Resolution No. 6824287
RESOLUTION NO. 6824
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (SCH No.
2020069007), AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE PROPOSED AMAZON "LAST -MILE" DELIVERY FACILITY AT 6400-6450
KATELLA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress has considered an application
submitted by Duke Realty for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 3177 to develop and
operate an Amazon "last -mile" delivery facility at 6400-6450 Katelia Avenue, within the
Cypress Corporate Center Amended Specific Plan and in accordance with the provisions
of the Cypress Corporate Center Amended Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Cypress; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the proposed project. The
Draft EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069007) was released to the
public on August 28, 2020, for the required 45 -day review period, comments received
have been reviewed and responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
released November 13, 2020. All required notifications were provided pursuant to CEQA
(Public Resources Code Section 21092.5) and all comment letters were incorporated into
the Final EIR. The City Council has approved the CUP and made all required findings
therefor under separate resolution; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is zoned PC -2 (Planned Community) and located
within the Cypress Corporate Center Amended Specific Plan. Section III, 3. i - Uses
Permitted Subject to a CUP, of the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan states that
uses consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan can be approved subject to a
conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the goals and objectives of the Specific
plan as laid out in the City Council staff report dated November 23, 2020, and finds that
the proposed last mile delivery facility is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan.
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing and considered testimony on the application.
WHEREAS, The City prepared the Amazon Last Mile Delivery Facility Project EIR
in its capacity as lead agency under CEQA and in compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR
consists of the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, the Responses to
Comments, any Final Corrections and Additions, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. Hereafter, these documents will be referred to collectively as the
"Final EIR." These Findings are based on the entire record before the City Council,
including the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies the potential for significant effects on the
environment from development of the Project, 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, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
to ensure monitoring and implementation of the mitigation measures which is set forth in
Exhibit B and is incorporated by this reference; and
SECTION 1. In accordance with CEQA Section 21082.1, the City Council
independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and the administrative record relating
to the proposed project. The Final EIR constitutes an accurate and complete statement
of the environmental impacts of the proposed project and good faith effort at full disclosure
under CEQA. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and it
288
hereby adopts the facts and analysis in the Final EIR and makes the findings described
in Exhibit A and certifies the Final EIR. The omission of some detail or aspect of the Final
EIR does not mean that it has been rejected by the City Council.
SECTION 2. The City hereby adopts Findings of Fact for the Project, attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit B, 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
as a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of November, 2020.
MAYOR SHE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
CLERK RK OF THE 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 23rd day of November, 2020, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Berry, Morales, Peat and Johnson
NOES: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Yarc
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
04
CITY CL RK OF HE CITY OF CYPRESS
289
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
AMAZON FACILITY PROJECT, CITY OF CYPRESS
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020069007
I. BACKGROUND
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
trainedworkers, 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
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 289
290
responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091,
subds. (a), (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[title 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 Ca1.3d 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) Tess
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. The City
Council has further determined that the project would not result in any significant unavoidable adverse
impacts.
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Amazon Facility project site (project site) is located in the southeastern portion of the City of
Cypress, California, approximately 0.5 mile west of the City of Stanton, 0.5 mile north of the City of Garden
Grove, and 0.5 mile south of the City of Buena Park. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, Regional and Project
Location, in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the project site is approximately 1.7 miles
north of the Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) and 3.3 miles east of the San Gabriel River Freeway
(Interstate 605).
The proposed project would be located on an approximately 22.3 -acre site located at the
southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Holder Street at 6400-6450 Katella Avenue in the City of Cypress.
The proposed project proposes the development of a "last mile" logistics facility for Amazon, Inc. on the
project site, which is currently occupied by a 150,000 -square -foot (sf) warehouse, a 180,000 sf corporate
headquarters office building, and 70,000 sf of research and development buildings recently vacated by
Mitsubishi Motors of America. Except for the existing 150,000 sf warehouse building on the southwest
portion of the project site and the existing 180,000 sf office building along the northern edge of the project
site, the remaining buildings on the project site would be demolished as part of the proposed project.
Approximately 5,000 sf of second -floor office/mezzanine space in the existing warehouse would be
removed. Although the existing warehouse building on the project site would be reoccupied, the office
building would remain unoccupied. The office building would remain in place to provide screening from
views of the project site along Katella Avenue. The proposed project would expand the paved parking area
on the project site and enhance the landscaping along Katella Avenue and Holder Street and adjacent to
the southern property line.
The primary purpose of this project is to establish the Amazon Facility project. The project
objectives are described below. Several of these objectives include implementation of goals and policies
from the City's General Plan and the Cypress Corporate Center Amended Specific Plan (Specific Plan):
• Provide a new development consistent with the intent of the Cypress Corporate Center Amended
Specific Plan on a recently vacated parcel.
• Provide new jobs in an area of the City that has experienced the loss of two major employers in recent
years.
• Provide for the development of a last mile logistics facility located directly adjacent to Katella Avenue,
which is one of the City's major travel corridors.
• Ensure a sensitive transition between commercial or business park uses and residential uses by
implementing precise development standards with such techniques as buffering, landscaping, and
setbacks (General Plan Policy LU -2.1).
• Maintain the streetscape along Katella Avenue in a manner that is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan.
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.
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 290
291
• The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) on June 5, 2020. The City also conducted a virtual public scoping meeting on June
18, 2020. 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 EIR.
• The City prepared a Draft EIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period, beginning
August 28, 2020, and ending October 13, 2020. The City prepared a Final EIR, including the Responses
to Comments to the Draft EIR and the Findings of Fact. 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
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by PRC Section 21167.6(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's
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
This section provides a summary of the proposed project's impacts, as identified in the Final EIR, that
would be no impact, less than significant without mitigation, as well as those impacts that would be less
than significant with mitigation. The proposed project does not have any significant and unavoidable
impacts.
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 291
292
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.
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. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impacts to agriculture or forestry
resources.
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 is currently characterized by several buildings, a paved parking lot, and landscaping. The
project site contains only a small amount of ornamental vegetation near the center of the site, along
Katella Avenue, Holder Street, and along the southern edge of the project site adjacent to the Stanton
Storm Channel. The disturbed condition of the project site is generally not suitable to support special -
status plant or animal species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Critical Habitat for
Threatened & Endangered Species map does not identify any locations of critical habitat within the project
site or immediately surrounding area. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), no
sensitive plant species have been documented on the project site or in the immediately surrounding area.
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 several buildings, a paved parking lot, and
landscaping, and does not support any special -status or sensitive riparian habitat as identified in regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or USFWS.
Therefore, no impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in a
local or regional plan would result from project implementation.
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 United States 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 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 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality. Specifically, adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.9-1, provided
in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, during construction would address erosion -related impacts
during construction through implementation of construction site BMPs to avoid erosion and
sedimentation impacts to downstream aquatic areas and water quality. As such, there would be no
impacts on State or federally protected wetlands.
There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP), or other habitat conservation plan in the City. Although the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) NCCP/HCP includes a Plan Area that covers the entirety of Orange County, including
Cypress, the City is not a party to the OCTA NCCP/HCP, and development activity within the City is not
subject to the provisions of the OCTA NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the OCTA NCCP/HCP does not apply to the
proposed project, and the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or State HCP or
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 292
293
NCCP. The proposed project would not result in impacts related to conflict with any provisions of an HCP
or NCCP.
Cultural Resources: Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
According to the City of Cypress General Plan, there are no known archaeological resources located in
Cypress. Further, the SCCIC record search results and field survey identified no previously recorded
cultural resources on or in soils on the project site. As such, there are no historical resources as defined in
Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines located within the project site. The proposed project will
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Geology and Soils: Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones, landslides, 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
any impact related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault, and there would be no impact. 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 CGS. Historically, there have been no recorded landslides within the City's boundaries.
No landslides are anticipated as the result of the proposed project, and there would be no impact.
The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems because sanitary sewer and wastewater facilities are available in the vicinity of the project site.
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. No related impacts would occur. 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 would 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, exacerbate existing sensitive conditions. 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. 0 No. 06059C0117J (December 3, 2009), the project site is located within
Zone X, which comprises areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500 -year flood). Therefore, the project
would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. 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.
According to the North Orange County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit,
Environmentally Sensitive Areas are areas such as those designated in the Ocean Plan as Areas of Special
Biological Significance (ASBS) or waterbodies listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The
project site is not tributary to an ASBS. In addition, the proposed project does not meet the priority
development project definition of "a development of 2,500 sf of impervious surface or more, adjacent to
(within 200 ft) or discharging directly into Environmentally Sensitive Areas." The nearest Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 303(d) impaired waterbody is the Bolsa Chica Channel, which is located approximately 2.3
miles downstream of the project site. The project would not discharge directly into this CWA Section
303(d) impaired water. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any
impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.
