Resolution No. 677932
RESOLUTION NO. 6779
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES,
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Cypress ("City") owns approximately 13.3 acres of land
located at 5095-5275 Katella Avenue, (APN's 241-091-022 through -026) (the "Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Site is currently underutilized, falling substantially short of its
commercial, retail, entertainment, residential, revenue -generating and job -creating
potential; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (the
"DDA"), on November 25, 2019, with SP Acquisition, LLC, (the "Developer"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer submitted a development application consisting of a 4 -
story, luxury apartment building containing 251 units, a commercial center including a
movie theater, grocery, retail and restaurant spaces, and a 120 room hotel (the "Project");
and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of an Amendment to the Cypress
Business & Professional Center Specific Plan (SP 19-1), a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM
96-1), a Conditional Use Permit (CUP -3158), a Site Plan (DRC 3159) and a
Development Agreement, that required the preparation an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the EIR allows consideration of potential Project impacts; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2019, the City issued a Notice of Preparation
("NOP") of the Draft EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2019110458); and
WHEREAS, the NOP was circulated for comment by the public, responsible and
trustee agencies for a 30 -day public review period between November 22, 2019, and
December 23, 2019, during which time the City held a public scoping meeting on
December 11, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City, as the lead agency, has caused the EIR to be prepared by
LSA Associates, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability ("NOA") for the Draft EIR, was issued on
February 11, 2020, and the Draft EIR was circulated for public review through March 27,
2020, for a total of 45 days; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review period, the Final EIR was
prepared, which includes written responses to the comments received during the public
review period and makes certain revisions to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the responses to the comments on the Draft EIR are full and complete
in compliance with CEQA, and the corrections made to the EIR in the Errata are minor in
nature. Those corrections and the responses to comments do not affect the analysis in
the Draft EIR, and do not require the recirculation of information; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies the potential for significant effects on the
environment from development of the Project, not all of which can be reduced through
implementation of mitigation measures to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the
approval of the Project must include findings regarding mitigation measures and
alternatives. The City has prepared the Findings of Fact set forth in Exhibit A, which
findings are incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, some of the significant effects identified in the EIR cannot be lessened
to a level of less than significant, therefore in approving the Project the City must adopt a
33
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is set forth in Exhibit B and is incorporated
hereby by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
to ensure monitoring and implementation of the mitigation measures which is forth in
Exhibit C and is incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider certification of the EIR and approval of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has considered the
full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff
report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or
provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct
and are incorporated herein by reference,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cypress City Council determines, finds
and certifies as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR for the City Center
Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, Public Resources Code section
21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14,
section 15000 et seq., and all applicable state and local guidelines, and that it reflects the
independent judgment of the City. The City Council further certifies that it has fully
reviewed the Final EIR prior to considering the approval of the Project.
SECTION 2. The City hereby adopts Findings of Fact for the Project, attached
hereto as Exhibit A, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
SECTION 3. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and adopts and incorporates into
the Project all of the mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
City of Cypress.
SECTION 4. The City hereby directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination
with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse as required by CEQA.
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress
at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2020.
MAYOR OF '_' CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
CITY ERK OF TH CITY OF CYPRESS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City
Council held on the 26th day of May 2020, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Morales, Peat and Johnson
NOES: 2 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Berry and Yarc
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
l
CITY C"RK OF THE
TY OF CYPRESS
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJECT, CITY OF CYPRESS
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019110458
I. BACKGROUND
34
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002
further states that the procedures required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) "are
intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed
projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially
lessen such significant effects."
Agencies demonstrate compliance with Section 21002's mandate by adopting findings before
approving projects for which Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are required. (See PRC § 21081, subd.
(a); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for
each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach at least
one of three permissible conclusions. The first possible finding is that "[c]hanges 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." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The
second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding" and that "[s]uch changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives
or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. PRC Section 21061.1 defines
"feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15364 adds "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens
of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the
determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.)
Further, "'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a
reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Id.;
see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) An
agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) Further, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not
require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990)
222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
Notably, Section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse
environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental
impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners
Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the
environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone
the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable
level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300,
309 ("[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a
level of insignificance ... if such would render the project unfeasible").)
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project
modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the
responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091,
35
subds. (a), (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any
development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the
sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The
law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore
balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
The City Council, as the decision-making body of the CEQA Lead Agency, has determined that
based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral
testimony given at meetings and hearings on the project, and submission of testimony from the public,
organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the project
are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant and each of these
impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation
measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be
lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Cypress City Center project site (project site) is located in the southern portion of the City of
Cypress (City) in Orange County (County), California, along the City's boundary with the adjacent City of
Los Alamitos. As shown on Figure 3.1, Regional and Project Location, in Chapter 3.0, Project Description,
regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 605 (1-605), which is located approximately 2
miles west of the project site, and Interstate 405 (1-405) and State Route 22 (SR -22), which are located
approximately 3 miles south of the project site.
The proposed project is located on an approximately 13 -acre project site at the northwest
corner of Katella Avenue and Winners Circle. The proposed project is a mixed-use development
consisting of a four-story residential structure with up to 251 market -rate apartment units with a fitness
center, a clubhouse, a recreation courtyard, and other amenities, a five -story hotel with up to
120 rooms, and a commercial/shopping center component with three retail and restaurant buildings
and a movie theater. The shopping center consists of an approximately 840 -seat movie theater, if
feasible, or other commercial uses typical of a shopping center, such as a grocery store, and general
retail/restaurant uses. The Final EIR assumed for purposes of analysis that the shopping center use
would include the movie theater, as that was the most intense use in terms of environmental impacts.
Further details relating to the feasibility of the proposed movie theater and alternative uses are
set forth in the staff report and are incorporated herein by this reference.
The primary purpose of this project is to establish the Cypress City Center. The project
objectives are described below. Several of these objectives include implementation of goals and policies
from the City's General Plan and the 2012 Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional
Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan):
• Provide uses that meet the City's General Plan balanced development goals and objective to locate
higher density housing adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities to encourage
pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for commercial uses (General Plan Land Use
Element LU -1.4).
• Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Cypress Business and Professional
Center Specific Plan, which would promote a commercial environment that balances quality
development with economic growth while building in flexibility to respond to the market demands
(Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan, Objectives 1.2 and 1.3).
• Support the retention of local employers and increase the fiscal benefits to the City by attracting
new retail, restaurant, hotel and entertainment businesses that can better serve the local
population and employment and would generate additional revenue to the City through increased
sales, property, and transient occupancy taxes (General Plan Land Use Element LU -17.1).
• Meet the demand for new hotel rooms in the Cypress Business Center to serve the local business
community.
• Provide new drainage improvements on the project site, which would reduce the risk of
downstream flooding hazards.
• Provide a new community gathering place for Cypress residents and workers, including a public dog
park and a landscaped plaza with outdoor dining areas.
• Allow the City to divest itself of real estate conveyed to it by the Cypress Redevelopment Agency in
March 2011 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement between the City of Cypress, the
36
Successor Agency to the Cypress Redevelopment Agency, the State Department of Finance, and the
State Controller's Office, which would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the City by
selling the land to a private owner, who would return the land to the property tax rolls and develop
it with new revenue -generating uses.
• Expand the variety of housing stock in the City, which would help meet the existing and future
housing needs of all Cypress residents, by providing high-density rental units (General Plan Housing
Element HOU-3.5).
• Expand and improve the City's housing supply by developing high-quality housing in the City to
alleviate the housing crisis and help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment
allocations (General Plan Housing Element HOU-4).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Cypress policies regarding
the implementation of CEQA, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed
project.
• The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) on November 22, 2019. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on
December 11, 2019. Section 2.2 of the Draft EIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the
Draft EIR through the NOP and the public scoping process. Section 4.0, Existing Environmental
Setting, identifies environmental issues that were considered, but for which no adverse impacts
were identified during scoping. As such, these environmental issues were not discussed in the Draft
El R.
• The City prepared a Draft EIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period,
beginning February 11, 2020, and ending March 27, 2020. The City prepared a Final EIR, including
the Responses to Comments to the Draft EIR, the Findings of Fact, and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The Final EIR/Response to Comments contains comments on the Draft EIR,
responses to those comments, text errata to the Draft EIR, and appended documents.
C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
• The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review
comment period on the NOP;
• The Final EIR for the proposed project;
• The Draft EIR;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review
comment period on the Draft EIR;
• All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
• All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed
project;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments;
• All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final
EIR;
• The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents
incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment
period and responses thereto;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, State, and local laws
and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and
37
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by PRC Section21167.6(e).
D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's
actions related to the project are at the City of Cypress, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630. The
City Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project.
Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times
have been and will be available upon request submitted to the offices of the Community Development
Department. This information is provided in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6(a)(2) and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(e).
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Final EIR, and the comments received
by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City
that indicates that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas:
Aesthetics: Effect on a scenic vista; Damage to scenic resources, including within a State Scenic
Highway. The City is almost entirely developed and neither the project site nor other properties in the
project vicinity provide substantial views of any water bodies, mountains, hilltops, or any other
significant visual resources. As such, the City has not designated any scenic corridors or scenic vistas
within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any impacts on a scenic vista. The
project site is not located within the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway. Therefore, the proposed project
would not damage any scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Additionally, the project site
consists of a paved parking lot and does not contain any historic buildings. Therefore, the project would
not result in impacts related to the substantial damage of scenic resources within a State Scenic
Highway.
Agriculture/Forestry Resources: The proposed project is located within a suburban setting and
does not affect any existing agricultural or forestry resources. Furthermore, there are no farmlands or
timberlands designations within the project area in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan or
the Zoning Ordinance.
Biological Resources: Substantial adverse effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status
species, or on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, or on state or federally protected
wetlands, and conflict with an adopted local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. In its existing
condition, the project site does not contain any vegetation. The disturbed condition of the project site is
generally not suitable to support special -status plant or animal species. According to the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Sensitive Species database, potential occurrences of special -status
animal species were identified within the project area; however, no special -status plant or animal
species were observed during the site survey and suitable habitat for such species is absent from the
proposed project disturbance limits. No special -status species are anticipated to be adversely impacted
by the project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat for Threatened &
Endangered Species map does not identify any locations of critical habitat within the project site. The
closest known critical habitat is the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, approximately 6.5 miles south of the
project site. According to the CNDDB Sensitive Species Database, no sensitive plant species have been
documented on the project site or in the project vicinity. The project site is located within an area that is
covered by the Orange County Transportation Authority Natural Communities Conservation
Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (OCTA NCCP/HCP) that covers the entirety of Orange County. Only some
portions of the Plan Area fall within a designated Permit Area, or the area in which OCTA would request
authorization from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the USFWS to issue
permits due to potential project -related impacts to certain identified species. Because the project site
does not fall within the Permit Area, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or
State HCP. No special -status species are anticipated to be directly affected by the project due to the lack
of suitable habitat on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive or special -status species would
result from implementation of the proposed project. The project site is highly disturbed and developed
with an asphalt -paved parking lot and does not support any special -status or sensitive riparian habitat as
identified in regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, no significant
impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in a local or regional
plan would result from project implementation.
38
According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by USFWS, the project site does not
contain federally protected wetlands. The project site is located entirely outside of streambeds, banks,
and riparian habitat. No potential waters of the U.S. or CDFW jurisdictional areas are located on the
project site. Although construction activities have the potential to result in temporary indirect effects to
water quality, including a potential increase in erosion and sediment transport into adjacent or
downstream aquatic areas and the contamination of waters from construction equipment, these
potential indirect effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or substantially minimized
through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and a water quality management
plan as discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Specifically, adherence to Regulatory
Compliance Measure HYD -1 during construction would ensure that erosion -related impacts during
construction would be less than significant by requiring the implementation of construction site BMPs to
avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. As such, impacts on state
or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant.
There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), NCCP, or other habitat conservation plan
in the City. However, the OCTA's NCCP/HCP includes a Plan Area that covers the entirety of Orange
County. Only some portions of the Plan Area fall within a designated Permit Area, or the area in which
OCTA would request authorization from CDFW and USFWS to issue permits due to potential project -
related impacts to certain identified species. Because the project site does not fall within the Permit
Area, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or State HCP. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in no impacts related to conflict with an HCP.
Cultural Resources: Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) record search results and the archaeological
pedestrian field survey identified no previously recorded cultural resources on or in soils on the project
site. As such, there are no known historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA
Guidelines located within the project site. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a known historical resource. As such, there are no historical resources as
defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines located within the proposed project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource.
Geology and Soils: Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones, landslides, subsidence, and soils
capability to support the use of septic tanks. According to the California Department of Conservation
2010 Fault Activity Map, there are no known earthquake faults that run through the project site nor is
there any other evidence of a known fault that runs through the project site. Further, the project site
and vicinity are relatively flat, and the site is not located within a zone of earthquake induced landslide
as mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS) (CGS, 1998). Historically, there have been no
recorded landslides within the City's boundaries (City of Cypress, 2001, page 4.6-7). No landslides are
anticipated as the result of the proposed project. Subsidence refers to broad -scale changes in the
elevation of land. Common causes of land subsidence are pumping water, oil, and gas from underground
reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of
organic soils; and initial wetting of dry soils (hydrocompaction). Subsidence is also caused by heavy loads
generated by large earthmoving equipment. The project site is not located within an area of known
subsidence that may be associated with groundwater, peat loss, or oil extraction. Therefore, the
proposed project would not be subject to potential geotechnical hazards related to subsidence, and no
mitigation is required. Finally, the project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative
methods for disposal of wastewater into subsurface soils. No on-site sewage disposal systems (e.g.,
septic tanks) are planned. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Emergency response or evacuation plan and wildland fires.
The project site is not located along an emergency evacuation route. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not interfere with the adopted emergency response plan and/or the emergency
evacuation plan. The project site is located within a fully urbanized area. There are no wildlands
adjacent or in the vicinity of the project site, and the project site is not designated as a Fire Hazard
Severity Zone on the Statewide California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Map.
Therefore, there will be no risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Hydrology and Water Quality: 100 -year Floodplain, impede or redirect flood flows, inundation
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, increased runoff, exacerbate existing sensitive conditions, or impact
aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat. The project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain;
therefore, the project would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
No. 06059C0116J (December 3, 2009), the project site is located within Zone X, which comprises areas
39
of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500 -year flood). The project site is located within the inundation
zone of Prado Dam and the Carbon Canyon Dam. Although the project would construct new structures
in an inundation zone, the proposed project would not increase the chance of inundation from failure of
Carbon Canyon Dam or Prado Dam. Additionally, the City's emergency evacuation plans would be
implemented if these dams were susceptible to rupture during heavy rains or other events. The project
site is relatively flat and not at risk of mudflow, and is not located within an inundation zone of a seiche
or tsunami.
The proposed project would not change the impervious surface area on site and therefore
would not increase stormwater runoff from the project site. The proposed project would also include a
detention system to reduce peak discharges from the project site. The nearest Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 303(d) impaired waterbody is San Gabriel River, which is located approximately 6 miles
downstream of the project site. The project would not discharge directly into this CWA Section 303(d)
impaired water. There are no aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat present on the project site. Los
Alamitos Channel, the downstream receiving water, is concrete -lined and does not provide aquatic,
wetland, or riparian habitat.
Land Use: Divide an established community. The area surrounding the project site is developed
with a variety of racetrack, office, business park, commercial and retail services, and residential land
uses as well as several religious facilities. The proposed project would replace approximately 13 acres of
surface parking with a mixed use project. As a result, the project would not result in physical divisions in
any established community.
Mineral Resources: As described in the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the
City's General Plan, The State Division of Mines and Geology identifies mineral resource areas
throughout the State. According to the Geologic Map of Orange County showing Mines and Mineral
Deposits, the City of Cypress does not contain any mineral resources as defined by the State Division of
Mines and Geology.
Population and Housing: Displacement of Housing and People. In the existing condition, the
project site is a paved parking lot and, therefore, does not contain any population or housing. The
proposed project would not displace any existing housing or populations on the project site. Therefore,
there would be no impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or
housing.
Tribal Cultural Resources: Substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in PRC Section 21074, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). A
cultural resources record search was completed on January 9, 2020, at the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at
California State University, Fullerton. Additionally, Native American consultations were conducted in
compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52. As part of these consultations, review of
the Sacred Lands File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) yielded negative
results. No information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the project site was
provided by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation (Tribe). Therefore, no tribal cultural
resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register) or in a local register exist within the project area, and there are no known tribal cultural
resources on the project site. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource defined as a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), and
no mitigation is required.
Wildfire: There are no very high fire hazard severity zones designated within the City of Cypress
either as part of the City's General Plan or Municipal Ordinance. According to the latest map of Fire
Hazard Severity Zone in State Responsibility Zones in Orange County published by CAL FIRE, the project
site is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), and is not within a designated Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). There would be no effect on emergency response or evaluation plans
associated with wildfire. Additionally, because the project is not within a VHFHSZ, the project would not
exacerbate wildfire risks, and would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to post -
fire slope instability or drainage changes. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed, built,
and maintained in compliance with all applicable Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and code
requirements, and therefore would not exacerbate fire risk in the vicinity of the project site.
