Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
Shaded cells indicate roadway segments adjacent to the project site.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL= Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -18 The results indicate that the increase in noise associated with project-related traffic would be very small, ranging from 0.0 to 1.7 dBA along the analyzed road segments. With those increases, as compared to existing ambient conditions, no significant noise impacts would result based on the applicable thresholds ([1]a 3.0 increase in dBA when the ambient is 65 dBA or less, or [2] a 1.0 increase in dBA when the ambient is 65 dBA or greater). No mitigation is required.
Long-Term Off-Site Stationary Noise Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would generate various on-site stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and dock operations. The Cypress Municipal Code limits non-construction noise experienced at surrounding noise-sensitive uses to 60 dBA or less per the hourly daytime noise level standards for Noise Zone 2. The closest sensitive use for the noise analysis is the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel located approximately 970 feet southeast of the project site.
Of the on-site stationary noise sources during operation of the project, noise generated by loading dock activities would generate the highest maximum noise levels. To provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that operations would occur equally during all hours of the day and half of the project’s 25 loading docks would be active at all times.
The project would have various rooftop mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, on the proposed building. To be conservative, it is assumed the project could have four (4) rooftop HVAC units that would operate 24 hours per day and would generate sound power levels (SPL) of up to 76 dBA SPL or 63 dBA Leq at 5 feet, based on manufacturer data (Allied Commercial 2019).78 Noise levels generated by cold storage fan units would be similar to noise readings from previously gathered reference noise level measurements, which generate a noise level of 57.5 dBA Leq at 60 feet based on measurements taken by LSA.
79 Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would be similar to noise readings from truck loading and unloading activities, which generate a noise level of 75 dBA Leq at 20 feet based on measurements taken by LSA. Delivery trucks would arrive on site and maneuver their trailers so that trailers would be parked within the loading docks. During this process, noise levels are associated with the truck engine noise, air brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the dock. These noise levels would occur for a shorter period of time (less than 5 minutes). After a truck enters the loading dock, the doors would be closed, and the remainder of the truck loading activities would be enclosed and therefore much less perceptible. To present a conservative assessment, it is assumed that unloading activities could occur at half of the 25 docks simultaneously for a period of more than 30 minutes in a given hour. Additionally, at the remaining half of the loading docks, it is conservatively assumed that refrigeration units attached to the trailers would be in operation while waiting to be unloaded. Based on reference measurements gathered by LSA, each unit would have a reference noise level of 79.4 dBA at 15 feet.
78 Allied Commercial. 2019. KHB – K-Series Rooftop Units Standard and High Efficiency – 50 Hz Product Specifications.
April. 79 LSA. 2016. Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.6-19 To determine the future noise impacts from project operations to the noise-sensitive uses, a 3-D noise model, SoundPLAN, was used to incorporate the site topography as well as the shielding from the proposed building on site. A graphic representation of the potential operational noise impacts is presented in Appendix G of this Draft EIR. The results show the 60 dBA Leq daytime noise contour from operations and the 55 dBA Leq nighttime noise contour from operations would not approach the closest noise-sensitive uses. The estimated noise level at the closest noise-sensitive uses would be less than 34 dBA Leq. Additionally, the proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold NOI-2: Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Impact NOI-2: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Vibration refers to ground-borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground-borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure.
Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), rail activity, and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general, ground-borne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of vibration-sensitive uses. Ground-borne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construction site. With the exception of older buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs.
When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.
The roadways surrounding the project site, including Plaza Drive, McDonnell Drive, and the existing driveways, are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant ground-borne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on-road vehicles make it unusual for onroad vehicles to cause ground-borne noise or vibration problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and, therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on-road vehicles is necessary.
Construction Vibration Impacts. Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of ground-borne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage. The 2018 FTA Manual guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 0.5 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a nonengineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV. Based on information provided by the Project Applicant, the surrounding structures are made of tilt-up concrete; therefore, the vibration analysis will utilize a criterion of 0.5 in/sec PPV. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -20 Table 4.6.8 shows the PPV values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source. As shown in this table, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the 2018 FTA Manual. In addition to standard vibration reference information, Table 4.6.8 also includes reference vibration data previously gathered during deep dynamic compaction (DDC) operations.
Table 4.6.8: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft
Deep Dynamic Compaction (10 ton, 60 ft Drop) 0.9701
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Sources: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018), Measured DDC data from G3SoilWorks Inc. 1 PPV vibration data for deep dynamic compaction activities is at a reference distance of 50 ft.
DDC = deep dynamic compaction
ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
In addition to DDC operations used during foundation preparation, construction activities for the proposed project are expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the foundation preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels.
The distance to the nearest buildings for the vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project site boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project site boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below.
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
The distance to the nearest buildings for the vibration impact analysis during DDC is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the edge of the proposed building at 50 feet, indicating where DDC is needed. The formula for vibration transmission was calculated based on data provided by G3SoilWorks Inc. and is provided in Appendix F of this Draft EIR.
For typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 0.089 PPV in/sec at 25 feet. The closest surrounding buildings to the project site include existing industrial buildings located approximately 5 feet north of the edge of the project site. The industrial building would experience vibration levels of up to
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.6-21
0.995 in/sec PPV. This vibration level at the nearest building from construction equipment would potentially exceed the FTA threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for building damage. At a distance of approximately 8 feet from typical construction activities, vibration levels would approach 0.492 in/sec PPV and would be below the FTA criteria of 0.5 in/sec PPV. While construction could result in vibration damage, impacts would be reduced to less than significant, and the potential for building damage would be eliminated with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 as detailed below.
For the DDC construction activities, the proposed drops could occur as close as 50 feet from the nearest structures. The nearest off-site industrial building to the DDC construction activities would experience vibration levels of up to 1.02 in/sec PPV, which would potentially exceed the FTA threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for building damage. At a distance of approximately 78 feet from DDC construction activities, vibration levels would be 0.49 in/sec PPV and would be below the FTA criteria of 0.5 in/sec PPV. While construction could result in vibration damage, impacts would be reduced to less than significant, and the potential for building damage would be eliminated with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
Threshold NOI-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact NOI-3: Less than Significant Impact. The closest airport to the project site is Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos, which is located approximately 0.4 mile to the southwest. The noise contour boundaries of JFTB show that the project site is located outside of Noise Impact Zone 2 (60 dB CNEL or greater), therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
4.6.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to the implementation of mitigation measures, the project could potentially result in the generation of ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise during construction activities. The project would result in less than significant impacts related to temporary construction and operational noise impacts, and to the exposure of people to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip.
4.6.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.6.8.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following regulatory compliance measure is applicable to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to noise. In addition to compliance with the construction hours specified in the City’s Municipal Code, the following standard condition would reduce construction noise to the extent feasible and reasonable:
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 Construction Noise and Vibration. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Cypress (City) Director of Community Development Department, or designee, shall
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -22 verify that grading and construction plans include the
following requirements:
• Ensure that the greatest distance between noise
sources and sensitive receptors during construction
activities has been achieved.
• Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be
equipped with properly operating and maintained
noise mufflers consistent with manufacturers’
standards.
• Construction staging areas shall be located away from off-site sensitive uses during the later phases of
project development.
• The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from noise-sensitive receptors nearest
the project site whenever feasible.
• The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel
generators where feasible.
• A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall also be posted at the construction site perimeter. All notices
and the signs shall indicate the dates and duration of
ground improvement activities, as well as provide a
telephone number for the “noise disturbance
coordinator.”
• A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be
established. The disturbance coordinator shall be
responsible for responding to any local complaints
about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall be required to implement reasonable
measures to reduce noise levels. All signs posted at
the construction site shall list the telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator.
4.6.8.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is applicable to the proposed project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.6-23 Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan. Due to the close proximity to surrounding structures, the City of Cypress (City) Director of Community Development, or designee,
shall verify prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, that the approved plans require that the
construction contractor implement the following
mitigation measures during project construction activities in the event that the use of heavy equipment is necessary within 25 feet (ft) of surrounding structures or when deep dynamic compaction (DDC) construction activity takes
places within 80 ft of surrounding structures:
• Notification to nearby businesses detailing the
schedule and duration of DDC activities.
• Structures that are located within 25 ft of heavy
construction activities and within 80 ft of DDC
construction activity that have the potential to be
affected by ground-borne vibration shall be identified.
This task shall be conducted by a qualified structural
engineer as approved by the City’s Director of
Community Development, or designee.
• The Applicant’s construction contractor shall develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency
plan for approval by the City’s Director of Community
Development, or designee, to identify appropriate
locations in the vicinity of nearby structures where
monitoring would be conducted; set up a vibration
monitoring schedule; define structure-specific
maximum vibration limits based on building
inspections; contain provisions to conduct photo,
elevation, and crack surveys to document before and
after construction conditions at those structures. The
plan shall identify construction contingencies that
would be implemented if vibration levels approach
the established vibration limits at a particular
location. Potential contingencies may include one or
more of the following:
o Lowering the height of the compaction weight;
o Using a lighter compaction weight; or
o Any other alternate method that is safe and
appropriate, as determined by the project
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -24 geotechnical consultant, in consultation with the
City’s Director of Community Development (such
as utilizing geopier stabilization instead of DDC).
80 • At a minimum, vibration during initial site preparation activities at the locations described above shall be
monitored. The monitoring results may indicate the
need for more or less intensive measurements.
• When vibration levels approach the applicable limits
established in the vibration monitoring and
construction contingency plan, construction shall be
suspended, and the appropriate mitigation measures
identified in the construction contingency plan shall
be implemented to reduce vibration levels below
thresholds.
4.6.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4.6.10 Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. A cumulative noise or vibration impact would occur if multiple sources of noise and vibration combine to create impacts in close proximity to a sensitive receptor. Therefore, the cumulative area for noise and vibration impacts is the project site and any sensitive receptors in the immediately surrounding area.
Construction Noise. Construction activities associated with the proposed project and other construction projects in the area may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the area. However, construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to each construction site.
Construction noise for the proposed project was determined to be less than significant. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site could result in elevated construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the area surrounding the project site. However, each project would be required to comply with the applicable city’s Municipal Code limitations on construction. Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Traffic Source Noise Impacts. According to the USEPA, cumulative noise impacts represent the combined and incremental effects of human activities that accumulate over time.
While the incremental impacts may be insignificant by themselves, the combined effect may result 80 Utilizing a geopier stabilization system method is estimated to result in vibration levels of 0.22 at approximately 15 feet, which would ensure that vibration from construction within 10 feet remains lower than the threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for building damage.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.6-25 in a significant impact. Conversely, although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project.
As stated in Section 4.7, Transportation, the results of the Future Year (2025) Condition (Opening Year With Project) peak-hour level of service (LOS) analysis for the study area intersections show that all study area intersections are forecasted to operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours. As previously shown in Table 4.6.8 above, project-related traffic for the Opening Year With Project would result in noise level increases between 0.0 to 0.8 dBA CNEL along roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site. These levels are below the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise. Therefore, none of the roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site would experience a substantial noise level increase greater than the applicable noise thresholds, and the proposed project would not have a cumulatively significant traffic noise impact.
Operational Stationary Source Noise. Long-term stationary noise sources associated with the development at the proposed project, combined with other cumulative projects, could cause local noise level increases. Noise levels associated with the proposed project and related projects together could result in higher noise levels than considered separately. As previously described, onsite noise sources associated with the proposed project would not exceed any applicable noise standards. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with the City’s noise level standards and include mitigation measures if standards are exceeded. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -26 This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-1
4.7 TRANSPORTATION
This section analyzes the potential transportation impacts associated with the 5655 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project). The analysis contained in this section is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated November 21, 2023, the Traffic Memorandum dated February 20, 2024, and the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., dated December 15, 2023. Both documents are provided in Appendix E to this Draft EIR.
4.7.1 Scoping Process
The City received three comment letters during the public review period for the NOP. For copies of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Two comment letters included comments related to noise.
The letter from the City of Los Alamitos received on June 5, 2024, requests that the Draft EIR outline the existing truck routes, the project’s impact along existing truck routes, and any impacts related to the modification of truck routes. Additionally, the letter suggested the Draft EIR provide a traffic and/or access analysis to evaluate daily truck trips and their distribution and influence on Los Alamitos roadways. Specifically, on I-605 and I-405.