Land Use: Divide an established community. The area surrounding the project site is developed
with a variety of commercial, warehouse, office, and residential uses. The project site is developed with
existing structures and the proposed project would not result in new structures on the project site or
changes to the existing parcel configuration of adjacent parcels. As a result, the project would not result
in physical divisions in any established community.
Mineral Resources: The State Division of Mines and Geology identifies mineral resource areas
throughout the State. According to the City's General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element,
there are no mineral resources as defined by the State Division of Mines and Geology within the City.
Population and Housing: The proposed project would not cause or result in direct population
growth or reduction because the proposed project would not provide or remove housing on the project
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 293
294
site. The proposed last mile logistics facility would result in employment at the project site; however, this
use is not anticipated to result in substantial population growth in the area because the project site was
recently utilized as a corporate headquarters for Mitsubishi Motors of America.
Public Services: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or
performance objectives for other public facilities. The proposed project would not have an impact on the
existing Orange County Public Library (OCPL) system because there are no nearby libraries that could be
impacted by construction activities associated with the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed
project does not include residential uses and is not expected to result in population growth. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in increased demand for library services.
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 May 21, 2020, at the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California
State University, Fullerton. No archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the project
site or within 0.25 -mile of the project site. Additionally, Native American consultation was conducted in
compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). As part of the consultation process, a review of the Sacred Land
File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) yielded negative results. Subsequently
Native American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to consult on the
proposed project. During that process, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation (Tribe) stated
that the project site is within its tribal territory and requested consultation with the City. An AB 52
consultation call regarding the proposed project was held on August 20, 2020. No information regarding
specific known tribal cultural resources on the project site was provided by the 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).
Recreation: The proposed project does not propose any residential uses and, therefore, would
not increase the population or demand related to parks. Although the proposed project would provide
employment on the project site, the number of employees would be minor considering the previous uses
on the project site and the amount of parks and recreational space within the City. While it is possible that
employees may visit parks and recreational facilities in the City during lunch breaks or after -work hours,
it is unlikely that the use of parks by project employees would increase the use of those parks to a level
that would contribute to substantial physical deterioration of those facilities.
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.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The Final EIR identified certain less 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 Cypress General Plan Land Use Policy Map designates the project
site as "Specific Plan Area" in recognition that the project site is subject to the Cypress Corporate Center
Amended Specific Plan. The project site'has a zoning designation of PC -2, Cypress Corporate Center, which
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 294
295
is intended to provide for the development of uses as allowed by the Specific Plan. Therefore, the Specific
Plan largely governs development standards and design guidelines pertaining to aesthetics associated
with the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations,
and no General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, or zone change would be required as part of
project approval. Additionally, the proposed project would conform to all applicable development
standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan that regulate scenic quality. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As such,
impacts would be less than significant.
Impact: Light and glare. 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. Minor glare from sunlight on construction
equipment and vehicle windshields is not anticipated to impact visibility in the area because (1) relatively
few construction vehicles and pieces of construction equipment would be used on the project site, and
(2) the construction site would be fenced and shielded from pedestrian and vehicular views. In addition,
construction vehicles would not be operating at night and thus would not create nighttime sources of
glare. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light
or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and light and glare impacts
associated with construction would be Tess than significant.
As part of the project, lighting throughout the project site, including wall -mounted lighting on the existing
warehouse building and pole -mounted lighting throughout the parking lot, would be upgraded. The
proposed project would not introduce new sources of light to the project site. Although the proposed
project includes upgraded lighting, these Tight sources would be comparable to lighting in the existing
condition and would replace some of the lighting associated with the current uses on site. The proposed
project would comply with the development regulations outlined in Section III.C.8., Lighting, of the
Specific Plan, which require that parking lots be lighted, and that lighting be designed to minimize power
consumption, confine direct illumination to the premises of the development, and protect residences
adjacent to the south from light and glare impacts. Landscaping and screening requirements set forth in
the Specific Plan would also reduce impacts created by lighting. In addition, all project lighting is required
to meet all applicable lighting standards in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The existing warehouse on the project site that would be protected -in-place is predominantly concrete
and does not produce glare. As part of the project, the existing warehouse building would be repainted,
but no new building materials would be added that could act as sources of glare. Therefore, the existing
materials would not have the potential to produce a substantial degree of glare. Nighttime lighting and
glare sources from the proposed project could also include lighting from interior and exterior building
lighting, security lighting, signage, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights. The nighttime glare
produced by these sources would be similar to the existing nighttime glare produced by the buildings and
parking Tots on the project site and the surrounding industrial uses and would not result in enough glare
to be considered substantial or affect nighttime views. 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, and project impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetic impact. The
cumulative impact area for aesthetics related to the proposed project is the City of Cypress. As shown in
Table 4.A, Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts,
and Mitigation Measures, a residential project, a sports park, and a mixed-use project (including
residential, retail, and hotel uses) are approved or under construction within the City. Each of these
projects, as well as all proposed projects in the City, would be subject to their own consistency analysis
for policies and regulations governing scenic quality and would be reviewed for consistency with any
applicable Specific Plan goals and policies and Zoning Code development standards. If there were any
potential for significant impacts to aesthetics, appropriate mitigation measures would be identified to
reduce and/or avoid impacts related to aesthetics. As described in Section 4.1.6, Project Impacts,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to aesthetics. 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
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 295
296
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 the project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds or Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs), and the proposed project is consistent with the land use and growth intensities
reflected in the adopted General Plan. Furthermore, the project would not exceed any applicable regional
or local thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to the conflict with or obstruction of implementation of
the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Project construction -
source emissions would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD
for any criteria pollutant. Operational emissions would be expected from area source emissions, energy
source emissions, and mobile source emissions. Operational emissions from the existing development
were subtracted from the project operational emissions to determine the new emissions from the
proposed project. The project's daily regional emissions from on-going operations would not exceed any
of the thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts related to the cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) would be
less than significant.
Impact: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Results of the LST analysis
indicate that the project would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during
construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations
during project construction. Additionally, the project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance
thresholds during operational activity. Further, project traffic would not create or result in a carbon
monoxide (CO) "hotspot." Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant
concentrations as the result of project operations. Additionally, the proposed project's emissions are not
sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin -wide
level. 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. Construction equipment exhaust
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. Potential odors could result from temporary storage
of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed project's (long-term operational) uses. It is
expected that project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular
intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. The proposed project would also be
required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors
associated with the proposed project operations would be less than significant.
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 Tess than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants.
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. 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 4.3-1. The proposed project has the potential to impact active migratory bird nests
if and to the extent that those trees are removed during the avian nesting season and they contain nests.
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.3-1 would address any impacts to nesting resident and/or migratory
birds should it be necessary to conduct vegetation removal during the nesting season and nests are
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 296
297
present. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.3-1, the proposed project's potential
impacts on nesting migratory birds would be Tess than significant.
The proposed project would avoid impacts on the nests of raptors (which are migratory birds) if the
existing trees in the ornamental vegetation areas are removed outside the raptor nesting season
(February 1 through June 30) and they contain raptor nests. The proposed project has the potential to
impact active raptor nests if and to the extent that (1) those ornamental trees are removed during the
raptor nesting season, and (2) special -status or common species of raptors establish nests in the future in
any of those ornamental trees prior to their removal. Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.3-1, would also
address any impacts to nesting raptors should it be necessary to conduct vegetation removal during the
nesting season and raptors are present. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.3-1,
the proposed project exhibits no potential to disrupt a wildlife corridor or in any way disrupt movement
of native wildlife.
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. There are no landmark trees identified in the City's
Inventory of Landmark Trees on the 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, through compliance with the
local policies and ordinances relating to tree protection, any impacts to local street trees would be
considered Tess than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant biological resources impact.