40
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Final EIR identified certain Tess than significant effects that could result from
implementation of the proposed project. No mitigation is required to reduce or avoid such impacts
because those impacts would not exceed relevant thresholds of significance.
AESTHETICS
Impact: Existing visual character. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and would
conform to architectural and landscape guidelines of the Specific Plan and all applicable development
standards in the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes minor
amendments to the design guidelines included in the Specific Plan to allow super graphics (large
graphics) and projecting signage for the proposed movie theater structure. With approval of the Specific
Plan Amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with the Specific Plan design guidelines for
the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact: Light and glare. Construction activities would occur only during daylight hours. Any
construction -related illumination during evening and nighttime hours would be used for safety and
security purposes only and would occur only for the duration required for the temporary construction
process. Light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact sensitive uses,
substantially alter the character of surrounding uses, or interfere with the performance of off-site
activities. In addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in flat, shiny surfaces that
would reflect sunlight or cause other natural glare. New light sources created by the proposed project
would include interior and exterior building lighting, security lighting, signage, and parking lot lighting.
The proposed lighting sources would be similar to other lighting sources in the project vicinity and would
not generate artificial light levels that are out of character with the surrounding area, which is densely
developed and characterized by a high degree of human activity and ambient light during the day and
night. For these reasons, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the surrounding urban area.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetic impact. The
proposed project and all related projects are required to adhere to City and State regulations designed
to reduce and/or avoid impacts related to aesthetics. With compliance with these regulations,
cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.
AIR QUALITY
Impact: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The proposed
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) because (1) the project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds, and (2) the
proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan land use designation on the project site and
would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP, is consistent with land use planning strategies
set forth by SCAQMD, and includes implementation of all feasible air quality mitigation measures. In
order to further reduce construction impacts, the project would comply with emission reduction
measures required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, 445, and 1113. Therefore,
impacts related to conflict or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be
less than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Construction and
operation of the proposed project would not exceed the significance thresholds of criteria pollutants for
which the project region is nonattainment under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)
or the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). According to the SCAQMD, projects that do not
exceed the significance thresholds are generally not considered to result in cumulatively considerable air
quality impacts. Therefore, based on the fact that the emissions during construction and operation of
proposed project would not exceed any of the air quality significance thresholds for any criteria
pollutants, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact. In order to further
reduce construction impacts, the project would comply with emission reduction measures required by
the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, 445, and 1113. Therefore, impacts related to the
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS would be less than significant.
41
Impact: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction and operation
emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the Localized Significance Thresholds
(LSTs) established by SCAQMD. In order to further reduce construction impacts, the project would
comply with emission reduction measures required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rule 403.
Because the project would not exceed the LSTs with compliance with regulatory requirements, impacts
related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than
significant.
Impact: Emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Heavy-duty equipment on the
project site during construction would emit odors; however, this would be temporary in nature and
would cease to occur after construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors would
occur during construction of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. During
project operation, potential airborne odors could result from cooking activities associated with new
restaurants and trash receptacles. These odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the
project and minimized by SCAQMD odor regulations and lids on trash receptacles. The proposed uses
are not anticipated to emit any other types of objectionable odors. Therefore, operation of the
proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant air quality impact. The
cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed project is the South Coast Air Basin. Air
pollution is inherently a cumulative impact measured across an air basin. The incremental effects of
projects that do not exceed the project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be
cumulatively considerable per SCAQMD guidelines. The proposed project's construction- and operation -
related regional daily emissions are less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria
pollutants. In addition, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations on a project -by -project basis would
substantially reduce potential impacts associated with the related projects and basin -wide air pollutant
emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable increase in
emissions, and the proposed project's cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact: Result in substantial interference with the movement or migration of wildlife species or
wildlife nursery sites. The entire project site is highly disturbed and located within a fully urbanized
area. The project site is not located within any local or regional wildlife movement corridor and does not
function as a special linkage for wildlife movement. In addition, there are no bodies of water on the
project site with native resident or migratory fish. Due to the lack of sensitive or special -status species or
their habitats on the project site, the project would not result in impacts on candidate, sensitive, or
special -status animal species. The proposed project would avoid impacts on nesting resident and/or
migratory birds either by avoiding vegetation removal during the avian nesting season (February 1
through August 31) or by implementing Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO -1. The proposed project
would avoid impacts on the nests of raptors (which are migratory birds) if the existing trees in the
ornamental vegetation area are removed outside the raptor nesting season (February 1 through June
30) and they do not contain raptor nests. Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO -1, below, would also
address any impact to nesting raptors should it be necessary to conduct vegetation removal during the
nesting season and raptors are present.
Impact: Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Landmark Tree
Ordinance in the City's Municipal Code protects designated landmark trees, which are specifically
identified in the City's Inventory of Landmark Trees (July 1996). As shown in this inventory, there are no
landmark trees on the proposed project site. The removal of any on-site trees or vegetation would not
conflict with the City's Landmark Tree Ordinance. Per Article IV of the Municipal Code, Street Trees, any
tree within the public right-of-way belongs to the City of Cypress. Any work to street trees conducted as
part of the proposed project would be done in accordance with the City Council's adopted Parkway Tree
Policy. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to conflicts with local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant biological resources impact.
Although the project site is located in the OCTA NCCP/HCP, the project site is not within the Permit Area
of the Plan Area. As such, development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of any
sensitive habitat species identified in the OCTA NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not
contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources, and impacts on biological resources would be
Tess than cumulatively significant.
42
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact: Disturb human remains. No previously identified human remains are present on the project
site, and there are no facts or evidence indicating that Native Americans or people of European descent
are buried on the project site. However, undiscovered human remains may be present below the ground
surface on any property. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1 requires compliance with the State's
Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains. Adherence to regulatory standards
included in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on
human remains to less than significant.
ENERGY
Impact: Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The project would consume approximately 72,347
gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 162,160 gallons of gasoline during construction, which would
increase the annual construction -generated fuel use in Orange County by approximately 0.05 percent
for diesel fuel usage and approximately 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel usage. As such, project
construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. Furthermore, impacts
related to energy use during construction would be temporary and relatively small in comparison to
Orange County's overall use of the State's available energy sources. No unusual project characteristics
would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at
comparable construction sites in the region or the State. Therefore, construction of the proposed
project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
and impacts would be less than significant.
Energy use consumed by operation of the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use,
electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. Operation of the
proposed project would increase the annual consumption of electricity, natural gas, diesel fuel, and
gasoline in Orange County by approximately 0.02 percent, 0.04 percent, 0.02 percent, and 0.03 percent,
respectively. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1, requiring compliance with
Title 24 standards, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures
into building design, equipment use, and transportation. Therefore, impacts related to consumption of
energy resources during operation would be Tess than significant.
Impact: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be
relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition, energy usage associated with
operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange
County, and the State's available energy sources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would
be negligible. Because California's energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional
level, and because the proposed project's total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the
proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California's energy conservation plans as described
in the California Energy Commission's (CEC) 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. The proposed project
would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential impacts
related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
would be less than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to energy.
The proposed project would result in an increased services demand in electricity and natural gas.
Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in electricity usage, this increase would not
require SCE to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial environmental impacts.
Additionally, it is anticipated that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas demand of the
proposed project without additional facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project's percent of
cumulative electricity and natural gas consumption would be negligible, and there are sufficient planned
natural gas and electricity supplies in the region for the estimated increases in energy demands.
Transportation -related energy use would also increase as part of the proposed project. However, this
transportation energy use would not represent a major amount of energy use when compared to the
amount of existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) throughout Orange County and the region. Further, compliance with the existing mitigation
measures would ensure that the proposed project does not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and
unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed project's contribution to impacts related to the
inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable.
43
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Most of the site is covered by older
degraded asphalt, with a small unpaved dirt area adjacent to the terminus of Winners Circle (cul -du -sac).
The south and southwestern boundaries of the site along Katella Avenue consist of some landscaping,
including mature eucalyptus trees, shrubs, and turf. The total surface area of these existing unpaved
areas is approximately 1 acre. During project construction activities, soil would be exposed and
disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction
activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing
conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated
rate. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1). The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and
Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain
sediment on site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and with
implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to on-site erosion and the loss
of topsoil would be less than significant.
Impact: Be located on unstable soil, and result in landslides or lateral spreading. Landslides and other
forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips occur as soil moves downslope
under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking.
Because the project site is located in a relatively flat area, landslides or other forms of natural slope
instability do not represent a significant hazard to the project. In addition, as stated above, the site is
not within a State -designated hazard zone for Earthquake -Induced Landslide. Therefore, potential
impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. Lateral spreading often occurs on very
gentle slopes or flat terrain. The dominant mode of movement is lateral extension accompanied by
shear or tensile fracture. This failure is caused by liquefaction and is usually triggered by rapid ground
motion, such as that experienced during an earthquake, but can also be artificially induced. When
coherent material, either bedrock or soil, rests on materials that liquefy, the upper units may undergo
fracturing and extension and may then subside, translate, rotate, disintegrate, or liquefy and flow. As
discussed above, the Geotechnical Assessment indicates that lateral spreading is not a potential concern
with respect to the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts related to lateral spreading would be
less than significant. Subsidence refers to broad -scale changes in the elevation of land. Common causes
of land subsidence are pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of
limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial
wetting of dry soils (hydrocompaction). Subsidence is also caused by heavy loads generated by large
earthmoving equipment. The project site is not located within an area of known subsidence that may be
associated with groundwater, peat loss, or oil extraction. Therefore, the proposed project would not be
subject to potential geotechnical hazards related to subsidence.
Impact: Expansive soil. The project site stratigraphy consists of soil types that have low shrink -swell
potential and, therefore, are not susceptible to expansion. In the event that, following the completion of
grading, it is determined that near -surface soils within building pad areas exhibit an elevated expansion
potential, the potential impact of those expansive soils would be addressed through the design of
structural foundations and floor slabs in compliance with applicable requirements in the California
Building Code, as adopted by the City of Cypress in its Municipal Code (Regulatory Compliance Measure
GEO-1). Since the potential for expansive soils is low and any potential expansion would be addressed
through compliance with applicable code requirements, the proposed project would not create
substantial potential risks to life or property.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact: Conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
include the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association
of Governments' (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS). Although measures in the Scoping Plan apply to State agencies and not the proposed project,
the project's GHG emissions would be reduced by compliance with statewide measures that have been
adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with
the CARB Scoping Plan. Based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that
implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the
regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an
adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHG emissions, and impacts are considered less than
significant.
44
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact: Hazards related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the
proposed project would temporarily increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of construction -
related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents,
and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). Construction activities would be
required to comply with applicable State and federal regulations for proper transport, use, storage, and
disposal of excess hazardous materials and hazardous construction waste. In addition, the proposed
project would comply with Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD -1 and HYD -2, which require
compliance with the waste discharge permit requirements to avoid potential impacts to water quality
due to spills or runoff from hazardous materials used during construction. Therefore, with adherence to
the regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD -1 and HYD -2, impacts
related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be
less than significant. Retail and restaurant uses included in the proposed project may include the use
and disposal of typical cleaning products along with limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape
maintenance. Trucks accessing the businesses on site would contain oil and gasoline, to power their
engines, which could have the potential to result in minor releases of such substances through drips or
leaks from truck loading areas. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, conditions of approval would be
applied to the proposed project by the OCFA to reduce hazardous material impacts and insure that any
hazardous waste that is generated on site would be transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a
licensed hauler in accordance with State and federal law. Therefore, implementation would result in less
than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact: Release of hazardous materials. Because no significant hazards would be created by uses
associated with the proposed project, the potential for the proposed project to create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
Impact: Hazardous emissions and substances within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school. Grace Christian School is located approximately 0.75 mile northwest of the project site, and the
Cottonwood Christian Center preschool facility is located approximately 0.5 mile west of the project site.
The proposed project's uses would not pose a significant threat of hazardous emissions or significant
handling of hazardous materials or substances. Therefore, impacts on schools would be less than
significant.
Impact: Hazardous materials sites. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites
that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and is not a recorded Superfund
site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) identified several listings for off-site adjacent or
nearby properties on databases potentially indicative of a contamination concern. However, the Phase I
ESA concluded that these sites do not pose a potential hazard to the project site. In addition, soil
sampling undertaken as part of the Phase II Limited Soil Investigation (LSI) did not identify elevated
concentrations of metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
the soil at the project site. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials sites would remain less
than significant.
Impact: Hazards resulting from proximity to a public or private airport. The project site is located
approximately 0.5 mile from the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. According to the Airport
Land Use Commission's 2016 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Joint Forces Training Base Los
Alamitos, the project site is located in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 Notification
Area and the AELUP height restriction zone for JFTB Los Alamitos. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area because the project
would comply with all appropriate FAA standards and requirements, including Regulatory Compliance
Measure HAZ-1, which requires that the FAA be notified of any proposed structure(s) that would
penetrate the 100 to 1 imaginary surface that surrounds the runway at JFTB Los Alamitos. Notice has
been submitted to the FAA for the proposed structures. The FAA has conducted an aeronautical study
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77,
concerning the proposed structures and on March 30, 2020, the FAA provided a Determination of No
Hazard to Air Navigation for all proposed structures. As specified in the determination, it is required that
FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is filed within 5 days after the
construction reaches its greatest height. With adherence to the regulatory standards provided in
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1, implementation of the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts related to safety hazards for people working in the project area.
45
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project would
comply with existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations and would
implement construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce
pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, and would ensure that water quality impacts are less than
significant.
Impact: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve direct groundwater extraction,
and increased water use would not substantially affect groundwater supplies. Additionally, groundwater
dewatering would be localized and temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be
substantial. For these reasons, impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference
with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management would
be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Impact: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation. The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Construction
General Permit and would implement construction BMPs to reduce impacts related to on-site, off-site,
or downstream erosion or siltation. In addition, the proposed project would not increase downstream
erosion or siltation impacts during operation because downstream receiving waters are not susceptible
to hydromodification. For these reasons, operation impacts related to substantial on- or off-site erosion
or siltation would be less than significant.
Impact: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a
manner which would result in substantial flooding. The proposed project would comply with existing
NPDES requirements and would implement construction BMPs, proposed storm drain systems, and a
detention system. Two scenarios are proposed to convey off-site runoff that exceeds the capacity of the
Winners Circle stormdrain system to the curb and gutter in Katella Avenue. Under Scenario 1, flow that
exceeds the capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system would be conveyed west toward Siboney
Street. Siboney Street would be reconstructed to crown the road to provide sufficient slope to allow
stormwater to drain to Katella Avenue without ponding. Additionally, a portion of the parking lot to the
north of the project site would be repaved. Under Scenario 2, flow exceeding the capacity of the
Winners Circle stormdrain system would be conveyed across the project site via an underground storm
drain to the Katella Avenue storm drain system near the existing on-site driveway. With implementation
of the proposed stormdrain systems and detention system, impacts related to a substantial increase in
the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume that would result in flooding would be less than
significant.
Impact: Exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff, or exceed the capacity of a channel and cause overflow during
design storm conditions. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES requirements to
prevent substantial additional sources of polluted runoff being discharged to the storm drain system,
and would target pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site through implementation of
construction and operational BMPs. The proposed project includes proposed stormdrain systems and
detention system to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not exacerbate the existing stormdrain capacity
deficit.
Impact: Substantially degrade water quality. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES
regulations and would implement construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational
BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff to ensure that the proposed project
would not substantially degrade water quality.
Impact: Result in an increase in pollutant discharge to receiving waters. The proposed project would
comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement construction and operational BMPs.
Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, and
would ensure that increased pollutant discharge during project construction and operation would be
less than significant.
Impact: Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction. The
proposed project would comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement construction and
operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in
46
stormwater runoff, and would ensure that alteration of receiving water quality during project
construction and operation would be less than significant.
Impact: Increase downstream erosion. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES
regulations and would implement construction BMPs to reduce impacts related to on-site, off-site, or
downstream erosion or siltation. In addition, the proposed project would not increase downstream
erosion or siltation impacts during operation because downstream receiving waters are not susceptible
to hydromodification.
Impact: Adverse impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes. The
proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and would
implement construction BMPs, proposed storm drain systems, and a detention system to reduce
impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume that
would result in flooding.
Impact: Increase in any pollutant for which the receiving water body is already impaired as listed on
the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. The proposed project would comply with the requirements of
the Construction General Permit and would implement construction and operational BMPs to target and
reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site, including those contributing to
downstream water quality impairments.
