Agenda packet — Cypress City Council, November 12, 2024 (part 5 of 7)

1. Caltrans encourages the design of Complete Streets that include high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities that are safe and comfortable for users of all ages and abilities. Improvements may include providing secure bicycle parking, pedestrian-oriented LED lighting, and comfortable connections to nearby active transportation and/or transit facilities. Complete Streets improvements also promote regional connectivity, improve air quality, reduce congestion, promote improved first-/last-mile connections, and increase safety for all modes of transportation.

2. Consider adding one pedestrian scale lighting at the southern edge of the project limits on Plaza Drive, at the end of the pedestrian facility, to improve pedestrian safety.

3. Consider providing secure bicycle parking facilities. Refer to APBP’s Essentials of Bike Parking guide for bicycle parking best practices.
(https://www.apbp.org/assets/docs/EssentialsofBikeParking_FINA.pdf) Caltrans’ mission is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie Lugaro for
Scott Shelley
Branch Chief,
LDR-Climate Change-Transit Planning
Caltrans, District 12
S-1-2
S-1-3
S-1-4
S-1-5

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-7

2.1.1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) DISTRICT 12 Letter Code: S-1
Date: August 21, 2024
Response to Comment S-1-1
This comment provides introductory remarks and summarizes the proposed project.

The City of Cypress acknowledges this comment. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft EIR, no further response is required.

Response to Comment S-1-2
The commenter states that they encourage the design of Complete Streets that include high-quality pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities that are safe and comfortable for users of all ages and abilities. The commenter also notes that Improvements may include providing secure bicycle parking, pedestrian-oriented LED lighting, and comfortable connections to nearby active transportation and/or transit facilities.

The City acknowledges this comment. The proposed project would develop a new light industrial building. Excluding the relocation of the existing driveway locations, the proposed project would not include any changes to the City’s existing transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian infrastructure necessitating incorporation of “Complete Streets” design elements. As described in Draft EIR Section

4.7, Transportation, the proposed project would comply with City of Cypress General Plan policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

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 and bicycle infrastructure on Katella Avenue. The proposed project would not affect the existing sidewalks. The proposed project would include bicycle parking consistent with the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) (Cal. Code Regs tit. 24, pt. 11).

Response to Comment S-1-3
The commenter encourages the addition of one pedestrian scale lighting at the southern edge of the project limits on Plaza Drive, at the end of the pedestrian facility, to improve pedestrian safety.

The City acknowledges this comment. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, in the Initial Study, (Appendix B), the proposed project would include lighting 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. 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 and the City’s Lighting Standards 3.11.060, Exterior Lighting, and Section 3.10.060, Light and Glare, of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-8
Response to Comment S-1-4
The commenter encourages the proposed project to provide secure bicycle parking facilities as described in the APBP’s Essentials of Bike Parking guide for bicycle parking best practice. The commenter also provides a link to these guidelines.

The City acknowledges this comment. As discussed in Response to Comment S-1-2, the proposed project would include bicycle parking consistent with the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) (Cal. Code Regs tit. 24, pt. 11).

Response to Comment S-1-5
This comment provides concluding remarks and contact information.

The City acknowledges this comment and looks forward to future communications with Caltrans.

SENT VIAE-MAIL: September 27, 2024
[email protected]
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
City of Cypress
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project (Proposed Project)
(SCH No.: 2024040017)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciate the opportunity to review the above-mentioned document. The City of Cypress is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. To provide context, South Coast AQMD staff has provided a brief summary of the project information and prepared the following comments which are organized by topic of concern.

South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Information in the Draft EIR The Proposed Project includes demolishing an existing 150,626-square-foot five-story office building on the project site and constructing 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.1 Based on a review of aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., residential development) is located 1398 feet in the north part of the Proposed Project site.2 The construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to occur over an 11-month duration, with construction beginning in November 2024 and completion expected in October 2025.3 The project site is in the southern part of the city of Cypress at 5665 Plaza Drive, north of the intersection of Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive.4
South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) during Project Operation
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 require a Draft EIR to include a description of the significant environmental effects of a Proposed Project, significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant adverse impacts. An impact is considered significant under CEQA if it leads to a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” In addition to the air quality impacts from the criteria air pollutants and greenhouse 1 Draft EIR, Page 49.
2 Ibid, Page 108.
3 Ibid, Page 108.
4 Ibid, Page 45.

S-2
S-2-1
S-2-2
Alicia Velasco 2 September 27, 2024
gases, the adverse air quality health risk impacts associated with increased emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from all sources (including but not limited to expected future permitted stationary and portable sources, mobile sources, and other emission sources) during the operation phases need to be appropriately evaluated using qualitative and/or quantitative approaches to justify whether there will be potentially substantial adverse impacts.

However, the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project did not contain a comprehensive assessment of the health risk associated with mobile, stationary and portable sources during the operation phase. Please refer to the South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment.5 As a result, the potential cancer risk linked to the Proposed Project is unknown and undisclosed. This omission is concerning because the operation of a 181,061 square feet of warehouse space- using 100% cold storage and diesel-powered transportation refrigerated units (TRUs) is expected to involve various diesel-powered stationary and portable sources and vehicles that emit Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), a known air toxic and carcinogen.

As mentioned earlier in this letter, the aerial maps indicate that the nearest sensitive receptor, a residential area, is located within 1398 feet north of the Proposed Project site. As such, the Lead Agency is recommended to conduct an operational phase HRA, which should include evaluating truck emissions (including the truck routes to and from the site, truck loading/unloading docks, and their proximity to the sensitive receptors) and the impact of diesel-powered stationary and portable sources under the foreseeable probable future conditions. An HRA assessment is essential for determining the potential cancer risk impacts associated with the operation of the Proposed Project to the offsite sensitive receptors and workers so that they can be compared to the South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds for TACs6to determine whether there will be a potentially significant air quality impact. The analysis should also disclose the potential health risks for chronic and acute impacts of the Proposed Project’s operation on residents living and/or workers working outside the Proposed Project’s boundary in the Revised Draft EIR or Final EIR.

We have raised this concern during both the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) phases of the Proposed Project. However, it has not been addressed in either phase.

Enhancing Emissions Mitigation: Adopting Cleaner Technologies and Addressing Truck Trip Discrepancies
Based on the CalEEMod modeling Tier 2 is used for all the construction equipment. However, Tier 4 engines are currently the cleanest technology for the off-road construction equipment. It is crucial to ensure that the levels of construction emissions, specifically NOx and PM10, remain below significant thresholds during the construction period for each proposed individual project. Moving towards achieving this goal, where feasible, involves opting for higher Tier engines or electric emission-free engines instead of diesel-fueled engines for the construction equipment. This proactive choice not only aligns with environmental concerns but also demonstrates a commitment to 5 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment is available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobilesource-toxics-analysis 6 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf S-2-3
S-2-4
S-2-5
Alicia Velasco 3 September 27, 2024
minimizing the project's environmental footprints. The abatement of NOx can also be pursued by enforcing greener constructions, such as, limiting the usage of older engines in favor of adopting the latest available technologies, or even incorporating exhaust retrofits such as cutting-edge exhaust aftertreatment techniques. Additionally, several other resources to assist the Lead Agency with identifying additional potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project are included in the South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook15 for both operational and construction emissions.

Moreover, according to Appendix C – CalEEMod work document, the truck trips used for the Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail are estimated at 327 trips per day.7 However, the calculated truck trips for the High-Cube Cold Storage warehouse are 342 trips per day in Appendix E, VMT analysis,8 and the Draft EIR document. This discrepancy may result in underestimating truck emissions in the CalEEMod modeling. It is recommended that the lead agency correct this inconsistency across both documents to ensure accurate emissions calculations.

South Coast AQMD Air Permits and Role as a Responsible Agency If implementation of the Proposed Project would require the use of new stationary and portable sources, including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, boilers, etc., air permits from South Coast AQMD will be required. The final CEQA document, whether a MND or EIR, should include a discussion about the potentially applicable rules that the Proposed Project needs to comply with. Those rules may include, for example, Rule 201 – Permit to Construct,9 Rule 203 – Permit to Operate,10 Rule 401 – Visible Emissions,11 Rule 402 – Nuisance,12 Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust, 13 Rule 1110.2 – Emissions from Gaseous and Liquid Fueled Engines, 14 Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating,15 Rule 1166 – VOC Contaminated Soil Excavation,16 Rule 1179 – Publicly Owned Treatment Works Operation,17 Regulation XIII – New Source Review,18 Rule 1401 – Air 7 Appendix C – CalEEMod work document. Page 68.
8 Appendix E, VMT analysis. Page 6.
9 South Coast AQMD. Rule 201 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-ii/rule 201.pdf 10 South Coast AQMD. Rule 203 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-ii/rule-203.pdf 11 South Coast AQMD. Rule 401 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/rule-iv/rule-401.pdf 12 South Coast AQMD. Rule 402 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf 13 South Coast AQMD. Rule 403 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/rule-iv/rule-403 14 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1110.2 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-xi/r1110_2.pdf 15 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1113 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-xi/r1113.pdf 16 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1166 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-xi/rule-1166.pdf 17 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1179 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-xi/rule-1179.pdf 18 South Coast AQMD. Regulation XIII available at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/rules/scaqmd-rule-book/regulation-xiii S-2-6
S-2-7
Alicia Velasco 4 September 27, 2024
Toxics,19 Rule 1466 – Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Air Contaminants,20 Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines,21 etc. It is important to note that when air permits from South Coast AQMD are required, the role of South Coast AQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. In addition, if South Coast AQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15086, the Lead Agency is required to consult with South Coast AQMD.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy of the CEQA document for use as part of the process for conducting a review of the Proposed Project and issuing discretionary approvals. Moreover, it is important to note that if a Responsible Agency determines that a CEQA document is not adequate to rely upon for its discretionary approvals, the Responsible Agency must take further actions listed in CEQA Guideline Section 15096(e), which could have the effect of delaying the implementation of the Proposed Project. In its role as CEQA Responsible Agency, the South Coast AQMD is obligated to ensure that the CEQA document prepared for this Proposed Project contains a sufficient project description and analysis to be relied upon in order to issue any discretionary approvals that may be needed for air permits. South Coast AQMD is concerned that the project description and analysis in its current form in the MND is inadequate to be relied upon for this purpose.

For these reasons, the final CEQA document should be revised to include a discussion about any and all new stationary and portable equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits, provide the evaluation of their air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project as this information will be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Please contact South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions regarding what types of equipment would require air permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits.

Conclusion
As set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a-b), the Lead Agency shall evaluate comments from public agencies on the environmental issues and prepare a written response at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. As such, please provide South Coast AQMD written responses to all comments contained herein at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), if the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations provided in this comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must be provided.
19 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1401 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-xiv/rule-1401.pdf 20 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1466 available https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-xiv/rule-1466.pdf 21 South Coast AQMD. Rule 1470 available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-xiv/rule-1470.pdf S-2-8
S-2-9
S-2-10
Alicia Velasco 5 September 27, 2024
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter.

Please contact Sahar Ghadimi, Air Quality Specialist, at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Sam Wang
Sam Wang
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
SW:SG
ORC240813-01
Control Number
S-2-11
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

2.1.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCQAMD) Letter Code : S-2
Date : September 27, 2024
Response to Comment S-2-1
This comment provides introductory remarks and summarizes the proposed project.

Response to Comment S-2-2
This comment summarizes the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 and asserts that the Draft EIR should include an evaluation of the adverse air quality health risk impacts associated with increased emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during the operational phase of the proposed project.

The South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook1 states that emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are considered significant if a health risk assessment (HRA) shows an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 in 1 million. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines2 has determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particulates poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC it has evaluated.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has also identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted by off-road, diesel-fueled engines as a TAC.3 As such, the TAC of concern with respect to the proposed project would be DPM associated with the use of diesel engines during project construction. For risk assessment procedures, the OEHHA has identified DPM as the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust. HRA analyses typically use particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10) emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance.

As shown in Table 4.1.7, Short Term Construction Emissions, and Table 4.1.8, Project Operational Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project’s PM10 emissions would not exceed applicable South Coast AQMD thresholds. Construction emissions would generate peak emissions of 9.0 pounds per day, below the South Coast AQMD threshold of 150 pounds per day. Similarly, proposed project operations would result in total PM10 emissions of 4.9 pounds per day or a net total of 2.7 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/ localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf (accessed October 3, 2024). 2 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. March. Website: https://oehha ca.gov/air/air-toxics-hot-spots (accessed October 2, 2024). 3 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024. Non-Vehicular Diesel Engine Risk Assessment Guidance.

Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/ab2588/2024%20DICE%20Screening% 20Risk %20Guidelines.pdf (accessed October 2, 2024).

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-15
pounds per day, which is also well below the South Coast AQMD threshold. This indicates that significant mass emissions of PM10 would not occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate a substantial amount of DPM emissions from off-road equipment use or truck idling that would result in the generation of a substantial amount of TACs and a significant health risk would not occur. Furthermore, the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 1,398 feet from the project site, which is a sufficient distance for particulate matter to disperse prior to reaching the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs and a health risk assessment is not warranted.

Response to Comment S-2-3
This comment suggests that a comprehensive assessment of health risk associated with the proposed project should have been completed, since the operation of a 181,061 square feet of warehouse space- using 100% cold storage and diesel-powered transportation refrigerated units (TRUs) is expected to involve various diesel-powered stationary and portable sources and vehicles that emit Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), a known air toxic and carcinogen. Additionally, the commenter notes that, without this assessment, “the potential cancer risk linked to the proposed project is unknown and undisclosed.”
As discussed in Response to Comment S-2-2, Table 4.1.7, Short Term Construction Emissions, of the Draft EIR, indicates that PM10 emissions, which are a surrogate for TAC emissions during construction, would be 9.0 pounds per day. This is well below the South Coast AQMD threshold of 150 pounds per day. This indicates that there would be no significant mass emissions of PM10 during project construction resulting in a significant health risk. Additionally, as shown in Table 4.1.8, Project Operational Emissions, of the Draft EIR, once operational, the proposed project would produce a total of 4.9 pounds per day, or a net total of 2.7 pounds per day, of PM10 emissions of 4.9 pounds per day. This is also below the South Coast AQMD threshold of 150 pounds per day. This indicates that significant mass emissions of PM10 would not occur. As discussed on page 4.1-25 in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR it was conservatively assumed that trucks of all sizes would have diesel-powered transportation refrigerated units (TRUs). As a conservative assumption, the TRUs were modeled to be operational for up to 15 minutes per day. This is a conservative estimation of operational time for TRUs, as it represents three-times the exceedance of CARB’s anti-idling rules, which prohibit idling for more than 5 minutes. Moreover, truck operators will have access to plug-in power to operate the TRUs and will be incentivized to do so based on their own fuel costs and compliance with the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled TRUs and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities where TRUs Operate (TRU ATCM). However, to be conservative, the 15-minute runtime assumption does not take into account plugging into electric power sources.

Additionally, as stated above operational emissions of the proposed be also well below the South Coast AQMD thresholds. As the proposed project would not generate a substantial amount of DPM emissions from off-road equipment use or truck idling, generation of a substantial amount of TACs would not occur and, significant health risks would not be anticipated. As discussed in Response to Comment S-2-2, the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 1,398 feet from the project site, which is a sufficient distance for particulate matter to disperse prior to reaching the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs and a health risk assessment is not warranted. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-16
Response to Comment S-2-4
The commenter notes that a review of aerial photographs of the project site and surrounding area indicate that the nearest sensitive receptor, a residential area, is located 1,398 feet to the north. The commenter recommends that the Lead Agency prepare an operational phase HRA that includes an evaluation of truck emissions (including evaluation of the truck routes to and from the site, truck loading/unloading docks, and their proximity to the sensitive receptors) and the impact of dieselpowered stationary and portable sources under the foreseeable probable future conditions. The commenter notes the importance of an HRA and states that the analysis should disclose the potential health risks for chronic and acute impacts of the proposed project’s operation on residents living and/or workers working outside the proposed project’s boundary in the Final EIR. The commenter notes that comments on this issue were provided in response to the NOP and previously prepared IS/MND, stating that this has not been addressed in either phase.

The City acknowledges this comment. As discussed on pages 4.1-28 and 4.1-29 of Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis was prepared for the proposed project to evaluate potential ambient concentrations of pollutants to nearby sensitive receptors. Based on the South Coast AQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,4 South Coast AQMD staff developed LSTs similar to the regional significance thresholds. These thresholds are based on the pounds of pollutant emitted per day by a project that would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. Emissions were assumed to be uniformly distributed across a flat project site over an 8-hour workday. Receptor distances are measured in meters from the proposed project boundary. The same emissions estimated for regional significance thresholds should be compared to allowable emissions presented in the LST lookup tables for the source/receptor area closest to the proposed project. Based on the South Coast AQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, screening procedures are by design conservative; that is, the predicted impacts tend to overestimate the actual impacts. If the predicted impacts are acceptable using the LST approach presented, then a more detailed evaluation is not necessary. As identified in Table 4.1.9, Construction Localized Emissions, and Table 4.1.10, Operational Localized Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project’s on-site maximum localized construction and operational emissions would be below the South Coast AQMD’s localized significance thresholds.

The South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook5 states that emissions of TACs are considered significant if an HRA shows that project emissions would result in an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 in 1 million. The California OEHHA’s Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines6 has determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particulates poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC it has evaluated. In addition, CARB has also identified DPM emitted by offroad, diesel-fueled engines emit DPM as a TAC.7 As such, the TAC of concern would be DPM 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/ localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed October 2, 2024). 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-17
associated with the use of diesel engines during project construction. For health risk assessment procedures, the OEHHA specifies that the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is DPM. HRA analyses typically use PM10 emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance. As shown in Table 4.1.7, Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions, of the Draft EIR, project construction would produce peak daily PM10 emissions of 9.0 pounds per day. This is well below the South Coast AQMD threshold of 150 pounds per day. This indicates that significant mass emissions of PM10 would not occur and there would be no resultant significant health risk. Additionally, as shown in Table 4.1.8, Project Operational Emissions, of the Draft EIR, proposed project operations would result in total PM10 emissions of 4.9 pounds per day or a net total of 2.7 pounds per day. This is also well below the South Coast AQMD threshold of 150 pounds per day, indicating that significant mass emissions of PM10 due to project operations would not occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate DPM emissions from off-road equipment use or truck idling that would result in the generation of a substantial amount of TACs and a significant health risk would not occur.