Although the project site is located in the OCTA NCCP/HCP that covers the entirety of Orange County, the
City is not a party to the OCTA NCCP/HCP, and development activity within the City is not subject to the
provisions of the OCTA NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the OCTA NCCP/HCP does not apply to the proposed
project. Additionally, the project site is not located within a designated habitat reserve. Therefore, the
proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources, and impacts on
biological resources would be less than cumulatively significant.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact: Disturb human remains. Although no human remains are known to be on the project site or are
anticipated to be discovered during project construction, there is always a possibility of encountering
unanticipated cultural resources, including human remains. Disturbing human remains could violate the
State's Health and Safety Code as well as destroy the resource. Adherence to regulatory standards
included in Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.4-1 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. Project construction activities would consume an
estimated 284,422 gallons of diesel fuel and 2,343 gallons of gasoline fuel. Project construction would
represent a "single -event" fuel demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of
fuel resources for this purpose. The proposed project's construction -related electricity consumption
would represent Tess than 0.001 percent of Orange County's total electricity consumption in 2018. The
equipment used for project construction would conform to California Air Resources Board (CARB)
regulations and California emissions standards. Additionally, certain incidental construction -source
energy efficiencies would likely accrue through implementation of California regulations and best
available control measures (BACM). More specifically, CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3)
Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding
unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. To
ensure adherence to these regulations, the Applicant/Developer would be required to comply with
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.5-1, which requires the placement of signage on the project site
informing the construction workers that engines must be shut off at or before five minutes of idling. In
general, the construction processes promote conservation and efficient use of energy by reducing raw
materials demands, with related reduction in energy demands associated with raw materials extraction,
transportation, processing, and refinement. Use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands associated
with the preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 297
298
construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities
and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations. With adherence to Regulatory
Compliance Measure 4.5-1, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to
energy during construction.
The proposed project would result in an estimated annual VMT of 15,539,663 and would result in the
consumption of an estimated 668,330 gallons of petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) each year. Energy use
in buildings is divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that
are independent of the construction of the building such as in plug-in appliances. In California, the
California Building Standards Code Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment,
mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting. Non -building energy use, or "plug-in" energy use
can be further subdivided by specific end-use (refrigeration, cooking, appliances, etc.). Project building
operations and project site maintenance activities would result in the consumption of natural gas and
electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the project by SoCalGas; electricity would be supplied to the
project by SCE. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project operation. No mitigation is
required.
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 CEC's
Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, 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 Tess than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to energy. The
proposed project would result in an increased demand for electricity and natural gas service. Although
the proposed project would result in a net increase in demand for electricity, this increase would not
require SCE to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial environmental impacts. The
proposed project, in combination with cumulative development, is well within SCE's system -wide net
annual increase in electricity supplies over the 2018 to 2030 period, and there are sufficient planned
electricity supplies in the region for estimated net increases in energy demands. Similarly, additional
natural gas infrastructure is not anticipated due to cumulative development. The proposed project's share
of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SoCalGas service area would be negligible. It is anticipated
that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas demand of the related projects without additional
facilities. Furthermore, SCE and SoCalGas plan to continue to provide reliable service to their customers
and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.
Transportation energy use would also increase; 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 VMT throughout Orange County and the region. The proposed
project and related projects are required to comply with various federal and State government legislation
to improve energy efficiency in buildings, equipment, and appliances, and reduce VMT. Compliance with
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.5-1 would ensure that the proposed project does not result in an
inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project's
contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy
would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The ground surface cover surrounding the
buildings generally consists of paved parking lots, drive lanes, and loading dock areas, and landscape
planters throughout the site. However, the ground surface cover on the north side of the existing office
building along Katella Avenue consists of turf grass and in the southeastern portion of the site, east of the
existing warehouse building, the ground surface cover consists of exposed soil with sparse to moderate
grass and weed growth. The total surface area of these existing unpaved areas is approximately 2 acres.
During project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 298
299
temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased
potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. The Construction General Permit
requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (Regulatory Compliance
Measure 4.9-1, in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). 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 would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required. Although the project would increase impervious surface
area, impervious surface areas associated with development of the project site are not prone to erosion
or siltation, because no loose soil would be included in these areas. Therefore, operational impacts related
to substantial on-site erosion would be Tess than significant.
Impact: Be located on unstable soil, and result in landslides, lateral spreading, or subsidence. 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. 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. As stated in the Geotechnical Assessment, minor ground
subsidence (estimated to be approximately 0.1 ft) is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of
removal, due to settlement and the weight of construction equipment. However, this amount of
settlement is considered negligible and 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 Artificial Fill and Alluvium. These soil types
have low shrink -swell potential and, therefore, are not susceptible to expansion. As stated in the
Geotechnical Assessment, based on its very low expansive classification, no design considerations related
to expansive soils are considered warranted for the project site. Since the potential for expansive soils is
low, the proposed project would not create substantial potential risks to life or property, and there would
be less than significant impacts.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment. During construction of the proposed project, GHGs would be emitted
through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and vendor vehicles, each of which
typically uses fossil -based fuels to operate. For construction phase project emissions, GHGs are quantified
and amortized over the life of the project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the project, the
SCAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a
30 -year project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such,
construction emissions were amortized over a 30 -year period and added to the annual operational phase
GI -IG emissions.
Operational activities associated with the project will result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N20 from the
following primary sources: area source emissions; energy source emissions; mobile source emissions; on-
site cargo handling equipment emissions; water supply, treatment, and distribution; and solid waste. The
annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project were subtracted from the
project GHG emissions to determine the new emissions from the proposed project. The proposed project
would generate 1,435.15 MT CO2e/yr. As such, the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's
recommended numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e if it were applied. Thus, the project does not have the
potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions. Impacts were
determined to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
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 GHG emissions include CARB's Scoping
Plan and SCAG's 2016-2040 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. The proposed project would not
conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or
indirectly to the project. Further, recent studies show that the State's existing and proposed regulatory
framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan, and impacts are
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 299
300
considered less than significant. 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 emission, and impacts are considered less than significant.
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 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, 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 4.9-1 and 4.9-2, impacts related to the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
Operation of the proposed facility would involve the use of materials common to all urban developments
that are labeled hazardous, such as solvents and commercial cleansers and petroleum products and would
include the 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. The
proposed project's uses are not anticipated to be associated with major hazardous materials and would
not create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste. 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. Operation of the proposed project would include the brief
storage and transport of traditional consumer products that could contain minimal amounts of hazardous
substances such as petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizer, pain products, solvents, and cleaning
products. The proposed project may also potentially store and transport car batteries and lithium
batteries. These products and substances could create a potential for explosion or accidental release of
hazardous materials into the environment. However, the proposed project is a last -mile logistics facility
and would accept and sort packages and then send them out for delivery resulting in short storage times
for these products at the facility. Therefore, the potential for release of hazardous materials is considered
to be negligible given that all materials are prepackaged in limited quantities for retail consumption and
use, and a release is likely to be easily contained. Any hazardous materials on site would be handled in
accordance with all applicable regulations, including containment, reporting, and remediation
requirements, in the event of a spill or accidental release. Compliance with applicable regulations would
ensure that potential hazardous material impacts associated with the operation of the proposed project
would be less than significant; no mitigation is required.
Impact: Hazardous emissions and substances within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
There are no schools located within 0.25 mile of the project site. In addition, 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: Hazards resulting from proximity to a public or private airport. The project site is located
approximately 0.6 mile east of the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. The project site is located
in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Part 77 Notification Area (Exhibit D1) 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 reuse the existing warehouse,
retain the existing office building along Katella Avenue, and demolish the remaining buildings on the
project site. The proposed project does not include the construction of any new structures and, therefore,
would not need to comply with FAA standards and requirements that require 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. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to safety hazards for people working in the project area; no mitigation is required.
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 300
301
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 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 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 the depletion of groundwater supplies or interference
with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
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 implement operational BMPs in
accordance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit to minimize downstream erosion or siltation
impacts during operation because downstream receiving waters are 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 and operational BMPs. Operational BMPs would reduce
stormwater flows to 20.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). With implementation of the proposed BMPs, 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 operational BMPs to reduce stormwater
runoff so as to not exacerbate the existing stormdrain capacity deficit and would result in less than
significant impacts.
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, and would ensure that water quality
impacts are less than significant.
Impact: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project site is located within the inundation zone of Prado
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 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. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
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 water quality impacts are 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
BMPs. Construction BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, and would ensure
that water quality impacts are less than significant.
Impact: Increase downstream erosion. The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the
Construction General Permit and would implement construction BMPs to reduce impacts related to on -
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 301
302
site, off-site, or downstream erosion or siltation. In addition, the proposed project would implement
operational BMPs in accordance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit to minimize downstream
erosion or siltation impacts during operation because downstream receiving waters are susceptible to
hydromodification. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
Impact: Increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff. The proposed project would
increase impervious surface area on site and therefore would increase stormwater runoff from the project
site. The proposed project would include operational BMPs to reduce peak discharges from the project
site. Therefore, the project would result in Tess than significant impacts.
