjacent to residential areas shall be muffled.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-7. Prior to issuance of each building permit for a parking structure, the
property owner/developer shall ensure that noise from parking structures adjacent to residential
areas will be reduced by the provision of convenient access to parking facilities, sound
attenuation devices (i.e., 1ouvers and walls), the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce tire
squealing, and tiering to provide greater distance to the receptor.
3.6 Earth Resources-Geolo~.y. Soils. and Seismicity
3.6.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project
related to earth resources are discussed in Sections 3.6 and 4.6 of the EIR. Implementation of future
developments within the Specific Plan area will expose people to potential seismic risks, which are typical
throughout California. No other significant earth resources impacts would occur.
3.6.2 Findings. All significant impacts associated with earth resources (geology, soils and seismicity)
have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating
to earth resources.
3.6.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.6 and 4.6 of the EIR
explain the foregoing findings and conclusions.
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is located in a region that maintains a gentle grade of
twenty feet per mile; therefore, ground stability is not a significant concern. Because the earth materials
underlying the site are relatively dense and the water table is deep, the potential for liquefaction is very
low. No relevant fault traces or Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones have been identified; therefore, the
potential for ground rupture is not a significant impact. Finally, there is no potential for tsunami or
seiche damage at the site and only a very remote possibility of earthquake-induced flooding.
Development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will expose people to potential seismic
risks that are not unusually severe compared to general conditions in Southern California. With
implementation of the mitigation measureS set forth below, this impact is not significant.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid any significant earth
resources impacts, and the potential effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1. Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property owner/developer
shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, a soils and geological report tbr the
area to be graded, based on proposed grading and prepared by an engineering geologist and
geetechnical engineer. All grading shall be in conformance with Title 17 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit for review and approval, detailed foundation design information
for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations by a
geetechnical engineer.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3. Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geetechnical engineer for review and
approval which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers
are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not
underlie the footing.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for
I: \DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -20-
earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the Uniform
Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-5. Prior to final building and zoning inspections for a hotel/motel, the
property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake response plan for review and approval.
The plan shall require posted notices in all hotel rooms on earthquake safety procedures and
incorporate ongoing earthquake training for hotel staff.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-6, Ongoing during grading activities, the property owner/developer
shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion.
3.7 Groundwater and Surface Hydrology
3.7.1 Potential Sionificant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
groundwater and surface hydrology are discussed in Sections 3.7 and 4.7 of the EIR. Without existing
programs and Project mitigation measures, significant impacts due to groundwater depletion and
contaminated runoff could occur on a Project-specific and cumulative basis. Short-term impacts from silt-
laden and contaminated runoff from construction sites could also occur without mitigation. No other
significant groundwater and surface hydrology impacts would occur.
3.7.2 Fin~. All significant impacts associated with groundwater and surface hydrology have been
mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to
groundwater and surface hydrology.
3.7.3 Facts in Support of Findings, The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.7 and 4.7 of the EIR
explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional discussion
regarding construction impacts.
Development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will result in increased water usage, 70
percent of which comes from local groundwater. Development is also likely to result in decreased
groundwater recharge potential due to the paving over of agricultural fields and other unpaved areas.
These effects will also occur on a cumulative basis with development of related projects.
The depletion of groundwater will not be significant, however, after implementation of the
Project mitigation measures and existing Orange County Water District (OCWD) groundwater
replenishment programs. Mitigation measures include the use of efficient landscaping irrigation
equipment and the provision of dual piping so that reclaimed water can be used for irrigation if and when
it becomes available. The City's existing Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance will reduce landscaping
water demand. Existing OCWD programs include the collection of a water replenishment assessment t~e
used to purchase supplemental surface/imported water for groundwater recharge.
Without mitigation, increased development under the Project and related projects could also
result in increases in silt4aden and contaminated surface runoff following rain showers. Existing
provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the mitigation provided
below will reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance by reducing the quantity of soil and
contaminants in surface runoff flows.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid any significant ground
water and surface hydrology impacts, and the potential effects will be reduced to a level that is less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1. Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first
building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Master
Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Public
Works/Engineering Department, Development Services Division and the Orange County
Environmental Management Agency. The Master Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the
following items:
a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology and hydraulic
calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year storm; and,
b. A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control of project-generated
drainage and runoff.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2. Prior to approval of a greding plan, the property owner/developer
shall submit for review and approval of the City Engineer, a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used onsite to
control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural
measures specified in Appendix 7 of the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan detailing
implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project (when the project has a
below grade loading dock, for example); the assignment of long-term maintenance
responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.);
and, shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3. Prior to approval of a grading plan or issuance of a demolition
permit; and, during clearing, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the
NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the
State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of attainment shall be submitted to the City Engineer.
I :\DOCS\SEC~41 \080~AJ~DM.AZC/41 -22-
Mitigation Measure 3.7-4. Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer
shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of
Anaheim on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots. The
use of water to clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other areas and flushing the debris
and sediment down the storm drains shall be prohibited.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-5. Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape architect to the City, certifying
that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the
approved landscaping and irrigation plans.
Mitieation Measure 3.7-6. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall install piping ohsitc with project water mains so that reclaimed water may
be used for landscape irrigation, if and when it becomes available from the County Sanitation
District of Orange County.
3.8 Employment, Ponulation. and Housing
3.8.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
employment, population and housing are discussed in Sections 3.8 and 4.8 of the EIR. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
3.8.2 Findim, s. The environmental effects related to employment, population, and housing have been
determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
3.8.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.4 and 4.4 of the EIR
explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional discussion
regarding construction impacts.
Except to the extent they ultimately lead to adverse physical changes in the environment, social
and economic impacts are outside the purview of CEQA. No significant effects on the environment
related to employment, population or housing will occur. The EIR nevertheless presents an analysis of
employment, population and housing impacts to highlight beneficial aspects of the Project, and to confirm
that the impacts are within the ranges forecasted by regional growth plans and projections and to aid
decisionmakers in local planning.
Approximately 18,113 new jobs are anticipated to be created in connection with hotel/motel
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan through the year 2010. This represents 39% of the
total employment growth projected by SCAG to occur in the City of Anaheim during the period 1990-
I :\DOC$\SEC~41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -23-
2010, and 10% of the projected growth for the Northwest Orange County Subregion during the same
period. This represents a beneficial social and economic impact on the City and the Subregion.
Combined with employment generated by the related projects, cumulative job creation would
be approximately 77,238. This is well within the 1990-2000 job growth projected for the Subregion by
SCAG.
To the extent workers in the new jobs come from outside the City and decide to move to the
City in order to be closer to their place of employment, the City's population may increase as an indirect
result of the Project. Based on a survey of hotel workers conducted for the Disneyland Resort project,
it is estimated that approximately 13.3 percent of new hotel and motel workers would choose to relocate
into the City. Applying this percentage to the 18,113 new hotel/motel jobs anticipated within the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area through Year 2010 yields an increase of 2,409 new households in the
City, and a population increase of 7,468 (assuming and average of 3.1 persons per household). This
population and housing growth is well within SCAG's projections for future housing unit and population
growth projections within the City and the Subregion for the period 1990-2010.
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan does not authorize or permit the construction of additional
housing units; therefore, there will be no direct housing impacts.
Cumulative population growth and housing demand associated with the Project and related
projects will be well within the 1990-2010 growth projected by SCAG (i.e. 39,298 new population for
Anaheim and 105,116 for the Subregion; 26,241 new housing units for Anaheim and 105,708 units for
the Subregion).
Existing City policies and the activities of the City of Anaheim Housing Authority provide for
the housing needs of the City as targeted by SCAG. No mitigation measures are provided herein,
because no significant impacts on the provision of necessary levels of housing are anticipated. The
housing needs for all income levels in each jurisdiction are accommodated through state and federal
housing assistance programs and through the programs and policies of the General Plan Housing Element,
which by law is reviewed and updated approximately every 5 years based upon housing production targets
set by SCAG. The next programmed General Plan Housing Element update is scheduled for July 1996.
Potential secondary impacts of increased housing demand, such as overcrowding, will be
addressed by existing code enforcement programs and by implementation of the Housing Element, and
to some extent by the economic well-being generated by the additional employment opportunities created
by the Specific Plan.
The City's vacancy rate for residential units is currently approximately 6.08 percent.
3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
3.9.1 Fire Protection
3.9.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
fire protection are discussed in Sections 3.9.1 and 4.9,1 of the EIR.
ff no additional manpower, facilities, equipment or other improvements are implemented,
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, both alone and in conjunction with development
of related projects, would create significant fire protection impacts consisting of: (i) a shortage of plan
check and fire inspection personnel; (ii) degraded emergency vehicle response times; (iii) inadequate
service call manpower, equipment and facilities; and (iv) inadequate catastrophic event equipment.
No other significant fire protection impacts would occur.
3.9.1.2 Findings. All significant impacts associated with fire protection have been mitigated to a less
than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to fire protection.
3.9.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.1 and 4.9.1 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Additional services from the Anaheim Fire Department will be required to provide necessary
plan check and fire prevention inspection for development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and
related projects. Plan cheek fees will cover the cost of the plan check services, and additional fire
inspectors will be funded as needed from tax proceeds associated with the incremental development.
Although emergency vehicle response times could, without mitigation, be degraded because of
Project-specific and cumulative traffic increases, the mitigation and traffic improvement programs
discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIR will maintain adequate response times.
Development under the project is expected to produce an increase of 60 annual fire and rescue
service calls in the Year 2000 and an increase of 976 service calls (which is a 45% increase over existing
annual calls) by the year 2010. Cumulative increases with development under the Project and related
projects are expected to be 40% over existing calls by 2000 and a 100% increase by 2010. Fire
personnel needed to accommodate the estimated increase in calls will be funded through tax proceeds
associated with incremental growth within the Anaheim Resort. Facilities and equipment will be provided
by the mitigation measures provided below. This will include specialized vehicles and equipment to
provide emergency medical response services in the event of a major catastrophic event.
I:\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806/LM)M.AZC/41 -25 -
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, in combination with ongoing City policies
and programs, will serve to lessen or avoid Project impacts related to fire protection, and the potential
effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.1-1. Prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or
lot, ohsitc fire hydrants shall be installed and charged by the property owner/developer as
required and approved by the Fire Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.1-2. Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to the Fire Department for review
and approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with Fire Department service
requirements.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.1-3. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, plans shall indicate
that all buildings, exclusive of parking structures, shall have sprinklers installed by the property
owner/developer in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be
installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.14. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, plans shall be
submitted to ensure that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire
Department Standards, including:
a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full width of access roads.
b. Bridges and underground structures to be used for Fire Department access shall be
designed to support Fire Department vehicles weighing 75,000 pounds.
~,~ c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies are required at all
entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when determined to be necessary by the
Fire Department.
d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan area and onsite
private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property owner/developer. The precise
number, types, and locations of the hydrants shall be determined during building permit
review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 400 feet apart.
e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the water system. Flow
rates for public parking facilities shall be set at 1,000 to 1,500 gpm,
I:\I)OCS\SEC~41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -26-
Mitigation Measure 3.9.1-5. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property
owner/developer shall enter into an agreement recorded against the property with the City of
Anaheim to pay or cause to be paid their fair share of the funding to accommodate the
following, which will serve the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area:
· One additional fire truck company.
· One additional paramedic company.
· Modifications to existing fire stations to accommodate the additional fire units additional
manpower, equipment and facilities.
· A vehicle equipped with specialty tools and equipment to enable the Fire Department to
provide heavy search and rescne response capability.
· A medical triage vehicle/trailer, equipped with sufficient trauma dressings, medical
supplies, stretchers, etc., to handle 1,000 injured persons, and an appropriate storage
facility.
The determination of the allocable share of costs attributable to the property owner/developer
shall be based on an apportionment of the costs of such equipment/facilities among property
owners/developers in the Hotel Circle Specific Plan Area, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
Area and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area, or the otherwise defined service area, as
applicable, depending on the area served.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.1-6. Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent locations as
approved by the Fire Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.1-7. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the Fire Department for
review and approval detailing accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location,
and any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal. The property owner/developer
shall be responsible for securing facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall
be operational with required fire flow.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.1-8. Prior to the approval of water improvement plans, the water
supply system shall be designed by the property owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow
pressure and storage for the proposed land use and fire protection in accordance with Fire
Department requirements.
3.9.2 Police Services
3.9.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
police services are discussed in Sections 3.9.2 and 4.9.2 of the EIR. Development under the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan will, both alone and in combination with development of related projects, lead to
significant increases in demand for police services. No other significant police services impacts would
Occur.
3.9.2.2 Fi_!!llj_q~. All significant impacts associated with police services have been mitigated to a less
than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to police services.
3.9.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.2 and 4.9.2 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Additional service calls from the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area and related projects would
necessitate increased police services. The number of service calls projected for the year 2010 will double
current service requirements in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. The City will fund the additional
police protection services through tax proceeds associated with incremental growth anticipated within the
Anaheim Resort.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, in combination with ongoing City policies
and programs, will serve to lessen or avoid Project impacts related to police services, and the potential
effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.2q. Prior to the approval of each final site plan and issuance of each
building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for
review and approval for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design
including the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (e.g., building design,
circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures and parking areas).
Mitigation Measure 3.9.2-2. Prior to issuance of each building permit for a parking structure,
the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and
approval indicating the provision of closed circuit television monitoring and recording or other
substitute security measures as may be approved by the Police Department. Said measures shall
be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.2-3. Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer
shall provide private security on the premises to maintain adequate security for the entire project
subject to review and approval of the Police Department. The use of security patrols and
[:\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -28-
electronic security devices (i.e., video monitors) should be considered to reduce the potential
for criminal activity in the area.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.2-4. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project design shall
include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and
egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department, and shall be subject to the review
and approval of the Police Department.
3.9.3 Solid Waste Disposal
3.9.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
solid waste disposal are discussed in Sections 3,9.3 and 4.9.3 of the EIR. Construction and operation
of development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will, both alone and in combination with
development of related projects, lead to significant increases in solid waste generation and therefore
significant impacts on limited landfill capacity. No other significant solid waste disposal impacts would
occur.
3.9.3.2 Findings. Project-specific and cumulative solid waste impacts are reduced to the extent feasible
by the City of Anaheim Solid Waste Management Plan and the mitigation measures identified below, but
will remain significant. Except as to these unavoidably significant impacts, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment relating to solid waste disposal.
3.9.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.3 and 4,9.3 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional discussion
regarding construction impacts. The unavoidable significant solid waste disposal impacts identified in
Section 3.9.3.2 above are discussed further in Section 4.6 below in this document.
The solid waste generated by future development associated with the Project and related projects
will result in significant impacts due to limited landfill capacity. By Year 2010, the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan area will generate an estimated 29,373 tons of waste annually, or 80.5 tons daily. This
constitutes only a small percentage (1.0 percen0 of the maximum daily capacity at the expanded
Olinda/Olinda Alpha Landfill; however, because of the limited capacity of the landfill, the impacts are
identified as significant.
The extent of demolition activity within the Specific Plan area cannot be predicted. If demolition
is substantial, impacts of the debris on limited landfill capacity could be unavoidably significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 will reduce this impact to the extent feasible.
Cumulative waste disposal for the project and related projects will be approximately 45,521 tons
per year, or 125 tons per day, which is also a significant impact.
The City of Anaheim Solid Waste Management Plan, other ongoing City and County programs,
and the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce these impacts, but not to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.3-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Maintenance Department for review and
approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989,
as administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim
Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection,
implementation of said plan shall conm~ence and shall remain in full effect. Waste management
mitigation measures that shall be taken to reduce solid waste generation include, but are not
limited to:
'n~,, a. Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities.
b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling.
c. Complying with all Federal, State and City regulations for hazardous material disposal.
d. Participating in the City of Anaheim's "Recycle Anaheim" program or other substitute
program as may be developed by the City.
In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB 939), the
property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid waste reduction programs, as required
by the Maintenance Department, including but not limited to:
· Facilitating paper recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and
recycling bins.
· Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space
and centralized locations for collection and bailing.
· Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for
sorting and storing.
· Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the
total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection.
I :\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZX2/41 -30-
· Prohibiting curbside pick-up.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.3-2. Ongoing during project operation, the following practices shall be
implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/devaloper:
· Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging.
· Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard.
· Collection of office paper for recycling.
· Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling.
· Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries,
and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.
3.9.4 ~r~
3.9.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
parks are discussed in Sections 3.9.4 and 4.9.4 of the EIR. No significant impacts related to parks will
occur.
3.9.4.2 Findines. The environmental effects related to parks have been determined to be less than
significant. Because no significant impacts will occur, no mitigation measures are required. Thus, no
changes or alterations are required in or incorporated into the Project.
3.9.4.3 Facts in Support of Findines. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.4 and 4.9.4 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See also Section 3.1 of the EIR for additional
discussion regarding the Project's consistency with the City of Anaheim General Plan, Parks, Recreation,
and Community Services Element.
