Loading...
CRA - 112RESOLUTION NO. CRA - 112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CYPRESS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVE;LOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION PERTAINING TO CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WALKER STREET AND KATELLA AVENUE WITHIN THE LOS ALAMITOS RACE TRACK AND GOLF COURSE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS WHEREAS, the Cypress Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is a public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) ("CRL"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CRL, the City Council of the City of Cypress ("City" or "City Council", as applicable) approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Los Alamitos Race Track and Golf Course Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"), by Ordinance No. 851 on June 18, 1990, as amended by Ordinance No. 952 on January 9, 1995, and by Ordinance No. 1014 on September 10, 2001; and WHEREAS, Cottonwood Christian Center Inc. ("Cottonwood") is the owner of that certain real property of approximately seven hundred eighty-two thousand three hundred fifty square feet (+782,350 s.f.) of land area [-+17.96 acres] at the northwest comer of Walker Street and Katella Avenue (the "Site"); and WHEREAS, Cottonwood and the Agency entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property, dated as of February 24, 2003, as amended by a series of letter agreements thereto (collectively, the "Purchase Agreement"), pursuant to which Cottonwood agreed to sell and the Agency agreed to purchase the Site for a purchase price of Eighteen Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($18,800,000); and WHEREAS, Agency staff has negotiated a Disposition and Development Agreement including attachments thereto (collectively, the "Agreement") with Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation ("Developer"), for Agency's disposition to Developer of a portion of the Site consisting of approximately six hundred forty-nine thousand and ninety-six square feet (_+649,096 s.f.) of land area [_+14.90 acres], said portion hereinafter referred to as the "Costco Parcel;" and WHEREAS, Agency staff has presented the draft Agreement to the Agency Board and City Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said disposition of the Costco Parcel by Agency to Developer as set forth in the Agreement shall be effected through an assignment by Agency to Developer of the Purchase Agreement as it relates to the Costco Parcel portion of the Site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Developer shall acquire the Costco Parcel for Developer's development thereon of a Costco wholesale/retail warehouse store including a food court and a tire sales facility, and a Costco vehicle fueling station (collectively, the "Project"); and WHEREAS, in addition to the Costco Parcel, the Site as defined in the Agreement consists of two other parcels consisting of (i) a parcel of approximately seventy-eight thousand seven hundred forty-five square feet (_+78,745 s.f.) of land area [_+1.81 acres], said parcel referred to as the "Comer Parcel," and (ii) a parcel of approximately fifty-four thousand five hundred nine square feet (_+54,.509 s.f.) of land area [_1.25 acres], said parcel referred to as the Winners Parcel" (the Comer Parcel and the Winners Parcel are collectively referred to herein as the "Out Parcels"); and WHEREAS, the Out Parcels are not part of the Agency's disposition to Developer under the Agreement, rather the Agency shall acquire the Out Parcels from Cottonwood concurrently with Developer's acquisition, through the Agency assignment referred to above, of the Costco Parcel, and Agency shall retain ownership of the Out Parcels for future development; and WHEREAS, based on the respective square footages of the Costco Parcel and the Out Parcels described in the Agreement (and as set forth above), the portion of the Site purchase price of Eighteen Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($18,800,000) allocable to the Costco Parcel is Fifteen Million Five Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Six Dollars ($15,597,776) (the "Costco Parcel Purchase Price"), and the portion of the Site purchase price allocable to the Out Parcels is Three Million Two Hundred Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Four Dollars ($3,202,224); and WHEREAS, to effect the disposition of the Costco Parcel to Developer, the Agreement provides that the Agency will assign to Developer the Agency's right to acquire the Costco Parcel portion of the Site under the Purchase Agreement, and that Agency and Developer shall each deposit in escrow for payment to Cottonwood at the close of escrow a portion of the Costco Parcel Purchase Price in the following amounts: Developer will pay Sixteen Dollars ($16.00) per square foot of land area of the Costco Parcel, or approximately Ten Million Three Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars (+$10,385,536), and Agency will pay the remainder of approximately Five Million Two Hundred Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars (+$5,212,240), or approximately Eight Dollars and Four Cents (_+$8.04) per square foot of land area of the Costco Parcel; and WHEREAS, under the Agreement the Agency shall also deposit in escrow, for payment to Cottonwood at the close of escrow, the portion of the Site purchase price allocable to the Out Parcels in the amount of approximately Three Million Two Hundred Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Four Dollars (+$3,202,224); and WHEREAS, the Developer must also either pay in full the entire assessment obligation with respect to the Costco Parcel under the Cypress Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds of the Business and Professional Center Assessment District, or provide replacement letters of credit or other credit enhancements to clear any existing letters of credit provided by others with respect to the Costco Parcel, said requirements equal to approximately One Dollar And Thirty- Eight Cents ($1.38) per square foot of land area of the Costco Parcel or a total of approximately Eight Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars (_+$895,000); and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that the Agency will, as supplemental financial assistance to the Developer, pay to the City all of the Developer's City-imposed development fees other than (i) the City's regional traffic impact fee, (ii) the One Dollar ($1.00) per square foot of building area fee required pursuant to the Traffic Mitigation Agreement between the City of Cypress and the