Resolution No. 6836357
RESOLUTION NO. 6836
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION
MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 135 RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ITS ASSOCIATED PARKING,
LANDSCAPING, AND OPEN SPACE ON A 7 -ACRE SITE SOUTHWEST
OF VESSELS CIRCLE AND NORTH OF WINNERS CIRCLE, IN THE
CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress has considered an application
submitted by Melia Homes, Inc. ("Developer") for a 135 -unit residential development and
its associated parking, landscaping, and open space (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM
No. 19114) and a Site Plan Review (SPR No. 2021-02), that required the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2020, the City issued a Notice of Preparation
("NOP") of the Draft EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2020099025); and
WHEREAS, the a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for comment for the
public, responsible, and trustee agencies for a 30 -day public review period between
September 25, 2020 and October 26, 2020, during which time the City held a public
scoping meeting on October 8, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability ("NOX) for the Draft EIR was issued on
January 22, 2021, and the Draft EIR was circulated for public review from January 22,
2021 through March 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review period, the Final EIR was
prepared, which includes written responses to the comments received during the public
review period; and
WHEREAS, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR are full and complete in
compliance with CEQA. The responses to comments do not affect the analysis in the
Draft EIR, and do not require the recirculation of information; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies the potential for significant effects on the
environment from development of the Project, 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
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider certification of the EIR and approval of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has considered the
full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report,
testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided
358
to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cypress City Council determines, finds,
and certifies as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR for the Project has been
completed in compliance with CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., the
State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.,
and all applicable state and local guidelines, and that it reflects the independent judgment
of the City. The City Council further certifies that it has fully reviewed the Final EIR prior
to considering the approval of the Project.
SECTION 2. The City Council 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
at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of May, 2021.
MAYOR/017 THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
\ kdx L "� ix
CITY ERK OF THIt 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 10th day of May, 2021, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hertz, Morales, Berry and Peat
NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Marquez
I
-- \ 4�� �� � CITY RK OF THE ITY OF CYPRESS
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, SITE PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 2021-02 AND
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 19114)
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020099025
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
trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final
EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives
or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. PRC Section 21061.1 defines
"feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15364 adds "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.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
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 1
Exhibit A
of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337,
1347.)
Notably, Section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse
environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental
impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn.
v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally
best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate
public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes
Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 ("[t]here is no
requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of
insignificance ... if such would render the project unfeasible").)
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project
modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the
responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091,
subds. (a), (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development
project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion
of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret
and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
The City of Cypress (City) Council, as the decision-making body of the CEQA Lead Agency, has
determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, written
and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the project, and submission of testimony from the
public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the
project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant and each
of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation
measures. The City Council has further determined that the project would not result in any significant
unavoidable adverse impacts.
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Cypress Town Center Project (proposed project) would be located on an approximately 7 -acre
site (project site) south of Vessels Circle and west of Walker Street in the City of Cypress, California. In its
existing condition, the project site is a parking lot with asphalt paving, six overhead light poles, and a
60 -inch wide strip of ornamental trees, palm trees and grass/shrubs on the north portion of the project
site. The project site is bounded on the north by the Los Alamitos Race Track, on the west by surface
parking lots, on the south by a Costco and a vacant parking lot approved for the Cypress City Center mixed-
use development, and on the east by a two-story office building. The proposed project includes the
development of a portion of the Los Alamitos Race Course parking lot area into a residential multi -family
community consisting of 135 dwelling units consistent with the Cypress Town Center and Commons
Specific Plan 2.0 (Specific Plan). The 135 multi -family residential homes would include two types of multi-
family units: 56 two-story condominiums in four buildings that would be arranged around motor courts
in the center portion of the project site; and 79 three-story row townhomes that would be located along
the outer portions of the project site. The layout of the proposed project is a paseo-style community with
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 2
a central large open space area that would include a pool and landscaped areas for other active and
passive recreation uses. The proposed project also includes an off-site swale south of the project site that
would direct overflow from the proposed on-site drainage facilities towards Winners Circle. Proposed off-
site improvements include the extension of Vessels Circle north of the project site and the striping of the
existing segment of Vessels Circle to the east. Additionally, the proposed project includes three off-site
bioswales and a modular wetland system to collect and treat drainage from the Vessels Circle extension.
The primary purpose of this project is to establish the Cypress Town Center Project. The Project
Objectives are described below. Several of these objectives include implementation of goals and policies
from both the City's General Plan and Specific Plan:
• Provide new high-quality housing allowed under the Specific Plan.
• Develop housing in close proximity to existing and future commercial, retail, and medical uses.
• Provide uses that meet the City's General Plan balanced development goals and objectives to locate
higher density housing adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities to encourage
pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for commercial uses to help meet the existing and
future housing needs of all Cypress residents.
• Expand the City's housing supply by developing high-quality housing in the City to alleviate the housing
crisis and help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocations.
• Implement the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0, which will permit the
development of new parks and multi -family residential units that are attainable housing for local
families.
• Provide pedestrian connections to adjacent parcels to provide connectivity and convenient access to
the nearby existing and future commercial and retail uses.
• Provide landscaped areas that provide passive and active recreation opportunities.
• Provide landscaped areas to enhance the Specific Plan Area along with green infrastructure to
improve stormwater quality.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Cypress policies regarding
the implementation of CEQA, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed
project.
• The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) on September 2S, 2020. The City also conducted a virtual public scoping meeting
on October 8, 2020, to present the proposed project and to solicit input from interested parties
regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR. 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.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 3
• The City prepared a Draft EIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period, beginning
January 22, 2021, and ending March 8, 2021. The City prepared a Final EIR, including the Responses
to Comments to the Draft EIR and this 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 located 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
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 4
Department. This information is provided in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6(a)(2) and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 1S091(e).
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
This section provides a summary of the proposed project's impacts, as identified in the Final EIR,
that would have no impact or less than significant impact 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.
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, and conflict with an adopted local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan. In its existing condition, the project site is currently characterized by a
paved parking lot, with existing light poles and various electrical utility boxes and lines. A public sidewalk,
driveway access points, and ornamental landscaping exist along the current segment of Vessels Circle east
of the project site. Ornamental landscaping is present along the northern edge of the project site adjacent
to the Los Alamitos Race Course parking lot. Along the eastern side of the project site, there is a driveway
access point to Costco Way that does not include any landscaping. 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) current 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.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 5
The project site is highly disturbed and developed with an asphalt -paved parking lot and does not
support any special -status or sensitive riparian habitat as identified in regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the 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.
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
NCCP. The proposed project would not result in impacts related to conflict with any provisions of an HCP
or NCCP.
Cultural Resources: Substantial adverse chanL-e in the sienificance of a historical resource.
According to the City of Cypress General Plan, there are no known archaeological resources located in
Cypress. Further, the South Central Coastal Information Center (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 would 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 California Geological Survey (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 current 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.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 6
Hydrology and Water Quality: 100 -year Floodplain, place housing within a hazard area, impede or
redirect flood flows, increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff, inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow, exacerbate existing sensitive conditions. Result in impacts to aquatic, wetland, or
riparian habitat. The project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain; therefore, the project would
not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. According to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 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. There is no aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat present on the project site.
Los Alamitos Channel, the downstream receiving water, is concrete -lined and does not provide aquatic,
wetland, or riparian habitat.
The proposed project would decrease the amount of impervious surface area on site. Additionally,
the impervious surface area at the proposed location of the off-site Vessels Circle improvements would
decrease. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase stormwater runoff from the project site.
Additionally, as stated in the Preliminary Hydrology Analysis, the proposed project would include a
detention system to reduce peak discharges from the project site. Because the proposed project would
not increase impervious surface area or runoff, no impacts would occur.
According to the North Orange County 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 federal Clean Water Act (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 CWA Section
303(d) impaired waterbodies are Coyote Creek and the San Gabriel River, which are both located
approximately 3 miles downstream of the project site. In addition, 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 racetrack, office, business park, commercial, and residential land uses. The proposed
project would replace approximately 7 acres of surface parking with residential uses. The proposed
project would complement existing and planned development in the Specific Plan and the adjacent
Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan Area. In addition, the proposed project is designed to provide safe
and attractive pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses rather than dividing or separating existing
land uses or neighborhoods. 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.
Therefore, the project would have no impacts related to mineral resources.
Population and Housing: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing which would
necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. In the existing condition, the project site is a
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 7
paved parking lot and, therefore, does not contain any population or housing. The proposed project would
not displace any existing housing or populations on the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact
related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing.
Tribal Cultural Resources: Substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in PRC Section 21074, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). A
cultural resources record search was completed on October 19, 2020, at the SCCIC of the California
Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC record
search included the project site and the area within 0.25 -mile of the project site. Five previous cultural
resources studies were identified during the background research: three studies that included the project
site and two that included the 0.25 -mile radius of the project site. As a result of previous cultural resources
studies, no cultural resources have been recorded within the project site. One cultural resource has been
recorded within the 0.25 -mile radius (P-30-176854, the historic -period Navy Golf Course in Seal Beach).
Additionally, Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with Assembly Bill (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. No requests for AB 52
consultation were received for the proposed project, and no information regarding specific known tribal
cultural resources on the project site was provided to the City. 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).
Wildfire: There are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) 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 VHFHSZ. There would
be no effect on emergency response or evacuation 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.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 8
AESTHETICS
Impact: Existing visual character. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and would
conform to all applicable development standards in the Specific Plan and Cypress Zoning Ordinance. At
approximately 38 feet (ft) in height, the tallest point of the proposed project would be lower than the
maximum height of 75 ft allowed under the Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed project's building
heights are similar to and compatible with the commercial, office, and business park uses that surround
the project site. Further, no Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, or zone change would
be required for project implementation. Therefore, 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 less than significant.