No increased deficit in City parklands will result from implementation of the Specific Plan
project. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 4.9.4 of the EIR. There are no significant impacts
to parks.
Implementation of amenities associated with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, such as enhanced
landscaping and pedestrian walkways, decorative signage and street features, is expected to be an
improvement over existing Anaheim Resort recreational conditions, therefore, a beneficial impact will
occur.
3.9.5 Schools
3.9.5.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
schools are discussed in Sections 3.9.5 and 4.9.5 of the EIR. The need for additional school facilities
because of new student generation to the Anaheim City School District CACSD") and the Anaheim Union
High School District CAUHSD") from households relocating to the jurisdiction of those districts because
of employment opportunities created by development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will be
significant. Cumulative school facilities impacts could also be significant. No other significant impacts
on schools would occur.
3.9.5.2 ~J_l;lL~.. Statutory school facilities fees collected from new development within the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan area and from new housing indirectly induced by the Project will reduce the impacts
on ACSD and AUHSD facilities, but not to an insignificant level. Cumulative school facilities impacts
could also be unavoidably significant. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project which mitigate or avoid, to the extent feasible, the significant effects on the environment
relating to schools.
3.9.5.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.5 and 4.9.5 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. Unavoidably significant school impacts are discussed
further in Section 4.7 below in this document.
Because the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan does not permit housing units to be developed in the
specific plan area, development under the Project will have no direct impact on schools. It can be
anticipated, however, that employment opportunities associated with new development under the specific
plan and related projects will induce some households to relocate into the City of Anaheim. Indirect
Project-induced household growth within the ACSD and AUHSD jurisdiction has been estimated at
approximately 2,400 households by the year 2010, which are in turn expected to produce 588 potential
AUHSD students and 754 ACSD students.
The total facilities costs (up to $13.7 million) associated with this increase in student population
is projected to exceed the combined statutory school facilities fees ($8.3 million) generated by Project
development and development of 2,400 new housing units, Therefore, school facilities impacts could be
significant.
Because of the absence of detailed data on the characteristics of the labor force associated with
the related projects, it is not possible to calculate the indirect household generation and net school
facilities impacts of the related projects with any certainty. The analysis in City of Anaheim EIR No.
3 l 1 for the Disneyland Resort project (which is the largest of the related projects) indicated that school
impacts from that project would not be significant. The indirect school impacts of the other related
projects can not be predicted at this time, but are potentially unavoidably significant.
The mitigation measure set forth below will reduce school impacts, but not to a level of
insignificance.
I: \DOC$\8~41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -32-
Mitigation Measure 3.9.5-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall provide proof of compliance with Government Code Section 53080
(Schools) to the Building Division of the Planning Department.
3.9.6 Water Service
3.9.6.1 Potential Significant Imuacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
water service are discussed in Sections 3.9.6 and 4.9.6 of the EIR. The existing water system is
inadequate to handle the peak demands which may result from development under the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan and the related projects. Without additional water production and distribution facilities,
water system impacts will be significant. No other significant water system impacts would occur.
3.9.6.2 ~. All significant impacts associated with water service have been mitigated to a less
than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to water service.
3.9.6.3 Facts in Support of Findines. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.6 and 4.9.6 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. Section 3.7 above in these findings (Groundwater
and Surface Hydrology) addresses the potential depletion of groundwater resources. This Section 3.9.6
addresses impacts on the facilities for the distribution of water.
The existing capacity of the water supply system will be exceeded by peak water demand
associated with buildout of the Project. Full buildout of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan through Year
2010 will result in a net increase in average daily water consumption by 4.0 million gallons per day
(mgd). The improvements to the existing water supply system described in Mitigation Measure 3.9.6-3
below will be required to adequately serve the specific plan area.
Cumulatively, development under the Project and related projects will increase average daily
demand by approximately 7. l mgd. The cumulative increase in demand in the Anaheim Resort will be
accommodated by the water system improvements identified in the EIR (No. 313) and the EIR (No. 311)
for the Disneyland Resort. Increases in other areas will be accommodated through other improvements
financed with developer and/or user fees.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen or avoid water service
impacts, and the potential effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.6-1. Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior
to final building and zoning inspection; and, ongoing during project operation, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans to the Utilities Department for review and approval which
shall ensure that water conservation measures are incorporated. Among the water conservation
[:\DOCS\SI~C\41~01106AADM.AZC/4 ! -33-
measures to be shown on the plans and implemented by the property owner/developer, to the
extent applicable, include, but are not limited to, the following:
· Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation systems.
· Use of waterway recirculation systems.
· Use of low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals.
· Use of self-closing valves on drinking fountains.
· Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which
use moisture sensors.
· Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels.
· Use of water efficient ice-machines, dishwashers, clothes washers and other water-using
appliances.
· Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest.
· Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation.
· Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.6-2. Prior to approval of the first subdivision map or the issuance of
the first grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer
shall enter into an agreement recorded against the property with the City of Anaheim, to the
satisfaction of the Utilities Department and City Attorney's Office, to guarantee the property
owner/developer's participation in water system improvements necessitated by the project. The
agreement shall contain provisions requiring the property owner/developer to pay or cause to
be paid its fair share t~nding for said improvements and/or construct said improvements, if
determined to be necessary by the Utilities Department, with reimbursement by other
beneficiaries in accordance with the Utility's Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Costs shall include
the payment for consultant/contractor services for the preliminary engineering, soils analysis,
right-of-way acquisition, demolition, construction and inspection, and any other related expenses.
Further, the property owner/developer shall submit an engineering report and phasing plan for
review and approval by the Utilities Department setting forth the extent and timing of the water
system improvements necessitated by the project for use in implementing the agreement. The
property owner/developer shall at all times perform its obligations as set forth in said agreement.
1:\DOC8\$ EC\4 l\0~06AAD M.AZC/41 -3~e-
Water system improvements identified in the environmental documentation for buildout of the
Anaheim Resort, which the property owner/developer may be required to participate in, include:
· The existing 8-inch diameter pipe in Clementinc Street from Katella Avenue to Freedman
Way shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe.
· The existing 10-inch diameter pipe in Freedman Way from Clementinc Street to Harbor
Boulevard shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe.
· The existing 10-inch diameter pipe in Harbor Boulevard from Convention Way to
Freedman Way shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe.
· The 12-inch pipe in Katella Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to Clementinc Street shall
be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe.
· The existing 10-inch dian~eter pipe in Harbor Boulevard from Freedman Way to Harbor
Boulevard north of Manchester Avenue shall be replaced by a 16-inch diameter pipe.
· An additional water well shall be constructed near the intersection of Clementinc Street
and Freedman Way.
· The existing 14-inch and 12-inch diameter pipes in West Street from Katella Avenue to
Ball Road shall be replaced by a 20-inch pipe.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.6-3. Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply
planning for the project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to the review and final
approval of, the Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division and Fire Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.6-4. Prior to issuance of each building permit, water pressure greater
than 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or less by means of pressure
reducing valves installed at the property owner/developer's service.
3.9.7 Wastewater/Sewer Service
3.9.7.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
wastewater/sewer service are discussed in Sections 3.9.7 and 4.9.7 of the EIR. Without additional sewer
line improvements and water conservation measures, wastewater generated from development under the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will significantly impact and overburden existing sewer pipe capacities.
Cumulative wastewater increases because of development under the Project and related projects will also
I :\DOCS\SEC\41 \01tiYoA,M)M.AZC/41 -35-
be significant in the absence of system improvements. No other significant wastewater/sewer service
impacts would occur.
3.9.7.2 Findines. All significant impacts associated with wastewater/sewer service will be mitigated
to a less than significant level by the mitigation measure set forth below. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment relating to wastewater/sewer service.
3.9.7.3 Facts in Support of Findines. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.7 and 4.9.7 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions.
As identified in the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study, by year 2010 with buildout of
the Project and related projects, a cumulative total of 39,947 linear feet of sewer pipe segment
deficiencies will result (an increase of 19,102 linear feet over existing conditions). By year 2010, future
development within the specific plan area will generate an additional average daily sewage flow of
approximately 2.2 million gallons per day.
The sewer line upgrades and new lines needed to accommodate development under the Project
and related projects are identified in Table 3.9-18 of the EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure
described below will insure that the line improvements are implemented as development proceeds, and
will reduce the potential significant effects to a less than significant level. Implementation of the water
conservation measures listed in Section 3.9.6 above in this document will serve to further reduce
wastewater flows and demands on the sewer system.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.7-1. Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall
participate in the City's Master Plan of Sewers and related Infrastructure Improvements (Fee)
Program to assist in mitigating existing and future sanitary sewer system deficiencies as follows:
The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City
Engineer to assist with determining the following:
a. If the development/redevelopment (1) does not discharge into a sewer system that is
currently deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge and/or (2) does not
increase flows or change points of discharge, then the property owner's/developer's
responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee)
Program.
b. If the development/redevelopment (1) discharges into a sewer system that is currently
deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge, and/or (2) increases flows
I :\ DOCS\SEC\41 \08~6AADM.AZC/41 -36-
or changes points of discharge, then the property owner/developer shall be required to
guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney's office
of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the
South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study. The property owner/developer shall be
required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as recommended by the South Central
Area Sewer Deficiency Study, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public
improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspections for the
building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer
shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, as determined by the
City Engineer, which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination
thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts for the sanitary sewer system,
the property owners/developer shall submit a sanitary sewer system improvement phasing
plan for the project to the City Engineer for review and approval which shall contain,
at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including
support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4) construction estimates. The study
shall determine the impact of the project sewer flows for total buildout of the project and
identify local deficiencies for each project component (i.e., each hotel).
3.9.8 Storm Drains
3.9.8.1 Potential Significant lmpacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
storm drains are discussed in Sections 3.9.8 and 4.9.8 of the EIR. Without additional storm drainage
improvements, increased runoff resulting from development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will
significantly impact and overburden existing drainage capacities. Cumulative storm runoff increases
because of development under the Project and related projects will also be significant in the absence of
system improvements. There is a potential, absent mitigation, for significant short-term impacts to the
storm drains from uncontrolled accumulation of silt in the runoff from construction of development within
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area and construction of related projects. No other significant storm
drainage impacts would occur.
3.9.8.2 Findines. All significant impacts associated with storm drains will be mitigated to a less than
siguifieant level by the mitigation measure set forth below. Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment
relating to storm drains.
3.9.8.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.8 and 4.9.8 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions.
I:\DOCS\S EC\41 \0806A.M)M.AZC/41 -37 -
The existing storm drain system in the Project area has the capacity to accommodate runoff from
a 2-year to 8-year storm. Development under the Project and related projects is likely to decrease
permeable surfaces and thereby thetease storm drain runoff.
Drainage system improvements needed to address existing deficiencies and accommodate buildout
of the Project and related projects have been identified in the City's recently completed Master Plan of
Drainage for the South Central Area. These improvements are described in Section 3.9.8 of the EIR.
Implementation of the mitigation measure described below will insure that the line improvements
are implemented as development proceeds, and will reduce the potential significant effects to a less than
significant level. Impacts to storm drains from silt in runoff from construction sites will be mitigated by
the measures discussed above in Section 3.7, Groundwater and Surface Hydrology.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure and the mitigation measures discussed above
in Section 3.7, Groundwater and Surface Hydrology, will reduce storm drain impacts to a level that is
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.8-1. Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall
participate in the City's Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement
(Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as
follows:
The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City
Engineer to assist with determining the following:
a. If the specific development/redevelopment does not increase or redirect current
or historic storm water quantities/flows, then the property owner's/developer's
responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement
(Fee) Program to provide storm drainage facilities in 10- and 25-year storm
frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency.
b. If the specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects the current or
historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property owner/developer shall be
required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Attorney's Office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or
issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the
improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central
Area. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the storm
drainage facilities as recommended by the Master Plan of Drainage for the South
Central Area to provide storm drainage facilities for 10- and 25-year storm
frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency
prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final
building and zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first.
Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure
Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer which could
include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of
guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm
drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by
the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and approval and
shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system; (2) all facility
sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4)
construction estimates.
3.9.9 Electricity
3.9.9.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
electricity demand and distribution are discussed in Sections 3.9.9 and 4.9.9 of the EIR. Distribution
facilities may need to be added to accommodate new development under the Project and related projects.
No other significant impacts relating to electricity will occur.
3.9.9.2 Findings. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to electricity.
3.9.9.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.9 and 4.9.9 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Sufficient electrical power will be available through the year 2010 to serve development under
the Project and Related Projects. Cumulative demand in the year 2010 is estimated at 11.7 million
kilowatt hours (kWh) per day, of which 638,000 kWh is attributable to development under the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan.
Improvements and upgrades in the local distribution system will be required, and will be funded
through rates paid by electric utility consumers.
The EIR identifies exposure to electromagnetic fields as an existing circumstance that is typical
in urban communities.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts relating to electricity.
I:\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AT~/41 -39-
Mitigation Measure 3.9.9-1. Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior
to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit plans
showing that each structure will comply with the State Energy Efficiency Standards for
Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations); and, will
consult with the City of Anaheim Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Division in order
to review above Title 24 measures to incorporate into the project design including energy
efficient designs.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.9-2. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall implement energy-saving practices in compliance with Title 24, which
may include the following:
· Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems controlled by a computerized
management system including features such as a variable air volume system, a
100-percent outdoor air economizer cycle, sequential operation of air conditioning
equipment in accordance with building demands, isolation of air conditioning to any
selected floor or floors.
· Use of electric motors designed to conserve energy.
· Use of special lighting fixtures such as motion sensing lightswitch devices and compact
fluorescent fixtures in place of incandescent lights.
· Use of T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Metal hallide or high-pressure sodium for
outdoor lighting and parking lots.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.9-3. Prior to issuance of each building permit for any buildings
requiring a change in electrical service, the property owner/developer shall install an
underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System. The Underground
Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical
Specifications for Underground Systems. Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will
be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical
Specifications for Underground Systems.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.9-4. Prior to installation of any transformers, the property
owner/developer shall submit evidence to the Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering
Division, that the transformers are PCB free.
I :\D OCS\SEC\41 ~0806AADM.AZC/41 -40-
3.9.10 Natural Gas
3.9.10.1 Potential Si~,nificant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on natural gas service are discussed in Sections 3.9.10 and 4.9.10 of the EIR. There are no
significant impacts related to natural gas service.
3.9.10.2 Findines. There are no significant impacts related to natural gas service.
3.9.10.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.10 and 4.9.10
of the EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Development under the Project and related projects through the year 2010 will increase
cumulative demand for natural gas to 976,675 MBTU annually, of which 508,730 MBTU is attributable
to development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The Southern California Gas Company has
indicated that it will be able to meet this demand.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9.9-1 (see Section 3.9.9.3 above in this document) and
the following mitigation measure will reduce demand for natural gas.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.10-1. The Southern California Gas Company has developed several
programs which are intended to assist in the selection of the most energy-efficient water heaters
and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a program, as required, to reduce
the demand on natural gas supplies.
3.9.11 Telephone Service
3.9.11.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on telephone service are discussed in Sections 3.9.11 and 4.9.11 of the EIR. There are no
significant impacts to telephone service.
3.9.11.2 Findings. There are no significant impacts relating to telephone service.
3.9.11.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.11 and 4.9.11
of the EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. Future development under the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan and related projects will increase the demand on the telephone service system. The
service supplier, Pacific Bell, has indicated that it will be able to meet the future demand for service.
3.9.12 Television Service/Reception
3.9.12.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the
Project on television service/reception are discussed in Sections 3.9.12 and 4.9.12 of the EIR. It is
possible that broadcast television reception by area residences and businesses may be interfered with by
future development of tall structures under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and related projects. No
other significant impacts will occur.
3.9.12.2 Findings. All significant impacts associated with television service have been mitigated
to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to television
service/reception.
3.9.12.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.9.12 and 4.9.12
of the EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. The following mitigation measure will serve
to maintain adequate broadcast television reception, and will reduce the potential effects to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.9.12-1. Within 6 months after completion of building exteriors of new
developments over 75 feet in height, a study of area television reception shall be undertaken by
the property owner/developer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. If
the City of Anaheim determines that the proposed project creates a significant impact on
broadcast television reception at local residences and other existing hotels/restaurants or other
businesses, a signal booster or relay system shall be installed by the property owner/developer
immediately on the roof of the tallest project building to restore television reception to its
original condition. In no event shall heights set forth in Section 18.04.035 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code entitled, "Structural Height Limitations-Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area"
be exceeded.
3.10 Hazardous Materials
3.10.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project
relating to hazardous materials are discussed in Sections 3.10 and 4.10 of the EIR.