Impact: Adverse impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes. The
proposed project would comply with existing NPDES requirements and would implement construction
and operational BMPs. Operational BMPs would reduce stormwater flows to 20.6 cfs. With
implementation of the proposed BMPs, impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of
surface runoff, flow, and volume that would result in flooding would be Tess than significant.
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. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
Impact: Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas. The project would not discharge directly into
a CWA Section 303(d) impaired water, and would implement construction and operational BMPs to
reduce pollutant loading to receiving waters. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant
impacts.
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 water
quality impacts are 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 and would result in less than significant impacts.
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 substantially degrade groundwater quality. Therefore, the
project would result in less than significant impacts.
Impact: Effects on aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat. Although the proposed project's receiving
waters (Anaheim Bay) is a wetland that supports aquatic and riparian habitat, runoff from the project
would not directly discharge into Anaheim Bay. Further, the proposed project would implement
construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutant loading to receiving waters and would result in
less than significant impacts.
Impact: Best Management Practices resulting in significant environmental effects. The project would
include implementation of post -construction BMPs to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water
quality. The post -construction BMPs would be routinely inspected and maintained to reduce impacts
related to vectors and odors. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
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 and City
requirements and would implement construction and operational BMPs and drainage facilities to reduce
impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant
impacts.
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 2020-2045
RTP/SCS, the City's General Plan, and the Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 302
303
less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and
regulations, and no mitigation is required.
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
commercial, warehouse, office, and residential uses. Although the proposed project requires the approval
of a conditional use permit, the proposed project would result in the development of a last mile logistics
facility, consistent with the uses permitted on the project site by 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: 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. Noise generated by the project construction
equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators
that when combined can reach high levels. Reference construction noise levels were modeled to
determine project construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Although
temporary construction noise level impacts would be below the threshold of 80 dBA Leq, 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 Cypress Corporate Center Amended Specific Plan (Specific Plan). No
construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays (refer to
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.11-1). Therefore, the noise impacts due to project construction are
considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
The proposed project will generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from
0.0 to 3.6 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Project -related operational noise level increases will
satisfy the noise level increase significance criteria. Therefore, the incremental project operational noise
level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
Impact: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Construction
activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used,
distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground -borne vibration from project
construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Construction activities that
would have the potential to generate low levels of ground -borne vibration within the project site include
grading. At distances ranging from 56 feet to 1,449 feet from the project site boundary, construction
vibration levels are estimated to range from 5.1 to 76.5 VdB, and the highest expected construction
vibration levels are estimated to range from 34.1 to 76.5 VdB and will remain below the FTA Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual maximum acceptable vibration criteria at all receiver locations.
Therefore, the project -related vibration impacts are considered less than significant. Since the trucks
transiting on site will be travelling at very low speeds on smooth surfaces, it is expected that delivery truck
vibration impacts at nearby receiver locations will satisfy the vibration perceptibility threshold of 65 VdB
and, therefore, will be less than significant.
Impact: Located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest
airport is the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (1FTB), Los Alamitos airfield. The project site is located
approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the JFTB. The noise contour boundaries ofJFTB show that the project
is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour boundary. Therefore, since industrial land use is
considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of 50-70 dBA CNEL, the JFTB noise impacts are
considered less than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant noise impact. 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. 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.
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 303
304
The results of the opening year cumulative 2021 (baseline plus project) peak -hour level of service (LOS)
analysis for the study area intersections show that all study area intersections are forecast to operate at
satisfactory LOS during both peak hours. Project -related traffic would result in noise level increases
between 0.0 to 3.3 dBA CNEL along roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site under the project
opening year (2021) condition. These levels are below the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise.
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. 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. 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 Tess than significant.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or performance
objectives for police protection. There would be little to no impact on the population growth of the City
as a result of the proposed project. Although there may be an incremental increase in calls for service, the
related population growth and anticipated commercial/retail activity would not be considered
substantial. Moreover, the proposed project is expected to be adequately served by existing police
facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new police protection
facilities or the upgrade of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response items, or other
performance objective for police protection. Potential impacts related to the provision services for
operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Impacts: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or performance
objectives for schools. The proposed project is not expected to cause an increase in students as a result
of project implementation would not result in any incremental increases in the demand for school
facilities. Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school
district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction
within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of
school facilities. Because the proposed project would reduce the building square footage on the project
site by demolishing several of the existing on-site buildings and would not result in the construction of
any new covered and enclosed structures on the project site, the Applicant/Developer would not be
required to pay such fees. Therefore, 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 is not expected to result in any incremental increase in the
demand for park facilities or existing recreation facilities in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in additional physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered park facilities. Impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant public services impact.
Impacts related to fire protection services, police services, schools, and parks would overall be less than
significant upon implementation of the project mitigation measures.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Impact: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. The
proposed project would be required to comply with General Plan policies addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, a trip generation
analysis was conducted to determine the number of trips that would occur following implementation of
the proposed project to evaluate the project's consistency with Orange County CMP requirements and
the City's General Plan policies with respect to traffic congestion. In order to determine impacts at
intersections associated with implementation of the project (i.e., the existing plus project condition), the
proposed project trips were added to existing baseline traffic volumes at the study area intersections.
With the addition of the project, all study area intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 304
305
during both peak hours. Project impacts are based on conflicts with policies for the LOS significance
criteria of the City of Cypress (for Cypress intersections) and/or the City of Stanton (for Stanton
intersections). Therefore, impacts were determined to be Tess than significant.
Impact: Conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The project VMT per employee
for project baseline (2020) conditions is 18.68. As the proposed project's VMT per employee does not
exceed the 15.0 percent below VMT per employee for the region threshold recommended in the Technical
Advisory. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use. Therefore, the vehicle
trips associated with a commercial/industrial use on the project site have already been incorporated into
the land use and growth assumptions included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. In addition, the proposed
project would be consistent with applicable goals in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed
project is consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) RTP/SCS. Therefore,
a cumulative analysis that makes a comparison of areawide daily total VMT without and with the project
was not performed. The proposed project's impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Impact: Hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. The proposed project does not
propose any major traffic infrastructure improvements. In addition, 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 the other surrounding warehouse land uses in the Cypress Corporate Center
Amended Specific Plan and the Katella Avenue Corridor. Thus, the project would not introduce truck traffic
to an area where such traffic does not currently exist. 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 with respect to design feature hazards would be less than significant.
Impact: Inadequate emergency access. The project site would be accessed via a new right-in/right-out
driveway on Katella Avenue and three fullaccess driveways on Holder Street. The project driveways would
be designed and improved to conform to the City's standards. In addition, the final site plans would be
reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority to confirm that adequate emergency access would be
provided. Therefore, the project's impacts associated with emergency access would be less than
significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a transportation impact. With the addition
of the proposed project, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS during
both peak hours under the opening year cumulative 2021 (baseline and plus project) condition. Therefore,
a significant project impact is not expected to occur at any study area intersection in the opening year
cumulative 2021 condition. Therefore, cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant.
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 project site is
served by existing on-site utilities in the existing project and the proposed project would reconfigure
existing on-site utilities due to the removal of several buildings on the project site. Therefore, 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 4.15-1 and 4.15-2. 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 result in a decrease
in water demand on the project site compared to existing uses. Therefore, 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 4.15-2. Therefore, with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.15-2,
impacts to water supplies would be Tess than significant.
Impact: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed project would result in a decrease
of wastewater generation compared to existing uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
a significant contribution to the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. Additionally, fees required by
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 305
306
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 result in a decrease in solid waste generation on the project site compared to existing conditions.
Therefore, 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 4.15-3.
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. Further, the field survey did not identify
any cultural resources within the project site. However, because the project site is located in close
proximity to the historic -period natural alignment of a freshwater source and native sediments at the
project site date to a timeframe that includes precontact human occupation in the region, there is a
potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources from either the precontact or historic periods.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, which requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist
and includes procedures for recovering any significant or unique archaeological resource and for
preparation of a report documenting any cultural resources that are recovered at the project site, impacts
to previously unrecorded cultural resources would be less than significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts to archaeological
resources to a less 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.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to cultural
resources. Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown 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 Toss of historical and archaeological artifacts unique
to the region.