As part of the project, new light sources created by the proposed project would include interior
and exterior building lighting, security lighting, and parking lot lighting. The proposed lighting sources
would be similar to other lighting sources in the project vicinity and would not generate artificial light
levels that are out of character with the surrounding area, which is densely developed and characterized
by a high degree of human activity and ambient light during the day and night. The proposed project
would comply with the development regulations outlined in Section 3.11.060.A (Exterior Features),
Section 3.11.060.13 (Intensity), Section 3.11.060.0 (Security Lighting), Section C.11.060.D (Shielding of
Lighting Source), and Section 3.14.050.C.4 (Required Improvements for Off -Street Parking Areas) of the
Specific Plan. Each section provides respective lighting requirements that will be incorporated in the
development of the proposed project. 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.
In the existing condition, the project site produces light and glare from a lighted surface parking
area due to existing light poles that are approximately 30 ft tall. Existing sources of light in the project
vicinity include headlights on nearby roadways, building facade and interior lighting, pole -mounted
lighting in the parking areas of adjacent developments, and lighting associated with the Los Alamitos Race
Course. The adjacent commercial center with a hotel and gym west of the project site and commercial
and retail services, including a Costco warehouse outlet and restaurant uses to the east of the project site,
currently emit light and glare along Katella Avenue. Lighting from existing distant development within the
City also contributes to the background lighting in the project vicinity. Nighttime lighting and glare sources
from the proposed project could also include lighting from interior and exterior building lighting, security
lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicle headlights. The nighttime glare produced by these sources would
be similar to the existing nighttime glare produced by the surrounding commercial/retail, residential and
hotel uses and would not result in enough glare to be considered substantial or affect nighttime view
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 9
because lighting would be required to meet all applicable lighting standards in the Cypress Zoning
Ordinance. 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.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetic impact.
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
Impact: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The
proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) because (1) the project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed the
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan's (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds, and (2) the
proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan land use designation on the project site and
would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP, is consistent with land use planning strategies
set forth by SCAQMD, and includes implementation of all feasible air quality mitigation measures. In order
to further reduce construction impacts, the project would comply with emission reduction measures
required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, 445, and 1113. Therefore, impacts related
to the conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than
significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Construction
and operation of the proposed project would not exceed the significance thresholds of criteria pollutants
for which the project region is designated nonattainment under the California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). According to the SCAQMD,
projects that do not exceed the significance thresholds are generally not considered to result in
cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Therefore, based on the fact that the emissions during
construction and operation of proposed project would not exceed any of the air quality significance
thresholds for any criteria pollutants, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable
impact. In order to further reduce construction impacts, the project would comply with emission
reduction measures required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, 445, and 1113.
Therefore, impacts related to the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS would be less than
significant.
Impact: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction and
operation emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the localized significance
thresholds (LSTs) established by SCAQMD. In order to further reduce construction impacts, the project
would comply with emission reduction measures required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rule 403.
Because the project would not exceed the LSTs with compliance with regulatory requirements, impacts
related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than
significant.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 10
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 airborne odors related to food waste
may be associated with trash receptacles. These odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the
project and minimized by SCAQMD odor regulations and lids on trash receptacles. The proposed uses are
not anticipated to emit any other types of objectionable odors. Therefore, operation of the proposed
project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people, and this impact would be less than significant.
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
(Basin). Air pollution is inherently a cumulative impact measured across an air basin. The incremental
effects of projects that do not exceed the project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be
cumulatively considerable per SCAQMD guidelines. The proposed project's construction- and operation -
related regional daily emissions are less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria
pollutants. In addition, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations on a project -by -project basis would
substantially reduce potential impacts associated with the related projects and Basin -wide air pollutant
emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable increase in
emissions, and the proposed project's cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact: Result in substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 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 adjacent or downstream
aquatic areas and the contamination of waters from construction equipment, these potential indirect
effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or substantially minimized through the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
Specifically, adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1, as provided in Section 4.9, Hydrology
and Water Quality, of the EIR, during construction would ensure that erosion -related impacts during
construction would be less than significant by requiring the implementation of construction site BMPs to
avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. As such, impacts on State
or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant.
Impact: Result in a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands.
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.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 11
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
BMPs and a WQMP as discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Specifically, adherence to
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1 during construction would address erosion -related impacts
through implementation of construction site BMPs to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to
downstream aquatic areas and water quality. As such, there would be less than significant impacts on
State or federally protected wetlands.
Impact: Result in substantial interference with the movement or migration of wildlife species
or wildlife nursery sites. The project site is strictly upland in nature and there are no aquatic resources
within the project site to support native resident or migratory fish. Native wildlife habitat is largely absent
on the project site. Furthermore, the lack of ground cover and suitable foraging habitat make the site
undesirable for wildlife nursery sites (i.e., bat maternity roosts, colonial bird nesting sites/foraging
grounds, and steelhead streams). The proposed project would avoid impacts on nesting resident and/or
migratory birds either by avoiding vegetation removal during the avian nesting season (February 1
through August 31) or by implementing Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO -1, provided in Section 4.3,
Biological Resources. The proposed project has the potential to impact active migratory bird nests if and
to the extent that any of the trees on the project site are removed during the avian nesting season and
they contain nests. Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO -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 present. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO -1, the proposed
project's potential impacts on nesting migratory birds would be less 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 area 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 BIO -1 would also
address any impact 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 BIO -1,
the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to disrupting a wildlife
corridor or in any way disrupting the 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 (July 1996). As shown in this inventory, there are no
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 less than significant.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 12
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant biological resources
impact. The project site is heavily disturbed, with existing paving and light poles. The proposed project
would have no impacts to federal and State listed species and waters of the United States or wetlands
and would have less than significant effects on migratory birds and local tree policies. As the proposed
project's impacts to biological resources would be limited, its contribution to cumulative biological
impacts in consideration of the projects identified in Table 4.A, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting,
Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, would be considered less than significant. The
project site is located within the OCTA NCCP/HCP that covers the entirety of Orange County, including the
City of 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. Additionally, the project site is not located within a designated habitat reserve and,
therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the loss of natural habitat in the City. The
development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat species
identified in the OCTA NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative
loss of biological resources, and impacts on biological resources would be 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 CUL -1, as provided in Section 4.4, Cultural
Resources, 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 117,936 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 70,533 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 increase the annual construction -generated fuel use in Orange County by
approximately 0.07 percent for diesel fuel usage and less than 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel usage. As
such, project construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies.
Furthermore, impacts related to energy use during construction would be temporary and relatively small
in comparison to Orange County's overall use of the State's available energy resources. No unusual project
characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient
than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. Therefore, construction of the proposed
project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and
impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would result in an estimated potential increase of 379,499 kilowatt-hours
(kWh) per year. Total electricity demand in Orange County in 2019 was approximately 19,460 gigawatt
hours (GWh) (19,460,000,000 kWh). Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the
annual electricity consumption in Orange County by less than 0.01 percent. Energy use consumed by
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 13
operation of the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and
fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. Operation of the proposed project would increase
the annual consumption of electricity and natural gas in Orange County by less than 0.01 percent and
would increase the annual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Orange County by 0.01 percent. With
implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -5, as provided in Section 4.2, Air Quality, requiring
compliance with Title 24 standards, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency
measures into building design, equipment use, and transportation. Therefore, impacts related to
consumption of energy resources during operation would be less than significant.
Impact: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively
small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation
of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange County, and
the State's available energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible.
Because California's energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because
the proposed project's total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project
would not conflict with or obstruct California's energy conservation plans as described in the California
Energy Commission's (CEC) 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
less than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to
energy. The proposed project would result in an increased services demand in electricity and natural gas.
Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in electricity usage, this increase would not
require Southern California Edison (SCE) to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial
environmental impacts. Additionally, it is anticipated that Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)
would be able to meet the natural gas demand of the proposed project without additional facilities.
Furthermore, the proposed project's percent of cumulative electricity and natural gas consumption would
be negligible, and there are sufficient planned natural gas and electricity supplies in the region for the
estimated increases in energy demands.
Transportation -related energy use would also increase as part of the proposed project. However,
this transportation energy use would not represent a major amount of energy use when compared to the
amount of existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
throughout Orange County and the region. Further, compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure
AQ -5 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.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Most of the site is covered by
older degraded asphalt. The northern boundary of the site consists of some landscaping, trees, shrubs,
and turf. In the existing condition, approximately 6.65 acres of the project site consist of impervious
surface area. In the proposed condition, approximately 5.84 acres of the project site would be impervious
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 14
surface area and not prone to on-site erosion or siltation because no soil would be included in these areas.
The remaining acreage of the approximately 7 -acre project site would consist of pervious surface area,
which would contain landscaping that would minimize on-site erosion and siltation by stabilizing the soil.