Soil contamination from leaking underground storage tanks is known to exist at seven sites
within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. Future development/redevelopment within the Specific
Plan area could encounter the contamination originating from these sites. If contamination levels at these
sites in excess of federal, state, and local standards are encountered by unprotected workers or the public
from the listed sites, or from areas that were not known to be contaminated, it would be a significant
health impact. No other significant impacts related to hazardous materials are anticipated.
3.10.2 Finding. All significant impacts associated with hazardous materials have been mitigated to
a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to hazardous materials.
3.10.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.10 and 4.10 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional discussion
regarding construction impacts.
The potential hazardous materials impacts associated with development under the Project and
related projects will be reduced to an insignificant level with implementation of the mitigation measures
set forth below. They supplement a comprehensive system of state and federal laws and regulations
designed to lead to the identification and remediation of hazardous waste contamination.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-1. Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first
demolition permit, whichever occurs first, in areas of former service stations, in areas known
or thought to have been formerly occupied by USTs, and in areas where tank removal has not
been verified prior to excavation or grading, the property owner/developer shall retain the
services of a qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known, or the
presence of, cryptic tanks, using geophysical methods.
Soil sampling or a soil organic vapor survey may be required if soil sampling results are not
available, or indicate contamination is present above regulatory guidelines. If warranted,
subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken in these areas, and appropriate
remediation measures developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes
place in these areas.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-2. Prior to the removal of USTs, the property owner/developer shall
obtain a permit from the Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department for the
removal of such tanks. During the removal of USTs, a representative from the Environmental
Protection Section of the Fire Department shall be ohsitc to direct soil sampling.
Mitigation Measure 3.10q3. Ongoing during remediation, all remediation activities of surface
or subsurface contamination not related to USTs, conducted on behalf of the property
owner/developer, shall be overseen by the Orange County Health Department. Information on
subsurface contamination from USTs shall be provided to the Fire Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.104. Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first
demolition permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a plan for
review and approval of the Fire Department which details procedures that will be taken if
previously unknown USTs, or other unknown hazardous material or waste, is discovered onsite.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-5. Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first
demolition permit, whichever occurs first, for future developments within the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan area affecting the California Chemical Company, 1772 S. Haster Street; Arco
Service Station, 1037 W. Ball Road; Avis Rent-a-Car System, 1400 S. Harbor Blvd.; Mobile
Service Station, 1800 S. Harbor Blvd.; Shell Service Station, 2100 S. Harbor Blvd; Texaco
Service Station, 100 W. Katella Avenue; and Mobil Service Station, 100 E. Katella Way, a
qualified environmental professional, retained by the property owner/developer, shall attempt
to contact the current and/or known former property/business owners to obtain information
regarding the status of USTs and/or tank closures at these sites. If warranted, subsurface
investigation and sampling shall be undertaken by a qualified environmental professional, and
results of these analyses shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval.
Appropriate remediation measures will be developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation
or grading take place in these areas.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-6. Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first
demolition permit, whichever occurs first, on the 56-acre parcel located in the southeast portion
of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, several representative samples of shallow soils shall
be collected and analyzed by a qualified environmental professional for the property
owner/developer for pesticide and herbicide residue. If soils containing pesticides or herbicides
above regulated limits are found, remedial actions shall be carried out before any disturbance
to the soils occurs. Remedial actions should consist of removal and disposal or treatment of
affected soils according to all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-7. Ongoing during project demolition and construction, in the event
that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction,
the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous
material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California
Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and
according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
3.11 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
3.11.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
visual resources and aesthetics are discussed in Sections 3.11 and 4.11 of the EIR.
The juxtaposition of the different land uses in and around the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area,
although contemplated by the City of Anaheim General Plan, creates the potential for visual impacts to
adjacent properties as land uses intensify with development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and
related projects, including loss of open space, intensification of the urban skyline, and potential
shade/shadow impacts to adjacent property. Additionally, approximately 56 acres in the southeastern
I:\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -44-
portion of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area (and other parcels affected by related projects) is
currently open farmland designated as an agricultural preserve. While specific details of future
developments within these areas are not yet known, there is the potential for significant visual impacts
to adjacent residential properties.
Construction activities associated with the Project and related projects will create visual
disruption while proposed roadway an[l public infrastructure improvements are completed. This will
include removal of some landscaping, grading, demolition of existing structures, and other infrastructure
and building construction.
No other significant impacts related to visual resources and aesthetics are anticipated.
3.11.2 Findines. Impacts associated with visual resources and aesthetics have been mitigated to the
extent feasible, but will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. To the extent feasible, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment relating to visual resources and aesthetics.
3.11.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.11 and 4.11 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. Unavoidable significant visual resource and aesthetic
impacts are discussed further in Section 4.8 below in this document.
The Project will have beneficial visual and aesthetic impacts as a result of the extensive
landscaping, design features and development standards and guidelines provided in the Specific Plan. As
a whole, the visual and aesthetic quality of the area is expected to be enhanced by the Project.
With the intensification of development which is expected to occur under the Project and related
projects, however, including the potential development of open agricultural fields, unavoidable visual and
aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties will occur.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen or avoid project impacts
on visual resources and aesthetics.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas
for the subject building(s) will be screened from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential
areas. Screening shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspection.
Mitigation Measure 3,11-2. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Department and
Utilities Department, which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect.
The landscape plan shall include a phasing plan for the installation and maintenance of
landscaping associated with that building permit and shall be in conformance with the Water
Efficiency Landscape Ordinance.
The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall
ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application of
fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff
and overwatering is minimized.
The landscape and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow
irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors,
soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. In addition, all irrigation systems
shall be designed so that they will function properly with reclaimed water, once a system is
available.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-3. Prior to the submittal of each final site plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit a shade and shadow analysis to the Planning Department for
review and approval demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would not create significant
shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses. A significant shade and shadow impact would
occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., eating areas along Harbor Boulevard, hotel/motel
swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include sensitive uses
(e.g. residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more
than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. If the analysis identifies shade and/or shadow impacts
would occur and the building setback, architectural messing and landscape requirements/provi-
sions set forth in Section 5.0, Design Plan of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, do not function
as feasible mitigation measures, additional technical review of the structure(s) will be required.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-4. Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, or whenever
established; and, on an ongoing basis, the property owner/developer shall participate in an
assessment district for landscape installation and maintenance if one is established for the
Anaheim Resort.
Mitigation Measure 3,11-5. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans which detail the lighting system for any parking facilities
adjacent to residential or light-sensitive uses. The systems shall be designed and maintained in
such a manner as to conceal light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and
glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical
engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, this
requirement has been met.
I:\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 =46-
3.12 Cultural Resources
3.12.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
cultural resources are discussed in Sectiota 3.12 and 4.12 of the EIR. There are no significant project-
specific or cumulative impacts on cultural resources.
3.12.2 Findines. There are no significant Project-specific or cumulative impacts on cultural resources.
3.12.3 Facts in Support of Findines. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.12 and 4.12 of the
EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. Past surveys have uncovered no evidence of cultural,
historic or prehistoric resources, and no significant impacts are anticipated. However, the following
mitigation measures have nonetheless been incorporated into the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Project
to minimize potential disturbance to as-yet undiscovered resources that may be encountered during future
development activity.
Mitigation Measure 3.12-1. Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works/Engineering Department,
Development Services Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying
the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are
implemented:
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered.
If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer
shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for
exploration and/or salvage.
~,~'
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an
appropriate educational or research institution.
c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified
archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the
archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the
monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted
to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the
City as to when the final report will be submitted.
I:\D 0CS\SEC\41 \0806AADM,AZC/41 -47-
Mitigation Measure 3.12-2. Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works/Engineering Department,
Development Services Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, identifying
the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are
implemented:
a. The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish
procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification,
and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological resources are uncovered.
If artifacts are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall
determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for
exploration and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an
appropriate educational or research institution.
c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the
certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the
paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the
monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted.
Upon completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City, as to when the
final report will be submitted.
3.13 n_E_._~
3.13.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project on
energy usage are discussed in Sections 3.13 and 4.13 of the EIR. Additional discussion of electricity and
natural gas usage is provided in Sections 3.9.9 and 3.9.10 of the EIR.
Without conservation measures, energy consumption associated with buildout of the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan and related projects could be considered significant, No other significant energy
consumption impacts would occur.
3.13.2 Findings. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to energy.
3.13.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis in Sections 3.4 and 4.4 of the EIR
explain the foregoing findings and conclusions, See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional discussion
I :\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -48-
regarding construction impacts. Additional discussion of impacts associated with usage of electricity and
natural gas is provided in Sections 3.9.9 and 3.9.10 of the EIR.
Although development associated with the Project and related projects will consume substantial
amounts of motor vehicle fuel, electricity (see Section 3.9.9), and natural gas (see Section 3.9.10), the
proposed usage is consistent with the assumed usage under approved plans and policies. Implementation
of the mitigation measure set forth below and the measures stated in Section 3.9.9 and 3.9.10 of these
Findings would reduce energy usage impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel-efficient models of gas-powered building
equipment have be~n incorporated into the project, to the extent feasible.
3.14 Construction Impacts
3.14.1 Potential Significant Impacts. The project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project
related to construction activities are discussed throughout the EIR in connection with relevant impact
categories, and are summarized in Section 3.14 of the EIR.
As discussed above in these findings, potentially significant construction impacts include:
A. Land Use Compatibility. Long-term cumulative construction impacts on land use are
considered significant due the adjacency of existing residences to development sites within the Specific
Plan area.
B. Transportation and Circulation. Disruption and congestion of streets and intersections
produced by construction activitias pursuant to the Specific Plan and related projects would be significant.
C. Air Oualitv. Even with all feasible mitigation measures, peak day construction emissions
on both a Project-specific and cumulative basis are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG,
NOx, CO, and PM10. Cumulative construction emissions of SOx may also be significant.
D. Noise. Noise from construction activities pursuant to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
will be significant on a Project-specific and cumulative basis. Even with all feasible mitigation measures,
noise from construction activities in and around the specific plan area will be significant. Construction
activity in connection with buildout under the specific plan is anticipated to occur over the 16-year period
fi'om 1994 through 2010, with the majority of activity between 2000 and 2010. Construction adjacent
to any one location, however, will be of shorter duration (generally six months or less). In general, noise
levels will vary from 79 dBA to 88 dBA from 50 feet away during the erection phase of construction.
I :\DOCS\SEC\41\08~oAADM.AZC/41 -49-
Maximum outdoor noise levels at residences 100 feet from the construction site could be as high as 85
dBA. This will be an unavoidable significant impact.
E. Solid Waste. Demolition debris and other construction-related solid wastes could be
significant in light of limited landfill capacity.
F. Surface Hydrology/Storm Drains. Short-term impacts from silt-laden and contaminated
runoff from construction sites could occur without mitigation.
G. Visual and Aesthetic Resources. Construction activities associated with the Project and
related projects will create visual disruption while proposed roadway and public infrastructure
improvements are completed. This will include removal of some landscaping, grading, demolition of
existing structures, and other infrastructure and building construction.
3.14.2 Findings. To the extent feasible, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment relating to
construction. Construction impacts will, however, remain unavoidably significant.
3.14.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The discussion and analysis of construction impacts throughout
the EIR explain the foregoing findings and conclusions. See Section 3.14 of the EIR for additional
discussion regarding construction impacts. Unavoidably significant construction impacts are discussed
further in Section 4.9 below in this document.
Construction-related mitigation measures are listed above in this document in connection with
specific impact categories. These measures will lessen the impacts, but not to below a level of
significance.
SECTION 4.0
UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The potential significant adverse impacts associated with the adoption of the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan which cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives are described and analyzed below. The Anaheim City Council finds that these potential
significant adverse impacts would be reduced with the implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures; however, the impacts cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. The Anaheim City
Council will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as Section 7.0 of this document.
4.1 LAND USE-RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
4.1.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. The 56-acre agricultural field located in the southeastern
portion of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is categorized as prime agricultural land by the
California Department of Conservation on the Important Farm Land Series Map. The loss of agricultural
land will reduce the land available for food production, specifically for the production of strawberries,
based on the most recent crop cultivated. The property owner has filed a notice of nonrenewal of the
agricultural preserve status of the property with the State. The EIR demonstrates that the loss of the field
within the Specific Plan area will result in less than a 0.2 percent reduction of the land currently
cultivated for strawberry production in the State; nevertheless, loss of any prime agricultural land is
considered a significant project impact by the California Department of Conservation. Additionally,
because of the loss of agricultural land throughout Orange County and the State of California due to other
development projects, the loss of the prime agricultural land is considered a significant cumulative impact.
There are no other unavoidably significant impacts to land use - related plans and policies.
4.1.2 Findines. With respect to the loss of agricultural land, 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 Environmental Impact Report.
4.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. There are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives
available to mitigate the potential loss of prime farmland in the Specific Plan area. The owner of the 56-
acre parcel currently in agricultural production has noticed the Williamson Act contract covering the
parcel for non-renewal, and the contract will therefore expire on March 1, 2000. Whether the parcel will
be continued in agricultural production beyond that date is a decision which can only be made by the
property owner.
4.2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
4.2.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. Unavoidably significant land use compatibility impacts
consist of (i) juxtaposition and proximity of commercial and residential land uses; (ii) loss of prime
agricultural land; and (iii) Project and cumulative construction impacts on adjacent land uses.
4.2.2 F~. The project-specific and cumulative significant environmental impacts related to land
use incompatibilities have been mitigated to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation
measures identified in this document, With respect to the unavoidably significant land use compatibility
impacts, 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 Environmental Impact Report.
4.2.3 Facts in Support of Findin~,s. Land use compatibility impacts to residences located within and
on the periphery of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area will be significant due to the anticipated
intensification of commercial uses (primarily hotels and motels) within the Anaheim Resort. The
commercial development will occur in areas which are already designated Commercial Recreation by the
City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element, and represents a continuation of the logical and orderly
development of the area. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR and the design guidelines and
development standards of the Specific Plan will buffer and reduce to the extent feasible the land use
incompatibilities associated with future hotel parking structures and buildings. However, the
intensification of commercial uses adjacent to residential areas will unavoidably lead to visual disruption,
construction noise and increased vehicle traffic as identified in the EIR. Construction activities on
adjacent parcels will affect not only residential uses, but adjacent conm~ercial, industrial and public uses
as well. These impacts could be reduced, but not to below a level of significance, by adoption of the no-
project or lower intensity alternatives. Those alternatives, however, are int~asible for the reasons set
forth in Section 5.0 below in this document.
As discussed in Section 4.1.3 of these Findings, there are no feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives which would avoid the potential loss of the 56-acre agricultural field should the property
owner choose to cease agricultural production.
4.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
4.3.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. The unavoidable significant impacts on transportation and
circulation consist of the following:
A. Unavoidable significant Year 2010 impacts may occur at the following five intersections
even with completion of all feasible transportation and circulation improvements:
· Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road · Lewis Street and Katella Avenue
· Haster Street and Orangewood Avenue · Haster Street and Chapman Avenue
· Anaheim Blvd./Haster Street and Katella Avenue
B. In the event that the transportation and circulation improvements identified in the EIR,
including improvements which are part of Caltrans' I-5 widening program or OCTA's Katella Smart
Street program, are not completed as anticipated in a timetable commensurate with the pace of
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, then additional unavoidable significant impacts on
levels of service at the study intersections may result.
C. In the aggregate over the 16-year buildout period from 1994-2010, temporary disruption
and congestion of streets and intersections resulting from construction of street improvements and
individual development projects will be significant and unavoidable.
4.3.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative significant environmental impacts related to
transportation and circulation have been mitigated to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation
measures identified in this document. With respect to the unavoidably significant transportation and
circulation impacts, 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 Environmental Impact Report.
4.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The City's staff and consulting engineers have determined that
there are no feasible improvements capable of maintaining adequate levels of service at five intersections
(Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road; Anaheim Blvd./Haster Street and Katella Avenue; Haster Street and
Orangewood Avenue; Lewis Street and Katella Avenue; Haster Street and Chapman Avenue) with
buildout of the Project, related projects and background traffic increases in the year 2010.
Implementation of the planned Lewis Street/I-5 overcrossing (post-2010) would reduce impacts at Haster
Street and Chapman Avenue. Acceleration of this costly overcrossing is not currently feasible because
of state and local funding limitations.
In the event that the transportation and circulation improvements identified in the EIR, including
improvements which are part of Caltrans' I-5 widening program or OCTA's Katella Smart Street
program, are not completed as anticipated in a timetable commensurate with the pace of development
under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, then additional unavoidable significant impacts on levels of
service at the study intersections may result. Because of the cost of the improvements, amounting to tens
of millions of dollars, they cannot feasibly be completed by the City if the anticipated County and State
funds do not become available as planned. Burdening new development with the cost of these
improvements would inhibit construction and cause the City to lose the job growth and economic
revitalization which is anticipated from the Project.
The traffic mitigation identified in the EIR is based upon a comprehensive modelling of
anticipated future traffic conditions in the City of Anaheim and other affected areas, including the impacts
of the Project, the Disneyland Resort expansions, Hotel Circle, and other citywide and regional
development. Full buildout of the Anaheim Resort by the year 2010 has been assumed in the analysis
and for purposes of developing the most effective feasible mitigation program, including coordination with
planned OCTA Smart Street and Caltrans I-5 widening improvements.
Although the actual pace and location of development and resulting traffic growth will depend
on economic conditions and the market decisions of each property owner, the mitigation program has
been designed to insure to the extent feasible that development does not outpace the implementation of
needed circulation improvements. Although the level of regional "background" traffic is largely outside
of the control of the City of Anaheim, a sufficiently large amount of development has been assumed (as
submitted by each city to the County of Orange) to accommodate future conditions.
In the aggregate over the 16-year buildout period from 1994-2010, temporary disruption and
congestion of streets and intersections resulting from construction of street improvements and individual
development projects will be significant and unavoidable. This disruption and congestion will be lessened
to the extent feasible by the mitigation measures identified in this document, but is an inevitable result
of construction activity.
The foregoing unavoidable impacts could potentially be reduced, but not to below a level of
significance, by adoption of the no-project or lower intensity alternatives. Those alternatives, however,
are infeasible for the reasons set forth in Section 5.0 below in this document
In addition, the Haster Street/Chapman Avenue intersection may be degraded from the current
LOS C to an unacceptable LOS if substantial background development occurs in the area (within or
outside of the City of Anaheim) and no improvements are provided. While the project is forecast to add
between 3 % and 4.4% by the year 2010, it would not deteriorate the LOS to unacceptable levels by itself.
This added traffic combined with substantial area background traffic (e.g., traffic adding 20 to 25% to
the intersection) could result in a deficient LOS if no improvements were made. Improvements at this
intersection will be reexamined and addressed if feasible as part of a programmed Measure M-funded
Haster Street Widening Alignment Study and EIR in Fiscal Year 96/97.
4.4 AIR QUALITY
4.4.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. Unavoidable air quality impacts consist of the following:
A. Construction Emissions: Even with all feasible mitigation measures, peak day
construction emissions on both a Project-specific and cumulative basis are expected to exceed SCAQMD
I :\ DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -54-
thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10. Cumulative construction emissions of SOx may also be
unavoidably significant.
B. Operational Emissions: Even with all feasible mitigation measures, emissions from
motor vehicle travel, utility usage, stationary sources, and ohsitc service engines associated with
development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for
ROG, NOx, CO and PM10, both on a Project-spexific and cumulative basis. These are impacts on
regional air quality; no significant localized air quality impacts will occur.
4.4.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative significant environmental impacts related to air
quality have been mitigated to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation measures identified
in this document. With respect to the unavoidably significant air quality impacts, 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 Environmental Impact Report.
4.4.3 Facts in Support of Findings. Even with all feasible mitigation measures, intensification of
commercial uses as contemplated under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will inevitably lead to
construction and traffic emissions.
The Project is well designed from a regional air quality planning standpoint. As confirmed by
the Project review conducted by SCAG, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan provides a good exan~ple of
using planning to achieve regional air quality goals, by, for instance, concentrating new development
around existing regional activity centers. The Specific Plan will accommodate hotel/motel demand froin
visitors to the adjacent activity centers (e.g. Anaheim Convention Center, Disneyland Resort), thereby
contributing to increasing lengths of stay and reducing overall vacation travel in the region.
The unavoidable air quality impacts could potentially be reduced, but not to below a level of
significance, by adoption ofthe no-projector lower intensity alternatives. Those alternatives, however,
are infeasible for the reasons set forth in Section 5.0 below in this document.
4.5 NOISE
4.5.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. The following unavoidable noise impacts would occur:
A. Construction Noise: Even with all feasible mitigation measures, noise from construction
activities in and around the Specific Plan area will be significant.
B. Operational Noise: Noise from increased vehicular traffic associated with related
projects and background traffic growth in combination with the Project will be cumulatively and
I:\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/4 ! -55-
unavoidably significant along two street segments in the traffic study area in the Year 2000 and along nine
segments in the Year 2010.
4.5.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative significant environmental impacts related to noise
have been mitigated to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this
document. With respect to the unavoidably significant noise impacts, 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 Environmental Impact Report.
4.5.3 Facts in Support of Findings. Even with all feasible mitigation measures, intensification of
commercial uses as contemplated under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will inevitably lead to
significant construction and cumulative traffic noise increases. Further limitations on the hours and noise
levels permitted for construction activities would increase the expense involved in construction, and would
therefore inhibit the job growth and economic revitalization which the City is anticipating from the
Project.
The unavoidable noise impacts could potentially be reduced, but not to below a level of
significance, by adoption of the no-project or lower intensity alternatives. Those alternatives, however,
are infeasible for the reasons set forth in Section 5.0 below in this document.
4.6 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
4.6.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. Because of limited landfill capacity, the quantity of solid
waste generated by construction and operation of development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
and related projects will be unavoidably significant.
4.6.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative significant environmental impacts related to solid
waste have been mitigated to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation measures identified
in this document. With respect to the unavoidably significant solid waste impacts, 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 Environmental Impact Report.
4.6.3 Facts in Support of Findings. New development inevitably leads to increases in solid waste
generation. Landfill space is limited.
Although the feasibility of recycling and other waste stream reduction measures is increasing,
measures required to reduce solid waste generation to a level of insignificance cannot be feasibly achieved
at this time. The City's existing waste management program and the mitigation measures identified in
the EIR will reduce solid waste considerably, but not to a level of iesignificanee.
The extent of demolition activity within the Specific Plan area cannot be predicted. If demolition
is substantial, impacts of the debris on limited landfill capacity could be unavoidably significant.
The unavoidable solid waste impacts could potentially be reduced, but not to below a level of
significance, by adoption of the no-project or lower intensity alternatives. Those alternatives, however,
are infeasible for the reasons set forth in Section 5.0 below in this document.
4.7 SCHOOLS
4.7.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. The evidence provided by the school districts is that the need
for additional school facilities because of new student generation to the Anaheim City School District
CACSD") and the Anaheim Union High School District CAUHSD") from households relocating to the
jurisdiction of those districts because of employment opportunities created by development under the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the related projects will be unavoidably significant. Projected school
facilities fees generated by commercial and residential development directly and indirectly associated with
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will not cover the cost to the school districts projected from new
students.
4.7.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative significant environmental impacts related to
schools have been mitigated to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation measures identified
in this document. With respect to the unavoidably significant school impacts, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Environmental
Impact Report and comments thereto.
4.7.3 Facts in Support of Findings. School facilities fees on new development are set by the
California State Legislature. The fact that in some instances those fees may be inadequate to fully offset
the facilities costs resulting directly or indirectly from the new development indicates a determination by
the State Legislature that higher fees or other mitigation is infeasible in light of competing social and
economic interests, such as job creation and economic productivity. The City of Anaheim also finds that
to impose additional fees and mitigation related to this Project, assuming it had the power to do so, would
be infeasible because of its inhibitory effect on the job creation and economic revitalization anticipated
as a result of the Project. Additionally, in that the project area is large in size and already developed in
an urban setting, a Mello Roes District would not be appropriate or applicable. Further, it is expected
that there will be a natural phasing of development of the project area due to economic conditions.
The unavoidable school impacts could potentially be reduced, but not to below a level of
significance, by adoption of the no-project or lower intensity alternatives. Those alternatives, however,
are infeasible for the reasons set forth in Section 5.0 below in this document.
The City has provided, and is continuing to provide City services, joint use facilities and other
cooperative efforts, which effectively reduce facilities and operating expenses of the districts.
4.8 VISUAL RESOURCES AND AESTHETICS
4.8.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. The juxtaposition of the different land uses in and around
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, although contemplated by the City of Anaheim General Plan,
creates the potential for unavoidably significant visual impacts to adjacent properties as land uses intensify
with development under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and related projects, including loss of open
space, intensification of the urban skyline, and potential shade/shadow impacts to adjacent property.
Additionally, approximately 56 acres in the southeastern portion of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area
(and other parcels affected by related projects) is currently open farmland designated as an agricultural
preserve. While specific development details of future developments within these areas are not yet
known, there is the potential for unavoidable significant visual impacts to adjacent residential properties.
In addition, construction activities associated with the Project and related projects will create
unavoidably significant visual disruption while proposed roadway and public infrastructure improvements
are completed. This will include removal of some landscaping, grading, demolition of existing structures,
and other infrastructure and building construction.
4.8.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative significant environmental impacts related to visual
resources and aesthetics have been mitigated to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation
measures identified in this document. With respect to the unavoidably significant visual and aesthetic
impacts, 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 Environmental Impact Report.
4.8.3 Facts in Support of Findings. Even with all feasible mitigation measures, construction activity
and the intensification of commercial uses as contemplated under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will
inevitably lead to significant visual disruption and changes in the aesthetic landscape. Only severe limits
on new development would avoid these impacts; such limits are infeasible because they would preclude
the job growth and economic revitalization anticipated by the City from the Project.
The unavoidable visual and aesthetic impacts could potentially be reduced, but not to below a
level of significance, by adoption of the no-project or lower intensity alternatives. Those alternatives,
however, are infeasible for the reasons set forth in Section 5.0 below in this document.
4.9 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
4.9.1 Unavoidable Significant Impacts. Construction impacts are addressed with each environmental
issue analysis above in these findings. However, the following significant unavoidable environmental
effects are anticipated as a result of construction activities associated with the Project and related projects:
A. Land Use Compatibility. Long-term cumulative construction impacts on land use are
considered significant due the adjacency of existing residences to development sites within the Specific
Plan area.
B. Transportation and Circulation. Disruption and congestion of streets and intersections
produced by construction activities pursuant to the Specific Plan and related projects would be significant.
C. Air Oualitv. Even with all feasible mitigation measures, peak day construction emissions
on both a Project-specific and cumulative basis are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG,
NOx, CO, and PM10. Cumulative construction emissions of SOx may also be unavoidably significant.
D. Noise. Noise from construction activities pursuant to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
will be significant on a Project-specific and cumulative basis. Even with all feasible mitigation measures,
noise from construction activities in and around the specific plan area will be significant. Construction
activity in connection with buildout under the Specific Plan is anticipated to occur over the 16-year period
from 1994 through 2010, with the majority of activity between 2000 and 2010. Construction adjacent
to any one location, however, will be of shorter duration (generally six months or less). In general, noise
levels will vary from 79 dBA to 88 dBA from 50 feet away during the erection phase of construction.
Maximum outdoor noise levels at residences 100 feet from the construction site could be as high as 85
dBA. This will be an unavoidable significant impact.
E. Solid Waste. Depending on the scope of demolition activity, demolition debris and other
construction-related solid wastes may be unavoidably significant in light of limited landfill capacity.
F. Surface Hydrology/Storm Drains. Short~term impacts from silt-laden and contaminated
runoff from construction sites may be unavoidably significant.
G. Visual and Aesthetic Resources. Construction activities associated with the Project and
related projects will create visual disruption while proposed roadway and public infrastructure
improvements are completed. This will include removal of some landscaping, grading, demolition of
existing structures, and other infrastructure and building construction.
4.9.2 Findines. The project-specific and cumulative significant environmental impacts related to
construction have been mitigated to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation measures
identified in this document. With respect to the unavoidably significant construction impacts, 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 Environmental Impact Report.
4.9.3 Facts in Support of Findings. Even with all feasible mitigation measures, construction activity
associated with the intensification of commercial uses as contemplated under the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan will inevitably lead to significant disruption and associated construction impacts. Only severe limits
on new development would avoid these impacts; such limits are infeasible because they would preclude
the job growth and economic revitalization anticipated by the City from the Project.
The unavoidable construction impacts could potentially be reduced, but not to below a level of
significance, by adoption of the no-project or lower intensity alternatives. Those alternatives, however,
are infeasible for the reasons set forth in Section 5.0 below in this document.
SECTION 5
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The EIR has evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. Section 5.0
of the EIR provides detailed descriptions and analysis of each alternative in adequate detail for a decision
on whether the alternatives should be adopted in lieu of the Project, as well as an analysis of the
environmentally superior alternative.
5.1 NO-PROJECT/CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
5.1.1 Description of Alternative. Section 5.2 of the EIR describes and discusses the No-
Project/Continuing Development Alternative. Under the No-Project/Continuing Development Altornative,
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would not be implemented, but the project area would continue to
develop under the existing land use controls and designations. Continued development and renovation
under these existing restrictions would be allowed by right or as allowed by discretionary approval by
the City of Anaheim, depending on the types of action requested. Property owners/developers may
continue to develop up to 75 units per parcel under a building permit as of right, but may seek additional
density under conditional use permit on a discretionary basis. It is assumed that continuing development
would occur as allowed by the C-R Zoning Re~,mlations. Additionally, individual property
owners/developers would likely be subject to preparation of individual project EIR documentation in order
to environmentally clear specific developments proposed within the Specific Plan boundaries.
5.1.2 Findings. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the No-Project/Continuing Development Alternative identified in the EIR.
5.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. Because it may involve less total new development,
implementation of the No-Project/Continuing Development Alternative might reduce some of the Project's
impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, unavoidably significant impacts
similar to those of the proposed Project would still occur. Moreover, this alternative would not
implement many of the project benefits anticipated with implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan, including enhancement of public improvements, landscaping and parkway enhancements,
coordinated and comprehensive planning, increased revenues and enhanced job growth and economic
revitalization. Decline and deterioration of the area is likely to result under the No-Project/Continuing
Development Alternative in that reinvestment in the area would not occur resulting in a loss of tourist
dollars to competing resort destinations, loss of Convention Center status as one of the major west coast
convention facilities and the loss of a wide range of attractions, hotel accommodations, restaurants and
retail shopping opportunities, leaving an uneven mix of uses.
It is anticipated that this alternative would also result in similar adverse impacts as the proposed
Project, including:
a. All of the cumulative impacts associated with the Project, such as impacts relating to the
loss of prime agricultural land; land use compatibilities inherent in the juxtaposition of
commercial and residential uses; cumulative air quality impacts related to emissions of
ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 which will exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds; solid
waste impacts because of limited landfill capacity; potential impacts related to cumulative
consumption of electricity and natural gas; and construction impacts such as
transportation disruption, noise, air emissions, and visual disruptions.
b. Traffic impacts would be equivalent to or greater than traffic conditions with the
proposed Project. This would occur because development consistent with the General
Plan would be anticipated to occur; but the transportation and circulation improvements,
which would be completed in a coordinated fashion by the proposed project, would occur
~ in a more piecemeal fashion.
c. The benefits of the cohesive and integrated landscaping and design guidelines would be
lost as the project area developed on more of a parcel-by-parcel basis.
d. Fewer indirect jobs would be generated by implementation of this alternative.
e. Since construction activities associated with alternative developments would not be
coordinated by implementation of the Specific Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Plan,
significant disruptive impacts would result.
In addition, because of the incremental and inconsistent types of development which are likely
to occur and the lack of improved and enhanced infrastructure improvements, the No-
Project/Continuing Development Alternative fails to achieve the Project objectives. This will
in turn produce a loss of competitiveness with other tourist/convention destinations, and result
in further decline and deterioration of the area:
a. The No-Project/Continuing Development Alternative would result in parcel-by-parcel
approach to development within the Specific Plan area. Parcel-by -parcel development
would fail to achieve the beantification and functional improvements necessary to attract
greater numbers of visitors to the area and produce economic revitalization. The
comprehensive coordination of infrastructure improvements as proposed with
implementation of the Project would not be achieved.
b. The No-Project/Continuing Development Alternative would lead to scattered and
incremental development. As a result, benefits would be diluted, and the Specific Plan
area would not provide integrated and unified facilities to the public to the extent
contemplated by the Project. This incremental approach would not meet Anaheim's
General Plan goal of enhancing visitor-serving commercial uses in the City in order to
provide a catalyst for the economic and physical enhancement of Anaheim. The City,
the business community and the public would lose the economic stimulus that the
coordinated project would confer on the area, and to the region through expanded
revenues from the Specific Plan area.
c. The parcel-by-parcel development that would occur with implementation of this
alternative would lead to the loss of municipal revenues that would be realized with
development under the guidance of the Specific Plan, thus detracting from the quality of
life and aesthetic/visual character of the area.
~,~' d. The Project would enhance the Anaheim area by providing a wider range of attractions,
hotel accommodations, restaurants and retail shopping opportunities, all of which would
benefit Anaheim's residents and the visiting public. The project will facilitate
reinvestment in the area to support the uses in and around the Anaheim Resort, enabling
the City to evolve to meet current and future market demands for a revitalized resort-area
targeted at longer visitor stays. The No-Project/Continuing Development Alternative
would deprive the area of these integrated benefits. This alternative would lead to an
uneven mix of uses, which would not stimulate the economic base that the project would
create.
e. Since this alternative would result in incremental, parcel-by-parcel development,
environmental impacts would not be minimized as they are for the Project through
~,, comprehensive development guidelines such as the General Plan Amendment and the
adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and other discretionary and ministerial
actions as may be necessary.
f. The incremental, parcel-by-parcel development would fail to provide a foundation for
economic stability or expansion in the future, whereas the project would position
Anaheim as a world-class recreation destination, and would provide tremendous direct
and indirect economic benefits to the area by improving and enhancing the tourist
industry.