The Letter from Warland Investments Company and Affiliated Entities received on June 5, 2024, suggest that the proposed project has a foreseeable potential use as a logistics center, stating that logistics centers can create more congestion on local streets when compared to typical warehouse projects. Additionally, in a previous letter dated March 7, 2024, which was included as an attachment in the June 5, 2024, letter, Warland states their concerns about the Truck Distribution Map in the Traffic Analysis for the proposed project, highlighting the analysis’s failure to account for truck traffic from the entire Goodman Commerce Center (the 5665 Plaza Drive Project and The Goodmand Commerce Center Project), the incorrect assumption that 100 percent of truck traffic will exit via Driveway 1, and the omission of detailed projections for truck routes, especially regarding the impact on nearby residential areas. Additionally, the letter argues that the Traffic Analysis inaccurately estimates daily truck trips by solely evaluating the 5665 Redevelopment, rather than considering the entire Goodman Commerce Center as a logistics hub, leading to a significant underestimation of truck traffic impacts.
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
The applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework is discussed below.
4.7.2.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations or policies pertaining to transportation that are applicable to the proposed project.
4.7.2.2 State Regulations
Senate Bill 743. SB 73 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 27, 2013, initiating a change to the State CEQA Guidelines on the methodology for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA documents. SB 743 directed the California OPR to establish new CEQA guidance to replace analytical approaches focused on automobile vehicle delay at intersections and traffic 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -2 congestion along roadway segments using the level of service (LOS) method from CEQA transportation analysis. As of July 1, 2020, lead agencies must use the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric instead of LOS to analyze transportation impacts in CEQA documents as the basis for determining significant transportation impacts in the State. VMT measures the vehicle miles travelled that would result from implementation of a project.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b). In January 2018, the State of California OPR submitted a proposal to the California Natural Resources Agency for comprehensive updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The submittal included proposed updates related to the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy, transportation impacts pursuant to SB 743, and wildfires, as well as revisions to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369. On December 28, 2018, the updated State CEQA Guidelines went into effect.
Section 15064.3 of the updated State CEQA Guidelines codifies that project-related transportation impacts are typically best measured by evaluating the project’s VMT. Specifically, subdivision (b) focuses on specific criteria related to transportation analysis and is divided into four subdivisions:
(1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3), qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology.
Subdivision (b)(1) provides guidance on determining the significance of transportation impacts of land use projects using VMT; projects located within 0.5 mile of high-quality transit should be considered to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(2) addresses VMT associated with transportation projects and states that projects that reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) acknowledges that Lead Agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative analysis may be used. Subdivision (b)(4) stipulates that Lead Agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a project’s VMT.
4.7.2.3 Regional Regulations
Orange County Congestion Management Program. Established in 1991, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) consolidated seven separate agencies into a single multimodal transportation agency. State law requires that a Congestion Management Program (CMP) be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that includes an urbanized area, and requires that it include every city and the county government within that county. As the Congestion Management Agency for Orange County, OCTA is responsible for implementing the Orange County CMP. OCTA adopted the CMP in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions in Orange County. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city’s eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects.
County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) defines the arterial system in the Circulation Element of the Orange County General Plan. This system, which is the planned future roadway system in the County, incorporates several specific arterial roadway classifications. The Circulation Elements of cities within the County
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-3 are expected to be consistent with the MPAH in order to be eligible for funding improvements on MPAH roadways.
County of Orange Measure M Growth Management Program. Measure M, approved in 1990 by County voters, authorized the collection of a one-half percent sales tax to fund needed transportation improvements. In order to be eligible to receive funds, cities must satisfy a number of requirements, including adopting a Circulation Element that is consistent with the County’s MPAH, adopting a Growth Management Plan, and adopting a seven-year capital improvement program to include transportation projects funded by Measure M.
4.7.2.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress General Plan. The City of Cypress General Plan81 is the primary source of long-range planning and policy direction that guides growth and preserves quality of life within the community.
The General Plan contains goals, policies, and plans that are intended to guide land use and development decisions. The General Plan, last comprehensively updated in 2001, includes a Land Use Map and the following eight elements, or chapters, which together fulfill the State requirements for a General Plan:
• Land Use Element
• Housing Element
• Circulation Element
• Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element (satisfies the State’s Conservation and Open Space Element requirements)
• Safety Element
• Noise Element
• Air Quality Element (optional element not required by State law) • Growth Management Element (optional element not required by State law) City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element. The Circulation Element82 is a general guide for the planning, development, and enhancement of the City’s public roadways, based on existing and anticipated land uses. Most transportation-related plans and programs are established with the goal of maintaining acceptable operating LOS on the City’s transportation system. The City of Cypress has adopted LOS D or better as the desired citywide operating standard for most City streets. However, given the influence of regional traffic on Valley View Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Katella Avenue, which are beyond the control of the City of Cypress, LOS E or better has been adopted as the minimum operating Level of Service for street segments and intersections on these arterials. The Circulation Element goals and policies define the City’s vision for a balanced, efficient circulation system which incorporate many modes of travel and which allows for the safe movement of people 81 City of Cypress. 2001a. City of Cypress General Plan. 82 City of Cypress. 2001b. City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -4 and goods in and around Cypress. Based on the Circulation Element, the local and regional street network is built out in Cypress. Similarly, the City’s bikeway system is generally built out, with the exception of a planned bike lane on Walker Street south of Cerritos Avenue. This proposed bike lane would connect to the existing bike lane on Walker Street north of Cerritos Avenue.
4.7.3 Existing Environmental Setting
4.7.3.1 Existing Circulation System
The project site is generally bounded by light industrial uses to the north and the Goodman Commerce Center Project (approved in April 2023) to the east, and Plaza Drive to the south. Access to the project site is provided by two existing driveways along Plaza Drive; the proposed project would relocate the driveway locations. The new westernmost driveway would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck loading docks on the proposed building’s west side, while the eastern driveway would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east.
Key roadways in the vicinity of the project site include:
• Plaza Drive is an east-west two- lane divided roadway located directly south of the project site and is not a classified General Plan roadway. Sidewalks are not provided along Plaza Drive There are no sidewalks along Plaza Drive east of the project site. However, sidewalks are proposed along 5775 and 5885 Plaza Drive on the north side of Plaza Drive. No on-street parking is permitted.
• Douglas Drive is a north-south two-lane divided roadway located south of the project site and connects into Katella Avenue via a signalized intersection and is not a classified General Plan roadway. Sidewalks are provided on the west side along the roadway. However, sidewalks are proposed along 5775 and 5885 on the north side of Douglas Drive No on-street parking is permitted.
• Katella Avenue is an east-west six-lane divided roadway located south of the project site.
According to the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element (2001), Katella Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial. Katella Avenue is designated on the Orange County CMP as a CMP facility. The posted speed limit is 40 to 45 miles per hour (mph). Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted in select locations. • Valley View Street is a north-south six-lane divided roadway located west of the project site.
Valley View Street designated as a Major Arterial in the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element. Valley View Street is designated in the Orange County CMP as a CMP facility. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is not permitted.
• Walker Street is a north-south, four-to-five-lane, undivided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element (2001), Walker Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial. The average posted speed limit is 40 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is not permitted.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-5 • Cerritos Avenue is a four-to-five-lane, divided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan (2001), Cerritos Avenue is a Primary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street, and on-street (Class II) bicycle lanes are provided on both sides between Walker Street and Denni Street. On-street parking is permitted in select locations.
• Ball Road is a four-lane, divided roadway and it is classified as a Primary Arterial according to the City of Cypress General Plan (2001). The posted speed limit is 45 mph. On-street (Class II) bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is not permitted.
• Moody Street is a north-south, four-lane, divided roadway. According to the City’s General Plan Circulation Element (2001), Moody Street is classified as a Primary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. On-street bicycle lanes (Class II) and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted.
• Orangewood Avenue is a four-lane, undivided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan (2001), Orangewood Avenue is a Secondary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 35 to 40 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is not permitted.
Pedestrian Circulation. Sidewalks currently exist on both sides of Katella Avenue, Valley View Street, in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, there is a 10-foot sidewalk along the west side of Douglas Drive between the proposed project down to Katella Avenue to the south. There are pedestrian crosswalks at all signalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. These facilities provide for pedestrian circulation between the project site and the surrounding areas.
Bicycle Circulation. Katella Avenue and Valley View Street currently accommodate off-street bike paths; there are no on-street bike lanes provided by Katella Avenue. On-street (Class II) bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of Cerritos Avenue (between Walker Street and Denni Street) and Bloomfield Street. There is a Class I bicycle lane on the south side of Cerritos Avenue between Walker Street and Denni Street. On-street bicycle lanes (Class II) and sidewalks are provided on both sides of Moody Street.
Transit Facilities. Transit facilities would be provided by the OCTA along Katella Avenue and Valley View Street. OCTA Route 50 runs along Katella Avenue and currently has existing bus stops just east of Douglas Drive and west of Valley View Street. Route 50 provides transportation to/from the Cities of Orange and Long Beach via Katella Avenue. OCTA Route 123 runs along Valley View Street with existing bus stops north of Plaza. OCTA Route 123 provides transportation to/from Buena Park and Sunset Beach via Valley View Street. OCTA buses stop approximately every hour (60 minutes) during the morning and evening commute hours (operational between 4:00 AM and 10:00 PM).
4.7.3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS Analysis
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in 2022 when local schools were in session and operating on normal bell schedules. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -6 • Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity or detour routes and near-by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. The 2022 peak hour volumes have been adjusted to increase turning movements into low occupancy office uses in the surrounding area by 30 percent. The volumes were then increased by an additional two percent for all movements in order to adjust the 2022 traffic counts to 2023. A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within the study area indicated that the peak-to-daily relationship is approximately 8.9 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 11.3 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 8.9 percent (i.e., 1/0.089 = 11.3) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate ADT volumes for planning-level analyses.
Volumes reported on the exhibits are expressed in passenger car equivalent (PCE) volumes as the intersection operations analysis utilizes PCE volumes. Note that only the intersection turning movement volumes are expressed in PCE and ADTs are presented as actual vehicles as used in other technical studies. PCEs allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, to be used for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses.
The intersection operations analysis results summarized on Table 4.7.1 indicate that all existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS during the peak hours.
Table 4.7.1: Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (2023) Conditions Intersection Control Peak Hour
Existing
ICU/Delay LOS
1 Douglas Drive /Warland Drive and Katella Avenue
Signal
(ICU)
AM 0.44 A
PM 0.52 A
Signal
(Delay)
AM 5.4 A
PM 8.2 A
2 Douglas Drive /Driveway 2 and Driveway 1/Plaza
Drive
AWS
(ICU)
AM N/A N/A
PM N/A N/A
AWS
(Delay)
AM 7.2 A
PM 7.7 A
5 Existing Driveway/McDonnell Dive and Plaza Drive
CSS
(ICU)
AM N/A N/A
PM N/A N/A
CSS
(Delay)
AM 9.2 A
PM 10.8 B
7 Knott Avenue/Katella Avenue Signal
(ICU)
AM 0.56 A
PM 0.79 C
8 Western Avenue/Katella Avenue Signal
(Delay)
AM 15.4 B
PM 35.7 D
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, November 2023).
Note: Delay is reported in seconds.
CSS = cross-street stop
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
N/A = not applicable
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-7
4.7.3.3 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Traffic signal warrants for existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. For existing traffic conditions, there are no study area intersections that currently warrant a traffic signal based on the peak hour traffic volumes.
4.7.3.4 Existing VMT
Regional HBW VMT for Orange County was calculated for the base (2016) and future (2045) scenarios based on OCTAM output files. The socio-economic data and VMT per employee for the region was calculated as a collection of TAZs (all TAZs located in Orange County) rather than a single TAZ. Baseline (2020) HBW VMT for Orange County was developed by interpolating (using linear interpolation) between base (2016) and future (2045) VMT. Orange County baseline (2020) VMT per employee is summarized in Table 4.7.2.
Table 4.7.2: Baseline 2020 Orange
County VMT per Employee
Description Orange County1
Employment 1,710,147
VMT 4 1,174,971
VMT/Employee 24.81
Source: VMT Assessment (LSA December 2023). 1 Obtained from Final Draft Guidelines For Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for the County of Orange,
September 17,2020.
OCTAM = Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
4.7.4 Methodology
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, Regulatory Setting, recent changes to the State CEQA Guidelines eliminated the requirement for LOS analysis in CEQA documents in favor of the VMT metric.