Therefore, on-site erosion and siltation impacts would be minimal. For these reasons, operational impacts
related to substantial on-site erosion would be less 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 an 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. The project site is not located within an area of
known subsidence that may be associated with groundwater, peat loss, or oil extraction. Therefore, the
proposed project would not be subject to potential geotechnical hazards related to subsidence, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Impact: Expansive soil. The project site stratigraphy consists of Artificial Fill and Quaternary
Alluvium. These soil types have low shrink -swell potential and, therefore, are not susceptible to
expansion. In the event that, following the completion of grading, it is determined that near -surface soils
within building pad areas exhibit an elevated expansion potential, potential impact of those expansive
soils would be addressed through design of structural foundations and floor slabs in compliance with
applicable requirements in the California Building Code (CBC), as adopted by the City of Cypress in its
Municipal Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, as provided in Section 4.6, Geology and
Soils). Since the potential for expansive soils is low and any potential expansion would be addressed
through compliance with applicable code requirements, the proposed project would not create
substantial potential risks to life or property, 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, the proposed project would generate
approximately 1,437.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) over the course of
construction. Because construction would be temporary, would cease upon project completion, and
would not result in a permanent increase in emissions, impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would generate 1,513.3 MT CO2e per year. This level of project -related
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would fall below the SCAQMD bright -line screening threshold of 3,500
MT CO2e per year for residential development. Therefore, GHG emissions generated by the project are
not considered to be cumulatively contributable to statewide GHG emissions, and impacts would be less
than significant.
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
the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of
Governments' (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal). The proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 15
to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, Executive
Order (EO) B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and AB 197 and would be consistent with applicable State plans
and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. 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 its 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHG emissions, and impacts
are considered less than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant emission of
greenhouse gases. GHG emissions are global pollutants, and therefore, result in cumulative impacts by
nature. Project impacts identified in this analysis are not project -specific impacts to global climate change
(GCC), but are the proposed project's cumulative contribution to this impact. The impact of project -
related GHG emissions would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable
contribution to GCC. Additionally, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects,
would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions.
Lastly, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG
emissions. Therefore, the project's cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than
significant, and the project's cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.
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). These materials are commonly
used at construction sites, and the 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. With adherence to the regulatory standards included in
Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD -1 and HYD -2, as provided in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during
construction would be less than significant.
Residential uses included in the proposed project may include the use and disposal of typical
cleaning products along with limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape maintenance. Vehicles
accessing the homes 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 parking 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. The proposed project would be reviewed by the
OCFA for hazardous material use, safe handling, and storage of materials. 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, due to the type and nature of the proposed project, its 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 not result in
significant hazards that would be created by uses associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 16
potential for the proposed project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment would be less than significant.
Impact: Hazardous emissions and substances within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school. The project site is located approximately 0.75 mile southeast of the Grace Christian School, and
0.5 mile east of the Cottonwood Christian Center preschool facility. 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: Located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and subsequently create significant hazard to the public
or the environment. The government records database search, completed as part of the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), determined that the project site is not included on any of the
queried databases of hazardous materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. The Phase I ESA included an analysis of surrounding properties within a 1 -mile radius of the
project site. The Phase I ESA identified several listings for off-site adjacent or nearby properties on
databases potentially indicative of a contamination concern. However, the Phase I ESA concluded that
these sites do not pose a potential hazard to the project site and no further investigation of the project
site is required. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials sites would remain less than significant.
Impact: Hazards resulting from proximity to a public or private airport. The project site is located
approximately 0.5 mile north of the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. Implementation of the
proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area because the
project would comply with all appropriate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards and
requirements, including Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1, as provided in Section 4.8, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, which requires that the FAA be notified of any proposed structure(s) that would
penetrate the 100 to 1 imaginary surface that surrounds the runway at JFTB Los Alamitos. The FAA would
then be responsible for reviewing the height of the proposed structures and determining whether they
pose a potential aviation hazard. With adherence to the regulatory standards provided in Regulatory
Compliance Measure HAZ-1, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to safety hazards for people working in the project area.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a hazards and hazardous materials
impact. For the proposed project, impacts due to hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Although some of the cumulative projects listed also have potential impacts associated with hazardous
materials, the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials are site specific. Each project
is required to address any issues related to hazardous material or wastes. Federal, State, and local
regulations require mitigation to protect against site contamination by hazardous materials. Therefore,
there would be no cumulative hazardous materials impacts.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project
would comply with existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations and
would implement construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 17
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 not increase
downstream erosion or siltation impacts during operation because downstream receiving waters are not
susceptible to hydromodification. For these reasons, operation impacts related to substantial on- or off-
site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
Impact: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a
manner which would result in substantial flooding. The proposed project would comply with existing
NPDES requirements and would implement construction BMPs, Modular Wetland Systems, and a
detention system. With implementation of the proposed Modular Wetland Systems and detention
system, impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume
that would result in flooding would be less than significant.
Impact: Exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or exceed the capacity of a channel and cause
overflow during design storm conditions. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES
requirements to prevent substantial additional sources of polluted runoff being discharged to the storm
drain system, and would target pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site through
implementation of construction and operational BMPs. The proposed project includes Modular Wetland
systems and a detention system to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not exacerbate the existing storm
drain capacity deficit. Therefore, the project 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 to ensure that the proposed
project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, the project would result in less than
significant impacts.
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 and Carbon Canyon Dam. Although the project would construct new structures in an
inundation zone, the proposed project would not increase the chance of inundation from the failure of
Carbon Canyon Dam or Prado Dam. Additionally, the City's emergency evacuation plans would be
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 18
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 increased pollutant discharge during project construction and operation would be less than
significant.
Impact: Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following
construction. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement
construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of
concern in stormwater runoff, and would ensure that alteration of receiving water quality during project
construction and operation would be less than significant.
Impact: Increase downstream erosion. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES
regulations and would implement construction BMPs to reduce impacts related to on-site, off-site, or
downstream erosion or siltation. In addition, the proposed project would not increase downstream
erosion or siltation impacts during operation because downstream receiving waters are not susceptible
to hydromodification. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
Impact: Adverse impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes.
The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and would
implement construction BMPs, proposed storm drain systems, and a detention system to reduce impacts
related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume that would
result in flooding. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
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: Marine, fresh, or wetland water surface water quality. The proposed project would
comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement construction and operational BMPs.
Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, and would
ensure that environmental impacts on surface water quality to marine, fresh, or wetland waters during
project construction and operation would be less 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
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 19
would occur, project activities would not substantially degrade groundwater quality. Therefore, the
project 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
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
SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), and the City's General Plan and Specific Plan. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable
land use plans, policies, and regulations.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant land use impact.
There are no incompatibilities between the proposed project and planned future projects in the City,
which primarily include mixed-use and residential developments. As discussed previously, the proposed
project would not divide an established community; conflict with the SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS or any
City -adopted plans or policies. All identified City -related projects would be reviewed for consistency with
adopted land use plans and policies by the City. For this reason, the related projects are anticipated to be
consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning requirements, or would be subject to allowable
exceptions; further, they would be subject to CEQA, mitigation requirements, and design review.
Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative land use compatibility
impact in the vicinity of the project site.
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 equivalent
continuous sound level measured in A -weighted decibels), the proposed project would comply with the
permitted construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
on Saturdays as specified in the Cypress Municipal Code. No construction shall be permitted outside of
these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure NO1-1, as
provided in Section 4.11, Noise). The implementation of Standard Condition NO1-1 (also provided in
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 20
Section 4.11) would further minimize construction -related noise to a less than significant impact.
Therefore, the noise impacts due to project construction are considered less than significant at all receiver
locations.
Operational noise sources associated with the proposed project include mobile and stationary
(HVAC equipment) sources. The proposed project would not result in any exceedances in mobile -source
or stationary source noise standards. Operational impacts would be less than significant with the
incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-2 (refer to Section 4.11, Noise).
Impact: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Increases
in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with
short-term construction -related activities. Construction -related ground vibration is normally associated
with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty
construction equipment. Based on the vibration levels presented in the California Department of
Transportation's (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013), ground
vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment at the closest residential, church, office, and commercial
building would not be anticipated to exceed the community annoyance thresholds. In addition, vibration
levels would not result in building damage because vibration levels would not exceed the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual) (FTA Manual) (2018)
damage threshold of 94 VdB (velocity in decibels) (0.2 PPV [peak particle velocity] in inches/second) and
nearby buildings were observed to be constructed of non -engineered timber and masonry. Therefore,
groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels generated by project construction activities would
be less than significant.
Impact: Located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The
closest airport to the project site is the JFTB Los Alamitos, located approximately 0.5 mile south of the
project site. The project site is within the 60 dBA CNEL (community noise equivalent level measured in
A -weighted decibels) noise contour, but outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JFTB Los Alamitos.
Given that the proposed project does not contain outdoor sensitive receptors and the City has defined
levels between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL as conditionally acceptable with the incorporation of HVAC allowing
a windows -closed condition and standard building construction, the noise impacts related to airport noise
would be 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 less than significant with the implementation of Regulatory Compliance
Measure NOI-1, which requires compliance with the construction hour restrictions specified in the City's
Municipal Code. Additionally, with the implementation of Standard Condition NOI-1, noise levels
generated would be minimized. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site could result in
elevated construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the area surrounding the project site. However,
each project would be required to comply with the applicable city's Municipal Code limitations on
construction. Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant with the
implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 and Standard Condition NOI-1.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 21
Long-term stationary noise sources associated with the development at the proposed project,
combined with other cumulative projects, could cause local noise level increases. Noise levels associated
with the proposed project and related projects together could result in higher noise levels than considered
separately. As previously described, the proposed project would be required to adhere to Regulatory
Compliance Measure N0I-2, which would ensure that 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 noise reduction measures if
standards are exceeded. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less
than significant with the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure N0I-2.