For all of the above reasons, the No-Project/Continuing Development Alternative has been
determined to be infeasible.
5.2 MODIFIED LAND USE ALTERNATIVE (HOTEL CIRCLE)
5.2.1 Description of Alternative. The Modified Land Use Alternative assumes that the 489.7-acre
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan is implemented as adopted, but that the 6.S-acre Hotel Circle Specific
Plan document is withdrawn, not approved, or not approved as proposed; and that the 6.8 acres of
property are included in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Under this alternative, the total number of
acres within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would increase to a total of 556.3. Alternative uses would
be designated on the properties included within the portions of the Hotel Circle Specific Plan boundaries
where uses designated in the Hotel Circle Specific Plan are currently proposed. Under this alternative,
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would permit 1,103 hotel units within the Hotel Circle Specific Plan
area, which is the same hotel room density proposed under the Hotel Circle Specific Plan.
5.2.2 Findings. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the Modified Land Use Alternative (Hotel Circle) identified in the EIR.
5.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. As discussed in Section 5.3.1.1 of the EIR, the potential impacts
associated with land use plans and policies; transportation and circulation; employment, population and
housing; public services and utilities; geology, soils and seismicity; groundwater and surface hydrology
would be comparable to the proposed project. hnpacts to land use compatibility, visual resources and
aesthetics, noise and air quality would be generally greater under this alternative than under the proposed
Project.
Implementation of this alternative would not reduce or eliminate any of the significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposed Project. The Modified Land Use Alternative would result in the
following adverse impacts, similar to the proposed Project:
~ a. All of the significant cumulative impacts associated with the Project, such as impacts
relating to the loss of prime agricultural land, land use incompatibilities inherent in the
juxtaposition of commercial and residential uses, cumulative air quality impacts related
to emissions of ROG, NOx, CO and PMI0 which will exceed SCAQMD significance
thresholds, construction impacts such as transportation disruption, noise, air emissions,
visual disruptions, solid waste impacts due to limited landfill capacity, and potential
impacts related to cumulative consumption of electricity and natural gas, would continue
to be significant cumulative impacts.
b. All project-related impacts that are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated to a less than
significant level, including land use related plans and policies; land use compatibility;
traffic; air quality; schools; solid waste; visual resources/aesthetics; and construction
impacts would also be anticipated with this alternative.
Although the Modified Land Use Alternative would achieve the Project objectives, it would not
reduce or eliminate the significant environmental impacts of the project, and in some instances, would
produce greater impacts than the Project. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.
5.3 DISNEYLAND RESORT LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
5.3.1 Description of Alternative. Section 5.0 of The Disneyland Resort EIR, Alternatives to the
Project, evaluates three alternative land use scenarios for the 56-acre agricultural parcel within the
southeast portion of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. This parcel was removed from inclusion within
the boundaries of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan prior to final adoption of that specific plan in
June, 1993. As such, this parcel was subsequently included within the proposed boundaries of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The land use alternatives analyzed for this parcel in the EIR for the
Disneyland Resort include: (a) the Land Use Alternative; Co) the Reduced Scale Alternative; and, (c) the
Increased Project Scale Alternative. The analysis of these alternatives is summarized in and incorporated
by reference into Section 5.0 of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR. Two of these alternatives, the
Land Use Alternative (proposing use of the site for a regional shopping mall) and the Reduced Scale
Alternative (proposing use of the site for multi-level parking), do not satisfy the objectives of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Project and, therefore, were eliminated from further consideration for the
reasons detailed in Section 5.1 of the EIR, The Increased Project Scale Alternative was retained for
further consideration and is analyzed in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR.
The Increased Project Scale Alternative features a larger third theme park in the Future
Expansion District than the previously proposed third theme park analyzed as part of The Disneyland
Resort Project. This alternative analyzes development of a theme park on all 81 acres of the Future
Expansion District (including the 56-acre agricultural parcel); potential impacts of this alternative would
be similar in nature to those analyzed as part of The Disneyland Resort Project, as previously proposed
(refer to Section 5.7 of The Disneyland Resort EIR, June 1993). However, impacts associated with
transportation and circulation, air quality, public services and utilities, visual resources and aesthetics,
noise, land use compatibility, and energy are anticipated to be greater than those associated with the
proposed Project. Under the provisions of the proposed Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, a theme park use
would be allowed by Conditional Use Permit.
5.3.2 Findings. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the Disneyland Resort Land Use Alternatives identified in the EIR.
5.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. Two of the Disneyland Resort Land Use Alternatives, namely
the Land Use Alternative (proposing use of the site for a regional shopping mall) and the Reduced Scale
Alternative (proposing use of the site for multi-level parking), do not satisfy the objectives of the
I :\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AT£/41 -65-
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Project and, therefore, were eliminated from further consideration for the
reasons detailed in Section 5.1 of the EIR.
The Increased Project Scale Alternative would result in the following adverse impacts beyond
the impacts of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan:
a. There would be increased significant impacts to residents adjacent to the 56-acre
agricultural parcel due to the increased mass and bulk of parking facilities needed to
accommodate visitors to the area, due to development of the 56-acre agricultural field
into theme park uses.
b. In comparison to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan project analyzed in the Draft EIR,
the addition of a large theme park would generate higher p.m. peak hour trips, thereby
increasing vehicle emissions.
c. Construction impacts would be of higher intensity and longer in duration at a given
location than for the proposed project since the type and scale of development is
increased for the presently proposed hotel/motel and accessory uses designated for the
56-acre parcel.
d. All of the unavoidably significant impacts associated with the Project would still occur
with this alternative, including impacts relating to the loss of prime agricultural land;
land use compatibilities inherent in the juxtaposition of commercial and residential uses,
air quality impacts related to emissions of ROG, NOx, CO and PMI0 which will exceed
SCAQMD significance thresholds, solid waste impacts because of limited landfill
capacity, and construction impacts such as transportation disruption, noise, air emissions
and visual disruptions.
Although the Increased Project Scale Alternative would achieve the Project objectives, it would
not reduce or eliminate the significant environmental impacts of the Project and in some cases may
produce greater impacts than the Project. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.
5.4 LOWER INTENSITY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A: YEAR 2000
5.4.1 Description of Alternative. This alternative assumes that the Project limits development to
implementation of the first stage of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan development (year 2000). Total
buildout of the Specific Plan under this alternative would result in a total of approximately 12,190 hotel
rooms by year 2000 (11,190 existing plus approximately 1,000 additional hotel rooms).
5.4.2 Findings. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the Lower Intensity Land Use Alternative A: Year 2000 identified in the EIR.
5.4.3 Facts in Sul~port of Findings. As discussed in Section 5.4 of the EIR, although this alternative
would result in reduced short- and long-term environmental impacts, it would fail to achieve the City's
long-term community and economic objectives to establish an overall identity and land use plan which
is intended to maximize the area's potential while guiding future development and ensuring a balance
between growth and infrastructure.
The following Project objectives would not be achieved with implementation of this alternative:
a. To foster the growth of the City's economic potential by revitalizing the Anaheim Resort.
b. Maintain and encourage Anaheim's position as a nationally recognized tourist,
~ convention, and recreation center.
c. Increase sales tax yields and further enhance the economic base of the community,
thereby lessaning the tax burden on real property.
d. To create a coherent, unique resort identity that reinforces the image of the Anaheim
Resort as a high-quality destination resort.
e. To provide for necessary public infrastructure and services to maximize the development
potential of the Anaheim Re. sort.
f. To establish a high-quality pedestrian environment.
g. To improve the aesthetic character of the Anaheim Resort by visually defining the
boundaries with appropriate landscape treatments.
For these reasons, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.
5.5 LOWER INTENSITY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B: YEAR 2008
5.5.1 Description of Alternative. The Lower Intensity Land Use Alternative B: 2008 scenario
incorporates the assumptions described in the Fiscal Analysis Technical Report prepared for the City of
Anaheim by EPS in April 1993. The assumption was made that by 2008, there will be a total demand
for approximately 16,200 hotel rooms or a net increase of approximately 5,000 hotel rooms in the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. Implementation of this alternative would result in approximately one-
third fewer hotel rooms by the year 2008 than the maximum number of hotel rooms (27,508) by the year
2010 that would be permitted with the proposed Project.
5.5.2 Findines. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the Lower Intensity Land Use Alternative B: Year 2008 identified in the EIR.
5.5.3 Facts in Support of Findings. As discussed in Section 5.5.2 of the EIR, the potential impacts
associated with land use-related plans and policies; land use compatibility; geology, soils, and seismicity;
groundwater and surface hydrology; hazardous materials; visual resources and aesthetics; and cultural
resources would be comparable to the proposed project. Impacts to transportation and circulation; air
quality; noise, employment, population and housing; public services and utilities; and energy would be
anticipated to be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project, but no unavoidable significant impacts
of the Project would be avoided.
The Lower-Intensity Land Use Alternative B: Year 2008 was selected as the most
enviromnentally superior of the alternatives analyzed. However, this alternative is not capable of
eliminating any significant adverse effects, nor will it reduce to a level of insignificance of any of the
unavoidable significant impacts of the Project. The fewer number of hotel rooms that would be permitted
with adoption of this alternative would generate less of a tax base and associated revenues from which
to fund public services and utilities and other public infrastructure improvements to the Anaheim Resort.
This alternative would not provide the public benefit associated with the intent of the economic objectives,
such as to "increasing sales tax yields and further anhaneing the economic base of the community, thereby
lessening the tax burden on real property." This alternative would result in the generation of fewer jobs
within the Anaheim Resort due to the fewer number of hotel/motel rooms that would be ultimately
developed. Implementation of this alternative would impede many of the community and economic
objectives as stated in the Draft EIR Section 2.2, Project Objectives, and as summarized above in Section
5.4.3, Facts in Support of Findings, a - g.
SECTION 6
FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is currently designated for Commercial Recreation uses
by the City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element, and is developed with three primary existing
land uses: hotel/motel, restaurant, and the Anaheim Convention Center. As a result, the Project area
has already been dedicated to urban-oriented recreational and convention center uses. The proposed
Project would facilitate the expansion/intensification of these land uses within the project area.
Implementation of the Project would implement a long-term strategy for enhancing the development
potential of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area.
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the recently adopted Disneyland Resort Specific Plan have
been coordinated by the City to achieve the City's goals of continuing development and enhancement of
convention, theme park, hotel/motel, and visitor-serving uses in the Anaheim Resort. This will be
achieved through standards for design, landscaping, and signage, and through coordination and
implementation of infrastructure improvements. The coordination and implementation of these two
specific plans is considered to be both complementary and mutually beneficial. Implementation of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan represents a step toward achieving the goals of the City of Anaheim, which
include comprehensively planning for the area's continuing growth and development and establishing the
area as a world-class destination-oriented resort. The implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan would continue to enhance the area as an urbanized environment incorporating commercial,
entertainment, and recreation uses.
The proposed Project is expected to indirectly provide substantial long-term benefits to the
community and the public. It will enable the revitalization and enhancement of the long-term economic
productivity of the area by inducing jobs and substantial tax revenues. Additionally, the Project will
provide major infrastructure improvements, including necessary improvements to the City of Anaheim's
transportation and circulation systems and to the City's public services and utility systems.
Implementation of the Project may result in converting 56 existing acres of land in agricultural
production to urban development, thereby reducing the prime farmland in strawberry production in the
state by less than 0.2 percent. The field is surrounded by development, and the City of Anaheim General
Plan has designated the farmland for Commercial Recreation use. The Project may, therefore, be
considered an enhancement to long-term productivity in terms of land use efficiency, since it will increase
the site's economic productivity in accordance with the City's General Plan.
I:X DOCS\SEC\41\0~06AADM.AZC/41 -69-
6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would indirectly require the long-term commitment of natural
resources and land. The significant, irreversible environmental change is the commitment of 56 acres
of existing prime agricultural land to urban development. It should be noted, however, that this land is
designated for urban development in the City of Anaheim General Plan, so its removal is consistent with
local community planning.
Implementation of the Project would also indirectly result in increased consumption of
nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources such as fuel oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and
gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead, and water, etc. The Project
is consistent with regional growth projections, however, and mitigation measures have been incorporated
in the Project to reduce its consumption of water and energy sources.
6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
It is anticipated that the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area will experience substantial economic
growth in the future as an indirect result of the proposed Project and other municipal planning efforts,
such as future Convention Center betterment programs and The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. If
adopted, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would allow commercial growth consistent with the plan to
revitalize the area, enhance the economic base of the City, and increase local employment opportunities.
The growth that may be expected to occur in the foreseeable future (through year 2010) in the
area surrounding the proposed Project area is described and analyzed in Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts,
of the EIR. Growth anticipated within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area would be consistent with
the types of land uses allowed in the Anaheim Resort, as described in Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts.
Therefore, although the proposed Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is anticipated to induce the future
development of hotels and other commercial uses, the growth would be consistent with the growth
projections for the Anaheim Resort and the region.
As discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR, Employment, Population and Housing, considering both
in-migrating and intraregional relocation, it is estimated that a maximum of 2,409 employees will seek
housing in Anaheim as a result of employment in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. At an average of
3.1 persons per household, this would translate to approximately 7,468 new residents for the City. In
addition to the potential induced growth discussed above, it is conceivable that certain aspects of the
proposed Specific Plan would remove barriers to growth of new uses or expansion of existing uses in the
surrounding area. For example, implementation of the Project will provide for certain public
infrastructure improvements that may provide capacity in excess of the current demand.
[:\DOCS\S EC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -70-
As noted in the EIR, the significant environmental impacts of the induced growth are considered
in the analysis of cumulative effects to which the Project will contribute. The City has found that the
following significant cumulative effects will occur and that all feasible mitigation measures have been
required in or incorporated into the Project to reduce the Project's contribution to the significant
cumulative effects:
· Land use-related plans and policies (loss of prime agricultural land)
· Land use compatibility (juxtaposition of commercial and residential uses)
· Transportation and circulation (deteriorated levels of service).
· Air quality (cumulative air quality impacts related to emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, and
PM10 which will exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds; significant cumulative SOx
emissions may also occur, but are required to be offset)
· Noise (traffic, construction noise)
· Solid waste (impacts due to limited landfill capacity)
· Schools (possible facilities needs exceeding facilities fee revenues).
· Visual impacts (related to construction)
· Construction impacts (such as transportation disruption, air emissions, and visual
disruptions)
In addition, the EIR has identified mitigation measures which could be imposed on the related
projects which have not yet been approved, and/or on a city-wide basis, to further reduce the cumulative
impacts.
SECTION 7
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As described above in these findings, the City of Anaheim has determined that even with the
Project's adherence to existing City policies and standards and adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures, certain impacts of the Project will continue to be, or will potentially be, significant. These
unavoidably significant impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.0 above in this document. As directed
by Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim has weighed these significant
unavoidable adverse impacts against the benefits of the Project and finds that the benefits of the Project,
summarized below, render the significant unavoidable environmental impacts acceptable, and that the
Project should be approved despite these impacts.
Accordingly, the City of Anaheim adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations
based on information in the Final EIR and on other information in the record. The City recognizes that
significant and unavoidable impacts will result from implementation of the Project. Having: (1) adopted
all feasible mitigation measures, (2) rejected as infeasible the alternatives to the Project discussed above,
(3) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (4) balanced the benefits of the Project against
the Project's significant and unavoidable effects, the City of Anaheim hereby finds that the benefits
outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effects for the reasons stated below.
The reasons discussed below summarize the benefits, goals, and objectives of the proposed
Project, and provide, in addition to the above findings, the detailed rationale for the Project. These
overriding considerations of economic, social, aesthetic, and environmental benefits for the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan outweigh its environmental costs and justify adoption of the Project and certification
of the completed EIR. Each of these overriding considerations individually would be sufficient to
outweigh the unavoidably significant impacts of the Project.
In evaluating each of the overriding considerations and comparing them to the unavoidably
significant impacts, the City has considered all of the information contained in the EIR, recommendations
of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, public comments, and other documents, testimony and
proceedings in connection with this matter. In some cases, commentators on the EIR and the Project
have suggested that environmental impacts of the Project may be greater in some respects than those
identified in the EIR. Except as acknowledged in the City's responses to the comments and in these
findings, the City does not agree with these suggestions. The City hereby finds and determines, however,
that even if all of the suggested impacts were assumed to occur, those impacts would still be outweighed
by and found acceptable in light of the overriding considerations set forth below.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City finds specifically with respect to
housing impacts of the Project (which are determined in Section 3.8 above in these Findings to be not
significant), that even if the housing impacts were significant, as was suggested by the City of Garden
Grove and other commentators, such impacts would be outweighed and overridden by the considerations
outlined below in this Section 7, and the Project would still be approved without any additional mitigation
measures (there would be no feasible mitigation measures which would not reduce the viability of and
anticipated economic benefits from the Project).
Finally, it should be noted that the impacts associated with adoption and implementation of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan have been overstated in the EIR, which has considered the impacts of all
future development under the Specific Plan, rather than merely the incremental development above and
beyond that which would be permitted under existing land use designations (generally up to 75
hotel/motel rooms per parcel without a conditional use permit which would amount to more than 6,500
additional rooms over existing conditions without any discretionary approval required). None of the
City's findings and analyses, however, relies on this fact. The City has taken the very conservative
(worst-case) approach of considering the impacts of all future development within the Specific Plan area
to be impacts associated with this Project. The assumption of full Project buildout (16,000 to 17,000
additional hotel/motel rooms over existing conditions) by the year 2010 is also very conservative (see,
e.g. Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Fiscal Analysis (EPS 1993), which projected approximately
5,000 additional hotel rooms by the year 2008).
7.1 INCREASED REVENUES FOR CITY, COUNTY, AND STATE
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will produce substantial beneficial fiscal impacts. The Project
will directly generate significant revenues in property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes, utility taxes, and
miscellaneous taxes and fees to the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, and State of California.
Evidence of the substantial fiscal benefits of the Project has been documented by the City (see,
e.g. EPS 1993). This evidence confirms that the economic benefits of the Project will include substantial
net increases in municipal revenues from the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. The net funds accruing
to the City will be available to pay for enhanced services and infrastructure facilities throughout the City.
Additionally, the Project creates economic benefits from induced economic activity in the City and the
surrounding region; however, these multiplier effects are somewhat speculative, and have not been
calculated in the fiscal analysis.
7.2 ENHANCEMENT OF TOURISM
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will improve and enhance the Southern California tourist
industry, an industry of immense importance at the local, regional, and state levels. The Anaheim Area
Visitor and Convention Bureau (VCB), which tracks the county's tourists, estimated that 40 million
people visited the Convention Center, the area's theme parks, and beaches in 1993. The Bureau
estimated that the visitors spent $4.8 billion in Orange County in 1993 (VCB, June 1994). The Orange
County region and the City of Anaheim benefit greatly from these revenues from tourism. In 1992, the
I:\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -73 -
Governor's Council on California Competitiveness published "California's Jobs and Future." The report
identified the tourism industry as a key industry in the State of California and urged "extraordinary
efforts" be made to preserve and enhance the competitiveness of such key industries.
The Anaheim Resort (previously named Commercial Recreation Area) has been an important
and vital source of revenue, jobs, and prestige for the City of Anaheim, with the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan area providing a major portion of the convention facilities and lodging for the tourists in the area.
However, to maintain its vital role in the economy, it is necessary to reinvest in the area to support the
uses in and around the Anaheim Resort enabling it to evolve to meet current market demands for a newer,
upgraded resort area geared toward longer visitor stays. This reinvestment and revitalization is also
necessary to allow the Anaheim Convention Center to retain its status as one of the major West Coast
convention facilities. Without the infrastructure facilities, landscaping/identity enhancements and
development opportunities created by the Project, the area and its tax, convention and tourism base will
decline.
7.3 PROVISION OF VISUAL AMENITIES
The Anaheim Resort currently presents a visually confusing identity due to an abundance of large
signs, varying architectural quality, the presence of overhead utilities, and the lack of consistent
landscaping. The Design Plan within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan provides landscape standards for
the setback areas and along public streets that pass through the center of the Specific Plan area in order
to reinforce the area's identity. The primary concept of the Design Plan is to transform the visual
character of the Anaheim Resort with landscape. The primary component will be streetscape, which will
include trees and shrubs, as well as man-made amenities such as light fixtures, benches, entry gateways,
and appropriate signage. Streets and their edges provide the primary space in which landscape can be
placed to transform the identity of the Anaheim Resort. The Design Plan will be a major factor
contributing toward the visual unification of the area.
7.4 PROVISION FOR NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan makes provision for needed infrastructure improvements.
Much of the area's current infrastructure (roads, sewer lines, storm drains, etc.) is old and very near,
if not over, capacity. The planned area improvements provided under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
are proposed to include transportation, storm drain, wastewater, and water system upgrades. These
improvements are planned to be coordinated with development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
area, as well as the approved Disneyland Resort and the proposed Hotel Circle Specific Plan areas. The
infrastructure improvements would be accomplished through a variety of financial mechanisms, including
mitigation measures, developer fees, utility hook-up charges, and potentially a contribution from the net
hotel tax revenues to the City. Proposed improvements will be phased to coincide with area needs as
individual developments are proposed. Enhanced police, fire, and other public services will also be
I:\DOCS\S~2\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -74-
provided in coordination with the pace of development in the area. Without the coordination, planning
and implementation measures provided in connection with the Project, these improvements would not be
provided; or, at best, would be provided to a lesser extent and in a less coordinated manner.
7.5 ENHANCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL-RECREATION AREA SYNERGY
The Commercial Recreation land use designation was created by the City of Anaheim to provide
for development related to the recreation and entertainment industries that provide services to area visitors
and tourists. This land use designation is present in the Anaheim Resort as well as the Anaheim Stadium
area. The development and enhancement of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area will increase the
synergy in the area from which all of the area major attractions (Anaheim Convention Center,
iDisneyland, Anaheim Stadium, The Arrowhead Pond at Anaheim) will benefit. For example, it is
anticipated that hotel and motel development pursuant to the Project will accommodate overnight guests
to all of the foregoing attractions, thereby increasing their length of stay in the area and reducing
vehicular travel. Without the additional hotel/motel development capacity created by the Project, guests
and visitors to these attractions will be forced to use more distant and less convenient accommodations,
or else to forego overnight stays in favor of more frequent day trips.
7.6 ENHANCEMENT OF THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
An objective of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Design Plan is to "...create a high-quality
pedestrian environment that reinforces the urban character of the Specific Plan area." Anticipated
construction of The Disneyland Resort and improvements to the Anaheim Convention Center will create
a significant increase in pedestrians in the area. The pedestrian movement will contribute to increased
street activity for shopping, dining, lodging, and walking visits to the theme parks and Anaheim
Convention Center. The Specific Plan will enhance and accommodate the pedestrian environment by
providing landscaped parkways, ornamental street features and other design elements which will enhance
the safety and visual appeal of the pedestrian environment.
7.7 STREAMLINED ENTITLEMENT PROCEDURE
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR will allow for reduced and/or streamlined environmental
review for future development within the Specific Plan area. The EIR will serve as a "project" EIR with
respect to the infrastructure program and other development within the scope and conditions anticipated
by the EIR. For development projects which do not come within the conditions and parameters analyzed
in the EIR, the EIR will serve as a Master EIR, from which aspects of the environmental analysis lbr the
Project which remain relevant can be taken in order to reduce the scope of further analysis. The
preparation and certification of the EIR will greatly reduce the cost and time required to process a
development project within the Specific Plan area, and therefore will promote the City's goals of job
growth and economic revitalization for the area.
I :\DOCS\SEC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/41 -75-
7.8 ENHANCEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ANAHEIM'S POSITION AS A WORLD-
CLASS TOURIST DESTINATION
In response to market pressures to expand and upgrade the Anaheim Resort, the City of Anaheim
has prepared the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to provide for enhanced public improvements and
development standards. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, in conjunction with the specific plans for The
Disneyland Resort and Hotel Circle, will provide a high-quality development standard that will greatly
enhance the viability of the Anaheim Resort and maintain Anaheim's position as one of the eountry's
premiere vacation destinations. Without the Project, the lack of development capacity and the lack of
coordinated infrastructure and development planning will cause the area to decline in visitation and
economic viability.
7.9 FACILITATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan enables the City of Anaheim to further its achievement of the
overall objectives established in the General Plan, as well as the goals and policies provided in each of
the General Plan elements. The four main objectives are furthered by the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
in the following manner:
· General Community Objective 1 - Maintain and enhance the residential environment of
Anaheim's living areas.
Implementation: This objective will be furthered through development of setback areas,
landscaped buffers between Specific Plan and residential properties, and increased setbacks from
multistory buildings.
General Community Objective 2 - Maintain and enhance Anaheim as a regional, cultural, and
employment center by diversifying and enhancing the economic base of the community.
Implementation: The Specific Plan was written to enhance the Anaheim Resort as an urban
destination and create a resort environment. By creating more attractions, lodgings, dining
facilities, and shopping opportunities, jobs will be created, and visitors will be encouraged to
stay for several days or more and enjoy the variety of the recreational and entertainment
opportunities that are available, thereby enhancing The City of Anaheim's economic base. With
buildout of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, an estimated 18,113 jobs will be created,
plus substantial employment in the construction sector.
· General Community Objective 3 - Maintain and encourage Anaheim's position as a nationally
recognized tourist, convention, and recreation center.
I:\DOCS\$EC\4 l\0806AADM.AZC/41 -76-
Implementation: The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan recognizes this General Community
Objective as the major pu[pose of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, by enhancing the
attractiveness of the area as a family-oriented tourist and convention destination center. The
Specific Plan encourages development oriented toward tourist- and convention-related events
while complemanting and protecting the adjacent residential uses. The Plan provides a long-
range plan to create a cohesive and unique resort character and to maintain and enhance the
existing commercial-recreation land uses.
General Community Objective 4 - Provide all working, living, and recreation areas with a full
range of community facilities and services.
Implementation: An objective of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is to improve public
infrastructure, services, and facilities to accommodate the growth and development that is
planned in the Specific Plan area. Additionally, the Anaheim Resort will be complemented with
a "...full range of community facilities and services" whiah will be upgraded and enhanced as
development of the area proceeds.
7.10 DETERRENCE OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE NO-PROJECT/CONTINUING
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Without adoption of the Project, commercial properties in the Anaheim Resort would continue
to develop on a parcel-by-parcel basis without an identity program, enhanced design and development
standards, or coordinated infrastructure planning. The piecemeal development that would occur, in
conjunction with the loss of municipal revenues that would be realized with development in the area,
would significantly detract from the attractiveness and economic vitality of the area.
Given the current economic situation, adequate public funds will not be available for capital
infrastructure improvements. The result of preventing improvements and reinvestment to the area may
be severe. Without reinvestment and maintenance, existing businesses may close and new development
would be inhibited. It is reasonable to assume that a halt in investment and improvement would result
in a loss of attractiveness and thus a decline in visits to the area. This in turn results in a further decline
in the attractiveness and deterioration of the infrastructure and economic vitality of the area.
I:\DOCS\$EC\41 \0806AADM.AZC/4 ! -77-
~, 8/26/94
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 0085
FOR
THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
CEQA Action: Environmental Impact Report No. 313 (Resolution No. 94R-~
Project Description: General Plan Amendment No. 333; Specific Plan No. 92-2 (including Zoning and Development Standards, Design Guidelines and a Public
Facilities Plan); Anaheim Resort Identity Program; Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program and Anaheim Resort Non-Conforming
Signage Program.
Project Location: The Specific Plan Area is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) and is accessible from Harbor Boulevard,
Ball Road, Freedman Way, Katella Avenue, West Street, Orangewood Avenue, Haster Street/Anaheim Boulevard and Walnut Street - see
Exhibit 2-3 in EIR No. 313.
Terms and Definitions:
1. Property Owner/Developer - A~y owner or developer of real property with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area.
2. Environmental Equivalent/Timing - Any Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the same or superior result and will have the same or superior
effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agancias or City depaJ-~ments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed "environmental
equivalent/timing' and, if determined necessary, may refer said detefminadon to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a determination of
environmental equivalancy/timing shall be borne by the property owner/deveiober, Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City's adopted fee schedule.
3. Timing - This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are indieeted, it is the first point where compliance associated
with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied with, co additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program will occur, as routine
City practices and procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with, For exan~ple, if the timing is 'to be shown on approved building plans" subsequent to issuance
of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant to the building permit to ensore compliance.
4. Responsibility for Monitoring - Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate by all depart~ants listed for each mitigation measure.
5. Ongoing Mitigetio~ Measures - The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this mitigation monitoring program will be monitored in the form of an annual
letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year stating how compliance with the subject measure(s} has been achieved. W~an compliance with a measure has been demonstrated
for a pedod of one year, monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be s~tisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored "Ongoing During Construction", the
annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring; monitoring will be discontinued after construction is complate.
6. Building Permit- For purposes of this mitigation monitoring program, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for construction of a new building or structural expansion or modification
of any existing building, but shall not include any permits required for interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building.
Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring CompletiOn
LAND USE-RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES
Prior to Approval of Each Final site plans will be reviewed for future developments within the Planning Department,
Final Site Plan Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area for consistency with the Specific Planning Division
Plan. (3.1-1)
Tinling Measure Responsible for Uor~o~§
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Prior to First Final Site The property owner/developer of development forecast to generate 100 Public Works/Engineering
Plan Approval (Excluding or more peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Department, Traffic and
Signage Plans) Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Transportation Division
Generation Rates, shall be required to pay the City of Anaheim for all
costs associated with updating the City of Anaheim Resort
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.
a. If the model demonstrates that the proposed development will
cause an intersection to operate at LOS E or worse, prior to the
issuance of whichever building permit necessitates an
improvement(s), the construction contract for said improvement(s)
must have bean awarded; and, prior to final building and zoning
inspections for the applicable building permit, the improvement(s)
shall be accepted by the City. The extent of improvements
required for full buildout of the Anaheim Resort are listed in Tables
3.3-2, 3.3-4 and 3.3-6 of Section 3.3, Transportation and
Circulation, of EIR No. 313.
The property owner/developer shall have the option to: (1) wait
until the improvement(s) is constructed by others or, (2) construct
or pay the actual total costs of the improvement(s) which shall
include the payment for consultant/contractor services for
preliminary and final engineering, soils analysis, right-of-way
acquisition, demolition, relocation, construction and inspection,
and any other related expenses. The City Engineer may make the
determination that Option (2) may be waived based on the status
and phased implementation of the planned improvement(s) and
based on the supporting environmental analysis contained in EIR
No. 313 or in supplemental environmental documentation.
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan E/R ~ 3
The City may have the ability to reimburse for the additional
expense beyond the property owner/developer's fair share
contribution of improvement(s) based on the collection of other
transportation improvement fees or funding through other public
sources. However, if a reimbursement or fair share program has
not been established by the City, to the extent that the property
owner/developer's costs exceed their 'fair share" contribution for
said improvement(s), the property owner/developer may petition
the City Council to establish a reimbursement agreement or benefit
district to include other benefiting properties. All costs associated
with the establishment of any such agreement/district shall be at
the expense of the property owner/developer.
b. If the updated model demonstrates that LOS E will not be
exceeded, no additional transportation improvement(s) will be
required of the proposed development. In this instance, the
property owner/developer shall, prior to the issuance of each
building permit, pay to the City of Anaheim all applicable
transportation fees in an amount determined by City Council
Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit
and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts
which have been established. (3.3-1)
Prior to Issuance of Each Appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Traffic Impact and Planning Department, Building
Building Permit Improvement Fees shall be paid by the property owner/developer to Division; Public Works/
the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Engineering Department,
Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with Traffic and Transportation
credit given for City~authorized improvements provided by the property Division
owner/developer; and, participate in all applicable reimbursement or
benefit districts which have been established. (3.3-2)
Prior to Approval of First The property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication Public Works/Engineering
Final Subdivision Map or (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction Department, Development
Issuance of First Building easements, the ultimate right(s)-of-way as shown in the Circulation Services Division; City
Permit, Whichever Element of the Anaheim General Plan adjacent to their property. (3.3-3) Attorney's Office
Occurs First
Timing. Measure Responsible for Monitoring: ;:
Prior to Final Building The property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a Public Works/Engineering
and Zoning Inspection; clean fuel shuttle program, if established; and, shall participate in the Department, Traffic and
and, Ongoing During Anaheim Transportation Network/Transportation Management Transportation Division; City
Project Operation Association. (3.3-4) Attorney's Office
Prior to Issuance of The property owner/developer shall coordinate rideshare sewices for Public Works/Engineering
Grading Permit construction employees with the Anaheim Transportation Network Department, Traffic and
(ATN), and shall implement ATN recommendations to the extent Transportation Division
feasible. (3.3-5)
Prior to Issuance of Each For a hotel or motel development in the area designated Convention Public Works/Engineering
Building Permit Center Medium density (see Exhibit 3.3.3b of the Specific Plan, 'C-R Department, Traffic and
District Development Density Plan'), which exceeds 100 rooms per Transportation Division; City
gross acre, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement Attorney's Office
with the City to implement TDM measures sufficient to reduce the
actual trip generation from the development to no more than the trips
assumed by the City's traffic model. (3.3-6)
Ongoing During tf the Anaheim Police Department or Anaheim Traffic Management Police Department; Public
Construction Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic Works/Engineering
control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, Department, Tia[r~c and
on a fairshare hasis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with Transportation DMsion
such services. (3.3-7)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EII~ 5
Prior to Final Building The property owner/developer will implement and administer a Public Works/Engineering
and Zoning Inspection; comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program Department, Traffic and
and, Ongoing During for all employees. Objectives of the TDM program shall be: Transportation Division
Project Operation · Increase fideshating and use of alternative transportation modes
by guests.
· Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce
project-generated tdps.
A menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and
future employee commute options include, but are not limited to, the
following:
·Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail, and other
services be provided.
· Ridesharing. A computer listing of all employee members be
developed for the purpose of providing a "matching" of employees
with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and
who could rideshare.
· Vanpooling. A computer listing of all employees for the purpose
of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic
proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool.
· Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit Distdct and
Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail)
passes be promoted through financial assistance and onsite sales
to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus
services from throughout the region.
· Commuter Bus. As commuter "express' bus service expends
throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be
provided for employees who choose to use this service. Financial
incentives be provided.
· Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all employees living in
proximity to the. project be generated, and a local shuttle program
offered to encourage employees to travel to work by means other
than the automobile,
Timing Measure Responsible for Mor~'~hg ;: C0mp
· Bicycling. A Bicycling Program be developed to offer a bicycling
alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and
showers be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle
routes throughout the area be provided to inform potential
bicyclists of these options.
· Rental Car Fleet. A 'fleet vehicle" program be developed to
provide employees who travel to work by means other than an
automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency,
medical appointments, etc. This service would help employees
use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they
would be able to have personal transportation in the event of
special circumstances.
· Guaranteed Ride Home Program. A program to provide
employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of
commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental
car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during
the work shift.
· Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. An incentives
program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes
to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute
trips.
· Stagger shifts.
· Develop a "compressed work weak' program, which provides for
fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for
employees.
· Explore the possibility of a 'telecommuting' program that would
link some employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with
modem).
· Develop a parking management program that provides incentives
to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-
occupant auto to travel to work.
· Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and
shuttles may be provided.
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR ( ( 7
· Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit.
(Currently, Federal law provides tax-free status for up to $60 per
month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or
use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus
pools)
·Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Employees offered financial
incentives for bicycling to work.
· Special "Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of Trip
Reduction. Ticket/passes to special events, vacations, etc. be
offered to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool,
carpool, or other trip reduction programs.
·Actively recruit prospective employees residing within a 30-minute
commute shed.
· Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative
transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of
longest commute trips. (3.3-8)
AIR QUAUTY
Ongoing During Project The property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce Public Works/Engineering
Operation emissions to the extent practical, schedule goods movements for off- Department, Traffic and
peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles and other equipment, Transportation Division
as practicable. (3.4-1)
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission Planning Department, Building
Building Permit; and, paints and coatings are utilized in the design of buildings, in Division
Ongoing Dudrig compliance with SCAQMD regulations. This information shall be
Construction denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property
owner/developer shall also implement the following to limit emissions
from architectural coatings and asphalt usage:
a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever
appropriate.
b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary, in ways
that minimize solvent emissions.
c. Encourage use of high-solid or water-based coatings. (3.4-2)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR ( (' 8
Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring : : :00mp et o :::::::
Ongoing During The property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce South Coast Air Quality
Construction construction-related air quality impacts. These measures shall include, Management District; Planning
but are not limited to Department, Building Division
a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust
palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving
operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with
the City of Anaheim Municipal Cede including application of
chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is
completed and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as
quickly as practicable.
b. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved
soil binders, according to manufacturer's specification, to exposed
stock piles.
c. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of
any spilled export materials at least twice a day to assist in
minimizing fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall be cleared as
needed if spills of materials exported from the project site occur.
d. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be
; kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions
associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the
project site.
e. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall be
covered pdor to entering public streets.
f. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt
on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and
staging areas.
g. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes.
h. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water
and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed.
i. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per
hour or less.
j. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during first and
second stage smog alerts.
k. Comply with the SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust
impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD
Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction.
I.Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors,
scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable.
m. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel
generators rather than temporary power generators, where
practicable.
n. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them
properly tuned.
o. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable. (3.4-3)
Prior to Approval of Each The property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Public Works/Engineering
Grading Plan (for Import/Export Plans, if determined to be necessary by the Public Department, Traffic and
Import/Export Plan) and Works/Engineering Department, Traffic Engineering Division and/or Transportation Division;
Prior to Issuance of Maintenance Department. The plans shall include identification of Maintenance Department
Demolition Permit (for offsite locations for materials export from the project and options for
Demolition Plan) disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of
materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in
the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with
attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property
owner/developer shall offer recyolable building materials, such as
asphalt or concrete, for sale or removal by private firms or public
agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be
reused on project site. (3.4-4)
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset South Coast Air Quality
Building Permit regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology Management District; Planning
(BACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for any Department, Planning Division
new or modified stationary source. Copies of permits shall be given to
the Planning Department. (3.4-5)
Anaheim Resort Specific P/an E/R ( 10
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the Utilities Department, Resource
Building Permit City, measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air Efficiency Division; Public
quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to, Works/Engineering
the following: Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
1.Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load
through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
2.Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
3.Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and
in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design.
4.Use drought-resistant landsoaping wherever feasible to reduce
energy used in pumping and transporting water.
5. Participate in marketing the existing Anaheim Telecenter
(telecommuting/video conferencing center) to guests in their
hotels/businesses.
6. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for
employees or participate in a joint development daycare center.
(3.4-6)
NOISE
Ongoing During Noise generated by construction activity shall be limited by the Planning Department,
Demolition, Grading and property owner/developer to 60 dBA along the property boundaries, Code Enforcement Division
Construction before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., as governed by Chapter 6.7,
Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (3.5-1)
Prior to Issuance of Each An 8-foot-high perimeter or portable construction barrier shall be Planning Department,
Building Permit provided by the property owner/developer along boundaries of Building Division
construction areas which have noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to
them to minimize noise impacts. (3.5-2)
Ongoing Project During The property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion Planning Department,
Construction engines on construction equipment and trucks are f'~ed with propedy Building Division
maintained mufflers, (3.5-3)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR
- 11
Timing Measure Responsible for MonEortng
Prior to Submittal of Each The property owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by Planning Department,
Final Site Plan; to be a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Division Building Division
Implemented Prior to Manager identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining
Final Building and Zoning the attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if
Inspections warranted, to comply with the Uniform Building Code and Sound
Pressure Levels Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if
any, shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise-
sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation
measures shall be implemented by the property owner/developer prior
to final building and zoning inspections. (3.5-4)
Prior to Issuance of Each For structures that are adjacent to noise-sensitive uses such as Planning Department,
Building PermE residences, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all Building Division
mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed in
compliance with the Sound Pressure Levels Ordinance. (3.5-5)
Ongoing During Project Engine noise from sweeping equipment used in any parking facilities Planning Department,
Operations located adjacent to residential areas shall be muffled. (3.5-6) Code Enforcement Division
Pdor to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall ensure that noise from parking Planning Department,
Building Permit for a structures adjacent to residential areas will be reduced by the provision Building Division
Parking Structure of convenient access to parking facilities, sound attenuation devices
(i.e., iouvers and walls), the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce tire
squealing, and tiering to provide greater distance to the receptor.
(3.5-7)
EARTH RESOURCES - GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Prior to Approval of Each The proparty owner/developer shall submit to the City Engineer for Public Works/Engineering
Grading Plan review and approval, a soils and gedogical report for the area to be Department, Development
graded, based on proposed grading and prepared by an engineering Services Division
geologist and geotechnicaJ engineer. All grading shall be in
conformance with Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (3.6-1)
Prior to issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submit for review and approval, Planning Department,
Building Permit detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), Building Division
prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations by a
geotechnical engineer. (3.6-2)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR . 12
Pdor to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submR a report prepared by a Planning Department,
Foundation PermR geotechnical engineer for review and approval which shall investigate Building Division
the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers are
present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that
compressibility does not undedie the footing. (3.6-3)
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submR plans showing that the Planning Department,
Building Permit proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and Building Division
designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the
Uniform Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim. (3.6-4)
Pdor to Final Building The property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency Fire Department
and Zoning Inspection for response plan for review and approval. The plan shall require posted
a Hotel/Motel notices in all hotel rooms on earthquake safety procedures and
incorporate ongoing earthquake training for hotel staff. (3.6-5)
Ongoing During Grading The property owner/developer shall implement standard practices for Planning Department,
Activities all applicable cedes and ordinances to prevent erosion. (3.6-6) Building Division
GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE HYDROLOGY
Pdor to Approval of First The property owner/developer shall submR a Master Drainage and Public Works/Engineering
Grading Plan or Issuance Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Department, Development
of First Building PermR, Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Services DMsion Se~ces Division; Orange
Whichever Occurs First and Orange County Environmental Management Agency. The Master County Environmental
Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following Rems: Management Agency
a. Backbone sto~rn drain layout and pipe size, including supporting
hydrology and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and
including the 100-year storm; and,
b. A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control
of project-generated drainage and runoff. (3.7-1)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR ( ( 13
Timing Measure Responsible for Monito~g:
Prior to Approval of a The property owner/developer shall submit for review and approval of Public Works/Engineering
Grading Plan the City Engineer, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Department, Development
specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be Services Division
used onsite to control predictable pollutant ran-off. This WQMP shall
identify the structural and non-structural measures specified in
Appendix 7 of the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan de-
tailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the
project (when the project has a below grade loading dock, for
example); the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities
(specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association,
lessee, etc.); and, shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs.
(3.7-2)
Prior to Approval of The property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Public Works/Engineering
Grading Plan or Issuance Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Department, Development
of Demolition Permit; Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of Services Division
and, During Clearing attainment shall be subm'~ed to the City Engineer. (3.7-3)
Ongoing During Project The property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning Maintenance Department
Operations of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim on a monthly
basis, including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots. The
use of water to clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other
areas and ifushing the debris and sediment down the storm drains shall
be prohibited. (3.7-4)
Prior to Each Final The property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed Planning Department,
Building and Zoning landscape amhitect to the City certifying that the landscape installation Planning Division
Inspection and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved
landscaping and irrigation plans. (3.7-5)
Prior to Final Building The property owner/developer shall install piping onsite with project Utilities Department, Water
and Zoning Inspection water mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape Engineering Division
irrigation, if and when it becomes available from the County Sanitation
District of Orange County. (3.7-6)
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Prior to Commencement Onsite fire hydrants shall be installed and charged by the property Fire Department
of Structural Framing on owner/developer as required and approved by the Fire Department.
Each Parcel or Lot (3.9.1-1)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan E/R ( 14
Timing Measure Responsible.for Mor~ 'oring ::
Prior to Approval of Each The property owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access Fire Department
Grading Plan plan to the Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that
service to the site is in accordance with Fire Department service
requirements. (3.9.1-2)
Prior to Issuance of Each Plans shall indicate that all buildings, exclusive of perking structures, Fire Department
Building Permit; to be shall have sprinklers installed by the properb/owner/developer in
Implemented Prior to accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be
Final Building and Zoning installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection. (3.9.1-3)
Inspection
Prior to Issuance of Each Plans shall be submitted to ensure that development is in accordance Fire Department
Building Permit with the City of Anaheim Fire Department Standards, including:
a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full width
of access reads.
b. Bridges and underground structures to be used for Fire
Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department
vehicles weighing 75,000 pounds.
c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies are
required at all entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when
determined to be necessary by the Fire Department.
d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific
Plan area and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the
property owner/developer. The precise number, types, and
locations of the hydrants shall be determined during building
permit review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 400 feet apart.
e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the
water system. Flow rates for public parking facilities shall be set at
1,000 to 1,500 gpm. (3.9.1-4)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR 15
Timing Measure Responsible for Mor~dng; : ::::::Cornpict:on:
Prior to Issuance of First The property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement recorded Fire Department; City
Building Permit against the property with the City of Anaheim to pay or cause to be Attorney's Office
paid their fair share of the funding to accommodate the following,
which will serve the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area:
· One additional fire truck company.
· One additional paramedic company.
· Modifications to existing fire stations to accommodate the
additional fire units, additional manpower, equipment and facilities.
· A vehicle equipped with specialty tools and equipment to enable
the Fire Department to provide heavy search and rescue response
capability.
· A medical triage vehicle/trailer, equipped with sufficient trauma
dressings, medical supplies, stretchers, etc., to handle 1,000
injured persons, and an appropriate storage facility.
The determination of the allocable share of costs attributable to the
property owner/developer shall be based on an apportionment of the
costs of such equipment/facilities among property owners/developers
in the Hotel Circle Specific Plan Area, the Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan Area and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area or the otherwise
defined service area, as applicable, depending on the area served.
(3.9.1-5)
Prior to Each Final The property owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service Fire Department
Building and Zoning numbers in prominent locations as approved by the Fire Department.
Inspection (3.9.1-6)
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Fire Department
Building Permit Protection Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval detailing
accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location, and
any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal. The
property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing facilities
acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational
with required fire flow. (3.9.1-7)
Prior to Approval of The water supply system shall he designed by the property Fire Department; Utilities
Water Improvement Plans owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow pressure and storage for Department, Water
the proposed land use and fire protection in accordance with Fire Engineering Division
Department requirements. (3.9.1-8)
Timing Measare Responsible for Monitonng::;:: :; :;::~at!or~: ::
Prior to Approval of Each The properly owner/devefoper shall submit plans to the Police Police Department
Final Site Plan and Department for review and approval for the purpose of incorporating
Issuance of Each safety measures in the project design including the concept of crime
Building Permit. prevention through environmental design (e.g., building design,
circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures and parking
areas). (3.9.2-1)
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submit p~ans to the Police Police Department
Building Permit for a Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed
Parking Structure circuit television monitoring and recording or other substitute security
measures as may be approved by the Police Department. Said
measures shall be implemented prior to final building and zoning
inspections. (3.9.2-2)
Ongoing During Project The property owner/devaloper shall provide private security on the Police Department
Operation premises to maintain adequate security for the entire project subject to
review and approval of the Police Department. The use of security
patrols and electronic security devices (i.e., video monitors) should be
considered to reduce the potential for criminal activity in the area.
, (3.9.2-3)
Prior to Issuance of Each The project design shall include parking lots and parking structures Police Department
Building Permit with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined
to be necessary by the Police Department, and shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Police Department. (3.9.2-4)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR . 17
Timing Measure Responsible for Monito'riii~: ;:
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Maintenance Department
Building Permit; to be Maintenance Department for review and approval to ensure that the
Implemented Prior to plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as
Final Building and Zoning administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and
Inspection City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final
building and zoning inspection, implementation of said plan shall
commence and shall remain in full effect. Waste management
mitigation measures that shall be taken to reduce solid waste
generation include, but are not limited to:
a. Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities.
b. Providing on-site recycling receptaoles to encourage recycling.
c. Complying with all Federal, State and City regulations for
hazardous material disposal.
d. Participating in the City of Anaheim's "Recycle Anaheim" program
or other substitute program as may be developed by the City.
In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of
1989 (AB 939), the property owner/devaloper shall imp~ernent
numerous solid waste reduction programs, as required by the
Maintenance Department, including, but not limited to:
·Facilitating paper recycling by providing chutes or convenient
locations for sorting and recycling bins.
· Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail arees) by
providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection
and bailing.
·Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by
providing adequate space for sorting and storing.
· Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclab~e rna~terials whenever
feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number
of trips required for collection.
· Prohibiting curbside pick-up. (3.9.3-1)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR 18
Timing MeastJre Resf)onslble for Mor~0!r~g i :.:
Oncloinq Durinq Proiect The t~1owin~i practices shall ~ implementS. as fe~si[ge, by the Maintenance Depadrne~
O~ration pm~ ~er/devel~r:
· U~ge ~ r~ycl~ ~per pr~ucts for s~ti~e~, leEerh~d, and
~ckaging.
· Recove~ ~ maters such as ~uminum a~ ~rd.
· C~l~tion ~ ~ice ~r for r~ycling.
· C~le~ion ~ ~y~rene (f~m) cups for r~ling.
· C~l~ion ~ ~ass, ~a~i~, k~chen gr~se, laser pd~ t~er
~r~g~, oil, ~Eeries, a~ scrap me~ for racycling or r~e~.