Response to Comment S-2-5
The commenter states that while the CalEEMod modeling Tier 2 is used for all the construction equipment, Tier 4 engines are currently the cleanest technology for the off-road construction equipment. The commenter explains the importance of keeping construction emissions, specifically NOx and PM10, below the established significance thresholds during the construction period for each proposed individual project and recommends using higher tier engines or electric emission-free engines instead of diesel-fueled engines for the construction equipment. The commentor provides a link in the footnotes to the South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

The City acknowledges this comment. As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the air quality analysis assumed the use of Tier 2 construction equipment because it is required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation. As such, the proposed project would be required to meet this CARB regulation by using a minimum standard of Tier 2 equipment or better. Tier 4 engines are currently the cleanest technology for off-road construction equipment. Accordingly, the use of Tier 2 engines in the air quality analysis represents a conservative assumption. As demonstrated in Table 4.1.7, Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions, of the Draft EIR, construction emissions for the proposed project analyzed using Tier 2 engines would not exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds for construction emissions. This would result in a less than significant impact associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under the applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards. Therefore, additional mitigation, such as the requirement to use Tier 4 equipment is not warranted.

Response to Comment S-2-6
The commenter notes that the estimated daily trips in Appendix C (327 trips per day) is not consistent with the projected daily trips in Appendix E (342 trips per day). The commenter also states that this discrepancy may result in underestimating truck emissions in the CalEEMod modeling and recommends this discrepancy be corrected in both documents.

The proposed project analysis is consistent with Table 1, Project Trip Generation, provided in the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, which identifies that the proposed project would generate a 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-18
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 was included in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). As described on page 4.1-25 of the Draft EIR, to be conservative, the air quality analysis assumed that the four+-axle truck trips would travel approximately 40 miles.

Therefore, separate CalEEMod model runs were conducted for the proposed project. One CalEEMod run evaluated operational vehicle and light duty truck trip emissions, which include 262 passenger vehicle trips, 50 two-axle truck trips, and 16 three-axle truck trips, for a combined total of 328 average daily trips. The other CalEEMod run evaluated the four+-axle truck trip emissions, which include the 78 four+-axle truck trips. The combined trip emissions from the model runs are consistent with the total trip generation identified in the VMT analysis. Therefore, the proposed project adequately incorporates all vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project.

Response to Comment S-2-7
The commenter states that if the proposed project would require the use of new stationary and portable sources, including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, boilers, etc., air permits from South Coast AQMD would be required.

The commenter identifies several AQMD rules that the proposed project may be required to comply with and states that a discussion of the applicable rules should be included in the Final CEQA document.

The City acknowledges this comment. The proposed project would not include any stationary sources or operational equipment that would require permits. However, as discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would comply with several South Coast AQMD rules. This includes Rule 402 – Nuisance, to prevent occurrences of public nuisances, Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust, to prevent Fugitive Dust, and Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, to limit the amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from architectural coatings and solvents. Section 4.1.2.4, Regional Regulations, in the Draft EIR also provides a discussion of the applicable AQMD rules for the proposed project.

Response to Comment S-2-8
The commenter outlines that CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 details the responsibilities of Responsible Agencies in assessing the adequacy of CEQA documents for project reviews and approvals. They note that if a CEQA document is deemed inadequate, further actions are required, potentially delaying the project. The South Coast AQMD expresses concern that the existing project description and analysis in the MND do not provide the necessary information for issuing air permits.

The City acknowledges this comment. The proposed project would not include any stationary sources or operational equipment that would require permits from South Coast AQMD. Please see Response to Comment S-2-7, above.

Response to Comment S-2-9
The comment states that the final CEQA document should be revised to include a discussion about any and all new stationary and portable equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits, provide

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-19
the evaluation of their air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the proposed project as this information would be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). The commenter provides contact information and a link to their Webpage for general permit information.

The City acknowledges this comment. The proposed project would not include any stationary sources or operational equipment that would require permits. Please see Response to Comment S-2-7, above.

Response to Comment S-2-10
The commenter requests that the Lead Agency provide written responses to all comments from South Coast AQMD at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR, as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a-b). Additionally, the commenter states that if the Lead Agency's position differs from the recommendations in the comment letter, they must provide detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence explaining why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted.

The City acknowledges this comment.

Response to Comments S-2-11
This comment provides concluding remarks and contact information.

The City acknowledges this comment and looks forward to future communications with the South Coast AQMD.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-21

2.2 LOCAL AGENCIES
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

2.2.1 City of Los Alamitos
Letter Code: L-1
Date: August 21, 2024
Response to Comment L-1-1
The Commenter states that they are concerned regarding the proposed project’s potential noise, air quality, and roadway impacts on the adjacent community of Los Alamitos. The commentor also stated that they provided comments in the NOP.

The City of Cypress acknowledges this comment and thanks the City of Los Alamitos for their comment.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 202 4
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Response to comments\5665_Plaza_Drive_DEIR_RTC_241030.docx (10/31/24)
2-27

2.3 INTERESTED PARTIES
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

September 27, 2024
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
City of Cypress
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Attn: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
Re: Warland Investments Company and Affiliated Entities' Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for 5665 Plaza Drive, Cypress, California Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, §§ 15084, 15087 and 15088.5
Dear Ms. Velasco:

This firm, together with Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP (“Garrett”), represents Warland Investments Company and affiliated entities (collectively, “Warland”), which is one of the largest landowners in the City of Cypress (“City”). Warland’s local holdings consist of approximately 3.5 million square feet of space within the City, including the Warland Cypress Business Center, the Warland Business Park, and Cypress Plaza. Warland is the largest landowner within the Cypress Business Center by a significant margin. Warland’s holdings include over thirty properties located in the Cypress Business Center, the closest of which is within approximately 650 feet of 5665 Plaza Drive (hereinafter referred to as “5665 Plaza”), the redevelopment of which is the subject matter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the 5665 Plaza project.

The City circulated the DEIR in connection with the redevelopment of 5665 Plaza, which project was initiated by GLC Cypress LLC (“Goodman”). The DEIR describes the proposed project as the demolition of an existing 150,626 square foot five-story office building 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 “Project”). Although the Project is described as light industrial, it appears to be primarily a warehouse development. The proposed Project includes a proposed amendment to the McDonnell Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses within the eastern portion of Planning Area 1 and the removal of the maximum developable area requirement. The proposed Project also includes a lot line adjustment between 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza Drive (hereinafter, “5757 Plaza”) and the installation of a shared access road connecting the parcels.

As previously referenced in prior correspondence to you dated June 5, 2024, March 7, 2024, and September 11, 2023 from Warland’s general counsel, the Garrett firm, attached hereto and incorporated IP-1-1
IP-1
PAUL

HASTINGS
LEGAL_US_W # 181176245
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
September 27, 2024

Page 2 ends

herein, the redevelopment of 5665 Plaza is not a standalone project. Rather, it is clear from materials previously published by the City with respect to both the redevelopment of 5665 Plaza and the redevelopment of 5757 Plaza, which is located immediately adjacent to 5665 Plaza and commonly known as “Goodman Commerce Center Cypress,” that 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza will operate as a single project. 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza were purchased by Goodman on the same day as part of the same transaction, with the intent of developing both properties as a single, approximately 600,000 square foot 3-building logistics center with 75 dock doors. Notwithstanding (a) the City’s receipt of written notices from Garrett and others alerting the City as to this issue, (b) the fact that the cumulative site plan published on the City’s own website, the first page of which is attached hereto as Schedule 1, depicts 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza as a single project, and (c) the numerous, nearly identical Goodman logistics centers located throughout California, the City has consistently failed to meet its obligations as the Lead Agency under CEQA to accurately define the entirety of the project under any of the environmental reports prepared with respect to either 5757 Plaza or 5665 Plaza (including, without limitation, the DEIR), and/or to properly evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts of the overall project (including, without limitation, in connection with the DEIR). Instead, the City elected to piecemeal the overall project in violation of CEQA and obtained City Council approval of the 5757 Plaza redevelopment mere months before the application for the 5665 Plaza redevelopment was submitted. Even if the City was somehow ignorant of Goodman’s machinations, which seems unlikely, rather than alert the City Council or the City residents of the City’s critical error in submitting the 5757 Plaza redevelopment for approval without the required diligence, the City has instead elected to continue its efforts to actively mislead both City Council and the public in preparing both the IS/MND and the subsequent DEIR for the 5665 Plaza redevelopment by inaccurately defining 5665 Plaza as a standalone project – even though the City is, by now, well-aware that doing so is misleading. In fact, the City’s actions suggest that it desires to intentionally obscure the true nature of the overall project from interested parties – including the City Council members, the residents, the business owners, the workers, and their families.

As previously advised, Warland engaged experts, including an environmental consultant, EcoTierra Consulting, and transportation consultant, Ganddini Group, to carefully review the DEIR prepared by the City in connection with 5665 Plaza. Copies of the results of such peer reviews identifying deficiencies in the DEIR are enclosed for your information. As you will note, both consultants identified critical errors in the DEIR, rendering the conclusions therein invalid. Given the significance of the errors identified, both consultants advised that a revised DEIR, with those errors corrected, must be circulated again for the required public review period in order to give the public an opportunity to understand the true and actual impacts of the Project. Failing to do so will render any approval of the proposed Project vulnerable to a costly and lengthy litigation process, which may be necessary in light of the gravity of the flaws in the DEIR analyses.

IP-1-2
IP-1-3
PAUL

HASTINGS
LEGAL_US_W # 181176245
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
September 27, 2024

Page 3 ends

The information presented below summarizes the detailed analysis in the consultants’ reports, all of which must be responded to by the City’s consultant.

A. Peer Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project by the City of Cypress dated September 27, 2024 from EcoTierra Consulting  Notes the DEIR fails to correctly identify the nearest sensitive receptor sites in several respects, including, critically, with respect to Air Quality, and that the DEIR must be revised to reflect potential impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors and recirculated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the assessment.
 Notes the DEIR fails to assess potential health risks associated with the concentrated operation of diesel-fueled trucks on the Project site. It further notes that, despite the fact the Project can be reasonably characterized as a warehouse/distribution center since it would involve high levels of truck idling and truck movements, the DEIR provides no analysis or other substantial evidence that emissions from diesel truck operations on-site would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
o An operational health risk assessment that evaluates the potential health risks to sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the Project resulting from the operation of diesel-fueled trucks on the Project site must be performed, and the DEIR must be revised to reflect this analysis and recirculated to the public for review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less than Significant Impact with respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
o Notes the fact that this issue was raised during the EIR scoping process, which makes it incumbent on the Lead Agency (i.e., the City) to document that Diesel Particulate Matter (“DPM”) emissions resulting from Project operations would not represent a risk to public health.
 Notes that 5757 Plaza would constitute an additional source of DPM emitted by trucks and truck refrigeration units and that the DPM is the Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) most associated with warehousing uses. Notes further that the DEIR fails to include a cumulative operational health risk assessment encompassing emissions from both 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza to assess the potential cumulative health risks resulting from the operation of the warehouse projects located immediately adjacent to one another. As such, the DEIR must be revised to reflect the cumulative operational health risk assessment and recirculated to the public for review and IP-1-4
IP-1-5
IP1-6
IP1-7
IP-1-8
PAUL

HASTINGS
LEGAL_US_W # 181176245
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
September 27, 2024

Page 4 ends

comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial cumulative pollutant concentrations.  Notes that the DEIR fails to assess potential health risks associated with the operation of diesel fuel trucks that are off-site, travelling to and from the Project site, and the trucks accessing Valley View, located adjacent to numerous residential neighborhoods and the Frank Vessels Elementary School. The DEIR must be revised to reflect the results of this analysis and recirculated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact with respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting from diesel fuel trucks travelling to and from the Project site.
 Notes the DEIR fails to identify adverse impacts to protected trees since the potential work activities that could impact street trees were not identified and their associated impacts were not analyzed. The DEIR must be revised to reflect better context and the results of an actual analysis, and recirculated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact with respect to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.  Notes the discussion in the DEIR merely states, without analysis or evidence, that the Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS related to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plans, and fails to take into consideration the City of Los Alamitos. The DEIR must be revised to analyze the consistency of the Project with all relevant goals and policies of the RTP/SCS related to reduction of GHG emissions and recirculated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact with respect to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.  Notes the DEIR incorrectly characterized the existing noise environment and improperly calculated the impacts of construction noise at 5665 Plaza. Further notes that the noise measurement locations used in the DEIR do not consider the noise impact at critically affected sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, medical centers, and residential communities).1 The DEIR
1 This calls into question whether the measurement locations were deliberately chosen in a way that appears to minimize the resulting noise impact, especially considering the fact that Cypress is primarily a residential city rather than an industrial park.

IP-1-8
IP-1-9
IP-1-10
IP-1-11
IP-1-12
PAUL

HASTINGS
LEGAL_US_W # 181176245
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
September 27, 2024

Page 5 ends

must be revised to correctly reflect the construction noise impacts and re-circulated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)(1).
 Notes the DEIR fails to identify the route that will be utilized by haul trucks during construction and does not assess the impacts of hauling activity to nearby residential neighborhoods and other sensitive receptor sites, including the Frank Vessels Elementary School. The DEIR must be revised to accurately reflect the potential impacts of hauling activity on the nearest sensitive receptors and recirculated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the assessment.
 Notes that the vibration impacts of Deep Dynamic Compaction (“DDC”) are inconsistently addressed in the DEIR, and that considerable additional details regarding the parameters and locations where DDC is to take place is necessary to understand the precise potential impacts of DDC on neighboring buildings and property. The DEIR must be revised to confirm whether DDC will be used during construction and to provide the required additional details. o Further notes that the DEIR fails to provide proper analyses of potential impacts on human annoyance from, or the noise impacts of, DCC at the Project. The DEIR must be modified to include such analyses.

B. Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress (Project No. 19722) dated September 20, 2024 from Ganddini Group, Inc.  Notes the 5665 Plaza Drive Project and the adjacent Goodman Commerce Center project (i.e., 5757 Plaza) have similar uses by the same applicant/project proponent. An additional note is that consideration of two projects as one large distribution center would have a greater impact than the two separate projects, warranting a larger area study per the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines. The consultant concluded that it appears the projects may have been “piecemealed” to avoid analysis of a single, larger project.
 Notes several instances in which the DEIR does not accurately describe or depict the existing and/or proposed conditions. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Comment 11 criticizes the inconsistences between the trip distribution patterns at 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza.  Notes numerous instances in which the DEIR references outdated and unreliable sources and methodologies, fails to identify the source of certain assumptions made therein, and/or presents incorrect results or references its results inconsistently. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the DEIR relies on an outdated Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads in IP-1-12
IP-1-13
IP-1-14
IP-1-15
IP-1-16
IP-1-17
IP1-18
PAUL

HASTINGS
LEGAL_US_W # 181176245
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
September 27, 2024

Page 6 ends

November 2023, even though a more recent one was published by the City in January 2024.

The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to address the latest version of the Traffic Analysis. o Note the January 2024 Traffic Analysis shows truck turning templates that present a potential traffic hazard, so the revised DEIR must demonstrate that trucks can complete a specific truck-turn movement without causing the identified traffic hazard. o Further, the City’s scoping agreement set forth in Appendix 1.1 of the Traffic Analysis attached to the DEIR promises to provide a safety assessment in the study area2 , which
would include a review of collision history, but no such safety assessment was included in the DEIR/Traffic Analysis.
 Notes that the City’s Transportation Operational Assessment Guidelines and industry standards both require transportation analyses to use traffic counts that are less than a year old, but the DEIR uses traffic counts from 2022, which were taken when office occupancies were low.

Further notes that the DEIR shows an adjustment of the 2022 traffic counts to estimate 2023 traffic counts, but the resulting traffic counts are both calculated and applied incorrectly.

Ultimately, the DEIR should be revised to reflect new traffic counts taken in 2024.  Notes that the environmental baseline VMT should correspond to the conditions at the time the environmental analysis is prepared, which is typically based on the date the Notice of Preparation was published (in this case, 2024). However, the DEIR uses as environmental baseline VMT year of 2020 without further explanation.
 Notes the DEIR contemplates only one potential use of the facility despite identifying no ultimate tenant.3
Further notes that, absent conditions of approval or another mechanism to restrict other potential uses, the DEIR/Traffic Analysis underestimates the trip generation and total volumes for future conditions. Since the ultimate tenant(s) are not known, the DEIR/Traffic Analysis should be revised to accurately consider the trip generations for the “worst-case” potential tenants, which are identified in Comment 6. o Notably, these revisions would affect key assumptions regarding the Project’s trip generation, which in turn affects the needs for further analysis and assumptions of the noise 2 Per note above, the appropriate study area should include both 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza. 3 See Comments 6 and 10. The report notes several examples of other high-cube warehouse uses that would generate significantly more AM and PM peak hour trips, requiring further analysis.

IP-1-18
IP-1-19
IP-1-20
IP-1-21
IP-1-22
IP-1-23
IP-1-24
PAUL

HASTINGS
LEGAL_US_W # 181176245
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
September 27, 2024

Page 7 ends

and greenhouse gas emissions impact analyses, which constitutes substantial new information requiring the DEIR to be revised and recirculated.  Notes the VMT Calculation Worksheet attached to the DEIR was modified after the same was originally published by the City, without any change to the date of the previously published document, nor any indication that the document had been modified. This calls into question the accuracy of reports previously published in connection with the IS/MND for 5665 Plaza, but were ostensibly unchanged when published in connection with the DEIR. o This document further assumes a total employment number without documenting the original land use and conversion factors applied to determine such input.

C. CONCLUSION
As the Lead Agency under CEQA, the City has a responsibility to ensure the studies and methodologies used in preparing a DEIR are up to date and consistent with the City’s own guidelines, Orange County guidelines, and industry standard practices. In light of the foregoing, the City must revise and recirculate the DEIR to fulfill its CEQA obligations, including, without limitation, by correcting the comments above and in the enclosed expert reports.

Warland hereby requests that the City cure the issues identified in the enclosed peer review reports.

We must note that many of these issues were foreseeable in light of the improper piecemealing of the entire Goodman Commerce Center (i.e., 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza) and the failure to consider the foreseeable use of the overall project as a logistics center. Nevertheless, the City has an opportunity to correct these issues before Warland and others must explore their other options. As you know, as the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for following CEQA guidelines in its revised analysis and the City has a duty to be transparent with the community of Cypress when doing so. We strongly encourage you to proceed as required by CEQA and other applicable law.

IP-1-24
IP-1-25
IP-1-26
IP-1-27
IP-1-28
IP-1-29
PAUL

HASTINGS
LEGAL_US_W # 181176245
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
September 27, 2024

Page 8 ends

Warland reserves all rights and remedies associated with 5665 Plaza, 5757 Plaza (i.e., the current Goodman Commerce Center Cypress), the DEIR, the enclosed expert reports, and the analysis and conclusions presented therein.

We appreciate your time and consideration on these matters.

Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey S. Haber
Jeffrey S. Haber,
of PAUL HASTINGS LLP
Encs.
cc: Mayor Scott Minikus, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Mayor Pro Tem Bonnie Peat, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member David Burke, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Anne Mallari, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Frances Marquez, Ph.D., City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Mr. Peter Grant, City Manager, City of Cypress (via email) Mr. Carl W. Robertson, Jr., Warland Investments Company (via email) Ms. Hope Warschaw, Warland Investments Company (via email) Mr. Jim Brulte, California Strategies, LLC (via email)
Mr. John Withers, California Strategies, LLC (via email) Mr. Michael Nytzen (via email)
Allyssa J. Holcomb, Esq. (via email)
Lana H. Sammons, Esq. (via email)
IP-1-30
PAUL

HASTINGS
Schedule 1
Cumulative Site Plan
EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. Peer Review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project
IP-1-31
IP-1-32
IP-1-33
Eco Tierra
consulting
September 27, 2024
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP
3200 Bristol Street, Suite 850
Costa Mesa, California 92626
RE: Peer Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project by the City of Cypress
Dear Ms. Holcomb:

As requested, EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. (EcoTierra) has conducted a peer review of the 5665 Plaza Drive Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (5665 Plaza Drive DEIR) and associated supporting documents, prepared by the City of Cypress, dated August 2024. Our review also encompassed relevant parts of the initial Study/M itigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and associated supporting documents prepared by the Cit y of Cypress for the immediately adjacent Goodman Commerce Center project, located at 5757 Plaza Drive, dated March 2023 (Goodman Commerce Center IS/ MND). Our review comments follow.

Air Quality
Sensitive Receptors
In its analysis of potential impacts to Air Quality, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR (page 4.1-20) identifies that the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential homes located 1,398 feet to the north. This statement is contradicted by the Goodman Commerce Center IS/MND, prepared for the project located on the immediately adjacent site, which states that the nearest sensitive receptor is a medical center located within 960 feet of that site (Goodman Commerce Center IS/MND, page 4.3-2). Due to the proximity of the 5665 Plaza Drive and Goodman Commerce Center sites, this receptor would also be the closest air quality sensitive receptor to the 5665 Plaza Drive project. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to reflect potential impacts to this nearest sensitive receptor and re-circulated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on this assessment.

Health Risks Associated with Diesel Emissions from On-Site Truck Activity In its analysis of potential impacts to Air Quality, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR, under Threshold AQ3), (pages 4.1-28 and 4.1-29), assesses potential health risks associated with construction and operational emissions generated by the project, based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology. However, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR fails to assess potential health risks associated with the concentrated operation of diesel-fueled trucks on the project site. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR identifies that the proposed building would include a truck loading area with 25 dock-high loading doors (page 3- 16). It further states that the 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 78 633 W 5th Street, 26th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.235.4770 I Ecolie,raConsulting com
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP
September 27, 2024

Page 2 ends

EcoTierra Consulting
633 W 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
four-axle truck trips. It was assumed that all trucks of all sizes accessing the project site would have transport refrigeration units (page 4.1-25).

Guidance promulgated by SCAQMD requires that operational health risk assessments be conducted for facilities that include the following activities that have the potential to generate high levels of diesel particulate matter (DPM) (emphasis added):1 • Truck idling and movement (such as, but not limited to, truck stops, warehouse/distribution centers or transit centers),
• Ship hoteling at ports, and
• Train idling.

Because the project can reasonably be characterized as a warehouse/distribution center since it would involve high levels of truck idling and truck movements, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must provide an operational health risk assessment that evaluates the potential health risks to sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project resulting from the operation of diesel-fueled trucks on the project site. Indeed, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR acknowledges (page 4.1-1) that the potential for logistics centers to contribute to excessive air pollution was raised during the scoping process. Yet the DEIR provides no analysis or other substantial evidence that emissions from diesel truck operations on-site would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As this concern was raised during the EIR scoping process, it is incumbent on the Lead Agency to document that DPM emissions resulting from project operations would not represent a risk to public health. The closest the DEIR comes to acknowledging this potential impact is a statement that Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) is emitted by trucks and truck refrigeration units and that DPM is the Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) most associated with warehousing uses. The DEIR goes on to state that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is intended to substantially reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and associated health risks through introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel and cleaner-burning diesel engines. However, the CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is a long-term statewide program that does not address localized health risks to nearby sensitive receptors associated with DPM emissions at any specific project site, further indicating the need for an operational health risk assessment to be prepared for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project. This assessment must be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD and the State Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) requirements. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to reflect the results of this analysis and re-circulated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact with respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Moreover, the 5665 Plaza Drive Project would be located adjacent to Related Project 1 (Goodman Commerce Center, 5757 Plaza Drive and presently under construction, 5665 Plaza Drive Project 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Mobile Source Toxics Analysis, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxicsanalysis, accessed April, 2024.

IP-1-34
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP
September 27, 2024

Page 3 ends

EcoTierra Consulting
633 W 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
DEIR page 4-7 and Figure 3.2, page 3-7). This project would constitute an additional source of DPM TAC emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Accordingly, a cumulative operational health risk assessment encompassing emissions from both the 5665 Plaza Drive project and Goodman Commerce Center project must be prepared to assess the potential cumulative health risks resulting from the operation of these two warehouse projects located immediately adjacent to one another. The Cumulative Impact analysis provided in Section 4.1.10 of the DEIR (page 4.1-30) does not address this potential impact. It incorrectly states that the only cumulative air quality impacts are those that occur across an air basin. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to reflect the results of the cumulative operational health risk assessment and re-circulated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact with respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial cumulative pollutant concentrations.

Health Risks Associated with Off-Site Truck Activity
Similar to the above, 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR fails to assess potential health risks associated with the operation of diesel-fueled trucks travelling to and from the project site. Trucks accessing the project site from the north would likely use Valley View Street, which is located adjacent to numerous residential neighborhoods and the Frank Vessels Elementary School. The health risk assessment described above, along with the cumulative impact assessment which has not yet been completed in connection with the cumulative projects at 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive, must include receptor locations along Valley View Street in accordance with SCAQMD and OEHHA requirements. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to reflect the results of this analysis and re-circulated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact with respect to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Biological Resources
The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR states that impacts to biological resources were considered but no adverse impacts were identified in the Initial Study (IS, Appendix B to the DEIR). In its analysis of the potential impacts to Biological Resources (IS, Appendix B to the DEIR, page 4.4-4), under Threshold e), the IS discusses the potential for impacts to protected trees. It states that there would be no impact to street trees as all work would be in accordance with the City’s adopted Parkway Tree Policy (page 4.4-4). This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because the potential work activities that could impact street trees are not identified and their associated impacts are not analyzed. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to provide better context and reflect the results of this analysis, and re-circulated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact with respect to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

IP-1-35
IP-1-36
IP-1-37
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP
September 27, 2024

Page 4 ends

EcoTierra Consulting
633 W 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Conflict with GHG Reduction Plans
In its analysis of potential impacts related to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (pages 4.5-20 and

4.5-21), the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR includes an analysis of project consistency with the SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. This analysis does not include any discussion of the pertinent goals of the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS, which include, but are not limited to, how the project would reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality, or support regional goals to focus new development in areas served by transit. The discussion in the DEIR merely states, without analysis or evidence, that the project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to analyze the consistency of the project with all relevant goals and policies of the RTP/SCS related to reduction of GHG emissions and re-circulated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the City’s justification for the conclusion of Less Than Significant Impact with respect to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Furthermore, the DEIR states that the proposed project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 (DEIR, page 4.5-21), and as such, it would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level. This statement is incorrect in that State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b)(2) also states that a regionally significant project includes a project that has the potential for causing significant effects on the environment the extending beyond the city of county in which the project is located. As indicated in the description of the scoping process in the DEIR includes concerns from the City of Los Alamitos regarding the potential impacts of the Project on Los Alamitos (DEIR, page 1-3).

Noise and Vibration
Sensitive Receptors
In its analysis of the potential impacts of construction noise on sensitive receptors, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR states that the nearest noise sensitive receptor to the project site is a hotel use located 1,300 feet to the southeast (page 4-6.16). This statement is contradicted by the Goodman Commerce Center IS/MND, prepared for the project located on the immediately adjacent site, which states that the nearest sensitive receptors are located 450 feet to the north and south of the Goodman Commerce Center site (Goodman Commerce Center IS/MND, page 4.13-14). Due to the proximity of the 5665 Plaza Drive and Goodman Commerce Center sites, these receptors would also be the closest sensitive receptors to the 5665 Plaza Drive project. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to reflect potential impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors and recirculated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on this assessment.

Construction Noise Impacts Improperly Calculated
In its analysis of the potential impacts of construction noise, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR states that the combination of the equipment during the site preparation and grading phases, would result IP-1-38
IP-1-39
IP-1-40
IP-1-41
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP
September 27, 2024

Page 5 ends

EcoTierra Consulting
633 W 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
in a combined noise level of 59 dBA Leq 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, based on a source level of 88 dBA Leq at 50 feet (5665 Plaza Drive DEIR, Appendix G, page 8). The DEIR states that this noise level is less than the average daytime noise level measured to be approximately 61 dBA Leq. The DEIR contends that combined construction and ambient noise level would create an increase of less than 3 dBA, the threshold at which the increase becomes perceptible in an outdoor environment. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, per the DEIR.

However, the closest point from the edge of the project site (i.e., the location where the highest noise levels that would be experienced at the Courtyard by Marriott during construction of the project would be generated) to the nearest sensitive receptor is in fact approximately 1,015 feet.

At this distance, noise levels of up to 61.9 dBA Leq would occur at the Courtyard by Marriott.

Moreover, according to the DEIR, the threshold of significance for construction noise impacts is “compliance with the City’s Municipal Code” (DEIR, page 4,6-13). The City’s Municipal Code establishes a maximum exterior noise level standard of 60 DBa Leq (DEIR, Table 4.6.2, page 4.6-4) for activities lasting more than 30 minutes in an hour. As such, the DEIR analysis of construction noise incorrectly applies its own threshold. Moreover, as discussed below, the calculated construction noise levels incorrectly exclude specific construction activities. While this impact could be mitigated with installation of a temporary noise barrier at the edge of the construction site, no such mitigation measure is included in the DEIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)(1), identification of a new significant impact from the project after the Draft EIR has been circulated for public review represents significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR. Accordingly, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to correctly reflect construction noise impacts and re-circulated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)(1).

Existing Noise Environment Not Properly Characterized
In its analysis of Noise impacts, the 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR states that it includes long-term measurements at four locations (5665 Plaza Drive DEIR, page 4.6-7) located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, DEIR Table 4.6.5 and Figure 4.6-1 only show three locations.

Because of the location of these three measurement sites, existing conditions at the nearest sensitive receptors (Courtyard by Marriott and residential uses to the north of the project site) are not accurately presented in the DEIR. Ambient noise levels at these locations are primarily influenced by vehicle traffic on Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue, respectively, which would not be captured at the measurement locations used in the DEIR and, if properly measured, could reflect lower ambient noise levels than are typically characteristic of the commercial area where the measurements were taken. Accordingly, the noise analysis presented in the DEIR does not accurately reflect the change in ambient noise levels at the most affected sensitive receptors that would result from construction of the project. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to accurately reflect potential impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors and re-circulated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on this assessment.

IP-1-41
IP-1-42
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP
September 27, 2024

Page 6 ends

EcoTierra Consulting
633 W 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Haul Route Not Identified
The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR identifies that approximately 960 cubic yards of soil would be exported by trucks during construction of the project (page 3-27). The haul route that these trucks would utilize to travel to and from the project site is not identified in the DEIR. As such, the change in the ambient noise environment resulting from haul truck activity is not correctly assessed in the DEIR. A haul truck can generate noise levels up to 84 dBA at 50 feet (DEIR, Table 4.6.6, page 4.6- 15). Regardless of the specific route, haul trucks will likely pass by numerous residential neighborhoods and the Frank Vessels Elementary School. The 5665 Plaza Drive DEIR must be revised to accurately reflect potential impacts of hauling activity the nearest sensitive receptors and re-circulated to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on this assessment.

Vibration Impact of Deep Dynamic Compaction Inconsistently Addressed Appendix F to the DEIR (Geotechnical Evaluation) indicates that Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) could be employed to provide in-situ ground stabilization as an option to mitigate potential site soil liquefaction and provide acceptable support for the planned Building No. 3. DDC involves repetitive dropping of a 10-ton weight from a height of 60 feet to compress the underlying soils at a building site (DEIR, page 1-5). Potential use of this technique is first introduced in the Executive Summary description of Alternative 4 (Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative). It is not included in either the Executive Summary project description (DEIR, pages 1-1 and 1-2), Introduction (DEIR, page 2-1) or the DEIR description of Project Characteristics (DEIR, pages 3-15 through 3-27). Nonetheless, the DEIR implies that this technique will be employed for the project, although the first mention is on page 4.6-16. The DEIR further includes a threeparagraph analysis of the potential for DDC to result in damage to adjacent buildings and provides a mitigation measure (MM NOI-1, Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan) to address potential impacts on buildings from DDC). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Additionally, the analysis of Alternative 4 indicates that it is intended to “reduce vibratory impacts to sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the proposed project” (DEIR, page 5-18). The analysis of the vibration impacts of Alternative 4 indicates that the impacts of the alternative would be lower than the project (DEIR, page 5-21). However, because the areas in which DDC would take place under the project and Alternative 4 are not specified anywhere in the DEIR, it is unclear how Alternative 4 would reduce impacts compared to the project. Considerable additional details regarding the parameters and locations where DDC is to take place under both the project and the alternative needs to be provided in order for neighboring uses to understand what are the precise potential impacts of DDC on their buildings and property.

Vibration Impacts of DDC on Human Annoyance Not Addressed The DEIR (page 4.6-12) includes a discussion of perception of vibration by humans. Whereas vibration levels that can potentially result in building damage are expressed in Peak Particle Velocity (PPV, inches/second), impacts related to human annoyance are expressed in Vibration Velocity Decibels (VdB). While the DEIR discusses this under Methodology (DEIR, page 4.6-12), no IP-1-43
IP-1-44
IP-1-45
IP-1-46
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP
September 27, 2024

Page 7 ends

EcoTierra Consulting
633 W 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
analysis is provided as to the potential impacts on human annoyance from DDC. According to the Federal Transit Administration, a pile driver can generate typical vibration levels of 104 VdB, with an upper range of 112 VdB (Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018), Table 7-4, page 184). The DEIR needs to be modified to include this analysis in order for residents and occupants to understand potential impacts on them that could result from DDC.

Noise Impacts of DDC Not Addressed
The DEIR does not include any analysis of the noise impacts of DDC. It simply provides one statement:
“During deep dynamic compaction activities, the major source of noise would be the crane utilized to 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.” (DEIR, page

4.6-16).

This statement is contradicted by information contained in the DEIR. Table 4.6.6 (DEIR, page 4.6- 15) indicates that the source level for pile driving is 101 dBA. The source level for a crane is 85 dBA. Since DDC generates greater noise levels than standard pile driving, the source level for construction equipment during site preparation (DEIR, Appendix G, page 8) needs to be revised to reflect the correct equipment mix to be used during site preparation (i.e., dozer, tractor, crane and DDC) and the resulting noise levels at sensitive receptors need to be re-calculated to demonstrate their effects on sensitive receptors.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Sincerely,
EcoTierra Consulting, Inc.

Craig Fajnor
Principal
IP-1-47
IP-1-48
IP-1-5
Eco Tierra
consu l ting
Eco Tierra Consulting, Inc. is an environmental consult ing firm that assists public and private entities with implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These two laws require public agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of agency decisions by following processes and procedures set forth in state and federal law and regulation. These laws apply to agency-sponsored projects and to private development projects.

Craig Fajnor and Curtis Zacuto, the founding Principals of EcoTierra, have a total of over 60 years of experience in CEQA and NEPA report preparation. The founding Principals established the firm in July, 2010, after previously serving as the Senior Vice Presidents for a noted Southern California CEQA firm.

EcoTierra's success is based upon the success of projects and the partnerships that Eco Tierra builds with each client.

EcoTierra's professional staff brings a reliable combination of knowledge and experience to each project.

EcoTierra staff's diverse project experience includes large and complex and controversial projects in the Los Angeles area and throughout the Southern California region, including:

Industrial
Commercial
Institutional
Single/Multi-Family Residential
Mixed-Use
Entertainment/Events
Public Sector
Subdivisions
Urban In-fill
Master Plans
EcoTierra staffs background in private and public sector planning has resulted in a comprehensive understanding of the complex relationships between land use regulations, environmental impact, and project implementation.

CRAIG FAJNOR / PRINCIPAL
Experience Summary
Mr. Craig Fajnor, Co-Founder and Principal of EcoTierra Consulting, Inc., has 38 years of experience in environmental planning and project management. Mr. Fajnor has served in a senior management position at various consulting firms for over 18 years and operated an independent consulting practice for more than 13 years. Mr. Fajnor specializes in urban projects and has managed large and complex projects in Los Angeles and throughout the Southern California region, including EIRs for the Staples Center and Hollywood and Highland projects, and an EIR/EIS for the Los Angeles Air Force Base. Mr. Fajnor brings extensive hands-on experience in all forms of environmental documentation which may be needed to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Education Background and Professional Affiliations
• M.A. in Planning – University of Virginia
• B.A. in Political Science – Duke University
• American Planning Association (APA)
• Former editor of The Dispatch, newsletter of the Los Angeles Section of APA Project Experience
EIRs/EISs
• Anaheim Gateway Project (EIR)
• Ashland Chemical Distribution Center (EIR)
• Bradley Landfill and Recycling Center Master
Plan (EIR)
• Chinatown Redevelopment Project (EIR
Addendum)
• Downey Studios Mixed-Use Development
Specific Plan (EIR)
• Grand Avenue Project (EIR Addendum)
• Harbor Gateway Center (EIR)
• Hollywood & Highland (EIR)
• Hollywood Redevelopment Plan (EIR)
• Hollywood and Vine (EIR Addendum
• Kinder-Morgan Tank Farm Projects (EIR)
• LAAFB Land Conveyance, Construction and
Development Project (EIR/EIS)
• Metro Universal Project (EIR)
• North Hollywood Arts and Entertainment District
(EIR/EIS)
• Olive Avenue Development Peer Review
• Playa Vista Phase I (EIR)
• Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and
Plaza El Segundo Development (EIR)
• Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center (EIR)
• Staples Center (EIR)
• UCLA University Village Expansion (EIR)
• Universal City Specific Plan (EIR)
• Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Plan (EIR)
• Vermont Corridor (EIR)
Initial Studies/MNDs/EAs
• California Hospital Medical Center Seismic
Reconstruction (EA)
• Sunquest Business Park (EA)
• Wiseburn School District Reconstructions
(MND)
IP-1-6
Eco Tierra
consulting
Ganddini Group, Inc.

Transportation Analysis Peer Review
for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com
September 20, 2024
Ms. Allyssa Holcomb

GARRET STIEPEL RYDER LLP
3200 Bristol Street, Suite 850
Costa Meas, California 92626
RE: Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress Project No. 19722
Dear Ms. Holcomb:

Ganddini Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this peer review summary of the Transportation section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and supporting technical documents for the 5665 Plaza Drive project in the City of Cypress. We have reviewed the following documents:
▪ Transportation Section of the DEIR (August 2024)
▪ Appendix E – 5665 Plaza Drive Project - Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (LSA, December 15, 2023) [“VMT Analysis”]
▪ Appendix E – Goodman Commerce Center Trip Generation Assessment (Urban Crossroads, February 20, 2024) [“Trip Generation Assessment”]
▪ Appendix E – Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads, November 21, 2023) [“Traffic Analysis”]
We also reviewed the following document which is not contained in the DEIR but was provided for review:
▪ Updated Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads, January 11, 2024) [“Updated Traffic Analysis”]
As described in the DEIR, Section 1.2 – Summary of Project Description, the proposed project involves demolition of an existing 150,626 square foot five-story office building 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 project also involves a Specific Plan Amendment to the McDonnel Center Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses within the eastern portion of Planning Area 1 and removal of the maximum developable area requirement.

LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW
This peer review focuses on whether the analysis was completed in accordance with industry practice for the region and to provide our opinion regarding the findings and recommendations. The methodologies and key input parameters of the technical analyses reviewed; however, detailed review of every calculation and typographical errors were not the focus of this review.

IP-1-49
Ms. Allyssa Holcomb

GARRET STIEPEL RYDER LLP
September 20, 2024
Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665
Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress
2 19722

GENERAL COMMENT REGARDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is understood that the proposed 5665 Plaza Drive project and the adjacent Goodman Commerce Center project (5757 Plaza Drive) are similar uses by the same applicant/project proponent. Consideration of the proposed 5665 Plaza Drive and Goodman Commerce Center (5757 Plaza Drive) projects as one large distribution center complex would result in a greater project trip generation than evaluated in either project’s environmental analysis, which in turn would contribute more than 25 peak hour trips through additional signalized intersections, thus warranting a larger study area per the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

Additionally, consideration of the two projects as one large distribution center complex would have a greater impact on the net change in volume-to-capacity, delay, and Level of Service operations than is disclosed by evaluation as two separate projects. Therefore, it appears the projects may have been “piecemealed” to avoid analysis of a single, larger project with greater potential to cause operational or Level of Service deficiencies.

COMMENTS ON TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF THE DEIR
COMMENT 1

Page 4 ends

5775 and 5885 on the north side of Douglas Drive. The proposed sidewalks will presumably be installed along 5775 and 5885 Plaza Drive on the north side of Plaza Drive. Walker Street is incorrectly described as undivided although there is a painted median with left turn lanes. These descriptions should be corrected so that the EIR accurately describes existing conditions.

COMMENT 2

Page 4 ends

City of Cypress Transportation Operational Assessment (Level-of-Service Traffic Study) Guidelines (April 2023) [“Traffic Study Guidelines”], “Any traffic counts utilized in the transportation analysis shall not be more than one year old without prior approval of the City Traffic Engineer.” This section of the DEIR further acknowledges low office occupancy at the time the traffic counts were collected.

To adjust for these shortcomings, the DEIR/Traffic Analysis states that the 2022 traffic volume counts were increased by 30 percent to account for low occupancy office uses and further increased by an additional two percent to adjust from 2022 to 2023; however, the traffic volumes shown on Exhibit 3-8 of the Traffic Analysis do not accurately reflect these adjustments. The following is an example of the calculations for the PM peak hour volumes that do not reflect the adjustments as claimed:

IP-1-50
IP-1-51
IP-1-52
g:1,~:iii
IP-1-52
IP-1-53
IP-1-54
Ms. Allyssa Holcomb

GARRET STIEPEL RYDER LLP
September 20, 2024
Intersection
Douglas St & Katella Ave
Raw 2022 Count1
Low Office Occupancy Adjustment (+30%)
2022 -> 2023 Adj ustment (+2%)
Adjusted 2023 Volume
Volume Shown in the Traffic Analvsis2
Valley View St & Plaza Dr
Raw 2022 Count1
Low Office Occupancy Adjustment (+30%)
2022 -> 2023 Adj ustment (+2%)
Adjusted 2023 Volume
Volume Shown in the Traffic Analvsis2
Notes:

NL
79 24
2 105
83 4
1 0
5 4

NT NR SL ST
1 7 24 2
0 2 7 1
0 0 1 0
1 9 32 3
1 7 26 2
1,894 4 16 1,455
568 1 5 437
49 0 0 38
2,511 5 21 1,930
1,967 12 52 1,503
PM Peak Hour Volumes
SR EL ET ER W L WT WR Total
45 11 1,888 27 8 1,541 6 3,639
14 3 566 8 2 462 2 1,091
1 0 49 1 0 40 0 94
60 14 2,503 36 10 2,043 8 4,824
47 11 1,963 32 9 1,608 6 3,795
23 79 0 28 51 9 116 3,679
7 24 0 8 15 3 35 1,104
1 2 0 1 1 0 3 95
31 105 0 37 67 12 154 4,878
23 168 0 61 162 30 355 4,337
Shaded values indicate movements that do not meet the low occupancy and growth factor adjustments as claimed.

1. Taken from Appendix 3.1 of the Traffic Analysis.

2. Taken from Exhibit 3-8 of the Traffic Analysis.

Additionally, the adjusted 2023 should be even greater than shown in the above "Adjusted 2023 Volume" rows when accounting for passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors.

In summary, since existing volumes serve as the baseline for development of future scenarios and are one of the primary variables for determining existing and future Levels of Service, the Level of Service calculations presented in the DEIR are not accurately represented according to the study's own methodology. The DEIR/Traffic Analysis relies on a series of assumptions to estimate existing conditions that are inconsistent with the City guidelines and industry practice.

The DEIR/Traffic Analysis should be revised based on new traffic counts within the past year. As new traffic counts would re-establish the existing conditions baseline, this would constitute substantial new information and the EIR should be re-circulated.

COMMENT 3

Page 4 ends

interpolating between the OCT AM base (2016) and future (2045) models. The environmental baseline should correspond to conditions at the time the environmental analysis was prepared, typically based on the date of the Notice of Preparation (in this case, 2024). 1
COMMENT4

Page 4 ends

employment and VMT shown, then baseline VMT should be 24.08 VMT per employee (41,174,971 VMT / 1,710,147 employees = 24.08). Furthermore, the baseline VMT per employee shown in this section is inconsistent with the VMT Analysis in Appendix E.
1 Stevens and Antero (2016). Baseline and Environmental Setting. CEQA Portal Topic Paper, 6. Retrieved May 8, 2024 from https://ceqaportal.org/tp/ Baseline%20and%20Environmental%20Setting%20Topic%20Paper%2008-23-16.pdf. 3 Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665
Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress
19722
IP-1-55
IP-1-56
Ms. Allyssa Holcomb

GARRET STIEPEL RYDER LLP
September 20, 2024

COMMENTS

Page 4 ends

Analysis in Appendix E. Additionally, the last paragraph states that intersection level of service (LOS) was performed based on the 6th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology using the Synchro 10 software. According to the City's Traffic Study Guidelines, HCM calculations should be performed using the latest edition of the HCM (currently the 7th Edition) and the latest version of the Synchro software suite (currently version 12).

The DEIR/Traffic Analysis should be revised based on the latest HCM methodology and Synchro software requirements in accordance with the City's Traffic Study Guidelines. As such revisions would affect all existing and future Levels of Service, this would constitute substantial new information and the EIR should be recirculated.

COMMENT6
Pages 4.7-11/12, Section 4.7.6 states that trip generation estimates were derived from trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) for a HighCube Cold Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 157); however, Section 3.6.4 Operational Characteristics of the DEIR states that the ultimate tenant has not been identified. While the Alternatives evaluation in Section

5.0 correctly notes that a "No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative" would reduce the number of daily truck trips, there numerous other types of warehousing categories that would generate more peak hour and total daily trips (cars and trucks) compared to high-cube cold-storage warehousing, as summarized in the following table:

Trio Generation
AM Peak PM Peak
Hour Hour Daily
Land Use Quantity Rate Trios Rate Trips Rate Trips
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Non-Sort) 191.394 TSF 0.15 29 0.16 31 1.81 346 High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Sort) 191.394 TSF 0.87 167 1.20 230 6.44 1,233 High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse 191.394 TSF 0.70 134 0.64 122 4.63 886 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 191.394 TSF 0.11 21 0.12 24 2.12 406 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) Shaded values exceed trip estimates for cold storage use evaluated in the DEIR As shown above, a High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Sort) (ITE Land Use Code 155), which would include uses such as last-mile delivery stations for e-commerce users, may result in substantially greater trip generation for employee cars and delivery vans/vehicles. Therefore, absent conditions of approval or another mechanism to restrict such uses, DEIR/Traffic Analysis underestimates the proposed project's potential trip generation and related impacts.

Based on the trip estimates shown above, a High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Sort) or High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse would generate more than 50 net new peak hour trips and more than 25 peak hour trips through additional signalized intersections, thus requiring further analysis.

Since the ultimate tenant(s) are not known, the DEIR/Traffic Analysis should be revised to accurately consider trip generation for the worst-case potential tenant. As such revisions would affect key assumptions of the project's trip generation, which in turn affects the need for further analysis and assumptions of the noise and greenhouse gas emissions impact analyses, this would constitute substantial new information and the EIR should be re-circulated.
4 Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665
Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress
19722
Ms. Allyssa Holcomb

GARRET STIEPEL RYDER LLP
September 20, 2024
Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665
Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress
5 19722
COMMENT 7

Page 4 ends

ITE Trip Generation Manual for purposes of converting the project land use into socioeconomic data for the VMT modeling performed. The VMT Analysis provided in Appendix E does not specify use of the ITE Trip Generation Manual for development of these conversion factors. It is unclear what ITE land use, or other source, was used for developing these conversion factors. Without further information, the DEIR fails to adequately document the methodology used and the appropriateness of these assumptions cannot be verified.

COMMENT 8

Page 4 ends

inconsistent with the Table 4.7.2 in the Existing Environmental Setting section, which identifies the baseline as 24.81 VMT per employee.

COMMENTS ON APPENDIX E - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (URBAN CROSSROADS, NOVEMBER 21, 2023) COMMENT 9

Page 17 ends

performed based on the 6th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The Traffic Analysis should use the more recent 7th Edition HCM methodology, which was released prior to publication of the November 2023 Traffic Analysis, as well as the latest edition of the Synchro software (currently version 12) in accordance with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

COMMENT 10

Page 36 ends

generation rates for High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 157). As previously noted, use of trip generation rates for High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Sort) (ITE Land Use Code 155) would generate approximately 1,232 passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips per day, including 169 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 232 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. In this case, the project would generate roughly three to four times the number of peak hour PCE trips analyzed in the February 2023 Traffic Analysis.

COMMENT 11
Pages 39/40, Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2. Project trip distribution patterns for passenger cars and trucks are inconsistent with trip distribution forecasts for the adjacent Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Analysis (February 2023) prepared by the same traffic consultant (Urban Crossroads). The following summarizes the inconsistencies:

IP-1-57
IP-1-58
IP-1-59
IP-1-60
IP-1-61
g:1,~:iii
Ms. Allyssa Holcomb

GARRET STIEPEL RYDER LLP
September 20, 2024
Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665
Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress
6 19722
Distribution To/From
Trucks Cars
5665 Plaza Dr
(Exhibit 4-1)
Goodman
Commerce Ctr
(Exhibit 4-1)
5665 Plaza Dr
(Exhibit 4-2)
Goodman
Commerce Ctr
(Exhibit 4-2)
North on Valley View 20% 25% 30% 20%
Valley View/Katella Intersection 30% 45% 20% 50%
West on Katella Ave 50% 30% 50% 30%
The DEIR/Traffic Analysis should be revised to be consistent with the Goodman Commerce Center project or explain why the trip distribution assumptions for the Goodman Commerce Center are incorrect.

COMMENT 12

Page 45 ends

cumulative development trip generation forecasts. The trip generation estimate for cumulative development “C3. Goodman Commerce Center” appears to be derived from the Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads, February 2023), which assumed that approximately half of that development (195,134 square feet) would consist of High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) and half would consist of High-Cube Cold-Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 157). Trip generation rates for High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) are the lowest of high-cube warehousing categories and lower than general warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150). The cumulative development trip generation may be substantially understated, especially if there is the potential for future occupancy of the Goodman Commerce Center with a fulfillment center sorting facility/last-mile delivery station.

Absent conditions of approval or another mechanism to restrict such uses, the DEIR/Traffic Analysis underestimates the trip generation and total volumes for future conditions. Therefore, the DEIR/Traffic Analysis should be revised to accurately consider trip generation for the worst-case potential tenant for the adjacent Goodman Commerce Center.

COMMENT 13

Page 1 ends

states that a safety assessment will be prepared, including review of collision history in the study area. This safety assessment, specifically collision history review, does not appear to be included in the Traffic Analysis.

The Traffic Analysis should be revised to include collision history review in accordance with the approved scoping agreement.

COMMENTS ON APPENDIX E – VMT ANALYSIS (LSA, DECEMBER 15, 2023) COMMENT 14

Page 2 ends

data into model employment using “land use-to-employment conversion factors.” The VMT Analysis should specify the source for the conversion factors used. Without further information, the appropriateness of these assumptions cannot be verified.

IP-1-61
IP-1-62
IP-1-63
IP-1-64
g:1,~:iii
Ms. Allyssa Holcomb

GARRET STIEPEL RYDER LLP
September 20, 2024
Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665
Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress
7 19722
COMMENT 15

Page 5 ends

calculations shown are based on the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) base year 2016 model rather than the environmental baseline year, which is typically based on the date of the Notice of Preparation (in this case, 2024).2 The project VMT and regional VMT per employee should be calculated for the appropriate existing year (as determined by the applicable environmental baseline year) by interpolating between the base year and future/cumulative year models.

COMMENT 16
Appendix A – VMT Calculation Worksheet. The heading on the table in the version of this document originally included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration referred to the “Goodman Commerce Center (project)”, rather than 5665 Plaza Drive. It appears this has been corrected in the version attached in Appendix E of the DEIR, however, the date of the VMT Analysis memorandum is the same and there is no other indication that the document had been revised.

Additionally, a total employment of 93 is shown as the employment input for the project. The analysis fails to document the original land use and conversion factors used to determine this input. Without further information, the appropriateness of these assumptions cannot be verified.

COMMENTS ON UPDATED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (URBAN CROSSROADS, JANUARY 11, 2024) COMMENT 17
The Update Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads, January 11, 2024) appears to contain new Exhibit 1-11, which shows truck turning templates at the intersection of Douglas Drive and Katella Avenue. As shown on Exhibit 1-11, inbound trucks performing a right turn from westbound Katella Avenue to northbound Douglas Drive would have to begin the turn in the through lane adjacent to the designated right turn lane. This presents a potential hazard as passenger cars may attempt to use the dedicated right turn expecting the truck to continue straight and would instead be caught in the trucks turning path.

The DEIR should be revised and re-circulated to include the latest version Traffic Analysis. The Traffic Analysis should demonstrate that trucks can complete the right turn movement without encroaching into the adjacent lane.

CONCLUSION
While it is acknowledged that the project’s effects on Level of Service/roadway operations are not considered environmental impacts in the context of CEQA, the comments pertaining to potentially understated trip generation estimates may affect other technical studies such as air quality/greenhouse gas emissions and noise. Additionally, comments pertaining to the VMT analysis and potentially hazardous truck turning paths at the intersection of Douglas Drive and Katella Avenue may affect the findings of significance in the context of CEQA.
2 Stevens and Antero (2016). Baseline and Environmental Setting. CEQA Portal Topic Paper, 6. Retrieved May 8, 2024 from https://ceqaportal.org/tp/Baseline%20and%20Environmental%20Setting%20Topic%20Paper%2008-23-16.pdf.

IP-1-65
IP-1-66
IP1-67
IP-1-68
g:1,~:iii
Ms. Allyssa Holcomb

GARRET STIEPEL RYDER LLP
September 20, 2024
Transportation Analysis Peer Review for the 5665
Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress
8 19722
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (714) 795-3100.

Respectfully submitted,
GANDDINI GROUP, INC.

Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP
Principal
California Registration TR 2663

IP-1-69
TR2663
g:1,~:iii
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com

GIANCARLO GANDDINI, PE, PTP
Traffic Engineer and Transportation Planner
Mr. Ganddini is a Registered Traffic Engineer and certified Professional Transportation Planner with over 16 years of experience in the traffic engineering and transportation planning profession, including over five years as the Principal Traffic Engineer of Ganddini Group, Inc., a consulting firm he founded in 2018. He has directly managed or prepared hundreds of technical studies involving traffic engineering analysis and transportation planning for a broad range of development and infrastructure projects. This experience includes data collection, traffic volume forecasting, roadway capacity analysis, traffic signal control evaluation, collision analysis, complete streets/active transportation planning, traffic modeling and simulation, and conceptual improvements. He is a Past President of the Institute of Transportation Engineers for both the Western District and Southern California Section and continues to be involved in Western District committees.

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Professional Traffic Engineer (TR 2663), State of California Professional Transportation Planner (No. 597), Transportation Professional Certification Board, Inc.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ganddini Group, Inc., Santa Ana, CA
Founding Principal/Principal Traffic Engineer
Since founding the firm in 2018, Mr. Ganddini has managed all aspects of business operations and has served as Principal-in-Charge for technical services provided on over 600 projects. He has managed the preparation of hundreds of studies involving traffic engineering analysis and transportation planning for a broad range of development and infrastructure projects, including numerous projects in Orange County. Notable projects include, but are not limited to:
▪ Cypress Town Center 7-AC Residential Traffic/VMT Impact Analysis, City of Cypress ▪ 1400 Bristol Street North Residences Transportation Impact Analysis, City of Newport Beach ▪ 1600 Dove Street Residences Transportation Impact analysis, City of Newport Beach ▪ Picerne Residential (1300 Bristol Street North) Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Newport Beach ▪ Hughes Warehouse Project Access Study, City of Irvine ▪ 17731 Cowan Warehouse Access Study, City of Irvine
▪ Cabrillo at First Mixed-Use Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Santa Ana ▪ Victoria Boulevard Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Dana Point ▪ EF International Language Campus Traffic/Parking Study Peer Review, City of Costa Mesa ▪ Buena Park Downtown Transportation Peer Review, City of Buena Park ▪ The Children's School Focused Traffic Analysis, City of Irvine ▪ Parker Hannifin Access Study, City of Irvine
▪ Old Dominion Expansion Traffic Analyses, City of Anaheim ▪ Tina-Pacific Residential Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Stanton ▪ Ball-Sunkist 7-Eleven & Car Wash Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Anaheim ▪ 18181 Imperial Highway In-N-Out Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Yorba Linda ▪ In-N-Out at Orange Outlets Traffic & VMT Impact Analysis, City of Orange ▪ In-N-Out at 7902 Edinger Avenue Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Huntington Beach ▪ 710 East Katella Avenue Trailer Parking Trip Generation/VMT Analysis, City of Anaheim IP-1-
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com
Michael Baker International (Formerly RBF Consulting), Irvine, CA Civil Associate II and Technical Specialist III
Mr. Ganddini performed technical analysis for small and large-scale transportation planning projects, directed field work, and provided technical oversight to junior staff. After promptly being promoted, he performed project management duties for all stages of the project lifecycle, including preparation of scope of work and budget proposals, direction of technical analysis and completion of tasks, and participation in public meetings and hearings as the subject matter expert. Notable projects include, but are not limited to:
▪ Enhanced Mobility and Complete Streets Transition Plan. City of Laguna Beach, CA. ▪ Lincoln Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. City of Whittier, CA ▪ Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis. City of Newport Beach, CA. ▪ City of San Bernardino Traffic Impact Analysis Peer Reviews. City of San Bernardino, CA.

Kunzman Associates, Inc., Orange, CA
Junior Associate, Associate, and Manager of Traffic Engineering As an entry-level engineer, Mr. Ganddini conducted field work and data collection, prepared technical analysis, performed data entry for traffic capacity and forecasting software, and assisted in the preparation of technical reports. He quickly advanced to associate, senior associate, and eventually Manager of Traffic Engineering responsible for overseeing technical staff and implementing best practices and procedures across the company.

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine

PRESENTATIONS/SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
Transportation Impact Analysis in the Age of SB 743 & COVID, presented at a joint Orange County/Los Angeles Chapter of the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), August 2020 Intro to Transportation Impact Analysis: An Overview of Current and Transitioning Practice, presented at California State University, Long Beach, October 2019
Introduction to Traffic Impact Analysis: An Overview of Current Practice, presented at University of California, Irvine, October 2017
Traffic Impact Studies: Current Practice and Emerging Trends, presented at Cal Poly Pomona, January 2016

RECENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Adapting Infrastructure to Environmental Change, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, July 2024
MUTCD Panel – Future MUTCD, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, July 2024 Complete Street Planning, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, July 2024 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com
Stepping Forward: What the MUTCD means for crosswalks, traffic calming, and school zones in California, Synapse ITS, February 2024
Setting Safe Speeds, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, August 2023 Innovative Approaches to Planned and Unplanned Events, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, August 2023
Trends in Transportation Impact Assessment, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, August 2023
What's New in the 7th Edition of HCM, McTrans/University of Florida, April 2022 Walking and Biking: User Insights and the Toolkits You Need to Know, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, July 2021
Big Data for Complete Streets: Promoting Safety, Mobility, and Equity of all Transportation Modes Through Datadriven Decision Making, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, July 2021 ITE Western District Annual Meeting, Session 10 – Traffic Studies, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, June 2020
ITE Western District Annual Meeting, Session 11 – Travel Demand Models, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, June 2020
ITE Western District Annual Meeting, Session 19 – What’s New in VMT, Institute of Transportation Engineers Education Foundation, June 2020

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Institute of Transportation Engineers (member since 2009) Western District Past President
Western District Public Relations Committee
Southern California Section Past President
Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (member since 2009) AWARDS
Young Transportation Engineer of the Year (2011), ITE Southern California Section Garrett Stiepel Ryder LLP Letters Dated
June 5, 2024, March 7, 2024, and September 11, 2023
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Direct Dial No.
(714) 384-4313
Email Address
[email protected]
June 5, 2024
(714) 384-4300 www.garrettllp.com
Address: 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 850, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
City of Cypress
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Attn: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
Re: Warland Investments Company and Affiliated Entities’ Comments on Scope of EIR; 5665 Plaza Drive - Goodman Redevelopment
Dear Ms. Velasco:

As you know, this firm represents Warland Investments Company and its affiliated entities (collectively, “Warland”), which is an interested party by virtue of being one of the largest landowners within the City of Cypress (“City”). Warland’s holdings include over a dozen properties located in the City’s business park and within a mile of the above-referenced project (hereinafter referred to as “5665 Redevelopment”). We are submitting this letter on behalf of Warland as a follow-up to our oral comments during the public scoping meeting held on May 28, 2024.

Reference is made to our letter to the City dated March 7, 2024, a copy of which is enclosed, which addressed Warland’s high-level comments regarding the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively, “IS/MND”) originally prepared by the City in connection with the 5665 Redevelopment.

As we have previously expressed, Warland supports the continuing development of business and housing in the City and believes that the right type of redevelopment within the business park will be embraced by the City’s residents and result in the continued long-term success of the business park and the community as a whole. However, as you are aware, Warland has concerns regarding the intended redevelopment project by GLC Cypress LLC (“Goodman”), the first phase of which consisted of two (2) warehouse buildings located at 5757 Plaza Drive, which is publicly referred to as “Goodman Commerce Center” and was approved by the City last year, and the second phase of which is the current 5665 Redevelopment consisting of a single warehouse building. The three (3) adjacent warehouses, which are located in very close proximity to one another, will have almost 600,000 cumulative square feet of space and 75 dock doors, allowing for exceptionally high truck volume to originate from the center of the business park.

Warland appreciates the City pivoting from the previously prepared IS/MND and proceeding with an environmental impact report (“EIR”) as requested in our March 7 letter. However, the 5665 Redevelopment is described in the City’s Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report dated May 7, 2024 (“NOP”) as a standalone warehouse project, which is inaccurate and misleads the public as to the true nature of the redevelopment. In reality, the 5665 Redevelopment is the second l!"."'.'!I
~
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
June 5, 2024

Page 2 ends

{10864583.7}
phase of a larger project consisting of the redevelopment by Goodman of 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive. In order to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and to provide complete and accurate information to the public, the EIR must (i) fully analyze the cumulative environmental impacts of the entire 3-building redevelopment of 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive, and (ii) account for the foreseeable use of the entire project for logistics purposes.

1. Defined Project / Cumulative Impacts of 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive Goodman’s redevelopment of 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive are not two separate projects, but are actually two phases of a single larger project. Goodman purchased both parcels at the same time and as a part of the same transaction, but they nevertheless elected to submit separate applications to the City for the development of the same, which resulted in two separate IS/MNDs being performed. Doing so obscures the cumulative environmental impacts of the entire project from both the public and the City itself, which can result in a dangerous failure to address the potential mitigation of the environmental impacts of the overall project. To ensure that the cumulative environmental impacts of the overall project are properly evaluated and addressed, the EIR must accurately define the project as the redevelopment of both 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive.
1 As we have previously communicated to the City, there are several points that evidence the fact that 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive will be operated as a single project, as follows:
a. Goodman acquired both parcels, which are adjacent to one another, on the same day (i.e., September 15, 2021), via a single deed, and it continues to own both parcels. b. The two parcels will have a shared drive aisle providing ingress and egress to the public rightof-way (i.e., they are physically connected); further, the 5665 Redevelopment includes a lot line adjustment in order to create such shared drive aisle.
c. Since both parcels are owned by the same party, it is foreseeable that there will be cross-access and cross-parking between the two parcels, as well, which will allow trucks using the cumulative 75 dock doors to enter and exit the project using any one of the 5 driveways serving the same.
d. The City’s own website referred to the 5665 Redevelopment as “Goodman Commerce Center – Expansion” for several months. However, at some point after receiving our March 7 letter (which addressed the issue), the City changed its website to describe the 5665 Redevelopment more generically as “Proposed Warehouse Project”.
e. Similarly, the site plan on the City’s website labeled the building to be constructed at 5665 Plaza Drive as “Building 3”, while the buildings being constructed on 5757 Plaza Drive are referred to as “Bldg. 1” and “Bldg. 2” in the site plan published by the City with respect to that parcel. However, like the project title, the depiction of the 5665 Plaza Drive building on the City’s website is now generically labeled “5665” instead of “Building 3”. 1 CEQA defines a “project” as “the whole of an action” which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that involves an activity that requires a governmental agency’s entitlement. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15378.

City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
June 5, 2024

Page 3 ends

{10864583.7}
f. As noted in our March 7 letter, when viewing the two separate site plans originally posted to the City’s website together (see attached Schedule 1, which was attached to our March 7 letter), it is clear that the three (3) buildings have always been designed to operate as a single project.

To that point, a new cumulative site plan, the first page of which is shown in the attached Schedule 2, was published on the City’s website after our March 7 letter. This cumulative site plan makes it clear that the prior site plans for 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive published by the City were taken from the same original site plan.

It is apparent that Goodman intended to redevelop 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive as a single project from the beginning; however, it applied for the City’s approval of the project in two phases, approximately a year apart. There is little reason to do so other than to avoid the preparation of an EIR, which may disclose environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. While the City has already approved the first phase of the project (i.e., the redevelopment of 5757 Plaza Drive), the approvals for the two phases of the project (i.e., the redevelopment of 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive) were nonetheless improperly piecemealed, which violates the mandates of CEQA. Instead of compounding the harm that may have been caused by such piecemealing, the City must take this opportunity to perform a proper EIR that accurately defines the “project” as both phases of the Goodman redevelopment at 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive, and thoroughly evaluates the cumulative environmental impacts of the same.

Further, please note that even if the 5665 Redevelopment was a standalone project (which it is not), the factors set forth above make it clear that 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive may be operated as a single project, either now or later – and that risk is compounded by the fact that one party owns both parcels and can operate them as a cohesive project. CEQA demands that the City evaluate the short and longterm environmental impacts that will result from any proposed project, both individually and cumulatively with other projects in the area, and accurately communicate those impacts to the public.

Given the potential of 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive to be operated as a single project, the EIR must fully and accurately evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts of 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive, including, without limitation, the impacts that will result from the same being operated as a single project as designed.

2. Foreseeable Potential Use as a Logistics Center
Environmental studies prepared by a lead agency in connection with a redevelopment are intended to evaluate “past, present, and reasonably anticipated future” uses, even if such reasonably anticipated future uses are not permitted under current zoning regulations. 2 For the reasons detailed below, the EIR
must consider the foreseeable use of all three (3) buildings for logistics purposes, which would likely involve a very high volume of trucks traveling throughout the City’s business park and nearby residential areas.

There are several substantive points evidencing that a logistics (or distribution) use of both 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive can and should be anticipated, as follows:
2 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15130.

City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
June 5, 2024

Page 4 ends

{10864583.7}
a. Goodman is a well-known developer of logistics centers; in fact, its own website expressly states that Goodman’s purpose is to develop “logistics space for the world’s greatest ambitions”.3
b. The cumulative design of 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive mirrors the design of other logistics centers developed by Goodman in California, including (a) the size (i.e., almost 600,000 cumulative square feet, disbursed through multiple buildings), and (b) the number of dock doors (i.e., 25 dock doors on each building, with 75 dock doors total). None of the Goodman developments in California that are used for non-logistics purposes have a similar building design – nor a similar number of dock doors. In fact, Goodman’s non-logistics developments in California have a maximum of 10 dock doors.
c. Goodman has developed several logistics centers in California with buildings on two (2) separate parcels operating as a single project. Specifically, Goodman Logistics Center Rancho Cucamonga and Goodman Industrial Center Napoleon are single projects with multiple buildings located on adjacent properties, while Goodman Logistics Center Fontana II and III are two phases of the same project, with buildings located on adjacent properties (see Schedule 10 of our March 7 letter for a list of Goodman’s California projects). d. While Goodman has suggested that it anticipates the project being used for “corporate headquarters”, distribution centers typically have less than ten percent (10%) of space dedicated to office area4, while other types of users, such as corporate offices, require substantially more office space to operate. Currently, less than 10% of each building to be constructed at 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive is designated for office use.
e. The City is actively in the process of “modernizing” the City’s Specific Plans and a logistics or distribution use may be permitted under such modernized Specific Plan, either explicitly or as a result of the discretionary approval of the City’s Planning Department.

Unlike typical warehousing projects, logistics centers can generate more significant noise, congest local streets, contribute to excessive air pollution and potentially lower property values in the surrounding areas. While logistics uses are not permitted under the current zoning regulations applicable to the project, in light of the foregoing and the factors outlined above, the City must not limit the scope of the EIR to currently permitted uses. Instead, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the EIR must evaluate the reasonably foreseeable use of the project for logistics purposes. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
3 https://www.goodman.com/about-goodman/about-us.
4 https://aquilacommercial.com/learning-center/types-of-industrial-buildings-defined-warehouse-flex-distributionetc/#:~:text=Bulk%20distribution%20warehouses%20are%20ideal,rest%20dedicated%20to%20warehouse%20spa ce;
City of Cypress
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
June 5, 2024 1
Page5
Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence of Goodman's plans with respect to the redevelopment of 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive, the City has thus far failed to consider the full scope of the project by improperly piecemealing the phases of the project and failing to consider the foreseeable use of the same as a logistics center. In its preparation of the EIR, Warland urges the City to properly define the proposed project and the foreseeable use thereof in order to satisfy its obligations under CEQA.

Please be aware that Warland has engaged land use attorneys, environmental consultants and traffic consultants to perform a thorough peer review of the draft EIR and the conclusions presented therein, and Warland expressly reserves all rights and remedies associated therewith.

We appreciate your time and consideration on these matters.

Regards,
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Enc.
cc: City Clerk of the City of Cypress (via email)
Mr. Peter Grant, City Manager (via email)
Mayor Scott Minikus, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Mayor Pro Tern Bonnie Peat, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member David Burke, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Anne Mallari, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Frances Marquez, Ph.D., City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Fred Galante, Esq., City Attorney, City of Cypress (via email) Mr. Carl W. Robertson, Jr., Warland Investments Company (via email) Ms. Hope Warschaw, Warland Investments Company (via email) Mr. Jim Brulte, California Strategies, LLC (via email)
Mr. John Withers, California Strategies, LLC (via email) Jeffrey S. Haber, Esq., Paul Hastings (via email)
Mr. Michael Nytzen, Paul Hastings (via email)
Lana H. Sammons, Esq. (via email)
{10864583.7}
Schedule 1
Site Plans (from March 7 letter)
J. _J L -
---·-·--l't:~
{10864583.7} Schedule 1
i i i -i-·T~,·
i i I
-1-~--+·
fl
/
/
1f
c:-
{10864583.7} Schedule 2
Schedule 2
Cumulative Site Plan
~
lWJlillllJllilf i
j • • - · -·
. . . .

ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CrTY
ii!!l.~··-- - ,.;.

APPUC~ REPRESENTATIVE
~ 5665 PLAZA
,1 (

SITE PLAN GEHEIIAL NOTES
Sill; PLAN GENERAL NOTES
___! t<»:;;:;.,:;_'"'I" :::::::'. i't~ ......... ,
l!,'7"1 :,.~~ ~ .. !~-
7 I
I
I
I
I
,..., ·~
&Ul<L
r
1 !
,.,.,. ----- - ~mnmn'ffmmn
Jilli.. .lllllill.U.illii:im1 !ll •
PLAZA
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I BLD
__J
< 2='-J' /?
I /
I ,tto: / C'"
t ....... .i 1 ~-..L...,,.1-~ •I I
~1 mm
jJ
i,. ·- ¥ DRIVE
r (
-~ ..,, - ,,...=. " PRQJECT DATA
···••--·•··
~~::::,;.: . .... ~
OFACIAL USE. ONLY
11\:111--.•"'·' 'ga .,.
1e,! at<t••l•1/!0;
..,,,,.n,,11e1,1
.. -, i.:~-.... , .. ,.

Owntr. •
Cons1.1• lt..1:1t!:
.. c.·•~- ,oc, ,u,,.,,
G-gi• =:;
,wen.;.,~·:;,:
•
0-DAB-Al.O
March 7, 2024
VIA EMAil, ( [email protected])
City Council of the City of Cypress
c/o City Clerk for the City of Cypress
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Direct Dial No.
(714) 384-4313
Email Address
aholcom [email protected]
Re: WarJand Investments Company and Affiliated Entities' Comments on Initial Study/MND for Goodman Commerce Center Expansion - 5665 Plaza Drive, Cypress, California; Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, §§ 15073 and 15105
Dear City Council Members:

This firm represents Warland Investments Company and affiliated entities (collectively, "Warland"), which is one of the largest landowners in the City of Cypress ("City"). Warland's local holdings consist of approximately 3 .5 million square feet of space within the Cypress Business Park ("Park"), which makes Warland the largest landowner within the Park by a significant margin. Warland maintains its long-standing investments in the City and feels strongly about bringing more high-quality businesses and jobs into the community of Cypress.

The City recently prepared an Initial Study ("Initial Study") and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND" and, collectively with the Initial Study, "IS/MND") in connection with the proposed redevelopment of 5665 Plaza Drive. This "Goodman Commerce Center" redevelopment project, initiated by GLC Cypress LLC ("Goodman"), consists of one (1) new primarily industrial facility located at 5665 Plaza Drive and a shared driveway with the two (2) new primarily industrial facilities under construction at 5757 Plaza Drive (the redevelopment of 5665 Plaza and 5757 Plaza is collectively referred to herein as "Goodman Commerce Center"). Additionally, the IS/MND indicates that the City proposes to amend the McDonnell Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses within the eastern portion of Planning Area 1 and to increase the maximum allowable square footage of Planning Area 1 of the Specific Plan.

Warland is an interested party by virtue of owning over two dozen properties located within a mile of Goodman Commerce Center, a number of which are located (a) within a ¼ mile of Goodman Commerce Center, and (b) at intersections located on Katella A venue and Valley View Drive, which will be heavily impacted by truck traffic entering and exiting Goodman Commerce Center due to proximity to the project.

Warland's numerous holdings in Cypress are depicted and described in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 attached hereto. In that capacity, Warland offers the comments below in response to the IS/MND for 5665 Plaza Drive dated February 2024.

While Warland has not had the opportunity to review in detail the materials submitted in connection with the IS/MND, Warland has significant concerns regarding the short and long-term impacts to air quality, traffic and noise in the Park and surrounding areas due to the proposed redevelopment of I! (714) 384-4300 f,,J www.garrettllp.com
Address: 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 850, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024
Page2
5665 Plaza Drive, particularly when these impacts are viewed cumulatively with the redevelopment of 5757 Plaza Drive (i.e., the entire Goodman Commerce Center). This letter outlines some of the high-level issues that Warland has noticed; however, please be aware that Warland expects to have additional comments.

Furthermore, it is clear to Warland that the City failed to prepare a thorough Initial Study and review the whole record in connection with Goodman Commerce Center, and as such, the City egregiously failed to satisfy CEQA, including, without limitation, by piecemealing multiple projects to avoid the preparation of an environmental impact report ("Effi"). This abuse of discretion by the City must be corrected through the preparation of a complete EIR of the entire Goodman Commerce Center, including an analysis of the proposed amendments to the McDonnell Specific Plan, and the implementation of a new CEQA review and comment period. A full analysis of the project as a whole, as CEQA requires, may identify impacts that need to be mitigated, or may not be able to be mitigated to a less that significant level.

A. PROJECT SUMMARY
On September 15, 2021, Goodman acquired 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive from the same party as a part of the same transaction. A copy of the Grant Deed is attached hereto as Schedule 3.

On September 17, 2021, the City approached Warland regarding the "Specific Plan Modernization" project, which was intended to replace all of the Specific Plans within the Park with a single Specific Plan.

On March 2, 2023, the City advised Warland of the proposed "Goodman Commerce Center" redevelopment of 5757 Plaza Drive (hereinafter, "5757 Redevelopment") by Goodman. Warland advised the City of certain concerns regarding the 5757 Redevelopment, including, without limitation, that the traffic study prepared by LSA Associates ("LSA") conducted as part of the CEQA process inaccurately stated that truck traffic generated from the property would be reduced by the 5757 Redevelopment, even though the 5757 Redevelopment would (i) increase warehouse space by 50% and truck doors by 67%, and (ii) applied assumed land use codes associated with a heavier truck use than the then-existing use of the property, which together would unquestionably increase the truck traffic generated from the property.

While the traffic study was then revised, such revised traffic study was not published until after the CEQA public review period (i.e., February 3-27, 2023) had expired. In addition, prior to the April 10, 2023 City Council meeting to approve the 5757 Redevelopment, Warland requested, in writing, that the City Council condition its approval of the 5757 Redevelopment on (I) a new traffic study being prepared by an independent third party; (2) a designated heavy truck route being routed via Katella Avenue to the 605 freeway to minimize the impacts of truck traffic on the three (3) office buildings located at the Plaza Drive and Valley View intersection, as well as the residential areas located off of Valley View; and (3) 3 L (i.e., third party logistics) uses being restricted. However, the City Council rejected Warland's mitigation requests and approved the 5757 Redevelopment in a 3-2 vote.

Less than four (4) months later, on August 2, 2023, the City advised Warland of a proposed "warehouse development" project at 5665 Plaza Drive by Goodman. The City did not indicate that the 5665 Plaza Drive redevelopment project (hereinafter, "5665 Redevelopment'') was related to the 5757 Redevelopment (i.e., what was then known as "Goodman Commerce Center''), nor did the City provide any explanation for why these applications were submitted separately.

The City approved a task order for LSA to prepare an environmental IS/MND for the 5665 Redevelopment. As an initial matter, the purpose of an Initial Study is to detennine whether a Negative Declaration ("ND"), an MND or an EIR is appropriate for a specific project. The fact that the { 10858844.1}
IP-1-
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024
Page3
City tasked LSA with preparing an Initial Study and MND concurrently indicates the City had predetermined that it would require an MND, which violates 14 CCR § 15063 and is inconsistent with CEQA. Neither the Planning Director's report recommending such approval nor the LSA task order indicated any connection between the 5665 Redevelopment and the 5757 Redevelopment.1 On September 11, 2023, WarJand delivered a letter to City Council stating that (I) 5665 Plaza Drive is located directly adjacent to 5757 Plaza Drive, (2) the parcels were acquired by Goodman on the same day as a part of the same transaction, and (3) per CEQA guidelines, the environmental studies for the 5665 Redevelopment must evaluate the cumulative impacts of the 5665 Redevelopment together with the 5757 Redevelopment. The City did not respond to Warland's letter; however, the letter was indirectly acknowledged via the City's website, which: (a) named the 5665 Redevelopment as "Goodman Commerce Center - Expansion", and (b) identified the building to be constructed in connection with the 5757 Redevelopment as "Building 3" (see attached Schedule 6; see also attached Schedule 7, which depicts the site plan for the 5757 Redevelopment, which labels the two (2) buildings to be constructed as "Building I" and "Building 2", respectively).

Per the City's current 6-month strategic plan (a partial copy of which is attached as Schedule 8), the Planning Director intended to propose the Specific Plan modernization plan to City Council at the February 28, 2024 City Council workshop.

B. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CEOA
The City failed to meet its requirements as a lead agency under CEQA because it failed to fairly conduct an Initial Study in advance of determining whether an ND, an MND or an BIR is necessary.

Instead, it predetermined (i.e., prior to conducting the Initial Study) that it was going to approve the 5665 Redevelopment with an MND. Further, the City failed to evaluate the actual cumulative impact of the entire Goodman Commerce Center (i.e., 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive) since it failed to (a) adequately define, and improperly piecemealed, the project; and (b) consider the foreseeable potential use of Goodman Commerce Center as a logistics center. The City further failed to satisfy CEQA's requirements by failing to prepare an EIR that accurately evaluates the cumulative impact of the entire Goodman Commerce Center (i.e., 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive), and failing to analyze the impacts of the proposed amendments to the McDonnell Specific Plan and/or the proposed "modernized" Specific Plan, which would ostensibly replace it.

1. Failure to Conduct a Thorough Initial Study and Require an Em As the lead agency for Goodman Commerce Center, the City is solely responsible for complying with CEQA and cannot rely on comments from other public agencies or private citizens as a substitute for its required diligence under CEQA.2 In its review of a project proposal, the lead agency must ensure that it receives a complete application and, while conducting its review for completeness, the agency must be alert for "environmental issues that might require preparation of an BIR or that may require additional explanation by the applicant".3 Any Initial Study must (a) consider all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation, and (b) contain a description of the project.4 Two key purposes of an Initial Study are to "(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether 1 The Planning Director's report to City Council and the LSA task order are available on the City's website at Planning Director Report (8/28/2023) and LSA Task Order. The Planning Director's report and the first page of the LSA task order are attached for reference as Schedule 4 and Schedule 5, respectively. 2 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15020. 3 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15060. 4 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15063. {10858844.l}
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024
Page4
to prepare an EIR or negative declaration" and "(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a pr~ject, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration."5 Unless, based on the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, in lieht of the whole record before a lead agency. the agency must prepare an EIR.6 An MND is only appropriate when:
"(1) [R]evisions to the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.7 (emphasis added)
The City requested LSA prepare an MND at the same time it asked LSA to prepare the Initial Study for the 5665 Redevelopment. It is therefore clear that the City never intended to use the Initial Study as required by CEQA, but instead predetermined that it would approve the 5665 Redevelopment with an MND regardless of the results of the Initial Study. In engaging in such a predetermination and failing to even consider the Initial Study's evaluation of a project's impacts of the on the environment, the City failed to comply with CEQA.

The City knew or should have known that Goodman intended to redevelop 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive as a cohesive project since (a) Goodman acquired both parcels on the same day as a part of the same transaction, and (b) the site plans for 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive published by the City identify the sites collectively as "Goodman Commerce Center" and the buildings located thereon as "Building I", "Building 2" (each of which appeared on the site plans for 5757 Plaza Drive) and "Building 3"(which appeared on the site plans for 5665 Plaza Drive).8 Also, the City approved the 5757 Redevelopment in April 2023, and then, less than four (4) months later, Goodman proposed a similar redevelopment project on the immediately adjacent parcel. Even assuming the City was unaware of the site plan for 5665 Plaza Drive when it approved the 5757 Redevelopment (unlikely, but assuming for present purposes), the City was quickly made aware of the much larger project (i.e., the entire "Goodman Commerce Center") upon receipt of the application to redevelop 5665 Plaza Drive. Further, Goodman is a global real estate developer who specializes in the development of logistics centers, and the design of the warehouses proposed to be constructed withln Goodman Commerce Center mirrors other Goodman logistics centers constructed in the State of California (see attached Schedule 9). Finally, the City received both public and private comments in connection with the projects alerting the City to the issues herein.

Therefore, the City knew or should have known of the potential use of the entire Goodman Commerce Center as a logistics center.

Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence of Goodman's plans with respect to the Goodman Commerce Center, the City approved the LSA task order for the Initial Study of the 5665 Redevelopment as a standalone prqject, blatantly removing a clearly related project and associated impacts from the scope of the Initial Study, resulting in an improperly narrow record. Put another way, the City failed to consider the full scope of Goodman Commerce Center projects in the Initial Study because it improperly piecemealed the redevelopments of 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive. The City similarly failed to consider the foreseeable use of Goodman Commerce Center as a logistics center 5 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ l5063(c)(l) and I5063(c)(2). 6 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15064. 7 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15070(b). 8 See Schedule 7.
{ 10858844.1 }
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024
Pages
( each such point is further discussed under paragraphs B.2 and B.3 below). The City is responsible for fairly evaluating the potential environmental impacts of projects within the City limits, as well as for reviewing, understanding, and presenting to the public the environmental effects of Goodman Commerce Center. The City's improper conduct of the Initial Study process means the City prevented itself from determining whether an BIR was required under CEQA. As such, the City erred in preparing the Initial Study and MND simultaneously for the 5665 Redevelopment and abused its discretion by failing to perform its duty as a lead agency under CEQA.

2. Failure to Properly Define "Project" and Improper Piecemealing CEQA defines a ''project" as "the whole of an action" which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that involves an activity that requires a governmental agency's entit]ement.9 Interpreting CEQA broadly, as intended by the California Legislature, the "project" to be evaluated by the City should have included:
(i) the 5757 Redevelopment, (ii) the 5665 Redevelopment, and (iii) the potential use of Goodman Commerce Center as a logistics center.

Submerging the cumulative environmental impact of a complete project by "chopping" it into pieces and presenting mutually exclusive environmental documenl'> can prevent a detailed EIR from being generated, leaving the public uninformed of the actual environmental impacts of a project. Improperly piecemealing a project is dangerous because the separate pieces may each have less-than-significant environmental impacts, but the overall project could present very significant, even disastrous, environmental impacts.10 Here, that danger was realized because the City, in viewing Goodman Commerce Center in separate parts, each entirely distinct from the other, did not evaluate the full, cumulative impact of the planned Goodman Commerce Center, which, had it been evaluated as required by CEOA, would have resulted in a further requirement to prepare an EIR.

3. Failure to Consider Foreseeable Potential Use as a Logistics Center Environmental studies prepared by a lead agency in connection with a redevelopment are intended to evaluate "past, present, and reasonably anticipated future" uses.11 Further, such reasonably anticipated future uses do not have to be permitted under current zoning regulations or otherwise formally approved by the deciding body to be evaluated as a potential future use. 12 The design of the buildings intended to
be constructed at Goodman Commerce Center mirrors the design of buildings at other logistics centers developed by Goodman in Califomia.13 In addition, the majority of Goodman's projects in California are logistics center (see attached Schedule 10). While Goodman's logistics centers average approximately 600,000 square feet, its non-logistics projects are considerably smaller, averaging approximately 95,000 square feet. The entire Goodman Commerce Center will consist of approximately 581,662 square feet, which is consistent with typical Goodman logistic center projects in California.

Further, Goodman's non-logistics projects each have less than 10 dock doors, while the entire Goodman Commerce Center is projected to have 75 dock doors (again, consistent with other Goodman logistics centers). Based on these facts, it is clear that the intent is to use Goodman Commerce Center as a logistics center. Unlike typical warehouses, logistics centers operate as distribution centers, with an extremely high volume of trucks traveling short distances and constantly loading and unloading product. Large logistics 9 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15378. 1
° Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area v. Cty. oflnyo, 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 165 (1985). 11 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15130. 12 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Re2ents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal. 3d 376,394 (1988). 13 See attached Schedule 9.
{10858844.l}
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024
Page6
centers can generate significant noise, congest local streets, contribute to excessive air pollution and potentially lower property values in the surrounding areas. Because the City is primarily residential, with some light industrial and office buildings located within the park, a logistics center could completely change the aesthetics, appeal and property values of the City.

While Goodman Commerce Center's foreseeable potential use as a logistics center is currently not permitted under the McDonnell Center Specific Plan, per the Specific Plan Modernization project, Goodman Commerce Center is intended to be subject to a new Specific Plan that anticipates the Planning Director having broad discretionary approvals with respect to the use of the properties subject to such Specific Plan. As such, the City cannot rely on current pennitted uses, or even those uses expressly permitted under the proposed modernized Specific Plan, in limiting the scope of its evaluation of the environmental impact of a project.

For the reasons set forth above, Goodman Commerce Center being used as a logistics center, which would likely involve an extremely high volume of trucks traveling throughout the Park, is reasonably foreseeable and CEQA requires that such a reasonably foreseeable use be taken into account for purposes of the environmental studies ordered by the City in connection with the 5665 Redevelopment. Taking into account that the 5665 Redevelopment is inextricably linked to the 5757 Redevelopment located next door, the City's failure to require an EIR to evaluate the entire Goodman Commerce Center runs afoul of CEQA. The same is true of the City's environmental evaluation of the 5757 Redevelopment. Although it was ultimately approved by the City Council, the MND prepared for 5757 Plaza Drive was grossly inadequate for purposes of evaluating the potential impact of the proposed project. The City should not exacerbate such failure by declining to require an EIR for the 5665 Redevelopment that evaluates the entire Goodman Commerce Center.

4. Failure to Analyze the Impacts of the Proposed Amendments to the McDonnell Specific Plan
The IS/MND indicates that the 5665 Redevelopment will require an amendment to the McDonnell Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses within the eastern portion of Planning Area 1 and an increase in the maximum allowable square footage of Planning Area 1. However, the IS/MND fails to include a description of the type and nature of these light industrial uses, as well as an analysis of the impacts resulting from such uses. And, while the Project Description section of the IS/MND indicates that the light industrial uses will be limited to the eastern portion of Planning Area 1, the Land Use and Planning section of the IS/MND states that the amendment would allow industrial uses within all of Planning Area

1. The IS/MND also fails to include any information concerning the amount of additional square footage proposed to be added to Planning Area 1, and fails to analyze the impacts of such additional square footage.

C. OBJECTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF MND FOR THE 5665 PLAZA DRIVE

REDEVELOPMENT
Even assuming, for present purposes, that the City did properly conduct and evaluate the Initial Study, the results of the MND, which treats the 5665 Redevelopment as a standalone project, are contradictory, inaccurate and/or based on false assumptions, and as such are not reliable for purposes of evaluating the actual impact of the project.
{ 10858844.J}
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024
Page7

1. Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Analysis dated January 11, 2024, prepared by Urban Crossroads under Reference No. 15593-05 TA Report for 5665 Plaza Drive ("Traffic Analysis")
a. Truck Distribution Map
Per the Traffic Analysis, there is one (1) existing driveway providing ingress/egress to and from 5665 Plaza Drive to a public right-of-way (i.e., Plaza Drive), which is identified in the Traffic Analysis as "Driveway 1". The Traffic Analysis recommends the construction of a 25' curb radius modification to the shared driveway between 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive, which will "acconnnodate the egress of heavy trucks" to Plaza Drive ("Driveway 2").

The anticipated distribution of the truck traffic to be generated by 5665 Plaza Drive is depicted in "Exhibit 4-1" (Project (Truck) Trip Distribution) ("Truck Distribution Map") attached to the Traffic Analysis, a copy of which is attached as Schedule 11. The Truck Distribution Map is incomplete, inaccurate and/or misleading in a number of respects, as follows:
i. It accounts for truck traffic anticipated to be generated by the 5665 Redevelopment but fails to account for trucks generated by the remainder of Goodman Commerce Center (i.e., 5757 Plaza Drive), which may exit via Driveway 1 and/or Driveway 2. ii. It assumes that 100% of the truck traffic generated by the 5665 Redevelopment will exit via Driveway 1, which fails to take into consideration the fact that truck traffic generated by the 5665 Redevelopment may utilize (a) Driveway 2, or (b) any of the three (3) driveways located solely on the remainder of Goodman Commerce Center. m. It contemplates that 80% of such truck traffic will exit 5665 Plaza Drive via Douglas Drive to Katella Avenue, and will then travel in the following directions: (a) 50% will travel west on Katella Avenue to the 605, and (b) 30% will travel east on Katella Avenue towards Va1ley View; however, it does not depict, nor does the Traffic Analysis address, what is anticipated to occur once the 30% of trucks travelling east arrive at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Valley View. Rather, the truck traffic appears to simply stop in the middle of Katella Avenue before reaching the intersection. As such, the Traffic Analysis does not disclose the total number of trucks anticipated to travel either north or south on Valley View towards the nearby residential areas. 14 iv. It contemplates that the remaining 20% of truck traffic will exit 5665 Plaza Drive and travel east on Plaza Drive towards Valley View, and that the entire 20% of truck traffic will tum left (i.e., north) on Valley View. In other words, the Traffic Analysis inexplicably assumes that no truck traffic generated by the 5665 Redevelopment wilJ travel south on Valley View (i.e., into a large residential area).

In light of the issues identified in subsections (i) - (iv) above, the Truck Distribution Map is missing critical information that CEQA requires the environmental studies assess and communicate to residents and business owners. Most critically, the Truck Distribution Map completely obscures the total amount of truck traffic that the residences located north and south on Valley View will be subjected to as a result of the 5665 Redevelopment. This is a clear violation of CEOA. 15 14 The corresponding exhibit in the Traffic Analysis for 5757 Plaza Drive (i.e., Exhibit 4-1) does not omit the same infonnation. See Schedule 11.
15 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15147.
{10858844.l}
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024

Page 8 ends

b. Daily Truck Trips
The Traffic Analysis contemplates 342 additional daily PCE16 truck trips being generated by the 5665 Redevelopment; however, because it (a) evaluates the additional daily truck trips generated by the 5665 Redevelopment as a standalone project rather than a part of entire Goodman Commerce Center, and (b) fails to contemplate the reasonably foreseeable use of the facilities within Goodman Commerce Center as a logistics center, the truck traffic count is inaccurate and likely significantly underestimates the number of truck trips to be generated by Goodman Commerce Center.

2. Section 4.3 - Air Quality
a. Analysis Fails to Address Impact of Refrigerated Trucks The MND contemplates high cube refrigerated storage, which will require the use of refrigerated trucks. Refrigerated trucks are considered heavily polluting vehicles due to their weight17 and the fact that, without sufficient electric hookups, their motors cannot be turned off without potential spoilage to their cargo. Further, a refrigerated truck running 8,000 hours per week can cause potential cancer risk for nearly 1,800 people per million living close to cold-storage warehouses.18 These issues increase potential impacts to air quality that are specific to the use of refrigerated trucks; however, the MND does not consider such impacts in its conclusions related to air quality. As such, the conclusions of the MND are incomplete, inaccurate and cannot be relied upon.
b. Analysis Fails to Evaluate Off-Site Impacts
The localized air quality impacts analysis in the MND only includes on-site sources.19 CEQA requires the evaluation of all significant environmental effects related to a project, including off-site impacts if they are reasonably foreseeable.20 Given the location of Goodman Commerce Center in the center of the Park, and less than a half mile from highly populated residential areas (including at least one public elementary school)21, as well as the foreseeable use of the project as a logistics center, off-site impacts of the project (in particular, related to the substantially increased truck traffic) are reasonably foreseeable. As such, the MND should have analyzed the air quality impact of the off-site vehicle trips (including truck trips), but it failed to do so, so the conclusions of the MND are incomplete, inaccurate and/or cannot be relied upon.
c. Cumulative Effects
The Ml\1D recognizes that vehicle trips associated with the proposed project will contribute to traffic congestion within the intersections and along the roadway segments nearby, which increases the carbon monoxide pollution in these areas. As a general matter, redevelopment projects require an evaluation of study area intersections or roadway segment levels of service if the proposed project is 16 "PCE" means "passenger car equivalent". In a traffic study, PCE is used to convert the impact of a vehicle, such as a truck, into the equivalent of a passenger car on traffic flow. 17 Refrigerated trucks typically weigh 43,000 - 45,000 lbs (https://www.atsinc.com/blog/legal-axle-weight-limitscommercial-trucks-explained) 18 Health Analyses {ca.gov)
19 Page 4.3-10 of the MND.
20 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15130. 21 The location of Goodman Commerce Center and the areas surrounding it are depicted in attached Schedule 1. {10858844.1}
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024
Page9
anticipated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak trips.22 The 5665 Redevelopment, as a standalone project, does not meet the criteria for the carbon monoxide evaluation at the roadway segment levels of service, so the MND concludes that the additional traffic resulting from the 5665 Redevelopment alone will not create a significant adverse impact - however, the MND does not consider the cumulative impact of the entire Goodman Commerce Center, nor the impact of the foreseeable use of the project for logistics purposes. Because those cumulative impacts were not taken into consideration, the threshold for triggering a more detailed evaluation of the carbon monoxide pollution was not met and the resulting conclusions in the MND are likely incomplete, inaccurate and cannot be relied upon.

3. Section 4.8 - Greenhouse Gas ("GHG") Emissions
As an initial matter, the analysis in the MND regarding GHG emissions relies on the trip generation estimates set forth in the Traffic Analysis, which are incomplete, inaccurate and cannot be relied upon. As such, the conclusions regarding the GHG emissions in the MND are also incomplete, inaccurate, and cannot be relied upon. In any event, there are several issues with the conclusions of the MND related to GHG emissions as described below.
a. Results Fail to Meet "Less than Significant" Emissions Per the MND, the SCAQMD has determined that a project will have "less than significant" GHG emissions if it will result in operational-related GHG emissions of less than 3,000 MT CO2e per year.23 The MND further states the 5665 Redevelopment is anticipated to result in 3,191.6 MT CO2e per year, which number exceeds the SCAQMD threshold, as specified in the MND. The MND then incorrectly concludes that there is a less than significant impact because the net increase of such GHG emissions is 2,532.1 MT COze per year (i.e., less than the 3,000 threshold). The SCAQMD threshold utilized in the MND is based on total GHG emissions, not the net increase, so the MND should have included a more detailed review of GHG emissions in accordance with the SCAQMD thresholds referenced in the MND. b. Analysis Fails to Evaluate Off-Site Impacts
The analysis also fails to clearly evaluate the effects of off-site GHG emissions. As stated above, CEQA requires the evaluation of all significant environmental effects related to a project, including offsite impacts that are reasonably foreseeable.24 Given the location of Goodman Commerce Center in the center of the Park (and less than a half mile from highly populated residential areas, including at least one public elementary school), as well as the foreseeable use of the project as a logistics center, the off-site impacts of GHG emissions are reasonably foreseeable. As such, the MND should have analyzed the impact of the off-site GHG emissions.

C. Conclusions Based on Inaccurate Assumptions
Per our comments above, the MND was prepared assuming that the 5665 Redevelopment is separate from the 5757 Redevelopment (i.e., it improperly piecemeals the entire Goodman Commerce Center), and it does not contemplate the use of Goodman Commerce Center for logistics purposes. Because those assumptions were inaccurate, the conclusions are also inaccurate. 22 Page4.3-9 oftheMND.
23 Page 4.8-4 of the 5665 Plaza Drive MND. 24 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15130. {10858844.1}
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024

Page 10 ends

4. Section 4.9 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 4.9(b) of the MND analyzes whether the project will 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. It concluded there would be a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. However, the MND failed to provide a single recommended mitigation measure, and further concluded that no mitigation was required.25 The MND therefore failed to eliminate significant impacts on the environment and CEQA requires that in such cases an EIR must be prepared.

5. General Failure to Adequately Evaluate Cumulative Impacts The conclusions made in the MND are based on comparing the proposed project (i.e., the 5665 Redevelopment, which contemplates the construction of a 191,394-square-foot industrial warehouse building) to the existing office building. The analysis should instead draw conclusions based on the cumulative impact of Goodman Commerce Center (i.e., 581,662-square-foot logistics facilities) and not simply the variance between the existing office building and a single proposed warehouse building located at 5665 Plaza Drive. The pervasive failure of the MND to evaluate these cumulative impacts falls well short of CEQA' s mandate.

Further, the cumulative development tables identified as Tables 4-5 and 4-6 in the Traffic Analysis, which tables are attached hereto as Schedule 12, note the cumulative impact of the 5665 Redevelopment and other nearby developments, but (i) the cumulative impact analysis does not identify the cumulative truck traffic (let alone refrigerated trucks), and (ii) despite the majority of the parcels neighboring 5665 Plaza Drive being used for industrial purposes, the tables largely contemplate the cumulative effects of the 5665 Redevelopment together with residential, office, hotel and retail projects. The only industrial project identified is 5757 Plaza Drive (i.e., the remainder of Goodman Commerce Center). In any event, evaluating only the cumulative number of total vehicles generated by Goodman Commerce Center rather than the cumulative environmental impacts generated Goodman Commerce Center falls considerably short of the requirements of CEQA.

D. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Neighboring commercial and residential owners are entitled to clear, accurate and unambiguous information regarding the actual environmental effects of the proposed Goodman Commerce Center (i.e., 5665 Plaza Drive and 5757 Plaza Drive), including, without limitation, the amount and effect of the truck traffic (including refrigerated truck traffic) to be generated thereby, including if the same is used as a logistics center as designed.26 These parcels are located in the center of the Park, which is otherwise used for light industrial and office; without an accurate environmental impact report, it is difficult to know what mitigation would be appropriate to address the additional congestion, noise and air pollution that will likely result from the operation of the planned 581,662-square-foot logistics facilities. As an initial step, CEQA requires that the City base its determination of the project's potential environmental impacts on accurate reports. Warland has no doubt that properly prepared reports will determine that a full EIR must be completed that includes evaluation of the cumulative environmental impact of the entire Goodman Commerce Center and its likely use as a logistics center. 25 Page 4.9-3 of the 5665 Plaza Drive l'v1ND. 26 Cal. Code Regs. tit 14, § 15002. {10858844.1}
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024

Page 11 ends

A full analysis of the project as a whole, as CEQA requires, may identify impacts that need to be mitigated, or may not be able to be mitigated to a less that significant level.

Warland reserves all rights and remedies associated with Goodman Commerce Center, the MND, the Traffic Analysis and the analysis and conclusions presented therein.

Regards,
~ J1?:ic<Jf~~~
Encs.
cc: Mayor Scott Mirukus, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Mayor Pro Tern Bonnie Peat, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member David Burke, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Anne Mallari, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Frances Marquez, Ph.D., City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Ms. Alicia Velasco, Planning Director, City of Cypress (via email) Mr. Peter Grant, City Manager, City of Cypress (via email) Mr. Carl W. Robertson, Jr., Warland Investments Company (via email) Ms. Hope Warschaw, Warland Investments Company (via email) Mr. Jim Brulte, California Strategies, LLC (via email)
Mr. John Withers, California Strategies, LLC (via email) Mr. Michael Nytzen (via email)
Jeffrey S. Haber, Esq. (via email)
Lana H. Sammons, Esq. (via email)
{ I 0858844.1}
Schedule 1
Map of Cypress - Goodman Commerce Center
{10858844.1}
Schedule 2
Warland's Cypress Properties

1. 10800 - 10850 Valley View, Cypress, CA 16. 6261 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA

2. 10803 Hope Street, Cypress, CA 17. 5900 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA

3. 6100 Chip A venue, Cypress, CA 18. 5660 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA

4. 10874 Hope Street, Cypress, CA 19. 6251 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA

5. 10824 Hope Street, Cypress, CA 20. 6021 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA

6. 6300 Gateway Drive, Cypress, CA 21. 10900 Valley View, Cypress, CA

7. 6200 Gateway Drive, Cypress, CA 22. 6161-6181 Chip Avenue, Cypress, CA

8. 10600 Valley View, Cypress, CA 23. Cypress Plaza Shopping Center, Cypress, CA

9. 6101 Gateway Drive, Cypress, CA 24. Warland Business Park, Cypress, CA

10. 11411 Valley View, Cypress, CA 25. Gateway Ill, Cypress, CA

11. 10700 Valley View, Cypress, CA 26. 6141 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA

12. 6100 Gateway Drive, Cypress, CA 27. 5710, 5740, 5770 Warland Drive, Cypress, CA

13. 5560 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA 28. 111 37 Warland Drive, Cypress, CA

14. 5700 Warland Drive, Cypress, CA 29. 11240 Warland Drive, Cypress, CA

15. 11331 Valley View, Cypress, CA 30. 5730 Katella Avenue, Cypres~, CA { I 0858844.1}
{l 0858844. I}
Schedule3
Goodman Deed

CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY

COMMERCIAL DIVISION '
RECORDING REQUESTED BY '.AND WHEN
RECORDED RE'IlJRN TO:

Sherry MeyerhoffHanson & Crance LLP
520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Attention: Kyle Bennion, Esq.

MAIL TAX STATEMENTS ro:

GLC Cypress LLC
18201 Von Karman A venue, Suite 1170
Irvine, CA 92612
Attn: Accounts Payable
- 9
Recorded in Official Records, Orange County
ttigh Nguyen, Clerk-Recorder
I Im ll~M 111 1 1 1111 1 1 ~ II II Ill llllllll llll Ill I l l Ill 4s. oo •SR001317035,S•
2021000575922 3:39 pm 09/15121
156 403A G02 7 19
70549.33 70549.32 20.000.0018.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 (Space abo-e th/3 (int fer kcorder'J we}
The undersigned Grantor declares:

Documentary transfer tax is $141,098.65 . l!I Computed on full value of the interest or property conveyed, or D Computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale D Unincorporated Area fig City of Cypress
Parcel No.:: 241-JOJ-25 and 241-101-26

GRANTDEED
FOR V ALUABI..E CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, G&l IX CYPRESS CAMPUS LP, a Delaware limited partnership, hereby grants to GLC CYPRESS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the real property located in the City of Cypress, County of Orange, State of California, described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

This Deed is made and accepted subject to:
(i) general real estate taxes not yet due and payable;
(ii) rights of parties in possession;
(iii) all matters of record; and
(iv) all matters that are discoverable by means of an accurate survey or inspection of the real property or by making inquiry of parties in possession. [The remainder of this page is blank.]
{ I 0858844.1}
Executed as of this _J_ day of 5-t-p/-t4 b-(2021.
08S7SI02SA\9047910
GRANWR: G&I IX CYPRESS CAMPUS LP,
a Delaware limited partnership
By: G&l IX Cypress Campus Partner LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
:~,~
Name: Andrew PeHz
Title: Vice President
{Signature Page to Grant Deed}
{10858844.1}

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attac~ and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATEOF Oro ) ~t\L
ss:

COUNTY OF{)ri{ )@/l.

Or(}~ . 9 . 2021, before me, ,..::::,:'.X=::~~;;u~~:i+.1~ ::::::....-:----,-----~ a Notary Public in and for I State, penonally appeared ....1:.-1-i . ...u..J '--'=---'-"--'-::i.,;,'-I..C{-'-.---' who proved to me on the basis of satisfilctory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are ibed to the within instrU!llent and acknowledged to me that htlshe/lhey executed the smne in his/her/their authorized capaoity(ies), and that by his/hei-/lheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrwneot.

I c«tify wider PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Sta1e ~f I '.JZ'.{J 2~P~ the for~going paragraph is true and com~ct. -
WITNESS my hll1ld and official seat 1/-.. ~. . Signature: l'~J~J ij ID u}£D 08$1.MHA\9047010
SUSAN fATTORUSSO
Notary Public. State ot New York
No. 01F1\6021152 ' •. Qualttied in Kings Coun\'/,-,t"\ <1:?' .: Commission \:xpires March 8, _<:N =..=__;..._J_, ·'---=-----· •
(Seal)
{10858844.1 }
II GOVERNMENT CODE 27361. 7

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE NOTARY SEAL ON THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS STATEMENT IS ATTACHED READS AS FOLLOWS:

Name of the Notary:, ___ 5µ""'---",$'--atA.- __ "&vf1:.....__~""""""()a..:.y-'-tA_ 7.> "--=-_0 ______ _ Commission Number: OI 6,4(atJ,,;.fl% Date Commission Expires: 3-J'-µ;,,2-3 County Where Bond Is Filed: /4.l'f'l"J,S (1o,.1.;t.J" 5tt1:1l:Cvf µ~ "'/4,L Manufacturer or Vendor Number:, __ ~,J"----¥'/A: ....:..... ___________ _ (Located on both sides of the notary seal border)
Signature:, __ ____,<.,.d,=.c.4L-<~""'~c.=~<w::zc.4..___./4=---·----------- FirmName (if applicable) Place of Execution:,_..,:,;""~"" . c.::..:_-3:/):..J, .... •$,,.,io~----Oate:._ C/ ...._J_~_ ;µ. _ ~_/ __ _ {10858844.1 }

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS,

IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL A: APN: 241-101 -25
PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL 2000-03 RECORDED AUGUST 30, 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 200000453704,OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EXCEPTING FROM A PORTION OF SAID LAND ALL COAL, CHEMICALS,

PETROLEUM, OIL, GAS, ASPHALTIJM AND OTIIER HYDROCARBONS AND ALL MINERALS. METALS AND MINERAL ORES, WHETHER SIMILAR TO THOSE HEREIN SPECIFIED OR NOT. OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER NOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR

HEREAFTER DISCOVERED UPON, WITHIN OR UNDERLYING SAID LAND, TOGETHER WlTH THE EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETIJAL RIGHT OF THE GRANTEE, ITS

SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, OF INGRESS AND EGRESS BENEATH TIIE SURFACE

OF SAID LAND TO EXPLORE FOR, EXTRACT, MINE AND REMOVE TIIB SAME AND TO MAKE SUCH USE OF SAID LAND BENEATH THE SURFACE AS lS NECESSARY OR

USEFUL IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, WHICH USE MAY INCLUDE LATERAL OR

SLANT DRILLING, DIGGING, BORING OR SINKING OF WELLS, SHAFTS, TUNNELS OR onrnR METHODS, TOGETHER wrrn THE FUTURE EXCLUSIVE AND

PERPETUAL RIGHT OP THE GRANTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, TO MAKE

SUCH USE OF SAJD LAND AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO STORE, KEEP, DEPOSIT

AND/OR REMOVE ALL COAL, CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM, OIL, GAS, ASPHAL TUM

AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND ALL MINERALS, METALS AND MINERALS ORES, WHETHER SIMILAR TO THOSE HEREIN SPECIF1ED OR NOT, OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER NOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR HEREAFTER DISCOVERED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER., THAT THE GRANTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, SHALL NOT USE THE SURF ACE OF SAID LAND ABOVE A FIVE ~l)RED FOOT

DEPTH IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY OF SAID RIGHTS AS GRANTED TO CONSOLIDATED PAClFIC INVESTMENT COMPANY, BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 29, 1959, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 14208, IN BOOK 4567, PAGE 496, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING FROM A PORTION OF SAID LAND, ALL MINERALS AND ALL

MINERAL RIGHTS OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER NOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR

HEREAYT'ER DISCOVERED UNDERLYING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITING THE GEh"ERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, OIL AND GAS RIGHTS THERETO,

TOGETHER WITH THE SOLE, EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL RIGHT TO EXPLORE

FOR, REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF SAID MINERALS BY ANY MEANS OR METHODS SUITABLE TO ORANTOR., ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, BUT WITHOUT

ENTERING UPON OR USING THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY, AND IN SUCH A-1
{ I 0858844. I}

MANNER AS NOT TO DAMAGE THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY, OR TO

INTERFERE WITII THE USE THEREOF AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED BY UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED JULY 28, 2000, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20000396720,0F OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL B: APN: 241-101-26
PARCEL 3, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OP ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL 2000-03 RECORDED AUGUST 30, 2000 AS INSTRUMb"NT NO. 200000453704, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EXCEPT TIIEREFROM A PORTION OF SAID LAND ALL COAL, CHEMICALS,

PETROLEUM, OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND ALL

MINERALS, METALS AND MINERAL ORES, WHETHER SIMILAR TO THOSE HEREIN

SPECIFIED OR NOT, OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER NOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR HEREAFfER DISCOVERED UPON, WITIIIN OR UNDERLYING SAID LAND,

TOGETIIER WITH THE EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL RIGHT OF THE GRANTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS, OR INGRESS A.'"ID EGRESS BENEATH THE

SURFACE OF SAID LAND TO EXPLORE FOR, EXTRACT, MINE AND REMOVE THE

SAME AND TO MAKE SUCH USE OF SAID LAND BENEATH THE SURFACE AS IN NECESSARY OR USEFUL IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, Wl-llCH USE MAY INCLUDE LATERAL OR SLANT DRILLINO, DIGGING, BORING OR SlNKlNG OF WELLS, SHATT$, TUNNELS OR OTHER METHODS, TOGETIIER WITH TI-IE FURTHER

EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL RIGHT OF THE GRANTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR

ASSIGNS, TO MAKE SUCH USE OF SAID LAND AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO STORE,

KEEP, DEPOSIT AND/OR REMOVE ALL COAL, CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM, OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND ALL J\.,ONERALS, METALS AND

MINERAL ORES, WHETHER SIMILAR TO THOSE HEREIN SPECIFIED OR NOT OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER NOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR HEREAFfER

DISCOVERED, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE GRANTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS OR

ASSIGNS, SHALL NOT USE THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND ABOVE A FIVE HUNDRED

FOOT DEPTH IN THE EXERCISE-OF ANY SAID RIGHTS AS GRANTED TO CONSOLIDATED PACIFIC INVESTMENT COMPA."i>,!Y, BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 29, 1959 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 14208, IN BOOK 4567, PAGE 496, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING FROM A PORTION OF SAID LAND ALL MINERALS AND ALL MINERAL RIGHTS OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACI"ER NOW KNOWN TO EXIST OR

HEREAFTER DISCOVERED UNDERLYING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, OlL AND GAS RIGHTS THERETO, TOGETHER WITH IBE SOLE, EXCLUSlVE AND PERPETUAL RIGHT TO EXPLORE FOR, REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF SAID MINERALS BY AJ\TY MEANS OR METHODS

SUIT ABLE TO GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, BUT WITHOUT

ENTERING UPON OR USING THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY AND IN SUCH

MANNER AS NOT TO DAMAGE THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY, OR TO INTERFERE WITH THE USE TIIEREOF AS EXCEPTED A.'11D RESERVED BY UNION A-2
0SS?S\025:\\9047910
{10858844.l}
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED JULY 28, 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 200000396720, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCELC:

A RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PURPOSES OF INGRESS, EGRESS, DRIVEWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES OVER A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 84-1113,

IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OP CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 191, PAGES 3 THROUGH 5 INCLUSIVE, OF

PARCEL MAPS, IN IBE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AS

SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT OF RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 11, 1986 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86-057178, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

A-3
08S75\02.1A'60.'1910
{I 0858844. I}
Schedule 4
Planning Director's City Council Report
~y --~d-!
City Col.J'lcil Regular

CITY OF CYPRESS

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FROM: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
DATE: 08/28/2023
ltem#6.

SUBJECT: Approve a Task Order for an Environ mental Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration for a Warehouse Development at 5665 Plaza Drive

RECOMMENDATION
Apprwe a $65,100 task order with LSA for the preparation of an Environmental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative De<:laration at 5665 Plaza Drive.

DISCUSSION
GLC Cypress LLC (Goodman Group) has applied to redevelop 5665 Plaza Drive. The proposal includes demolishing a vacant 150,000 square bot office building and constructing a new 190,000 square foot warehouse. The property is located in the McDonnell Centec Specific Plan and was originally developed as an office for Mitsubishi.

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Is reqLAred to analyze the project for any potential environmental impacts and lo determine applicable mitigation measures that could be included as conditioos of approval. II is anticipated the entitlement application(s) and lhe IS/MND will be presented to the City Council in January 2024.

LSA is one of the City's orxall plaming firms and has extensive elq)erience in preparing this type of analysis; therefore, it is recommended LSA prepare the 1$/MND. It is the Ci1y's practice to manage LSA's work while the applicant reimburses all associated costs.

BUDGET IMPACT
The applicant Is required D deposit the cost of the task order with the City before the study is l~tiated. Unexpended amounts at the conclusion of the analysis Qf any) will be refunded to the applicant. The applicant is also required to pay project application fees which offset City costs to adminlster the task order.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.
6'29''2) Hll'M
APPROVED Peter Granl City Manager
BY:

Attachments
LSA Task Order
Vicinity Map
{10858844.1}
LSA
July 31, 2023
Alicia Velasco
Planning Director
City of Cypress
S275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Schedule 5
LSA Task Order (Cover Page Only)
CARLS8AD
CLOVIS
IRVIN£

LOS ANGELES

PAIMSPRINGS
PO!NT RICHMOND

RIVERSIOI'

ROSEVILU
SAN LUIS 081SPO
Subject: Proposal for Completion of an Environmental Document and Technical Analysis for the 5665 Plaza Drive Warehouse Project
Dear Ms. Velasco:
lSA is pleased to respond to the Oty of Cypress (City) request for a proposal to prepare an environmental document and associated technical documentation for the proposed 5665 Plaza Drive Warehouse Project (project). The attached proposal is based on LSA's understanding of the project, the firm's knowledge of Cypress and local issues, and LSA's experience in preparing environmental documents that are similar in scope and nature to this project. The work would be completed under LSA's contract with the City to provide on-call environmental consulting services.

Ryan Bensley will act as Principal in Charge and Matthew Wiswell will serve as Project Manager for this task order. Mr. Bensley and Mr. Wiswell have extensive experience managing the preparation of environmental documents for the Oty, including recent experience on the Goodman Commerce Center IS/MND, which involved the development of two new warehouse buildings in the Cypress Business Park. Mr. Bensley also recently managed the preparation of the 5701 Kate Ila Avenue Parking Structure IS/MND Addendum for the City, which included the development of a five-story parking structure to serve a nearby office building in the Cypress Business Park.

It is LSA's philosophy to prepare proposals that represent the real work effort that will be required and, with that, a realistic budget If LSA's proposal is accepted, upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed, the firm is prepared to move forward with completing the Scope of Work outlined in this proposal as soon as possible in accordance with a project schedule that is agreed upon with the City.

Should you require further information or have any questions regarding the enclosed materials, please do not hesitate to contact me at Mr. Bensley at (714) 926-9283 or [email protected]., or Mr. Wiswell at (510) 236-6810 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
LSA Associates, Inc.

Principal in
~-Charge ~
Attachment : Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Document and Technical Studies 3210 El tamino Real, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92602 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net Schedule 6
Site Plan for 5665 Plaza Drive
~ --~---~ 1~: / ci.f 1111~11"11i!iitftuiii1L; -· ••
~ ~ i . . .t . 1 i g~ 1 ' " !
: • • T .. ; t
. ·~- ,. .
l ... ,,.. ,- ' .. ! • "' :;·ti-,. ~ .;~- ..... ~ .._ ~;., ~-- ··• \I • --• ,
• -~ . .I •·
L i •• ...

I • ' ' •• • ' • ;;ll i ;~ : .
<· . i : \ ~ • .. 1
.1m_!pifi:1i1u,m1io . . . . , . f i_ -2:'111tl9 l 1U1 1-----------.: ~ ·--- .., {10858844.l}
Schedule 7
Site Plan for Goodman Commerce Center
{10858844.l}
WM!N

1. At1heMarch 25, 2024 aty Camel
meeting

2. N. lhe January 22, 2024 City Council
meo11ng

3. At the Janua,y 29,
2024 City Council
meeting
~- At 11'-.e f etH'ua,'( 26,
2024 City Counc:11
--p
{ I 0858844.J}
Schedule 8
6-Month Strategic Plan

CITY OF CYPRESS
&IX-MONTH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE&
October 2023 - March 2024

MAINTAIN FINANCIAL STABILITY AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

WHO WHAT STATUS
--- T <lN_ - ·--
FiMnee 0kecwr Reeorrrnend options !or Pension Trust assets to flJUy ofl'Mt X CelPERS unfunded actuarlel pension liabilities by 2030 to the City Council.

Planning Oireaor Recol'Tl'Tlend an agreement for the Hewing Element Implementation public OU!reacn plan 10 Ille City Council X
Plannl.ng Director Rocommend the 8&COnd phase of disposition ol 5732 X Uneoln Ave. to Che CityCOYnciL
P1ann,ng 0 1rect01 Pr"<erll t~e CYI)(-0uo,,,_ Par~ Sc,ec,frc Pion X "10dem1ZQ1i0n pl_.n 10 t~ City Counol

COMMENTS
Schedule 9
Examples of Goodman Logistics Centers
Fullerton

GLO FULLERTON

SITE PLAN
BI.ILDING2 538.226t<ft
Clo,,,'holp>t 40'
Olllce 6,Wtjt
......,.....q,n 6,IZlaql\
11e...-(S) 6.12:lqt
C..-parl<,rc 412
Oook--. Q9
r,....,po,1cr,g 15.,,i~
8UILOING3 487,03$ t<ft
()earfl<'.;!,I 4(:J
Ol1l:,e 6.T43oql\
~IN) 6.64SO'l!\
Mowww,ets) 6);43e:ifl
C...pat1q 422
Dock- l!Q
T,-~ 70 .....

BU!I.DlllG • 1_73.82$ _<qfl
Cleat""'i111 :.5·
Office 6.743•oft
Mouw,no 6.&13•q#I
°"""'""' "13
Oookdo<n 23
T,ue,l)lrl<ir,g 34ltllls
Rancho Cucamonga
J:,
l
I
-'I
-·
_J L ·---- --------------
. - ~~A 11111111111111111111111111111 I II II Ill I Ill I II I 1111111111111111 11111111111 i. :,II ~· ~
,.. ;:-= n _, __ .111
I ~
0 ~ 11 IA
I I~ I I- >- ,--
~, ~ '- I
~:! u I ... ~
' • c;; I=~ """'"' '11 1111111111111 1111111111-1111111111 1111 I fb "l §
• - -
i
I
i r
{10858844.)}
. ~ - .I". l,~ .... --
,.. ~ I
J
f
I m 12 I i . .,, ",., I
I I
I • ...
-H
HIIJ
l
r
[
)
Ir
. (
'
' rL
J
.
-..
~
0 ufl
~i
fn~~'m'ii~ ~r
"-tr--,........ ___ _..11
I
Fontana
PLAN+

GOODMAN LOGISTICS CENTER FONTANA
'!'r <• ' .,...,
~· U:t,Q)"""-
El Monte

GLCELMONTE
BUILDING 2
tlUILDIN(U,AEA ··-·~ ... --~"'' .
{ I 0858844.1 }
$4,e,)T&qft
\l!OOSQ!l
28 29
63 ,000,, 217/48CN
3P4WMnioo
IT
~ -- - •- - • ---·-·-•-..c;.:tl.l)R-ls.s-AV>5N~I ---~-•- - - - - - - i
I
I
i
i
Eastvale

GOO EASTVALE

SITE PLAN
PllOl'£SITY DETAl.3

INOUSTRIAL
IIUI.DINQI

IHOUIITRIAL
8Ul.l>ING2

INDUSTRIAL
IIUII.DINQ l

IIUSINEBSPARK

RETAIL/
OOMMl:AOIAL
Rew!Padl
8utirc
RAllallPad7
a.-.

RGl>,!Pad3
~
fUX
ll<oldo,wtl

9.ti'11 f4
Buotlore w;
e.-.11
~11
■ Gl$NESSPARK/Fl.EX
■ INDUSTRIAL
RHAl.
$ RETALAOC£SS
{I 0858844.1}
L(AS[l)
l.£ASED

1.£\S[D
L.EA8ED
NOW

AVAILABLE
!9.400Mtt
BOODO<tt

14.0000<tl
20,0000<tt

24.0000<tt
'2:l.000,qtl
NOW

AVAILABLE
6S.4231Qft

68.423oct\
68Jll61ctt
30J;48tqft
31UCJO,<tt
.. .... fl
"'•\ .. IULIIMI aeon l
• •, , ,_____________ :
• E ~ -.;iiilll~ t--~~--•
!:,~ ; i .. --
~ iff I .'·Liu ~(:~ '"- - ·-= " . l ~ i • .,,. .:_: . _ .;.;iiiiiid~ • ... .. • ---·
Schedule 10
Goodman California Projects
Property Name Address Approximate
Type Souare Feet
Logistics Goodman Logistics Center 12588 Florence Ave. 403,635 - Center Santa Fe Springs Santa Fe Springs, CA 1,205,366
Logistics Goodman Logistics Center 10840 Norwalk Blvd 99,846 Center Santa Fe Springs Building Four Santa Fe Springs, CA Logistics Goodman Industrial Center 144 20 Bloomfield Ave. 91,192 Center Bloomfield Santa Fe Springs, CA
Logistics Goodman Gateway 12801 Excelsior Drive 989,806 Center Santa Fe Springs Santa Fe Springs, CA
Logistics Goodman Industrial Center Napoleon 180-200 & 25-299 25,071- Center Napoleon St. San Francisco, 50,925
CA
Logistics Goodman Commerce Center Long 2401 E. Wardlow Road 300,000 - Center Beach Long Beach, CA 1,300,000
Logistics Goodman Logistics Center Fullerton 2099 E. Orangethorpe Ave., 173,825 - Center Fullerton, CA 1,536,055
L.ogistict,; Goodman Logistics Center 4300 Shirley Ave. 1,235,443 Center El Monte El Monte, CA
Logistics Goodman Logistics Center Fontana I 11188 Citrus Avenue 639,473 Center Fontana, CA
Logistics Goodman Logistics Center 10985 Oleander Ave. 1,628,936 Center Fontana II Fontana, CA 92337
Logistics Goodman Logistics Center 11010 Juniper Ave. 1,118,460 Center Fontana ill Fontana, CA 92337
Logistics Goodman Commerce Center 4841 West San Fernando 620,001 Center Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90039
Logistics Goodman Logistics Center 8600 Etiwanda Ave. & 1,589,948 Center Rancho Cucamonga 12521 Arrow Route
Rancho Cucamonira, CA
Logistics Goodman Industrial Center 1256 N. Magnolia Ave. 143,248 Center Anaheim Anaheim 92801
Logistics Goodman Logistics Center 2517 Rosecrans Ave. 102, 150 Center Compton Los Angeles, CA
{ I 0858844.1}
Business Goodman Commerce Center Adjacent to I-J 5 between 3,263,495 Park, Eastvale Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road
Logistics and Bellegrave Avenue
Center Retail Eastvale, CA, USA
TBD Goodman Commerce Center 5665 & 5757 Plaza Drive 581,662 Cypress Cypress, CA 90630
Business Park Goodman Innovation Center 200-450 Harbor Blvd 2,363 - 40,809 Belmont Belmont. CA
Flex Goodman Innovation Center 540-550 N. Oak Street I 14,357 Industrial Inglewood Inglewood, CA
Flex Goodman Commerce Center 1755 Rollins Road 83,674
Industrial Burlingame Burlingame, CA 94010
Industrial Goodman Industrial Center I 166 Arroyo Ave. 93,160 Arroyo San Fernando, CA
Industrial Goodman Industrial Center 1300 West Taft Avenue 120.000 Taft Orange,CA
Land Goodman Industrial Center 2270 Jerrold Ave. 154,204 San Francisco San Francisco, CA
Storage Goodman Industrial Center 1236 North Magnolia 119,792 Anaheim Trailer Parking & Storage Avenue
Site Anaheim, CA
{] 0858844.1}
Schedule 11
Traffic Distribution Depictions
a. 5665 PLAZA DRIVE Truck Distribution
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (TIIUCK) TRIP OISTR16UTION
- ·- ..... -... .. - . ' . . ···-~-~ . I
~
I
!stt•--
I .- . r:x.1 - ,,.._ ___ _.,,_,_,.:... · "-'-------
so-----
0 .i
1 <l
10 = P1mint T~/From PIO}ld
30 b. 5665 PLAZA DRIVE PASSENGER CAR Distribution
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (PASSENGER CAR)TAIP 01SlRl8UTION
I !j I q,~---
1 ;..
... !Q:;,,.-..... _,__ __ ___.;.....:;._ ____ ...-__ _
50---
20 10 = P8rt~nt To/from Pf'o~ct
{ I 0858844.1 }
c. 5757 PLAZA DRIVE Truck Distribution
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJ£CI' (TRUCK) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
,,.
{10858844.1}
In
...
t------'IS
Schedule 12
5665 Plaza Drive - Cumulative Development Map and Tables EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
Sile _JTABLE 4-5: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARV No. Project Name
C1 Cypress Town Center 7-AC Residential
C2 The Square
C3 Goodman Commerce Center
C4 5995 Plaza Drive
Land Use'
Multifamily (Low Rise) Housing
Shopping.Center
Multifamily (Mid,Rise) Housini
Hotel
Medical Office Bu1kling
High-Cube Warehousing
General Office
Quantity Units 2
135 DU

20.SOOTSF
251 DU
120 Room$

31.585 TSF
390.264TSF
104.734 TSF
' TSF. Thousand $Qw!t ™~ 0V • Owdt1g u-\,!S
TABLE 4-6: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Dally
C1: Cypress Town Center 14 48 62 48 28 76 988
C2: The Square 68 % 164 176 147 323 4,978
C3: Goodman Commerce Center 35 18 53 17 37 54 956
C4: 5995 Plaza Drive 140 19 159 26 125 151 1,135
Total 257 181 438 267 337 604 8,057
{10858844.1}
March 7, 2024
VIA EMAil, ( [email protected])
City Council of the City of Cypress
c/o City Clerk for the City of Cypress
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Direct Dial No.
(714) 384-4313
Email Address
aholcom [email protected]
Re: WarJand Investments Company and Affiliated Entities' Comments on Initial Study/MND for Goodman Commerce Center Expansion - 5665 Plaza Drive, Cypress, California; Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, §§ 15073 and 15105
Dear City Council Members:

The City approved a task order for LSA to prepare an environmental IS/MND for the 5665 Redevelopment. As an initial matter, the purpose of an Initial Study is to detennine whether a Negative Declaration ("ND"), an MND or an EIR is appropriate for a specific project. The fact that the { 10858844.1}
City Council of the City of Cypress
March 7, 2024
Page3
City tasked LSA with preparing an Initial Study and MND concurrently indicates the City had predetermined that it would require an MND, which violates 14 CCR § 15063 and is inconsistent with CEQA. Neither the Planning Director's report recommending such approval nor the LSA task order indicated any connection between the 5665 Redevelopment and the 5757 Redevelopment.1 On September 11, 2023, WarJand delivered a letter to City Council stating that (I) 5665 Plaza Drive is located directly adjacent to 5757 Plaza Drive, (2) the parcels were acquired by Goodman on the same day as a part of the same transaction, and (3) per CEQA guidelines, the environmental studies for the 5665 Redevelopment must evaluate the cumulative impacts of the 5665 Redevelopment together with the 5757 Redevelopment. The City did not respond to Warland's letter; however, the letter was indirectly acknowledged via the City's website, which: (a) named the 5665 Redevelopment as "Goodman Commerce Center - Expansion", and (b) identified the building to be constructed in connection with the 5757 Redevelopment as "Building 3" (see attached Schedule 6; see also attached Schedule 7, which depicts the site plan for the 5757 Redevelopment, which labels the two (2) buildings to be constructed as "Building I" and "Building 2", respectively).