Project -related traffic would result in small (0.1 dBA or less) noise level increases along roadway
segments other than Vessels Circle in the vicinity of the project site under the project opening year (2022)
condition. The land uses surrounding Vessels Circle are not subject to exterior noise standards. Therefore,
none of the roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site would experience a substantial noise level
increase greater than the applicable noise thresholds, and the proposed project would not have a
cumulatively significant traffic noise impact.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area either directly or indirectly.
The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either
directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or
other infrastructure). The proposed 135 apartment units would generate approximately 408 new
residents. The addition of 408 residents represents a population increase of approximately 0.83 percent
over existing conditions as of January 2020. SCAG recently updated its regional forecast in conjunction
with the adoption of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal). Growth forecasts included in the adopted
Connect SoCal plan indicate that the City's population is projected to grow by 1,700 persons from 2016 to
2045 and the projected population in the City would be 51,300 persons in 2045. For all these reasons, the
proposed project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, the
proposed project's direct impact on population growth would be less than significant, and no mitigation
is required.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant population and
housing impacts. Construction of the proposed project and the related projects would result in a
cumulative population increase of 1,747 new County residents (408 residents [proposed project] + 1,339
residents [related projects]). The addition of 1,747 new residents would represent a small fraction (0.49
percent) of SCAG's forecasted County increase of 355,000 residents between 2016 and 2045.
Furthermore, if the proposed project and all 380 of the related residential units in the City of Cypress were
constructed, the cumulative population increase of 1,318 residents in the City of Cypress (408 residents
[proposed project] + 910 residents [related Cypress projects]) would remain below the City's projected
population increase of 1,700 between 2016 and 2045 as discussed above,
According to the SCAG RHNA 6th Cycle Final Allocation Plan dated March 4, 2021, the City of
Cypress has a total estimated RHNA of 3,936 units (1,150 Very Low Income, 657 Low Income, 623
Moderate Income, and 1,506 Above Moderate Income). Therefore, the total RHNA for the City of Cypress
would be substantially larger than the projected housing growth included in the Connect SoCal plan
growth forecasts that indicate the City's housing is projected to grow 800 units from 2016 to 2045. The
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 22
housing units included in the proposed project and related projects would help the City meet the need
for the 3,936 units included in the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. Because there is a need for additional
housing over SCAG projections because the City is required by State law (Government Code Section 65580
et seq.) to plan for its fair share of projected housing construction needs in its region, the population
growth as a result of the proposed project would not constitute substantial unplanned population growth
in the area. The related projects include a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreation
land uses. Some of the related projects may include the installation or extension of roads or infrastructure.
However, it is expected that those infrastructure improvements would only serve the applicable related
projects. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the related projects would extend roads or other
infrastructure into previously undeveloped areas that would be available for future development,
particularly given that the project area is highly urbanized and largely built out.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project in combination with the related projects would not
result in significant impact on population and housing because the increase in population that would be
generated by the proposed project and the related projects would not result in substantial unplanned
population growth. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project and the related projects on
population growth would be less than significant.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or
performance objectives for fire protection. The proposed project would incrementally increase demand
for fire protection and emergency service calls. OCFA indicated that it uses a fair share approach to
address fire service response impacts and facility/equipment needs. As described in correspondence from
OCFA, the Applicant/Developer is requested to enter a Secured Fire Protection Agreement. The Secured
Fire Protection Agreement with the OCFA would ensure adequate service to the project site. The OCFA
would review and comment on the site plan prior to approval. As part of the review, the OCFA would
impose standard conditions of approval, which would ensure all impacts regarding fire protection would
be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new fire
protection facilities or the upgrade of existing facilities, which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
for fire protection. Impacts associated with fire protection services would be less than significant.
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or
performance objectives for police protection. The proposed project would result in an insubstantial
population growth within the City. Although the proposed project may incrementally contribute to the
need for one additional police officer to meet future demand, the addition of one new police officer would
not necessitate the expansion of the City's existing police facilities because the new police officer would
be accommodated in existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities
or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in orderto maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for police protection. Impacts associated with police protection services would
be less than significant.
Impacts: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or
performance objectives for schools. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 23
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for schools. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a
project's impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility
development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the required
fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS -1, as provided in Section 4.13, Public Services,
potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project
would be less than significant.
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or
performance objectives for parks. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for parks. The incremental increase in demand for park facilities created by the
project's proposed 135 residential units would result in limited use of existing recreation facilities in the
project vicinity. However, this increased demand would be offset by the payment of park fees required
by Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1, as provided in Section 4.14, Recreation. Additionally, the
proposed project will include a communal open space area, which will allow for active and passive
recreational uses. The inclusion of this open space area would offset some of the demand for parks and
recreational facilities associated with the new residents. Therefore, the project would result in less than
significant impacts.
Impact: Substantial physical impact that would affect service ratios, response times, or
performance objectives for other public facilities. The proposed project would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for other public facilities.
Demand for library services is typically determined based on the size of the resident population.
The proposed project would result in 408 new residents, which is not substantial. As of 2015, the Cypress
Branch Library consisted of a 15,000 -square -foot (sf) facility with approximately 88,000 books, CDs, and
videos. According to the County's service standards of 0.2 sf of library space per capita and 1.5 books per
capita, the Cypress Branch Library has the capacity to accommodate a population of 75,000 and enough
books to serve a population of 58,667. The City currently exceeds the County's standards for size and
number of books since the City's most current population estimate is 49,272. Accordingly, the Cypress
Branch Library has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population growth associated with
the proposed project. Therefore, effects to other public facilities associated with the proposed project
would be less than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant public services
impact. The project site is a vacant parking lot located in an urban area with existing services provided by
public service providers in the vicinity. As described, the proposed project's potential impacts to fire
services, police protection, school services, and public libraries are limited. These impacts by their very
nature are cumulative impacts. Thus, because the project would result in less than significant impacts
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 24
related to the provision of fire services, police protection, school services, and public libraries, the project
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
RECREATION
Impact: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation
facilities which would result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. The proposed
project would result in an increase in residents in the City, increasing the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks. However, the City will require the Applicant/Developer to pay fees and/or dedicate
parkland as identified in Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in a substantial increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of any such facility would occur or be
accelerated, and the proposed project's impact would be less than significant.
Impact: Include recreation facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreation
facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment. The proposed project includes the
construction of a community open space area that can be used by residents and their guests for active
and passive reactional uses. The potential adverse effects associated with the construction and operation
of the proposed project's recreational facilities has been considered throughout the analysis in this EIR
and mitigated as appropriate. Additionally, the Applicant/Developer is required by the City to pay in -lieu
park fees as required by Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. Therefore, impacts related to the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities included as part of the proposed project would be less
than significant.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant recreational facilities
impact. The proposed project, in conjunction with the related projects in the City, has the potential to
increase demand on the City's recreational resources. However, the related projects would also be subject
to Municipal Code requirements for the provision of parkland and/or payment of in -lieu fees. Therefore,
the cumulative impact of the proposed project and the applicable related projects would be less than
significant with respect to recreational facilities.
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 Congestion Management
Program (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 level of service (LOS) 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 Los Alamitos (for joint Cypress and Los Alamitos intersections). Therefore, impacts were
determined to be less than significant.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 25
Impact: Conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The residential VMT per
capita for project baseline (2020) conditions is 18.4. The proposed project's VMT per capita does not
exceed the 15.0 percent below VMT per capita for the regional threshold recommended in the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory. The proposed project is consistent with the
City's General Plan land use. Therefore, the vehicle trips associated with a residential use on the project
site have already been incorporated into the land use and growth assumptions included in the SCAG's
2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal). 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
RTP/SCS, and accordingly, a cumulative analysis that makes a comparison of areawide daily total VMT
without and with the project was not performed. 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. All new driveways at the project
site would be subject to the provisions of the City 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 at a new full -access
driveway via an extension of Vessels Circle from its current western terminus (extension beyond the
knuckle) The project driveway would be designed and improved to conform to the City's standards. In
addition, the final site plans would be reviewed by the OCFA 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 2022 (baseline and plus project) condition.
Therefore, a significant project deficiency is not expected to occur at any study area intersection in the
opening year cumulative 2022 condition, and the project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts
would 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.
Water. Short-term water demand may occur during the excavation, grading, and construction
process on site. Construction activities would require water primarily for dust and mitigation purposes.
Water from the existing potable water lines in the vicinity of the project site would be used. Overall, short-
term construction activities would require minimal water and are not expected to have any adverse
impacts on the existing water system or available water supplies. The proposed project would not require
the construction of new or expanded water conveyance, treatment, or collection facilities with respect to
construction activities. Therefore, the impacts on water facilities during construction would be less than
significant.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 26
Implementation of the proposed project would include an on-site water distribution system that
would be built in compliance with the City's building and plumbing codes listed in the City's Municipal
Code, and would connect to existing Golden State Water Company (GSWC) facilities. Extension of the
water infrastructure from adjacent streets into the project site would be a routine part of the construction
process and would not have a material environmental impact, and water facility improvements would be
limited to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction
of new water facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause a significant
environmental impact, and the impact would be less than significant.
Wastewater. No significant increase in wastewater flows is anticipated as a result of construction
activities on the project site. Sanitary services during construction would be provided by portable toilet
facilities, which transport waste off-site for treatment and disposal. Therefore, during construction,
potential impacts to wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance infrastructure would be less than
significant.
The on-site network of private sewer mains and laterals for the proposed project would connect
to the sewer mains along Katella Avenue and convey wastewater flows to a nearby Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk line before eventually discharging into either OCSD's Reclamation Plant
No. 1 or Reclamation Plant No. 2. Any sewer improvements associated with the proposed project would
be designed and constructed to City and OCSD standards. Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1, as
provided in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, requires all sewer improvements to comply with
City and OCSD sewage standards. With the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1,
the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction or expansion
of wastewater treatment facilities.