However, the City of Cypress’ General Plan Circulation Element includes a detailed LOS analysis of the City’s existing operating conditions and sets LOS capacity/operational standards for each class of roadway within the City. Therefore, an analysis of LOS is included in this section in order to achieve consistency with the City’s General Plan.
The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (see Appendix E) prepared for the proposed project is consistent with the objectives and requirements of the City of Cypress, and the Orange County CMP (County of 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -8 Orange 2023),
83 as well as applicable provisions of CEQA, including disclosure of project impacts in both existing and cumulative horizon years.
The scope of work for the TIA, including the project study area, was reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the preparation of the TIA. Study area locations were selected in consultation with City staff. The study area analyzed in the project TIA includes the following four intersections (six intersections in Cypress, one intersection in both Cypress and Stanton, and one intersection in Stanton):
1. Douglas Drive/Warland Drive and Katella Avenue (signalized) (Cypress)
2. Douglas Drive/Driveway 2 and Driveway 1/Plaza Drive (unsignalized (Cypress)
3. Existing Driveway/McDonnell Drive and Plaza Drive (unsignalized) (Cypress)
4. Valley View Street and Plaza Drive/Chip Avenue (signalized) (Cypress)
4.7.4.1 Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
In accordance with the requirements of the City of Cypress, and the Orange County CMP, signalized intersection operation is analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. The ICU methodology compares the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums up these critical conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. Lane capacities of 1,600 vehicles per hour of green time is assumed for the ICU calculations. The Traffix software is utilized to evaluate the signalized intersections based on the ICU methodology. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS), where LOS A represents free-flow operation and LOS F represents over capacity operation.
The relationship between LOS and the ICU value (i.e., v/c ratio) is as follows.
Level of Service Volume-to-Capacity (ICU Methodology)
A ≤0.60
B >0.60 and ≤0.70
C >0.70 and ≤0.80
D >0.80 and ≤0.90
E >0.90 and ≤1.00
F >1.00
Source: 2019 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) ICU = intersection capacity utilization
In addition to the ICU methodology of calculating signalized intersection LOS, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2017) methodology is used to determine the LOS of the unsignalized intersections. The Synchro (Version 10) is utilized for evaluation of the unsignalized study area intersections based on the HCM 6th Edition methodology. The following tables, Table 4.7.3 shows the relationship of delay to LOS for unsignalized and Table 4.74 shows the signalized intersections.
83 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2023. Orange County Congestion Management Program Report. November. Website: https://www.octa.net/pdf/2023CMP.pdf?n=202311 (accessed May 24, 2024).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-9 Table 4.7.3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds
Description Level of Service
Intersection Delay (seconds) per Vehicle
(HCM Methodology)
Unsignalized
Little or no delays A 0 to 10.00
Short traffic delays B 10.01 to 15.00
Average traffic delays. C 15.01 to 25.00
Long traffic delays D 25.01 to 35.00
Very long traffic delays. E 35.01 to 50.00
Extreme traffic delays with
intersection capacity exceeded. F >50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2017).
Table 4.7.4: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds
Description Level of
Service
Intersection Delay (seconds) per Vehicle
(HCM Methodology)
Unsignalized
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. A 0 to 10.00
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. B 10.01 to 20.00
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
C 20.01 to 35.00
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
D 35.01 to 55.00
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
E 55.01 to 80.00
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
F 80.01 and up
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2017).
4.7.4.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. An evaluation of the signal warrant criteria presented in the Caltrans 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) (revised in 2023) is conducted for the unsignalized study area intersections.
The signal warrant criteria for existing study area intersections are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -10 more of the signal warrants are met. Specifically, this TIA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions and for all future analysis scenarios for existing unsignalized intersections. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TIA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics. For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Rural warrants have been used where posted speed limits on the major roadways with unsignalized intersections that are over 40 miles per hour while urban warrants have been used where posted speeds are 40 miles per hour or below.
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.
4.7.4.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised CEQA Guidelines for use. Among the changes to the State CEQA Guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and LOS from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on VMT.
The City is yet to adopt the SB 743 guidelines; therefore, the VMT analysis has been based upon the methodology and significant threshold criteria identified in the OPR’s Technical Advisory, dated December 2018.
The project includes industrial land uses only. The OPR Technical Advisory does not specifically recommend any VMT metric or threshold for industrial uses. However, since the land use is nonresidential and could not be classified as retail land use, VMT-per-employee metric was used for purposes of evaluating the project.
Based on the OPR Technical Advisory recommendations, the threshold for determining VMT impacts has been considered as 15 percent below the region’s baseline VMT per capita for residential projects, and 15 percent below the region’s baseline VMT per employee for non-residential/nonretail projects.
As per the OPR TA, a region should be defined based on where the majority of the project trips are contained. As such, the majority of project trips are estimated to start or end within the region defined for VMT analysis purposes. Typically, it is the county boundary within which a majority of those trips are contained. While the city boundary can also be considered as the region for residential uses, given that the project land use is non-residential and based on the understanding of the local trip patterns, it was determined that the entire Orange County would be the most appropriate region for the project for purposes of VMT analysis. As such, as recommended in the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-11 OPR Guidelines, if the project VMT per employee is greater than 85 percent of the existing countywide VMT per employee, the project constitutes a significant VMT impact.
4.7.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for transportation impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to transportation if it would:
Threshold TRA-1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities Threshold TRA-2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
Threshold TRA-3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)
Threshold TRA-4: Result in inadequate emergency access
4.7.6 Project Impacts
Threshold TRA-1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Impact TRA-1: Less Than Significant Impact. In order to assess the impact of the proposed project on the surrounding circulation system, Urban Crossroads calculated the project-related trips using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) High-Cube Cold Storage (Land Use Code 157) Table 4.7.5, below, presents the trip generation comparison between the existing and proposed use.
Table 4.7.5: Proposed Project Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project Trip Generation
Passenger Cars 262 15 1 16 4 14 18
Total Truck Trips (PCE) 342 4 9 13 7 7 14
Total Trips (PCE) 604 19 10 29 11 21 32
Existing Use: General Office Trip Generation
Passenger Cars 408 50 7 57 9 45 54
Total Truck Trips (PCE) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Trips (PCE) 408 50 7 57 9 45 54
Net Trips (Proposed Project - Existing) 196 -31 -3 -28 2 -24 -22 1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -12 As Table 4.7.5 shows, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a net increase of 196 two-way trips per day with a net reduction of 28 a.m. peak hour trips and a net reduction of 22 p.m. peak hour trips (in passenger car equivalents [PCE]).
Since the proposed project is likely to generate fewer than 50 net new peak-hour trips and fewer than 25 net new peak-hour trips at any single intersection, the implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any operational or LOS deficiencies; therefore, no further study is necessary.
The City’s General Plan provides goals and policies to implement a balanced, functional, and efficient circulation system, and incorporate alternative modes of travel which allows for the safe movement of people and goods. General Plan policies CIR-2.5 and CIR-2.8 encourage the development of adequate sidewalks, particularly to provide connections to surrounding alternative modes of transportation. The project site currently provides sidewalks along Plaza Drive and Walker Drive allowing for pedestrian connections to nearby transit. Therefore, the proposed project would not inhibit the use of alternative transportation in the area and would not conflict with circulation policies in the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold TRA-2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2: Less Than Significant Impact. The City requires that all CEQA-related VMT studies be conducted consistent with the State of California Governor’s OPR Technical Advisory, and that screening criteria and impact thresholds are determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Caltrans’ February 2020 VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG).
California Public Resources Code Section 15064.3(b)(4) states (in part) that:
“A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure.” Additionally, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends VMT screening thresholds for smaller projects. The footnote on page 12 of the OPR Technical Advisory states the following:
“Screening Threshold for Small Projects
Many local agencies have developed screening thresholds to indicate when detailed analysis is needed. Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.”
The OPR Technical Advisory recommends that a project generating 110 average daily trips (ADT) or less be screened out of a VMT analysis due to the presumption of a less than significant impact. This
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-13 recommendation is not based on any analysis of GHG reduction but is instead based on the potential trip generation of a project that would be categorically exempt under CEQA.
As mentioned before, the proposed project includes the demolition of 150,626 square feet of office space and the construction of a new light industrial building that would be approximately 191,394 square feet in size. The proposed project does not qualify for any of the screening criteria, including the screening threshold for small projects because, as noted in Table 4.7.5, the proposed project would generate a net increase of 196 ADT and a total of 604 ADT. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis was prepared.
The Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) was used to determine the VMT impact of the proposed project. OCTAM is a socioeconomic data-based model, hence project land uses were converted into model employment using land use-to-employment conversion factors. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to develop the conversion factors. The ITE Trip Generation Manual includes trip rates for different types of land uses by multiple unit types that were used to develop land use-to-employee conversion factors (i.e., employees per thousand square feet). The socioeconomic data (i.e., total number of jobs) for the proposed project were added to the project transportation analysis zone (TAZ) for the model run.
A baseline model run was conducted using the adjusted socioeconomic data for the project and project location TAZs. No circulation/network modifications were identified for inclusion in the model network. The outputs from this updated model run were used to calculate the VMT per employee for the project.
The VMT per employee metric is used to evaluate the project’s proposed land use. The proposed project would constitute a significant impact if the project VMT metric is greater than 85 percent of the regional existing VMT metric. Hence the proposed project would constitute a significant impact if the project VMT per employee is greater than 85 percent of the Orange County VMT per employee (threshold). As shown in Table 4.7.6, the project’s VMT per employee would be lower than the Orange County regional threshold; therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 4.7.6: Baseline Project and Regional VMT Per Employee Comparison Baseline 5665 Plaza Drive
(Project)
Entire Orange
County1 Threshold2 % Difference Significant Impact?
VMT per employee 20.3 24.1 20.5 -1% No
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).
1 Obtained from the Final Draft Guidelines For Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for the County of Orange, September 17, 2020. 2 85% of the regional average (24.1*0.85=20.5) baseline. Base year of the OCTAM model is 2016.
OCTAM = Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -14 Threshold TRA-3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact TRA-3: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Vehicular traffic to and from the project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that serve the project area. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways at Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. The design of the proposed project, including the internal roadways, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes, would be subject to review by the City’s Department of Public Works.
The proposed project would include the relocation of the existing driveways. The new westernmost driveway would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck loading docks on the proposed building’s west side. The eastern driveway would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east.
Traffic from the proposed project site traveling to and from Valley View Street via Plaza Drive would head northbound on Valley View Street. Any southbound traffic on Valley View Street or eastbound traffic on Katella Avenue would originate from the intersection of Douglas Drive/Warland Drive.
Trucks traveling from the proposed project building would utilize Plaza Drive to Valley View Street and Douglas Drive to Katella Avenue. A portion of the truck trips would continue east on Katella Avenue while the remainder of trucks would travel south on Valley View Street, consistent with the City’s approved truck routes. The proposed project would contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips at the intersection of Valley View and Katella Avenue that would fall below the City’s threshold for analysis.84 It is anticipated that Driveway 1 (on Douglas Drive) and Driveway 2 (on Plaza Drive) would be utilized by heavy trucks to access the project site. Driveway 1 is anticipated to be able to accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks as currently designed, providing access to and from the east on Plaza Drive and south on Douglas Drive. Driveway 1 would serve as the primary driveway for heavy trucks accessing the project site. While Driveway 2 would accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks along Plaza Drive, it is recommended that the northwest curb of Driveway 2 be modified to accommodate a 25-foot curb radius for the egress of heavy trucks.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, described below, would require the installation of on-site traffic signing and striping. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to transportation hazards.
Threshold TRA-4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRA-4: Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways at Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. Plaza Drive would allow for adequate emergency access and all project improvements, including driveways, would be designed consistent with applicable emergency access standards. All emergency access routes to the proposed project and adjacent areas would be kept cleared and unobstructed during demolition and construction of the proposed project. No roadway closures or lane closures are anticipated as part of project construction. Therefore, the proposed project’s effects on emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
84 Urban Crossroads. 2023. Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Analysis. November 21, 2023.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-15
4.7.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and emergency access. However, the proposed project would have potential impacts to hazards due to geometric design features.
Mitigation Measure TRA-1 is incorporated to reduce that potential impact to a less than significant level.