Impact: Marine, fresh, or wetland water surface water quality. The proposed project would comply
with existing NPDES regulations and would implement construction and operational BMPs. Construction
and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, and would ensure that
environmental impacts on surface water quality to marine, fresh, or wetland waters during project
construction and operation would be Tess than significant.
Impact: Adverse impact on groundwater quality. Because minimal infiltration would occur and no
groundwater injection would occur, project activities would not substantially degrade groundwater
quality.
Impact: Exceedance of an applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses. Because minimal infiltration would occur and no groundwater injection
would occur, project activities would not result in the exceedance of water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses.
Impact: Best Management Practices resulting in significant environmental effects. The project would
include implementation of post -construction BMPs (underground detention basins) to reduce impacts
related to hydrology and water quality. The post -construction BMPs would be underground and would
be designed and routinely inspected and maintained to reduce impacts related to vectors and odors.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a hydrology and water quality impact.
The proposed project and other related projects would comply with the applicable NPDES requirements
and would implement construction and operational BMPs and drainage facilities to reduce impacts
related to hydrology and water quality.
LAND USE
Impact: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The proposed project would be consistent with the
2016-2040 RTP/SCS, the City's General Plan, and the amended Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed
project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land
use plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant land use impact. The
cumulative impact area for land use for the proposed project is the City of Cypress. Several development
projects are approved and/or pending within the City. The City of Cypress is an urbanized area with a
wide variety of established land uses. The land around the project site has been developed with a
variety of residential, business park, racetrack, and commercial, land uses. The proposed project would
amend the Specific Plan to modify the land use designation of the project site from Professional Office
to Mixed Use Commercial/Residential (Planning Area 5B) to accommodate the project's proposed uses.
The proposed project would also amend the Specific Plan to update the land use tables to incorporate
the new Planning Area 5B and include site development standards and building floor area ratio (FAR)
47
and site coverage standards specific to Planning Area 5B. In addition to modifying the parking
requirements that would apply to Planning Area 5B, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would
amend several of the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. Should the City Council approve the
proposed project, the proposed project would be consistent with the Specific Plan and cumulative land
use impacts would be considered less than significant.
NOISE
Impact: Located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest
airport to the project site is the JFTB Los Alamitos, located approximately 0.5 mile south of the project
site. The project site is within the 60 A -weighted decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL)
noise contour, but outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JFTB Los Alamitos. Therefore, aircraft
noise generated from the closest airport would not expose people residing or working on the project
site to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport. This noise impact would be less
than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant operational noise impact.
Long-term stationary noise sources associated with the development at the proposed project, combined
with other cumulative projects, could cause local noise level increases. Noise levels associated with the
proposed project and related projects together could result in higher noise levels than considered
separately. As previously described, on-site noise sources associated with the proposed project would
not exceed any applicable noise standards. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required
to comply with the City's noise level standards and include mitigation measures if standards are
exceeded. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than
significant.
Project -related traffic would result in small (1.7 dBA or less) noise level increases along roadway
segments in the vicinity of the project site under the project opening year (2021) condition. Therefore,
none of the roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site would experience a substantial noise
level increase greater than the applicable noise thresholds and the proposed project would not have a
cumulatively significant traffic noise impact.
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
Impact: Induce substantial unplanned population growth. The proposed project would not induce
substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
The proposed 251 apartment units would generate approximately 758 new residents. The addition of
758 residents represents a population increase of approximately 1.5 percent over existing conditions as
of January 2019. SCAG recently updated its regional forecast in conjunction with its efforts to prepare
and adopt the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Growth forecasts included in the Draft 2020-2045 RTP/SCS indicate
that the City's population is projected to grow by 1,700 persons from 2016 to 2045 and the projected
population in the City is 51,300 persons in 2045. If SCAG's updated growth forecast was used in this
analysis instead of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, the population increase of 758 residents as
a result of the proposed project would be within these updated population projections. For all these
reasons, the proposed project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Therefore, the proposed project's direct impact on population growth would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant population and housing
impact. Though the construction of the proposed project and the related projects would result in a
cumulative population increase of 2,095 new County residents, the addition of 2,095 new residents
would represent a small fraction (0.54 percent) of SCAG's forecasted County increase of 389,900
between 2012 and 2040. Furthermore, the City's cumulative population increase would be within the
Draft 2020-2045 RTP/SCS growth forecast. Furthermore, the Draft RTP/SCS forecasts a much larger
projected housing growth than the 2016-2040 RTP/RSC projections. Therefore, the housing units
included in the proposed project and related projects would help the City meet the need for the housing
units included in the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. As such, the proposed project in combination with
related projects would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, the proposed
project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with population, housing, and employment
growth would be less than significant.
48
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or performance
objectives for police protection. As stated in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed
project would not induce substantial population growth. Although the proposed project may
incrementally contribute to the need for one additional police officer to meet future demand, the
addition of one new police officer would not necessitate the expansion of the City's existing police
facilities because the new police officer would be accommodated in existing facilities. Additionally, the
proposed project components are anticipated to hire private security, enhancing on-site surveillance
and potentially reducing the demand for police services to the project site. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in any substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection.
Impacts: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or performance
objectives for schools. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for schools. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a
project's impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility
development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the
required fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS -1, potential impacts to school services
and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or performance
objectives for parks. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for parks. The incremental increase in demand for park facilities created by the
project's proposed 251 residential units would result in limited use of existing recreation facilities in the
project vicinity. However, this increased demand would be offset by the payment of park fees required
by Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. Additionally, on-site amenities included in the proposed
project include: fitness area, open air courtyard, and club room, which would be available to residents
and their guests. The inclusion of these recreational facilities would offset some of the demand for parks
and recreational facilities associated with the new residents.
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or performance
objectives for other public facilities. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for other public facilities. Demand for library services is typically determined
based on the size of the resident population. As stated in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the
proposed project would result in 758 new residents, which is not substantial. As of 2015, the Cypress
Branch Library consisted of a 15,000 -square -foot (sf) facility with approximately 88,000 books, CDs, and
videos. According to the County's service standards of 0.2 sf of library space per capita and 1.5 books
per capita, the Cypress Branch Library has the capacity to accommodate a population of 75,000 and
enough books to serve a population of 58,667. The City currently exceeds the County's standards for
size and number of books since the City's most current population estimate is 49,833. Accordingly, the
Cypress Branch Library has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population growth
associated with the proposed project.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant public services impact. The
project site is a vacant parking lot located in an urban area with existing services provided by public
service providers in the vicinity. The cumulative area for public services is listed below for each
individual public service provider. As described above, the proposed project's potential impacts to fire
services, police protection, school services, and public libraries are limited. These impacts by their very
nature are cumulative impacts. Thus, because the project would result in Tess than significant impacts
related to the provision of fire services, police protection, school services, and public libraries, the
project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
49
RECREATION
Impact: Substantial physical deterioration of existing parks. The proposed project would result in an
increase in residents in the City, increasing the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks.
However, the City will require the Applicant/Developer to pay fees and/or dedicate parkland as
identified in Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
a substantial increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of any such facility would occur or be accelerated,
and the proposed project's impact would be Tess than significant.
Impact: Adverse physical impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities. The construction of recreational facilities is part of the proposed project; the potential adverse
effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project's recreational facilities
has been considered throughout the analysis in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and mitigated as
appropriate. Therefore, the proposed project does not include recreational facilities that would have an
adverse physical effect on the environment. Additionally, the inclusion of these recreational facilities
would offset some of the demand associated with the new residents who would live on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project does not require construction or expansion of existing recreational
facilities and would not result in adverse off-site physical effects at those facilities. Additionally, the City
will require the Applicant/Developer to pay fees and/or dedicate parkland as identified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure REC-1. Therefore, impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities included as part of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Impact: Cumulative impact related to the recreation resources. The proposed project, in conjunction
with the related projects in the City, has the potential to increase demand on the City's recreational
resources. However, the related projects would also be subject to Municipal Code requirements for the
provision of parkland and/or payment of in -lieu fees. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed
project and the applicable related projects would be Tess than significant with respect to recreational
facilities.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a transportation impact. The proposed
project would be required to comply with General Plan policies addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The proposed project would also be
required to comply with the City's transportation -related goals, policies, and metrics for determining
traffic impacts, as well as the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (2019).
A trip generation analysis was conducted to determine the number of trips that would occur following
implementation of the project. The project has the potential to generate approximately 4,978 average
daily trips (ADT), including 164 trips (68 inbound and 96 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 323 trips
(176 inbound and 147 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour.
Project impacts are based on level of service (LOS) significance criteria for the City of Cypress (for
Cypress intersections) and the City of Los Alamitos (for Los Alamitos intersections). Vehicle access to the
project site will be provided via Siboney Street, Winners Circle, and a right-turn-in/out-only driveway
directly on Katella Avenue. Both intersections of Siboney Street/Katella Avenue and Winners Circle/
Katella Avenue are analyzed as study intersections in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and would
operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours in the Existing Plus Project and Opening Year Plus
Project Conditions.
As such, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable provisions in the City's General Plan
Circulation Element regarding the maintenance of a safe, efficient, economical, and aesthetically
pleasing transportation system providing for the movement of people, goods, and services to serve the
existing and future needs of the City of Cypress. Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent
with all relevant goals included in the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) regarding transit and active transportation.
As previously noted, a TIA is required for CMP purposes for any proposed development generating 2,400
or more daily trips, with the exception of developments that will directly access a CMP Highway System
roadway segment, for which the threshold for requiring a TIA is reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day.
Because the proposed project is estimated to generate 4,978 daily trips, a TIA was prepared for the
proposed project in compliance with CMP standards.
The project's ADT on Katella Avenue exceeds the 3 percent threshold on Katella Avenue immediately
east and west of the project site within the traffic study area. However, the project's ADT is Tess than the
50
3 percent threshold at the only CMP intersection within the traffic study area (Valley View Street/Katella
Avenue), and the project's ADT is less than the 3 percent threshold on the segments of Katella Avenue
and Valley View Street at the traffic study area boundaries based on the distribution of project trips
throughout the traffic study area. Therefore, the traffic study area for the project is sufficiently sized to
cover all roadway segments adding the 3 percent threshold of the project's ADT to the CMP roadway
segment's LOS E capacity. As such, the traffic analysis satisfies the CMP requirements.
Impact: Conflict with CECtA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). According to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), project -related transportation impacts are generally best measured by
evaluating the project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT refers to the amount and distance of
automobile travel attributable to a project. At this time, the City has not adopted a methodology to
analyze VMT impacts within its jurisdiction. In addition, the City does not currently have thresholds or
standards in place for assessing potential VMT impacts. Therefore, traffic impacts in this Draft EIR are
based on the City's LOS thresholds and the analysis provided under Threshold 4.15.1, which found
impacts to be less than significant.
Impact: Hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. As discussed in Chapter 3.0,
Project Description, the proposed project does not propose any major traffic infrastructure
improvements. In addition, as described in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, the project would not
include any land uses that would be incompatible with surrounding uses. The proposed project would
generate a similar vehicle mix to other surrounding land uses, consisting primarily of single -occupancy
vehicles and distribution trucks. Additionally, all new driveways at the project site would be subject to
the provisions of the City of Cypress design standards to alleviate design feature and safety hazards,
which would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed
project's impacts would be less than significant.
Impact: Inadequate emergency access. The project site would be accessed via Siboney Street (and the
existing traffic signal at Siboney Street/Katella Avenue), Winners Circle (and the existing traffic signal at
Winners Circle/Katella Avenue), and a right-turn-in/out-only driveway directly on Katella Avenue. As
discussed above under Threshold 4.15.3, the project driveways will be designed to conform to the City's
standards. Therefore, the project's impacts associated with emergency access would be less than
significant.
Impact: Cumulative impact related to transportation. For purposes of this analysis, the project is
assumed to be open in 2021. To develop a Year 2021 condition, an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent
per year (i.e., 1.5 percent total growth for 3 years) was applied to the existing traffic counts. This
condition also included the proposed project trips. Application of a 0.5 percent per year growth rate to
the existing traffic volumes is considered conservative and would account for any additional future
development in the project vicinity.
Impact: Cumulative peak hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections. With the addition of the
proposed project, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS during both
peak hours. Therefore, a significant project impact is not expected to occur at any study area
intersection in the Opening Year (2021) conditions.
UTILITIES
Impact: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. The proposed
project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, or electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. The
proposed project would implement Regulatory Compliance Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-3. With
adherence to these Regulatory Compliance Measures, the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts related to these facilities.
Impact: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The proposed project would have
sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years with the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure
UTIL-4. Therefore, with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4, impacts to water
supplies would be less than significant.
Impact: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed project would not result in a
51
significant contribution to the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. Additionally, fees required by
the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) would sufficiently offset potential impacts generated by
the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
related to the wastewater treatment capacity.
Impact: Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The proposed
project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to solid waste and landfill facilities.
Impact: Compliance with federal, state, and local solid waste management and reduction statutes and
regulations. The proposed project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any potential conflicts with applicable regulations
related to solid waste with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant utilities and service system
impact. The proposed project's potential impacts to wastewater, portable water, solid waste, electricity,
natural gas, and telecommunications services are not cumulatively considerable.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
The Final EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed project.
However, the Cypress City Council finds that for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts
identified in this section, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that changes or alterations
have been required or incorporated into the proposed project that would avoid or substantially lessen
the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR. As a result, adoption of the mitigation measures set
forth below would reduce the identified significant effects to a less than significant level.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. The
SCCIC record search included the project site and the areas within 0.25 mile of the project site. No
archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the project site. There has been one
archaeological resource previously recorded within 0.25 mile of the project site, the historic -period Navy
Golf Course in Seal Beach (P 30-176854), which would not be impacted by project -related construction
activities. As a result of seasonal flooding, the floodplain containing the project site would not have
been conducive to the accumulation and preservation of intact archaeological cultural deposits. As such,
there is a low likelihood of encountering intact buried archaeological deposits during ground -disturbing
construction activities. However, there is a possibility that isolated archaeological cultural resources may
be encountered during construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would
reduce any potential impacts of the proposed project on the significance of archaeological resources to
a less than significant level.
Finding: Mitigation Measure CUL -1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts to archaeological
resources to a Tess than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts to archaeological resources
would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to cultural
resources for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure for Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL -1
Archaeological Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a
qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained by the Applicant/
Developer to provide cultural resources awareness training to
construction personnel. The qualified professional archaeologist shall
also be retained by the Applicant/Developer on an on-call basis. This
training shall be in the form of a presentation and handout describing
the types of possible archaeological deposits that may be encountered
during construction activities; and the procedures that shall be used in
the event of inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources during
construction. In the event that construction personnel encounter any
archaeological deposits during construction activities, the retained
52
qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. If
any such resources are discovered, contractors shall stop work in the
immediate area of the find and contact the retained archaeologist to
assess the nature of the find and determine if future studies and/or
monitoring is appropriate. Upon completion of any monitoring
activities, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the
methods and results of monitoring activities. This report shall be
submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact: Result in substantial adverse effects related to strong seismic ground shaking. Peak ground
acceleration (PGA) is a measure of earthquake acceleration on the ground and an important input
parameter for earthquake engineering. A design -level peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.55 g has
been calculated for the project site. This acceleration is consistent with other areas in this region of
California that are underlain by similar geologic materials and indicates that strong seismic ground
shaking generated by seismic activity is considered a potentially significant impact that may affect
people or structures associated with the proposed project. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and Regulatory
Compliance Measure GEO-1 (Geology and Soils mitigation measures and regulatory compliance
measures can be found in Section 4.7) require the project Applicant/Developer to comply with the
recommendations of a Final Geotechnical Evaluation and the most current California Building Code
(CBC) adopted by the City as its Building Code, which stipulates appropriate seismic design provisions
that shall be implemented with project design and construction. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, potential project impacts related to
seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding: Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to geology
and soils to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Impact: Result in substantial adverse effects related to seismic related ground failure, including
liquefaction. Based on the results of the Geotechnical Assessment, the maximum estimated vertical
settlement was calculated to be approximately 2.9 inches for the cone penetrometer test (CPT)
locations within the project site. This is well within the commonly accepted limitations of structural
mitigation described above (i.e., 4 inches). Additionally, predicted liquefaction -induced total settlement
with respect to most of the project site would be addressed by incorporating deep foundations or
ground improvement for the larger buildings into the design (Mitigation Measure GEO-1). The best
suited ground improvement to mitigate settlement of the large structures would be stone columns or
(Geopier brand) rammed aggregate piers (RAP) approximately 15 feet (ft) deep. Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 also includes ground improvement recommendations (a combination of newly compacted fill and
shallower ground improvement, such as aggregate and geogrid reinforcement) in the areas of the
smaller retail buildings to mitigate potential impacts related to liquefaction -induced settlement. The
deeper undocumented fill in the southeast corner of the project site (future retail shops area) would
also be completely removed and replaced with engineered fill (Mitigation Measure GEO-1). With the
incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the potential adverse effects of seismic -related ground
failure including liquefaction would be less than significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to geology
and soils to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Impact: Result in a project that is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would
become unstable as a result of the project.