Stormwater/Drainage. Grading and construction activities would disturb soils and temporarily
modify the stormwater flow patterns on the construction site. The proposed project would be subject to
requirements of the Construction General Permit (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1), which
requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and identification of
construction BMPs that must be implemented during project construction to address potential impacts
to hydrology and stormwater drainage, including soil erosion, siltation, spills, and runoff. Adherence to
the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1 would ensure that any
changes in stormwater drainage from the project site are controlled during construction. Therefore, the
proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
and the impact would be less than significant.
The proposed project includes the construction of an on-site stormdrain system. Stormwater
runoff would be discharged to the Winners Circle stormdrain system at City required controlled gates. The
WQMPs prepared for the proposed on-site and off-site improvements associated with the project
identified pollutants of concern that may affect the quality of discharges of stormwater from the site.
Both WQMPs set forth measures specified in the Countywide WQMP and the NPDES Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP), the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities, and the locations
of all structural BMPs, which are intended to provide measures that minimize or eliminate the
introduction of pollutants into the stormwater system. Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -3 (refer to
Section 4.9) requires the implementation of BMPs identified in the WQMPs and the drainage
improvements identified in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study. With the adherence to Regulatory
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 27
Compliance Measure HYD -3, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to
the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities.
Electric Power. Short-term construction activities would be limited to providing power to the
staging area and portable construction equipment and would not substantially increase demand for
electricity. The heavy equipment used for construction is primarily powered by diesel fuel. Temporary
electric power would be provided via existing utility boxes and lines on the project site. Given the limited
nature of potential demand for electricity during construction and the availability of existing power lines
on the site, there would not be a need to construct new or alter existing electric transmission facilities.
Impacts to local regional supplies of electricity would be less than significant.
Operation of the proposed project would increase on-site electricity demand compared to
existing conditions. The project site in its existing condition is a parking lot with existing light poles.
Therefore, current demand for electricity on the project site is negligible. The estimated potential increase
in electricity demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 379,499 kilowatt-hours
(kWh) per year. Total electricity demand in Orange County in 2019 was approximately 19,460 GWh
(19,460,000,000 kWh). Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity
consumption in Orange County by less than 0.01 percent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with Title 24 energy efficiency measures and sustainability features of the CBC as described under
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -5.
The supply and distribution network within the area surrounding the project site would remain
essentially the same as exists currently, with the exception of on-site improvements to connect to the
existing infrastructure. These on-site improvements would provide electrical service to the residential,
commercial, and retail uses proposed. The proposed project would not increase electrical demand beyond
existing projections from the local electricity provider and the project site is within a developed service
area with existing demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of any
physical improvements related to the provision of electricity service that would result in significant
environmental impacts, and the proposed project's impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas. Short-term construction activities would not result in demand for natural gas since
construction activities/equipment would not require accessing existing adjacent natural gas facilities.
Therefore, construction activities would not impact natural gas services, and the proposed project would
not require new or physically altered gas transmission facilities.
The existing use of the project site as a parking lot does not require the consumption of natural
gas. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase on-site natural demand compared to
existing conditions. The estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed
project is 15,147 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2019 was
approximately 623 million therms (623,000,000 therms). Therefore, operation of the proposed project
would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by less than 0.01 percent.
The estimated increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would represent a
very small fraction of the natural gas demand in Orange County. Additionally, the proposed project would
be required to comply with Title 24 requirements as described under Regulatory Compliance Measure
AQ -5 and would reduce natural gas consumption by incorporating the energy efficiency measures listed
above in the design of the proposed structures.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 28
The supply and distribution network within the area surrounding the project site would remain
essentially the same as exists today except for standard on-site improvements, and levels of service to
off-site users would not be adversely affected. Existing gas transmission and distribution services
maintained by SoCalGas would provide natural gas service to the proposed project. The proposed project
would not increase natural gas demand beyond existing projections from the local natural gas provider,
and the project site is within a developed service area with existing demand. Therefore, the proposed
project would not require the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of
natural gas service that would result in significant environmental impacts, and the proposed project's
potential impacts would be less than significant.
Telecommunication Facilities. Telephone, cable, and internet service lines in the vicinity will be
extended into the project site. Internal to the project site, the project Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for constructing adequate telecommunication facility extensions to the various structures of
the proposed project. The construction and expansion of these facilities would occur on site during the
site preparation and earthwork phase and are not expected to impact any telephone, cable, or internet
services off-site that serve the surrounding areas. Additionally, telecommunication facilities are generally
installed concurrently with utility expansions, and impacts associated with the expansion of
telecommunications facilities are already considered in the air quality, noise, and construction traffic
analyses. Therefore, the project impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or
expanded telecommunication facilities would be less than significant.
Impact: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The proposed residential units would
result in a minor increase in water demand. However, the proposed project would not induce substantial
population growth. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to use reclaimed water and to
comply with all State laws for water conservation measures, including the use of low -flow fixtures. The
total water demand generated by the proposed project as estimated by the California Emissions Estimator
Model (CaIEEMod) outputs would be approximately 39,290 gallons per day (gpd) or 44 acre-feet per year
(afy). The estimated increase in water demand associated with the proposed project would represent
0.2 percent of the West Orange System's current annual water demand, based on the system's projected
demand of 16,722 afy in 2020. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded
water entitlements, and GSWC would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water.
Therefore, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.
Impact: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed project is anticipated to
generate 39,290 gpd of wastewater. However, the 39,290 gpd of wastewater generated by the proposed
project would only represent a small fraction of the primary daily treatment capacity of Reclamation Plant
No. 1 and Reclamation Plant No. 2 (0.18 percent and 0.23 percent, respectively). Additionally, through its
Capital Improvement Program, the OCSD strives to continue maintaining its facilities at optimal levels by
planning, designing, and preparing for future demand by developing Facilities and Biosolids Master Plans
that address 20 -year planning horizons. Through these long-range planning activities, the OCSD would be
able to accommodate the growth in demand for wastewater treatment generated by the proposed
project and other projects in its service area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a
significant contribution to the capacity of Reclamation Plant No. 1 or Reclamation Plant No. 2.
Additionally, fees required by the 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.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 29
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. Based on the
CalEEMod outputs, the proposed project is estimated to generate 85.16 pounds of solid waste per day
during operation. The incremental increase of solid waste generated by the proposed project would
constitute 0.004 percent of the remaining daily available capacity (1,000 tons per day at the Olinda Alpha
Landfill). Therefore, solid waste generated by the proposed project would not cause the capacity at the
Olinda Alpha Landfill to be exceeded. As such, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate its solid waste disposal needs. 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 the City's Construction and Demolition
Ordinance (Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2 [Section 4.17]). The Applicant/Developer would also
be required to submit a Materials Questionnaire should the contractor haul away its own demolition
waste. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with AB 341, which requires businesses and
multi -family residential dwelling units of five units or more that generate four or more cubic yards of
commercial solid waste per week to implement recycling programs. With adherence to Regulatory
Compliance Measure UTIL-2, the proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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.
The projections for potable water demand in the GSWC West Orange service area are based on
regional population and economic growth forecasts, and account for potential future development within
its service area, including the additional demand for water generated by the related projects. Population
growth generated by the proposed project in conjunction with related projects would not result in
substantial unplanned population growth. As such, GSWC would update its population projections and
expected water demand accordingly to accommodate population and housing growth. Therefore, GSWC
would have adequate capacity for the increased demand for potable water associated with the
development of the proposed project and the related projects within its service area. Therefore, the
proposed project and the related projects would not have a cumulatively significant impact on water
supply or facilities.
Any increase in electrical demand resulting from the proposed project would be incremental
compared to an increase in regional demand. Sufficient electricity supplies and infrastructure capacity are
available, or have already been planned, to serve past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.
Additionally, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code regulates energy and water consumption in
new construction and regulates building energy consumption for heating, cooling, ventilation, water
heating, and lighting. Therefore, in relation to the cumulative study area, the proposed project would not
generate a significant cumulative increase in demand for electricity or a significant disruption in service
or service level. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to electricity impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project's percent of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SoCalGas service
area would be negligible. Therefore, any increase in natural gas demand resulting from the proposed
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 30
project would be incremental compared to an increase in regional demand. Furthermore, like the
proposed project, all future projects would be subject to Title 24 requirements and would be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis to determine the need for specific distribution improvements. Therefore, the
proposed project's contribution to natural gas impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project would only constitute approximately 0.004 percent of the remaining
average daily capacity at the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Additionally the Olinda Alpha Landfill is currently only
receiving 87.5 percent of the 8,000 tons it is permitted to receive. Therefore, the Olinda Alpha Landfill has
sufficient permitted capacity to provide adequate capacity for Orange County's solid waste needs and
with compliance with federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste, which require
reductions in solid waste generation. Furthermore, based on their current daily maximum permitted
disposal capacities and current average daily tonnage, the Alpha Olinda Landfill will reach capacity in 2030,
the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill will reach capacity in 2053, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill will reach
capacity in 2102. Therefore, there is currently sufficient permitted capacity within the existing OCWR
system serving Orange County to provide adequate future capacity for the County's solid waste needs.
Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to solid waste impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable.
The construction and expansion of telecommunication facilities for the proposed project would
occur on site and is not expected to impact any telephone, cable, or internet services offsite that serve
the surrounding areas. Likewise, construction and expansion of telecommunication facilities would
generally occur on site to extend through proposed related developments. Therefore, cumulative impacts
associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities would be
less than significant.
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 and the majority of project
grading/over-excavation would occur in Artificial Fill. However, project trenching activities would extend
in to sediments that date to human occupation of the area. As such, there is a potential to encounter
subsurface archaeological resources from either the precontact or historic periods. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, as provided in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, and included below, which
requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and includes procedures for recovering any significant or
unique archaeological resource encountered during grading and excavation activities and for preparation
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 31
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 loss 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 CUL -1 and Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 would ensure that the proposed
project, together with the 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 Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery. Prior to the
issuance of grading permits, and in adherence to the recommendations
of the Record Search Results for the Cypress Town Center Project in
Cypress, Orange County, California (LSA Project No. CCP1603.08)
(November 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 trenching activities for
utilities only, not during over excavation or building footing excavations
or during demolition or clearing/grubbing of existing landscape.
If cultural materials are discovered during any grading or excavation, the
Construction Contractor shall divert all earthmoving activity within and
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 32
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 in 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.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact: Result in substantial adverse effects related to strong seismic ground shaking. As with
all of Southern California, the project site is subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes
on nearby faults. There are several faults in the vicinity of the project site that are capable of producing
strong ground motion, including the Newport -Inglewood Fault, the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault, the San
Joaquin Hills Thrust Fault, the Palos Verdes Fault, and the Whittier Fault. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, as
provided in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, and included below, requires the project Applicant/Developer
to comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Assessment, which stipulates appropriate
seismic design provisions that shall be implemented with project design and construction. The proposed
project would adhere to the adopted City's Building Code, including the seismic standards therein,
consistent with Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure
4.6-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1,
potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 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 proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 33
Impact: Result in substantial adverse effects related to seismic related ground failure, including
liquefaction. The secondary effects of seismic activity that are typically considered as potential hazards
to a particular site include several types of ground failure. The general types of ground failure that can
occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking include landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching,
and shallow ground rupture, as well as liquefaction -induced vertical settlement, lateral spreading, and
surface manifestation of liquefaction. The probability of the occurrence of each type of ground failure
depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from the causative fault, topography, soil and
groundwater conditions, and other factors.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 includes ground improvement recommendations (a combination of
newly compacted fill and shallower ground improvement, such as aggregate and geogrid reinforcement)
to mitigate potential impacts related to liquefaction -induced settlement. The undocumented fill in the
project site would also be completely removed and replaced with engineered fill (refer to Mitigation
Measure 4.6-1). With the implementation 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 less than significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and
soils would occur with implementation of this measure for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts related to geology and soils
for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR.
Impact: Result in a project that is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would
become unstable as a result of the project.
Liquefaction and Compressible/Collapsible Soils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
4.6-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1
would be required to address the proposed project's impacts with respect to liquefaction and
compressible soils. Provided that design and remedial grading 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 3 to 4 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.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 34
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 depth of less than 10 ft for excavation, 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
(Section 4.6) would require work in the immediate area of the discovery to be halted and a qualified
paleontologist contacted to assess the discovery. 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 the
destruction of unique paleontological resources or geologic features to a less than significant level. No
significant unavoidable impacts related to the destruction of unique paleontological resources or geologic
features 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 the
destruction of unique paleontological resources or geologic features for the reasons set forth in the Final
EIR.
Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to
geology and soils. Typically, geology and soils impacts are specific to a particular project site and there is
little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a proposed project and development
within a larger cumulative area. Moreover, while seismic conditions are regional in nature, seismic impacts
on a given project site are site-specific. For example, development within the project site would not alter
geologic events or soil features/characteristics (such as ground shaking, seismic intensity, or soil
expansion or compression). Therefore, the proposed project would not affect the level of intensity at
which a seismic event on an adjacent site is experienced. Potential impacts of the proposed project to
unknown paleontological resources and unique geologic features, when combined with the impacts of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Cypress, could contribute to a
cumulatively significant impact due to the overall loss of paleontological remains unique to the region.
When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources
are less than significant. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure 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 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.
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 Evaluation for
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 35
Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development South of
Vessels Circle and West or Walker Street, City of Cypress,
Orange County, California (Geotechnical Assessment)
(GeoTek, Inc. [GeoTek], August 12, 2019) 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:
1. To address potential liquefaction and seismically induced
settlement, at a minimum, the upper 4 ft of soil shall be
completely removed within the structural grading limits.
The depth of removals should be extended, where
needed, to eliminate any undocumented fill. Additional
removals may be recommended if unsuitable materials
are exposed. As a minimum, removals shall extend down
and away from foundation elements at a 1:1 (h:v)
projection to the recommended removal depth, or a
minimum of 5 ft laterally.
2. A minimum 24 inches of engineered fill shall be provided
below the bottom of the proposed foundations. The
Project Geotechnical Consultant and the City Director of
Public Works/City Engineer, or designee, shall observe
the bottom of all excavations. A minimum of 12 inches of
engineered fill should be provided below asphaltic
concrete pavement and Portland cement concrete
hardscape areas. The horizontal extent of removals
should extend at least 2 ft beyond the edge.
3. The bottom of removals may encounter very moist/soft
soils that may require stabilization. If required, to
address shallow groundwater and wet soil, some type of
ground stabilization, such as cement treatment or
aggregate or a combination of both shall be used.
Geofabric or geogrid is recommended in combination
with aggregate to reduce the required depth of
treatment, amount of aggregate and time required to
backfill the excavations.
4. Concrete slabs shall be used for all foundations and slabs
on grade and shall a minimum bearing capacity of 2,000
pounds per square foot (psf).
5. A moisture and vapor retarding system shall be placed
below slabs -on -grade where moisture migration through
the slab is undesirable. The system shall be designed per
Section 4.505.2 of the current version of the California
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 36
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) and the
Section 1910.1 of the current version of the CBC.
Additional site testing and final design evaluation
shall be conducted by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to
refine and enhance these requirements. The Applicant/
Developer shall require the Project Geotechnical Consultant
to assess whether the requirements in that report need to be
modified or refined to address any changes in the project
features that occur prior to the start of grading. If the Project
Geotechnical Consultant identifies modifications or
refinements to the requirements, the Applicant/Developer
shall require appropriate changes to the final project design
and specifications. Design, grading, and construction shall be
performed in accordance with the requirements of the City
Municipal Code and the California Building Code (CBC)
applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading
regulations, and the requirements of the Project
Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in a final written
report, subject to review by the City Director of Public Works,
or designee, prior to commencement of grading activities.
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the
City 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 City Director of
Public Works/City Engineer, or designee, to ensure
compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated
into project plans. Prior to the final grading permits, the
Project Geotechnical Consultant shall submit a Final Testing
and Observation Geotechnical Report for Rough Grading to
the City Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 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
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 37
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
qualified, professional Paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant/
Developer.
III. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 1S126.2(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, in Chapter 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, 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 and on site. These include energy resources such as electricity,
petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. Energy resources would be used for heating and cooling
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 38
buildings, transportation within the project site, and building lighting. Fossil fuels are primary energy
sources for project construction and operation. This existing, finite energy source would thus be
incrementally reduced. Under Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (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
that would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the
accidental release of hazardous materials.
In summary, construction and operation of the proposed project would commit the use of slowly
renewable and nonrenewable resources and would limit the availability of these resources on the project
site for future generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed project. However, the
continued use of such resources during operation would be on a relatively small scale and consistent with
regional and local urban design and development goals for the area. As a result, the use of nonrenewable
resources in this manner would not result in significant irreversible changes to the environment under the
proposed project.
IV. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS AND COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Sections 15126.2(d) and 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines require the EIR to address the
growth -inducing impacts of the project. EIR Section 6.3, Growth -Inducing Impacts, 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, business park, racetrack, and commercial 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 would not
necessitate substantial utility infrastructure improvements. In addition, all roadway improvements
planned with respect to the proposed project are intended to provide for better circulation flows within
the project site or allow vehicular access to the existing segment of Vessels Circle to the east of 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
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 39
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.
Upon completion of the proposed project, the 135 residential housing units are estimated to
generate a total of approximately 408 new residents on the project site. While this direct population
growth would increase the demand for neighborhood -serving commercial uses in the area surrounding
the project site, the proposed project would be located in a built out area of the City of Cypress that is
already served by neighborhood -serving retail and service uses. Although some local businesses that
provide goods and services to nearby residents may hire a small number of additional employees to
accommodate the minor increase in clientele associated with the proposed project, this additional hiring
is not expected to induce material population growth because most of these new employees are not
expected to change their places of residence. Therefore, given that the employment opportunities
generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project would be filled by people who would
commute to the project site, the potential population growth associated with project employees would
be minimal.
In its existing condition, the project site is a paved and underutilized parking lot that generates a
nominal amount of property tax revenue for the City and very little economic activity. The proposed
project would trigger a reassessment of the project site, which would increase the local property tax base.
The proposed project would also introduce new residents that would invigorate the local economy by
spending on goods and services at local businesses. As previously discussed, the construction of the
proposed project would generate a substantial number of construction -related jobs and new employment
opportunities in the City during the construction period. Therefore, the proposed project would foster
economic growth.
The proposed project includes the development of up to 135 residential units on the project site.
Because the proposed project would not modify the existing General Plan land use designations or zoning
classifications on any off-site properties, the proposed project would not directly increase the City's
population beyond the number of residents who would live in the 135 on-site residential units. While it is
conceivable that the project's approval could attract the interest of new housing developers to Cypress
who may seek the approval of Specific Plan or General Plan Amendments on other undeveloped or
underutilized properties in the City for the purpose of developing new housing, it is highly unlikely, given
that the City of Cypress has very little land that would be able to accommodate new housing development
that has not already been designated for housing. Any future growth in the City is likely to occur regardless
of whether or not the project is approved.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or
to its location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects, and that it evaluate the comparative merits of each of
the alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 40
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 two alternatives as follows:
1. No Project Alternative (Alternative 1)
2. Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2)
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
community services. The No Project Alternative assumes that the project site would remain in the same
condition as it was at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published and no new development
of any kind would occur on the project site. The project site would remain in generally the same condition
as it was at the time the NOP was published. 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 a paved parking lot that would continue to be used for vehicle parking
during events at the nearby Los Alamitos Race Course.
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
the project site would remain a paved parking lot and would thereby avoid most of the proposed project's
environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would result in greater land use and planning
impacts because the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the City's goals or the Specific
Plan, which envisions buildout of the Specific Plan Area with a mixed-use, sustainable community.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 41
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would
remain a paved parking lot that would continue to be used for vehicle parking during events at the nearby
Los Alamitos Race Course. No residential uses would be developed on the project site. The No Project
Alternative would not develop housing in close proximity to commercial and employment opportunities,
expand the City's housing supply, or implement the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not provide pedestrian connections to adjacent parcels,
provide landscaped areas that provide passive and active recreation opportunities, or provide green
infrastructure to improve stormwater quality. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not be
consistent with any of the Project Objectives.
Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal,
economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the No Project Alternative identified in the Final
EIR infeasible.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As described in this section and in Section 5.5, Alternatives
Analysis, in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives, 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 a residential development on the project
site with the same multi -family residential uses as the proposed project, but with a 30 percent reduction
in the number of units. The Reduced Project Alternative includes the construction of 94 residential units
at a density of 13.42 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) on the approximately 7 -acre project site. The
residential units would include a combination of two-story condominium buildings arranged around
motor courts and three-story row townhomes, similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Project
Alternative would have the same basic building footprint, architecture, open space areas, and vehicular
access as the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would include 232 total private
community parking spaces, exceeding the minimum number of parking spaces set forth by the Specific
Plan.
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 biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning,
and tribal cultural resources. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in less significant impacts than
those of the proposed project with regard to aesthetics, air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise,
population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project
site with a residential development similar to the proposed project, but at a reduced density. The Reduced
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 42
Project Alternative would develop housing in close proximity to commercial and employment
opportunities, expand the City's housing supply, and implement the Cypress Town Center and Commons
Specific Plan 2.0. Additionally, the Reduced Project Alternative would provide pedestrian connections to
adjacent parcels, provide landscaped areas that provide passive and active recreation opportunities, and
provide green infrastructure to improve stormwater quality. The Reduced Project Alternative would be
consistent with all of the Project Objectives. However, the Reduced Project Alternative would meet the
goals of providing new high-quality housing and expanding the City's housing supply to a lesser extent
than the proposed project due to the reduced number of residential units. Therefore, the Reduced Project
Alternative would meet all of the Project Objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed project. This
assumes, however, that a developer would be willing and able to purchase the project site and feasibly
develop it at the reduced density.
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 meet the Project Objectives, but to a lesser extent than the
proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would be consistent with all of the Project Objectives.
However, the Reduced Project Alternative would meet the goals of providing new high-quality housing
and expanding the City's housing supply to a lesser extent than the proposed project due to the reduced
number of residential units. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would meet all of the Project
Objectives, but to a lesser extent 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.
Cypress Town Center Project
CEQA Findings of Fact
Page 43
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
Cypress Town Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
s
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME NT\PLANN IN G\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final E I R Section s\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
Exhibit B
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
4.2 Air Quality
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -1:
During
Construction supervisor
construction
and/or Applicant/
SCAQMD Rule 403. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or
activities
Developer
excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be
controlled by regular watering or other dust preventative measures
by using the following procedures, in compliance with South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during
construction.
• All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least
twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late
morning and after work is done for the day.
• All material transported on-site or off-site shall be either
sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or
excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
• These control techniques shall be indicated in the project
specifications. Compliance with this measure shall be subject to
periodic site inspections by the City of Cypress (City).
• Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project
shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible.
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME NT\PLANN IN G\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final E I R Section s\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
Exhibit B
s
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT
CY P RE 55, CALIFORNIA
`-P[i08RFS �'-
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -2:
During
Construction supervisor
construction
and/or Applicant/
All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material shall comply
activities
Developer
with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to
Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the
prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -3:
Prior to the
Applicant/Developer
approval of
and/or construction
Prior to approval of the project plans and specifications, the City
project plans
supervisor/City of
Director of Community Development, or designee, shall confirm that
and
Cypress Director of
the construction bid packages specify:
specifications
Community
DevelopmentDepartment,
• Contractors shall use high-volume low-pressure paint applicators
or
with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent;
designee
• Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a volatile organic
compound content lower than required under SCAQMD Rule
1113; and
• To the extent feasible, construction/building materials shall be
composed of pre -painted materials.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -4:
During
Construction supervisor
construction
and/or Applicant/
The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 prohibits
activities
Developer
the discharge of air contaminants or other material from any type of
operations, which can cause nuisance or annoyance to any
considerable number of people or to the public or which endangers
the comfort or repose of any such persons, or the public.
Prior to the
Applicant/Developer
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ -5:
issuance of
and City of Cypress Chief
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. Prior to the issuance
building permits
Building Official, or
of building permits, the City of Cypress (City) Chief Building Official,
designee
or designee, shall confirm that the project design complies with the
2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24) energy
conservation and green building standards, as well as those listed in
Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code [CALGreen Code]).
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
s
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT +,
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
The City's Chief Building Official shall confirm that the project
complies with the mandatory measures listed in the CALGreen Code
for residential building construction.
4.3: Biological Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure 13I0-1:
No more than
Applicant/Developer
three days prior
and City of Cypress
Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance. If vegetation removal,
to
Community
construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the
commencement
Development Director,
active nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), the City
of grading
or designee
of Cypress, or designee, shall confirm that the Applicant/Developer
activities
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.
4.4: Cultural Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1:
During
Applicant/Developer
construction
and/or construction
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health
activities
supervisor/City of
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance
Cypress Director of
shall occur until the County of Orange (County) Coroner has made a
Community
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State Public
Development
Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be
Department, or
notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be
designee
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
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
¢�Ea$ CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT
CY PRE55, CALIFORNIA
MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME NT\PLANN IN G\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final E I R Section s\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the
inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment
within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD
recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive
analysis of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials, preservation of Native American human remains
and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American
human remains and associated items to the descendants for
treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1:
Prior to the
Applicant/Developer
issuance of a
and/or construction
Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery. Prior to
grading permit
supervisor/City of
the issuance of grading permits, and in adherence to the
and during
Cypress Director of
recommendations of the Record Search Results for the Cypress Town
construction
Community
Center Project in Cypress, Orange County, California (LSA Project No.
activities
Development
CCP1603.08) (November 2020), the Applicant/Developer shall retain
Department, or
a qualified archaeological monitor with approval of the City of
designee
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 trenching activities for utilities only, not
during over excavation or building footing excavations or during
demolition or clearing/grubbing of existing landscape.
If cultural materials are discovered during any 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 in 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
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME NT\PLANN IN G\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final E I R Section s\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
s
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT +,
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
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.
4.6: Geology and Soils
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1:
Prior to issuance
Applicant/Developer
of building
and City of Cypress
California Building Code Compliance Seismic Standards. All
permits
Chief Building official, or
structures shall be designed in accordance with the seismic
designee
parameters presented in the Geotechnical Assessment prepared for
this project (GeoTek, Inc. 2019) and applicable sections of the most
current California Building Code (CBC). Prior to the issuance of
building permits for planned structures, the Project Soils Engineer
and the City of Cypress (City) Chief Building Official, or designee,
shall review building plans to verify that the structural design
conforms to the requirements of the Geotechnical Assessment and
the City Municipal Code.
Prior to issuance
Applicant/Developer
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1:
of grading
and City of Cypress
Compliance with the Recommendations in the Project Geotechnical
permits
Chief Building official, or
Assessment. The Applicant/Developer's Construction Contractor
designee, and City of
shall implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Cypress Director of
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
Monitoring
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Verification of Compliance
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
Evaluation for Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development South
Public Works/City
of Vessels Circle and West or Walker Street City of Cypress, Orange
Engineer, or designee
County, California (Geotechnical Assessment) (GeoTek, Inc.
[GeoTek], August 12, 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:
1. To address potential liquefaction potential and seismically
induced settlement, at a minimum, the upper 4 ft of soil shall be
completely removed within the structural grading limits. The
depth of removals should be extended, where needed, to
eliminate any undocumented fill. Additional removals may be
recommended if unsuitable materials are exposed. As a minimum,
removals shall extend down and away from foundation elements
at a 1:1 (h:v) projection to the recommended removal depth, or a
minimum of 5 ft laterally.
2. A minimum 24 inches of engineered fill shall be provided below
the bottom of the proposed foundations. The Project
Geotechnical Consultant and the City Director of Public
Works/City Engineer, or designee, shall observe the bottom of all
excavations. A minimum of 12 inches of engineered fill should be
provided below asphaltic concrete pavement and Portland
cement concrete hardscape areas. The horizontal extent of
removals should extend at least 2 ft beyond the edge.
3. The bottom of removals may encounter very moist/soft soils that
may require stabilization. If required, to address shallow
groundwater and wet soil, some type of ground stabilization, such
as cement treatment or aggregate or a combination of both shall
be used. Geofabric or geogrid is recommended in combination
with aggregate to reduce the required depth of treatment,
amount of aggregate and time required to backfill the
excavations.
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
s
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT +,
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
Monitoring
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Verification of Compliance
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
4. Concrete slabs shall be used for all foundations and slabs on grade
and shall a minimum bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square
foot (psf).
5. A moisture and vapor retarding system shall be placed below
slabs -on -grade where moisture migration through the slab is
undesirable. The system shall be designed per Section 4.505.2 of
the current version of the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen Code) and the Section 1910.1 of the current
version of the CBC.
Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted
by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to refine and enhance these
requirements. The Applicant/Developer shall require the Project
Geotechnical Consultant to assess whether the requirements in that
report need to be modified or refined to address any changes in the
project features that occur prior to the start of grading. If the Project
Geotechnical Consultant identifies modifications or refinements to
the requirements, the Applicant/Developer shall require appropriate
changes to the final project design and specifications. Design,
grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City Municipal Code and the California Building
Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local
grading regulations, and the requirements of the Project
Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in a final written report,
subject to review by the City Director of Public Works, or designee,
prior to commencement of grading activities.
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the City 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
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
4 TM -1 . h
}, CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
Code. On-site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the
Project Geotechnical Consultant and the City Director of Public
Works/City Engineer, or designee, to ensure compliance with
geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. Prior
to the final grading permits, the Project Geotechnical Consultant
shall submit a Final Testing and Observation Geotechnical Report for
Rough Grading to the City Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or
designee.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-2:
During ground-
Applicant/Developer
disturbing
and/or construction
Procedures for Unexpected Paleontological Resources Discoveries.
activities
supervisor/City of
In the event that paleontological resources are encountered, work in
Cypress Director of
the immediate area of the discovery shall be halted and the
Community
Applicant/Developer shall retain a professional Paleontologist who
Development
meets the qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate
Department, or
Paleontology to assess the discovery. The qualified, professional
designee
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 qualified,
professional Paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant/
Developer.
4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1:
At least 45 days
Applicant/Developer
prior to the
Federal Aviation Regulation Title 14 Part 77. The
commencement
Applicant/Developer shall notify the Federal Aviation Administration
of construction
(FAA) of any proposed structure(s) that would penetrate the 100 to 1
activities
imaginary surface that surrounds the runway at Joint Forces Training
Base Los Alamitos at least 45 days prior to beginning construction.
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
s
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT +,
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1:
Prior to
Applicant/Developer
commencement
and City of Cypress
Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of
of construction
Director of Community
construction activities, the Applicant/Developer shall obtain
activities
Development
coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Department, or
(NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
designee
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General
Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as
amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-
DWQ, or any other subsequent permit. This shall include submission
of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including permit
application fees, a Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site
plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed
certification statement, and any other compliance -related
documents required by the permit, to the State Water Resources
Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report
Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not
commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) is
obtained for the project from the SMARTS and provided to the
Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community Development
Department, or designee, to demonstrate that coverage under the
Construction General Permit has been obtained. Project construction
shall comply with all applicable requirements specified in the
Construction General Permit, including, but not limited to,
preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction site
best management practices (BMPs) to address all construction -
related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential
to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for
the project. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that
may affect the quality of stormwater and shall include BMPs (e.g.,
Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs)
to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff. Construction Site
BMPs shall also conform to the requirements specified in the latest
edition of the Orange County Stormwater Program Construction
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21)
¢�Ea$ CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
�'-
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
10 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME NT\PLANN IN G\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final E I R Section s\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and
Developers to control and minimize the impacts of construction and
construction -related activities, materials, and pollutants on the
watershed. Upon completion of construction activities and
stabilization of the project site, a Notice of Termination shall be
submitted via SMARTS.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -2:
At least 45 days
Applicant/Developer
prior to
and City of Cypress
Groundwater Dewatering Permit. If groundwater dewatering is
commencement
Director of Community
required during excavation activities, the Applicant/Developer shall
of construction
Development
obtain coverage under the General Waste Discharge Requirements
activities; upon
Department, or
for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De
completion of
designee
Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 138-2009-0003, NPDES
groundwater
No. CAG998001) (De Minimis Permit). This shall include submission
dewatering
of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the permit to the
activities
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 45
days prior to the start of dewatering. Groundwater dewatering
activities shall comply with all applicable provisions in the permit,
including water sampling, analysis, treatment (if required), and
reporting of dewatering -related discharges. Upon completion of
groundwater dewatering activities, a Notice of Termination shall be
submitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -3:
Prior to the
Applicant/Developer
commencement
and City of Cypress City
Best Management Practices. The Applicant/Developer shall
of construction
Engineer, or designee
implement the BMPs identified in Section IV of the On -Site and Off-
activities and
Site Water Quality Management Plans and the drainage
periodic routine
improvements identified in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study. In
inspections
addition, the Property Owners Association shall be the responsible
during
party for inspection and maintenance of the on-site BMPs as
operations
identified in Section V of the On -Site Water Quality Management
Plan. The City shall be the responsible party for inspection and
maintenance of the off-site BMPs as identified in Section V of the
Off -Site Water Quality Management Plan.
10 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME NT\PLANN IN G\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final E I R Section s\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ENT\PLAN NING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final El Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final El R, MM RP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MM RP.docx (04/29/21) 11
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
4.11: Noise
Standard Condition N0I-1:
Prior to the
Applicant/Developer
issuance of a
and City of Cypress
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the construction contractor
grading permit
Director of Community
shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director
Development
of Community Development, or designee, the following:
Department, or
• Construction contracts shall specify that all construction
designee
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers and other State required noise
attenuation devices.
• Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling
equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around
stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance
between construction equipment staging areas and occupied
residential areas, and use of electric air compressors and similar
power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where
feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be
placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise -
sensitive receptors.
• All construction entrances shall clearly post construction hours,
allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent. This will allow surrounding owners and residents
to contact the job superintendent with concerns. If the
Applicant/Developer receives a noise -related complaint,
appropriate corrective actions shall be implemented and a report
taken indicating the action with a copy of the report provided to
the reporting party upon request.
Regulatory Compliance Measure N0I-1:
During
Applicant/Developer
construction
and City of Cypress
The construction contractor shall limit all construction -related
Director of Community
activities to between the hours 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays
Development
and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No
Department, or
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ENT\PLAN NING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final El Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final El R, MM RP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MM RP.docx (04/29/21) 11
¢�Ea$ CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
�'-
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
12 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME NT\PLANN IN G\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final E I R Section s\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays
designee
or a federal holiday.
Regulatory Compliance Measure N0I-2:
Prior to the
Applicant/Developer
issuance of
and City of Cypress
Mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units in residential,
building permits
Director of Community
commercial, and industrial zoning districts, shall be enclosed within a
and during
Development
structure or completely screened from view from surrounding
construction
Department, or
properties by the use of a fence or wall consistent with Section
designee
3.11.100(b) of the City of Cypress (City) Municipal Code. Additionally,
prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer
shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Director of
Community Development, or designee, that on-site stationary noise
sources, such as air conditioners, shall not exceed City noise
standards as stated within the City's Municipal Code Sections 13-68
and 13-69.
4.13: Public Services
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS -1:
Prior to issuance
Applicant/Developer
of any building
and the Anaheim Union
Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits,
permits
High School District/
the Applicant/Developer shall provide proof to the Director of the
City of Cypress Director
City of Cypress Community Development Department, or designee,
of Community
that payment of school fees to the Anaheim Union High School
Development
District has been made in compliance with Section 65995 of the
Department, or
California Government Code.
designee
4.14: Recreation
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1:
Prior to issuance
Applicant/Developer
of any building
and City of Cypress
Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to
permits
Director of Community
issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall
Development
provide proof of compliance with the applicable provisions of
Department, or
Chapter 25 (Subdivisions), Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities,
designee
of the City of Cypress (City) Municipal Code, or other fees as
determined by the City, to the Director of the City Community
Development Department, or designee.
12 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOP ME NT\PLANN IN G\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final E I R Section s\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MARCH 2021
s
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT +,
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21) 13
Responsible Party
Verification of Compliance
Monitoring
Responsible for
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Milestone
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
4.17: Utilities and Service Systems
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1:
Prior to
Applicant/Developer
commencement
and City of Cypress
Sewer Improvement Standards. All required sewer improvements
of construction
Engineer, or designee
shall be designed and constructed to City of Cypress (City) and
activities
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) standards and shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to development. These
improvements may be constructed in a phased sequence depending
upon the development process. Facilities shall be dedicated to the
City and/or OCSD at the completion of construction.
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2:
Prior to issuance
Applicant/Developer
of building
and City of Cypress
Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The Construction
permits
Director of Community
Contractor shall comply with the provisions of City Ordinance No.
Development
1166 and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, which
Department, or
would reduce construction and demolition waste. Ordinance No.
designee
1166 is codified in Article VIII, Materials Questionnaire for Certain
Construction and Demolition Projects within the City of Cypress in
the City of Cypress Municipal Code.
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town Center MMRP.docx (04/29/21) 13
0
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA MARCH 2021
This page intentionally left blank
140MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\2021\Melia Homes\EIR\Final EIR Sections\DRAFT Cypress Town Center Final EIR, MMRP, Findings\Cypress Town
Center MMRP.docx «04/29/21»