(3.9.3-2)
Pdor to Issuance ~ Each The pmpe~ ~ner/dev~o~r sh~l pro~e pr~ of commence wEh Planning De~Rme~, Building
Building Pe~ Government ~e S~ion 530~ (Sch~ls). (3.9.5-1) D~ision; A~D; AUHSD
P~r to I~n~ ~ Each T~ ~ ~ner/dev~r s~l s~mE ~ans to t~ Ut~s ~a~ De~nt, R~oume
Building PetE; to be Dec,mere for r~ a~ approval ~ich s~11 ensure t~t ~ter Efficiency D~ision
Im~e~ PHor to ~nse~tion m~res are inco~mt~. The ~er con~ion
R~ Building and Zoning m~sums to be sh~n ~ the ~ans a~ im~ by the
Insetion; a~, o~er/dev~o~r, to the e~em applique, incl~e, b~ are not limE~
Ongoing Dudng Proj~ to, the f~l~ng:
O~mtion · U~ ~ Iow-fi~ spHn~er h~ds in i~ti~ systems.
· U~ ~ ~te~y r~irculation s~ems.
· U~ ~ I~-fi~ ~ings, f~ur~, a~ ~uipm~, induing I~ flush
toil~ a~ uH~s.
· U~ ~ s~ing ~es on drinking f~ins.
· U~ ~ ~ie~ iffi~tion sy~ems such ~ drip i~ion a~
a~ic s~ems which u~ ~um
· Use ~ I~*fi~ sheer h~ds in hotds.
· Use ~ water ~ie~ ice-machines, disheshem, d~hes washem
a~ ~her ~ter-using ap~bnces.
· Use ~ i~ig~ion sy~ems pri~Hly at nig~ when ~ion rates
are I~e~.
·Provide i~ormation to the pu~ic in conspicuous ~aces re~ing
water cons~ation.
Use of ~ter-c~se~ng la~s~ ~a~ maters ~erever
f~si~e. (3.9.6-1)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR (
19
Timing . Measure Responsible for MonEoring::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prior to Approval of First The property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement recorded Utilities Department, Water
Subdivision Map or against the property with the City of Anaheim, to the satisfaction of the Engineering; City Attorney's
Issuance of First Grading Utilities Department and City Attorney's Office, to guarantee the Office
Permit or Building Permit, proporb/owner/developer's participation in water system improvements
Whichever Occurs First neceseltated by the project. The agreement shall contain provisions
requiring the property owner/developer to pay or cause to be paid its
fair share funding for said improvements and/or construct said
improvements, if determined to be necessary by the Utilities
Department, with reimbursement by other beneficiaries in accordance
with the Utility's Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Costs shall include the
payment for consultant/contractor services for the preliminary
engineering, soils analysis, right-of-way acquisition, demolition,
construction and inspection, and any other related expanses. Further,
the pmparbJ owner/developar shall submit an engineering report and
phasing plan for review and approval by the Utilities Department setting
forth the extent and timing of the water system improvements
necessitated by the project for use in implementing the agreement.
The proparty owner/developer shall at all times perform its obligations
as set forth in said agreement. Water system improvements identified
in the environmental documentation for buildout of the Anaheim Resort,
which the property owner/developar may be required to participate in,
include:
· The existing 8-inoh diameter pipe in Clementine Street from Katella
Avenue to Freedman Way shall be replaoed by a 20-inch diameter
pipa.
· The existing 10-inch diameter pipa in Freedman Way from
Olementine Street to Harbor Boulevard shall be replaced by a 20-
inoh diameter pipa.
· The existing 10-inch diameter pipa in Harbor Boulevard from
Convention Way to Freedman Way shall be replaced by a 20-inch
diameter pipe.
Anaheim Resort Specific P/an E/R 20
·The 12-inch pipe in Katella Avenue from Harbor Boulevard to
Clementine Street shall be replaced by a 20-inch diameter pipe.
· The existing 10-inch diameter pipe in Harbor Boulevard from
Freedman Way to Harbor Boulevard north of Manchester Avenue
shall be replaced by a 16-inch diameter pipe.
·An additional water well shall be constructed near the intemection
of Clementine Street and Freedman Way.
· The existing 14-inch and 12-inch diameter pipes in West Street
from Katella Avenue to Ball Road shall be replaced by a 20-inch
pipe. (3.9.6-2)
Prior to Issuance of Each All water supply planning for the project will be closely coordinated Utilities Department, Water
Building Permit with, and be subject to the review and final approval of, the Utilities Engineering Division; Fire
Department, Water Engineering Division and Fire Department. (3.9.6-3) Department
Prior to Issuance of Each Water pressure greater than 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be Utilities Department, Water
Building Permit reduced to 80 psi or less by means of pressure reducing vanes Engineering Division
installed at the property owner/developer's service. (3.9.6-4)
Prior to Approval of a The property owner/developer shall participate in the City's Master Plan Public Works/Engineering
Final Subdivision Map or of Sewers and related Infrastructure Improvements (Fee) Program to Department, Design Division
Issuance of a Grading or assist in mitigating existing and future sewer system deficiencies as
Building Permit, follows:
Whichever Occurs First The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and
approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following:
a. If the development/redevelopment (1) does not discharge into a
sewer system that is currenfiy deficient or will become deficient
because of that discharge and/or (2) does not increase fiows or
change points of discharge, then the property owner's/developer's
responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure
Improvement (Fee) Program.
Timing Measure Responsible for Mor~0r~ng:: !::::i:::::: ::C0mpletiS~ ::: i:::
b. If the development/redevelopment (1) discharges into a sewer
system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because
of that discharge, and/or (2) increases flows or changes points of
discharge, then the property owner/developer shall be required to
guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
City Attorney's Office of the impact pdor to approval of a final
subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit,
whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in
the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study. The property
owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer
facilities, as recommended by the South Central Area Sewer
Deficiency Study, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public
improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspection
for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the
property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure
Improvement (Fee) Program, as determined by the City Engineer,
which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a
combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of
impacts for the sanitary sewer system, the property
owners/developer shall submit a sanitary sewer system
improvement phasing plan for the project to the City Engineer for
review and approval which shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a
layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including
support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4)
construction estimates. The study shall determine the impact of
the project sewer flows for total buildout of the project and identify
local deficiencies for each project component (i.e., each hotel).
(3.9.7-1)
Prior to Approval of a The property owner/developer shall participate in the City's Master Plan Public Works/Engineering
Final Subdivision Map, or of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program Department, Design Division
Issuance of a Grading or to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system
Building Permit, deficiencies as follows:
Whichever Occurs First The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and
approval by the City Engineer to assist with dstermining the following:
a. If the specific development/redevelopment does not increase or
redirect current or historic storm water quantities/ifows, then the
property owner's/developer's responsibility shall be limited to
participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to
provide storm drainage facilities in 10- and 25-year storm
frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year
storm frequency.
b. If the specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects
the cun'ent or historic storm water quantity/ifow, then the property
owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney's Office of the
impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the
improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the
South Central Area. The property owner/developer shall be
required to install the storm drainage facilities as recommended by
the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area to provide
storm drainage facilities for 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and
to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency
prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by
the City or final building and zoning inspection for the
building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the
property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure
Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer
which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a
combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of
impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm drainage system
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR . 23
improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by
the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and
approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the
complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support
calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4) construction
estimates. (3.9.8-1)
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each Utilities Department, Resource
Building Permit; to be structure will comply with the State Energy Efficiency Standards for Efficiency Division
Implemented Pdor to Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Articie 2, California Code of
Each Final Building and Regulations); and, will consult with the City of Anaheim Utilities
Zoning Inspection Department, Resource Efficiency Division in order to review above Title
24 measures to incorporate into the project design including energy
efficient designs. (3.9.9-1)
Prior to Final Building The property owner/developer shall implement energy-saving practices Utilities Department, Resource
and Zoning Inspection in compliance with Title 24, which may include the following: Efficiency DMsion
· Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems controlled by a
computerEed management system including features such as a
variable air volume system, a 100-percent outdoor air economizer
cycle, sequential operation of air conditioning equipment in
accordance with building demands, isolation of air conditioning to
any selected ifoor or floors.
· Use of electric motors designed to conserve energy.
· Use of special lighting fixtures such as motion sensing lightswitch
devices and compact fluorescent fixtures in place of incandescent
lights.
·Use of T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Metal hallide or high-
preesure sodium for outdoor lighting and parking lots. (3.9.9-2)
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall install an underground electrical Utilities Department, Electrical
Building Permit for Any service from the Public Utilities Distribution System. The Underground Engineering Division
Building Requiring a Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates,
Change in Electrical Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems.
Service Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in
accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical
Specifications for Underground Systems. (3.9.9-3)
Prior to Installation of Any The property owner/developer shall submit evidence that the Utilities Department, Electrical
Transformers transformers are PCB free. (3.9.9-4) Engineering Division
Anaheim Resort Specific P/an EIR (' ('
- 24
Prior to Each Final The Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs Southern California Gas
Building and Zoning which are intended to assist in the selection of the most energy-efficient Company; Planning
Inspection water heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall Department, Building Division
implement a program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural
gas supplies. (3.9.10-1)
Within 6 Months After A study of area television reception shall be undertaken by the property Public Works/Engineering
Completio~ of Building owner/developer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and Department, Development
Exteriors of New approval. If the City of Anaheim determines that the proposed project Sewices Division
Developn~nts Over 75 creates a significant impact on broadcast talevision reception at local
Feet in Height residences and other existing hotels/restaurants or other businesses, a
signal booster or relay system shall be installed by the property
owner/developer immediately on the roof of the tallest project building
to restore television reception to its odginal condition. In no event shall
heights set forth in Section 18.04.035 of the Ahabelm Municipal Code
entitled, 'Structural Height Llmifations-Anaheim Commercial Recreation
Area" be exceeded. (3.9.12-1)
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Prior to Approval of First The property owner/developer shall retain the services of a qualified Orange County Health
Grading Plan or Issuance environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known, cr Department; Fire Department,
of First Demolition the presence of, cryptic tanks, using geophysical methods. Environmental Protection
Permit,, Whichever Section
Occurs First, in areas of Soil sampling or a soil organic vapor survey may be required if soil
Former Service Stations, sampling results are not available, or indicate contamination is present
in Areas Known or above regulatory guidelines. If warranted, subsurface investigation and
I Thought to Have Been sampling shall be undertaken in these areas, and appropriate
Previously Occupied by remediation measures developed, if necessary, before demolition,
USTs, and in Areas excavation, or grading takes place in these areas. (3.10-1)
Where Tank Removal has
Not Been Verified Prior to
Excavation or Grading
Prior to the Removal of The property owner/developer shall obtain a permit from the Orange County Health
USTs Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department for the Department; Fire Department,
removal of such tanks. Dudrig the removal of USTs, a representative Environmental Protection
from the Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department shall Section
be onsite to direct soil sampling. (3.10-2)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR 25
Timing Measure Responsible for Monitc~rin~i,i::::: i Co.hn~i~:: ::::
Ongoing During All remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not Orange County Health
Remedi~ion related to USTs, conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer, Department; Fire Department,
shall be overseen by the Orange County Health Department. Environmental Protection
Information on subsurface contamination from USTs shall be provided Section
to the Fire Department. (3.10-3)
Prior to Approval of First The property owner/developar shall submit a plan for review and Orange County Health
Grading Plan or Issuance approval of the Fire Department which details procedures that will be Department; Fire Department,
of First Demolition taken if previously unknown USTs, or other unknown hazardous Environmental Protection
Permit, Whichever material or waste, is discovered onsite. (3.10-4) Section
Occurs First
Prior to Approval of First For future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area Fire Department,
Grading Plan or affecting the California Chemical Company, 1772 S. Haster Street; Arco Environmental Protection
Demolition Permit, Service Station, 1037 W. Ball Road; Avis Rent-a-Car System, 1400 S. Section
Whichever Occurs First Harbor Blvd.; Mobile Service Station, 1800 S. Harbor Blvd.; Shell
Service Station, 2100 S. Harbor Bird; Texaco Service Station, 100 W.
Katella Avent~e; and Mobil Service Station, 100 E. Kateila Way, a
qualified environmental professional, retained by the property
owner/developer, shall attempt to contact the current and/or known
former property/business owners to obtain information regarding the
status of USTs and/or tank closures at these sites. If wan-anted,
subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken by a
qualified environmental professional, and results of these analyses shall
be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval.
Appropriate remediation measures will be developed, if necessary,
before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place in these areas.
(3.10-5)
Pdor to Approval of First Several representative samples of shallow soils shall be collected and Orange County Health
Grading Plan or Issuance analyzed by a qualified environmental professional for the property Departmenf; Fire Department,
of an Excavation Permit, owner/developer for pesticide and herbicide residue. If soils Environmental Protection
Whichever Occurs First containing pesticides or herbicides above regulated limits are found, Section; Orange County
on the 56-Acre Parcel remedial actions shall be carried out before any disturbance to the soils Agriculture Department
Located in the Southeast occurs. Remedial actions should consist of removal and disposal or
Portion of the Anaheim treatment of affected soils according to all applicable local, state, and
Resort Specific Plan Area federal regulations. (3.10-6)
Anaheim/~e$ort Specific P/an £1R ( ( 26
Ongoing During Project I~ the e~'ent that hazartJt)es wasto. including a~ixestos. is dis(:overed Orango County Health
Demolition and dudng site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer Department; Fire Department,
Construction shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous Environmental Protection
material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the Section
State of California Hazardous Substances Contro{ Law (Health and
Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and according to the
requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
(3.10-7)
VISUAL RESOURCES AND AESTHETICS
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submit plans which illustrate that Planning Department,
Building Permit all mechanical equipment and trash areas for the subject building(s) will Planning Division
be screened from adjacent pubiic streets and adjacent residential
areas. Screening shall be installed prior to final ballding and zoning
inspection. (3.11-1)
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submE a landscape and irrigation Planning Department, Zoning
Building Perrnif plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape DMsion; Utilities Department,
architect. The landscape plan shall include a phasing plan for the Resource Efficiency Division
instaJlation and maintenance of landscaping associated with that
building permit and shall he in conformance with the Water Efficiency
Landscape Ordinance.
The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation
system. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the
infiltration of local soils, that the application of fertilizers and pesticides
do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff
and overwatering is minimized.
The landscape and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving
features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation
scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture
sensors, and other water-conserving equipment, In addition, ell
irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function propedy
with reclaimed water, once a system is available. (3.11-2)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR 27
Timing Measure Responsible for MonE~rtn~: :::::: .... ::
Prior to Submittal of Each The property owner/developer shall submit a shade and shadow Planning Department,
Final Site Plan analysis to the Planning Department for review and approval Planning Division
demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would not create
significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses. A
significant shade and shadow impact would occur when outdoor active
areas (e.g., eating areas along Harbor Boulevard, hotel/motel
swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures
that include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that
normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50
pement of the sunlight hours. If the analysis identifies shade and/or
shadow impacts would occur and the building setback, architectural
massing and landscape requirement provisions set forth in Section 5.0,
Design Plan of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, do not function as
feasible mitigation measures, additional technical review of the
structure(s) will be required. (3.11-3)
Prior to the Final Building The property owner/developer shall participate in an assessment City Attorney's Office
and Zoning Inspection or distdct for landscape installation and maintenance if one is established
Whenever Established; for the Anaheim Resort. (3.11-4)
and, on an Ongoing
Basis
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall submit plans which detail the Planning Department,
Building Permit lighting system for any parking facilities adjacem to residential or light- Planning Division
sensitive uses. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such
a manner as to conceal light sources to the extent feasible to minimize
light spillage and glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be
prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from
the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, this
requirement has been met. (3.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prior to Approval of Each The property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the Public Works/Engineering
Grading Plan certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the fo01owing Department, Devalopment
actions are implemented: Services Division; Planning
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in Department, Planning Division
order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of
artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts
are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological
observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with
the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or dudng the grading
process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research
institution.
c. Any archaeooogical work at the site shall be conducted under the
direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are
discovered during grading operations when the archaeological
monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area
until the monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the
specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon
completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as
to when the final report will be submitted. (3.12-1)
Prior to Approval of Each The property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the Public Works/Engineering
Grading Plan certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following Department, Development
actions are implemented: Services Division; Planning
a. The paleontologist must be present at the pregmding conference Department, Planning Division
in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect
work to permit the sampling, identificetion, and evaluation of
fossils if potentially significant paleontological resources are
uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and found to be significant,
the paleontologicaJ observer shall determine appropriate actions in
cooperation with the proparty owner/developer for exploration
and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading
process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research
institution.
c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the
direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are
discovered during grading operations when the paleontological
monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area
until the monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the
specimens shall be submitted. Upon completion of the grading,
the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report
will be submitted. (3.12-2)
ENERGY
Prior to Issuance of Each The property owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel- Planning Department, Building
Building Permit efficient models of gas-powered building equipment have been Division
incorporated into the project, to the extent feasible. (3.13-1)
mitmon.tbl