Although the City has not yet adopted VMT metrics or thresholds of significant related to VMT, a VMT analysis was conducted using the recommendations and guidance of the OPR Technical Advisory to address State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). Based on the VMT analysis, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
4.7.8 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRA-1 Truck Access & Routing Plan and Truck Signage and Striping Plan.
The Applicant shall submit a Truck Access and Routing Plan to accommodate the circulation of trucks on site. Additionally, the Applicant shall prepare a Signage and Striping Plan, consistent with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), that directs heavy trucks to the most appropriate access point. The Public Works Director of the City of Cypress, or designee, shall review and approve the Truck Access and Routing Plan and Signage and Striping Plan and confirm they have been incorporated into the project plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4.7.9 Regulatory Compliance Measures
No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to the proposed project.
4.7.10 Level of Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, potentially significant impacts would be reduced below a level of significance.
4.7.11 Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Potential cumulative impacts would occur if the proposed project in combination with one or more of the cumulative projects would produce significant impacts to transportation. For purposes of analyzing potential cumulative transportation impacts, the cumulative impact study area is the traffic study area outlined in the TIA. The cumulative projects that were determined to potentially affect one or more of the four study area intersections include:
• Cypress Town Center (Multifamily Housing)
• The Square (Shopping Center / Multifamily Housing / Hotel / Medical Office Building) 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -16 • Goodman Commerce Center (High-Cube Warehousing)
• 5995 Plaza Drive (General Office)
The Future Year 2025 Condition includes the existing baseline traffic conditions, without project traffic conditions, and with project traffic conditions within the study area. Any additional traffic generated by other projects not on the cumulative projects list is likely accounted for through background ambient growth factors that have been applied to the peak hour volumes at study area intersections.
Future Year peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections. As indicated in Table 4.7.7, the Future Year traffic conditions demonstrate that the study area intersections are anticipated to continue operating at an acceptable LOS under both Future Year Without and With Project traffic conditions.
Table 4.7.7: Future Year Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection Control
Peak
Hour
2025 Without
Project
2025 With
Project Project Impact
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/Delay
(Net
Change) Yes/No
1 Douglas
Drive/Warland Drive
and Katella Avenue
Signal AM 0.477 A 0.486 A 0.009 No
PM 0.559 A 0.565 A 0.006 No
Signal (Delay) AM 6.8 A 7.7 A 0.9 No
PM 9.4 A 9.8 A 0.4 No
2 Douglas Drive/
Driveway 2 and
Driveway 1/Plaza
Drive
AWS AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
AWS (Delay) AM 7.2 A 7.3 A 0.1 No
PM 7.8 A 7.9 A 0.1 No
3 Existing
Driveway/McDonnell
Drive and Plaza Drive
CSS AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
PM N/A N/A N/A -- N/A No
CSS
(Delay)
AM 10.9 B 10.9 B 0.0 No
PM 12.0 B 11.9 B (0.1) No
4 Valley View Street
and Plaza Drive/Chip
Avenue
Signal
AM 0.582 A 0.582 A 0.000 No
PM 0.856 D 0.860 D .0004 No
Signal
(Delay)
AM 18.6 B 18.7 B 0.1 No
PM 45.7 D 46.8 D 1.1 No
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, November 2023).
Note: Delay is reported in seconds.
CSS = cross-street stop control
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
N/A = not available
As discussed in Section 4.7.4, the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element identifies LOS D or better as the desired citywide operating standard for most City streets. As shown in Table 4.7.7, traffic associated with the proposed project when combined with the cumulative projects would not exceed LOS D. Accordingly, the proposed project in combination with the cumulative projects would not conflict with circulation policies in the General Plan. Furthermore, like the proposed project, the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.7-17 cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system. Accordingly, the proposed project in combination with the cumulative projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts associated with conflicts with these programs, plans, and policies.
As shown above in Table 4.7.6, the proposed project’s VMT per employee would be lower than the Orange County regional threshold; therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT. Like the proposed project, the cumulative projects would be required to evaluate VMT as part of the environmental review process for those projects. In the event significant VMT impacts were identified, the project would be required to adopt appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Accordingly, the proposed project in combination with the cumulative projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts associated with VMT.
The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated in relationship to design hazards. This mitigation would include a truck access and routing plan and truck signage and striping to help accommodate truck access to the proposed project driveways.
Similarly, the neighboring Goodman Center Project would also incorporate a truck access and routing plan and truck signage and striping to help accommodate truck access. It is assumed that the other cumulative projects would be designed in a manner consistent with the City’s design standards and designs would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department. Consistency with the City’s requirements would prevent implementation of design hazards. Accordingly, the proposed project in combination with the cumulative projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts associated with design hazards.
Finally, the proposed project would allow for adequate emergency access via the two planned driveways. Similar to potential design hazards, it is assumed that the cumulative projects would be designed to meet the City’s design standards and would be approved by the City prior to implementation. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with the cumulative projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts associated with emergency access. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -18 This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.8-1
4.8 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section provides a discussion of the existing tribal cultural resource environment and an analysis of potential impacts due to implementation of the 5665 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project). According to California PRC Section 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532, Statutes 2014 (i.e., AB 52), “tribal cultural resources” are defined as the following:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either: (A) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (B) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 This section summarizes information obtained from SB 18 and AB 52 Native American consultation efforts completed in support of the proposed project. The record of these consultation efforts is contained in Appendix H of this EIR.
4.8.1 Scoping Process
The City received 3 comment letters during the public review period for the NOP. For copies of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft EIR. One comment letter included comments related to tribal cultural resources. The letter from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) received on June May 10, 2024, outlined the City’s tribal consultation requirements under AB 52 and SB 18.
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
4.8.2.1 Federal Regulations
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (6 U.S.C. § 470aa et seq.). The Archaeological Resources Protection Act was enacted in 1979 with the purpose of securing the protection of archaeological resources and sites on public lands and Native American lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. ch. 32 § 3001 et seq.).The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990 with the purpose of outlining a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items (e.g., human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony) to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. NAGPRA also establishes procedures for the inadvertent discovery or planned excavation of Native American cultural items on federal or tribal lands. While these provisions do not apply to discovery or excavations on private or State lands, the collection portions of NAGPRA may apply to cultural items if they are under the control of an institution that receives federal funding. NAGPRA also makes it a criminal offense to traffic in Native American human remains without right of possession or in cultural items obtained in violation of NAGPRA.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -2
4.8.2.2 State Regulations
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In 1976, the California State Government passed AB 4239, creating the NAHC. The NAHC is responsible for identifying and categorizing Native American cultural resources as well as preventing damage to designated sacred sites and associated artifacts and remains. Legislation passed in 1982 authorized the NAHC to identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) when Native American remains are found outside the boundaries of a designated cemetery.
An MLD has the authority to make recommendations in regard to the treatment and disposition of the discovered remains.
California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9–5097.991. California PRC Sections 5097.9– 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources (including sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious sites, or sacred shrines) and sacred sites, and gives the NAHC enforcement authority.
Specifically, California PRC Section 5097.98 outlines procedures that must be followed in the event that human remains are discovered. The County Coroner shall make a determination within 2 working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or designee, notifies the County Coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the County Coroner identifies the remains to be of Native American origin or has reason to believe that the remains are those of Native American origin, the County Coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC representative will then alert a Native American MLD to conduct an inspection of the site and to determine the following course of treatment and action. Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 sets forth a procedure if human remains are found on land outside of federal jurisdiction.
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code protects Native American burials, remains, and associated grave artifacts in the event they are discovered in any location other than a designated cemetery. The Health and Safety Code mandates the immediate stop of excavation on the site as well as any adjacent or overlying area where the remains or associated items are found and provides for the sensitive disposition of those remains.
Should remains be discovered, the County Coroner must determine that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or designee, in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98.
Senate Bill 18 Tribal Consultation. California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a General or Specific Plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (2005)85, “the intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.”
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.8-3 Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation. California PRC Section 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532, Statutes 2014 (i.e., AB 52), require that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The bill requires a lead agency to begin consultation with each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report is required for a project. The bill specifies examples of mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a Notice of Preparation or a notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. By requiring the lead agency to consider these effects relative to tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with California Native American tribes, this bill imposes a State-mandated local program.
4.8.2.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that are applicable to tribal cultural resources relevant to the proposed project.
4.8.2.4 Local Regulations
There are no local regulations that are applicable to tribal cultural resources relevant to the proposed project.
4.8.3 Existing Environmental Setting
The area that is now the City of Cypress was prehistorically occupied by several different Native American tribes with unique oral histories, societal structures, and ways of life. This area is within the traditional boundaries of the Gabrielino. To date, no federally recognized tribes claim to have occupied the land that is now considered the City of Cypress.
4.8.4 Methodology
4.8.4.1 Senate Bill 18
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a General or Specific Plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (2005), 85 “The intent of SB 18 is to provide
California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” 85 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines. Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22491/files/tribal_consultation_ guidelines_ vol-4.pdf (accessed May 2023).
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -4 The NAHC was contacted to conduct a SLF search and to provide a list of Native American contacts for the project pursuant to SB 18. The NAHC responded on November 16, 2023, stating than an SLF search was completed for the opportunity sites with negative results. The NAHC recommended that 21 Native American individuals representing the Diegueno, Kumeyaay, Gabrielino, Gabrielino/ Tongva, Juaneño, Cahuilla, and Luiseño groups be contacted for information regarding tribal cultural resources that could potentially be affected by the project. These 21 individuals were contacted via letter by certified mail on November 20, 2023. The letters, which concurrently fulfilled both SB 18 and AB 52 requirements, provided each tribe with an opportunity to request consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. In compliance with SB 18, the tribes had 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation on the proposed project. A response was received from Chairman Andrew Salas on behalf of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. This response did not request consultation on the project but did request consultation on future projects within the area.
4.8.4.2 Assembly Bill 52
Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource falling outside the definition stated above nonetheless qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.”
Also, per AB 52 (specifically PRC Section 21080.3.1), as Lead Agency, the City must consult California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site and have previously requested that the Lead Agency provide the tribe with notice of such projects. Only one response was received in response to the City’s AB 52 letters. The Kizh Nation emailed City staff to request consultation. The Kizh Nation sent the City proposed mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources, which the City accepted with no modifications or revisions.
Letters have also been sent to Native American tribal contacts provided by the NAHC, as previously described. The letters, simultaneously compliant with both SB 18 and AB 52 guidelines, provided each tribe with an opportunity to request consultation with the City regarding the proposed project.
In compliance with AB 52, tribes had 30 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation on the proposed project. No requests for consultation on the project were received in response to the transmitted SB 18/AB 52 combination letters.
4.8.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for tribal cultural resources impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to tribal cultural resources if it would:
Threshold TCR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.8-5 feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
Threshold TCR-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
4.8.6 Project Impacts
Threshold TCR-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Impact TCR-1: No Impact. As previously discussed in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, of this EIR, the project site does not contain any known historical resources. In addition, an SLF search for the site was requested from the NAHC on September 27, 2023, and no resources were noted in the database based on NAHC correspondence, dated November 16, 2023.
Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with AB 52. As part of the consultation process, a review of the SLF by the NAHC yielded negative results. Subsequently 21 Native American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to consult on the proposed project, as detailed below.
• Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
• Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -6 • Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A • La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
• Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
• Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
During that process, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) stated that the project site is within their tribal territory and requested consultation with the City. The Kizh Nation was provided with a summary of the project and its location. No information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the project site was provided by the Kizh Nation.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any impacts to tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the State or local register of historical resources. No mitigation is required.
Threshold TCR-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Impact TCR-2: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Effective July 1, 2015, AB 52 requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in California PRC Section 21074. A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of proposed projects in its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or of deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per PRC Section 21082.3(c).
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan, or to designate open space that includes Native American Cultural Places.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.8-7 Correspondence to the tribes recommended by NAHC was transmitted on November 20, 2023. The City currently maintains a list of tribal councils based on a list of councils and corresponding Native American representatives that have requested to be notified of proposed projects in their respective areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. All tribal contacts on this list were sent a letter from the City on November 20, 2023, for the purposes of AB 52 consultation. Only one response was received in response to the City’s AB 52 letters. The Kizh Nation emailed City staff to request consultation.
The Kizh Nation sent the City proposed mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources, which the City accepted with no modifications or revisions.
As discussed previously in Section 4.2 Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC 5020.1(k).
