The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution No. 6997203 RESOLUTION NO. 6997 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 A 191,394 SQUARE - FOOT WAREHOUSE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT 5665 PLAZA DRIVE IN THE MCDONNELL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress has considered an application submitted by GLC Cypress, LLC ("Applicant") for a new 191,394 square -foot (sf) warehouse building and associate parking and landscaping at 5665 Plaza Drive in the McDonnell Center Specific Plan (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA No. 2024-01) and a Site Plan Review (SPR No. 2024-01), that required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the Draft EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069007); and WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for comment for the public, responsible, and trustee agencies for a 30 -day public review period between May 7, 2024 and June 5, 2024, during which time the City held a public scoping meeting on May 28, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability ("NOA") for the Draft EIR was issued on August 12, 2024, and the Draft EIR was circulated for public review from August 12, 2024 through September 27, 2024; 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 November 12, 2024 and November 18, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider certification of the EIR and approval of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference, 204 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 18th day of November, 2024. ATTEST: -I (KA CITY CLERK OF THE/CITY OF CYPRESS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY 0 CYPRESS 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 12th day of November, 2024, by the following roll call vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Burke, Mallari, Peat and Minikus NOES: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Marquez ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY CLERK OF TH CITY OF CYPRESS 205 Exhibit A Findings Of Fact FINDINGS o,FACT AND STATEMENT = OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5aa,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION �� 1.1 Findings of Fact The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the environmental impacts of a project be examined and disclosed prior to approval of a project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as "Finding 1"]. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency [referred to in these Findings as "Finding 21. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provion of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as "Finding 31. Having received, reviewed and considered the EIR prepared for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2024040017, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings Regarding the CEQA Documents for the project are hereby adopted by the City of Cypress (City). 1.2 Document Format These Findings have been categorized into the following sections: 1) Section 1.0 provides an introduction to these Findings. 2) Section 2.0 provides a summary of the project, overview of other discretionary actions required for the project, and a statement of project objectives. 3) Section 3.0 provides a summary of those activities that have preceded the consideration of the Findings for the project as part of the environmental review process, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 4) Section 4.0 sets forth findings regarding those potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined to be less than significant with the implementation of project design features. 5) Section 5.0 sets forth findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental October 2024 Findings of Fact 1 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS soo,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ��7 ��o/ mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures included in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. 6) Section 6.0 sets forth findings for significant and unavoidable project impacts. 7) Section 7.0 sets forth findings regarding growth -inducing impacts. 8) Section 8.0 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the project. 9) Section 9.0 contains findings regarding the MMRP for the project. 10) Section 10.0 contains other relevant findings adopted by the City with respect to the project. The Findings set forth in each section herein are supported by findings and facts identified in the administrative record ofthe project. 1.3 Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions regarding the proposed project are located at the City of Cypress Community Development Department, located at 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California 90630. The City Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. October 2024 Findings of Fact 2 FINDINGS OFFACT AND STATEMENT ° OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ��Q ��m 2.1 Project Description/Location The proposed projecwould be located on an approximately 8.53 -acre site (project site) at 5665 Plaza Drive in Cypress, California. Currently, the project site is developed with a 150,626 square -foot, five- storyofficebui|ding,asurfaceparkin8|ot,andornamenta||andscaping.Theprojectsiteisbounded by industrial and office uses to the north, industrial uses to the west, Plaza Drive to the south, and Goodman Commerce Center Project to the east. The Goodman Commerce Center Project, approved in April 2023, was under construction at the time of the preparation of this EIR. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing 150,626 -square -foot five -story office building on the project site and the construction of a new 191,394 -square -foot light industrial building with 181,061 square feet of warehouse space and 10,333 square feet of office space. The maximum height of the proposed building would be approximately 51 feet, 6 inches to the top of the parapet wall. The proposed project would include a truck loading area with 25 dock -high loading doors on the west side of the proposed building. The project site is currently accessible from two driveways along Plaza Drive. The new westernmost driveway would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck'|oadingdocks on the proposed buUding's west side. The eastern driveway would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east. The proposed project would include parking stalis throughout the project site's perimeter, new water and sewer lines connecting with existing water and sewer mains within Plaza Drive, new stormwater infrastructure, and new ornamental landscaping. 2.2 Discretionary Actions The City is the Lead Agency and has principal authority and jurisdiction over all land use entitlements within its incorporated boundaries. The proposed project would require the foliowing discretionary approvals by the City: • The City Council would certify that the Final EIR addresses the potential environmental effectof the proposed project and identifies appropriate mitigation measures to address any potentially significant effects; • Specific PIan Amendment to the McDonnell Center Specific PIan to allow Iight industrial uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1, and removal of the maximum developable area requirement while retaining the 1.0:1 floor -area ratio (FAR) to maintain consistency with the General PIan; and • Site plan approval. 2.3 Statement of Objectives The City has established the following intended specific objectives for the proposed projectthat would serve to aid decision -makers in their review of the proposed project and its associated environmental impacts: 1) To meet a greater market demand for state-of-the-art light industrial buildings by replacing vacant office building. October 2024 Findings of Fact 3 �� ^�x/� FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,w,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT & OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 2) To promote development that will attract new businesses to operate in the City. 3) To encourage business development that will gerierate a range of employment opportunities for the community. 4) To help attract new business enterprises that will result in a positive flow of revenue to the City. 5) To establish a use consistent with the business park and light industrial uses in proximity to the project site. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for the proposed project by the City to the State Clearinghouse on May 7, 2024. The State of California Clearinghouse issued a projectnumber for the project, SCH No. I024040017. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for a period of 30 clays, from May 7, 2024, to June 5, 2024, during which comments were solicited and received, pertaining to environmental issues/topics that the Draft EIR should evaluate. These NOP responses were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR, which upon release, was made available to all Responsible/Trustee Agencies and interested groups ancl inciividuals, as required under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087. A virtual public scoping meeting was held on May 28, 2024. The State -mandated public review of the Draft EIR began on August 12, 2024, and concluded on September 27, 20I4. The Final EIR includes a Response to Comments package, which presents all written comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and includes responses to these comments and associated changes made to the EIR in the form of an Errata. The EIR includes any exhibits or appendices theretothe list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the EIR, the comments which were received by the City regarding the EIR, and the Citys written responses to comments raised in the public review and comment process, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084, the EIR has been reviewed and analyzed by the City of Cypress as the lead agency with respect to the project and the EIR. The following findings for the project and each fact in support of a finding are thus based upon substantial evidence in the record. October 2024 Findings of Fact 4 FINDINGS OFFACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 s'a,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACTS OR BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City finds, based upon the analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR, that the following environmental effects of the proposed projeceither have no impact or are Iess than significant, and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The City hereby finds that existing regulatory requirements, policies, and/or project conditions have been identified and incorporated into the project which avoids or substantially lessens the potentially significant effect on the environment to a Iess than significant level. 4.1 Aesthetics Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista: No Impact A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista generally include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access. Although the City of Cypress does not provide a definition of scenic vistas, potential scenic vistas include areas with views of the coastline, mountains, or other prominent scenic features that are considered significant visual resources for residents and businesses. 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 its boundaries. The project site is located in a flat area and is surrounded by urban development, including several buildings and surface parking lots. As there are not scenic resources that could be blocked by the proposed project and the surrounding area is characterized by office and light industrial development, the proposed project would neither alter an existing scenic vista nor block views of any scenic vistas. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, no impact would occur. No mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Damage to Scenic Resources: No Impact There are no designated State Scenic Highways within the City's limits. According to the List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the only State -designated Scenic Highway in the County of Orange (County) is a 4 -mile segment of State Route 91 (SR -91) from State Route 55 (SR -55) to east of the Anaheim city limits. The nearest State highway that is eligible for official designation as a State Scenic Highway is a portion of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH or State Route 1 [SR'1]), which is located approximately 5J5 October 2024 Findings of Fact 5 211 FINDINGS OF r=,^°" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA n"..` PROJECT OCTOBER mz^ CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA miles southwest of the project site in the City of Seal Beach. Due to distance and intervening land uses, no portion of the projecsite or the surrounding area 15 viewable from the officially designated portion of SR -91 or the eligible portion of PCH. As such, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the substantial damage of scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not significantly affecscenic highways and corridors. No impacts would occur related to scenic highways and corridors. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.1-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Degrade VisuaCharacter or Quality of Views: Less Than Significant Impact According to the United States Census Bureau, the City of Cypress is located within the Los Angeles— Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urbanized Area. Because the City is located in an urbanized area, the project site is, therefore, located within an urbanized area. Further, surrounding land uses in the vicinity are representative of urban densities. In its existing condition, the project site consists of approximately 8.53 acres of land currently developed with a five -story office building and its associated surface parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. The project site is bounded on the east by the approved Goodman Commerce Center Project (approved in April 2023) consisting of two light industrial buildings and is currently under construction. The project site is surrounded by light industrial uses to the north and west and office uses to the south. The project site is visible from several public roadways surrounding the project site (Plaza Drive, Katella Avenue, and Walker Street), and land uses surrounding the project site are urban and include office and Iight industrial uses. The project site is within Planning Area 1 of the City's McDonnell Specific Plan Area (PC -3) and is currently designated as Office, which allows general office uses. As part of the project approval process, the project would require site plan review and an amendment to the McDonnell Specific Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Finding: The City adopts CEA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. October 2024 Findings of Fact 6 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,ao,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.1-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Add New Source of Light or Glare: Less Than Significant Impact As discussed above, the project site is surrounded by a variety of office/light industrial uses. The nearest light-sensitive land uses are residential uses approximately 1,400 feet north of the project site along Cerritos Avenue. Other sources of light on and adjacent to the project site include exterior Iighting from adjacent properties, streetlights, and vehicle headlights. Construction would occur primarily during the daylight hours. Any construction -related illumination during the evening and nighttime hours would be shielded to the extent feasible and would consist of the minimum lighting required for safety and security purposes only and would occur only for the duration required for the temporary construction process. Due to its limited scope and short duration, light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area or interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. 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. Construction vehicles would not operate 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 Iess than significant. No mitigation would be required. The proposed project would include Iighting that would be distributed throughout the project site. A mix of lighting would be used to balance both safety lighting and ambient/enhanced lighting throughout the site. Light fixtures would be specified and located to incorporate shielding to minimize and eliminate lighting spillover from the project site into neighboring properties. All exterior lighting associated with the proposed project would be implemented in conformance with the exterior lighting requirements in Section M of the McDonnell Specific Plan, which include the following: 1. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. 2. Light standards and fixtures in parking areas shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height. Security lighting fixtures shall not project above the fascia or roofline of the building. Additionally, the proposed project's exterior Iighting would be required to comply with the City's Lighting Standards 3.11.060, Exterior Lighting, and Section 3.10.060Light and Glare, of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Section 3.10.060, Light and Glare, requires that Iight and glare associated with business operations are shielded or directed to avoid illuminating adjacent properties or causing glare that affects motorists. The proposed project would also be required to comply with Cypress Municipal Code Section 3.11.060, Exterior Lighting, which requires that (1) lighting fixtures are appropriate in height, intensity, and scale to the use they are serving; (2) the level of parking lot lights is between 2 and 4 footcandles at the base of the light fixture; and (3) light sources visible from outside a project's boundary are shielded to reduce glare so that neither the light source nor its image from a reflective October 2024 Findings of Fact 7 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 5665 PLAZA o"~" PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� ~y13 surface shall be directly visible from any point beyond the property line. Compliance with Cypress Municipal Code Sections 3.10.060 and 3.11.060 would minimize Iight and glare spillover impacts related to the proposed project. Impacts related to glare from on-site lighting would not occur because the exterior building materials would not include highly reflective materials. Therefore, lighting provided as part of the proposed project would be largely consistent with the type and intensity of existing Iighting in the vicinity of the project site. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.1-4 through 4.1-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.2 Agriculture and Foresry Resources All Thresholds: No Impact The project would not result in any impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources as the project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, there are no lands within the City that are currently under a Williamson Act contract, and there is no forest or timberland present within the project site that could be lost from project implementation. The entire project site and surrounding area is designated as "Urban and Built Up Land" according to the California Department of Conservation, and the proposed project is within Planning Area 1 of the McDonnell Specific Plan, which does not allow for agricultural uses within any of its planning areas. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or forest land, and would not result in loss of forest land. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.3 Air Quality Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan: Less Than Significant Impact October 2024 Findings of Fact 8 FINDINGS = FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 ,6osPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ��-� '�1� The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because the project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds or Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs), and the proposed project is consistent with the land use and growth intensities reflected in the City's adopted General Plan. Furthermore, the project would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds. Based on the consistency analysis provided in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the regional AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with or obstructimplementation of the applicable air quality plan. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required forthis Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.1-21 through 4.1-22. Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutant: Less Than Significant Impact Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx)' carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PK82.5), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PW13.0). Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Impacts would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation is required. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily VOCs, N05, CO, SO,PM50, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the construction and operations of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the projectregion is iri nonattainment under applicable federal or State AAQS. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.1-22 through 4.1-27. October 2024 Findings of Fact 9 p.°".°",", FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Expose Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants: Less Than Significant Impact �� ~�15 The proposed project would not result in an exceedance of a SCAQMD LST during project construction or operation. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required. Finding: The City adopts CEOA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potential impacts are considered Iess than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.1-28 through 4.1-29. Other Emissions, Such as Odors: Less Than Significant Impact Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors, primarily from equipment exhaust. In addition, the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities may result in odors. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant. The proposed project would construct a light industrial building. Therefore, the proposed project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed operations would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.1-29. 4.4 Biological Resources Adverse Effects on Special Status Species: No Impact October 2024 Findings of Fact 10 FINDINGS OFFACT AND STATEMENT n,OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 :aa,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA The perimeter and parking areas of the site are surrounded with landscaped areas consisting of trees and small bushes. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species map does not identify any locations of critical habitat within the project site. The closest known critical habitat is the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, which contains the Western snowy plover, approximately 6.8 miles south of the project site. Additionally, critical habitat for the Coastal California gnatcatcher is Iocated in the West Coyote Hilis approximately 7 miles north of the project site, just north of Ralph B. Clark Park. 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. The Orange County Trnsportation Authority's (OCTA) 2016 Natural Community Conservation Plari/ Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), which was adopted for the purpose of permitting freeway capital improvement projects proposed by OCTA and OCTA's habitat preserve, restoration, and monitoring activities, 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. 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, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special -status species in applicable plans, policies, or regulations. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4'1 through 4.4-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Adverse Effects on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community: No Impact The projecsite is highly disturbed and developed with an office building, a paved parking lot,and landscaping, and does not support any special -status or sensitive riparian habitat as identified in regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or USFWS. Therefore, no impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in a Iocal or regional plan would result from project implementation, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the CDFW or USFWS. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. October 2024 Findings of Fact 11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 217 Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.4-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Adverse Effect on Protected Wetlands: No Impact According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by the 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 Iocated on the project site. Although construction activities have the potential to result in temporary indirecteffects to water quality including a potential increase in erosion and sediment transport into downstream aquatic areas and the contamination of waters from construction equipment, these potential indirect effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or substantially minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and a Water Quality Management Plan as discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -3, provided in Section 4.10, would address erosion -related impacts during construction through implementation of construction site BMPs to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to downstream aquatic areas and water quality. As such, there would be no impacts on State orfederally protected wetlands. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effecton State or federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4-2 through 4.4-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Interference with Wildlife Movement: Less Than Significant|mmpact Due to the surrounding urban development, the project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Species that are found on site either fly onto the site or are able to navigate on the ground through long stretches of urban development. Therefore, the project site does not contain any native resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, or wildlife corridors. In addition, no portion of the project site or the immediately surrounding areas contains an open body of water that serves as natural habitat in which fish could exist. The existing trees on the project site may provide habitat suitable for nesting migratory birds that were observed on the project site. Several of the existing on-site trees, which are primarily ornamental, would be removed during construction. Therefore, the proposed project has the October 2024 Findings of Fact 12 FINDINGS = FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 ,aa,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� '��Q�n potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation and trees are removed during the nesting season. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (Title 33, United States Code, Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be subject to the provisions of the MBTA, which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests. Project implementation must be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to active nests during the breeding season. If project construction occurs between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey prior to ground- and/or vegetation -disturbing activities to confirm the absence of nesting birds. As documented in Regulatory Compliance Measure B|[-1, avoidance of impacts can be accomplished through a variety of means, including establishing suitable buffers around any active nests. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure 80'1' impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure 00-1 is applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4-3 through 4.4-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Conflict with Biological Protection Policies: Less Than Significant Impact The Landmark Tree Ordinance in the City's Municipal Code protectdesignated Iandmark trees that 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, StreeTrees, any tree within the public belongs to the City of Cypress. Any work to street trees conducted as part of the proposed projectwou Id be done in accordance with the City Council's adopted Parkway Tree Policy. The City has not adopted any other policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, because the project would comply with all local policies and ordinances relating to tree protection, it would not result in any conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with any Iocal policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required forthis Iess than significant impact. October 2024 Findings of Fact 13 FINDINGS °, FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 5665 PLAZA n"..^ p"""", CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� 1 �� Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.4-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Apperidix B to the Draft EIR). Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plan: No Impact There is no adopted HCP, NCCP, or other habitat conservation plan in the City. As discussed previously, the 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, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed projecwoud not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other conservation plan. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation 15 required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4-4 through 4.4-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.5 Cultural Resources Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource: No Impact The South Ceritral Coastal Information Center 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Iocated within the project site. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no mitigatiori is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed projecwould not cause a substantial adverse charige in the significance of an historical resource. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.2-6. October 2024 Findings of Fact 14 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Although no human remains are known to be on the project site or are ariticipated to be discovered during project construction, due to ground d,sturbance, there is a possibility of inadvertent discovery of human remains. Disturbing human remains could violate the State's Health and Safety Code as well as destroy the resource. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1 requires compliance with the State's Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains to Iess than significant. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed projecwould not disturb any human remains, induding those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL -1 is applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.2-7. 4.6 Energy Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy: Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy because gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the proposed project. Energy usage on the project site during constructon would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State's available energy sources. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Regulatory Compliance Measure EN -1, provided below, which would reduce energy usage on the project site during construction through reducing truck idling times. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure EN -1, impacts to energy resources during project construction would be Iess than significant, and no mitigatiori is required. Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicte and truck trips associated with the project. The estimated potential net increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 3,106,447 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2022 was 28'l4l7gigawatt-hours (GVVh)or20'243'72l'856kWh. Therefore, operation ofthe proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent. The estimated potential net increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 38,407 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 202I was 572 million therms (572,454,744 therms). Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent. In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project -related trips. The proposed project is estimated to result in the net decrease of approximately 6,498 gallons of gasoline and the net increase of approximately 132'401 of diesel fuel per year from existing October 2024 Findings of Fact 15 FINDINGS ° FACT AND STATEMENT = OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS s66,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA conditions. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, 155.9 million gallons of diesel and 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline are anticipated to be consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2023. Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would not increase the annual gasoline fuel use in Orange County and would increase the annual diesel fuel use by approximately 0.1 percent in Orange County. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would represent a very small percentage of the annual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Orange County. Vehicles associated with trips to and from the project site would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards, which are applicable throughout the State. 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 uses, and transportation. Impacts would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumptiori of energy resources during projectconstruction or operation. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure EN -1 is applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.3-7 through 4.3-10. Conflict with or Obstruction of Energy Plans: Less Than Significant Impact 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 the County and the State's available energy sources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California's energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project's total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California's energy conservation plans as described in the California Energy Commission's (CEC) Integrated Energy Policy Report. 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, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the pproject would not conflict or obstruct a State or Iocal plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. October 2024 Findings of Fact 16 FINDINGS ��.="S.==°."'",°".".-°`"="^"=-"~^ ~..~.��Z�.-_--.�__--�' .,.`.^�C�_��.I�� wq ,� �� Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.3-10 through 4.3-11. 4.7 Geology and Soils Adverse Effects Related to Earthquake Fault Rupture: No Impact According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared for the proposed project, active faults do not appear to be present under or in close proximity to the project site. Additionally, according to the California Geological Survey's EQZapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQZapp web - based application), the Newport -Inglewood and Whittier Fault Zones are the nearest fault zones Iocated approximately 5.1 miles southwest and 11.6 miles northeast of the project site, respectively. Therefore, surface rupture is not anticipated to occur within the project site or surrounding vicinity. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss injury, or death involving the rupture of a known A|qubt- Pho|uEarthquakeFau|t.NoimpacLsvvou|doccur.Cnnsequendy'nombi8ationmeasuresareve4uired. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.4-9. Adverse EffectRelated to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking: Less Than Significant Impact The Geotechnical Evaluation determined no evidence of acive faults to be present under or in close proximity to the project site. However, incidental ground cracking and other ground shaking phenomena can occur due to high seismic accelerations and regional seismic activity. Thus, it was determined in the Geotechnical Evaluation that risks associated with seismic shaking and strong ground motion are considered to be moderate. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO- 1,be|ovv'thepvuposedproject'sbui|dinBwou|dbesub]ecttotheseismicdesi8ncritehaofthemost current California Building Code requirements that aim to prevent building collapse and reduce the impacts of seismic ground shaking. Adherence to these requirements would address injury and loss of Iife and building damage after an earthquake. Therefore, with the implementation of Regulatory [ompUanmeyNeasure6EO'1,impactsre|atedtoseismicQnoundshakingwou|dbe|essthansign0cant and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 is October 2024 Findings of Fact 17 n°..°== FACT AND STATEMENT ° OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 ,==o".." PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-10. Adverse Effects Related to Landslides: No Impact �� ~�� According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, landslides have not been recorded within the City boundaries and are not anticipated based on the lack of any significant topographic features. Further, according to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the topography of the site is relatively flat to very gently sloping. Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities were not observed at the project site. Both the project site and surrounding properties are flat with no unusual geographic features, and therefore, neither the project site nor the surrounding area has the potential for impacts related to Iandslides. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-11. Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil: Less Than Significant Impact During project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1 in Appendix B of the Initial Study and the MMRP). The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Potential soil erosion impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant with adherence to the required regulations discussed above. Operation of the proposed project would result in no impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are October 2024 Findings of Fact 18 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,^^, PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1 is applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-11. Expansive Soils: Less Than Significant Impact According to the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project,surface site solis had a "very low" potential for expansion. No recommendations are provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation related to expansive soils due to this very low potential. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils for the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not be Iocated on expansive soll and would not create a direct or indirect risk to life or property. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required forthis Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-13. Septic Tanks and Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems: 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. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-13. 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant Impacts Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Less Than Significant Impact Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, greenhouse gases (GHGs) would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil -based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil -based fuels October 2024 Findings of Fact 19 FINDINGS = FACT AND STATEMENT OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,00sPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 536.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) during construction of the project. When annualized over the 30 -year life of the project, annual emissions would be 17.9 yNT[Cze. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area, mobile, stationary, waste, and water sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. The proposed project would generate a total of 406 average daily trips (ADT), including 262 passenger vehicle trips, 50 two -axle truck trips, 16 three -axle truck trips, and 78 four -axle truck trips, which were included in California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Existing uses would generate a total of 408 ADT. Mobile sources would be the largest source of GHG emissions for the proposed project at approximately 61 percent of the total project emissions. Energy sources would be the next largest category at approximately 33 percent. Water sources would be approximately 4 percent of the total emissions, and waste sources would be approximately 2 percent of the total emissions. Area sources would be approximately Iess than 1 percent of the total emissions. Based on the analysis results, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 2,925.9 metric tons of [Ooe per year (K8TCO*e/vr) over existing conditions, which would be below the numeric threshold of 3,000 MT [O2e. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, impacts related to operational GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.5-17 through 4.5-19. Conflict with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Emissions Plan, Policy, Regulation: Less than Significant Impact Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) 202I Scoping Plan Update and the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 2024-2050 Regional Transportation P|an/Sustainab|e[ommunities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The proposed project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS; therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to achieve the region's GHG reduction October 2024 Findings of Fact 20 FINDINGS OF ,°,^°" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� targets of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035, and it can be assumed that regional mobile emissions would decrease in line with the goals of the RTP/SCS. The proposed project would consist of a 191,394-oluare-foot light industrial building. Based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed projecwould not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed projecwould not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft BR pages 4.5-19 through 4.5-21. 