Liquefaction and Compressible/Collapsible Soils. As discussed in detail under Threshold 4.6.1(iii) of
the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and adherence to the regulatory
standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 would be required to address the
proposed project's impacts with respect to liquefaction and compressible soils. Provided that design
and remedial grading, ground improvement (as necessary), and design of building foundation
systems are performed in accordance with the applicable requirements in the CBC (adopted by the
53
City as its Building Code with certain amendments), and current standards of practice in the area,
excessive settlement resulting from liquefaction and compression of existing undocumented fill and
native alluvial soils on the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, potential
project impacts related to liquefaction and compressible/collapsible soils would be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Wet Soils. Due the presence of shallow groundwater, excavations deeper than 3-4 ft are likely to
encounter groundwater and/or soft, wet soil. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which
requires that the ground stabilization recommendations in the Geotechnical Assessment be
implemented during grading and construction, would address soft ground conditions due to shallow
groundwater. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the proposed project's impacts
related to wet soils would be Tess than significant.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, all identified potentially significant impacts
related to unstable soils would be reduced below a level of significance for the reasons set forth in the
Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts
related to geology and soils for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Impact: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature. Ground disturbance associated with the various components of the proposed project is
expected to extend to depths of 10 ft or less below the existing ground surface, with the exception of
the rammed aggregate piers, which will be used for supports for the larger buildings. The rammed
aggregate piers are expected to extend to a depth of 15 ft below the existing surface. The Young Alluvial
Fan Deposits, Unit 2 that lie below surficial Artificial Fill within the project site have low paleontological
sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 ft and high sensitivity below a depth of 10 ft. As such, the
majority of project activities will remain in deposits with low paleontological sensitivity. Although the
rammed aggregate piers are expected to extend up to 5 ft into deposits with high paleontological
sensitivity, drilling for aggregate piers has a limited impact area and presents challenges to collecting
fossils and the contextual information necessary for scientific importance. Considering the
paleontological sensitivity of the deposits in the project site and the excavation parameters, there is a
potential for the proposed project to impact scientifically important paleontological resources. To
mitigate adverse impacts to unknown, buried paleontological resources that may exist on site,
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires that if paleontological resources are discovered during ground -
disturbing activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery for scientific
importance. The qualified paleontologist shall then make recommendations regarding treatment and
disposition of the discovery, the need for paleontological monitoring, and preparation of the
appropriate report. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure that impacts to
paleontological resources are reduced to a level that is Tess than significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to geology
and soils to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to geology
and soils. Typically, geology and soils impacts are specific to a particular project site and there is little, if
any, cumulative relationship between the development of a proposed project and development within a
larger cumulative area. Moreover, while seismic conditions are regional in nature, seismic impacts on a
given project site are site-specific. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect the level of
intensity at which a seismic event on an adjacent site is experienced. It is not anticipated that the
development of nearby projects would have any geotechnical impact on the project site or the buildings
that would be constructed as part of the proposed project, nor would the development of the proposed
project have impacts on nearby projects. Therefore, the proposed project and the applicable related
projects would not have the potential to cause cumulatively significant adverse impacts related to
geology and soils. Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown paleontological resources and
unique geologic features, when combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects in the City of Cypress, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the overall
loss of paleontological remains unique to the region. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2
would ensure that the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in
significant cumulative impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features.
Finding: Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to geology
54
and soils to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures for Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO-1
Compliance with the Recommendations in the Project Geotechnical
Assessment. The Applicant/Developer's construction contractor shall
implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Due Diligence
Study for Proposed Mixed -Use Development at NE Quadrant of Siboney
Street and Katella Avenue, City of Cypress, California (NMG
Geotechnical, June 2019; Geotechnical Assessment) prepared for the
proposed project, as applicable to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress'
(City) Chief Building Official or designee, including, but not limited to:
To address potential liquefaction potential and seismically induced
settlement, stone columns or (Geopier brand) rammed aggregate piers
(RAP) or equivalent ground improvement method alternatives shall be
used and installed to a depth of 15 feet (ft). Building areas where the
ground is improved with RAPs or stone columns shall provide a
minimum 2 ft thick layer of newly compacted fill. The smaller retail
buildings may be supported on a combination of newly compacted fill
and shallower ground improvement, such as aggregate and geogrid
reinforcement. Fill material shall be a minimum of 5 ft below finish
grade or 3 ft below the bottoms of foundations, whichever is deeper.
The bottom of the excavation shall have a layer of geogrid, such as
Tensar 130 or BX1515 and a minimum of 2 ft of aggregate base. The
remaining fill may be compacted native soil.
The deeper undocumented fill in the southeast corner of the project
site (future retail shops area) should be completely removed and
replaced with engineered fill.
To address shallow groundwater and wet soil, some type of ground
stabilization, such as cement treatment or aggregate or a combination
of both shall be used. Geofabric or geogrid is recommended in
combination with aggregate to reduce the required depth of treatment,
amount of aggregate and time required to backfill the excavations.
Concrete slabs shall be used for all foundations and slabs on grade and
shall be a minimum of 4 inches thick.
Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by
the Project Geotechnical Consultant to refine and enhance these
requirements. The Applicant/Developer shall require the Project
Geotechnical Consultant to assess whether the requirements in that
report need to be modified or refined to address any changes in the
project features that occur prior to the start of grading. If the Project
Geotechnical Consultant identifies modifications or refinements to the
requirements, the Applicant/Developer shall require appropriate
changes to the final project design and specifications. Design, grading,
and construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Cypress Municipal Code and the California
Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local
grading regulations, and the requirements of the Project Geotechnical
Consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by
the City of Cypress Director of Public Works, or designee, prior to
commencement of grading activities.
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the Director of Public
Works, or designee, prior to the start of grading to verify that the
requirements developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have
been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Design, grading,
and construction shall be conducted in accordance with the
specifications of the Project Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in
Mitigation Measure GEO-2
NOISE
55
a final report based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and
building, and the City's Building Code. On-site inspection during grading
shall be conducted by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and the City
of Cypress Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee, to
ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into
project plans. Prior to the final grading permits, the Project
Geotechnical Consultant shall submit a Final Testing and Observation
Geotechnical Report for Rough Grading to the City of Cypress Director
of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee.
Procedures for Unexpected Paleontological Resources Discoveries. If
paleontological resources are discovered during ground -disturbing
activities associated with the proposed project, construction personnel
shall immediately halt work within 50 ft of the discovery, and the
Applicant/Developer or construction supervisor shall contact a qualified
paleontologist to assess the discovery for scientific importance. A
qualified paleontologist is defined as a person with an M.S. or Ph.D. in
geology or paleontology and who meets the standards set forth by the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontologist shall make
recommendations regarding the collection, treatment, and disposition
of the discovery. Scientifically important resources shall be prepared to
the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level
possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a
museum repository. If paleontological resources are discovered,
regardless of their scientific importance, paleontological monitoring
shall be required for subsequent ground -disturbing activities at a
frequency, depth, and/or interval determined by the paleontologist.
Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor as set forth in the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology standards. At the conclusion of monitoring, a final
monitoring report shall be prepared by the paleontologist to document
the results of monitoring and project compliance with all regulations
and project requirements. If scientifically important paleontological
resources are recovered, this report shall also document those
paleontological resources with a catalog, descriptions, and photographs
as determined appropriate by the paleontologist. The final monitoring
report shall be submitted to the City of Cypress Director of Community
Development Department or designee for review and approval. A copy
of this final report shall also accompany the fossil material to the
museum repository.
Impact: Result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. During project construction, exterior noise levels
could affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity. The closest residences are located approximately 890 ft
west and 350 ft south of the project site. In addition, the closest church is located approximately 465 ft
west of the project site. Construction activities would expose nearby sensitive receptors to peak noise
levels from 64.1 dBA to 66.5 dBA maximum A -weighted sound level (Lmax) during the site preparation
and grading phase (Phase 1), 65.8 dBA to 68.3 dBA Lmax during the construction of buildings phase
(Phase 2), and 64.9 dBA to 67.4 dBA Lmax during the paving phase (Phase 3). Noise levels generated from
where the installation of Geopiers would take place would range from 64.9 to 73.1 dBA Lmax at the
closest sensitive receptors. These noise levels would not exceed the anytime maximum daytime exterior
noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax in the City of Cypress and noise levels would not exceed the anytime
maximum daytime exterior noise standard of 75 dBA Lmax in the City of Los Alamitos. The proposed
project would comply with the permitted construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays
and Saturdays specified in the Specific Plan. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or
on Sundays or federal holidays (Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1).
The proposed project would require the use of rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
units for the proposed buildings. Noise generated from HVAC units could impact sensitive receptors
within the vicinity of the project site by exceeding the City's daytime and nighttime exterior noise
standard. However, noise levels from HVAC equipment would be minimized with compliance with
Section 3.11.100(b) in the City's Municipal Code (Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-2), which
56
requires that mechanical equipment in residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts be
enclosed within a structure or completely screened from the view of surrounding properties by the use
of a fence or wall. Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which would require the project Applicant/Developer to
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, that on-
site stationary noise sources, such as rooftop air conditioners, compliance with City noise standards as
stated in the City's Municipal Code Sections 13-68 and 13-69 would further minimize noise generated
from HVAC units. Therefore, the noise levels generated by the proposed project's HVAC equipment
would be less than significant with adherence to Section 3.11.100(b) and Sections 13-68 and 13-69 in
the City's Municipal Code. The implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would further
minimize construction- and operation -related noise to a less than significant impact.
Finding: Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 are feasible and would reduce potential impacts related
to noise to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts to noise would occur with
implementation of these measures for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to noise for the reasons set forth
in the Final EIR.
Impact: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Increases in
groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with
short-term construction -related activities. Construction -related ground vibration is normally associated
with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty
construction equipment. Based on the vibration levels presented in Caltrans' Transportation and
Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013), ground vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment
at the closest residential, church, office, and commercial building would not be anticipated to exceed
the community annoyance thresholds. In addition, vibration levels would not result in building damage
because vibration levels would not exceed the FTA's damage threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 peak particle
velocity [PPV inch/sec]) and nearby buildings were observed to be constructed of non -engineered
timber and masonry. The project construction contractor would be required to implement Mitigation
Measure NOI-1 to further minimize construction -related vibration. Therefore, ground -borne vibration
and ground -borne noise levels generated by project construction activities would be less than significant
with the implementation of mitigation measures.
Finding: Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to noise to a
less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to noise would occur with
implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to noise for the reasons set forth
in the Final EIR.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to
construction noise. Construction activities associated with the proposed project and other construction
projects in the area may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the area. However, construction
noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to each construction site. Construction
noise for the proposed project was determined to be Tess than significant with the implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires compliance with the construction hour restrictions specified
in the Specific Plan. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site could result in elevated
construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the area surrounding the project site. However, each
project would be required to comply with the applicable City's Municipal Code limitations on
construction. Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
Finding: Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is feasible and would reduce potential cumulative impacts related to
noise to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to noise would occur
with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to noise for the reasons set forth
in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures for Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI-1
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the construction contractor
shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director of
Community Development, or designee, the following:
Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment,
fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and
Mitigation Measure NOI-2:
PUBLIC SERVICES
57
maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation devices.
Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling
equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary
construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between
construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas,
and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than
diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible.
During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed
such that emitted noise is directed away from noise -sensitive receptors.
All construction entrances shall clearly post construction hours,
allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent.
This will allow surrounding owners and residents to contact the job
superintendent with concerns. If the Applicant/Developer receives a
noise -related complaint, appropriate corrective actions shall be
implemented and a report taken indicating the action with a copy of the
report provided to the reporting party upon request.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant/
Developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress
Director of Community Development, or designee, that on-site
stationary noise sources, such as rooftop air conditioners, shall not
exceed City noise standards as stated within the City's Municipal Code
Sections 13-68 and 13-69.
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or performance
objectives for fire protection. The proposed project would incrementally increase demand for fire
protection an emergency service calls. OCFA indicated that all OCFA uses a fair share approach to
mitigate fire service response impacts and facility/equipment needs. To address potential impacts to fire
services, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure PS -1, which requires
the Applicant/Developer to enter into a secure fire protection agreement. Mitigation Measure PS -1
would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Finding: Mitigation Measure PS -1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to public
services to a Tess than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to public services
would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to public services
for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures for Public Services
Mitigation Measure PS -1
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Secured Fire Protection Agreement: Prior to the issuance of any
building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall enter into a Secured Fire
Protection Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA).
This Agreement shall specify the Applicant/Developer's pro -rata fair
share funding of capital improvements necessary to establish adequate
fire protection facilities and equipment, and/or personnel. Said
agreement shall be reached as early as possible in the planning process,
preferably for each phase or land use sector of the project, rather than
on a parcel by parcel basis. The obligation must be satisfied prior to the
issuance of the first building permit.
Impact: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe. Native American consultation was conducted in compliance
with SB 18 and AB 52. During that process, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation (Tribe)
stated that the project site is within their tribal territory and requested consultation with the Lead
Agency. During a phone consultation meeting with the City, Chairperson Andrew Salas provided the City
with the history of his Tribe and the context in which its members lived in the area, and he indicated
58
specific areas that were prehistoric travel routes for the Tribe. Due to concerns regarding the lack of
historical development on the project site and the level of fill, the Tribe sent the City proposed
mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources. The City received the Tribe's proposed mitigation
measures. The Tribe's recommendations have been incorporated into mitigation measures for the
proposed project. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1
would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains to less than significant and
addresses tribal concerns regarding the treatment of human remains. Mitigation Measure TCR -1
requires the retention of a Gabrieleno Native American Tribal representative to monitor specified
ground -disturbing construction and cultural awareness training requirements. With the implementation
of Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1 and Mitigation Measure TCR -1, impacts would be less than
significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure TCR -1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to tribal
cultural resources to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to tribal
cultural resources would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the
Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts
related to tribal cultural resources for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant tribal cultural resources
impact. Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown tribal cultural resources, when combined
with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Cypress, could
contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the overall loss of tribal cultural resources in the
region. However, each development proposal received by the City is required to undergo environmental
review pursuant to CEQA. If there were any potential for significant impacts to tribal cultural resources,
an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify
appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant impacts.
When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources are
Tess than significant. As such, adherence to the regulatory standards in Regulatory Compliance Measure
CUL -1 and implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR -1 would ensure that the proposed project,
together with the related projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to tribal cultural
resources.
Finding: Mitigation Measure TCR -1 is feasible and would reduce potential cumulative impacts related to
tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to
tribal cultural resources would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in
the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts
related to tribal cultural resources for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures for Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure TCR -1
Tribal Cultural Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
Applicant/Developer shall retain a Gabrieleno Native American Tribal
representative to monitor ground -disturbing construction activities
associated with pad grading of Retail Building C (the northernmost retail
building proposed directly to the west of Winners Circle) and all geopier
installation throughout the site. The retained Gabrieleno Native
American Tribal representative shall be present at the cultural resources
awareness training to construction personnel, and shall provide
additional tribal cultural resources awareness information at the same
meeting. Ground -disturbing activities associated with pavement
removal and initial site -wide grading (at a maximum anticipated depth
of 1 to 2 feet deep) shall not require tribal monitoring. However, if tribal
cultural resources are encountered during the unmonitored excavation
activities previously specified, contractors shall stop work in the
immediate area of the find and contact the retained Gabrieleno Native
American Tribal representative to assess the find. Tribal monitoring shall
also be required during excavation trenching for dry utilities, water,
sewer, storm drain, and underground detention basin installation. Tribal
monitoring shall not be conducted after initial excavation of native
(previously undisturbed) soil has occurred (i.e., no tribal monitoring
shall be required for landscaping activities occurring after completion of
project grading and trenching, as this soil will have been previously
monitored). On-site Tribal monitoring shall be considered complete
59
after project grading and trenching are completed and no disturbance
to native (previously undisturbed) soils are anticipated.
If tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction activities,
ground -disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be
halted until the find is assessed by the tribal monitor. The
Applicant/Developer shall determine whether to contact the on-call
archaeologist for his/her assistance in the assessment of the find.
Ground -disturbing construction activities shall be allowed to continue in
other portions of the project while the find is being assessed. If the find
is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, the Gabrieleno Native
American Tribe whose representative is responsible for tribal
monitoring shall coordinate with the Applicant/Developer to determine
appropriate treatment of the resource.
D. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project where either
mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or mitigation would lessen impacts but not to a Tess
than significant level. The following adverse impacts would remain significant and unavoidable:
GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSIONS
Impact: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment. The proposed project would be designed in compliance with existing
regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Specifically, the project would meet the
2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24) and the
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Although compliance with CCR Title 24 and
CALGreen would help to reduce the proposed project's GHG emissions, the overall emissions
attributable to construction and operation of the proposed project of 7,208 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr) are expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. The proposed project's GHG
emissions per service population of 7.9 MT CO2e per service population per year (CO2e/SP/yr) would
also exceed the SCAQMD's threshold of 4.3 MT CO2e/SP/yr for 2022. Therefore, the proposed project
would result in a significant unavoidable project impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable
cumulative impact related to GHG emissions and conflict with an applicable GHG reduction plan, policy,
or regulations. The proposed project includes mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and
GHG-2) that require the project's buildings to be designed and built to be 10 percent more energy-
efficient than 2019 Title 24 requirements or the current Title 24 requirements, whichever are more
stringent, and the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for on-site
residents and workers to reduce vehicle miles traveled. However, because the type and extent of
measures that would be feasible to be implemented would be dependent on the individual tenants that
occupy the project, the total amount of reductions toward the GHG reduction analysis cannot be
quantified at this time. Furthermore, it may not be feasible for all projects to achieve the reduction
targets. For example, the ability of a business to affect employee and patrons vehicle miles traveled
would depend in part on the number of employees and patrons, where they live, and the availability of
regional programs such as transit buses. Additionally, it is not feasible for the proposed project to be
designed to be built to be over 10 percent more energy-efficient than the 2019 Title 24 requirements,
which are already 20 percent more efficient than the 2016 Title 24 requirements, due to the wood
frame construction proposed. Increasing the efficiency over 10 percent would require significant
changes to mechanical systems, roof systems, and insulation rating, which would not be economically
viable for the purposes of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to generation of GHG
emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding: The project would result in a significant unavoidable project impact related to GHG emissions
and significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to GHG emissions. However, it
should be noted that the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) model likely overestimates
the GHG emissions from vehicle trips associated with the proposed hotel and movie theater. The
CaIEEMod model uses trip lengths established in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (10th Edition), which likely overestimates the trip lengths to and from the proposed
hotel and movie theater, and therefore overestimates the project's GHG emissions. Once constructed,
the movie theater would be the only first run movie theater in the City of Cypress. Currently, the closest
first run movie theaters are located approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the project site in the City of
Garden Grove (Starlight 4 Star Cinemas), approximately 4 miles to the southeast in the City of Garden
60
Grove (Regal Garden Grove 16), approximately 4 miles to the northeast of the project site in the City of
Buena Park (Krikorian Buena Park Metroplex 18), and approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest of the
project site in the City of Long Beach (Edwards Long Beach Stadium 26). In the existing condition, movie -
going residents in the City of Cypress and surrounding communities are more likely to patronize one of
these movie theaters based on their relatively close proximity. Because the project would add a movie
theater in a community not currently served by a movie theater, it is reasonable to assume that many
residents in the City of Cypress and surrounding communities would visit the movie theater on the
project site rather than travel to one of the further movie theaters, resulting in reduced trip lengths. If a
movie theater becomes infeasible, the alternative uses such as a grocery store, which would generate
fewer trips, would similarly reduce trip lengths by providing additional grocery shopping opportunities
to Cypress residents.
The hotel on the project site would likely be geared toward business travelers associated with the
Cypress Business Center located just east of the project site, generally focused around the intersection
of Valley View Street and Katella Avenue. Furthermore, because guests of the hotel would likely only
travel a short distance from the nearby Cypress Business Center, it is likely that the trip lengths
associated with the hotel would be shorter than those estimated by the ITE.
Because the trip lengths are likely overestimated, the GHG emissions from trips associated with the
movie theater and hotel are also likely overestimated. Regardless, to be conservative, the significance
conclusion for impact related to GHG is significant and unavoidable.
Impact: Cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions and conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Project -related GHG emissions are not
confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Hence, GHG impacts are by nature a
cumulative impact. Because the project's GHG emissions were considered significant and unavoidable,
the project's contribution to a significant GHG impact would also be cumulatively considerable and
therefore significant and unavoidable. There is no feasible mitigation available to substantially lessen
these cumulatively significant GHG emission impacts.
Finding: The proposed project would have no conflict with applicable statewide and regional climate
action measures. However, as discussed above, the project's operational -related GHG emissions would
exceed the SCAQMD's numeric threshold and service population thresholds. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible.
However, GHG emission impacts associated with the proposed project would be significant and
unavoidable, and therefore the cumulative impact would also be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures for Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Mitigation Measure GHG-1
Mitigation Measure GHG-2
Energy Conservation. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
Applicant/Developer shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the
City of Cypress Director of Community Development Department, or
designee, that the project's retail commercial buildings, multi -family
residential uses, hotel, and movie theater shall be designed and built to
be 10 percent more energy-efficient than 2019 Title 24 requirements or
the current Title 24 requirement, whichever is more stringent.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The Applicant/
Developer shall develop a TDM Program for on-site residents and
workers with the goal of reducing project -related vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). The TDM strategies shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
i. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the project's
buildings, the Applicant/Developer shall provide evidence to the
satisfaction of the Director of the City of Cypress Community
Development Department, or designee, that a bicycle rack or a
secured bicycle storage area shall be installed within 50 feet of
each proposed building.
ii. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
apartment building, the Apartment Building Manager shall
provide evidence to the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee, that bike
route maps, local transit route maps and schedules, and other
61
transportation information, such as the existing carpooling
program sponsored by the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA), are displayed in a prominent area accessible
to residents and employees.
iii. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
project's movie commercial buildings, the Applicant/Developer
shall provide evidence to the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee, that the
lease agreements executed with any tenants contain provision
requiring each business to provide cash incentives for
employees to use public transit and display bike route maps,
local transit route maps and schedules, and other
transportation information, such as OCTA's existing carpooling
program in a prominent area accessible to employees.
iv. The Applicant/Developer shall organize an annual event on the
project site promoting the use of transit, carpooling programs,
and non -motorized methods of transportation by project
residents, employees, and visitors. The City of Cypress Director
of Community Development Department, or designee, shall be
responsible for confirming that the event is held.
III. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss "any significant irreversible
environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented."
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if one of the following
scenarios is involved:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.
• Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project.
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use
of energy).
The types and level of development associated with the proposed project would consume limited,
slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption would occur during construction of
the proposed project and would continue throughout the operational lifetime of the proposed project.
The development of the proposed project would require a commitment of resources that would include
(1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods
and people to and from the project site.
Construction of the proposed project would require consumption of resources that are not
replenishable or that may renew so slowly as to be considered nonrenewable. These resources would
include certain types of lumber and other forest products (e.g., hardwood lumber), aggregate materials
used in concrete and asphalt (e.g., sand, gravel, and stone), metals (e.g., steel, copper, and lead),
petrochemical construction materials (e.g., plastics), and water. Fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline and oil) would
also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment. Water, which is a limited, slowly
renewable resource, would also be consumed during construction of the proposed project. However,
given the temporary nature of construction activities, water consumption during construction would
result in a less than significant impact on water supplies. Furthermore, the use of construction vehicles
and equipment would require the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil.
As with other resources consumed during construction, the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels
for energy use would occur on a temporary basis during construction of the proposed project.
Operation of the proposed project would continue to expend similar nonrenewable resources that are
currently consumed within Cypress. These include energy resources such as electricity, petroleum-based
fuels, fossil fuels, and water. Energy resources would be used for heating and cooling buildings,
transportation within the project site, and building lighting. Fossil fuels are primary energy sources for
project construction and operation. This existing, finite energy source would thus be incrementally
reduced. Under Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR, conservation practices limiting the amount of energy
consumed by the proposed project would be required during operation. Nevertheless, the use of such
resources would continue to represent a long-term commitment of essentially nonrenewable resources.
The proposed project would result in the limited use of potentially hazardous materials contained in
62
typical cleaning agents and pesticides for landscaping on the project site. Such materials would be used,
handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable government regulations and standards
that would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from
the accidental release of hazardous materials.
In summary, construction and operation of the proposed project would commit the use of slowly
renewable and nonrenewable resources and would limit the availability of these resources on the
project site for future generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed project. However,
the continued use of such resources during operation would be on a relatively small scale and consistent
with regional and local urban design and development goals for the area. As a result, the use of
nonrenewable resources in this manner would not result in significant irreversible changes to the
environment under the proposed project.
IV. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS AND COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to address the growth -inducing impact
of the project. EIR Section 6.3 evaluates the potential for the proposed project to affect economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.
Growth -inducing impacts can occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a
community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional
developments in the same area of the project. Also included in this category are projects that would
remove physical obstacles to population growth, such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a
wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional new development.
The area surrounding the project site is already highly urbanized and developed with a mix of
residential, commercial business park, hotel, religious facility, retail, office, and undeveloped land uses,
so limited population growth is feasible within the vicinity of the project site. In any event, the proposed
project would not remove impediments to population growth in the area surrounding the project site.
While the proposed project may require water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas lines on site and in the
immediate vicinity of the project site, such improvements would be intended primarily to meet project -
related demand and would not necessitate substantial utility infrastructure improvements. In addition,
all roadway improvements planned with respect to the proposed project are intended to provide for
better circulation flows within the project site and the immediate project vicinity, and would not foster
off-site population growth.
The construction of the proposed project would generate a substantial number of construction -related
jobs. However, the proposed project would not promote construction workers relocating their places of
residence as a direct consequence of working on the proposed project. The work requirements of most
construction projects are highly specialized so construction workers remain at a job site only for the
limited time in which their specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction
process. It is anticipated that virtually all of the construction employees would commute to work rather
than moving to the project area. The work requirements of most construction projects are highly
specialized so construction workers remain at a job site only for the limited time in which their specific
skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. Therefore, the proposed
project would not induce material population growth from a short-term employment perspective.
Upon completion of the proposed project, the 251 apartment units are estimated to generate a total of
approximately 758 new residents on the project site. While this direct population growth would increase
the demand for neighborhood -serving commercial uses in the area surrounding the project site, the
proposed project would be located in a built out area of Cypress that is already served by neighborhood -
serving retail and service uses. Although some local businesses that provide goods and services to
nearby residents may hire a small number of additional employees to accommodate the minor increase
in clientele associated with the proposed project, this additional hiring is not expected to induce
material population growth because most of these new employees are not expected to change their
place of residence.
Operation of the project's various components is anticipated to require approximately 149 employees.
Due to the limited number of jobs induced, and because it is expected that the local and regional labor
pools would be available to fill these jobs, it is unlikely that the employment offered by the proposed
project would cause people to move or relocate to the area solely for the purpose of being close to the
project site. Therefore, although the proposed project would provide employment opportunities, it
would not result in substantial indirect growth or create a significant demand for housing in the project
site vicinity.
63
Although the proposed project's commercial components would provide employment opportunities, the
project would not result in substantial direct or indirect growth or create a significant demand for
housing in the project site vicinity. Therefore, given that the employment opportunities generated by
the construction and operation of the proposed project would be filled by people who would commute
to the project site, the potential population growth associated with project employees would be
minimal.
In its existing condition, the project site is a paved and underutilized parking lot. Aside from the receipt
of short-term lease payments associated with temporary uses, the project site currently does not
generate revenue for the City. The proposed project would provide a new source of property, sales, and
transient occupancy tax revenues to the City, thereby increasing the local tax base. The proposed
project would also introduce new residents and hotel guests that would invigorate the local economy by
spending on goods and services at local businesses. As previously discussed, the construction of the
proposed project would generate a substantial number of construction -related jobs and new
employment opportunities in the City during the construction period. As also discussed, the hotel,
theater, apartment building, and commercial/retail components would be expected to employ
approximately 149 workers, and these positions would likely be filled by persons already residing in the
City of Cypress or the region. Therefore, the proposed project would foster economic growth.
The project proposes a mixed-use development. Although the proposed project includes some minor
off-site improvements, including those along Siboney Street, there are no off-site improvements that
would require modification of the existing General Plan land use designations or zoning designations in
the surrounding area. Because the proposed uses for the project site would not result in any land use
changes other than the Specific Plan Amendment to create a new mixed-use land use district on the
project site, the project would not directly increase the City's population beyond the number of
residents who would live in the 251 on-site residential units. While it is conceivable that the project's
approval could attract the interest of new housing developers to Cypress who may seek the approval of
General Plan Amendments or Zone Changes on other undeveloped or underutilized properties in the
City for the purpose of developing new housing, it is highly unlikely, given that the City of Cypress has
very little land that would be able to accommodate new housing development that has not already been
designated for housing. Any future growth in the City is likely to occur regardless of whether or not the
project is approved.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or to its
location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects, and that it evaluate the comparative merits of each of the
alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives
shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree
the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." The following section discusses the
project alternatives that were considered and analyzed in the EIR and summarizes the consistency of
these alternatives with the objectives of the proposed project.
The Final EIR identified three alternatives as follows:
1. No Project Alternative (Alternative 1)
2. Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2)
3. Commercial/Retail Alternative (Alternative 3)
The City's findings and facts in support of findings with respect to each of the alternatives considered
are provided below. In making these findings, the City certifies that it has independently reviewed and
considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR, including the information provided
in comments on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR. The Final EIR's
discussion and analysis of these alternatives considered in the Final EIR are not repeated in total in these
findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the Final EIR are incorporated in these
findings by reference to supplement the analysis here. The City also certifies that it has independently
reviewed and considered all other information in the administrative record.
1. No Project Alternative
Description: CEQA requires analysis of a "No Project" Alternative. The purpose of describing and
analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision -makers to compare the impacts of approving the
proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. According to State CEQA
64
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C), the Lead Agency should proceed to analyze the impacts of the No
Project Alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future
if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure
and community services. The No Project Alternative assumes that the project site would remain in the
same condition as it was at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published and no new
development of any kind would occur on the project site. The project site would remain a paved parking
lot that would continue to be used for vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los Alamitos Race
Course. Other short-term uses of the project site would also continue, including use as a Christmas tree
lot, a truck staging area, and auxiliary truck and trailer storage.
Environmental Effects: The No Project Alternative would not change the existing use on the site. The
project site would remain a paved parking lot that would continue to be used for vehicle parking during
events at the nearby Los Alamitos Race Course. Other short-term uses of the project site would also
continue, including use as a Christmas tree lot, a truck staging area, and auxiliary truck and trailer
storage. The No Project Alternative would result in less significant impacts than those of the proposed
project with regard to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology
and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public
services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Though
the No Project Alternative would not change impervious surface areas, add new uses or structures, or
change stormwater runoff on the project site compared to existing conditions, no operational BMPs
would be implemented and site runoff would continue to be untreated. In addition, no drainage
infrastructure or detention systems would be implemented. Therefore, the peak flow from the site
would continue to contribute to the exceedance of the capacity of the downstream stormdrain systems.
Although the No Project Alternative would have no hydrology and water quality impacts compared to
existing conditions, this alternative would have greater hydrology and water quality impacts than the
proposed project because it would not include implementation of BMPs, drainage infrastructure, or
detention systems. The No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the Specific Plan land use
designation of Professional Office or the zoning designation of PBP-25A, the City's goals, or the Specific
Plan, which envisions buildout of the Specific Plan area with business park, professional office, and
support commercial, and retail/commercial uses. Therefore, impacts to land use would be greater than
the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the Project
Objectives. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain a paved lot that would
continue to be used for vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los Alamitos Race Course and
temporarily used throughout the year as a Christmas tree lot, truck staging area, and auxiliary truck and
trailer storage. The No Project Alternative would not include development of residential uses adjacent
to commercial and employment opportunities, would not facilitate the generation of additional revenue
to the City through the sale of the land and increased sales and property tax, and would not expand and
improve the City's housing supply. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with
any of the project objectives.
Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic,
social, technical, or other considerations make the No Project Alternative identified in the Final EIR
infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As described in this section and in Section 5.5 of the Final EIR, the No
Project Alternative would reduce all of the project's impacts that are less than significant or less than
significant with mitigation; however, as discussed above, and in Section 5.5 of the Final EIR, the No
Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project. The No Project Alternative
would fail to meet any of the project objectives. Additionally, the No Project Alterative would be
inconsistent with the goals and policies or existing land use designation of the Specific Plan governing
the site. This alternative would be inconsistent with most of the Project Objectives and would overall
not provide the same benefits as the proposed project. As a result, the No Project Alternative is Tess
desirable to the City than the proposed project and is considered to be infeasible.
2. Reduced Project Alternative
Description: The Reduced Project Alternative includes a mixed-use development on the project site with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with a
reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. The Reduced
Project Alternative includes construction of six retail buildings accommodating 41,600 sf of retail and
restaurant uses. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative includes development of 80 residential
units at a density of 6.02 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on the 13.29 -acre project site. The residential
units would include a combination of two-story condominium buildings arranged around motor courts
65
and three-story row townhomes. Because of the reduced residential uses, the above -grade parking
structure would not be required to serve the residents on the project site. The Reduced Project
Alternative includes the same size hotel (120 rooms with approximately 96,800 sf) as the proposed
project.