The project site is not likely to contain any prehistoric site or archaeological resources based on archival research and field surveys conducted for the project site. There is little potential for the proposed project to impact prehistoric resources due to the low likelihood of resource presence, significant prior disturbance from past grading and development activities on the project site and in the surrounding area. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1, as provided in Section 4.2 Cultural Resources, has been included to mitigate potentially significant impacts associated with the unlikely discovery of archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources (TCRs), on the project site.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
The project site is not likely to contain any human remains due to the fact that soils on the site have been previously disturbed associated with prior disturbance from past grading and development activities on the project site and surrounding area. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1, as provided in Section 4.2, has been included to mitigate potentially significant impacts associated with the unlikely discovery of human remains, including those determined to be of Native American descent, on the project site. Therefore, implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown human remains to a less than significant level.
As noted above, the Kizh Nation provided mitigation measures to address potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, which incorporate the recommendations of the Kizh Nation, would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City’s consultation with the Kizh Nation or any other interested local Native American tribe, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance.
4.8.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
No impacts to known tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register would occur. Prior to mitigation, the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -8
4.8.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.8.8.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
No Regulatory Compliance Measures are required.
4.8.8.2 Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities. The project Applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project Applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh Nation from a designated point of contact for the project Applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh Nation to the project Applicant/lead agency
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.8-9 that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/ construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh Nation TCRs.
Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh Nation monitor and/or Kizh Nation archaeologist. The Kizh Nation will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
Mitigation Measure TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects. Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all grounddisturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh Nation determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh Nation monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -10 Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
Mitigation Measure TCR-3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains”
encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project Applicant/developer and/or landowner,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» 4.8-11 before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
4.8.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
No impacts to known tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register would occur. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would reduce potential impacts to newly discovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
4.8.10 Cumulative Impacts
Defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in an area of interest.
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to known and unknown tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or otherwise determined by the lead agency to be significant. Further, each individual development proposal received by the City that requires discretionary approval is required to undergo individual environmental review pursuant to CEQA. AB 52 outreach would be required for those discretionary projects for which a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report is prepared.
Furthermore, impacts of other projects on tribal cultural resources are generally site-specific resulting from ground-disturbing activities, which would require unique impact analysis to 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
4.8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -12 determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant impacts. Thus, there is no potential for the project to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact associated with the significance of a tribal cultural resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5.
Additionally, when resources can be assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources are less than significant. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would ensure that the proposed project, together with the related projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the EIR identifies potential alternatives to the 5665 Plaza Drive Project in the City of Cypress. This discussion includes a summary of the project and the project objectives, the project- related impacts, identification of the alternatives considered but rejected from further analysis, and presentation of the alternatives analysis, as well as identification of the environmentally superior alternative.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR include a discussion of a reasonable range of project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” EIRs are not required to evaluate alternatives that are infeasible, rather the purpose of the alternatives analysis is to foster informed decision making and public participation.
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6 (e) and (f) specify:
• The “no project” alternative shall also be evaluated, along with its impact. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. Of those alternatives, the EIR needs to examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.
In addition to specifying that the EIR evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, Section 15126.6 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify any alternatives that were considered but were rejected as infeasible. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives to the proposed project, including any considered but rejected, are also evaluated in this section.
5.2 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. Each 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -2 of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project is capable of being mitigated to below a level of significance. The alternatives considered in this EIR include the following:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative: Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the No Project Alternative assumes the existing land uses and condition of the project site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published (May 2024) would remain unchanged.
Under the No Action Alternative, the existing five-story office building on the project site would remain in place. The No Project Alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no new development of any kind were to occur on the project site. The setting of the project site at the time the NOP was published is described in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR with respect to individual environmental issues and forms the baseline of the impact assessment of the proposed project. While the No Project Alternative would avoid the potential impacts of the proposed project and require no mitigation measures, none of the project objectives would be achieved.
• Alternative 2: Reduced Footprint Alternative: Alternative 2 would occupy the same building footprint as the proposed project and would include the construction and operation of a lightindustrial building on the project site; however, Alternative 2 would reduce the project footprint by one-third (33 percent). Under this alternative, it is assumed that the light industrial building would be built out at 127,596 square feet (63,798 square feet smaller than the proposed project) and operate at a reduced capacity as compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be located on the same approximately 8.53-acre project site, include demolition of the existing 150,626-square-foot five-story office building, and construction of a new light industrial building, with associated landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. Alternative 2 would provide the same number of loading docks on the western side of the proposed building (25 docks) and the same number of parking spaces (206 parking stalls) on all sides of the new building. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would relocate the two existing driveways, providing a new westernmost driveway that would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck loading docks on the proposed building’s west side, and a new eastern driveway, which would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east. • Alternative 3 – No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative: Alternative 3 would occupy the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the proposed building would not include cold storage space, nor would it accommodate the transport of refrigeration units by trucks accessing the project site. Because the proposed building would not accommodate refrigeration, Alternative 3 would utilize less energy and produce fewer operational emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be located on an approximately 8.53-acre site and include the demolition of the existing 150,626-square-foot five-story office building on the project site and the construction of a new 191,394-square-foot light industrial building with 181,061 square feet of warehouse space and 10,333 square feet of office space with associated landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. Alternative 3 would provide the same number of loading docks on the west side of the proposed building and include the same number of parking spaces on all sides of the new building. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would relocate
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-3 two existing driveways, providing a new westernmost driveway that would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck loading docks on the proposed building’s west side and a new eastern driveway, which would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east. • Alternative 4: Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns: Alternative 4 would occupy the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, under Alternative 4, both deep dynamic compaction and stone columns would be utilized during construction to reduce the liquefaction potential of project soils. Deep dynamic compaction is a ground improvement technique which involves the repeated dropping of a heavy weight onto the ground surface from a predetermined height to improve the density and load-bearing capacity of soil layers.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would utilize a 10-ton weight which would be dropped at a height of 60 feet. Stone columns involve filling pre-augered cavities with aggregate, the aggregate is then compacted using static crowd pressure combined with a high frequency, low amplitude vibratory hammer. Deep dynamic compaction and stone columns would reduce the vibratory impact of the proposed project, as the proposed project would only utilize deep dynamic compaction methods for soil compaction. Under Alternative 4, stone columns would be placed around the periphery of the project site, while deep dynamic compaction would only be implemented near the central portions of the project site to reduce vibratory impacts to nearby buildings. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would be located on an approximately 8.53-acre site and include the demolition of the existing 150,626- square-foot five-story office building on the project site and the construction of a new 191,394-square-foot light industrial building with 181,061 square feet of warehouse space and 10,333 square feet of office space with associated landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. Alternative 4 would provide the same number of loading docks on the west side of the proposed building and include the same number of parking spaces on all sides of the new building. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would relocate two existing driveways, providing a new westernmost driveway that would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck loading docks on the proposed building’s west side and a new eastern driveway, which would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east.
For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all of the alternatives would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances. The alternatives and their impacts are further described below. The Alternatives analysis provides the following:
• A description of the alternative;
• An analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the alternative and the significance of those impacts (per Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, significant effects of an alternative shall be discussed but, in less detail, than those of the proposed project); and • Summary comparison of the alternative relative to the proposed project’s impacts, specifically addressing whether the alternative would meet the project objectives, eliminate or reduce impacts as compared to the project, and include other comparative merit. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -4
5.2.1 Project Summary
As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project would include the demolition of an existing five-story office building on the project site and the construction of a concrete tilt-up light industrial building. The proposed building would be 191,394 square feet in size including 181,061 square feet of warehouse space and 10,333 square feet of office space (5,184 square feet on the first floor and 5,149 square feet on the second floor). The proposed office space would be located at the southeast corner of the building. The maximum building height would be approximately 51 feet, 6 inches, to the top of the parapet on the northeast and southeast corners of the building; however, the majority of the building would have a maximum height of 40 feet. Additionally, the proposed project would include associated site improvements, including landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements.
5.2.2 Project Objectives
The alternative is analyzed to determine whether it achieves the basic objectives of the proposed project. The underlying purpose of the proposed project would be to meet a greater market demand for state-of-the-art light industrial buildings by replacing a vacant office building. As stated in Chapter 3.0, the City has established the following intended specific objectives for the proposed project that would serve to aid decision-makers in their review of the proposed project and its associated environmental impacts:
1. To meet a greater market demand for state-of-the-art light industrial buildings by replacing a vacant office building.
2. To promote development that will attract new businesses to operate in the City.
3. To encourage business development that will generate a range of employment opportunities for the community.
4. To help attract new business enterprises that will result in a positive flow of revenue to the City.
5.2.3 Project-Related Impacts
As described further in Chapter 2.0, Introduction, the Initial Study (IS) for the proposed project (Appendix B) determined that all impacts would be less than significant for Aesthetics, Agricultural/Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities/Service Systems, and Wildfire. Accordingly, this EIR addresses potential impacts associated with Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources.
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. No mitigation measures would be required to reduce project-related impacts, and the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-5 The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated to Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise; Transportation/Traffic; and Tribal Cultural Resources.
For the purpose of this alternatives analysis, it is assumed the alternatives would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances. It is also assumed that all mitigation measures required for project implementation would also apply to any project alternative and that similar reductions in impacts would be achieved through such mitigation.
Therefore, the following discussion focuses on the ability of the alternative to further reduce or lessen project impacts and the potential impacts of the project related to these issues.
5.3 ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
The following is a discussion of the development alternatives considered during the environmental review process and the reasons they were not selected for detailed analysis in the Alternatives section of this Draft EIR.
5.3.1 Alternative Sites Considered
In accordance with Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR should identify alternatives considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their elimination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts. Alternatives that have been initially considered and rejected as infeasible include the following, which have been rejected, as detailed below, either because they would create new or more severe impacts compared to the proposed project, are repetitive of other alternatives, would not meet the project objectives and requirements, or are otherwise considered infeasible.
5.3.2 Off-Site Alternative
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant impacts of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant impacts of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][A]). Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project Applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]). If it is determined that no feasible alternative locations exist, the EIR must disclose the reasons for this conclusion (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][B]).
No alternative locations where the proposed project could be undertaken are analyzed in the Draft EIR. As discussed further below, there is no other property in the City that would support a development similar to the proposed project. The surrounding area is highly urbanized, and there 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -6 is no land of sufficient size currently available for development (approximately 8.53 acres) to develop the proposed project in an area that would be compatible with light industrial uses. In addition, the Applicant/Developer does not own or control any other property within the City or in the vicinity of the project site that would be suitable for development of the proposed project.
Moreover, the Applicant/Developer cannot reasonably acquire or control an alternative site in a timely fashion that would allow for the implementation of a project with similar uses and square footage.
The following alternative sites were considered as potential alternatives to the project site, but eliminated for the reasons discussed above and below:
Alternative Site within the Specific Plan Area: The planning areas within the McDonnell Specific Plan Area are primarily designated for industrial, warehouse, office, and commercial uses. The light industrial uses of the proposed project would be compatible with the uses in Planning Area 1 (Industrial/Warehouse/Office) and Planning Area 2 (Industrial Warehouse). The proposed project is located in Planning Area 1. Planning Area 1 encompasses a total of approximately 16 acres.
There is insufficient available space in the remaining parts of Planning Area 1 to accommodate the proposed project. Planning Area 2 is located directly adjacent to Planning Area 1 and encompasses an area of approximately 15 acres. There would be insufficient space within Planning Area 2 as all available areas are already built out or projects are currently under construction. As such neither planning area would have sufficient space to accommodate the proposed project. Development of the proposed project within another portion of the McDonnell Specific Plan is not a feasible option. Therefore, alternative sites within the specific plan area were rejected from further consideration and are not analyzed further in this Draft EIR.
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0: The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0, approved by voters in 2018 as part of a ballot initiative (Measure A), covers an approximately 154.4-acre area located approximately 1.1 mile west of the project site and generally bound by Cerritos Avenue, Katella Avenue, and Lexington Drive. The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 established a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework to develop a town center, housing, and public park space in parts of the Los Alamitos Race Course, the former Cypress Golf Club, and adjacent property. Although some of the property included in the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 area may be currently available for development, the use of this potential alternative site for the proposed project is infeasible for several reasons. First, the Project Applicant does not own or control this land.
Second, the available area within the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0’s Town Center District, is planned for a variety of retail, entertainment, commercial, and residential uses to create a gathering place and “main street” for the community. Despite the fact that the light industrial facility included in the proposed project would not be an expressly prohibited use, it is reasonable to conclude that the facility would not be permitted within the Town Center District because it shares some key characteristics (a warehouse, loading docks, and large volumes of goods entering the site via trucks) with other land uses such as warehousing, that are expressly prohibited within the Town Center District. In addition, the proposed project’s uses would not be permitted in any of the other land use districts in the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 area. As noted above, the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 was approved by the voters of the City of Cypress; therefore, with the exception of certain minor
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-7 adjustments, it may only be amended or repealed by a vote of the people. Development of the proposed project within the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 is not a feasible option.
Development of the proposed project at an alternative site (assuming one was available) could potentially result in some environmental impacts that would be similar to or greater than those of the proposed project’s environmental impacts, depending on the proximity of the alternate site to sensitive uses. Conversely, given that the project site is located in a highly urbanized area, it is unlikely that relocating the proposed project to another site would substantially lessen any of its impacts.
As such, no alternative sites were considered feasible because, as discussed above, the Applicant/ Developer does not own or control another project site in the City, no suitable alternative site is available that would achieve the underlying purpose and objectives of the proposed project, and development of the proposed project on an alternative site would likely result in many of the same environmental impacts as development of the proposed project on the project site. For these reasons, the alternative sites option was rejected from further consideration.
5.4 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered in this EIR.
5.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the No Project Alternative assumes the existing land uses and condition of the project site at the time the NOP was published (May 2024) would continue to exist without any changes. The setting of the project site at the time the NOP was published is described throughout Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR with respect to individual environmental issues and forms the baseline of the impact assessment of the proposed project.
The No Project Alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no new development of any kind were to occur on the project site. The No Project Alterative would allow existing conditions on the project site to remain unchanged. While the No Project Alternative would lessen or avoid impacts of the proposed project and require no mitigation measures, none of the project objectives would be achieved.
The following provides a description of the No Project Alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the No Project Alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the No Project Alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
5.4.1.1 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality. The No Project Alternative would not require grading or construction, and, assuming no increase in occupancy to the existing office building, would not change or increase the intensity of the existing on-site use, nor increase vehicle trips to and from the project site. If the proposed project were not approved, the existing office building could be re-leased to tenants and new 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -8 tenants could move into the currently vacant office space, which would substantially increase vehicle trips in the area. Therefore, no additional air pollutant emissions related to construction and operations would be generated under the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in no impacts to air quality. Therefore, the level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project.
Cultural Resources. The No Project Alternative would not require any grading, site work, or demolition because no new development would occur on the project site. No buildings would be constructed on the project site. As no ground disturbance would occur, there is no potential for impacts to previously unidentified or as-of-yet undiscovered cultural materials that may exist at the project site. No impacts to on-site cultural resources would occur under this alternative. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project.
Energy. The No Project Alternative would not require any grading, site work, or demolition due to construction on the project site. No new buildings would be constructed on the project site and no increased operations would occur. If the proposed project were not approved, the existing office building could be re-leased to tenants and new tenants could move into the currently vacant office space, which would increase energy demand from current conditions and increase vehicle trips to and from the project site. If no re-occupancy occurred (which is possible without any associated environmental review under existing permits), there would be no increased energy use under the No Project Alternative over existing conditions, resulting in no impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operations. Therefore, no impact related to energy resources would occur under this alternative. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project.
Geology and Soils. The No Project Alternative would not require any grading, excavation, or site work because no demolition or construction activities would occur on the project site. As the project site would not be redeveloped under this alternative, no impact or increased potential for damage to structures/facilities or injury to persons resulting from geologic conditions or seismic/seismic-related events would occur. Furthermore, in the absence of any modification requiring ground disturbance, there would be no potential for impacts to previously unidentified or as-of-yet undiscovered potential paleontological resources that may be located on the project site. While the proposed project included Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 through Mitigation Measure GEO-2 to reduce impacts to liquefaction and paleontological resources to a less than significant level, no impact to geology and soils would occur under this alternative. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development would occur on the project site. No new buildings would be constructed on the project site. Although this alternative does not assume that the existing office building would be re-occupied in its entirety, it is possible that the building could be re-leased to new tenants. The increase in occupancy would increase emissions beyond what was assumed in this EIR as “baseline” conditions (e.g., 25 percent occupancy). Re-occupancy of the building could
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-9 occur without the need for additional environmental review. Therefore, although this alternative is assumed not to increase greenhouse gas emissions from new on-site uses or additional vehicle trips, based on the assumption that existing conditions would continue, emissions could increase substantially if the building is re-tenanted. No impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would occur. Therefore, No Project Alternative would result in no impact to greenhouse gas emission.
The level of impact associated with this issue would be reduced under the No Project Alternative compared to the proposed project.
Noise. The No Project Alternative would not involve any grading, deep dynamic compaction activities, construction vehicle, or truck trips, nor would it involve demolition activities. Therefore, the noise impacts that are typically associated with grading and construction would not occur under this alternative. While the proposed project includes Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce impacts to construction noise and vibration to a less than significant level, all construction impacts associated with this alternative are likely to be reduced and there would be no impact. If the proposed project were not approved, the existing office building could be re-leased to tenants and new tenants could move into the currently vacant office space, which would increase vehicle trips to and from the project site and thus increase traffic noise in the area. If no re-occupancy occurred (which is possible without any associated environmental review under existing permits), no noise impacts would occur.
Additionally, the stationary noise sources associated with proposed industrial uses would be eliminated, reducing the ambient noise levels. Therefore, this alternative would result in no impact related to noise and vibration. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project Transportation. Under The No Project Alternative, the project site would remain in its current developed state, which includes an existing office building. This alternative would not directly result in an increase in daily traffic volumes on local or regional roadways; therefore, traffic operations at intersections and on roadway segments would not be altered. However, If the proposed project were not approved, the existing office building could be re-leased to tenants, and new tenants could move into the currently vacant office space. Under this scenario, vehicle trips would increase beyond what were assumed to be in this EIR as baseline conditions. A fully occupied office building would significantly increase trips beyond currently existing conditions.
While the proposed project includes Mitigation Measure TRA-1 to reduce impacts to reduce transportation hazards related to truck access and signage to a less than significant level, all impacts associated with this alternative are likely to be reduced and there would be no impact on transportation. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project.
Tribal Cultural Resources. The No Project Alternative would not require any grading, site work, or removal of vegetation because no new development would occur on the project site. In addition, no new buildings would be constructed on the project site. As no disturbance of existing topography would occur, there is no potential for impacts to previously identified or any as-of-yet undiscovered tribal cultural materials that may exist. While the proposed project includes Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, to reduce tribal cultural resource impacts to a less than significant. The No Project Alternative would result in no impact to on-site tribal cultural resources. Therefore, no impact related to tribal cultural resources would occur under this 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -10 alternative. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project.
5.4.1.2 Attainment of Project Objectives
While the No Project Alternative would eliminate the impacts associated with the proposed project, as well as those impacts determined to be less than significant, it would not meet any of the project objectives. Since the project site would remain undeveloped and vacant, this alternative would not: (1) meet a greater market demand for state-of-the-art light industrial buildings by replacing a vacant office building; (2) realize the City’s industrial goal, policies, and programs to strengthen its economic base; (3) promote development that will attract new businesses to operate in the City; (4) encourage business development that will generate a range of employment opportunities for the community; or (5) help attract new business enterprises that will result in a positive flow of revenue to the City. As a result, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
5.4.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Footprint Alternative
The following provides a description of the Reduced Footprint Alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The purpose of the Reduced Footprint Alternative is to reduce the proposed light industrial square footage and facility footprint, which are the primary sources of project-related air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation impacts.
The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the Reduced Footprint Alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Reduced Footprint Alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
The potential impacts associated with the Reduced Footprint Alternative are described below. As discussed, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop the same use as the proposed project on the same project site. As such, it can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative.
5.4.2.1 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop a reduced size light industrial building on the same site as the proposed project. It is assumed that the proposed landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements identified for the proposed project would remain the same under the Reduced Footprint and construction activities for the proposed project, and this alternative would be similar. However, due to the reduced development under this alternative, this alternative may result in reduced construction and operational emissions, including those due to vehicle trips and stationary equipment, compared to those under the proposed project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-11 The Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in an approximately 33 percent reduction in development, which would proportionally correlate with a reduction in the number of pollutants emitted during construction and operation of this alternative. As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the EIR, the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is currently designated nonattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (O3), particulate matter 2.5 microns and less (PM2.5), and particulate matter 10 microns in diameter and less (PM10). Consistent with the proposed project, construction of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Operation of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would not exceed the significance criteria for daily volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would reduce the number of pollutants emitted during operation. Therefore, operation of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
Consistent with the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to CO hot spots, odors, and health risk impacts during operation, and no mitigation measures are required.
All air quality impacts would be reduced compared to those of the proposed project and would be less than significant.
Cultural Resources. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop the same site as the proposed project and would result in similar alterations to the project site topography. Although the Reduced Footprint Alternative could result in a reduced construction footprint on the site, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would still involve construction on the project site that could potentially disturb previously unknown historical and archaeological resources and human remains, and result in significant impacts. As such, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 would also be required for this alternative to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, under this alternative, potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Reduced Footprint Alternative to the proposed project.
Energy. Implementation of the Reduced Footprint Alternative assumes that the eastern portion of the project site would be developed with one light industrial building totaling 127,596 square feet.
This represents a reduction in development of 63,798 square feet, or approximately 33 percent, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would result in lower energy demand during construction and operation compared to the proposed project because of the reduced construction activity and level of development. Consistent with the proposed project, this alternative would be required to implement Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1 to reduce truck idling times. Therefore, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -12 fuel or energy during construction and operation and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment uses, and transportation. Therefore, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to energy resources. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project.
Geology and Soils. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop the same site as the proposed project and, therefore, would result in the same potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic hazards as the proposed project. Consistent with the proposed project, compliance with Seismic and Building Standards in the Building Code as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 would be required as a condition under this alternative. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which would require the construction contractor to comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation to reduce the proposed project’s impact related to liquefaction would reduce impacts related to liquefaction to less than significant. Therefore, with implementation Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 and Mitigation Measure GEO-, impacts resulting from strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, liquefaction, landslide, unstable slopes, expansive soils, and soil collapse would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would involve the same construction activities on the project site that could impact previously unknown unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features, as the proposed project. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Reduced Footprint Alternative to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Implementation of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in a reduction in development of 63,798 square feet, or approximately 33 percent, compared to the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would result in lower energy demand during construction compared to the proposed project because of the reduction in development. This alternative would also result in reduced emissions from all operational greenhouse gas sources because the emissions from each source would vary in direct proportion to the building size. Total net annual operational emissions (which include energy, mobile, solid waste, and water consumption sources) for this alternative are assumed to be less than the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would have lower greenhouse gas emission impacts than the proposed project. Greenhouse gas emissions under this alternative, similar to the proposed project, would not exceed the 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/year) threshold of significance. Therefore, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project.
Noise. Construction activities under the Reduced Footprint Alternative would involve the use of generally the same types of construction equipment and vehicles as the proposed project; however, construction activities would take place at further distances from the nearest receptors
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-13 as under the proposed project. As a result, the daily construction noise levels generated under this alternative would be less than that generated by the construction of the proposed project.
Consistent with the proposed project, Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 would still be required. Under this alternative deep dynamic compaction activities would occur at further distances from the nearby sensitive receptors and the potential for building damage would be less than the proposed project. Consistent with the proposed project, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would still be required to reduce the potential for vibration damage to a less than significant impact. However, due to the reduced project footprint under this alternative, the duration of construction would be reduced, the duration of exposure to noise and vibration impacts would be shorter, and the noise and vibration impacts to nearby receptors would be reduced. Therefore, impacts related to vibration under this alternative, would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project.
Transportation. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop a smaller light industrial building (127,596 square feet, which is 63,798 square feet less than the proposed project) on the same site as the proposed project. It is assumed that the proposed landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements identified for the proposed project would remain the same under the Reduced Footprint Alternative and construction activities for the proposed project and would be constructed consistent with City standards and regulations. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in less of an increase in vehicle trips to and from the project site because the number of trucks accessing the project site would be reduced by 33 percent. Under this alternative, all study area intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours.