4.9 I-Iazards and Hazardous Materials Significant Hazards Through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials: Less Than Significant lmpact 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. In addition, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD -1 and HYD -2, as detailed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, require compliance with the waste discharge permit requirements to avoid potential impacts to water quality due to spills or runoff from hazardous materials used during construction. Therefore, with adherence to the regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD -1 and HYD -2, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. The proposed projecincludes the development of one light industrial building with both warehouse and office uses. Warehouse and office uses typically do not present a hazard associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment. Operation of the proposed light industrial building would involve the use of materials common to all urban developments that are labeled hazardous such as solvents and commercial cleansers and petroleum products and would include the limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape maintenance. Trucks accessing the businesses on site would contain oil and gasoline to power their engines, which could have the October 2024 Findings of Fact 21 n"".=,", FACT AND STATEMENT °, OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA potential to result in minor releases of such substances through drips or Ieaks from truck loading areas. Any hazardous materials associated with projecoperations would be containedstored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not store, transport, generate, or dispose of large quantities of hazardous substances. Therefore, potential impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials resulting from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The Orange County Fire Authority's (OCFA) Hazardous Material Division and the Orange Courity Environmental Health Department both identify types and amounts of waste generated in Orange County and establish programs for managing waste. The OCFA maintains a Hazardous Material Management Plan, which assures that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is available to manage the hazardous waste generated within the County and address issues related to the disposal, handling, processing, storage, and treatment of local hazardous materials and waste products. 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 ensure 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 Iess than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD -1 and HYD -2 are applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Significant Hazards Through Reasonablv Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions lnvolving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment: Less Than Significant lmpact The project site was historically used for agricultural purposes until approximately 1980. Based on the adjacent railroad line and historical agricultural use, pesticides or herbicides may have been utilized on the project site, and near -surface soils may have at one time contained these compounds. However, the soils on the project site were reworked when the project site was developed in the early 1990s, and, therefore, it is not anticipated that any hazardous materials in the soils remain related to October 2024 Findings of Fact 22 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ��w �,�� past agricultural use. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) concluded that there was no evidence of recognized environmental conditions at the project site. The Phase | ESA also determined that the presence of lead-based paint (LBP) was unlikely as the existing office builcfirig was built around 1990,and risks related to LBP only apply to paint that is intact but was applied before 1977. In addition, the Phase I ESA determined that previous investigations on the project site indicated the presence of asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) in building materials. However, further investigations in the Asbestos Inspection Report for the project site concluded that no ACMs or asbestos containing construction materials (ACCMs) were used in the construction of the improvements at the site. For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposeproject would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous material into the environment. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.9-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Hazardous Emissions or Handling Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One -Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School: Less Than Significant Impact The closest schools to the project site are the Frank Vessels Elementary School (0.5 mile northeast) and Del Sol School (0.6 mile northwest). Thereforethere are no existing or proposed schools within O2Smile ofthe project site. The proposeproject is not anticipateto release hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils during heavy equipment operation for site excavation, grading, and construction. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction would be limited and would be in compliance with existing government regulations. Future light industrial land uses would not require the use, storage, disposal, or transport of large volumes of hazardous materials that could cause serious environmental damage in the event of an accident. Although hazardous substances could be present and used at the proposed light industrial building, such substances are generally present now in the existing development on the project site, typically found in small quantities, and can be cleaned up without affecting the environment. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or handling of October 2024 Findings of Fact 23 ,.°.=.,°. FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 202" CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ��K� �� hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existingor proposed school. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-3 through 4.9-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Location on a Site Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5' Creating a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment: Less Than Significant Impact Under Government Code Section 65962.5' the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides a list (Cortese List) of hazardous materials sites. The DTSC's data management system (EnviroStor) does not include any sites within the City of Cypress. Therefore, the project site is not on the list, impacts related to the project site's status on the Iist of hazardous materials sites would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project 15 not Iocated on a site which is included on a Iist of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.9-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Airport -Related Safety Hazards for People Residing or Working in the Project Area: Less Than Significant Impact The project site is located approximately 0.25 mile north of the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. The facilities at JFTB Los Alamitos include two runways and associated taxiways, ramp space, and hangars. According to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use PIan (AELUP)forioint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos,the project site is Iocated in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Part 77 Notification Area (Exhibit D1) and the AELUP height restriction October 2024 Findings of Fact 24 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� ^��w zone for1FTB Los Alamitos. Height limitations are imposed on projects within a height restriction zone so that structures or trees (1) do not obstruct the airspace required for takeoff, flight, or landing of an aircraft at an airport, or (2) are not otherwise hazardous to the landing or takeoff of an aircraft. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the vicinity of the projecsite because the proposed project would include the demolition of the existing five -story office buliding on the project site and replace it with a one-story light industrial building that would not exceed 50 feet in height (the proposed building would have a maximum height of approximately 51 feet, 6 inches, to the top of the parapet). As such, the proposed building would be consistent with the height of surrounding land uses and would not penetrate the 100 to 1 imaginary surface that surrounds the runway at JFTB Los Alamitos. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds thatwhile Pocated within an airport land use plan, the proposed projectwould not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the projecarea. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-4 through 4.9-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Impairment or Interference with an Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan: No Impact The City's emergency evacuation routes are shown on Exhibit SAF -5 in the Safety Element (2001) of the City's General Plan. All emergency evacuation activities are coordinated by the City's Police Chief. The Police Chief would issue evacuation orders based on information gathered from emergency experts. Evacuation operations would be conducted by law enforcement agencies, highway/ road/street departments, and public and private transportation providers. The project site is located near KateUa Avenue and Valley View Street, both of which are identified as emergency evacuation routes by the City. The proposed project does not include any modifications to Katelia Avenue or Valley View Street and would not introduce any new driveways or other vehicular access points to either street. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with emergency operations and evacuations, and there would be no impact on emergency response. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. October 2024 Findings of Fact 25 FINDINGS OFFACT ABM STATEMENT ",nVE=o.wGcuwoo,"^nvwS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� ~�3 1 Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.9-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Significant Risk of Losstnjurv or Death Involving Wildland Fires: No Impact The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the State through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas of California into different fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ), based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing densities, and occurrence of severe fire weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. As part of this mapping system, CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection for land areas that are generally unincorporated, which are classified as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). In areas where local fire protection agencies (e.g., OCFA) are responsible for wildfire protection, the lands are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). CAL FIRE currently identifies the project site as an LRA. In addition to establishing local or State responsibility for wildfire protection in a specific area, CAL FIRE designates areas as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) or non-VHFHSZ. According to the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for the Orange County region, the entire City of Cypress is designated as a non-VHFHSZ, and the City does not include an SRA. The nearest VHFHSZ to the project site is approximately 10 miles to the northeast in Coyote Hills on the western side of Fullerton. The nearest SRA is in Puente Hills, approximately 12 miles northeast of the project site. Because the project site is not located in or near an SRA or VHFHSZ, the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to wildfire. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of Ioss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-5 through 4.9-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Water Quality Degradation: Less Than Significant Impact Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction, the entirety of the project site would be graded and excavated, and 8.45 acres of soil would be disturbed. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and October 2024 Findings of Fact 26 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT O, OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters. Sediment from increased soil erosion and chemicals from spills and leaks have the potential to be discharged to downstream receiving waters during storm events, which can affect water quality and impair beneficial uses. Because construction of the proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soll, the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022'0057'DVVCL National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. [4S000002, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1. As also specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention PIan (SWPPP) would be prepared and construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) detailed in the SWPPP would be implemented during construction, in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would detail the BMPs to be implemented duririg construction. Construction BMPs would include, but not be Iimited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including incorporation of construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, would ensure that construction impacts related to waste discharge requirements, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, increased pollutant discharge, and alteration of receiving water quality, or impacts on surface water quality to marine, fresh, or wetland waters, would be less than significant. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F of Draft EIR), borings encountered groundwater at depths of 6 to 9 feet below ground surface (bgs). Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during excavation activities. Groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved solids, nitrate, salinity, or other constituents, or high or low pH levels that could be introduced to surface waters when dewatered groundwater is discharged to receiving waters. If groundwater dewatering is necessary, groundwater would be discharged to either the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system. If discharged to the sanitary sewer system, a permit from the City of Cypress Public Works Department would be required, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -2, to ensure that there is sufficient capacity available to accommodate the discharge to prevent sanitary sewer overflow, which can result in a discharge of pollutants to surface waters. If groundwater is discharged to the storm drain system, coverage under the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) NPDES Permit General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001) would be required, as also specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -2. This permit requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during groundwater dewatering prior to release to the storm drain system. As a result, groundwater dewatering would not introduce pollutants to receiving waters at levels that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degrade water quality, increase pollutant discharge, or alter the quality of the receiving water. Impacts to surface water quality from groundwater dewatering would be less than significant. October 2024 Findings of Fact 27 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT n,OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5omPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� ~�� Expected pollutants of concern from long-term operation of the proposeproject include suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. The proposeci projectwould comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB's NPDES Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County (Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062) (North Orange County MS4 Permit). The North Orange County MS4 Permit requires that a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) be prepared for priority new development and redevelopment projects. The preparation of a WQMP and compliance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit 15 specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -3. WQMPs specify the BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. The Preliminary WQMP prepared for the projectspecifies the Source Control, Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs, and Treatment Control BMPs proposed for the project. Source Control BMPs are preventative measures that are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into stormwater. LID BMPs mimic a project site's natural hydrology by using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff rather than allowing runoff to flow directly to piped or impervious storm drains. Treatment Control BMPs are structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters. The BMPs sin the Preliminary WQMP would be implemented and maintainedas s in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -3. The proposed project BMPs are detailed below. Proposed Structural Source Control BMPs include storm drain stenciling and signage; design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, and smart controllers; and the incorporation of requirements applicable to loading dock areas from Santa Ana RWQCB's NPDES Permit. Proposed Non-structural Source Control BMPs include education for property owners, tenants, and occupants; activity restrictions; common area landscape management; BMP maintenance; common area litter control; employee training; housekeeping of loading docks; common area catch basin inspection, and; street sweeping private streets and parking lots. Due to the high and seasonaily mounded groundwater, traditional infiltration BMPs are not feasible for the proposed project. Proposed LID BMPs include a stormwater biofiltration system (Modular Wetland Systems), and a Hydrodynamic Separator to pre -treat stormwater entering the underground system. These proposed BMPS are also utilized as biotreatment BMPs. Stormwater runoff in the proposed condition would be collected by a series of area drains and proposed sump curb inlet catch basins and would be conveyed to an underground storage box in the southwestern parking lot area before being pumped to the proposed Modular Wetland Systems for treatment. The Modular Wetland Systems would treat street, roof, and landscape runoff for the proposed project, as well as reduce project -related flow rates into the existing storm drains by retaining and treating stormwater on the site. The proposed Modular Wetland Systems and catch basins would be designed with internal peak bypass and upstream diversion systems for conveyance of larger storm events. Treated and overflow stormwater from the Modular Wetland Systems would be conveyed via a proposed private October 2024 Findings of Fact 28 FINDINGS o,FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5ooPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ,�� -r underground storm dram system to a public point of connection, then to an existing City public 48 inch storm drain system within Plaza Drive. Fiows would then be conveyed from the 48 -inch storm drain system to the Bolsa Chica Channel, then to Anaheim Bay, ultimately discharging to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern from runoff from the project site in compliance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit requirements. Compliance with the requirements of the North Orange County MS4 Permit, including incorporation of operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern (as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -3), would ensure that water quality impacts related to waste discharge requirements, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, increased pollutant discharge, alteration of receiving water quality, or impacts on surface water quality to marine, fresh, or wetland waters during operation of the proposed project would be Iess than significant. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degrade water quality, increase pollutant discharges,or alter receiving water quality. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD -1 through HYD -3 would be applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-1 through 4.10-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Depletion of Groundwater Supplies, Interference with Groundwater Recharge, and Impede Sustainable Groundwater Management of Basin: Less Than Significant Impact According to the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F of the Draft EIR) prepared for the proposed project, borings encountered groundwater at depths of 6 to 9 feet bgs. Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during construction activities. However, groundwater dewatering would be localized and temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. In addition, any volume of water removed during groundwater dewatering would be minimal compared to the size of the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, which has a surface area of 350 square miles and a storage capacity of 38,000,000 acre-feet. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve direct groundwater extraction. Increased water use would not substantially affect groundwater supplies because the groundwater basin has been sustainably managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) over the last 10 years, and it is anticipated that the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin will continue to be sustainably managed with implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative. The Basin 8-1 Alternative establishes objectives and criteria for Bnnundvvate, management within the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Therefore, construction and operational impacts October 2024 Findings of Fact 29 OF FACT AND STATEMENT "M"NT",n.""=DI""c""""""^"°°" OCTOBER 2024 ,00sPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA related to a decrease in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed projecwould not depiete groundwater supplies, interfere with groundwater rechargeor impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10'7 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Alter Existing Drainage Pattern, Substantial Erosion or Siltation, Increase Runoff Resulting in Flooding, Exceed Capacity mfStonmmater Drainage, or Impede or Redirect Flood Fiows: Less Than Significant Impact During project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. Project construction would not alter the course of a stream or river. As discussed above, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -1). The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to on-site, off-site, or downstream erosion or siltation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. According to the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the proposed project, the on-site impervious surface area would increase by approximately 28,374 square feet (a 9 percent increase) which would increase on-site stnrmmmterf|ovvs. Impervious surface areas associated with development of the project site would not be prone to erosion or siltation, because no loose soil would be included in these areas. The on-site pervious surface area for the project would be 0.68 acre, and would contain Iandscaping that would minimize on-site erosion and siltation by stabilizing the soil. Therefore, on- site erosion and siltation impacts would be minimal. n'siteerosionandsiltationimpactsvxou|dbeminimai As a result of the 28,374 -square -foot increase in impervious surface area, the proposed projectwould iricrease runoff from the projectsite during storm events, which could increase off-site erosion and siltation. As discussed previously, the proposed BMPs include underground detention and Modular Wetland Systems, which would be designed to further reduce the volume of stormwater discharged to the local storm drain system off site. October 2024 Findings of Fact 30 �� JEc FINDINGS OFpOCTOBER ` 4 - -°=^°"s��°"°,o,u�^mm°"u�"�"^""°, sm`s,=°u".�,"�"n ALIFORNIA ~° E�� According to the Preliminary WQMP, the project site is Iocated in an area of hydrologic condition of concern (HO]{]. Specifically, the project site is a tributary to the Bolsa Chica Channel, which has sections that are not concrete lined. Therefore, because the downstream receiving waters are susceptible to hydromodification, the proposed project has the potential to result in downstream erosion or siltation. However, as described in the Preliminary WQMP, the developed condition does not increase the storm volume or the time of concentration after implementation of the proposed project. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any new operational impacts related to substantial on- or off-ite and downstream erosion or siltation, and this impact would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation is required. As described above, the proposed project includes underground detention, Modular Wetland Systems, and catch basins to treat and reduce stormwater runoff from the project site. As demonstrated by the hydraulic modeling conducted as part of the Preliminary WQMP, the underground stormwater basin and Modular Wetland Systems would be designed to accommodate the design capture volume of I5'766 cubic feet for the entire project site. The Modular Wetland Systems would treat the required volume and would reduce the peak flow rate below the 10 -year, 25 -year, and 100 -year pre -project peak flow rates. In addition, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -4, a Final Hydrology Study would be prepared based on final project plans and would be approved by the City. The Hydrology Study would corifirm that the proposed project drainage facilities comply with City and County requirements. Furthermore, with implementation of the proposed BMPs, operational impacts related to runoff from the site or a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume that would result in flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, substantially increase rate of surface runoff that would result in flooding, create runoff that would exceed capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems, or impede or redirect flood flows. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD -1 and HYD -4 are applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-7 through 4.10-10 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Location in Flood Hazard, Tsunami, Seiche Zones, Risk Release of Pollutants Due to Project Inundation: No Impact The project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059[0116] (December 3, 2009), the project site is located within Zone X, which comprises areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500 -year flood). As the project site is not located within a 1OU'yearf|oodp|ain' the proposed project would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. October 2024 Findings of Fact 31 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA n".." PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ��7 �� According to the Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the project site is located within the inundation zone of Prado Dam. There are no open bodies of water in the vicinity of the projectsite, and the proposed project is therefore not located within an inundation zone of a seiche. The project site is located approximately 6.3 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami inundation zone, according to the Orange County Tsunami Inundation Maps. The levee inundation zone of Coyote Creek/Carbon Creek is located south of the project site; however, the project site is not located within this inundation area. Therefore, no impact from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project 15 not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, and would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10'10 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Conflict with Implementation of Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan: Less Than Significant Impact As discussed aboveit is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during construction activities. However, groundwater dewatering would be localized and temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. In addition, any volume of water removed during groundwater dewatering would be minimal compared to the size of the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve direct groundwater extraction. Increased water use would not substantially affect groundwater supplies because the groundwater basin has been sustainably managed by OCWD over the last 10 years, and it is anticipated that the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin would continue to be sustainably managed with implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the sustainable groundwater management plan adopted for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the pproject would not conflicwith a water quality controplan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10-10 of the lnitial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). October 2024 Findings of Fact 32 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ^, OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,oa,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 4.11 Land Use and Planning Physical Division of an Established Community: Less Than Significant Impact �� ^��@�n In its existing condition, the project site consists of approximately 8.53 acres of land currently developed with onefivestory office building (150,626 square feet) and associated parking lot. The project site is located in a largely developed portion of the City of Cypress within the McDonnell Specific Plan that consists of numerous office/light industrial uses. The existing five -story office building would be demolished and replaced with a one-story light industrial building that would be approximately 191,394 square feet in size. Although implementation of the proposed project would result in changes on the project site including the demolition of the existing office building, construction of the proposed light industrial building, a Lot Line Adjustment, and associated improvements, the proposed project would not result in substantial changes to the existing configuration of adjacent parcels. As such, the proposed project would not divide or separate any existing land uses or neighborhoods. Therefore, construction and implementation of the project would not result in the physical division of an established community. No mitigation would be required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Potential impacts would be Iess than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4l1'1 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect: Less Than Significant Impact Approval of the proposed project would not introduce any inconsistencies with the I020-2045 Connect SoCal Plan, the City's General Plan, or the Cypress Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed projecwould not cause a significant environmental impac due to a conflict with any land use plan, policyor regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. October 2024 Findings of Fact 33 ".°"=""", FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ��K� �� Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.11-1 through 4.11-8 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.12 Mineral Resources All Thresholds: No Impacts The project would not result in any impacts related to mineral resources as the project site is not part of a mineral resource zone containing any known valuable mineral resources. The project site has been classified by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-4, indicating that the project site is in an area where information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone. The City of Cypress is not within the proximity of any MRZ-2 zones, and is surrounded by an MRZ-1 zone, indicating the absence of significant mineral deposits in the area. Furthermore, according to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report, there are no mineral resources as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG; now known as the California Geological Survey or CGS) within the City. Therefore, no significant impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the State would result from project implementation, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts to any known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or any locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.12-1 through 4.12-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.13 Noise Substantial Temporarv or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels: Less Than Significant Impact Short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition of the existing office building, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structure. Construction -related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site at the present time but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed project is completed. The combination of the equipment during the site preparation and grading phases, considering the usage factor of each piece of equipment, would result in a combined noise level of 59 A -weighted decibel equivalent continuous sound level (dBA L6) at a distance of 1,300 feet, which represents the distance from the center of construction activity at the project site to the nearest noise -sensitive hotel use (Courtyard by Marriott) to the southeast. While construction -related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once project construction is completed. During deep dynamic compaction activities, the major source of noise would be the crane utilized to October 2024 Findings of Fact 34 FINDINGS OFFACT AND STATEMENT = OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,6oPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA drop the weight. Construction noise levels would be similar to those during building construction as that construction phase would also include the operation of a crane. Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site, it would cease to occur once project construction is completed. Additionally, with the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measure N0'1, all feasible and reasonable measures to reduce construction noise would be implemented, and a Iess than significant impact would occur. The increase in noise associated with project -related traffic would be very small, ranging from 0.0 to 1.7 dBA along the analyzed road segments. A noise level increase of Iess than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. These noise level increases are not perceptible by the human ear. Therefore, off-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Implementation of the proposed project would generate various on-site stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and dock operations. The project would have various rooftop mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, on the proposed building. To be conservative, it is assumed the project could have four (4) rooftop HVAC units that would operate 24 hours per day and would generate sound power levels (SPL) of up to 76 dBA SPL or 63 dBA Leg at 5 feet. Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would be similar to noise readings from truck loading and unloading activities, which generate a noise level of 75 dBA Len at 20 feet. To present a conservative assessment, it is assumed that unloading activities could occur at half of the 25 docks simultaneously for a period of more than 30 minutes in a given hour. Additionally, at the remaining half of the loading docks, it is conservatively assumed that refrigeration units attached to the trailers would be in operation while waiting to be unloaded. Based on reference measurements, each unit would have a reference noise level of 79.4 dBA at 15 feet. The proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions. Additionally, the proposed project will generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 60 to 55 dBA Leg. The estimated noise level at the closest noise -sensitive uses would be less than 34 dBA Leq. Additionally, the proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions. Therefore, this impact would be Iess than significant. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEOA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate 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. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure N0'1 is applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.6-13 through 4.6-19. Excessive Noise Levels Due to Proximity to an Airport: Less Than Significant Impact October 2024 Findings of Fact 35 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 241 The closest airport to the project site is Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos, which is located approximately 0.4 mile to the southwest. The noise contour boundaries of JFTB Los Alamitos show that the project site is located outside of Noise Impact Zone 2 (60 decibel [dB] Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL] or greater); therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEOA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to proximity to an airport. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.6-21. 4.14 Population and Housing Substantial Unplanned Population Growth: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing office building on the project site and the construction of a new one-story light industrial building as well as associated site improvements including landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. The proposed project would not cause or result in direct population growth because the proposed project would not provide new housing on the project site. The proposed light industrial building is anticipated to generate approximately 93 employees. As of November 2023, the City of Cypress had a labor force of 25,100, and the County of Orange had a labor force of 1,607,700, with approximately 9,655 and 61,143 people unemployed, respectively.' The November 2023 unemployment rate was 3.8 percent for the City and 3.8 percent for the County.' It is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to be relocated from outside the region to meet the need for employees resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would be located within a developed area of Cypress that is already served by all utilities. The existing regional infrastructure and the established roadway network would be utilized by employees accessing the project site and would not indirectly or directly induce population growth. State of California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2023. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, November 2023. Website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view. aspx?src=https%3A%2 F%2 Fl a bormarketi nfo.ed d. ca.gov%2 Ffi le%2 Flfmonth%2 Fora nsu b. xls&wdOrigi n= BROWSELINK (accessed December 5, 2023). 2 Ibid. October 2024 Findings of Fact 36 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 ° oo,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Operation of the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth or accelerate development in an underdeveloped area, and any impacts to population growth would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.14'1 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Displacement of People or Housing Resulting in Need for Replacement Housing: No Impact As previously statedthe project proposes to demolish the existing office building on the project site and construct a new light industrial building as well as associated site improvements including landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. There are no existing housing units or people living on the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace housing or persons, nor require or necessitate the development of replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation would be required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the consruction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project would result in no impacts. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.14'2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.15 Public Services Fire Protection Services: Less Than Significant Impact As a non-residential project, the proposed project would not be expected to result in an excessive increase in calls for service. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Further, the City's Safety Element states that separation and setback requirementsadopted in the City's Municipal Code, assist in minimizing the risk of urban fire spread. The proposed project would be consistent with the City's setback requirements. In addition, as discussed in further detail in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). October 2024 Findings of Fact 37 FINDINGS = FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,os5PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA The proposed project would adhere to the development standards described in the City's Municipal Code related to public safety. The pproject would also be designed to comply with all OCFA requirements, including providing adequate fire flow/sructuve protection to the project site and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with current editions of the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, and related codes. As stated in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growh in the City and therefore would be able to be served by Fire Station No. 17. 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. Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection services would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts relating to fire protection services. Potential impacts would be Iess than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure PS -1 would be applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.15-1 through 4.15-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed projec(included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Police Protection Services: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not increase the City's population, as it proposes a non-residential development. The project site is currently developed with existing office uses; the proposed projec would introduce light industrial uses, which are anticipated to require a demand for police services similar to or slightly less than the existing uses on the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the Cypress Police Department's ratio of police officers per 1,000 residents and would not trigger the need for new or physically altered police facilities. Impacts to police services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts relating to police protection services. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. October 2024 Findings of Fact 38 FINDINGS mFACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 244 Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.15-3 through 4.15-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Schools: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed projecwould include the demolition of the existing office building on the project site and the construction of a new light industrial building, as well as associated site improvements including tandscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. The proposed project would not cause or result in direct population growth because the proposed project would not provide new housing on the project site. Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a feecharge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. As a light industrial project, the proposed project would not add any students because it does not include any new housing. Nevertheless, the Applicant would be required to pay school fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure PS -1, below). The fees are collected by the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) and shared with Cypress School District (CSD). Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996 a project's impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the required fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS -1, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts relating to school facilities. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure PS -1 would be applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.15-4 through 4.15-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Parks: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not directly generate new residents to the City's population as it isanon- residential deve|opmert.Thepnojectdoesnctpropnseanynsidentia|usssand'therefone,wou|dno1 increase the population or demand related to parks. Although the project is anticipated to increase the City's employment by 93 jobs, the number of employees would be minor compared to the amount of parks and recreational space within the City. While it is possible that employees may visit parks and October 2024 Findings of Fact 39 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA recreational facilities in the City during Iunch breaks or after -work hours, it is unlikely that the use of parks by project employees would increase the use of those parks to a level that would contribute to substantial physical deterioration of those facilities. Impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts relating to parks. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.15'5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact The Cypress Senior Center, which provides a variety of services for senior residents, is located at9U31 Grindlay Street, approximately 1.8 mile north of the project site. The Cypress Community Center, which provides regular classes and programming for local residents, is located at 5700 Orange Avenue, approximately 1.3 mile north of the project site. The proposed project would not generate population growth as it is a non-residential development and would not generate an increased demand for the use of these public facilities. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts to these facilities. Impacts to other public facilities would be Iess than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts to other public facilities beyond those identified in the Initial Study. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.15'5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.16 Recreation Deterioration of Parks and Other Recreation Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact The projecdoes not propose any residential uses and, therefore, would not increase the population or demand related to parks. Although the project is anticipated to increase employment by 93 jobs, the number of employees would be minor compared to the amount of parks and recreational space within the City. While it is possible that employees may visit parks and recreational facilities in the City during Iunch breaks or after -work hours, it is unlikely that the use of parks by project employees October 2024 Findings of Fact 40 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT = OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� -ro"ita:• would increase the use of those parks to a level that would contribute to substantial physical deterioration of those facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.16-1 through 4.16-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Resulting in an Adverse Physical Effect: Less Than Significant Impact In its existing condition, the project site is currently developed with a five -story office building and associated parking lot. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing structure, and development of a new one-story light industrial building. The project would not include recreational facilities nor develop residential uses that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, impacts to recreation requirements would be Iess than significant. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, potential impacts would be Iess than significant. No mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.16-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.17 Transportation Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Related to the Circulation System: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is anticipated to generate a net increase of 196 two-way trips per day with a net reduction of 28 a.m. peak hour trips and a net reduction of 22 p.m. peak hour trips (in passenger car equivalents [PCE]). Since the proposed project is likely to generate fewer than 50 net new peak - hour trips and fewer than 25 net new peak -hour trips at any single intersection, the implementation eak'hourtripsandfewprthnn25nstnevvpeak'howrtripsatanysing|eintenection,theimp|ementation October 2024 Findings of Fact 41 FINDINGS o,FACT AND STATEMENT O,OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA of the proposed project is not anticipated toresult in any operational or level of service (LOS) deficiencies; therefore, no further study is necessary. The City's General PIan provides goals and policies to implement a balancedfunctional, and efficient circulation system, and incorporate alternative modes of travel that allow for the safe movement of people and goods. General Plan Policies CIR-2.5 and CIR-2.8 encourage the development of adequate sidewalks, particularly to provide connections to surrounding alternative modes of transportation. The project site currently provides sidewalks along Plaza Drive and Walker Drive allowing for pedestrian connections to nearby transit. Therefore, the proposed project would not inhibit the use of alternative transportation in the area and would not conflict with circulation policies in the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Potential impacts are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.7-11 through 4.7-12. Conflicts or Inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b): Less Than Significant Impact The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory) recommends that a project generating 110 average daily trips (ADT) or less be screened out of a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis due to the presumption of a less than significant impact. This recommendation is not based on any analysis of GHG reduction but is instead based on the potential trip generation of a project that would be categorically exempt under CEQA. The proposed project includes the demolition of 150,626 square feet of office space and the construction of a new light industrial building that would be approximately 191,394 square feet in size. The proposed project does not qualify for any of the screening criteria, including the screening threshold for small projects because the proposed project would generate a net increase of 196 ADT and a total of 604 ADT. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis was prepared. Additionally, the proposed project would constitute a significant impact if the project VMT metric is greater than 85 percent of the regional existing VMT metric. Hence the proposed project would constitute a significant impact if the project VMT per employee is greater than 85 percent of the Orange County VMT per employee (threshold). The project's VMT per employee would be lower than the Orange County regional threshold; therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, and no mitigation measures are required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. October 2024 Findings of Fact 42 FINDINGS O,FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,o6,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 248 The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Potential impacts are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.7-12 through 4.7-13. Inadequate Emergency Access: Less Than Significant Impact Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways at Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. Plaza Drive would allow for adequate emergency access and all project improvements, including driveways, would be designed consistent with applicable emergency access standards. All emergency access routes to the proposed project and adjacent areas would be kept cleared and unobstructed during demolition and construction of the proposed project. No roadway closures or lane closures are anticipated as part of project construction. Therefore, the proposed project's effects on emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Potential impacts are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.7-14. 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource 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<kl; No Impact The project site does not contain any "historical resources" as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or Public Resources Code 5020.1(k). Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with Assembly Bill 52. As part of the consultation process, a review of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) yielded negative results. Subsequently 21 Native American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to consult on the proposed project. During that process, the Gabrie|eMu Band of Mission |ndians—Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) stated that the project site is within their tribal territory and requested consultation with the City. The Kizh Nation was provided with a summary of the project and its location. No information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the project site was provided by the Kizh Nation. Therefore, the proposed project would October 2024 Findings of Fact 43 FINDINGS = FACT AND STATEMENT = OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS onnnm 2024 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA not result in any impacts to tribal cultural resources that are Iisted or eligible for listing in the State or local register of historical resources. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate any impacts on tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the State or local register of historical resources. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.8-5 through 4.8-6. 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunication Facilities That Would Cause a Significant Environmental Effect: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1, included here, and Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -4, in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, existing facilities would have the capacity to serve the anticipated uses, and the proposed project would not substantially increase demand upon these facilities as compared to historic and existing conditions at the project site. Therefore, impacts to these utility facilities would be less than significant. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities that would cause a significant environmental effect. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -4 would be applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.19-1 through 4.19-9 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Insufficient Water Supplies: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements,and Golden State Water Company (GSWC) would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water under a worst-case scenario as forecast in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Taking October 2024 Findings of Fact 44 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 sm`,,=°DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� into account population growth, GSWC is able to meet demand in the multiple dry year scenario for years 2025, 2030 2035, 2040and 2045. The proposed project is anticipated to use approximately 122,345 gallons per day (gpd) or 137 acre-feet per year (afy). Further, the total amount of anticipated water usage by the proposed project represents less than 0.1 percent of the West Orange System's current annual water demand. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2, which requires the proposed project to comply with all State laws for water conservation measures, including the use of low -flow fixtures. Therefore, water demand from the proposed project would be within GSWC's current and projected water supplies available to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future developments during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2 would be applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.19-9 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Inadequate Capacity to Serve Proiected Wastewater Treatment Demand in Addition to the Provider's Existing Commitments: Less Than Significant Impact Although the proposed project would increase wastewater generation on site, the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project could be accommodated within the existing design capacity of Orange County Sanitation District's (OC SAN) Treatment Plant No. 1, which would serve the project site. Therefore, the City's Public Works Maintenance Division and OC SAN would have adequate capacity to serve the projected demand of the proposed project in addition to their existing commitments. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would be adequately served by the wastewater treatment provider's existing capacity in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this Iess than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. October 2024 Findings of Fact 45 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,6osPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� ~�� 1 �� Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.19'10 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Solid Waste Generation in Excess of State or Local Standards or Capacity of Local Infrastructure: Less Than Significant Impact Non -hazardous waste from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be recycled to the extent feasible, and where necessary, would likely be disposed of at the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Construction waste is anticipated to be minimal compared to waste generated throughout the lifetime of the project during operation. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant production of solid waste that would exceed the daily available capacity (1,000 tons per day [tpd]) at the Olinda Alpha Landfill, the proposed project would not result in an impact related to City, State, or federal statutes and regulations related to solid wastes. The proposed project would generate approximately 0.49 tpd (980 pounds) of solid waste during operation, a net increase of approximately 0.48 tpd (960 pounds) over the existing uses on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute an insignificant amount of solid waste per day to the remaining daily capacity at the Olinda Alpha Landfill (approximately 0.61 percent). Moreover, the proposed project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to solid waste and landfill facilities, and no mitigation would be required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.19-10 through 4.19-11 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed projec(included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Conflict with Federa|. State, and Local Solid Waste Management and Reduction Statutes and Regulations: Less Than Significant lmpact Implementation of the proposed project involves the demolition of the existing structure on the site, site grading, and construction of the proposed light industrial building on the project site. Demolition, site preparation (vegetation removal, grading, and filling activities) and construction activities would generate typical construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, metals, cardboard, and green wastes. The proposed project would comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3). The proposed project would comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, and federal law. In addition, the proposed project would not result in an excessive production of solid waste that would exceed the capacity of the existing October 2024 Findings of Fact 46 ��'7 �� FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT O.OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,aa`PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT v OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA IandfiII serving the projectsite. Therefore, the proposed projecwould not result in an impact related to federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes, and no mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations associated with solid waste. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure UT L3 would be applicable to the proposed project. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.19-11 through 4.19-13 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 4.I0 Wildfire All Thresholds: No Impact The California Department of Foresry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the State through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas of California into different fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ), based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing densities, and occurrence of severe fire weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. As part of this mapping system, CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection for land areas that are generaily unincorporated, and they are classified as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). In areas where local fire protection agencies (e.g., Orange County Fire Authority [OCFA]) are responsible for wildfire protection, the lands are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). CAL FIRE currently identifies the project site as an LRA. In addition to establishing local or State responsibility for wildfire protection in a specific area, CAL FIRE designates areas as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) or non- VHFHSZ. According to the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for the Orange County region, the entire City of Cypress is designated as a non-VHFHSZ, and the City does not include an SRA. The nearest VHFHSZ to the project site is approximately 10 miles to the northeast in Coyote Hills on the western side of Fullerton. The nearest SRA is in Puente Hills, approximately 12 miles northeast of the project site. Because the project site is not located in or near an SRA or VHFHSZ, the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to wildfire. No mitigation is required. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed projecwould not result in any impacts related to wildfire. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. October 2024 Findings of Fact 47 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STAEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 �� ,Y�� ,o^,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.20-1 through 4.20-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR). 5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City finds, based upon the threshold criteria for significance presented in the Draft EIR, that the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project listed below can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with feasible mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. No substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the following impacts would, in fact, occur at levels that would necessitate a determination of significance. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(b), requires a description of any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. 5.1 Aesthetics No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.2 Agriculture and Foresry Resources No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.3 Air Quality No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.4 Biological Resources No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.5 Cultural Resources Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated According to the City of Cypress General Plan, there are no known archaeological resources located in Cypress. The projecsite has been previously disturbed to construct an office building and a surface parking lot. The existing office building at the project site would be demolished, materials removed or repurposed, and the entirety of the site would be graded for the construction of the proposed project. During site preparation/grading activities, there is the potential to encounter unknown cultural resources. In the event that historical or archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, operations shall cease and Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would be implemented. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. October 2024 Findings of Fact 48 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT "^ OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS oa,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ,�� -r Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of sgnificance with Mitigation Measure CUL -1. Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2' Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to Iess than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL -1 Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the everit that archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a quahfied archaeologist from the Orange County List of Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and Iocal guidelines to determine whether the find constitutes a "unique archaeological resource,"asdefined inSection 2lU83.I(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). The Applicant and its construction contractor shall not coUect or move any archaeological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the projecsite. Any found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State and local guidelines, including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2, and shafl be assessed, handled, and treated consistent with accepted standards, such as the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for archaeology and historic preservation. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Department, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific requirements regarding California PRC (Section 210832[0 and the treatment of archaeological resources as specified above. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft El pages 4.2-6 through 4.2-9. 5.6 Energy No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.7 Geology and Soils Adverse Effects Related to Seismic -Related Ground Failure Including Liquefaction: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated According to the California Geological Survey's EQ Zapp, the project site is located in a Liquefaction Hazards Zone of required investigations. The Geotechnical Evaluation included a subsurface exploration and has determined the presence of potentially Iiquefiable soils to depths of 50 feet. October 2024 Findings of Fact 49 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� ,�� Further analysis determined potential dynamic settlements of approximately 2.9 inches to 5.27 inches during a strong seismic event. This dynamic settlement as a result of severe seismic activity is expected to occur over a large area and would result in areal subsidence, and the potential differential settlement is expected to be significantly less over any relatively small segment. However, given the nature of the proposed project, which includes a light industrial facility with office and warehouse uses, differential settlements under current conditions could be significant. Thus, remedial grading, foundation considerations, and/or in-situ ground improvement measures are recommended in the Geotechnical Evaluation to help mitigate potential adverse effects due to soil liquefaction. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the consrucdonmon1ractortocomplywiththerecommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation to reduce the proposed project's impact related to liquefaction. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the proposed project's impacts related to liquefaction would be reduced to less than significant. The project would also be required to adhere to Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. MM GEO-1 Implementation of Geotechnical Evaluation Recommendations. The Applicant's construction contractor shall implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress' (City) Building Official, or designee. The City's Building Official, or designee, shall confirm recommendations have been implemented into the design and construction of the proposed project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.4-10 through 4.4-11. Location on Unstable Geologic Unit Resulting in Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in detail under Threshold GEO'1(iii) in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 would be required to address the proposed project's impacts with respect to October 2024 Findings of Fact 50 FINDINGS = FACT AND STATEMENT OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� liquefaction. Provided that design and remedial grading and ground improvement (as necessary) are performed in accordance with the applicable requirements in the California Building Code (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 some Iayers of loose sands and silty sands on the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentfally significant impacts to Iess than significant. MM GEO-1 Implementation of Geotechnical Evaluation Recommendations. The Applicant's construction contractor shall implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress' (City) Building Official, or designee. The City's Building Official, or designee, shall confirm recommendations have been implemented into the design and construction of the proposed project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-12 through 4.4-13. Directly or Indirectly Destroy Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The projecsite contains Artificial Fill, which has no paleontological sensitivityand ¥oung Alluvium, Unit 2, which has low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 feet and high paleontological sensitivity below 10 feet. With a maximum excavation depth of 8 feet during construction, the proposed project is expected to remain in deposits with no or Iow paleontological sensitivity. However, in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction, Mitigation Measure GE0-2 would require work in the immediate area of the discovery to be halted and a qualified paleontologist to assess the discovery. These procedures would reduce potential impacts to scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources encountered during construction. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. October 2024 Findings of Fact 51 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,66,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ��7 �� Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2. Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) GEC -Z below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to Iess than significant. MM GE0-2 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 shall retain a professional paleontologist who meets the qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to assess the discovery. The qualified, professional paleontologist shall make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the discovered resources, as well as the need for subsequent paleontological mitigation, which may include, but not be limited to, paleontological monitoring, collection of observed resources, preservation, stabilization and identification of collected resources, curation of resources into a museum repository, and preparation of a monitoring report of findings, consistent with well accepted standards, such as those established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The City of Cypress shall ensure that the recommendations from the qualified, professional paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant. Supportive Evidence: Please referto the Draft EIR page 4.4-13. 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.11 Land Use and Planning 5.12 Mineral Resources No impacts were concluded to be significant. October 2024 Findings of Fact 52 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 ,66,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� ,��w 5.13 Noise Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of ground -borne vibration. For typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 0.089 inch per second (in/sec) in peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet. The closest surrounding buildings to the project site include existing industrial buildings located approximately 5 feet north of the edge of the project site. The industrial building would experience vibration levels of up to 0.995 in/sec PPV. This vibration level at the nearest building from construction equipment would potentially exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for building damage. At a distance of approximately 8 feet from typical construction activities, vibration Ievels would approach 0.492 in/sec PPV and would be below the FTA criteria of 0.5 in/sec PPV. WhiIe construction could result in vibration damage, impacts would be reduced to less than significant, and the potential for building damage would be eliminated with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 as detailed below. For deep dynamic compaction (DDC) construction activities, the proposed drops could occur as close as 50 feet from the nearest structures. The nearesoff-site industrial building to the DDC construction activities would experience vibration levels of up to 1.02 in/sec PPV, which would potentially exceed the FTA threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for building damage. At a distance of approximately 78 feet from DDC construction activities, vibration levels would be 0.49 in/sec PPV and would be below the FTA criteria of 0.5 in/sec PPV. While construction could result in vibration damage, impacts would be reduced to less than significant, and the potential for building damage would be eliminated with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) NO1'1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to Iess than significant. MM N01-1 Construction Vibration Monitoring PIan. Due to the close proximity to surrounding structures, the City of Cypress (City) Director of Community Development, or designee, shafl verify prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, that the approved plans require that the construction contractor implement the foliowing mitigation measures during project construction activities in the event that the use of heavy equipment is necessary within 25 feet (ft) of surrounding structures or when deep dynamic compaction (DDC) October 2024 Findings of Fact 53 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,oePLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� construction activity takes places within 80 ft of surrounding structures: • Notification to nearby businesses detailing the schedule and duration of DDC activities. • Structures that are located within 25 ft of heavy construction activities and within 80 ft of DDC construction activity that have the potential to be affected by ground -borne vibration shall be identified. This task shall be conducted by a qualified structural engineer as approved by the City's Director of Community Development, or designee. • The Applicant's construction contractor shall develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan for approval by the City's Director of Community Development, or designee, to identify appropriate locations where monitoring would be conducted; set up a vibration monitoring schedule; define structure -specific maximum vibration limits based on building inspections; contain provisions to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions at those structures. The plan shall identify construction contingencies that would be implemented if vibration Ievels approach the established vibration limits ata particular location. Potential contingencies may include one or more of the following: • Lowering the height of the compaction weight; ▪ Any other alternate method that is safe and appropriate, as determined by the project geotechnical consultant, in consultation with the City's Director of Community Development (such as utilizing geopier stabilization instead of DDC). • At a minimum, vibration during initial site preparation activities at the locations described above shall be monitored. The monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. • When vibration levels approach the applicable Iimits established in the vibration monitoring and conspuction contingency plan, construction shall be suspended, and the appropriate mitigation October 2024 Findings of Fact 54 ,."~°°", FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� o measures identified in the construction contingency plan shall be implemented to reduce vibration Ievels below thresholds. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.6-19 through 4.6-21. 5.14 Population and Housing No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.15 Public Services No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.16 Recreation No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.17 Transportation Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Vehicular traffic to and from the project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that serve the projecarea. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways at Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. The proposed project would include the relocation of the existing driveways. The new westernmost driveway would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck loading docks on the proposed buliding's west side. The eastern driveway would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east. It is anticipated that Driveway 1 (on Douglas Drive) and Driveway 2 (on Plaza Drive) would be utilized by heavy trucks to access the project site. Driveway 1 is anticipated to be able to accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks as currently designed, providing access to and from the east on Plaza Drive and south on Douglas Drive. Driveway 1 would serve as the primary driveway for heavy trucks accessing the project site. While Driveway 2 would accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks along Plaza Drive, it is recommerided that the northwest curb of Driveway 2 be modified to accommodate a 25 -foot curb radius for the egress of heavy trucks. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -1, described below, would require the installation of on-site traffic signing and striping to direct heavy trucks to the driveway on Douglas Drive. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA'1, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to transportation hazards. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure TRA -1. October 2024 Findings of Fact 55 FINDINGS OF ,^",^°" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.7, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) TRA -1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to Iess than significant. MM TRA -1 Truck Access & Routing PIan and Truck Signage and Striping Plan, The Applicant shall submit a Truck Access and Routing Plan to accommodate the circulation of trucks on site. Additionally, the Applicant shall prepare a Signage and Striping Ptan, consistent with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), that directs heavy trucks to the most appropriate access point. The Public Works Director of the City of Cypress, or designee, shall review and approve the Truck Access and Routing PIan and Signage and Striping PIan and confirm they have been incorporated into the project plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.7-14. 5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource That is Determined by Lead Agency to Be Significant Pursuant to Criteria in Subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The project site is not likely to contain any prehistoric site or archaeological resources based on archival research and field surveys conducted for the project site. There is little potential for the proposed project to impact prehistoric resources due to the low likelihood of resource presence, significant prior disturbance from past grading and development activities on the project site and in the surrounding area. However, Mitigation Measure CUL -1, as provided in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, has been included to mitigate potentially significant impacts associated with the unlikely discovery of archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources (TCRs), on the project site. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. During the consultation process, the Kizh Nation provided mitigation measures to address potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR -1 through TCR -3, which incorporate the recommendations of the Kizh Nation, would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City's consultation with the Kizh Nation or any other interested local Native American tribe, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR -1 through TCR -3, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. October 2024 Findings of Fact 56 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT O^OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,v",PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measures TRC -1 through TCR -3. Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.8, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measures (MMs) TCR -1 through TCR -3 below are feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. MM TCR -1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground -Disturbing Activities. The project Applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleiio Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any "ground -disturbing activity" for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). "Ground -disturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, orthe issuance of any permit necessaryto commence a ground -disturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor Iogs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or "TCR"), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor Iogs will be provided to the pnojec1AppUcant/|ead agency upon written request to the Tribe. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh Nation from a designated point of contact for the pnojectAppUcant/|ead agency that all ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with October 2024 Findings of Fact 57 n"".~°^= FACT AND STAEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA o".., PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA MM TCR -2 �� the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh Nation to the project Applicant/tead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/ construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh Nation TCRs. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh Nation monitor and/or Kizh Nation archaeologist. The Kizh Nation will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary ObjectsNative American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletat completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project sitethen alt construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground -disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed. Human remains and urial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh Nation determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh Nation monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f)j October 2024 Findings of Fact 58 FINDINGS OFFACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5m,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA MM TCR -3 Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non -TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institutiori with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains. As the Most Likely Descendant ("MLD"), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. If the discovery of humari remains includes four or more buriats, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or tater; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of alt sacred materials. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. In the event preservation in place is not posible despite good faith October 2024 Findings of Fact 59 FINDINGS OFFACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS s"6sPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA ground -disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. Each occurrence of human remains and assoated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the Iandowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. The Tribe will work closely with the project's qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery -related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.8-6 through 4.8-11. 