Environmental Effects: The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a less
intense residential intensity and additional retail space as compared to the proposed project. Similar to
the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in similar impacts to those of the
proposed project with regard to biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and
water quality, and land use and planning. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in less significant
impacts than those of the proposed project with regard to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources
energy, geology and soils, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation,
tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Additionally, although this alternative would
generate less total GHG emissions than the proposed project, it would generate a greater amount of
GHG emissions per capita than the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would
result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the generation of GHG emissions. No feasible
mitigation measures exist that would substantially lessen or reduce GHG emissions to levels that are Tess
than significant. A majority of the GHG emissions would be generated by the mobile sources (traffic).
Neither the project Applicant/Developer nor the City can substantively or materially affect reductions in
project mobile -source emissions beyond the regulatory requirements and project design features that
would be included in the Reduced Project Alternative. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of
GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site
with a mixed-use development with the commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) and
residential uses. The Reduced Project Alternative would include residential uses adjacent to commercial
and employment opportunities, would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the City
through the sale of the land and increased sales and property tax, and would expand and improve the
City's housing supply. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would be consistent with all of the
project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed project. This assumes, however, that a
developer would be willing and able to purchase the project site and feasibly develop it at the reduced
density. The project Applicant/Developer has analyzed the Reduced Project Alternative and has
informed the City that the Reduced Project Alternative would not be feasible to develop.
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social,
technical, or other considerations make the Reduced Project Alternative, which is identified in the Final
EIR as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As described in this section and in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR, the
Reduced Project Alternative would reduce many of the project's impacts that are less than significant or
less than significant with mitigation, and meets the Project Objectives. As such, the Reduced Project
Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, as discussed above, and in Section 5.5
of the Draft EIR, the Reduced Project Alternative is less desirable than the project because it would
require that a developer be willing and able to purchase the project site and feasibly develop it at the
reduced density.
Per PRC § 21081, subd. (a); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15092(c), "With respect to a project which includes
housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a
mitigation measure, if it is determined that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure
available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation." Additionally, the Reduced Project
Alternative does not eliminate the significant and unavoidable GHG impact. As a result, the Reduced
Project Alternative is less desirable to the City than the proposed project. The Reduced Project
Alternative does not provide a new workforce housing alternative for working professionals within the
City of Cypress due to the lack of new construction within the City over the last decade. Instead, it
would produce for -sale homes rather than apartments. Further, the Reduced Project Alternative does
not provide the density of housing needed to support the quality and type of commercial uses to create
a vibrant mixed-use project. The project Applicant/Developer has also concluded that it would not be
feasible to construct and market the units.
3. Commercial/Retail Alternative
Description: The Commercial/Retail Alternative includes development of 122,556 sf of major retail
space, 21,000 sf of other retail/quick-serve restaurant space, and 9,353 sf of sit-down restaurant space
on the project site. The Commercial/Retail Alternative includes construction of one building with four
major retail tenants, one freestanding restaurant pad, and three retail/restaurant buildings. The
66
Commercial/Retail Alternative also includes construction of a surface parking lot with 717 parking stalls.
The project site was entitled until recently for development of the Commercial/Retail Alternative, which
was environmentally cleared in the 2008 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that was
prepared for the project site. However, these entitlements have since expired.
Environmental Effects: The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with major
retail tenants, a freestanding restaurant pad, and a surface parking lot in place of the residential and
hotel components of the proposed project. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would change the
existing use on the site, but would not require a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change. The
Commercial/Retail Alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed project with regard to
biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and land use and
planning. This alternative would have less significant impacts than the proposed project with regard to
aesthetics, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, population and housing, public services,
recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. However, the Commercial/Retail
Alternative would have greater impacts than the proposed project with regard to air quality, noise, and
transportation. Additionally, though this alternative would generate Tess total GHG emissions than the
proposed project, it would generate a greater amount of GHG emissions per capita than the proposed
project. Therefore, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact related to the generation of GHG emissions. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would
substantially lessen or reduce GHG emissions to levels that are less than significant. A majority of the
GHG emissions would be generated by the mobile sources (traffic). Neither the project Applicant/
Developer nor the City can substantively or materially affect reductions in project mobile -source
emissions beyond the regulatory requirements and project design features that would be included in
the Commercial/Retail Alternative. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site
with retail and restaurant uses. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would not include residential or hotel
uses. Therefore, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not be consistent with the following project
objectives:
Objective 1: Provide uses that meet the City's General Plan balanced development goals and
objective to locate higher density housing adjacent to commercial and employment
opportunities to encourage pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for
commercial uses (General Plan Land Use Element LU -1.4).
Objective 2: Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific Plan, which would promote a commercial environment that
balances quality development with economic growth while building in flexibility to
respond to the market demands (Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan,
Objectives 1.2 and 1.3).
Objective 4: Meet the demand for new hotel rooms in the Cypress Business Center to serve the local
business community.
Objective 6: Provide a new community gathering place for Cypress residents and workers, including a
public dog park and a landscaped plaza with outdoor dining areas.
Objective 8: Expand the variety of housing stock in the City, which would help meet the existing and
future housing needs of all Cypress residents, by providing high density rental units
(General Plan Housing Element HOU-3.5).
Objective 9: Expand and improve the City's housing supply by developing high-quality housing in the
City to alleviate the housing crisis and help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs
Assessment allocations (General Plan Housing Element HOU-4).
If the City were able to find a buyer/developer for the project site with this alternative, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the City through
the sale of the land and increased sales and property tax from the new commercial/retail uses on the
project site. However, the City's past experience in marketing the project site suggests that it would be
difficult to sell the site for this purpose. The new commercial/retail uses would also create employment
opportunities within the City. In addition, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would include drainage
infrastructure and a detention system that would greatly reduce the amount of flows that would reach
the downstream stormdrain system compared to the existing condition. Therefore, if economically
feasible, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would be consistent with the following project objectives:
Objective 3: Support the retention of local employers and increase the fiscal benefits to the City by
attracting new retail, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment businesses that can better
67
serve the local population and employment and would generate additional revenue to
the City through increased sales, property, and transient occupancy taxes (General Plan
Land Use Element LU -17.1).
Objective 5: Provide new drainage improvements on the project site, which would reduce the risk of
downstream flooding hazards.
Objective 7: Allow the City to divest itself of real estate conveyed to it by the Cypress
Redevelopment Agency in March 2011 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
between the City of Cypress, the Successor Agency to the Cypress Redevelopment
Agency, the State Department of Finance and the State Controller's Office, which would
facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the City by selling the land to a private
owner, who would return the land to the property tax rolls and develop it with new
revenue -generating uses
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social,
technical, or other considerations make the Commercial/Retail Alternative identified in the Final EIR
infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As described in this section and in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would reduce many of the project's impacts that are less than significant
or less than significant with mitigation; however, as discussed above, and in Section 5 of the Draft EIR,
the Commercial/Retail Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the project because it would not
achieve important project objectives and would have greater impacts than those of the proposed
project with regard to air quality, noise, transportation, and GHG emissions. As a result, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative is less desirable to the City than the proposed project. This alternative
also would not be feasible to construct given the amount of retail currently built within the City and
surrounding area. Further, given the changes in retail over the last 5 years, the tenants needed to
support a project of this size no longer exist or are already serving the local trade areas.
VI. GENERAL FINDINGS
1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement
in the planning and CEQA processes.
2. To the degree that any impacts described in the Final EIR are perceived to have a less than
significant effect on the environment or that such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on
the environment as discussed in the Final EIR, the City has responded to key environmental issues
and has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of
the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible.
3. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately
responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the Final EIR. Any significant effects
described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the standard conditions and
mitigation measures described in the Final EIR.
4. The analysis of the environmental effects and mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR
represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
68
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJECT
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Cypress (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
for preparation, review, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
proposed Cypress City Center Project (project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for
determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, which of those impacts
are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or
minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. To the extent impacts cannot be reduced
to a level of less than significant, CEQA then requires the City to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether to
approve the proposed project. In making this determination, the City is guided by State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows:
• CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
• When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
• If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall
be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
Similarly, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds
that 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 an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable
effects, the public agency must find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced
the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the
proposed project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts.
The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed project and, for the reasons discussed in
the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, determined that the Reduced Project Alternative
meets the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed project. As such, the
Reduced Project Alternative was determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
However, the Reduced Project Alternative assumes that a developer would be willing and able to
purchase the project site and feasibly develop it at the reduced density. Additionally, the Reduced
Project Alternative would still have significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. As a result, the Reduced Project Alternative is less desirable to the City than
the proposed project.
The Cypress City Council, acting as decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and having reviewed
the Final EIR for the proposed project, reviewed all written materials within the City's public record,
and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding
Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant unavoidable
environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the project.
69
B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Although most of the potentially significant project impacts have been substantially avoided or
mitigated, as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, impacts remain for which
complete mitigation is not feasible. The significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are
described below and are also addressed in the Findings.
The Final EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project:
1. Global Climate Change (Greenhouse Gases)
The project has been designed in compliance with adopted regulations aimed at reducing GHG
emissions. Specifically, the project will meet the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
(California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24) and the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen). Although compliance with CCR Title 24 and CALGreen will help to reduce the project's
GHG emissions, the overall emissions attributable to the construction and operations of the
proposed project of 7,208 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr) are
expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds of
3,000 MT CO2e/yr. The proposed project's GHG emissions per service population of 7.9 MT CO2e
per service population per year (CO2e/SP/yr) would also exceed the SCAQMD's threshold of 4.3 MT
CO2e/SP/yr for 2022. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable
project impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to GHG
emissions and conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations. The proposed
project includes mitigation measures that require the project's buildings to be designed and built to
be 10 percent more energy-efficient than 2019 Title 24 requirements or the current Title 24
requirements, whichever are more stringent, along with the implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program for on-site residents and workers to reduce vehicle miles
traveled. However, because the type and extent of measures that would be feasible to be
implemented for the retail component would be dependent on the individual tenants that occupy
the project, the total amount of reduction toward the GHG reduction analysis cannot be quantified
at this time. Furthermore, it may not be feasible for all projects to achieve the reduction targets. For
example, the ability of a business to affect both employee and patron vehicle miles traveled would
depend in part on the number of employees and patrons, where they live, and the availability of
regional programs such as transit buses. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of GHG
emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
C. PUBLIC BENEFITS
The City, in balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the
proposed Cypress City Center Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts identified above are considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations that
outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, each of which
standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the project, in accordance with PRC 21081(b) and
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
1. Meets Project Objectives
The proposed project will satisfy all of the following objectives:
• Provide uses that meet the City's General Plan balanced development goals and the objective to
locate higher density housing adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities to
encourage pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for commercial uses (General Plan
Land Use Element LU -1.4).
• Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific Plan, which would promote a commercial environment that
balances quality development with economic growth while building in flexibility to respond to
the market demands (Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan, Objectives 1.2 and
1.3).
• Support the retention of local employers and increase the fiscal benefits to the City by attracting
new retail, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment businesses that can better serve the local
population and employment and would generate additional revenue to the City through
increased sales, property, and transient occupancy taxes (General Plan Land Use Element LU -
17.1).
70
• Meet the demand for new hotel rooms in the Cypress Business Center to serve the local
business community.
• Provide new drainage improvements on the project site, which would reduce the risk of
downstream flooding hazards.
• Provide a new community gathering place for Cypress residents and workers, including a public
dog park and a landscaped plaza with outdoor dining areas.
• Allow the City to divest itself of real estate conveyed to it by the Cypress Redevelopment Agency
in March 2011 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement between the City of Cypress, the
Successor Agency to the Cypress Redevelopment Agency, the State Department of Finance, and
the State Controller's Office, which would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the
City by selling the land to a private owner, who would return the land to the property tax rolls
and develop it with new revenue -generating uses.
• Expand the variety of housing stock in the City, which would help meet the existing and future
housing needs of all Cypress residents, by providing high density rental units (General Plan
Housing Element HOU-3.5).
• Expand and improve the City's housing supply by developing high-quality housing in the City to
alleviate the housing crisis and help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) allocations (General Plan Housing Element HOU-4).
2. Generates City Tax Revenues
According to the Cypress City Center Mixed -Use Project Net Fiscal Impact and Economic Benefit
Analysis (Kosmont 2020), the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately $1,234,000
in new annual tax revenues for the City, supporting net new tax revenues of approximately
$964,000 annually, after incremental City project -related expenses. Such revenue may be spent by
the City to improve vital services and public amenities including police and fire protection, parks,
roads, public infrastructure, and other municipal services.
3. Housing
Amid the State's dire housing crisis, the State Legislature has repeatedly found the lack of housing to
be a matter of statewide concern. Accordingly, the Draft Allocation for the 6th Cycle RHNA (for
planning period 2021-2029) estimates a need for approximately 3,967 housing units within the City
of Cypress. Of these, 1,518 units should be available for households with an above -moderate
income level. The project provides high quality apartment units to the professional workforce within
the City. The project's proposal of 251 market rate apartment units not only contributes to the City's
goal of increasing its available housing stock to above -moderate income households, it also provides
new apartments to address the demand for a housing type within the City in which significant
apartment communities have not been constructed in over a decade. Further, the current housing
stock in the City of Cypress consists mainly of for -sale product, limiting opportunities for young
professionals and the local workforce that are unable to purchase a home.
4. Economic Activity/Job Creation
The proposed project would help boost the area economy by supporting an estimated 792
construction -related jobs (Kosmont 2020). The total construction output from the proposed project,
which includes direct, indirect, and induced spending associated with project construction, is
anticipated to be approximately $204,300,000 (Kosmont 2020). In addition, the completed proposed
project would inject approximately $13,400,000 in new permanent job wages into the area
economy (Kosmont 2020).
Development of the proposed project would activate an underutilized property and result in a new
source of economic vibrancy by promoting an increase in the supply of housing, continued growth of
existing businesses, and expansion of retail and commercial development along a major commercial
corridor (Katella Avenue) in the City. The proposed project is anticipated to directly generate on an
annual basis approximately $8,700,000 in new wages, $4,700,000 in new wages through economic
multiplier effects, and conservatively, more than $21,000,000 in new retail sales activity (Kosmont
2020).
71
D. CONCLUSION
On balance, the City of Cypress finds that there are specific considerations associated with the
proposed project that serve to override and outweigh the project's significant environmental
impacts and the existence of an environmentally superior alternative that meets some of the project
objectives. The Cypress City Council further finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in
the Final EIR have been and will be implemented with the project. Therefore, any significant
unavoidable effects remaining after implementation of identified mitigation measures, and the
City's decision not to adopt the environmentally superior project alternative, are acceptable due to
the above -stated specific economic, social, and other considerations, based upon the facts set forth
above, in the Final EIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this project.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -2:
All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material shall
comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special
attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended,
regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public
streets and roads.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -1:
SCAQMD Rule 403. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or
excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall
be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventative
measures by using the following procedures, in compliance
with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rule 403 during construction.
• All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently
watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering
shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage,
preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the
day.
• All material transported on-site or off-site shall be either
sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or
excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
• These control techniques shall be indicated in project
specifications. Compliance with this measure shall be subject
to periodic site inspections by the City of Cypress (City).
• Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the
project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible.
4.2: Air Quality
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
During
construction
ai 0- 0
c
_. r.
< c 3
E oo
vw 3 as
VD 0
c
a
Monitoring
Milestone
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
0 r(o coo 0 -.=-a
00 moo, < 3 r, a 10
m P. c 0 ,c w
m
0 'Y ,1 <
1 O (p
N 0
rii5
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
a
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
rn5
-u�
�• z
z
G) O
-0z
00
G) 73
�z
D
z
0
72
m
x
w
n
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -5:
The project shall meet the Statewide 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, formally known as Title 24, Part 6.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -4:
The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -3:
Prior to approval of the project plans and specifications, the
City of Cypress Director of Community Development, or
designee, shall confirm that the construction bid packages
specify:
• Contractors shall use high -pressure -low-volume paint
applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50
percent;
• Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a volatile
organic compound content lower than required under
SCAQMD Rule 1113; and
• To the extent feasible, construction/building materials shall
be composed of pre -painted materials.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
During
construction
During
construction and
operation
o-
-4,,
-13o
o.