Each development proposal received by the City is required to comply with the requirements of CEQA,
including an environmental review, if applicable. If there were any potential for significant impacts to
archaeological resources as a result of present or reasonably foreseeable projects in Cypress, an
investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify
appropriate mitigation measures. When archaeological resources are assessed and/or protected as they
are discovered, impacts to these resources are less than significant. As such, implementation of
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.4-1 and Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 would ensure that the proposed
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 306
307
project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact to unique
archaeological and historical resources.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to cultural
resources to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to 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 cultural resources for
the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure for Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery. Prior to the
issuance of grading permits, and in adherence to the recommendations
of the Cultural Resources Study for the Amazon Distribution Center
Project (2020), the Applicant/Developer shall retain a qualified
archaeological monitor, with approval of the City of Cypress (City)
Community Development Director or designee. A monitoring plan shall
be prepared by the archaeologist and implemented upon approval by the
City. The monitor shall be present full-time during the first 10 working
days when excavation activities will extend below Artificial Fill deposits
into native soils. No archaeological monitoring is required during
demolition of existing buildings or clearing/grubbing of existing
landscape.
If cultural materials are discovered during grading or excavation, the
construction contractor shall divert all earthmoving activity within and
around the immediate discovery area until a qualified archaeologist can
assess the nature and significance of the find. Project personnel shall not
collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and
associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid
these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological
deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance
is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the
deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation
can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in
accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations
[CCR] Title 4(3) Section 5126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field
methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered
archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods,
findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated
materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility
for future research and/or display; an interpretive display of recovered
archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public
lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and
significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. The City
Community Development Director, or designee, shall be responsible for
reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the
appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations.
Impact: Result in substantial adverse effects related to strong seismic ground shaking. A design -level
peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.54 g has been calculated for the project site. This 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. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance
Measure 4.6-1, potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 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
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 307
308
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 3.6 inches for the cone penetrometer test (CPT) locations
within the project site. This is within the commonly accepted limitations of structural mitigation (4 inches).
Additionally, predicted liquefaction -induced total settlement with respect to most of the project site
would be addressed by incorporating overexcavation (if necessary) and soil stabilization techniques
(Mitigation Measure 4.6-1). With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, the potential adverse
effects of seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction would be less than significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to geology and
soils to a Tess 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. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 and
adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.6-1 would be
required to address the proposed project's impacts with respect to liquefaction and compressible
soils. Provided that design and remedial grading and ground improvement (as necessary) are
performed in accordance with the applicable requirements in the CBC (adopted by the 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.
Wet Soils. Due the presence of shallow groundwater, excavations deeper than 5-6 ft are likely to
encounter groundwater and/or soft, wet soil. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, 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 4.6-1, the proposed project's impacts
related to wet soils would be less than significant.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, 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. The project site contains Artificial Fill, which has no paleontological sensitivity, and Young
Alluvium, Unit 2, which has low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 ft and high
paleontological sensitivity below 10 ft. With a maximum excavation depth of 10 ft, the proposed project
is expected to remain in deposits with no or low paleontological sensitivity. However, in the event that
paleontological resources are encountered during construction, Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 would require
work in the immediate area of the discovery to be halted and a qualified paleontologist to assess the
discover. These procedures would mitigate potential impacts to scientifically significant nonrenewable
paleontological resources.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 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. The three related projects closest to the project site are approximately one mile away and are
not relevant with respect to cumulative geotechnical impacts. Therefore, it is not anticipated that
development of these related projects would have any geotechnical impact on the project, nor would the
project have geotechnical impacts on any nearby projects. When resources are assessed and/or protected
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 308
309
as they are discovered, impacts to these resources are less than significant. As such, implementation of
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.6-1 and Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 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 Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 are 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.
Mitigation Measures for Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1:
Compliance with the Recommendations in the Project Geotechnical
Assessment. The Applicant/Developer's construction contractor shall
implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation,
Amazon Distribution Center, SWC Katella Avenue and Holder Street,
Cypress, California (Geotechnical Assessment) (Southern California
Geotechnical, Inc. [SCG], December 4, 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:
Subgrade preparation in the new pavement areas shall initially consist of
the removal of all soils disturbed during demolition operations. Any soils
disturbed as a result of demolition shall be removed, and the exposed
subgrade soils within the new pavement areas shall be evaluated by the
geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the new
pavement subgrade.
Overexcavation shall occur in areas where lower strength, or unstable
soils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading.
Exposed subgrade soils within the new pavement areas shall be
evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve
as the new pavement subgrade. This evaluation shall include probing and
proof rolling to identify any soft, loose, or otherwise unstable soils that
must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper overexcavation may
be required if very moist, loose, porous, low density or otherwise
unsuitable materials are encountered at the pavement subgrade
elevation.
To address very moist soils, stabilization of exposed overexcavation
subgrade soils may be necessary. If highly unstable soils are identified,
and if the construction schedule does not allow for delays associated with
drying, mechanical stabilization shall be used usually consisting of coarse
crushed stone or geotextile. In this event, the geotechnical engineer shall
be contacted for supplementary recommendations. Typically, an
unstable subgrade can be stabilized using a suitable geotextile fabric,
such as Mirafi 5801, HP 570 or HP 270, and/or a 12 to 18 -inch thick layer
of coarse (2 to 4 inch particle size) crushed stone. Crushed asphalt and
concrete debris resultant from demolition could also be used as a
subgrade stabilization material. Other options, including lime treatment
can also be used.
After a suitable overexcavation subgrade has been achieved, exposed
soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture treated
(or air dried) to 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D-1557 maximum dry
density. The subgrade shall then be raised to grade with on-site soils or
imported structural fill.
For pavement, the aggregate base course shall be compacted to at least
95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Asphaltic concrete
shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the batch plant -reported
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 309
Mitigation Measure 4.6-2
310
maximum density. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed
aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a
recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. The gradation, R -Value,
Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply
with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the
"Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
Preparation of the subgrade soils within new Portland Cement Concrete
(PCC) pavement areas shall be performed as previously described for new
asphalt pavement areas. The concrete shall have a 28 -day compressive
strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within all pavements shall be
designed by the structural engineer. The maximum joint spacing within
all of the PCC pavements shall be equal to or less than 30 times the
pavement thickness. The actual joint spacing and reinforcing of the PCC
pavements shall be determined by the structural engineer.
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 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 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 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 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 Cypress Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or
designee.
Procedures for Unexpected Paleontological Resources Discoveries. In
the event that paleontological resources are encountered, work in the
immediate area of the discovery shall be halted and the
Applicant/Developer shall retain a professional Paleontologist who meets
the qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
to assess the discovery. The qualified, professional Paleontologist shall
make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the
discovered resources, as well as the need for subsequent paleontological
mitigation, which may include, but not be limited to, paleontological
monitoring, collection of observed resources, preservation, stabilization
and identification of collected resources, curation of resources into a
museum repository, and preparation of a monitoring report of findings).
The City of Cypress shall ensure that the recommendations from the
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 310
311
qualified, professional Paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant/
Developer.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact: Hazardous materials sites. Database searches of the project site, including a GeoTracker search
and a search of Superfund sites, determined that 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 project site was identified as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST), UST,
California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS), Historical UST, Historical CORTESE, CERS,
RCRA-SQG, FINDS and ECHO site in the regulatory database reports. The Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) concluded that there is no evidence of RECs in connection with the project site;
however, Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) and environmental issues were
identified. Although HRECs and environmental issues were identified, the Phase I ESA did not recommend
any further investigation of the project site. However, upon redevelopment of the project site, the proper
decommissioning of the hydraulic lift(s) and clarifiers, if remaining intact, may be required by local
regulatory agencies. A lack of maintenance and proper decommissioning procedures could result in
potentially significant impacts related to hazardous conditions on the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project is required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-1, which requires periodic inspection
of hydraulic lift(s) and clarifiers during routine service and adherence to all local regulatory agency
requirements related to the proper decommissioning of those facilities, which may include soil sampling.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 impacts related to hazardous materials sites would be
less than significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials 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 hazards and hazardous materials for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1:
PUBLIC SERVICES
If the clarifiers are left intact and functional, the Applicant/Developer
shall periodically inspect them during routine service to ensure that they
remain in good condition. If the hydraulic lift(s) and/or clarifiers on the
project site are left remaining intact, the Applicant/Developer shall
adhere to all local regulatory agency requirements related to the proper
decommissioning of those facilities, which may include soil sampling.
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or performance
objectives for fire protection. The proposed project is not expected to induce any substantial population
growth within the City of Cypress and as such, would be able to be adequately be served by Fire Station
No. 84. The proposed project would be designed to comply with all OCFA requirements, including
providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the project site and providing adequate access for
emergency vehicles. Written correspondence with the OCFA indicated that all development projects
submitted for review by OCFA must use a fair share approach to mitigate fire service response impacts
and facility/equipment needs. To further address any potential impacts to fire services, Mitigation
Measure 4.12-1, which requires the Applicant/Developer to enter into a Secured Fire Protection
Agreement prior to the issuance of any building permits, would have to be implemented.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to public
services to a less 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 4.12-1 Secured Fire Protection Agreement: Prior to the issuance of any building
permits, the Applicant/Developer shall enter into a Secured Fire
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 311
312
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.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 AB 52. As part of the consultation process, a review of the SLF by the NAHC yielded negative results.
Subsequently Native American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to
consult on the proposed project. During that process, the Tribe stated that the project site is within its
tribal territory and requested consultation with the City. Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.4-1 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 4.4-1 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. The project site is not likely to contain any human remains due to the fact
that soils on the site have been previously disturbed from past grading activities on the project site and
surrounding area. Nevertheless, the City is recommending the inclusion of Mitigation Measure 4.14-1 to
protect any potentially unknown tribal cultural resources on the project site. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.14-1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural
resources to a less than significant level.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.14-1 is feasible and would reduce potential impacts related to tribal
cultural resources to a Tess 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. Adherence to the regulatory standards in Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.4-1, provided in
Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.14-1 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 4.14-1 is feasible and would reduce potential cumulative impacts related to
tribal cultural resources to a Tess 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 4.14-1
Tribal Cultural Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
Applicant/Developer shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by
the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation — the tribe that
consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 (the "Tribe" or
the "Consulting Tribe") for all ground -disturbing construction activities
on the project site. A copy of the executed contract shall be provided to
the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Director, or designee,
prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The tribal monitor will only be
present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground -
disturbing activities. If tribal cultural resources (as defined in Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074) are discovered during construction
activities, ground -disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the
find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) shall be halted until the find
is assessed. Ground -disturbing construction activities shall be allowed to
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 312
313
continue in other portions of the project while the find is being evaluated
and, if necessary, further mitigation takes place.
All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be
evaluated by the project archaeologist (identified in Mitigation Measure
4.4-1) and tribal monitor. If the resources are Native American in origin,
the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the
Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic
purposes.
Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but
are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing,
tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within
the project area. The tribal monitor shall complete daily monitoring Togs
that will provide descriptions of the day's activities, including
construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials
identified. The tribal monitor shall also provide appropriate insurance
certificates. Tribal monitoring shall not be conducted after initial project
excavation of 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 after project grading and
trenching are completed, and only disturbance to previously monitored
soil is anticipated.
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).
EIR Section 6.4 evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed project to result in significant
irreversible changes in the environment. 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
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 313
314
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
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.
The proposed project may also potentially store and transport car batteries and lithium batteries. These
products and substances could create a potential for explosion or accidental release of hazardous
materials into the environment. However, the proposed project is a last -mile logistics facility and would
accept and sort packages and then send them out for delivery resulting in short storage times for these
products at the facility. Therefore, the potential for release of hazardous materials is considered to be
negligible given that all materials are prepackaged in limited quantities for retail consumption and use,
and a release is likely to be easily contained. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
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 variety of
residential, commercial, office, and warehouse 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, drainage, 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 were already
existing to serve existing uses on the project site and would not necessitate substantial utility
infrastructure improvements. In addition, the all access and internal circulation improvements planned
with respect to the proposed project are intended to provide for better circulation flows within the project
site and to the project site, 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 because it is expected that local
and regional construction workers would be available to meet the proposed project's construction needs.
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.
The proposed project would not cause or result in direct population growth because the proposed project
would not provide or removed housing on the project site. The proposed last mile logistics facility would
result in employment at the project site; however, this use is not anticipated to result in substantial
population growth in the area because the project site was recently utilized as a corporate headquarters
for Mitsubishi Motors of America. Therefore, employment already existed on the project site. As of May
2020, the City had a labor force of 24,200, and the County had a labor force of 1,548,900, with
approximately 3,700 and 224,500 people unemployed, respectively. The May 2020 unemployment rate
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 314
315
was 15.4 percent for the City and 14.5 percent for the County. This suggests an available local and regional
labor pool to serve the long-term employment opportunities offered by the proposed project. Because it
is expected that the local and regional labor pools would be available to full 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. 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 an underutilized lot consisting of existing structures recently
vacated by Mitsubishi Motors of America. The project site currently does not generate revenue for the
City. The proposed project would provide a new source of property tax revenues to the City, thereby
increasing the local tax base. 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 proposed last mile logistics facility would
provide jobs on the project site that 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 proposed project includes the development of a last mile logistics facility. Because the project does
not propose to amend the existing General Plan or Specific Plan land use designations and zoning
classifications to residential, and would not add any permanent residents to the project site, the project
would not directly increase the City's population beyond existing levels. The proposed conditional use
permit would not cause a future increase in density or land use and would not have any growth -inducing
impacts. Any future growth in the City is likely to occur regardless of whether or not the project is
approved. Approval of the project would not involve some characteristic that may encourage and facilitate
other activities that could significantly affect the environment.
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. Office 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 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
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 315
316
community services. The No Project Alternative assumes that a new user would occupy the existing
buildings on the project site and operate them as a corporate headquarters, which is permitted by right
under the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan. The project site would remain in generally the same
condition as it was at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published. Although it is assumed that
the new occupant would complete minor renovations to the interiors of the existing buildings to meet its
needs, no building demolition or new development of any kind would occur on the project site. No
discretionary approvals would be required.
Environmental Effects: The No Project Alternative would not change the existing use on the site. The
project site would remain as currently developed with several buildings that were recently vacated by
Mitsubishi Motors of America, and a paved parking lot with existing Tight poles.
The No Project Alternative would result in less significant impacts than those of the proposed project with
regard to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions,
hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural
resources. The No Project Alternative would have the least impact on the environment because it would
require minimal construction, with the exception of the minor renovation of the existing buildings on the
project site, and would thereby avoid most of the proposed project's environmental impacts resulting
from construction. However, the No Project Alternative would result in greater utilities and service system
impacts because the reoccupation of existing structures and the operation of a corporate headquarters,
as permitted under the Specific Plan, is expected to result in a greater demand for utility and service
system services compared to existing uses on the project site.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: Under the No Project Alternative, the existing buildings on the
project site would be reoccupied and operated as a corporate headquarters. Therefore, although no new
development would occur on the project site (Objective 1), the No Project Alternative would provide new
employment opportunities in an area of the City that has experienced major employment losses in recent
years (Objective 2). In addition, the project site's existing configuration complies with the screening,
buffering, and setback requirements set forth in the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan (Objective 4),
and it is presumed that the existing streetscape along Katella Avenue would be maintained in a manner
that is consistent with the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan (Objective 5). Of key importance, the
No Project Alternative would not develop a last -mile logistics facility (Objective 3). Therefore, the No
Project Alternative would be consistent with three of the five project objectives (Objectives 2, 4, and 5).
Because is not clear whether the No Project Alternative would provide more or less employment than the
proposed project, it is not possible to determine whether the No Project Alternative would achieve
Objective 2 to the same degree as the proposed project.
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 many of the proposed 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. This alternative would
be inconsistent with some of the Project Objectives and would overall not provide the same benefits as
the proposed project. As a result, the No Project Alternative is less desirable to the City than the proposed
project and is considered to be infeasible.
2. Reduced Project Alternative
Description: The Reduced Project Alternative includes the operation of a last -mile logistics facility on the
project site similar to the proposed project; however, the Reduced Project Alternative would have a
reduced capacity. The number of delivery vans operating from the project site would be reduced by 30
percent. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would demolish the existing on-
site research and development buildings, retain the existing 150,000 sf warehouse and 180,000 sf office
building, and enhance the landscaping along Katella Avenue, Holder Street and adjacent to the southern
property line. The Reduced Project Alternative would provide the same number of trailer parking spaces
and loading docks on the northern side of the warehouse building as the proposed project and would also
provide a covered delivery van staging area on the eastern side of the warehouse building. However, due
to the reduced number of delivery vans operating out of the project site, the Reduced Project Alternative
would construct a smaller driveway loop and delivery van holding area that would accommodate 30
percent fewer delivery vans than the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced
Project Alternative would provide a new fourth, right-in/right-out driveway on Katella Avenue and modify
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 316
317
the westbound and eastbound left -turn pockets on Katella Avenue at Holder Street to provide additional
left -turn storage.
Environmental Effects: The Reduced Project Alternative would have the least impact on the environment
because the project site would be developed at a reduced capacity, thereby further reducing most of the
proposed project's environmental impacts compared to the other alternatives (other than the No Project
Alternative). Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in similar
impacts to those of the proposed project with regard to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and tribal cultural
resources. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in Tess significant impacts than those of the
proposed project with regard to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials,
noise, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: Because the Reduced Project Alternative would include the same
uses as the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would also be consistent with all of the
project objectives. With respect to Objective 2 (new employment), the Reduced Project Alternative would
generate less employment than the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would
not achieve Objective 2 to the same degree as the proposed project. This assumes, however, that a
developer would be willing and able to feasibly develop the project site at the reduced density and that
an operator would be willing to occupy the site and operate a last -mile logistics facility with a reduced
capacity. The Applicant/Developer carefully considered its operational needs in light of the project site's
size and all of the potential site plan configurations when preparing its plans for the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project's design already reflects the optimal layout that would allow the operator
to maximize its operating efficiencies and operate its last -mile logistics facility profitably. 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, but to a lesser extent than the proposed
project. 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 Tess 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 capacity. The project Applicant/Developer has also concluded that
it would not be feasible to develop the last -mile logistics facility at a reduced capacity.
3. Office Alternative
Description: The Office Alternative assumes that all of the existing buildings on the project site would be
demolished and replaced with 486,088 sf of space in two four-story office buildings that would be
developed on the northern half of the project site along Katella Avenue. The office buildings would feature
Class A-level tenant amenities, including a large plaza with outdoor dining space and work stations.
Parking would be provided in a multi -story parking structure located near the center of the project site
that would also screen the project from the residential uses to the south. The southern portion of the
project site would feature a 4 -acre landscaped open space that would serve as a buffer between the
parking structure and the residential uses to the south. The Office Alternative would retain and
reconfigure the existing driveways along Holder Street, but would not construct a new right-in/right-out
driveway along eastbound Katella Avenue or modify the westbound and eastbound left -turn pockets on
Katella Avenue at Holder Street to provide additional left -turn storage. Because general office uses are
permitted under the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan, the Office Alternative would not require any
discretionary approvals from the City.
Environmental Effects: The Office Alternative's office use is allowed by the Specific Plan, and the Office
Alternative would be consistent with the development standards set forth in the Specific Plan.
Additionally, unlike the proposed project, the Office Alternative would not require the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. The Office Alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed project with
regard to hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and public
services. This alternative would not reduce any impacts compared to the proposed project. Additionally,
the Office Alternative would have greater impacts than the proposed project with regard to aesthetics,
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 317
318
air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, noise,
transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Office Alternative would develop an office use on the project
site that is consistent with the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan (Objective 1), which would provide
new employment opportunities in a part of the City that has experienced major employment losses in
recent years (Objective 2). Because the Office Alternative would generate nearly twice as many vehicle
trips (4,734 average daily trips [ADT]) as the proposed project (2,606 ADT), it is reasonable to conclude
that the Office Alternative would generate substantially more new jobs than the proposed project.
Therefore, the Office Alternative would achieve Objective 2 to a greater extent than the proposed project.
The Office Alternative would be required to comply with the screening, buffering, and setback
requirements set forth in the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan (Objective 4) and would maintain
the existing streetscape along Katella Avenue in a manner that is consistent with the Cypress Corporate
Center Specific Plan by placing the proposed parking areas away from the direct view of passing motorists
(Objective 5). The Office Alternative would not develop a last -mile logistics facility on the project site
(Objective 3). Therefore, the Office Alternative would be consistent with four of the five project objectives
(Objectives 1, 2, 4, and 5). As noted above, the Office Alternative would provide more new jobs than the
proposed project and would, therefore, achieve Objective 2 to a greater extent than the proposed project.
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social,
technical, or other considerations make the Office Alternative identified in the Final EIR infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As discussed above, and in Section 5 of the Draft EIR, the Office Alternative
is infeasible and less desirable than the project because it would not achieve an important project
objective and would have greater impacts than those of the proposed project. As a result, the Office
Alternative is less desirable to the City than the proposed project.
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.
Amazon Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 318
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.4-1:
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 of Orange (County) Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be
4.4: Cultural Resources. - I
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.3-1:
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: BicaLResources
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
During
construction
activities
r°oo�
MI3
v 3 m
ri o
v, z � 0
7
ro Ln
3 -o
CD 7 0'
.+
Monitoring
Milestone
Construction
supervisor/
Applicant/
Developer/
0 0 0 p Q>
0
(D < 3 d 'O
N 0 0 c M C.
, .z 0 7 .< 7
0' _ r 0
co
0 (D
(3 O
ro
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
:i
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Amiae j uozewv
319
m
X
W_
03
320
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 :
Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery. Prior to
the issuance of grading permits, and in adherence to the
recommendations of the Cultural Resources Study for the Amazon
Distribution Center Project (2020), the Applicant/Developer shall
retain a qualified archaeological monitor, with approval of the City
of Cypress (City) Community Development Director or designee. A
monitoring plan shall be prepared by the archaeologist and
implemented upon approval by the City. The monitor shall be
present full-time during the first 10 working days when excavation
activities will extend below Artificial Fill deposits into native soils. No
archaeological monitoring is required during demolition of existing
buildings or clearing/grubbing of existing landscape
If cultural materials are discovered during grading or excavation, the
construction contractor shall divert all earthmoving activity within
and around the immediate discovery area until a qualified
archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find.
Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological
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 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 grave goods 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 O z tn V
I Q d d C O
-,
ct
(p' c C 0=0 n 0
O W 0 O� (D
7 N
CL
N r C O K C 7 'p
W N N c '6 (D
( FC
(D c C ti Z• O 7
0 c c 0 0 0 r*
N -
O O ,< n (co
', O O
O -^ 5. N
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarkc
I
i
321
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.5-1:
Idling Restriction Signage. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Director shall
confirm that the grading plans for the project include a requirement
that a sign shall be posted on site stating that construction workers
shall shut off engines at or before five minutes of idling.
4.5: Energy
materials or human remains and associated materials. To the extent
feasible, project activities shall avoid these deposits. Where
avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be
evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not
necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the
deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated.
Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation
of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see
California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 4(3) Section
5126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and
procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered
archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the
methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and
associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an
appropriate facility for future research and/or display; an
interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local
school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools
and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site
and recovered archaeological materials. The City Community
Development Director, or designee, shall be responsible for
reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine
the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and
recommendations.
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Prior to issuance
of a building
permit
Monitoring
Milestone
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Chief Building
Official, or designee
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
(D
n
01
K
O
d
fD
Remarks
on of Compliance
322
323
O ,_+- 5' n, n o op d rroo G1
ro a m o 0 Q a p, Q< C o o
n rD v r•. �, - °-
y�. O H N 07Cr u C 0`70 (( `� p7q
v 7 c) Q (D -p °' ao 07 0. p, ,7.. n.
0' 0O M. p N N a' 4° o 0_ 17 Ln -<
n O� rD 0 O n 0- 0- r. Vt 0 < fD
< n 7' -0 =. (D 7 S vv, (D " m• fD m
n' �• 3 r' c n 0_ r* N 0 "0 7•
N a n (nD O '•t ° O ? .< 0- O. a
-P PD 0 P OA a vi .-. rnv m °- a
7 v
,< (D 7 0, Si -0 0' co N G1 p, O 0 O
3 o c N s �. n o — o s o
rs o rD
�. 7 n N 7 CWl f�DCD N n.
N n
ry O° '• -. OD as N S O (D O d 7
S O O n 7 7 O. Dq �, 0_
Q COO N n. S (D o N
v0+ 6' rD n' < N O fD 0 �' 3 w
°°• 3 _ °' T O to p, '^ 0_ <
7 Cu 7 7 r. r* c N ".'•
rip 0' p, p, �. n (D 3 0.) i..9 n O —
• 070 T 00 •D m l- (D M O (D 0. O o
rD (D 7 N rr 0 ri•n rD -
O N d M ~ N N 3 v, N '0 aq ro fD
m' - n O— n ro (n 7 y 7 -, ,ny.
m' 7 = C n p
ro vii cro '� O_ O O ° rD <
n '_* •0 O N 7 7 �' < rr O
7• rD 7 0 v, 00 3 0 N 7' ti.
Q., 3 N =ai, Cr. c 0_ -• ° ,p,y, ''r C
y . N .-f rY
v, 0_ :n v, :D .7-. Op 00 0. (D 7 07 rD a
n c Gl p co m CO n D G1 a G1 o D
v, 0-o �. p, d ro D o v o ro �. n
aq fD (D — 0- C 0" 7 rr fD ° (D �. 7'
m ,n-' n o0 (D 070 ((DD a (D rn. '� n rroo O O
O d a d r7r Q° O N °* d N al L"
v.
O� < n O O S j n fo O n• r1.