Consistent with the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in less than significant impacts concerning conflicts with applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b), and inadequate emergency access. Consistent the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which involves the installation of on-site traffic signing and striping to direct heavy trucks to the driveway on Douglas Drive. Impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature under this alternative would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project.
Tribal Cultural Resources. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop the same site as the proposed project and would result in similar alterations to the project site topography. Due to the reduced project size proposed under this alternative, this alternative could result in a reduced construction footprint. However, construction of this alternative would still result in grounddisturbing activities that could impact previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Consistent with the proposed project, this alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1, to reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources and the discovery of human remains, including those determined to be of Native American descent, to a less than significant level. Additionally, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 to reduce potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources to 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -14 a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project.
5.4.2.2 Attainment of Project Objectives
As discussed above, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop a smaller light industrial building (127,596 square feet, which is 63,798 square feet less than the proposed project) on the same site as the proposed project. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would fulfill project objectives by constructing a light industrial facility that would provide (1) a greater market demand for state-of-the-art light industrial buildings by replacing a vacant office building; realize the City’s industrial goal, policies, and programs to strengthen its economic base; (2) promote development that will attract new businesses to operate in the City; (3) encourage business development that will generate a range of employment opportunities for the community; and (4) help attract new business enterprises that will result in a positive flow of revenue to the City.
However, due to the reduced development proposed under this alternative, it would not provide the same capacity or employment opportunities as the proposed project. As such, this alternative would only partially meet project objectives.
5.4.3 Alternative 3: No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative The following provides a description of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The purpose of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative is to eliminate cold storage space in the proposed light industrial building and truck refrigeration units, which are the primary source of project-related operational air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions.
The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
The potential impacts associated with the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative are described below. As discussed, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would develop the same use as the proposed project on the same project site. As such, it can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative.
5.4.3.1 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project, on the same site as the proposed project. It is assumed that the proposed landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements identified for the proposed project would remain the same under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative. Construction
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-15 activities for the proposed project would also remain the same. However, during operation, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not include any refrigerated cold storage space in the light industrial building or the transport of refrigeration units by trucks accessing the project site. Consistent with the proposed project, construction of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not exceed the significance criteria for daily VOCs, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would reduce the number of pollutants emitted during operation, specifically emissions related to mobile source and energy source emissions. Therefore, consistent with the proposed project, operation of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
Consistent with the proposed project, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to CO hot spots, odors, and health risk impacts during operation, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operational air quality impacts would be reduced compared to those of the proposed project and would be less than significant. Therefore, the level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative than the proposed project.
Cultural Resources. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not include any cold storage space in the light industrial building or the transport of refrigeration units by trucks accessing the project site. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in the same construction footprint on the site as the proposed project. Consistent with the proposed project, construction of this alternative has the potential to impact unidentified archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities. As such, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 would also be required for this alternative to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, under this alternative, potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative to the proposed project.
Energy. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not include any cold storage space in the light industrial building or the transport of refrigeration units by trucks accessing the project site. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in the same construction activities on the site as the proposed project; however, the implementation of this alternative would result in lower energy demand during operation compared to the proposed project due to the of the elimination of cold storage and refrigerated trucks accessing the project site. Consistent with the proposed project, compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1, which would reduce energy usage on the project site during construction through reducing 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -16 truck idling times, would be required under this alternative. With implementation of the regulatory compliance measure, impacts related to energy resources during project construction would be less than significant. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy during construction or operation and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment uses, and transportation. Therefore, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact to energy resources. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative than the proposed project.
Geology and Soils. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would develop the same site as the proposed project and therefore, would result in the same potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic hazards. Consistent with the proposed project, compliance with Seismic and Building Standards in the Building Code as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-2 would be required as a condition under this alternative. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which would require the construction contractor to comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation to reduce the proposed project’s impact related to liquefaction, would reduce impacts related to liquefaction to less than significant and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would involve the same construction activities on the project site, as the proposed project, which could impact previously unknown unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative than the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not include any cold storage in the light industrial building or the transport of refrigeration units by trucks accessing the project site. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in the same demolition and construction activities and would produce similar greenhouse gas emissions as the proposed project. Under this alternative, operational emissions associated with mobile-source emissions, and energy consumption would be reduced; however, area sources emissions (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution) emissions would be similar to the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative than the proposed project.
Noise. Construction activities under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would involve the use of the same types of construction equipment and vehicles as the proposed project, and construction activities would take place at the same distances from the nearest receptors as under the proposed project. As a result, the daily construction noise levels generated under this alternative would be comparable to those generated by the construction of the proposed project, and compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 would still be required; this alternative would also result in similar vibration impacts at the nearby sensitive receptors and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would still be required to reduce the potential for vibration damage to
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-17 a less than significant impact. Under this alternative vibration impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operation of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative has the potential to reduce operational noise as this alternative would not include cold storage fan units. Under the proposed project, these cold storage fan units would operate 24 hours per day and generate a noise level of 57.5 Aweighted decibel equivalent continuous sound level (dBA Leq) at 60 feet. Under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative, it is assumed that the elimination of cold storage would also eliminate the need for cold storage fan units within the warehouse, reducing operational noise compared to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to operational noise under this alternative, would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Refrigeration Warehouse than the proposed project.
Transportation. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not include any cold storage space in the light industrial building or the transport of refrigeration units by trucks accessing the project site. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in the same construction activities on the site as the proposed project; however, implementation of this alternative would eliminate cold storage in the proposed warehouse space and would eliminate all refrigerated trucks, reducing the number of daily truck trips. Under this alternative, all study area intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours.
Consistent with the proposed project, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in less than significant impacts concerning conflicts with applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b), and inadequate emergency access. Consistent the proposed project, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which involves the installation of on-site traffic signing and striping to direct heavy trucks to the driveway on Douglas Drive. Impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature under this alternative would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
The level of impact associated with this issue would be less under the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative than the proposed project.
Tribal Cultural Resources. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project, would develop the same site as the proposed project and would result in similar alterations to the project site topography. Construction of this alternative would still result in ground-disturbing activities that could impact previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Consistent with the proposed project, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1, to reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources and the discovery of human remains, including those determined to be of Native American descent, to a less than significant level. Additionally, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would be required to the implement Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 to reduce potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources to a less than 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -18 significant level. Therefore, impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the No Refrigeration Warehouse to the proposed project.
5.4.3.2 Attainment of Project Objectives
As discussed above, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would not include any cold storage space in the light industrial building or the transport of refrigeration units by trucks accessing the project site. While the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would reduce the operational emissions of criteria pollutants, operational greenhouse gas emissions, operational energy consumption, and stationary noise levels, when compared with the proposed project, this alternative would not totally fulfill Project Objectives 2 and 4, as warehouse projects without cold storage would by definition exclude certain users and generally not be as competitive as warehouses with cold storage. As such, this alternative would only partially meet project objectives.
5.4.1 Alternative 4: Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns The following provides a description of the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The purpose of the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative is to reduce vibratory impacts to sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the proposed project.
The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
The potential impacts associated with the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative are described below. As discussed, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would develop the same use as the proposed project on the same project site. As such, it can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative.
5.4.1.1 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project and the same construction footprint.
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same operational air quality impacts as the proposed project; however, the installation of stone columns alongside deep dynamic compaction would require additional construction equipment such as an auger rig and compactors. While the addition of construction equipment has the potential to increase construction emissions when
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-19 compared to the proposed project, these emissions would be short term and would not represent a significant increase when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative, project construction would not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would not exceed the significance criteria for daily VOCs, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same operational impacts as the proposed project and would result in a less than significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
Consistent with the proposed project, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to CO hot spots, odors, and health risk impacts during operation, and no mitigation measures are required.
Construction emissions under this alternative may result in a negligible increase compared to those of the proposed project. Therefore, the level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative to the proposed project.
Cultural Resources. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project and would develop the same site as the proposed project; however, under this alternative, both deep dynamic compaction and stone columns would be used during construction. Construction activities associated with stone columns would involve the use of augers at shallow-to-medium depths below the ground surface for the drilling of the initial cavities for the installation of stone columns. Under the proposed project, only deep dynamic compaction would be used, and these activities would not include excavation; however, the vibration impacts caused by this activity would likely impact buried archaeological resources, if present. Therefore, consistent with the proposed project, construction using the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative has the potential to impact unidentified archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be required under this alternative to reduce potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Additionally, adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 would be required as part of this alternative to ensure that the project has minimal impacts related to unknown buried human remains. Therefore, the level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative to the proposed project.
Energy. Implementation of the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would involve both deep dynamic compaction activities and the installation of stone columns to mitigate the soils liquefaction potential. Under this alternative, impacts to energy during construction would be similar to that of the proposed project. Consistent with the proposed project, this alternative would be required to implement Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1 to reduce truck idling times. Therefore, the Deep Dynamic 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -20 Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy during construction and operation and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment uses, and transportation. Therefore, this alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to energy resources. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative to the proposed project.
Geology and Soils. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would develop the same site as the proposed project and, therefore, would result in similar potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic hazards as the proposed project. Consistent with the proposed project, compliance with Seismic and Building Standards in the Building Code as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 would be required as a condition under this alternative. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which would require the construction contractor to comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation to reduce the proposed project’s impact related to liquefaction, would reduce impacts related to liquefaction to less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of the regulatory compliance measure and mitigation measure, impacts resulting from strong seismic ground shaking, seismicrelated ground failure, liquefaction, landslide, unstable slopes, expansive soils, and soil collapse would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would involve the use of augers at shallow-to-medium depths below the ground surface for drilling of the initial cavities for the installation of stone columns. Under the proposed project, only deep dynamic compaction would be used and these activities would not include excavation; however, the vibration impacts caused by this activity would likely impact buried paleontological resources or unique geologic features, if present. Therefore, consistent with the proposed project, construction using the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative has the potential to impact paleontological resources or unique geologic features during ground-disturbing activities. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project and the same construction footprint.
Implementation of this alternative would result in similar construction and operational greenhouse gas emissions, including those due to mobile sources (e.g., cars and trucks), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (landfilling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Therefore, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant under this alternative. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative to the proposed project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-21 Noise. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would develop the same site as the proposed project and would involve similar construction activities including demolition, grading, site preparation, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities; however, under this alternative both deep dynamic compaction and stone columns would be utilized for soil stabilization. This alternative would only utilize deep dynamic compaction within the central portion of the project site, while stone columns would be installed around the periphery of the project site. Under this alternative, it is assumed the deep dynamic compaction activities would not be implemented within 80 feet of the nearest buildings to reduce potential building damage and vibration impacts. While this alternative may generate short-term noise and vibration impacts from associated equipment, compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise and vibration, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operational activities under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would involve the same operational activities and generate the noise impacts from project operations as the proposed project. Consistent with the proposed project, under this alternative, noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Transportation. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project and would result in generally similar construction activities on the site as the proposed project with generally similar trip generation characteristics.
Similar to the proposed project, all study area intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative.
Consistent with the proposed project, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would result in a less than significant impact concerning conflicts with applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b), and inadequate emergency access. Consistent with the proposed project, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which involves the installation of on-site traffic signing and striping. Impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature under this alternative would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative to the proposed project.
Tribal Cultural Resources. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; and would develop the same site as the proposed project and would result in similar alterations to the project site topography. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would involve the use of augers at shallow-to- medium depths below the ground surface for the drilling of the initial cavities for the installation of stone columns. Both deep dynamic compaction and stone column activities could impact previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Consistent with the proposed project, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 to reduce potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources under this alternative would be less than significant with mitigation 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -22 incorporated. The level of impact associated with this issue would be similar under the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative to the proposed project.
5.4.1.2 Attainment of Project Objectives
As discussed above, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would only include the use of deep dynamic compaction activities within the central portion of the project site and would utilize stone columns around the periphery of the project site during construction. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would reduce impacts to ground-borne vibration during project construction when compared with the proposed project. As a result, this alternative would fulfill all of the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project.
5.5 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the proposed project and the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives and the proposed project. The qualitative environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the proposed project are summarized in Table 5.1. As explained previously in Section 5.1, Introduction, of this chapter, the comparisons contained in Table 5.1 and the subsequent discussion are provided for informational purposes only because the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.