(G 0
-8-a
�o
oCU
Monitoring
Milestone
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
LD (0 (0 v Z 0
oo' a < 3 Iv 0- -o
m 3 -°a c o, d
m
o
v m
71> o
H M
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
5
if
W
41
C
1
F.
d
.r
Date
Remarks
Ion of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
73
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1:
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State PRC
Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the
find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the County Coroner would notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which would
determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the
4.4: Cultural Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO -1: Nesting Bird Survey
and Avoidance
If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are
planned to occur within the active nesting bird season
(February 1 through August 31), the City of Cypress (or
designee), shall confirm that the Applicant/Developer has
retained a qualified biologist who shall conduct a
preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior
to the start of such activities. The nesting bird survey shall
include the work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500
feet, as feasible) that could potentially be affected by project -
related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human
activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the
qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone
around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be
determined by the qualified biologist based on species,
location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project
activities shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest
is deemed no longer active, as determined by the qualified
biologist.
4.3: Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
DJ
o c
0
(IQ
v, c
H rt,
O
°;° s
o o
w v 3 CD
o
m co a
oo en -G
(D ,n
3
(D
7
rr
Monitoring
Milestone
co 'O C O
< 'O 0. N
j V, n
(D rt O 'y
O
7
(D — (D 0 0 'O
N-.< 3 n v
r,O2z303-r)`* 7 O = `<'O
N j
r+
O—.-
, N G",O
D G <
13 N
(o O
N -0
N (D
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
O1
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
74
Mitigation Measure CUL -1 :
Archaeological Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained
by the Applicant/Developer to provide cultural resources
awareness training to construction personnel. The qualified
professional archaeologist shall also be retained by the
Applicant/Developer on an on-call basis. This training shall be in
the form of a presentation and handout describing the types of
possible archaeological deposits that may be encountered
during construction activities; and the procedures that shall be
used in the event of inadvertent discoveries of cultural
resources during construction. In the event that construction
personnel encounter any archaeological deposits during
construction activities, the retained qualified professional
archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. If any such
resources are discovered, contractors shall stop work in the
immediate area of the find and contact the retained
archaeologist to assess the nature of the find and determine if
future studies and/or monitoring is appropriate. Upon
completion of any monitoring activities, the archaeologist shall
prepare a report to document the methods and results of
monitoring activities. This report shall be submitted to the
permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery.
The MLD shall complete the inspection and make
recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours
of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations
may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native American
burials, preservation of Native American human remains and
associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American
human remains and associated items to the descendants for
treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
n 0 v",
R y, O' Q. N cu c O-,
m c j ao ^ 0
D
O 00 N 0 N
O g N
rP
Monitoring
Milestone
fD fDD fro O '< •C O
ORI N < 3 'D (D �.
a p 3 I,, z 00 d
(D N v)f1 7
m 3 g 0 0 r.
:• p m n,. fp
o o c m
0 fft p
o'm
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
5
ri.
d
u
1
n
d
'r
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
75
o mo
3 O 3
S N .r
CD r",(p v
m 2 S Ea -
rt,
• 3
(79
((DD 3 01
n
S
3.
CU El
c
((D 0
N N
= 0
00 d
3 3
CD
CD
c.rC 3 3-
C (p m
CL
o m
�-•v
m
O r, F.
O 0 cu
3 3
N 3 ,••'
0_
CD CD m
Q<
m
Q 0
m
0,
N
waw
suoi;epuawwoDaa
00
01
0
3
m
CU
N
(mD
m11
0
<(0 0 m ^ ,, 0 * 0)
fD S. < n c co �' N fD
3 . O
c m v ca a r+ ro3 et, CD DT
C 0_ O yt O to yt W
Fc.
0N 00 (D 0 ,^M ,-1.aSi C
.y S 3 N O- 3
n C S t_, • o m t^ '0 m m 00
n c) m K i-" 0 m m n
N 0
.-1 d0 N m .nr O. 00 to
• R 3 Z 3 (3D n
3- .+ t„ m 0 0_ O
m
000 0
s to
F. 3 3 n +n = 3 y
D p_ 0, (D C m m n Cu 01
in CD u
N 00 3030 n 0
d N
in
3 3-, 0- d 3 3 fD
M O y (0 yr
3
.m3, 3 da
ffDD (.py 3 3 °-' n 3•
O_ o C •7 N 07 r, 3" N
r' -• M C E 01
S 3 fl_ 0 9, a ^I fSD 0.
CU
n o 002 -a00 L0 a
.M O, N3 O 0,
0 3' 3 N m 0. 3 �. D
-' m N N0_ m 0_
ai
w
m
00
m
0
30
d'
3
(0
m
01
N
c
m
m
0
-0 0
3°
0.
• 3
OA
apuenss! Loud
0_ CO D 0 >
vm, C• o m av
00 0- v O f7 d
0o 30 N <
Tfp
C -< <
m m
0 n N c
(0
INm D' v, 0 CO ,7,* r,
C C 'Y mc N 01
Imn 0) E. 0 N C
E_ a a m o- 0o a m c
3 D,
3 3 3 0, 3 3 n
rt 00 0� 00 a n 00 (p
w c N N O 0 0 n
O C s N O
0, 0) -1 < 0 0 -.
N = 3 N 'f OA
ro N _ P1 C N m S Q -D (0
vi O `< m (D 0m0
0 a S n=. SDA 3 01
3 d mro
N � D N m. m N.D -n
C m raF M 0 m N N S N
Mc_ D S m c, n n
a r m 3 in n co t7 xi: xi
o o o ° 0 n 3 o.
tai, 3 m m O_ m 00 E
•
-moi n '..F 2 3 � m
v
No
74.. m 3 s o ma 73
3 0 l m 1... 3 0q .t N
F. n F+ 0) < .Y v
L! N O_ m < •O
N • -
Sn O0� m 0 nO
.f S (0 3 S .t
S m 3. m (', fm'f m 3'
M o, 3 < ., m
(0
00
0
0
3
3 3
(0
m3
0,
N
c
m
v
• n
0-0
n.
W F
0 = 0 .4
0_ -4, -
m
m
ro N
m N m
A
N
m
3
0
C
3
CD
3
.t
O,
0
0,
a
O
3
0)
0
3
CD
3
0
1J
00
01
0
3
01m
N
C
00
c
0,
0
0
3
01•
3
A
01m
N
C
m
3 3
F 3
0 °
3 •
m 00
3
fT
01
N
fD
m
3
01
N
aDueuldwoD;o uoi;e3i;!Jan
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
76
SN
S O oo
(D n n 3 0-
Ft; .0 o 0 a 0-
S- =' 3 a* co ai
a m 7 p v
a 0_ O_ rt N Cu8-.
-O p_ 7 rt O
�.
CID
�' nO O C 0
_ " rt n o
rt 3 S S 7=
0 .p-. 3 7 N*
XN .1'. = N rpt
,7-. 7 N
.p-.• p vv, 7 7
7 3 S r- Q
fn 7 p N f*D
p ma 0 3 v
~ ama D~i
Ill pt
Ora m Cra 0 0
(D rt O p 3
0cu 0 O OD OFo rt
m a mO m --p
D, C OD y m
00.. (nD 0. M -.'
N
'p S
O mm. o- to
m r. m
0 '• m
m -s
d.
-p C O
n m
m •-,
0_ rmr m
p, r7.
m
S n
7 V -
�' p r7.
m (D S
O. v O
�' S rC•.
C a,
pn
m nO
O 7
N
fD -
rt '
< (SD
t`
N �. nSi N �. 3 O S °� 7 7 O�
O m S* 0 0 0 m< 7 °' 0 3 r) 0-
3 3 p m �, -1< 3 u, m a m < m m CL
p 3 m 7 m 0 rpt a, p N 0. 3 a. fl-
rnt O S m 7 7 m _3 O 7 Opo m y
G ^% 0
O. 04 :y .'"� O E. 2,3 o- (�
r7p•. r�•' N N 0" T 7 rm•. C O "0 3 OD m
m O� apo N O— n i= 3 a S m' ci
',, fro 0_ W 3 S .< S N D 0 -
O. OA n �,' r 0' •d• rte•. a
- S m O ,,.' V7 !D p C
fro S S m N V' ' 2. 36 7 n S m 0 "' m N
N a, O O v+ n OA > rm•. 7 70 n 'n''.
DDcr
-I O S N d 3< N rpt C 7
ry 7 co 3 m goov 3
y, ..1;‹D V• N 'O
-+ 0 0 0 0 amt N O O c N O D 0
(SD 1--� r•. r' cu rpt 7 rSD N 'A O" S O 7
3 0 m 0 3 m O n < m OD N 0cc. N
3 X O 7. p ca -0v �' < 'n p
p n n m Cr p m,
3• X< �' 3 Q 0 0 0 p y m �D O_
fro l~!1 ,pr• C 3 N m y 3., a r7r -,
-ti Lfir 7 0' n 7 S m vi
- 0) d 3, mO o O d m o o OD d
3 7 S O v, oo C 7_ S r•. D) C 7 a,
.p< N N .'7^ ,'-I' 0. 74. Q p . a (SD d a a <
3 n Ts ' (0 <
eu
N m m v
D 7
O? N ((D N coN
• ro v, p n
-' m
W -0 S 0 3r)
o- N (i n "'.
7 d-0 ,-,
O p m
, rt M `� p
n S v. n C
O) m a p 0,
O rp•.• 7 p N
- v 3 ""
,0. pn.. °
OO O •O Z N
0 70 O' - O
_' Q ai m
n m 0 m rN.
c (l O� N
0. r rt m
c K ft, S rmt
-h .O _• 7
LT n p 0-
ro•. •D O rpm.
7 m v, C m
0� " 0. CDD w
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
5
Fp:
Fa
N
m
r►
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
77
78
0.. n o- .f• o m n ,Y G..P -a m
vm, ,C fD (Dusvmi nSi Q 7
n Y r. O Y— O
m 0_ '< =00—m S .n, O S•< fro
SD n c v+ n 7 m fD m m
-0 m. CO n r, d
fD m e OJ O/ 7 C m ON 7
0 0 .a 7 'O o n 7 O C' -, <
.-. 00 CI DJ v, O in m d m
C 3
�^ ,n-. rD Q m •N v< 7 ao u,
- m o; O n" f D a f7D v
o° O, Dl m 7 Q m=
n v CD c-DJ
7 m �i Kao m m v 4.n
p a » C S cu 0 7 O p
3- m fD 3 3 S n 0 m
o 5 m 3 fp 7 -p
N* m v, p N v, oo 3 0_ ,Y 0
7 O n m _" ,. 13 y 13 S 7
7• n a0 m n 7 Q m c
n E 7 j 7,7 O m 7 p. A.
s m 0 a c o0
7 v7i O 7 w C n (SD 0.0-h K
a0 C
„,,,, 7 ,-. a0 0- ” 0' `* '0 a0 0- m
O m c o, �• lc S 7 0 m 7 q
0 r. 0_ d 0 N O a0
M 0, 3 5 ,P m v, N p fD
- g 7 ao 0o Cr o.) 0- = < rn.
(7. 0- S Da N O = 7 f -D 0
0, fD v 0_ a ,n-. M O O/ •.<' O�
op O ,-. DJ n n ,-, r, r. r, s fD n >
o, N --p Oi -0 0 (DD N N d N a S 0 Q
0 c v 7 - c. O) G
a0 Q 7 p -0 3 m C,, v fD v, O_0 m n r O
n n fD (Z Er" 3 ,nY, v, ,-. 0 R. m fD y
,-. -o o —
<* O" c ,7-. 7 O. 7 3 '� CO 3 m Q.
GI . O 7 K
H v, Oy c O� = d 00 n N ,�
C m a0 00 r? v 0< D, OJ y m m
et,. _a 7
.nom 7 Q Q 0' 00 O O 7 a0 ,-. G'1 c O=
a. on, 7 m es m m w co• co K 0 m^ 0°
rND O a0 r, .< '0 7 0 -+ 3 m 3 ,-. CA
n W Q. ,-. ,-r
c< p fD o m 7 7' s m a
(D p• C C A n •p 'c6 =( m m 0 F,. . O
m g c w v 3 n m 7 v a of -I n o7i
a y p 'a m 3; m O. 0 0 7' S
'D "< 7 7 Pi vm+ a n C 3 m m m o m 7
O 7S' r-. v, a1 v, _, ,.-. m 'n+ ,n-. Q 7 d N
V'
m 0) Dlcr T o m .7. ti. ,-r C '0 •
O � C O0- ,W-. 00. n N-0 p O C f�D 7 �' 7 7
3 m tSD v N o O r. 0<i
3 n 7" r.. - 7 ao' fp 7 r. O_ O p l c
7 ..
3 n fp f9 vt m ,+
m 'd '74m C. m o fp o0 O m Cu CA ^. m f�D N 'Y p
n O_ O Q N n C n p 0_ a •0 7
m v, m m p_ p n O u, O m
3 v 7 3 0o N c 7 (D 7 1 �< N ~) S
7 OJ j o, 0 Sao OO 3 C !D S 7 cuCr
.* r, _. N O: ,+ ,-. d = y �, 7 = = d
•
O-, N °. 04 fSD fSD O. O • • ,7-r OI Q 0 d Q ffDD
A
n
O
a n
m fD
N
O_ ,,,
7 Q
cu
N vt
m
cr
3 m
vci
c a
3 0
p
°—'
�.
O O
0
us 0.
= o
r,
A-
c DJ
0_
to
N
0
7
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
6
X.
N
Verificat
v
Dr
m
Remarks
ion of Compliance
n -° fo m i
Mitigation Measure GHG-2:
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The
Applicant/Developer shall develop a TDM Program for on-site
residents and workers with the goal of reducing project -related
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The TDM strategies shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
L Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the
project's buildings, the Applicant/Developer shall provide
evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of the City of
Cypress Community Development Department, or
designee, that a bicycle rack or a secured bicycle storage
area shall be installed within 50 feet of each proposed
building.
i. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
apartment building, the Apartment Building Manager shall
Mitigation Measure GHG-1:
Energy Conservation. Prior to the issuance of building permits,
the Applicant/Developer shall provide evidence to the
satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director of Community
Development Department, or designee, that the project's retail
commercial buildings, multi -family residential uses, hotel, and
movie theater shall be designed and built to be 10 percent
more energy-efficient than 2019 Title 24 requirements or the
current Title 24 requirement, whichever is more stringent.
4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
descriptions, and photographs as determined appropriate by
the paleontologist. The final monitoring report shall be
submitted to the City of Cypress Director of Community
Development Department or designee for review and approval.
A copy of this final report shall also accompany the fossil
material to the museum repository.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
n n
Cr Vi 0' v, v
C .g f'I (D c -1,C In
C- " 0 C ;; CU -, Q QI -
D co K a' ri n o 3 n O
, n n QI (o co ,-,.
NSm-
N -.< � oi. N !�D o� (D
—
0 "'°1 3
K N
(D
Cr in
C In
Q QI -�
n 0
ao m
rf
((DD (D
3
H
S
Monitoring
Milestone
a0
N. 0
`1.
(D 0
(D o
Dr
< -0
O H
H
O
o >
d --0
S (" I
(D Or
n\
-000
(D
o -Dr r CD >
< 7 -0 D --0
7 O 3 N S n
(D C 1n (D CD
m 2 r,
o m
-00
-h m
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
3
r1.
of
N
Verificat
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
80
°;2F-07/rgCD7E�70 —,- gC)�95
m _= i m m m 2 E E§ \IgE O. 7 ° 7. - E 2
a ; 7 J =,..,.
o; v 3-o m_ I]\ k a t{
£ % 3 2 E ®7 $ 3) § Cl. -'
fp ° = Z c ,
I$ v. n E<° fp 7 ± 7 0 4 n, - fD
E�RI,a,-°m3j z,A�E°�- �l
• n $ o , , , o , g = , / e 2 0
}§E «k s2 +m . r k $R
o q o $ §/ d} + ° n c; 2 ®m m
er n/ i =k J® £) 7 g®
\ q§ k K 0 \}\ 0 a (0(a E a §\+ c\ c
o g = & m _ _ - m E # o % ;
` E Ni- 7' 3 § o @ o= G n a_§%= o
� )fD �// /\/)/�)2§$i/kk\§
/¥jg`� sic=5«-� �� r+
< m, oCIJ■ c Q-; E 7 k F/\ a
G i E o 0 7 }/ $ 7 °
=cE-� a3, #a»&` �'3#_
ƒ/ a J z \_ ] J a j eƒ R k I �) o Z
'§ a= i n@ 2° Cl.o
J j.#\) §� k a\ E f� 2 J - a
_/ ] = = � E � � o \ � < (0 (0
/ k f 2 § o / \ � G . 2) � (0 rl x 4- 2
7g- --=E,.&MaE _
m # . - Q ` / ° a - ,
#aS22 (0M < \)]/ �f��\§
JO Jopaaia aye o�
E
trwE
01
f0
73
3
Verification of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
81
82
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1:
Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of
construction activities, the Applicant/Developer shall obtain
coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities
(Construction General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order
No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-
DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, or any other subsequent
permit. This shall include submission of Permit Registration
Documents (PRDs), including permit application fees, a Notice
of Intent (NO1), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification
statement, and any other compliance -related documents
required by the permit, to the State Water Resources Control
Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report
Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not
commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Number
(WDID) is obtained for the project from the SMARTS and
provided to the Director of the City of Cypress Community
Development Department, or designee, to demonstrate that
coverage under the Construction General Permit has been
obtained. Project construction shall comply with all applicable
requirements specified in the Construction General Permit,
4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1:
Federal Aviation Regulation Title 14 Part 77. The
Applicant/Developer shall notify the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) of any proposed structure(s) that would
penetrate the 100 to 1 imaginary surface that surrounds the
runway at Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos at least 45
days prior to beginning construction.