Off, fD ° fD n ti, 7 H ° 6 ° -1
n0 COOD S r•. _ „ C O C rp O fa At
3< d 'Y. N m rn. N N 0 p, s CM
cu
r•. .7i 7 'O .< ° -0 -0 N n M .7-' -0 7 7
cl
CD m m p, �' n v, O =_. Q oa O a
u 0• cl,
0 p, Q v0, d fD n (D 'o O y 7 7
c Q ro ^—* r�7. o' n u
o 0 0
r7•. !D LA 3 S M rD N p CL
N Oma , < C
- rr
° �, (D •� 7 v' r* 7 eh
04 ry n; n 00 N 3 S d s O v aq•
<
a d 0 N 3 3 0 a r p°j CD N o ru
O 7 (D �O O Q- a 7- r�-r Q s -O~i. N
d p, 3 -,, 0_ >• u, p ° (D rD = 7 rti;
rnm p -h (D oo (D = 7 pp v+ (D
< 0 7 p, n n v+ N u, N (D 7
�•r d . 7 n _m -0 0 0_ M C_ra- 7 S
(D c d-, n C j' < -. C d Cu
• LA Q f -pi. 07C rr o.) a. .O-. (D -1 r.„ (D rmp rD —
n ,,;' r 7 p ti, -+, 7 O-
rr d I'D N 7 r+ S (D
rD 7 'O (nD m 'O N = 7 j S 0, n
� 7 o n "O 3 rD r�D r. (D 7 O
O "i p, •� rD v, (D 7
`n -0 O 'n O S O N p 7 r7. 0O �. C
O0 A. rn. rD D! rD - (D 0 .n-. ID .0-. rn•. (D 0_
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
7
p,
4.
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
324
325
,..°1.
���o(c0Wo02soMm�=00000-o-�oo�a�°�°'��
" N 7 n Q< rD y ... (D r. 7 7 -a (D .. 3 favi .7. C 7 1
fD 4 rD o O 7, o �, 3 ? a a ,� ,. P O v,
° �f 7 a. ° 3 n c 2 A. o rD m 7 0 0 n a c0, m a `,
O a =. ro Gi a, O r* n n rte. rai Q 5 O _. (DD 0_ n co 7 LI.. v) O 0 °- .�•.
< 7' O Vt C — n ,- r. r. a° 7 0 5 7 0 ti, o O '4, O r. 7 a Z
< 7 ,-* 0. '�' a '.' O m 7.G fN 7 '�.F 7 7 t-' , 0 C K 7° -, 7 '< c 3
v, O, C rD On 0 CD 0 N .7. rD S N ri• 3 O� C 7' 0 S .. r. °' co 3 N Pa 0 O mO 0
K K O DT 0 m O a O a fD `n rD a a G1 m S rD <, c g i in rD r. -, N 7
D 0 7 0 o o C vC' a 7i C o— m m n °1 3 °' -, ra. °r.'• a • m m 4
-=j 0 Q O '$ 7 „, C m < n0rD �, a G 7 0 N v v r. rD rD rD r. -, z
. °• 0 r^. a c fD g? o• 0 v< a �°a' v a, -00 �' rrr, o m' cu K OVS, <= o 0 o a° n a
ro a 0 n , 3 r' v + > o .= 7 m N D p
rD �. 3_ C ° 7 a 0 7 n a a "0 r•r• n -w -i ' S r. C O� O -,"'
rr O N R. r7. •-••• 7 O°— S r to a r'r ° '-D O n ,_- O 0 rD 0°
fD 7 3,< rD rte. .7•' 3 d rD a '9 S rD S '0 7 7 0 N O O Cr
0 rD 7 CO M a .=i rD v, a K rD a-0 r7. C 0 0 0
01 0 03 m j o 3 7* a o ln S rD on fD 3 m 3 -, A N cl
z (D S 1 , C. * a CD. a -- (D '*-0 n, v �% (D H K- r 7 < * 7 rD 3 O O
n fl; rDO F ro a s s o m r* r3D S. d< c 0-e o '� r7.• z
rD 7 v, o a C+i rD 7 Fe, ° .7. " a r. " D r•r M r. 0 Q -I ,0 (� --•
o -, a d• -, .7, C °0 Q o o n 9 • on 1 o m m s 7 a, X z ro
-* n 7 rnt 7 n nS C -, S a 7 7 a 3 7 D v, r -o y 0 S a o •
,..ro ' a u, O -0 2 m �c' ,°i.�. ,�„ a '" 9 a O a 'n a 7 v; -"•- a O
7 O On rn' a rjj n c e, - 0< N a On Q N 00 O< ra d Z< N (D O Lh N j• 0 fp 0 0
a s 0 3 a 0 ro a-0 m 0= 0 7 3 D' a•< o 3 —p a -a v m n c z o 3
St:r^. a O n 0 o a r. n v, 0 rD m o4 O< a rv, 7 0- v n 0. 0 O n
< F o ;:ri....) c rD S o_a rDQ __.:: a3 o
FD• M, rD ( S d r7. "0 rv'r .n. 3 v,jfDa7" 7 n rDOil CO'0 jCv+O1^ 7 =n 0 -0 a 0' rDrUa7S f+ c0
7 o n G (Dtn • fD fC1 3 N rD N a •'r 0= 70 0 rD vt' 0 N<- rl r.ao °* 0.
7 N n_ o ° 0 v c a Da °1 rD N °'o P fp
N o rD Q o° v' r. 1300 a fp
o -. -. p rD n S= S `� O O N N D 3 O O a
Q 0 rr rD r. rD Q r. rD r. rD v, r. rA• v, Q 0- rD rr 7 vt O`
00
K
0
0
c
rD
A
fD
DO
d
o
n
3
v
a
N
m
a
13a
Monitoring
Milestone
0.
rD
v.
00
7
ID
rD
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
326
7
328
2
Mitigation Measure 4.14-1: Tribal Cultural Resources. Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant/Developer shall retain a
Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians-Kizh Nation — the tribe that consulted on this project
pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 (the "Tribe" or the "Consulting Tribe")
for all ground -disturbing construction activities on the project site. A
copy of the executed contract shall be provided to the City of
Cypress (City) Community Development Director, or designee, prior
to the issuance of a grading permit. The tribal monitor will only be
present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground -
disturbing activities. If tribal cultural resources (as defined in Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074) are discovered during
construction activities, ground -disturbing activities in the immediate
vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) shall be
halted until the find is assessed. Ground -disturbing construction
4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources
Noise
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.11-1: During Applicant/Developer
construction and City of Cypress
The construction contractor shall limit all construction -related Director of
activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Community
weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted outside Development
of these hours or on Sundays or a federal holiday. Department or
designee
4.12: PubiicServices
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.12-1: Prior to issuance Applicant/Developer
of any building and Orange County
Secured Fire Protection Agreement. Prior to the issuance of any permits Fire Authority
building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall enter into a Secured (OCFA)/ City of
Fire Protection Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority Cypress Director of
(OCFA). This Agreement shall specify the Applicant/Developer's pro- Community
rata fair share funding of capital improvements necessary to Development
establish adequate fire protection facilities and equipment, and/or Department or
personnel. Said agreement shall be reached as early as possible in designee
the planning process.
r0 (D " f
< 4 E _ 3 ! §
ƒ® & 4 — < —
c—w7=o
0 b - k\17
c
\ /)
0-00n0 w z»>
ro 0 _ _
4C r, (D } 0- -o
M5 -31:I rT, /
I n7 >
o Z ' g =
m \m$6
,-1. /o ) \
n5-
7 ]
330
331
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.15-3:
Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The Construction
Contractor shall comply with the provisions of City Ordinance No.
1166 and the 2019 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.15-2: Prior to issuance Applicant/Developer
of building and City of Cypress
Water Conservation. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all permits Building Division
State laws for water conservation measures. Voluntary water
conservation strategies shall be encouraged. The Building Division
shall determine compliance prior to issuance of building permits.
Regulatory Compliance Measure 4.15-1:
Sewer Improvement Standards. All required sewer improvements
shall be designed and constructed to City of Cypress (City) and
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) standards and shall be
approved by the City of Cypress 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.
4,15: Utilities and Sentice Systems
Responsible Party
Monitoring Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure Milestone Monitoring
O —
6/}
=o
/rD J\
J2G\af
]\/k
\\E=G#
Eƒ=kC
0
CL (D
+ Op /0G-q
-. 3=-0
CU fD
] a E 2 7 2
m§\/\//
�� 7�
§�
a
CL m 0)>
ak&2
/ n R
co
�)ƒk
//
\73
® a
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
332