5.19 Utilities and Service Systems No impacts were concluded to be significant. 5.20 Wildfire No impacts were concluded to be significant. October 2024 Findings of Fact 60 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 m,","` CALIFORNIA 6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SPGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 6.1 Aesthetics No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.3 Air Quality No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.4 Biological Resources No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.5 Cultural Resources No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.6 Energy No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.7 Geology and Soils No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.11 Land Use and Planning No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.12 Mineral Resources No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.13 Noise No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. October 2024 Findings of Fact 61 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE r"".^., OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 6.14 Population and Housing No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.15 Public Services No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.16 Recreation No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.17 Transportation No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.19 Utilities No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 6.I0 Wildfire No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. October 2024 Findings of Fact 62 FINDINGS OF FACT AND u~"°.".", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e) require that an EIR analyze growth -inducing impacts and discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) also requires a discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To address these issues, potential growth -inducing effects were examined through analysis of the foliowing questions: • Would the projecremove obstacles to, or otherwise foster, population growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? • Would the project foster economic growth? • Would approval of the projecinvolve some characteristic that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Growth -inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of IittIe significance to the environment (State [E[AGuide|ines Section 151262(e)). This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the proposed project could contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of developing the proposed land uses as described in earlier sections ofthis Draft EIR. The area surrounding the projecsite is highly urbanized and developed with a variety of industrial, commercial, office, and warehouse land uses. The proposed project will require water, sewer, drainage, electricity, and natural gas lines. However, the project site is currently developed and located in a highly urbanized environment where these facilities already exist in place. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would require substantial utility infrastructure improvements. The construction ofthe proposed projectis anticipated to generate a number of construction -related jobs. However, as discussed in Section 4.14 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix B of the Draft EIR), it is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to be relocated from outside the region to meet the need for employees resulting from implementation of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not provide or remove housing on the project site. it is unlikely that the employment offered by the proposed project would cause people to move or relocate to the area solely for the purpose of being close to the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would not induce either short- nor long-term population growth. In its existing condition, the project site is developed with an underutilized five -story office building. The project site currently does not generate revenue forthe City. The proposed projectwould provide a new source of property tax revenues to the City, thereby increasing the local tax base. Therefore, the proposed project would foster economic growth. October 2024 Findings of Fact 63 FINDINGS °, FACT AND STATEMENT O,OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS s"mPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �� The proposed project includes the development of a light industrial facility. The proposed project would require an amendment to the McDonnell Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1, and removal of the maximum developable area requirement while retaining the 1.0:1 floor -area ratio (FAR) to maintain consistency with the General Plan. This amendment would not allow for residential uses or add any permanent residents to the project site. Therefore, the project would not directly increase the City's population beyond existing levels. The proposed Specific PIan Amendment (SPA) would not cause a future increase in density or land use. Accordingly, the proposed project would not have any growth -inducing impacts. Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. The City hereby finds that the proposed project does not directly result in any significant growth- indubn8imnpacts.Thepnoposedpnojectdoexnotindudeorfaci|itateanyphysica|imprnvementsnr development, and the proposed project is consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City. Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 6-1 through 6'2. October 2024 Findings of Fact 64 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �7�� 8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The foliowing alternatives were addressed in the Draft EIR: • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative • Alternative 2: Reduced Footprint Alternative • Alternative 3: No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative • Alternative 4: Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns 8.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Description: Consistent with State CEA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the No Project Alternative assumes the existing land uses and condition of the project site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published (May 2024) would continue to exist without any changes. The No Project Alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no new development of any kind were to occur on the project site. The No Project Alternative would allow existing conditions on the project site to remain unchanged. While the No Project Alternative would lessen or avoid impacts of the proposed project and require no mitigation measures, none of the project objectives would be achieved. Finding — The City adopts Finding 3. The City finds that while the No ProjecAlternative would eliminate the impacts associated with the proposed project, as well as those impacts determined to be less than significant, it would not meet any of the project objectives. Since the project site would remain undeveloped and vacant, this alternative would not: (1) meet a greater market demand for state-of-the-art light industrial buildings by replacing a vacant office building; (2) realize the City's industrial goal, policies, and programs to strengthen its economic base; (3) promote development that would attract new businesses to operate in the City(4) encourage business development that would generate a range of employment opportunities for the community; or (5) help attract new business enterprises that would result in a positive flow of revenue to the City. As a result, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project. Supporting Evidence — Please see the Draft EIR pages 5-7 through 5-10. 8.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Footprint Alternative Description: The purpose of the Reduced Footprint Alternative is to reduce the proposed light industrial square footage and facility footprint, which are the primary sources of project -related air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation impacts. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop a smaller light industrial building (127,596 square feet, which is 63,798 square feet less than the proposed project) on the same site as the proposed project. It can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative. The reduced October 2024 Findings of Fact 65 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 271 development proposed under this development would also reduce the capacity and employment opportunities of the project. Finding — The City adopts Finding 3. The City finds that the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in Iesser Ievels of impact in most of the environmental impact areaswith the exception of Cultural ResourcesGeology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, in which impacts would be similar to those under the proposed project. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would fulfill the project objectives to a lesser extent and would not provide the same capacity or employment opportunities as the proposed project. As such, this alternative would only partially meet project objectives. Supporting Evidence — Please see the Draft EIR pages 5-10 through 5-14. 8.3 Alternative 3: No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative Description: The purpose of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative is to eliminate cold storage space in the proposed light industrial building and truck refrigeration units, which are the primary source of project -related operational air quality impacts and GHG emissions. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would develop the same use as the proposed project on the same project site. As such, it can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative. Finding — The City adopts CEQA Finding 3. The City finds that the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in lesser levels of impact in most of the environmental impact areas, with the exception of Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, in which impacts would be similar to those under the proposed project. While the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would reduce the operational emissions of criteria pollutants, operational GHG emissions, operational energy consumption, and stationary noise levels, when compared with the proposed project, this alternative would not totally fulfill Project Objectives 2 and 4, as warehouse projects without cold storage would by definition exclude certain users and generally not be as competitive as warehouses with cold storage. As such, this alternative would only partially meet project objectives. Supporting Evidence — Please see the Draft EIR pages 5-14 through 5-18. 8.4 Alternative 4: Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative Description: The purpose of the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative is to reduce vibratory impacts to sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the proposed project. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would only include the use of deep dynamic compaction activities within the central portion of the project site and would utilize stone columns around the periphery of the projecsite during construction. The October 2024 Findings of Fact 66 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,00,PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 *,","^c^",""°.^ �7� �� Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would reduce impacts to ground -borne vibration during project construction when compared with the proposed project. As such, it can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative. Finding — The City adopts CEQA Finding 3. The City finds that all impacts under the Deep Dynamic and Stone Columns Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would reduce impacts to ground -borne vibration during project construction from "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" to "Less than Significant" when compared with the proposed project. As a result, this alternative would fulfill all of the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. Supporting Evidence — Please see the Draft EIR pages 5-18 through 5-22. October 2024 Findings of Fact 67 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when making findings required by Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the Lead Agency approving a project shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval, in order to ensure compliance with project implementation and to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby finds that: 1) A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project, and the mitigation measures are included therein. The MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record of proceedings for the proposed project. 2) The MMRP designates responsibility for implementation and monitoring of proposed mitigation measures. The City's Community Development Director will serve as the overall MMRP coordinator and will be primarily responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are complied with. 3) The MMRP prepared for the proposed project has been adopted concurrently with these Findings. The MMRP meets the requirementof Section 21021.6 of the Public Resources Code. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. October 2024 Findings of Fact 68 FINDINGS ", FACT AND STATEMENT ° OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024 10.0 OTHER FINDINGS The City hereby finds as follows: 1) The foregoing statements are true and correct. ,maPLAZA DRIVE PROJECT CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA �7� �/-n 2) The City is the "Lead Agency" for the project evaluated in the CEQA Documents and independently reviewed and analyzed in the Draft EIR and FnaI EIR forthe project. 3) The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. It requested that responsible agencies respond as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to that agency's specific responsibilities. 4) The public review period for the Draft EIR occurred for 45 days between August 12, 2024, and September 27, 2024. The Draft EIR and appendices were available for public review during that time. A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse, and notices of availability of the Draft EIR were published by the City. The Draft EIR was available for review on the City's website. Physical copies of the environmental documents are available at the Cypress Civic Center by appointment only. 5) The CEQA Documents were completein compliance with CEO.A. 6) The CEQA Documents reflect the City's independent judgment. 7) The City evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons and organizations who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with [EOA' the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Final EIR provided adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to the comments. The City reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information to the Draft EIR regarding adverse environmental impacts. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR. 8) The City f,r,ds that the CEQA Documents, as amendedprovide objectwe information to assist the decision -makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit all comments made during the public review period. 9) The CEQA Documents evaluated the foHowing impacts: (1) air quality;(J)cultural resources; (3) energy; (4) geology and soils; (5) greenhouse gas emissions; (6) noise; (7) transportation; and (8) tribal cultural resources. Additionally, the CEQA Documents considered, in separate sections, significant irreversible environmental changes and growth -inducing impacts of the project, as well as a reasonable range of project alternatives. All of the significant environmental impacts of the project were identified in the CEQA Documents. October 2024 Findings of Fact 69 �7� �� FINDINGS = FACT AND STATEMENT ", OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT X OCTOBER 2024 CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 10) The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Documents and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the project. The MMRP provides the steps necessary to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable. 11) The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation; the City's Community Development Director will serve as the MMRP Coordinator. 12) In determining whether the project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2. 13) The impacts of the project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the CEQA Documents. 14) The City made no decisions related to approval of the project prior to the initial recommendation of certification of the CEQA Documents. The City also did not commit to a definite course of action with respect to the project prior to the initial consideration of the CEQA Documents. 15) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the CEQA Documents are and have been available upon requesat all times at the offices of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, the custodian of record for such documents or other materials. 16) The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final EIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR. 17) Having reviewed the information contained in the CEQA Documents and in the administrative record, the City finds that there is no new significant information regarding adverse environmental impacts of the project in the Final EIR. 18) Having receivedreviewed and considered all information in the CEQA Documents, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, these Findings are hereby adopted October 2024 Findings of Fact 70 276 Exhibit B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 0 0 0 ion Monitoring and Reporting Program N 1- 0 c c z >00 a a 277 PACCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive \02 - Working Files \04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft 1• 0 -o 5 0 z 1.1.1 0< igation Monitoring and Reporting Program 278 Verification of Compliance Date Responsible Party Responsible for Remarks Monitoring •.,.;0 Applicant and City of Cypress Community Development Director, or designee 4- 0 8 i•-) O. 7-0' 'ID C •Ci Cif c 0 C • ,... "EC ,t,.0 >. 5 a < u m -42 Applicant and City of Cypress Building official, or designee Applicant and/o, Construction Supervisor/City of Cypress Director of Community Development c ,o) Prior to issuance v,abuilding permit a) c 00 4., 7-- • u c 02 000 During ground - disturbing activities Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures Regulatory Compliance Measure EN -1 Limit Idling Time. The Applicant and construction contractor would be required to comply with applicable idling regulations for on -road vehicles during project construction and operation, which require truck drivers to turn off their engines within 5 minutes of idling. .- 0 un c to W vt. Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 Compliance with Seismic and Building Standards in the Building Code. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed buildings, the City of Cypress (City) Engineer, Building Official, or their designee, and the project soils engineer shall review the building plans to verify that the structural design conforms to the requirements of the City's latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code. Structures and walls shall be designed in accordance with applicable sections of the City's Building Code. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Implementation of Geotechnical Evaluation Recommendations. The Applicant's construction contractor shall implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress' (City) Building Official, or designee. The City's Building Official, or designee, shall confirm recommendations have been implemented into the design and construction of the proposed project prior to the issuance of a buliding permit. Mitigation Measure GEO-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 shall retain a profssional Paleontologist 1.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive \ 02'Working nws\ 04'Draft Em(,ublic CirculationaRA Compiled revised Public uraft.docx (08/05/24) c N 00 0 0 cc on Monitoring and Reporting Program 279 a. E 0 u 0 0 v 0 0 c a) a E a m m 0. )VI 0 17 a c L Y N c _d 0 L 2 c @ p N v C o v p •Y a s a ®'a p Q a 6 � u> ro 7 ® O' cn C !'° v O 4- a 0 a F E a E v o a v '0 C o L a a i 'c° °'u QW C E LEa >> �c . 0 aL7 hO-F o O O O La, ca a) vi `a -0 N V1 N H Y o 18 c aa) C u mpe, bbO N 10 N 7 H E- -0 7® c O `ter r2 N a O N O c- a i+ O Na) al fL0 O- O o N v aa, t '4 O aT a c t act a .1 !� c a N c N p E Q. o N N a v m v 0- E as E •o o a Y u c 5 7 v o L 0 to 10 0 a c C 0 'p Y OO Y a+ ? 0 C L>- .c O IP a, a a o E Y E N o C LY 7 c = a C a' d= L E co C O Y N a O t Y a U E H O E CO L N d 3 L O Y d' Ya m L"a m 3 v o v54 ® v a 'Fa C 7 m o c 0,,-0,,,,c0= 0 0 m 4Ni Yo® c +' c Z c m a 0L t a 0 to N.