City of Los Alamitos; and (iii) the City's normal fees imposed to recover the City's costs associated with processing, tentative tract/parcel map review, environmental assessment/review, plan checking, sign review, site approval, design approval, administrative review, grading, and encroachment; and WHEREAS, the Agreement also provides, among other terms, that Agency may repurchase the Property from the Developer in the event the Developer (i) fails to commence construction of the Project within the time specified in the Agreement, (ii) abandons or suspends construction of the Project for sixty (60) days after notice from the Agency, or (iii) transfers all or any portion of the Property or the Project in violation of the Agreement, all as more particularly described in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the CRL, at Health and Safety Code Section 33433, requires that (i) the Agency prepare a Summary Report concerning the Agency's proposed disposition of the Costco Parcel as set forth in the Agreement, (ii) the Agency Board and the City Council conduct a noticed joint public hearing with respect to the Agreement, and (iii) the approval of the Agreement be set forth in a resolution making certain findings and determinations as set forth hereinbelow; and WHEREAS, Agency staff has also prepared and presented to the Agency and City Council a staff report on the Agreement, a copy of which staff report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference is incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and -2- WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the CRL, a Summary Report for the Agreement has been prepared by the Agency's economic consultant Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., which Summary Report is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this reference is incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing of the Agency Board and City Council was duly noticed in accordance with the applicable requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33433; and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing of the Agency Board and City Council has been conducted in accordance with applicable requirements of law; and WHEREAS, at the joint public hearing the Agency and City Council each considered all of the information, testimony, and evidence presented, including but not limited to the draft Agreement in the form presented by Agency staff concurrent with consideration of this Resolution, the Agency staff report, the Summary Report, and the oral and written testimony received from persons wishing to appear and be heard concerning the proposed Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CYPRESS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Based on all of the information, testimony, and evidence presented at the joint public hearing, including but not limited to the draft Agreement and the information and evidence set forth in the Agency staff report, the Summary Report, and the oral and written testimony received, the Agency finds and determines as follows: a. That the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. b. That the Agreement effectuates the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), and of the Redevelopment Plan, and is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Cypress. c. That potential environmental effects associated with the Project described in the Agreement were analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Walker/Katella Retail Project ("IS/MND") which was approved and certified by the City Council at a public meeting on May 28, 2002, including a Mitigation Monitoring Program therefor, and, as reflected in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereto, no further environmental documentation under the California Environmental Quality Act is required with respect to the Agreement. The Agency has considered the potential environmental effects as shown in the IS/MND and the further analysis, and, on the basis of the whole record, finds that them is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. The enforcement and implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project have been assured pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the City in conjunction with the IS/MND on May 28, 2002. The foregoing determinations, which reflect the independent analysis of the Agency of the matters in the record pertaining thereto, and the independent judgment of the Agency, am based on the information in the record, including but not limited to the findings set forth in Exhibit "C." The Agency further finds that substantial evidence exists for each and every finding made in Exhibit d. That the Agency's disposition of the Costco Pamel pursuant to the Agreement will assist in the elimination of blight. e. That the Agency's disposition of the Property pursuant to the Agreement is consistent with the Agency's current Five-Year Implementation Plan. f. That the consideration the Developer will pay for the Agency's disposition of the Costco Parcel is not less than the fair reuse value of the Costco Parcel at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized by the disposition. 2. The Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is on file with the City Clerk/Agency Secretary, is hereby approved. -3- 3. The Agency Executive Director, Agency Deputy Executive Director, Agency Secretary, and Agency Counsel are each hereby authorized and directed to make final technical modifications to the Agreement that are consistent with the substantive terms of the Agreement approved hereby, and the Agency Chairman is authorized and directed to thereafter sign the Agreement on behalf of the Agency. 4. The Agency Executive Director, Agency Deputy Executive Director, and Agency Secretary are each authorized and directed, on behalf of the Agency, to sign such other and further documents, including but not limited to subordination agreements and those agreements attached to the Agreement as exhibits, as may be necessary and proper to carry out the terms of the Agreement. 5. The Agency Executive Director, Agency Deputy Executive Director, Agency Secretary, and Agency General Counsel are each authorized and directed to take such other and further actions, including but not limited to signing escrow instructions and estoppel certificates, as may be necessary and proper to carry out the terms of the Agreement. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Cypress Redevelopment Agency held this 12th day of January, 2004. TIM KEENAN, CHAIRMAN CYPRESS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ATTEST: ,~c~R. GUE~TIN ETARY CYPRESS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -4- EXHIBIT "A" AGENCY STAFF REPORT [SEE FOLLOWING PAGES] REPLACE THIS PAGE WITH AGENCY STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT SUMMARY REPORT [SEE FOLLOWING PAGES] REPLACE THIS PAGE WITH SUMMARY REPORT EXHIBIT "C" FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT [SEE FOLLOWING PAGES] FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR AGENCY'S APPROVAL OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1. CEQA PROCESS. The City of Cypress ("City") prepared and adopted on May 28, 2002 a Final Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") considering the potential environmental impacts of three (3) separate retail commercial development alternatives for the site upon which the Proposed Project will be located ("Project Site"). The three development alternatives are referred to as the Walker- Katella Retail Project. The Proposed Project falls within one of the Alternatives. In connection with the consideration of the Proposed Project, the Agency evaluated the environmental impacts of the specific Proposed Project with respect to the three alternatives analyzed in the IS/MND to determine the level of further CEQA analysis required and if any new or more severe impacts are created. An analysis was prepared under the authority of California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15162 which requires the lead agency to determine if a proposed project will have any new impacts or an increase in the severity of an impact as identified in the previous E1R or negative declaration. California Public Resources Code ("PRC") Section 21166 states that unless one or more of the conditions set forth above are met, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency. Based on the record as a whole, including, without limitation, the environmental analysis contained in the record, there is substantial evidence to support a finding that the Proposed Project will not result in any of these conditions. Therefore, in accordance with PRC Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR would not be required to address the Proposed Project. 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE IS/MND. The adopted IS/MND describes the physical effects on the environment which could result from the three development alternatives fi>r this Project Site ("Alternatives'). The IS/MND incorporated by reference the Cypress General Plan 2001 update, the Cypress General Plan EIR (September 2001), the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan E1R (April 1990), the Cypress Downs EIR (1988) and the Cypress Plaza EIR (September 1986). The City and Agency caused to be prepared an evaluation of the Proposed Project's site specific impacts and the impacts evaluated under the IS/MND. See RBF Consulting Analysis dated January 8, 2004 and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Comparison dated January 8, 2004 (collectively, the "Enwronmenta Analysis"). In addition, the Environmental Analysis analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Cottonwood Christian Center project and other reasonably foreseeable projects ("New Future Projects"). The New Future Projects were not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the IS/MND (the Cottonwood project site was an operating golf course at the time of the IS/MND, for instance) and as such were not analyzed in the IS/MND. However, the New Future Projects are reasonably foreseeable at this date and as such, their cumulative impacts were studied with respect to the Proposed Project. The Agency analyzed the Proposed Project and found that the Proposed Project most closely resembles Alternative A. The Proposed Project contains the same uses in essentially the same locations on the Project Site. The only difference is that the Proposed Project contains approximately 11,000 square feet less warehouse retail and approximately 2,000 square feet less restaurant uses than Alternative A, which means that the Proposed Project will have less impacts than Alternative A. Further, under the provisions of CEQA, the Walker-Katella Retail Project was required to propose mitigation measures for the most intensive alternative plan, which was not Alternative A, but Alternative C. The Proposed Project will comply with this more intensive mitigation responsibility. Therefore, the Proposed Project falls within the scope of analysis previously performed for the Walker~Katella Retail Project. As set forth in the findings below, the Agency determined that the Proposed Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the IS/MND. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES ~MN'D FINDINGS The environmental subject areas listed below represent categories in the IS/MND for which the City determined that the Alternatives would result in a potentially significant impact but which would be mitigated to a less than significant level and for which the Agency concluded that the Proposed Project would also result in a potentially significant impact which would be mitigated to a less than significant level. There were no environmental categories for which the Proposed Project would result in a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of those potentially significant impacts identified in the IS/MND. (a) Aestheti¢_s. The IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Alternatives would create new light sources from the buildings' exterior and interior lighting, security ilighting and parking lot lighting. The IS/MND concluded that the mitigation measures requiring adequate landscaping and buffering and that on-site security lighting be arranged so that direct rays will not shine on or prodace glare for adjacent street traffic and would mitigate any potential light and glare impacts from any of the Alternatives to a less than significant level. The Environmental Analysis has concluded that the Proposed Project will not create any new or substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified light and glare impact and that the mitigation measures for adequate landscaping and buffering and on-site security lighting will sufficiently mitigate any such impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Agency has concluded based on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to light and glare for the Proposed Project due to the distance between the project sites. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the IS/MND with respect to aesthetics. (b) Air Quality. The IS/MND concluded that the emissions associated with the operation of any of the Alternatives would result in a potentially significant operational air quality impact. The IS/MND also concluded that during construction, demolition, grading and preparation of the site for development could result in minor short term air quality impacts. The IS/MND concluded that the Alternatives would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMND") thresholds for reactive organic compounds ("ROC") and nitrogen oxides ("NOX"). The IS/MND determined that the Specific Plan EIR concluded that development under the Specific Plan would contribute to the cumulative degradation of regional air quality due to the increased vehicular emissions. The City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for this significant impact. The IS/MND also concluded that the General Plan EIR determined that significant air quality impacts would result from the implementation of the General Plan. The City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations for these air quality impacts on September 10, 2001. The General Plan permits a maximum of 3,058,225 additional square feet of non-residential uses to be constructed throughout the City and provided the amount of emissions associated with such build-out. (IS/MND, p. 30.) The IS/MND determined that the Alternatives' emissions would result in less than 1% for ROC and less than 1% for NOX. As such, the IS/MND concluded that the Alternatives' emissions would not result in significant air quality impacts on a local or regional basis because (i) the Specific Plan EIR analyzed anticipated emissions from development on-site which are accounted for in both local and regional air quality projections, (ii) the General Plan EIR analyzed anticipated emissions from the development within the City, which is accounted for in both local and regional air quality projections, and (iii) the Alternatives would not create additional pollutants beyond those anticipated for the site in both local and regional plans. The IS/MND concluded that construction air quality impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the inclusion of mitigation measures for a dust control plan and compliance with building energy efficient standards and state and local laws for energy conservation. (IS/MND, p. 31.) The IS/MND also determined that there were sensitive receptor uses located to the north of the Alternatives within the Specific Plan area. Any air quality impacts during construction will be mitigated to a level of less than significance with the inclusion of the dust control plan and building energy efficient standards under state and local law compliance. The Environmental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project will not create any new construction or operational air quality impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified construction or operational air quality impacts and that the mitigation measures listed above will sufficiently mitigate these impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Agency has concluded based on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to air quality for the Proposed Project. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the ISFMND with respect to air quality. (c) Geology and Soils. The IS/MND determined that, while no active or potentially active faults are located within the City of Cypress, the Southern California Region is considered to be seismically active. There are five faults located in proximity to Cypress which could create strong seismic ground shaking in the City. The City determined that designing the building in conformance with the latest adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code would mitigate any potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. (IS/MND, p. 34.) The City determined that, because the soils underlying Cypress include alluvium deposits and soils of the Hueneme-Bolsa and the San Emigdio Association which are soils that may become unstable during intense ground shaking, a soil study will be required to determine soil conditions on the site and possible remediation procedures for site development. The City concluded that, with mitigation measures listed on page 35 of the IS/MND, all geologic impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant impact. The City also determined that these were potentially significant impacts from on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefactien or collapse and the clearing and grading operations on the site could expose soil to additional erosion potentials. The City concluded that with the inclusion of the mitigation measures listed on pages 35 and 36 of the IS/MND, any potential significant on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse erosion impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The IS/MND determined that the soils within the project site area have a low shrink-swell potential, but that any impacts from expansive soil would be mitigated to a less than significant impact by the inclusion of the mitigation measures listed on pages 35 and 36 of the IS/MND. The Environmental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project will not create any new seismic ground shaking, on or off-site landslide lateral spreading subsidence, liquefaction, collapse or erosion impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified geology and soils impacts and that the mitigation measures listed above will sufficiently mitigate these impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The City has concluded based on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to geology and soils for the Proposed Project due to the distance between the project sites. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the IS/MND with respect to geology and soils. (d) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The IS/MND determined that the Grace Church and Christian School and the Cypress Park Community Church Pre-School are located within one-quarter mile of the proposed site. The IS/MND determined that the permitted uses for the site cited in the Specific Plan could result in the utilization of materials that could be hazardous, such as household pesticides, cleaning solvents, etc. However, under the Alternatives, hazardous materials would only be associated with such operations in a minor extent with the exception of Alternative A which proposed 12 fueling stations. The underground storage tanks under this alternative may involve limited amounts of use, storage, transport and disposal of hazardous materials related to the fueling stations. The IS/WIND concluded that, with the implementation of the mitigation measures set forth on page 37 of the IS/MND, such impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The IS/MND concluded that any emission of hazardous substances or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste would be mitigated to a level of less than significance with the mitigation measures listed on page 37 of the IS/MND. The Environmental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project will not create any new hazardous materials impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hazardous materials impacts and that the mitigation measures listed on page 37 of the IS/MND will sufficiently mitigate these impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Agency has concluded based on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to hazardous materials for the Proposed Project due to the distance between the project sites. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the IS/MND with respect to hazardous materials. (e) Hydrology and Water Quality. The IS/MND determined that the Alternatives would result in impacts to water quality (i) during the construction phase, (ii) following the construction phase but prior to the -3- establishment of ground cover and (iii) after the completion of the Alternatives (associated with urban runoff). The IS/MND concluded that appropriate drainage will be provided on site as a part of the Proposed Project design and will be subject to review and approval by the Cypress Public Works Department. In addition, the Alternatives would be required to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan and file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board under the requirement of statewide industrial storm water permits for general construction activities. In addition, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System would regulate the pollutant discharges from construction activities. Furthermore, the County of Orange has a drainage area management plan which incorporates past management practices into all new development approvals. The IS/MND concluded that any hydrology and water impacts from the Alternatives would be reduced to less than a significant level with the inclusion of the mitigation measures set forth on pages 39 through 40 of the IS/MND. The Environmental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project will not create any new hydrology and water quality impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality impacts and that the mitigation measures listed on pages 39 through 40 of the IS/MND will sufficiently mitigate these impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Agency has concluded based on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to hydrology and water quality for the Proposed Project due to the distance between the project sites. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the IS/MND with respect to hydrology and water quality. (f) Land Use and Planning. The IS/MND determined that the Alternatives would be consistent with the General Plan designation of the Specific Plan, and with the Specific Plan designation and professional office and zoning, and with the Los Alamitos Race Track and Golf Course Redevelopment Plan, and consistent with the air space requirements of the Joint Forces Training Center/Los Alamitos airfield. Any proposed projects within the Specific Plan area are subject to certain height limitations. Any proposed structures that penetrate the 100:1 imaginary surface must submit a notice to the FAA, and structures would require approval by the FAA. The IS/MND concluded that prior to the issuance of building permits, the development proponent must submit to the FAA a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration and comply with any FAA standards and requirements. The Environmental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project will not create any new land use or planning impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts and that the mitigation measures for notice to the FAA and compliance with FAA standards will sufficiently mitigate these impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Agency has concluded based on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to land use and planning for the Proposed Project since each project will be consistent with the applicable General Plan, Specific Plan and zoning designations. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the IS/MND with respect to land use and planning. (g) Noise. The IS/MND concluded that the resulting noise levels from construction activity in the Walker Katella Retail Project Area would exceed existing ambient and presumed ambient noise levels by more than the City's threshold standards, which is the threshold of significance for construction noise and that significant construction noise impacts would result. The City determined that with the implementation of a mitigation measure requiring grading and exterior building construction activities as well as interior building construction to be limited to certain days and hours and that all construction equipment be equipped with effective muffling devices, any construction noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. (IS/MND, p. 46.) The IS/MND determined that the amount of trips generated by the Alternatives would not significantly increase noise levels on the adjacent streets or exceed projections as specified in the General Plan. Additionally, the Alternatives would not create on-site noise levels resulting in a significant impact. However, the IS/MND concluded that any project proponent submit evidence that all proposed land uses meet applicable exterior and interior noise standards including the City's comprehensive noise ordinance prior to the issuance of building permits to insure that noise impacts remain at or below existing levels. The Proposed Project would employ the same construction equipment analyzed in the IS/MND and would result in the same levels of noise generation analyzed in the IS/MND. The Proposed Project would incorporate the mitigation measure as identified in the IS/MND. The Proposed Project will not result in a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. The Environmental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project will not create any new noise impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts and that the mitigation measures requiring compliance with noise standards will sufficiently mitigate these impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Agency has concluded based on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to noise for the Proposed Project due to the distance between the project sites and the existing barriers between them. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the IS/MND with respect to noise. (h) Traffic. The IS/MND has concluded that with the Alternatives projected traffic to the existing traffic volumes, all study intersections are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. (IS/MND, p. 58.) The IS/MND concluded that the intersection analysis with build-out under the General Plan with the Proposed Project results in one intersection at Cerritos Avenue/Walker Street to worsen to a condition of LOS E which unacceptable under City standards. The additional of a westbound right turn lane at this intersection will improve operating conditions and bring the evening peak hour back to an LOS D. The Proposed Project will be subject to a City traffic light improvement fee, a regional traffic improvement fee and a traffic mitigation payment pursuant to an agreement between the cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos. In addition, the City has determined that, with the addition of the mitigation measures listed on page 65 of the IS/MND, the traffic impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significance. The City also determined that the Alternatives must be subject to the City's design standards in order to alleviate design feature and safety hazards and reduce potential impacts to less than a significant level. As such, the Alternatives will be subject to the mitigation measures set forth on page 66 of the IS/MND. The Environmental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project will not create any new traffic impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified traffic impacts and that the mitigation measures -4- listed on pages 65 and 66 of the IS/MND and compliance with the City's design standards will sufficiently mitigate these impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Agency has concluded based on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to traffic for the Proposed Project shown in the traffic analysis. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the IS/MND with respect to traffic. (i) Utilities and Service Systems. The IS/MND concluded that there is sufficient capacity in existing sewer lines to accommodate the waste water generated by any of the Alternatives. The site will not generate more storm water than the existing site flows. There is sufficient capacity in the water lines to provide water to the proposed uses. However, to ensure that impacts to sewer facilities and storm water remain at or below existing levels, the City will require the mitigation measures listed on pages 67-69 of the IS/MND. The Environmental Analysis determined that the Proposed Project will not create any new utilities or service system impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system impacts and that the mitigation measures listed on pages 67-69 of the IS/MND will sufficiently mitigate these impacts for the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. The Agency has concluded base~l on the Environmental Analysis that the implementation of the proposed New Future Projects would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to utilities and service system for the Proposed Project because of the sufficient capacity for each system. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts in the IS/MND with respect to utilities and service system. The Proposed Project will not result in any impacts to light and glare, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality and use and planning, noise traffic and utilities and service systems which will be ensured by the implementation of the above mitigation measures. Because the level of insignificance of each of the impacts is the same as that evaluated in the IS/MND, the Agency finds, pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166, that no new information of substantial importance which was not known, or could have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/MND was certified as complete, shows any of the following: (i) the Proposed Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the IS/MND; (ii) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the IS/MND; (iii) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects ot' the Proposed Project, but the Proposed Project proponents declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (iv) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Proposed Project, but the PropOsed Project proponent declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Therefore, the Agency finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to light and glare, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, traffic, and utilities and service system which will require raajor revisions of the IS/IV[ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. Consistent with Section 15130 (b) (1) (B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the IS/MND adequately discussed each environmental impact associated with the Alternatives of the Project Area on an area wide basis and identified no significant cumulative impacts in any of the IS/MND categories. As noted above, the New Future Projects were not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the IS/MND, but are foreseeable for the Proposed Project. The Agency has analyzed the cumulative impacts of the New Future Projects and the Proposed Project and has found no significant cumulative impacts from these additional New Future Projects. In addition, the mitigation measures set forth in the IS/MND to minimize impacts associated with the Alternatives are being applied to the Proposed Project and would reduce any cumulative impacts to a level of less than significance. No additional cumulative impact that has not already been addressed in the IS/MND would result from the Proposed Project or the New Future Projects. Therefore, the Agency finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to cumulative impacts which will require major revisions to the IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. -5- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) oSS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Jill R. Guertin, Secretary of the Cypress Redevelopment Agency, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Cypress Redevelopment Agency held on the 12th day of January, 2004, and was carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSTAiN: 0 ABSENT: I AGENCY MEMBERS: McGill, Sondhi, Piercy and Keenan AGENCY MEMBERS: None AGENCY MEMBERS: None AGENCY MEMBERS: McCoy JILL R. GUERTIN SECRETARY CYPRESS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY