Loading...
ARA1990-04RESOLUTION NO. ARA 90-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 289 FOR THE PROPOSED MARKETFAIRE AT ANAHEIM PROJECT AND MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED MARKETFAIRE PROJECT INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Anaheim (the "City") on November 29, 1983 by Ordinance No. 4463 approved a Redevelopment Plan for the River Valley Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and designated by such Ordinance that certain area (the "Project Area") as a redevelopment project area; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is engaged in activities necessary to carry out and implement the Redevelopment Plan for the River Valley Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the Community Redevelopment Commission of the City of Anaheim have prepared a First Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the River Valley Redevelopment Project pursuant to which the land use designation of that certain real property depicted on the cross-hatched area on the Map attached and hereby incorporated as Attachment No. 1 (the "subject area") would be changed from General Industrial and Open Space ho an alternative land use designation providing for General Commercial as an alternative land use; WHEREAS, on December 4, 1989 the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim recommended certification of Subsequent EIR No. 289, including the attached and hereby incorporated Addendum to DEIR No. 289, Exhibit A to this Resolution, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as hereinafter set forth, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit B to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Ach (the "Guidelines," 14 California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.) provide authority for the City to certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt findings regarding the environmental impact of a proposed project and a statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, the Agency desires by this Resolution to approve Subsequent EIR No. 289 and recommend to the City Council the certification of Subsequent EIR No. 289; and WHEREAS, Marketfaire Partners, a California corporation (the "Developer"), proposes the Marketfaire at Anaheim development project (the "Development Project") consisting of seven parcels, located northwest of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway (Route 91) and Weir Canyon Road within the Project Area and in the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, EIR No. 230 prepared for and certified by the City of Anaheim in 1979, addressed the SAVI Ranch General Plan Amendment, which designated certain portions of a business and industrial center as General Commercial and other portions of said area as General Industrial; and WHEREAS, EIR No. 230 addressed a full range of impacts associated with the site development, including the Development Parcel; and WHEREAS, this Subsequent EIR No. 289 evaluates the effects associated with various combinations of land uses under several scenarios for buildout of the property comprising the Development Project, including such uses as auto center, commercial-retail, commercial-office, and light industrial; and WHEREAS, depending on the specific combination of land uses identified as the proposed Development Project, the project includes the following discretionary approvals by the City of Anaheim: General Plan Amendment No. 271, the First Amendment to the River Valley Redevelopment Plan, Zoning Reclassification No. 89-90-22, Conditional Use Permit No. 3206, Development Agreement No. 83-02 (as amended and restated), and Development Agreement No. 89-02 (and the Agency as to the First Amendment to the River Valley Redevelopment Plan and an Owner Participation Agreement to be considered at a later date); and WHEREAS, the EIR Review Committee of the City has found that Draft Subsequent EIR No. 289, together with the comments and responses and accompanying Addendum (Exhibit A), is in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, Subsequent EIR No. 289 addresses the impacts associated with the development of a 57 acre commercial/office project of which the 57 acre total approximately 45 acres constitutes the Marketfaire at Anaheim project and the remaining acreage will contain approximately 360,000 square feet of office space; and 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 2 WHEREAS, after considering Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 289 for the proposed Marketfaire at Anaheim project and after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered, THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Agency