4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
M�Gf
CI
G 3 a
/ § § rt
; ;
/§
45 days prior to
beginning
construction
Monitoring
Milestone
a-oonD >
_E\.D<3
Oil a,CD
3
- } - d -, 2 ,
fp 3 - o o ƒ
,(D-<
o . ] \
7]
Applicant/Developer
and Federal
Aviation
Administration
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
E
M.:
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
83
including, but not limited to, preparation of a SWPPP and
implementation of construction site best management
practices (BMPs) to address all construction -related activities,
equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact
water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for the
project. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that
may affect the quality of stormwater and shall include BMPs
(e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good
Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in stormwater
runoff. Construction Site BMPs shall also conform to the
requirements specified in the latest edition of the Orange
County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff Guidance
Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers to
control and minimize the impacts of construction and
construction -related activities, materials, and pollutants on the
watershed. Upon completion of construction activities and
stabilization of the project site, a Notice of Termination shall be
submitted via SMARTS.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
3
0xi:1
N
Verificat
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
84
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1:
The construction contractor shall limit all construction -related
activities to between the hours 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on
weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted
outside of these hours or on Sundays or a federal holiday.
4.11: Noise
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -3:
Best Management Practices. The Applicant/Developer shall
implement the BMPs identified in Section IV of the Water
Quality Management Plan and the drainage improvements
identified in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study. In addition,
the Property Management Association shall be the responsible
party for inspection and maintenance of the BMPS as identified
in Section V of the Preliminary Water Quality Management
Plan.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -2:
Groundwater Dewatering Permit. If groundwater dewatering is
required during excavation activities, the Applicant/Developer
shall obtain coverage under the General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an
Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Order No.
R8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001) (De Minimis Permit).
This shall include submission of a Notice of Intent (NO1) for
coverage under the permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 45 days prior to the
start of dewatering. Groundwater dewatering activities shall
comply with all applicable provisions in the permit, including
water sampling, analysis, treatment (if required), and reporting
of dewatering -related discharges. Upon completion of
groundwater dewatering activities, a Notice of Termination
shall be submitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
During
construction
o ^ v
0c
m N •
O ci
K
0
d
0
°; ° o v
R o o
N CD o
N -I 7
m
3
0 rD
Monitoring
Milestone
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
o 'o
o 7
ay v cti
O
7 ffDD f0
��
r<D
o
fD'N"
rD ffDD IDD O M V
�.V < 3 m CL -0
co cr ro n
A o 3 O r* v
fD C 3
CD 7
7 N .L 2, -o+,
a)
o <
-0 rD
m o
m
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
of
Verificati
Date
Remarks
on of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
85
86
Mitigation Measure NO1-1:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the construction
contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of
Cypress Director of Community Development, or designee, the
following:
• Construction contracts shall specify that all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers and other State required
noise attenuation devices.
• Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off
idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers
around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing
the distance between construction equipment staging areas
and occupied residential areas, and use of electric air
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-3:
Trash collection and compacting shall be limited to between
the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday
in commercial zoning districts and between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday in commercial
zoning districts that are within 200 feet of residential zoning
districts, consistent with Section 3.10.070(C) of the City of
Cypress Municipal Code.
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-2:
Mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units in
residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts, shall be
enclosed within a structure or completely screened from view
from surrounding properties by the use of a fence or wall
consistent with Section 3.11.100(b) of the City of Cypress
Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
too o V
QJ o
ul0c70 0
CU v,
OA 7
n
(D
v
00
0
r*.
0
7
o
z
00
0
D
CU
r
O!
7
Monitoring
Milestone
o-oonga a
(D m co O=, 7 -c
amn�dm
CU= n
zo
,
7 N �• �, ri-
O M. '< <
ET
CD
o-oonva+ a
0 (D m O=, 7 v
- o
Oo ci nm3-0c
m3�c0 a
3 N t O O
O K `<
(3 s
CD
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
designee
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
N
M
II
N
Verificat
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
D. (0 W
3
m
N 7
M N
N
(D 13O
-a O
nF.
D, fD
o D
(D
D.
0
m
fD o
N N
V1 v,
c
n S 0,
O 7
3 — n
U (0
c0
O —
<, 0)
.< ((00
0-0 -
a, g •
O O
v oma'
3 '*
S
K „0",
O O v
(0 ' D.
3 z O
fT 0
c.
0.
7 N
ra
00
(0
n 0 mn v 0
N r. n. DSj O C fD
Dei S — -a G_. D)
3 n
m 5 (- (D !rDd..
N
< N O 7
O 0 ••O
G (0 ^ 0 7 •
N
n - 9,1
(Do_ n E. •
v, 'G G_. 3 a
o OO 00 0.
3 ..D D)
3 -c _ n 0-
C 3 (D 3.
o
N
D 3 O S s�
< 7' fD 3
fD
Z.
Q1 fD D fD
O Z D, -0 7i
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1:
aDuenss! of JoIJd
(-1 D o
3 (0 0- -a
n
c o < a)
7
o o
rD
M
v, O
(D0
ffDD ((00 ((00 O 0 7 'd
ao d m 3 c`D' n �.
N a -Op C O ,� a
r, rD
o ,-* < G
13 m
(0
H -13
N (D
1
w
c
C
A
N
n O n 0 v E
O7 •G co a
'� 7 -0 < O 0
O" ri ft. 00
.-1. 5- tai, v O Cu
(D O v, D. (�D s 0
)Oi, ,•" (D f0 7
' rOi• n ? N
v, S j O- c N
IA
CU a O_ a C
—.z o rD n
n 7 0 0 0 Z
.a k o 3 — O
D) n (0 `* C N
n m (0 _ al
n
o O_ v, K
CL
no-G r.00
'; c 0 0
a, 'G n CD rr (D
-. p tai+ fG
'D (0 3
o v; o v, --
v7+ (1)v, 3 0 :^
S
WO S 7 n (D
al0 h .-1..„.-0
0, 0 O
3 n. H O O
n m
O- 0) (0 n
Nv, 3 u r'
w4n 000 sD
6., m ad
L0 O ,n0) D 7y
,-,. -,
.
iro
O 'o a rD N. c Co
3
rD c �^ fD 0 v v
O- :- v n v
0_ N 6• fD 0 0) 1n (0 0 n 3 0,
r' n rte. N .-1.0
�-. 0 v0, O' 7 ,7-. O
S 7 o(0 0 7 r' (0 n C 7 0)
fD 0_ D N N S n D+ O
rr = n
CD n ro o) 7 fD n O S v+
•O cu rnF (D rn. r. 7 (0 0, 7 fD
O 7 G n r. _1 • O r. r. 0 C 3
on rD m � is o) o (0 d m 0,
Dao fD d rV, d o 3 r. 0.
0�i DOi p v, �. H g CD 0 * O
P. r^. a °' ca s a Z ; m
13 7 S 7 fa O = O. O O
O �2 0) O j 3 n (D 7 y O
7 p.' — V1 V1 (D (D - LA VI
S 0 co (a c7 H C
fD n 0 O_ a O O: a S
c17
(D r7. 7 ' fD j
r. .G vl 13 -0 0, O- O O ,n-. (D
O 3 r IT a r+ OV C" a c y
S D
S 7 n n 0 3 0 °, "O O_
fD `, 3
n n vl
o D, o m n o c M m
0 7 N O 01 rnt S
O
q O" 7 D S O 0)
0) :* y, a fD 3 3 =
00
Cu0
7
fD
0,
N
c
e
00
c
0,
O
O
3
01
(n0
(0
fD
o,
c
A
'O 0
(0 "
3 c
0
c
a
7
00
amenssl o; Joud
(0 f(0 ((DD O -7cu 7 -D
frov.a < 3 n o
fD D P. c o ,< 2
fD 3 fD `G O
m
o �* 'G G
v m
(00
v,-0
V (D
1
01
01
r
rD
aDuelldwoD;o uol;e3l;!Jan
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
87
Mitigation Measure TCR -1:
Tribal Cultural Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Applicant/Developer shall retain a Gabrieleno
Native American Tribal representative to monitor ground -
disturbing construction activities associated with pad grading of
4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1:
Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to
issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall
provide proof of compliance with the applicable provisions of
Chapter 25 (Subdivisions), Article 6, Park and Recreational
Facilities, of the City of Cypress Municipal Code to the Director
of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or
designee.
4.14: Recreation
Mitigation Measure PS -1:
Secured Fire Protection Agreement. Prior to the issuance of
any building permits, the Applicant/ Developer shall enter into
a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the Orange County
Fire Authority (OCFA). This Agreement shall specify the
Applicant/Developer's pro -rata fair share funding of capital
improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection
facilities and equipment, and/or personnel. Said agreement
shall be reached as early as possible in the planning process,
preferably for each phase or land use sector of the project,
rather than on a parcel by parcel basis. The obligation must be
satisfied prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Department, or designee, that payment of school fees to the
Anaheim Union High School District has been made in
compliance with Section 65995 of the California Government
Code.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
0-h,.
�o
v, 0-
c N
07 o
n
!D
� ,.
�o
VW 0.o
c N
DA 7
n
!D
Monitoring
Milestone
Applicant/Developer
and/or construction
supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
o- o o n 0 0+ >
(D co co O - 7 V
'^. v< 3 m fl- D
al, of m n n'
- v c o .< =
co m 3- o o
o *< <
'O 0O
O
IIIm
mCD
O- 0 0 n n^ ?+ Cu >
O (D (D O `< O ' 7 -p
L. v < 3 v T m o_ -0
Cu m 3 N D y 0
m 3 -0a c VW r+ w a
f D 3 3 r7-,' D n o azo
o r' ^ o .< n <
�• 0 fD
7 0
o
Development
Department or
designee
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
5
d
N
Verificat
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
88
° n DN, 8 3 o n
Q•, N 7 O ,y .. r•r
n ri N e•i rt) ri Cr
,, ,n, O -, (p N
i N 3 S f1 N n
N
fm Cu r, O CD y C
p- O D= 7 C,
S d d '"O— m O_
S— �j S O:
77 • n 7• ,O—� C C
Q -, S \ fD n
°- 7 p, v o_ co
r,
N O Q O G C 00cu
n p fD r•' Dl
(D 7 M O r, r+ (D
,y 0 rNr N S K f1
pa C c o �,
N D_ S 7 ,Oi,
Cu
co .Ni \ O. v S fD
O_ Q N N O O-
(D C
_ 'O 7 H 3 ,0 p
�, P t_n. 7 Q 070
fD 0 p N F n
O
N N n S r, f0 H
�. O, fD ,�-' fD G r,
d= n 7 fp r, n n
(D d.. r, ° 0 re
O S r, 6 '•i O
7 (D 0 or 7
-' s Dom, o m 0 o fD ‘3, 3 a 01 m D,Y, 'O1" °. 7- rD D N — m
D, G a r, O r, (D (D .0 N v N 3 r, N ,..'
<. n — fD .p 7,, C 7 O_ — G fp G O C N O O = C -, D, rn, D,
O fD C n '� O f0 O; 0 n fD 0 -O n •f1 v _
N 00 fD N O c a. 7 rc_,• 7 C ry< C ct x• d O o N 7° '•*
7 N j 73 0 O- a N DN, •cr N ° n• -, (D Or c D, fD * — 7" 0 7
Q N N NO 3 un v G, d co co q-• S r•. Cu 3 OP
Y D, O fp
r+ n O _ i p, O_ 0 j (D O. 3 -s n
N c in �• y N N N r, rt. C ,7-Y r, < N CU ru d N-0= F r,
(D'6 °� K ,n, N N ,:.' D, fp ° N fD Q 0 -, 'd = 7 7 rN•t in C • (D
�. ,-,• n OO 7 On D, d (D - n 00 rr, tD D, (D r, 7
N rt, o 3 O_ n — ,� v+ iD 7 o r, 04 m r7, cu 7 = o p
0• °' 7 0- a, " ft. = i - (D N r, fD = d (D (DM p 7 ,�, N 7'
y ,=r crQ7 -0 (p n M c v, 7 Cu C O (D (D 0; OD < '* (D
D, 7 r, ° 7 N -i •D- rnr 7 '° p '_! ,y Cu fp
(D a fD (D D) 00 = r�i• fS '� rt ° O p N S G 070 n ° S S N
7Cu d O. fD y O D_ `* „7* 7 0 d c n D, fp p
j fGD n N "O. -7' , c 7 N in
n O.' r, n' rt
,�, �' v, n M 7 N Efo O S= d- O 0 7 C •p = n N
�p rE,D, (D Cr IV — d n (D
fl' C 0 O 7 N Cr 7° 3 (x•1 vN, fp N NX d 7 N O_ tOi, 0 in Q 0, —
o- N VO — N .• D, N ((A ''' ,-,.-1' n n fD — v, O 7 (D CT
c
N n 0 r, 7 7 G N d "° N c r, to r, c r7, d C
n r, y ,Oi, (n', O fGcm p °_ '�''. ? (7D .�•', C O_ N C f�nD (�D 0)ffi, 0,o
- O:
rD
N3 o N 7 3 M O_ O ° a -gyp Q N NO �•* m D, 00
O fl: 3 H j 0 'C - N r, 7 d P 7 -, (DD OO p, 7 (D 7 "O
D, f0 to D, C
7 7• N cm 7 co 7 qq (D O_ =". 5' rn, N S rn, O7 (1): n°cro 4
N O— D, O ,, O n 0 G c= N G fD '
r, or 7- C c S m ,•, °- r: 7 d o r01, 13 O
G 7 7 _. fp D, N Q 7 7 7 7" (D fp O 7 (D ,Oi, 7 G fp• (ND
(D (1 00 = -, - ..G (D O_ 00 N O (D N v, r, 00 v, v, O_ d fD - O.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
(D f(D
N -p
00 0)
(D
(D
7
r,
0
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
5
iT
d
N
Verificat
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
89
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3:
Water Conservation. The Applicant/Developer shall comply
with all State laws for water conservation measures and use of
reclaimed water. Voluntary water conservation strategies shall
be encouraged. The Building Division shall determine
compliance prior to issuance of building permits (Source:
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2:
Drainage Improvement Standards. Drainage system
improvements shall be designed and constructed to City and
Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) standards, if
applicable, and will be approved by those agencies prior to
development. Improvements may be constructed in a phased
sequence depending upon the development process. Facilities
shall be dedicated to the City at completion of construction to
the extent required by the City (Source: Mitigation Measure
No. 64, page 151, Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan EIR).
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1:
Sewer Improvement Standards. All required sewer
improvements shall be designed and constructed to City and
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) standards and shall
be approved by the City of Cypress (City) Engineer prior to
development. These improvements may be constructed in a
phased sequence depending upon the development process.
Facilities shall be dedicated to the City and/or OCSD at the
completion of construction.
4.17: Utilities and Service Systems
determined to be a tribal cultural resource, the Gabrieleno
Native American Tribe whose representative is responsible for
tribal monitoring shall coordinate with the Applicant/Developer
to determine appropriate treatment of the resource.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
D,
E-7...:
IA
D O
'O 3
F1"
a- rt7tn
(D5
7
O
ti
(D
oa O
3 d -%
00 LIO
C
N
7
n
N
n -a O
_ '6
'n -O
Cr ry3
7
O
-n
((DD �,
O' O
3 c•
0O to
C
d
7
n
N
Monitoring
Milestone
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Building Division
m v
070 Q o
Sn n
0
v
(D
(Dit,p
o m 7
a ala Q -0
a
7 rrD n ci
m
o 0 v
v el m
(D O
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Initials
Verificat
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
Cypress City Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
90
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4:
Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The Construction
Contractor shall comply with the provisions of City Ordinance
No. 1166 and the 2016 California Green Building Standards
Code, which would reduce construction and demolition waste.
Ordinance No. 1166 is codified in Article VIII, Materials
Questionnaire for Certain Construction and Demolition Project
within the City of Cypress in the City of Cypress Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure No 75, pages 157 and 158, Cypress
Business and Professional Center Specific Plan EIR).
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
o c v
c °O o
o ° 7
3 fD Q
n
Monitoring
Milestone
m0(Do—. -o
aii a n n —
7 4 o 3 o, n
cu
m v - 7
� > 0- —
e, m
o .-1. < <
(7)o
ro
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
7
r:
of
N
Verificat
Date
Remarks
ion of Compliance
A
rr
fD
1
act
0
0
P'P
0
1
0.
cD
0
ao
0
ao
d
3
91