-124 N 4) > 0. a E a a, a. 0 0 0 sional Paleo 0 o 0 O ®. YO 0 C V N C 0 � a o o •E E ra N 7 o E a ac aaE > a°0 Q V Vi V V o 0 -a C C a E O U c Y N O a N w Y E c ® E •d>®-+ ti OU 0 'O 4- s.. L O +® as 'O 'O N Y a Y O w *® ®� w E a c O c 6 ,L., aa) -aa a c® '> v O 0 a 4a- oO c 0 p E c 0 w Z `a 2 O Z d 0 Q. `en a O K a i _ N O CL a N ev a a� L E ro 4 Q E® u Ya a 0 ^ > a CU v a N a C N E> a a c 76 ®'v ¢ N z v' v, Q. E 3 'fa> Z a� 8 c a C N Y y., O a `? •Y C 0 c N p CD 773 0 7 E E y V1 V a (O '0 L C co .0 o 'YO na u a E v v+'i Q c v E Y v O Pa C u Q N N N'4 Y L a 0 Y< 00 ..°2 L L E N O ap c N O Y O' ca C V �, N 0 ae1 ® v C) u -i 'a `a 'NO d O - i -a0 c 4 ® . Y u -i Co 7 7 >. Y c 7 Y N p u aa) ,La, ova IT c c 0 = o acw C aa' E Td a a Q c to u L - c £ .a., v c E a -a L N U ® i" 'O a -o a 'O L V 0¢ ® o w a® C a 3 N o o a a a a o E Z o a^ d r E r' o Y o Y a u a Y i,, 0 C N C N N Z Y '" 0< a) 4 A C v N a 0 H y E a n.vcti 0 C B c °++ p O c Z d 7 +'ics 7 n3 c CO +.0 L 'd re m a E l7 U a Y eO y o o a Q> v+ +, o 1., 0 0 as E E c OC' 0 v-7 v{'i c O_ o 0 o a° d o o Yaa ° c m u v 0 v an o i 7 'O To L Z (aj '. to U—, V a O °Co a •'p 0 E a Z v. a o E c E4. Ta m V as C c a C c c d ao z 0 u c a E 0 a a a V 0 N l7 V C7 C1 Z CC ro_ u "O 0 1— Ov =� ® aL, commencement 0 > U E c igation Monitoring and N a) 0 280 Verification of Compliance Remarks 4.1 19 0 in ,..... .... C Responsible Party Responsible for Monitoring 0 c u (0 2 TA CL 0 0 4- 4- o u V) > — ^, ..' ct.) 2 z a- D v) U a- (I) a' cu 13 Monitoring Milestone 4-, c a) E (1), u o a r„ E 2 E - o 0_ u c 0 ..C. ''''' 2 o > u 4- u 0 co Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures 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 v[stonnwmte, and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff. Construction Site BMPs shall also conform to the requirements specified in the latest edition of the Orange County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers to control and minimize the impacts of construction and construction -related activities, materials, and pollutants on the watershed. Upon completion of construction activities and stabilization of the project site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTS. Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD -2 If groundwater dewatering is required during construction or excavation activities and the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the Applicant shall obtain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Public Works Department. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the storm drain system, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Order No. n8'2020'0006' NPDES No. cAse98001>' which covers discharges to surface waters that pose an insignificant (de minimis) threat to water quality within. This shall include submission of a Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the RWQCB at least 45 days prior to the start of dewatering. The Applicant shall provide the Working Files \ 04'Draft *m(Public Circulation on) \Compiled°evised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) ,\CCm201.04Cypress 5665m" o 0z 0 0 0 .6.71 ea E 0 a tn E Prior to issuan pf 0 pf ‘,4, 0 = • , ty0 fp 4- 12° ‘._ E4E. . ,.13 t n, c • -to o 'a a) 3 E 17d ,ro a) E E g, -0 U t ,.,> ''' a, wa) c a) - -o 0 cu -o (._, a.> o E a) -c al o .-' 4- OJ -0 .1--• 0 ,.., CO 0 , ,,. +, :,.., cu ▪ ____. V al .j.t 2 al E ‘_ -F2 .,, = ..- co ((so o 2 ,T, .:2 „ - ..c b4 .c -0 E 0 ..n C C .0 E 2 09 _ - -0 0 • 77, C3 — U - 3 — 0 ,.n • "0 E2 :0" 5 `a ' 2)- '66 laj ‘... a) 8 :-c--0 0 = -0 = 0 "' + L) trn E '-' c-,_ 0,0 -E- c = a, a) = >. 4.... c ,... - .4',3 4.4 .-- .... , 4--- a,, c Z E 0 " 73 — 0 ro cu 0. a) 0- -- c t 0.3 ° 4-, = 4) 4-, s.- O n3 -C co a JC 3 -c et$ — E ro ra ) ▪ L• . 4- 0. 0 .E a) (- c (- c '"-..... In -2 _60 i 4,0- •t .- 4- Ca 12 4, ..., .. V) '.--.." , cu 0 15 CU ,- 101- .0 MO " C 5 "0 t71 CU cp b' a) p_a .` T --2 11 o .220 a) c .5 E t'c' *47. = 0 ..-' '- 0 0 ‘-• co 2 Z 0- 2 u ad -= = 0 0 (... 0- 00 (9 U tn C 113 •"' a -""' 4- .c -o aLa . :lo ..; 0. >. o cu < a) (1) in a) > - aa)"5 t= s 0 „?. C 0 7, °- n, a' IP n' _ C 4 4, CO +- W 0. C - a-, Q C .0 V) 0. "0 ro (0 +... ro < to '-n ,-.7, C = 0 W 11, C ..„,°) w 1.0 -.E -0 .0 z z a C 0.,E et/ M ...' .0 '5 r•"! CL>- el, '"5 12 (I' '.11J k"). to c 0oucr0uoy ) L:Tc:o 4«o>- . a.'E,c7../1-V.s...1.'•,:013c 0a0 0-20) 1- 0 Ciz2 T'4Lw28..:7:1.' •teu2-,' • cZt0 .°4 E E- a) -C • = 1.- 7 >•• _c ..c0.1 -C... -C., . - . • ..,, 2 (1, a .= § ° ..... ,. . o = 2 ..4 0 E c 0- E'' -.F., .- " ..c V- c f r as ei >" M0 ° L.) 4?-') 4-C° a: (0 (00 MO ....,% %C.W C) 0 C .. al 12 = .1 a" ra .c2 3 (1., c 0 ec u VI • 0, 0 c -C co i 4Z -.- -0 0 c 2 2 • 0 a) oa U • 00 C 2 :,..,u -i - -- 4 0 o' C5 1-1-1 ,. 0- g = 0 ro w to • s- 0 U 4-, "0 '' . ....., ,•-• - (I) 42.i ,..- 5 2 a :a 0. 0 8 a w cr >, 0 • (0 (--1 0. .tJ — ,sra ., +.. .c a • t 's - cz,. -§ :a) CU 00cc 00ct 281 ompiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) EIR (Public Circulatio PACCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Driv 00 igation Monitoring and Reporting Program N cu _a co Verification of Compliance Remarks CU 4.. 0 vi To c Responsible Party Responsible for Monitoring O >. 0 (-) o o -o t ,A• •-• b 0 c ›, o 0_ . 0. , . a) •ct L.) 0- -o Monitoring Milestone a) ,,, u •,-• c E fil ,- ..n 2e e ‘._ 0 ,_ -,.. ., 0.. 0 -0 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures a ).- Qi a cc 0/ U c 03 _.- a. E o t, a.; g ha .7'....' ,U 0 ›.. 0 ''' E -,E, a) -,-• --- o.) ›, a, ,••• 6 -0 o 42., a) .4 >•• ,- a; ro al •,-• on _c c -.-• 0 ° 4-• .- ca .2 t ..,, ,.,, 4-. v.) ,-) m +-• _, " 0 _a .-• a) o a) [0. a) E •••) 0 c u Zo7,020cora.,a) 3 CL 0 0 b , c cr o _ 45 tt 0 -6u 9 g ; E p __, _c lo E , fr; ,:.,) = 0 , ›.. .., ._ ,„ „. ..,, .3., Q.. fa — ... co i c.5 .E...... ••,, _c ‘- co arcci,,,,uff-o•wc0c4z,.0>•ca5).,,-•ca,>. -0 .„ •t 0 a) E U.' -15 l- O. fp 0 ,... .1 0 7 0 c a, ,- C E) >, z 0_ , .7, cs:, a) c cs . , a., rt) 0 0 ,,I. ro ‘- 0- ir. .- +- c - a3 t W 4-, ;,----, b rr, co in lb _c ,--, 0 , 0 L _c 2 °-,., --- ai Z'''' 'S 9 r•1 4° r' '-' r‘i <'. c". , E 0 -0 E -0 _Ca) WU OM °- . 73 H '-' 0 "-.4 >. 0 P., Cu 00 TD -.---,6'„ic>a)-- .‹ 2 4.. QJ C 73 -0 2 4-, -c, C:2, Cr. C U . - . 73 . .,on_ Li- 2 c 0- a) a0 .,..7., 0 > aJ k..) ›- et J1J -65 - ',.7, a) ..-• .) ‘- _0 T T ,- CI) CL --- 4-, 70 —:45 JI) -C j 0 z 0 13 5 45 (1) -C ' -C ° ./-, W .4_, .„ -0 +-' >„ .1-, c ., tO C CS ,>, „ ,C -,-, '0 a; ''- 0 r 0 2 '?: — a la . 4.0 c ,-) rf) c a) o c ••••• ,..-- r0 --- .3 L.) Q., -6.,' o 0) a, z - 4- r 0 C 0 CI, -C Q., kl iE .1c. ,,, ..c ••.- 0) 0) 0 -0 ,0) U. , ._ ., 0 c 4- a.locc_)27-0a) ..,_ c, ,... -0 --:., c f P UDX .. to'E' c co lz. 73 VI CL ,- C -'1 0" E 1A. t, E i.,7 ... o_ .18 _. 4 .,30 o>.-0=,;ou o >.. a' '5 ,-- Z c To :..-' 2 u EL' 6 co ° 2 2 c '''' es) ,.... •7; 0 ›-e-F__.E,-- n3 (-) 0/ F to — '''' WD a) ... a) C 3 . Cr "- Cs) 0 ..., 03 8 o 2 ...E .n 0 Co- o.o MI 0 t' -0 cu e .- c c cu , ,- w ..-, 2 -P_ 73 "6 = 0 cn co c c .7.•••• ,•• 0 ra a) 0 (,3 , >. 0 ,.,} -C (1,1 • — CZ LI Q. •• U ,0", 0.. >,•• ----- 4-, V, ,... ?; C° <U C E 0 ' 0C '''='>. .L-6 05 ± 72 mL,_-8o-goa) •71-0' ru,-,0o0,J-)0Ec,-> 8 crowu 282 - Working Files\ 04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/2 PACCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Dri igation Monitoring and Reporting Program w cu 23 71 2 c•— c 0 00. a. VI 2 OJ 13 CC cc 283 0 Prior to issuance 60 T DO -0 C -0 ;2 0 L" '" CD 0c . .0c ,•>a •0c .. 1 ..0c' (0 0 - -3 — -05V U U .0L.06TC 6 0. 0 c c. (0" 0 tE ta0 1 0 l Qa30 a . '••• E 55; '') aJ ,.... 0 o- E cv E8,1 ta to 0 pp 0 Q) Q) c = To " UT 2 -t0coo Q W 441 (6 _ T ca ,7,1° °-92 4.1 0,,, ' -10 ....1 .) a) ca c c -a CU m C 74.1 -C 4, C44, n. 0 U 1.944 ...: w CO U .1 "0 MA Q) .., "0 c.) " .va <I a) CI 0 cv a) = m g E a) a) 0 .,.., c 0 _ .:-.. _' g c (-0 , 0., _0 ,...) -0 E7 r. .5 ,c7 ...e. ......„, ,,. .0 -a ,,, -a 7, 2 a) To .-. a) cu ,c T (I) -C '1.' to C 4- Q) C T2 Li 13 4- -0 6i 4%) a CL C Cl C a, 0 0 = . c ea C 0 ^ 2 -c 0 c2.. 0 c 0 — cu cu ....? (45 4- ,c 0 8 5 di P., 7:3 CU c 0 5 -c o 0 c,i.) 11,. 2 2 0 0. ......; E c ai 4, 0 0 c 4- = a) — c a. ..c :: py M :u co 71 0_ 5.-- .0 c a.) ..c 4,1 — ..c — ..c ;11 7,1 0...z. cO: :9 W _C 1.... w 4_, °P0 0,', Va a) = 0 .. Z -0 4.•• fa ....' U1 • 7, 45 0 7.1 roC ',...,” 76 a 6- (Ts ..c v. ,. 4.-. a) 0 4, 5 m , -a c _c •-• 0 '' E cu c c ro w al U .15 EI 0- -ow C Ca 1a >•• 4-,- — 'Cl '10 co •,,, a) 0 c cc x c 7, - C 0D 7 01 Q, <73 0 44, 0 CL, 0./ C C IA (0 IV ....• IA OD 0.0 Lt-, ' t.) co ‘... a c 0 99. a) 55 2, F., E -cs oa (U 6,4 O4P co ,_ -0 41440 0 - C7:0 . 4 '0U0 _ 04 2,,6- _ 07:u;ji 4, C z.:). .0. U C 43 0 , ot 1 , r , t mr to . IV 4U CO — 41-4 *5 ° E Tm *c O = ...., C0. ....4 c fa — -2 2 0 1, i5 a- ro 0 o 5 0 0 c ..... 0 G a g .0 cu 4444 U (1) ›. 4C 'VI -13 .-e4) CU a, °40, E z ...., c a) C,:Un-c..0 (1.1".• .0 c.) a) u., 41-4 0 Ott 2)- -„, 2 0 , e0 -c ..-- 0 4_, .... _ ....w a, 0 '5 ": f,a), co ea 2,,, •-€ E t'l t2; I..J C W V- t JC 3 a, •,-, u '00- , .1.-, u u U 2 E r ,.. > a.) 2 a. '4), 2 > C.) E , (1) ..., r, > 4-1 .,... _0 ,`_,' 0 _0 C 0 r 6 : ' • `' j2 . 0' n ' 9 - 0° ; 13.1 CL CL 20) 3 vi 0- C 0 °,7, ,a) 0 ..., „, IA IA U > = C = ..... ,. E 0 E fa u :1-, 0 0 ,•••, c _c C ...., c C c W cv.' E 7. cu a. .7) .bD u .,.... .,..., >. 0 ba • — c 0 uc0S.,3 ...c (3,m ..0 , O ocucuc L..1 .5,1 ro c. J 5 u l . ) OD C u > -0w-00 2 CC U0. CI 15 • • • • s EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public dr PACCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive \ 02 - Working Files \ 04 - Draf 0 N ? 0 z onitoring and Reporting Program 284 Verification of Compliance Remarks Initials Date Responsible Party Responsible for Monitoring 4- o a oL -. o o 0 c U t1 Y ra o a a c ea N a UvavaEa (13 00 0.c CI > 0.17, <) U°®® -a Regulatory Compliance Measures and Monitoring Mitigation Measures Milestone a1.. cE 0 0 o c c o -am auto _0oo0 M0QoOa)@c�0 -0 ov) vooU �oacu vY Uv�c '�a) fa ca v aA 0Y e0 Q Qa o eQ v o aam 4.... aC > a.v c c E _ fa o aa ® i c h 0> > o 0. jUv NOQ Y Uca ac : ' N @ u c • TN v L o U a ® -0 " Q 'a 5 C oC90 at C CUN V 5 UU M E >• d a c U cc U i COa vm = Yva; E c ao v N a® „ U 2. c o N— a4.., i to '+', ,Y0co o .N 7a a > o -0 'a >A epo - U>CO CD ,+-0 '4 Y C 00a�� v Yn c_ -a5 a ®N Nac>- s a C N a Y ra N=^®c 1-= ®c a c EE. vc Y 0 c o Q=4- ®70 _R a o 'D@c.® aE s aa u6G 'Y ck>O Y Q3 E fa 4 o cc 4 c ®®a ®° Ypp ® N E op a�6 ® ao>^ Y Y U _o c V o O L= N 0o ca N c C.) 13 ,ao 2 a° a ro 5 c s Q E Cv ao Yo a ev o a » _ Y> O N i® @> N o t0 a 0+'c0 .0 a 0upY0.0 a c .U^ 45a ' a " ®"6a c c,c '' 3 Qa>4c,p ' YE yc o ® ca. c . n ®., ` .4 o oN N'0a c L_ _s =a oN a, N Q v E c -0a a >®YEY cc) 3 a . 4 E oo N m+om0 +% 3 LU 0. ao,o 0 a ° a - 74 on ® ao c Y U 5Nv m o @ m o C'a"QJC •. 2", 0. ® *.E ca E L- ® c ®e >6 E > c 0 40 , „. Y _o o UL„W°c ° a �0) LI °°a ”-ti-o0 °- c ° •a; 0 u c a vR3 c • 'c* -a > �E "' a v o p oa a a E ro oc o Umi" a `: c .c o c .a 0 u o a c 13 D.0 _ N ®oa® >o a0o cm. uE �a N ®v0 oN o o N 73®Qo®v ®"" a -4 c N a c c aan .� E u; �0 CU -C ®ro a v 0Q p t a -a c c v5 o =' . EQ >c a>Xa o cm o> - '_® o cG �Eo E a E a 0 2 i°Q > a— am v c°H°H>ooE� CO oO. au« 40 c 0 oa. a c .5.Y'z vs as ..0 n v 73 c ou _ o® YLmV Q ® 0. a 5 • • • ed Public draft.docx (08/05/24) \02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Co :\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaz gation Monitoring and Reporting Program 0 0 ‹ L) Responsible Party Verification of Compliance Responsible for Monitoring Initials Date Remarks 4.17: Transportation CU At > .ttO u c.) CU "0 • — -0 M 0 0 C M . r, 8 . w .., , . fa. a 03 a Monitoring Milestone a u 5 co 5 tn on .kn c 0 '5 o_o ,... .- 0- 0 ,.... 0) CL Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures o Lowering the heighof the compaction weight; o Using a Iighter compaction weight; or o Any other alternate method that is safe and appropriate, as determined by the project geotechnical consultant, in consultation with the City's Director of Community Development (such as utilizing geopler stabilization instead n[oo[)./ ° At a minimum, vibration during initial site preparation activities at the locations described above shall be monitored. The monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. When vibration levels approach the applicable limits established in the vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan, construction shall be suspended and the appropriate mitigation measures identified in the construction contingency plan shall be implemented to reduce vibration Ievels below thresholds. � - Mitigation Measure Truck Access & Routing Plan and —. Tmc Signage and Striping PIan. The Applicant shall submit a Truck Access and Routing PIan to accommodatethe circulation of trucks on site. Additionally, the Applicant shall prepare a Signage and Striping Plan, consistent with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), that directs heavy trucks to the most appropriate access point. The Public vvo,k, Director of the City of Cypress, or designee, shall review and approve the Truck Access and Routing Plan and Signage and Striping Plan and confirm they have been incorporated into the project plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. 285 re"56aPlaza Drive w2'Working nw*o - Draft on(Public Circulation opxc°"pil" revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24 rJ -1 CG 0 t9 5 o 5 0 0< igation Monitoring and Reporting Program 286 Verification of Compliance ta -ta ea E o 41 CO CI 01 ,-, c Responsible Party Responsible for Monitoring 46 >-• - .«....1 u c 4., w c a co o q) = 2 to 0.. >. 4:1) Monitoring Milestone C 0 0 ,... to OD a) 0 ..4• .47, 0- ii CO Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures 4i8: Trbal Cultural Resources ''.* iN C C 13 ,-- >, -,... 0 — a 0 .0 ra o a) 0 c ra ra CU 2.: I-- .0 • - c 0 .0 -C > C E) C > 0_0 m le...0 .ma) coo ....5 .....d La >0 — ao C -6. t a) . co c 0 t E to - .0 E Z . 0--` w aa > 4C '4,1 4, . - (I) 0 "0 • -C •,.. 17, 0 E 0 0 -- to '2 _ W -cl_ .....,„,‘- 4,0 E , . 40 (I) cu 0 w E c t...• ,n .4... c c - 0 4, 1W 0 ro — 0 C .. .• bl) a+ ,. ,_ 73 ,_, 0 - 0 a' c .. 0 c Z a) •- CP '0 cc w 0 Sk- E — P. E to" v E -0 a — „0 c ...• ° 0 ° fa 0 ra ...E., a) c -:-.' 015 ° '- c '''•;,.." .- W s.... 43 0 C , E4-'4'0,)° E c — t'a nw - 9, 0 , — . ,.„, ._ ..c,,i ...6 DA 6. 0.) c m L. 0 7., C •- z ,c m 0 4- 14 ,,.Z. • „,.°;. 76 75 CD 4- >, 7:10) '6 1g -0 0 c ...., ..., E 0. 0 r- t..) C ...... W • .. „C .c 0) ...0 -0-) TS u "0 _C "0 .".... 0 c as § 4..", 0 '''' a)" '0 > 2? • a) a) 0 .0 a) 4_ sn -0 >, 4, 0 as u > .0 — E 0 ... w c c u w 00c 0 • - ,- 0 .0 '5 2 ..0 c .0 = te) ad c ., ...... pa>, -,2. - 0 • ,... 4-, 0 ,." ao te c ,', „(0 to c a) -0 ..,..• E .- -c :-. 4-. as (0 0 ti <-. c = al ,,,- bp 0./ 4,.., 0 , An u E to, c (0 a) 0 ,-, co . 17- V: 0 0 0 0 a) < o 0 a) ciA0 0)0 6- :5 E -0 Fii _c r:. ., '0 >, -0 ...., a) 4, > c m a) 0 a) >. c ,.... 0 a) lc- > E -4•,* A'S w 2 .0 5 2 -0 tio - 0 Ct C 0 0 0 ,.„ ....= > 0. ., 0 c 0 a) - 0 "-- a 00 C,5 0. a) 0 a) a) 0 _c ,... 2 4,1:10 E u kti 73 .1-*"! 19 O —0-4, 0 :a a) 0 ,-.• -- - E °- — 0.8 0 0 >. t... c u _t_.' 0 0 _ .- ca a, a) 0 ° a) > cm .c. _ — ac •-.. .0 ut x c 4., a8 cu 0 0 $- • - ...-, t >. .1-, > 0 . 0 a) .- a, t'a -15o- = ..00 9. o c 0 0 w o ''',- ° 0 a-. 'E 0 * 0 " 2 0 ,,,, 0 t vi- . ... , . — .47; 0. .- ...0) to ..-- 0 ..,- u an > -0 C u., C F, o 4-' >. 8 (1) 0 C '..-, C 0 170 , -. -t-' P 0 0 c eu -c u 0 u 0 2 (4. ,-• 0. .0 E CL GJ CO >. ."' E c '-' 23 W C au V o a) w z c ...0 co C.) c .t... a. 0. = ....., 7 t3 0 2 CC c m 0 o _c — w ,-. ,.", • - .6-, co c 20 .-- a) ,,,- a 4-• 0 t .. C 0 0- , _o e‘C -0. 4.' rn lic draft.docx (08/05/24) PACCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive \ 02 - Working Files \ 04 • Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled re 2 < rr-f 0 a0 co 0) 287 4.1 c -0 ,,7 C y2 0) 7, e c co 4- -a 06 -a ..,, in 0.) _6 "0 cil a)> 6 ca> oc c c -0 - a) 4-. -2 CT! -0 V) ai 0 4, CO 0 Cf1 0 01 0, E -u,_ ,r:-,,:cull'roW ...--c _c u .F3 c _c 0 > V ., ........ c C a c c ,.. 3 •,,,,, as L (°c - 5' ° i ) „,c cv MC a) al os v, a) 12,' " c 0) CI. ++ >. C..... >, 0) E u ° a > 0 P 48 -° 5 ‘_ ,iE al m ° - ° ca 7° ....: 0 < 41.1 . a. , 0 m _. ,... ti, -0 , . 0 g., ,r, 0 -C4-' 8 ,,-, 0 .47' 7, E a) U m ,..+ c .— 4,, w ,.., c ,15 c 0 co (0 C c C. ..;_l c, > C W — (1) 0 E ...., .- ..7, _c 0 > , c>'• 9 0 u c m 0 < „`1,3 a; lc 0 a.) 0 u Lr, fo = u os CO .E.' a!(0--;la) = -0 cv o 5 0 acoa5 co t rocu IV el CL 0) 111) a) 0- ,_6-' SS g z : Eg 6. 7 co M 3 cc 4-, a) I: 0 -, -0 0. .° •-• Ec>-'13E.-E, IC 2 al w ""eq 2 (-- tli. o 5 c as c 00 > co ›- S2 E -o9 4-) n a co en c c cu u u c 0 a) •-• U r. >, _c 72, V, •- 4" a'' ' C a) W '''' 17 2- a) cc a) CI 0 cc rn t6.0 (13 0 0 -C 0 ‘-• t ,,,,Qj c 0 a) 0 .... 0. Ce /3 :E, . >. C 0 C .... 04, 0 .., E (1).. 'Oa c c L' -0 •-c 0 .`i Eu mc) °— .1) ,- .— c ,.;', c o ,.... w a) , 0 -c u o .....,0 roC L) :,___ ca.) E z.ii , -o m o to _c c •- 0 0 o a a a -'-' c > '5 -a a) ,-- CMOs 2 0 c a) , 2 ai E V, c m m P '3° J:1 E ° i3- rc 2- ro 8 ...) U VI 0 0 < W = W 0. 0 ''E a c., 0) 0 .0 0 0) 4-' CU kr• E 4' 4, ,.., ., > _W 0) 'X 0 a, 0 0 (1) 4.'" 60 :13 w 7.4, C0 O. 4" a) co m C 0. .W ,Z3' i 0 "- 0 '.- -0 -'- '40 c la L. co r0 ,2 a u 2 › c7 C-., F cw aC C .m(41)_C"0_--0-„ , '6"0' 0E E .,..,,. „E cOa (.5 EU -• .. "1a-•- E}Tat, 20CE). _Vc0I 0) (0 m 2 °t -0 c 0- -°3 - 5 E E a c- 60wo °EcLazcAa, L 00 0 0 4 I- 0 0 as —0 O 00 3., 0 4 g rking Files \04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR) \Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/ P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Pia igation Monitoring and a) N1— 288 Verification of Compliance 0 _le iv E a) ce Initials Date Responsible Party Responsible for Monitoring 4— 0 1- 0 0 , ›. 0 -0 — c c o m 0 ---- t_ > a) C •-• *,=, 8 Es °+c= E a) u ° •c — t _ CV M tk0 0- C P. 0. c > a Q. 0 c >• 0 0 a) a) .21-)Lnvu 0 0 -o Regulatory Compliance Measures and Monitoring Mitigation Measures Milestone 5097.98 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resorces Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh Nation determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh Nation monitor and/or archaeologist deems oece,s,n).<CEQAGuidelines Section zsV64.syDl Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/o, burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non -TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowier Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept conf(dential to prevent further disturbance. Mitigation Measure TCR -3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary During project Remains. As the Most Likely Descendant ("MLD"), the Koo-nas- construction gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a PACCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive \ 02 Working nus\ 04'Draft EIR(Public Circulation oRACompiledrevised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) E 0 . _ ion Monitoring and 289 Verification of Compliance Remarks cu 4 - co o 0 To C Responsible Party Responsible for Monitoring Regulatory Compliance Measures and Monitoring Mitigation Measures Milestone _a , 77 -c C a W E II, fa 0. 0.1 10 C -C 0 -0 >,- -0 _c 04) o a) Ja CU (I) n' ,_ '''' " -0 V, > 0 0/ Ln — E e_ , . .6 mu a) a) °- a) a' -0 1, 0 -c (v) 2 c ,t. E 4.40027,0cup "4za).-.L-L->c 3 r_.• C a) C ,., = Er ° b En i. ..' 11.2 CO a) 0 C 4.' cl, tv CI) CO E -0 '-' 2 .5 0 ai -c E .c ' 0 r7.3 E 4- C C 4. 7 ea IA al 0 Lt4. Z E E 2 a.. .-f.j 0 I,I In > :t.' La ..a ,,, ' m ti ra '5 c '' a' L.. 0 , ,_ C -0 _c +-• 0 -0 0 .-7 °-C ' 0 T 0 0 0. 0 >. C • 4 .4., 0 ,, -o .R., al ,-. ca -P %IL' cat /S.' r0 ...-' 0.Cf0 Li' w c o 5„ c cu ,L, ,..+ 7 E u 4- E >- W T 4c.,' 's F -0 CU -0 ..,'- C W ='; 0 0 -§ „O:, .0 0 u 0 :..0 ,C" ,_, --...„ 0 4-0 ,.., -re ,.,- = -0 •'-' _c +O. 00 W ‘„ 0° •z-_ a; 0 al cu 5 >-0 t; ° w m Ewa. -CI , 0 CNI ',_-- a, I- aD 4-• 0 a) •- 7 4' 0 v, co W • a) +C> CT3 4 W 44' 0 cc E -0 ag 'di E 3 '12 co a9 .ro ,J, _ca' c7 0.1 CU '0 '- v, 0- 00 — fa -0 W ..c .c _C„... .......0 CU — 4- C ''-' 4-' CUa) Z W '-' W °- 0 QJ 2 .1) u ...• -2. -0 -0 c _ ,_-0 'F., .‘L' C .,_. v, ?_, o - a, 4- 7, 0 C a) c c -0 c c c 0 CP -0 fa r.,› 4- 7 ''' M •C .- °- -7 0 C 70 > . - 0 . 2 . E c c -°°-E .•-• ,_ o o c I5 Q., _0 > 0 „a) o. w o ,- •).• ,' _c ‘-. -.' 0 " -0 o u - >.. a-, 4-' = ti ca .... to 4- c u W 4-4, V, a) wa j 2 *s a '' ..° aiL CU c .._, a., p _a a) -c:a 0 .. .,-' a _c .- ,-. ..- 0.1 -C - E a) 4- _a a) c n„>. a_ cu 4-, -0 2 CU .I-. ,,,, a, — °- c z +-• cu 0 L- u z .... 4-. Z'" 0 Cli-C.- > W a) -- 0 ,9 C ,'J 7„ cra) Em w> Ct° Pus a) a) c 3 rpc —,_ Q./ c " >.. EJ -0 a, ._ .1.-. CU -F... a 4-, -T., -2 3 .0 „ > 0 W CO w > C ..' ° W -C E °) '-' c ("' (a -c 0 w — -0 u C .1-, bD -.NC '0 — 4- — 4-, — I- L. C -F-0 '.7.= X C W f0 fa - - — -C 4- — ,4-. C fa 4-, .W C )) It C 0 > a- -co _ .0-- Q a) ra 0) o _0 0 .2 c.c ,11 -0 -0 a) V) ,..W '7' ' ''' •tj-, X M ''' •C ° _c W u W Man -C) :t cij -a — a, 0 a, c.) m 4- I" 0 L., 4.7' 0 a, VI ' 6 -0 0 co LL m o s_ a. o. E 104 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive \ 02 - Working Files \ 04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR) \Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) onitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance w ex a co 0 v.) RI Responsible Party Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Milestone Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures and the Iandowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. The Tribe will work closely with the project's qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery -related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/o, destructive diagnostics on human remains. 290 on EIR)\Compiled re rACCPoowCypress ~665Plaza Drive w