hereby approves and recommends to the City Council that: After considering Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 289 for the proposed Marketfaire at Anaheim project (Subsequent EIR No. 289 addresses the impacts associated with the development of a 57 acre commercial/office project, and of the 57 acre total, approximately 45 acres of this project constitutes the Marketfaire at Anaheim project, and the remaining acreage will contain approximately 360,000 square feet of office space) and reviewing evidence, both written and oral, presented to supplement Subsequent EIR No. 289, the Agency finds that: (a) Subsequent EIR No. 289 is in compliance with the California Environmental Air Quality Act and the State and City Guidelines; (b) Subsequent EIR No. 289 identifies the following impacts which are considered to be both unavoidable and adverse in nature and not fully mitigated to a level of insignificance: The projected Level of Services (LOS) for SR-91 eastbound ramps for cumulative plus project conditions is unacceptable (LOS E). This condition, which is partially mitigated by the proposed improvements, is not fully mitigated. Note: Cumulative projects included in the analysis were Sycamore Canyon, The Summit of Anaheim Hills, the Highlands at Anaheim Hills and SAVI Ranch Business Park in Yorba Linda. Air quality emissions for the SR-91 eastbound ramp at Weir Canyon Road exceed the federal standard of 9.0 ppm of carbon monoxide for existing, existing plus project, and cumulative conditions. However, the standard is only exceeded within 15 meters of the roadway centerline under all conditions. (c) Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that one or more findings be made for each of the significant environmental effects identified. Three finding categories are possible. Sections (1), (2) and (3) below state each finding, and then identify the impact categories for which these findings are appropriate. 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 3 (1) "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR." This finding applies to the following environmental effects of the project: Transportation/Circulation impacts (except for the eastbound ramp of the SR-91 Freeway) Land Use/Relevant Planning Air Quality (except for eastbound ramp of the SR-91 Freeway) Acoustic Environment Services and Utilities Visual and Aesthetic Resources Hydrology Recreation and Open Space (Refer to EIR 289 Section 3 and the Addendum, Section 3 (Exhibit A) for a full discussion of the above impacts, the mitigation measures prescribed and a discussion of resultant levels of significance after mitigation.) (2) "Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should, be adopted by such other agency." With regard to Transportation and Circulation in the project vicinity, all impacts, including cumulative plus project impacts, to streets and intersections can be mitigated to acceptable levels except for the eastbound ramp at the Weir Canyon Road/Riverside Freeway interchange. The Riverside Freeway (SR-91) falls under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation or Caltrans. (3) "Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR," with the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The following discussion identifies the various alternatives considered in the EIR, followed by an explanation of the rationale for finding said alternatives infeasible. No Project/No Development Alternative. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative the site would remain in its present condition, vacant. The project site has been previously graded for development and street and storm drain improvements have been made pursuant to existing ML-Limited Industrial and CL-Commercial Limited zoning and the current 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 -4- Development Agreement in effect for the site. The reduction in traffic demands and related air quality and noise impacts which would result could make this the environmentally superior alternative. Auto Center/Dealership With Some Retail Alternative. This alternative is similar to the proposed project, except that under this alternative some of the commercial retail uses (up to 11 acres) proposed for the Marketfaire would be replaced with up to three (3) auto dealerships. This alternative would consist of 121,000 square feet of commercial space for the auto center, 150,000 square feet of retail/warehouse uses; 2 six-story office buildings (70,000 and 75,000 square feet); and, 2 six-story office buildings (111,000 and 104,000 square feet) for a total of 631,000 square feet of development (the same as the proposed project). This alternative like the proposed project would create 360,000 square feet of office space. In addition, this alternative would generate 16,470 average daily trips, 9,400 less than the proposed project, most occurring during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Auto Center/Dealership With No Retail Alternative. Under this alternative auto dealerships would be developed on the majority of the site with the same office configuration as in the proposed project. Approximately 322,000 square feet with up to nine (9) dealerships would be developed. This alternative would produce up to 9,800 average daily trips representing a reduction from the proposed project of 16,270 average daily trips which in turn would reduce impacts on air quality and traffic circulation because there would be less traffic at a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Long-term air quality impacts would improve slightly over the proposed pro~ect with total emissions being reduced by approximately eight percent (8%) over the proposed project. Light Industrial Development Alternative. This alternative assumes that existing zoning and entitlements remain in effect for the 57-acre site and that the site is developed in some combination of light industrial and commercial uses. For the purposes of this discussion, a figure of 422,000 square feet of light industrial and 120,000 square feet of commercial space would be developed. 7,570 average daily trips would occur with a reduction in a.m./p.m, peak hour trips. Development under existing zoning would be most compatible with the existinq General Plan designation and, on the basis of traffic, this alternative may be considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, noise and air quality impacts could be more significant depending upon the nature of the industrial uses ultimately introduced. 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 -5- (d) Findings Relative to Infeasibility/Rejection of Alternatives. The Agency finds that the alternatives are infeasible or less desirable than the project proposed and rejects the various alternatives for the following reasons: (1) The No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate the project's contribution toward the funding of regional transportation improvements. A comparison of future conditions with the project and its mitigation shows that required mitigation may create improvements that benefit the region. In addition, the site preparation which has already occurred such as site clearing, grading and levee building has altered the site's natural features. As such, should this site remain vacant without continued clearing, vegetation would ultimate be reestablished but would consist primarily of vegetation representative of disturbed habitats, i.e. weeds, and would do little to enhance habitat values or the aesthetics associated with open space in general and the adjacent Santa Ana River resource management area in particular. Instead, the vacant site may become a nuisance. (2) The Auto Center/Dealership With No Retail Alternative would produce 9,800 average daily trips rather than the 25,870 average daily trips generated by the proposed project. However, since this alternative does not propose any commercial retail uses, present and future residents of the Hill and Canyon area, when looking for commercial retail services, would conceivably have to drive a longer distance to find those retail and commercial services not supplied under this alternative. This alternative then, would indirectly affect traffic and air quality. In addition, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) for existing plus this alternative and cumulative traffic has been calculated which shows that even with the reduction in average daily trips, the Level of Service at the eastbound $R-91 Freeway ramps would still be LOS E during the evening peak hours which is the same condition as under the proposed Project. (3) The Auto Center/Dealership With Some Commercial Retail Alternative would generate 16,470 average daily trips also occurring at a.m. and p.m. peak hours as does the proposed project. In both this alternative and the preceding alternative, additional signage (elevated signs for each dealership visible from the freeway would be proposed) and the outdoor display areas may increase the amount of light and glare which may adversely impact the surrounding residential areas. In addition, this alternative would have a similar impact to traffic and air 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 -6- quality as the proposed project. The cumulative effect of this project and cumulative projects in the area would exceed the federal standard of 9.0 ppm of carbon monoxide just as the proposed project would. This alternative would also have a similar impact on the eastbound freeway ramps as the proposed project. Finally, as in the alternative just discussed, when looking for commercial retail services, residents will have to drive farther to find those retail and commercial services not supplied under this alternative so that this alternative would indirectly affect traffic and air quality. (4) The Light Industrial Development Alternative represents a tradeoff in terms of traffic, noise and air quality impacts. Based on these considerations, trip reductions to this destination could make this a superior alternative to the project. However, as discussed previously, as the Hill and Canyon Area of Anaheim continues to grow with residential neighborhoods, the types of commercial retail uses proposed in the pending project become destination land uses and as such will be built either at this site or at a point farther away than this site. This alternative may then be considered to have an indirect adverse impact on the region because although destination trips to the site would be reduced, destination trips for goods and services not supplied under the proposed project would still take place at a different location and thus may be offsetting. In addition, noise and air quality impacts could be greater depending upon the nature of the industrial uses ultimate introduced. (e) Therefore, the Agency further determines that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. (1) The benefits of the project have been weighed against the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence of the significant environmental impacts identified in EIR 289 as set forth above, may be permitted without further mitigation due to the overriding considerations enumerated below. To the extent that any impacts (including without limitation, cumulative impacts) attributable to the proposed project remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth herein. The project alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible for these reasons and less desirable than the proposed project. 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 7 The following social, economic and other considerations outweigh the unmitigated impacts and justify approval of this project. (A) Jobs and Economic Growth. Construction and operation of the 45-acre Marketfaire project and the 12-acre office project would create numerous construction and construction-related jobs in the short-term as well as a variety of office and retail jobs under the long-term operation of the project. The unmitigated impacts are justified by the need to create jobs and provide for economic growth in the City. The creation of additional permanent jobs will indirectly create an increased demand for goods and services within the City, thus providing for employment opportunities and contributing to the overall economic growth and well-being of the City. In addition to creating jobs, the project will also serve the social and economic needs of a growing community in Anaheim's Hill and Canyon Area by providing retail shopping opportunities as well as a theater complex close to existing and proposed neighborhoods. (B) Transp0rtation/Circulation. Further, the Agency finds that the unmitigated impacts to the eastbound ramps to the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) are justified by the benefits of the project, and recognizes that such impacts are only temporary in nature because of projects planned by other agencies, such as the Eastern Transportation Corridor, HOV lanes on SR-91, as well as on-going street and intersection improvements funded on a cumulative basis by a variety of projects in the vicinity in both the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda. Development fees will be applied toward the construction of improvements needed throughout the vicinity. A review of Table 3 in Section 3.2 of the Addendum, page 8, (Exhibit A), demonstrates the improvements in traffic operation produced by the proposed mitigation measures in the vicinity of the project. (C) Air Quality. Notwithstanding the mitigation measures and other conditions which are imposed on this project, EIR No. 289 identifies emissions of air pollutants from vehicular traffic which will be generated by development of the site and concludes that although the cumulative effect of projects in the study area slightly exceed federal standards (CO emissions of 9.05 ppm versus 9.0 ppm), the project's contribution to localized CO emissions is not significant in itself. Nevertheless, measures for lessening the project-related and cumulative impacts have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B). 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 -8- 2. The Agency hereby makes and adopts the foregoing Findings of Fact and the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Addendum (Exhibit A) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B) relating to the environmental impact of the Marketfaire project. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Agency hereby finds that potential impact to the environment, including project related and cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the project are addressed in Subsequent EIR No. 289 under the following headings: Land Use/Relevant Planning, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Acoustic Environment, Services and Utilities, Visual and Aesthetic Resources, Hydrology, and Recreation and Open Space. Positive impacts and those impacts which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures as set forth in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B) include land use, acoustic environment, services and utilities, visual and aesthetic resources, hydrology, recreation and open space. With the proposed mitigation measures, all identified significant adverse impacts of the project are considered mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for the following: (i) The project Level of Service (LOS) for the SR-91 Freeway eastbound ramps for cumulative plus project conditions will be at a LOS E at p.m. peak hours. This condition, which is partially mitigated by the proposed improvements, is not fully mitigated, and (ii) Air quality emissions at the SR-91 Freeway eastbound ramp at Weir Canyon Road exceed the federal standard of 9.0 ppm for carbon monoxide for existing, existing plus project and cumulative conditions. Based on the foregoing, the Agency finds and determines that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment. 3. The Agency hereby approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the aforementioned Exhibit B. 4. As to each of the significant environmental effects identified in Section 2 of this Resolution which are not eliminated or substantially lessened, the Agency hereby approves the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations described in Section 1. 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 -9- The foregoing Resolution No. was regularly introduced and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency duly held on the 23rd day of January ., 1990. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of J~nuary 1990. ATTEST: SECRETLY] ANAHEIM RE'DE~ELOPMENT AGENCY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Leonora N. Sohl _, Secretary of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ARAg0-& was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Agency at a meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of 3anuary _, 1990. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Agency this 29th day of January , 1990. Agency Secretary 1/11/90 7919n/2621/017 -10- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LEONORA N. SOHL, Secretary of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ARA90-4 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency held on the 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote of the members thereof' AYES' AGENCY MEMBERS' Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter NOES' AGENCY MEMBERS' None ABSENT' AGENCY MEMBERS' None AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Chairman of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency signed said Resolution on the 29th day of January, 1990. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 29th day of January, 1990. SECRETARY OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ( SEAL) y' cc © © 1'0: FROM: Nancy Fcrguson ~ · Sid Lin~ark Executive Summary/SAVI Ranch Business Park DF_~ No. 289 - Anaheim: Addendum to DATE: November 17, 1989 PROJECT HISTORY · · · · i,~l.d.c th~, inifizl SAVI Ranch uusmess rar~ umw, ~Ju~..-,,_t, _. --......,. ........ ; ........ is currently before the Plnnmng (jommmswn lor ~cv,~ . An addendum was prepared to addr~ any changed environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures re. la. ted to thc.rcviscd project. The Msrk.effaire at Anaheim project proposes commcroai uses onme for portions of the prolcct area i ualcd tn thc initial Draft EI~ when cornmeriial, offi~_ alld r.ctail/.warch, ous_e_.w_...e_r_e ne of w'hi~h was similar to the proposed proF. cC ~mce me rma~ ---- · - ' ' ' because the prolect uses .wcre..re.vm_e.d,..,t..~ .n~.,. __~sSa~A~..~...~ ¢^r the revised environmental documentauon; Draft ~li<, project. · ...... .. ~r. :_..,..a.~ .,, eusive traffic analys~s of ~ proj~ ~te~u e~ ~e ~~ Dr~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ .... ,--- ....:---~-~ A new prolog a ~orou~ ~se~men! of~o!ea.~c. ~P~,~ ,.o~ .~,~ ~ ~reu~ed for ~c M~keumre auu,~ .,- r,~j~, ~r ...... .- : ' B~e~ P~k ~ ~e property ' ~ a~ of ~e en~c ~ R~ch . ~ai ~ienu~ ~ c ~ . · · · · ~ch evauated, ~e rem~~ ~c~ oumdc of Bus.ess P~k - ~e~ ~und~es were ~ ~ud~. The revised traffic mitigation measures, resulting from the new tm~c study prepared in ~lune 1989 by Kunzman Sc Associates (traffic engineers), included in the Addcnd, m provides for the widening of Weir Canyon Road and all othcr rcquired associated improvements required for lhe project. Thc specific traffic mitigation measures proposed .are lisled in the Invcntory of Mitigation Measures, number 6 - 13. EXHIBIT A PLANNING - URBAN DESIGN · ENVIRONMENq'AL EVALUATION · MARKET & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - ENTITLEMENT 18012 SKY PARK ClR · tRVINE. CA 92714 - 7'~4/26~-8820 FAX' 714/261-2128 · IRVINE · SAN DIEGO · SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDED ~GATION ~_..AS~ The Addend:,m to DE~ No. ~9 h~ ~en ~r~lated to ~ ~ dep~en~ ~d ~e~ ~mmen~ ~d ~n~ have been ~~rated ~to ~e en~o~en~ ~~ ~d re~~ended ~ga~on me~es. ~n~ ~ ~e ~vemo~ of Miflgagon Me~r~ · · · e · · · · · · · ~cluded ~ ~e adden~ ~e~dW ~ ~eq~ ~or ~e M~ke~e pro]e~ ~d ~ever~ new ~ga~on memures ~e ~eq~ed ~mide~ed ~ga~ed ~o a level of ~~~. However, ~e pro]~ed level of ~e~ ~y ~D~ON~ ~OR~~ON S~ ~e addend~ wm prep~d ~e she pl~ ~e new redu~g ~d rcl~~g ~e ~o ~mmerd~ shop b~~ ~een Major 2 ~d ~e ~ter. 2. ~e re~ed site pl~ ~di~ies ~1~ p~Mng s~ ~c pro~de~ wMch equates lo ~ ove~ll supply of 62/1,~ sr. . . 3. A ~al ~ad~g pl~ ~adMg omite. ~ W. ~wler & ~~ates (d~l enseco) hm ~di~ted ~e proposed ~d ~,~ ~bic y~ds of fill Wi~ shd~age, ~e qu~tifies would b~cc. ~is sub~t~ responds to ~figation No. 49 ~d no sight adve~e me,utes ~cludcd in thc addendu~ . 5~ ® The grading plan from K. W. Lawler & Associates identifies the relocated access road for the access easement to the Southern California F_,dison towers located onsite. Retaining walls are also indicated along the-toe of the Caltrans slope at the southerly portion of the property. The project will not adversely impact the purposes of the easement. The November 13 correspondence from K. W. Lawler & Associates (Exhibit 3) identifies the existing drainage facilties onsite, identifies their location, and improvements recommended by city s~__~ff, The earthem channel in the westerly portion of the site will be replaced with an underground storm drain system- All subsequent design rcfinements are subject to the r~vieW and approval of thc City Engineer. The Lawler correspondence referenced abovc also summus the existing sewer lines onsite and indicated all sanitary sewer plans for thc projcct will bc prepared in accordance with City and Ornge County Sanitation District standards. CONCLUSIONS analysis and recommcndcd mmgauon measures, no additional nuugauon measures are proposed to thosc included in the Inventory of Mitigation Measures in the addend.m- With these mitigation measures, all idcntificd potential environmental impacts of thc project are considered adequate to reduce all potential environmental impacts of the project to a lcvcl of insignificance. Auachmcnts 2832 WALNUT AVENUE' STE. A- TUSTIN' C~:k- ~26B0 714'730 '0401~) d 0 0 150-15 November 13, 1989 Ms. Nancy Fergueson Assistant Planner city of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92803 . Subject: Marketfaire at Anaheim ~ Proposed Conditions to Environmental Impact Report No. 269 · Dear Nancy: Outlined below are an expanded project description and roposed conditions to the .sub~ect.i En~l~orme~al _.~pa~ satis[y the concerns identified hyAtt Daw and Mark Komo:o o~ the Engineering Division. 1 · Hydrology --o-h,,~lt ~radina Dian prepared by Keith Companies ~ ;~pr-;;;d ~Y th; City Engineer on September 6, 1988 (GP-1276) indicates three existinq improved drainage facilities (a 7' x 7' box culvert .l~oc__?te~ at_ t~.e easterly portion of the property, a 60 .C~F s:ormaraxn located at the westerly portion of the property, and_ a 60" RCP storm drainage system in Pullman Street). The drainage facilities located at the easterly project the exes%lng levee ~n:o one ~anva _hn~ ~-~ _ .~r. no further improvement (see Exhibit 'AN). The exxs:1ng 60" CMP at the westerly portion of the site currently outlets into an earthen channel that crosses the site and re-enters an existing 63' RCP exiting through the levee into the Santa Ann River. This facility will be improved to convey storm flows in an underground storm drain system and to intercept the majority of the on- site drainage (see Exhibit "B") to the satisfaction off the City Engineer. EXHIBIT 3 150-15 , city of Anaheim November 13, 1989 Page Two · The proposed storm drain .plans for this development be designed to avoid conflicts between any shall tems' and the · in or roposed storm drain sys .~ exzst g P .- lams' shall . · development P ro osed buildings, renal ..... ~--~---tal' P P e storm drain alignments (ver~xca~ ama nor~u,, . ; includ to ~e City and storm drain easements satisfactory Engineer. It is understood that the ;above referenced as-built mass n lans were based upon an Orange county Flood gradi g P ........ . ..... ~ which has been Dzstrict uyaro~ogy ~al,~- Control '_ .... ~_ __~M.~ veiopment -storm ntl u a=ea. xn= ~--~--- de _ subseque Y _l~.. ~__~..~.. u~ated hydrology study %n ~ordPance with the latest editiOn of the Orange Coun=y Flood Control Hydrology Manual. The existing ~i~ drainage as shown on ~he above referenced as-~u~ mass grading plans is predominantly approximately eleven acres draining- to the west, with easterly to Pullman. Th~ proposed development plans red~reCt approximately s~x acres of this flow back This change reduces the flows entering ward the west. . to man Street, and ~hus, in this facility a.= ~Ye where they wll~ enter a access dr' ' .... ~- ..... ~ the existing 63" RCP at the Y P P # CMP will with the existing flows from the 60 combined ..... -- -- *~-~ reach the existing e~ual approxi~at Y ..... ~.~-.. ~- - - ate to accept u:" ~Sf .... i _i-__~,$..+ on will be necessary. Grading The site is currently graded in accordance with ~he as- built mass grading plan prepared by the Kelth Companies and approved by the City Engineer on September 6, 1988 (GP-1276). 150-15 ~ City of Anaheim November 13, 1989 Page Three · The proposed development shall result_ in minor odifications to the as-g~aded la~gf~rm _~_.~ersi~ m are building pads and acc0mPlLsn . au=~a .~ _ _ ~re? -~,- --~A4*4cation will crea=e approxlma~e%~ araLnage. ~n~ --~*-- with a maximu~ depth cz ~v 68,000 cubic yards of out feet, and approximately 64,000 cubic yards of fill with a maximum depth of 18 feet,.thus,, yielding a balanced inin walls are anticipated along the toe of the Reta g .... ~- --uther1~ ~rtion of the proper~y! Caltran? slop?, a~ ~= ~_ ~ ~- s ranaina from and various o~ner locations, w~ height , - to 22 feet· ect recise grading plan shall include retaining standards, and ~hall meet with the approvaA o~ ~ ~=~x Engineer · Sewer The site is currently served by an existing 8" seye~ installed in Pullman s~reet flowing northerly to Crys~aA ' and continuing easterly to an existing Orange Drxve · · in Weir Canyon anitation Dxstrxct tru~ sewer . . County S - and 12 sewer ~n Road. In ~dditi~n,.there e~~a.~O+~. County ~runk Crystal Drive wni~__al ...... , ....~stinn systems may effluents · . Sanita sewer plans for the proposed development shall . ry - · ...... ~-nce with City standards and shall ~ prepar . ~eet with the approval of the Cxty Engineer· 150-15 City of Anaheim November 13, 1989 Page Four 4. Easements The site currently has several easements encumbeming the the Edison transmissio~ lines lot. The easements for and all storm drain easements _are to remain and are honored by the current site plan~ The existing Edison to be relocated with easement within the theater area l~xisting access road onsent of Edison. The the c ......... ~- *.,-rentlv being abandone~ and easemen hown on the sit P ~e satisfaction of both.Caltrans ssuredthat it is The Koll Company's and CSA Real Please be a ...... ~ .... ~o~ a first-class retail o ment~s ln~en~ u~ u~, ~ Estate ~,[oPsatisfy all engineering requirements related to center the Marketfaire site. Please contact ~e should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Kerry W. Lawler Ron Keith Gary Johnson' Marshall Krupp Steve Layton Art Daw Mark Komoto EXHIBIT B 0 rn m -rim ~0 --I-- --0 ZZ m 'm r r m r o 0 Z 0 ~D' ('r C: 0 · 1: ~ o ~ ct u:~ o (20 o ~ o t.*. · ism Il e~ rr ~.~_ ~ ' · Iq' M~ ~ ~ -- ~,.m o · cJ I:s o ~ t.d 11 o ~ -~ -," n ~ '~ & - ~o G.~ R~.~ . · ~.~' ~ . ~ '" i~ iii · m G ~ m 0 fr · o ,:: "'~ "'"' ,= o . ,,.,, e_ -..--.-. - ,~ n e,:, . ,.,,,=._ ~". =. · . .-.--. 0 ('ro~ o~ ' ,. ,_.~,- ,-.g. =~ --- ,. ... -- '~'= -- B c'r "- ,.,.m m ~ (1 ,... ~,., ~ _ _ ~,..,.6 o~ ~..,,. m ~s~ "_.~ o - ~'/ ,9. . ~- ~ 2 ~ ,. - -- · .l'~w -..' ,,- · II I-, -, ., ,.,..~_ ~ ,,~ ,.,,.,o J ,.,. . .~0 =,'_ .,~ ~...~o, ,., e ,...,..e o, o_ff; ,.,,.. · '~',,'~o -.~ .~ """-- --'"'"""" '--"' -- o..'"'" '" ' '"' "'- ' ". ~..~ ~,.. ~,, -''-~' .. .,.,-o ._,.. _ .,, ..... ., -- . .o~ ~- g I ~ o 0 ~ q3 0 _ ~ L_ta m m ? ~ ~ n ~ r'r c',- I n