The No Project Alternative would have the least impact on the environment because it would require minimal construction, with the exception of the minor renovation of the existing buildings on the project site and would thereby avoid most of the proposed project’s environmental impacts resulting from construction. However, the No Project Alternative cannot be the only Environmentally Superior Alternative. Therefore, according to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the No Project Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify the proposed project or one of the other alternatives as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
With the exception of the No Project Alternative, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As shown in Table 5.1, Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to noise and vibration from “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” to “Less than Significant” and would have the least impact on noise and vibration compared to all other alternatives. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would also meet all of the project objectives of the proposed project. Accordingly, it is determined that the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would meet all of the project’s objectives and would result in reduced impacts to noise and vibration as compared to the proposed project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 5-23 Table 5.1: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives Impact Area
Proposed Project
Impact with Mitigation
(if any)
Alternative 1:
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2:
Reduced Footprint
Alternative
Alternative 3: No
Refrigerated
Warehouse Alternative
Alternative 4: Deep Dynamic
Compaction and Stone
Columns Alternative
Air Quality Less than Significant Less Less Less Similar Cultural Resources Less than Significant1 Less1 Similar1 Similar 1 Similar1 Energy Less than Significant Less Less Less Similar
Geology and Soils Less than Significant1 Less1 Similar1 Similar1 Similar1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant Less Less Less Similar Noise Less than Significant1 Less1 Less1 Less1 Less
Transportation Less than Significant Less1 Less1 Less1 Similar1 Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant1 Less1 Similar1 Similar1 Similar1 1 Mitigation identified.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx «10/31/24» -24 This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 6-1
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states that an EIR shall:
“Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.”
The Executive Summary of this document (Chapter 1.0) contains a detailed summary that identifies the proposed project’s environmental impacts as compared to existing conditions, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of any impacts after mitigation. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts that are considered significant, adverse, and unavoidable. All environmental issues analyzed in this Draft EIR were determined to result in less than significant impacts or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
6.2 ENERGY IMPACTS
According to Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use.”
As discussed in Section 4.3, Energy, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to energy use. Energy (e.g., fuel) usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. In addition, the net increase in electricity usage attributable to the proposed project would not represent a substantial demand on available electricity resources.
Furthermore, automobiles and transportation-related energy use to and from the project site would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards applied throughout the State and fuel efficiency is expected to increase throughout the life of the project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in transportation-related energy uses.
Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e) require that an EIR analyze growthinducing impacts and discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) also requires a discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -2 significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To address these issues, potential growth-inducing effects were examined through analysis of the following questions:
• Would the project remove obstacles to, or otherwise foster, population growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? • Would the project foster economic growth?
• Would approval of the project involve some characteristic that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e)). This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the proposed project could contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of developing the proposed land uses as described in earlier sections of this Draft EIR.
The area surrounding the project site is highly urbanized and developed with a variety of industrial, commercial, office, and warehouse land uses. The proposed project will require water, sewer, drainage, electricity, and natural gas lines. However, the project site is currently developed and located in a highly urbanized environment where these facilities already exist in place. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would require substantial utility infrastructure improvements.
The construction of the proposed project is anticipated to generate a number of constructionrelated jobs. However, as discussed in Section 4.14 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix B), it is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to be relocated from outside the region to meet the need for employees resulting from implementation of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not provide or remove housing on the project site. it is unlikely that the employment offered by the proposed project would cause people to move or relocate to the area solely for the purpose of being close to the project site.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not induce either short- nor long-term population growth.
In its existing condition, the project site is developed with an underutilized five-story office building.
The project site currently does not generate revenue for the City. The proposed project would provide a new source of property tax revenues to the City, thereby increasing the local tax base.
Therefore, the proposed project would foster economic growth.
The proposed project includes the development of a light industrial facility. The proposed project would require an amendment to the McDonnell Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1, and removal of the maximum developable area requirement while retaining the 1.0:1 FAR to maintain consistency with the General Plan. This amendment would not allow for residential uses, or add any permanent residents to the project site. Therefore, the project would not directly increase the City’s population beyond existing levels. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) would not cause a future increase in density or land use.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not have any growth-inducing impacts.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 6-3
6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires an EIR to consider and discuss significant irreversible changes that would be caused by implementation of a proposed project. The State CEQA Guidelines specify that the use of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a project should be discussed because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Primary and secondary impacts (e.g., a highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) should also be discussed because such changes generally commit future generations to similar uses. Irreversible damage can also result from environmental accidents associated with a project and should be discussed.
The type of development associated with the proposed project would consume limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption would occur during construction of the proposed project and would continue throughout the proposed project’s operational lifetime. The development of the proposed project would require a commitment of resources that would include (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the project site.
Construction of the proposed project would require consumption of resources that are not replenishable or that may renew so slowly as to be considered nonrenewable. These resources would include certain types of lumber and other forest products (e.g., hardwood lumber), aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt (e.g., sand, gravel, and stone), metals (e.g., steel, copper, and lead), petrochemical construction materials (e.g., plastics), and water. Fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline and oil) would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment. Water, which is a limited, slowly renewable resource, would also be consumed during construction of the proposed project. Furthermore, the use of construction vehicles and equipment would require the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil. As with other resources consumed during construction, the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels for energy use would occur on a temporary basis during construction of the proposed project.
Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle and truck trips associated with the project. Energy resources would be used for heating and cooling buildings, transportation within the project site, and building lighting. Although there would be an overall increase in energy demand associated with the proposed project, the project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including current Title 24 and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) standards that establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage. In addition, proposed new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 1601 through 1608). The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for industrial use.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -4 In summary, construction and operation of the proposed project would commit the use of slowly renewable and nonrenewable resources and would limit the availability of these resources on the project site for future generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed project.
However, the continued use of such resources during operation would be on a relatively small scale and consistent with regional and local urban design and development goals for the area. As a result, the use of nonrenewable resources in this manner would not result in significant irreversible changes to the environment under the proposed project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-1
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
7.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6, which is part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute, mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs:
• The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes that have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
• The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. • The lead agency shall provide measures to mitigate or avoid potentially significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents that address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
• Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either (1) submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures that would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or (2) refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures that mitigate impacts to resources that are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance with that requirement by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -2
7.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed 5665 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project) has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Cypress, as the Lead Agency, to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed project will be carried out as described in this Initial Study.
Table 7.1 sets forth the proposed mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this Initial Study and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-3 Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.4: Biological Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1
Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), the City of Cypress, or designee, shall confirm that the Applicant has retained a qualified biologist who shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities. The nesting bird survey shall include the work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as feasible) that could potentially be affected by project-related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone around the active nest(s). The
appropriate buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer active, as determined by the qualified biologist.
No more than
three days
prior to
commencement
of grading
activities
Applicant and City of
Cypress Community
Development
Director, or designee
4.5: Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1
Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that
archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). The Applicant and its construction contractor shall not collect or move any archaeological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project site. Any found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State and local guidelines, During
construction
activities
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
Department, or
designee
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7-4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Department, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific requirements regarding California PRC (Section 21083.2[g]) and the treatment of archaeological resources as specified above. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 Human Remains. In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the property owner, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City of Cypress shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment and disposition of the remains. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Director of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or designee, shall verify that all grading plans specify the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, as stated above.
During construction activities
Construction Supervisor/Applicant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-5 Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.6: Energy
Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1
Limit Idling Time. The Applicant and construction contractor would be required to comply with applicable idling regulations for on-road vehicles during project construction and operation, which require truck drivers to turn off their engines within 5 minutes of idling.
Prior to issuance
of a building
permit
Applicant and City of
Cypress Community
Development
Director, or designee
4.7: Geology and Soils
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1
Compliance with Seismic and Building Standards in the Building Code. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed buildings, the City of Cypress (City) Engineer, Building Official, or their designee, and the project soils engineer shall review the building plans to verify that the structural design conforms to the requirements of the City’s latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code. Structures and walls shall be designed in accordance with applicable sections of the City’s Building Code.
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Applicant and City of
Cypress Engineer,
Building official, or
designee
Mitigation Measure GEO-1
Implementation of Geotechnical Evaluation Recommendations.
The Applicant’s construction contractor shall implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress’ (City) Building Official, or designee. The City’s Building Official, or designee, shall confirm recommendations have been implemented into the design and construction of the proposed project prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Applicant and City of
Cypress Building
official, or designee
Mitigation Measure GEO-2
Procedures for Unexpected Paleontological Resources
Discoveries. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered, work in the immediate area of the discovery shall be halted and the Applicant shall retain a professional Paleontologist During grounddisturbing
activities
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7-6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
who meets the qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to assess the discovery. The qualified, professional Paleontologist shall make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the discovered resources, as well as the need for subsequent paleontological mitigation, which may include, but not be limited to, paleontological monitoring, collection of observed resources, preservation, stabilization and identification of collected resources, curation of resources into a museum repository, and preparation of a monitoring report of findings. The City of Cypress shall ensure that the recommendations from the qualified, professional Paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant.
Department, or designee
4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS000002. This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification statement, and any other compliance-related documents required by the permit, to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) is obtained for the project from the SMARTS and provided to the Director of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or designee, to demonstrate that coverage under the Construction General Permit has been obtained. Project Prior to commencement of construction activities
Applicant and/or Construction Supervisor/City of Cypress Director of Community Development Department, or designee
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-7 Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
construction shall comply with all applicable requirements specified in the Construction General Permit, including, but not limited to, preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction site best management practices (BMPs) to address all construction-related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for the project. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff. Construction Site BMPs shall also conform to the requirements specified in the latest edition of the Orange County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff Guidance
Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers to control and minimize the impacts of construction and
construction-related activities, materials, and pollutants on the watershed. Upon completion of construction activities and stabilization of the project site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTS.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2
If groundwater dewatering is required during construction or excavation activities and the dewatered groundwater is
discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the Applicant shall obtain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Public Works Department. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the storm drain system, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001), which covers discharges to surface waters that pose an insignificant (de minimis) threat to water quality within. This shall include submission of a Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the RWQCB at least 45 days prior to the start of dewatering. The Applicant shall provide the Prior to
commencement
of construction
activities
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Public Works, or
designee
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7-8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the Director of the City’s Public Works Department, or designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under the De Minimis Permit. Groundwater dewatering shall not be initiated until a WDID is received from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and is provided to the Director of the City’s Public Works Department, or designee. Groundwater dewatering activities shall comply with all applicable provisions in the permit, including water sampling, analysis, treatment (if required), and reporting of dewateringrelated discharges. Upon completion of groundwater dewatering activities, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB. Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3 Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City of Cypress Engineer, or designee, for review and approval in compliance with the requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County (Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062) (North Orange County MS4 Permit). The Final WQMP shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of the Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans (December 2013) and the Water Quality Management Plan template, or subsequent guidance manuals. The Final WQMP shall specify the BMPs to be incorporated into the project design to target pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site. The City shall ensure that the BMPs specified in the Final WQMP are incorporated into the final project design.
Prior to issuance of grading or building permits
Applicant and City of Cypress Engineer, or designee
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-9 Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-4
Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis. The Applicant shall submit a Final Hydrology Study to the City of Cypress Director of Public Works, or his/her designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits. The Final Hydrology Study shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of the Orange County Hydrology Manual (Orange County Environment Agency 1986) and Orange County Hydrology Manual Addendum No. 1 (Orange County Environment Agency 1996), or subsequent guidance manuals. The Final Hydrology Study shall demonstrate that the on-site drainage facilities and post-project Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., Modular Wetland Systems) are designed in compliance with the requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County (Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062) (North Orange County MS4 Permit). The Final Hydrology Study shall also demonstrate that the on-site drainage facilities and postconstruction BMPs are adequately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the design storm so that postdevelopment peak flow rates for the 10-year 24-hour frequency storm, 25-year 24-hour frequency storm, and 100-year 24-hour frequency storm does not exceed the pre-development flow rate.
The City Director of Public Works, or designee, shall ensure that the drainage facilities specified in the Final Hydrology Study are incorporated into the final project design.
Prior to issuance
of grading or
building permits
Applicant and City of
Cypress Director of
Public Works, or
designee
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7-10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.13: Noise Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 Construction Noise and Vibration. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Cypress (City) Director of Community Development Department, or designee, shall verify that grading and construction plans include the following requirements: Ensure that the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities has been achieved. Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. Construction staging areas shall be located away from off-site sensitive uses during the later phases of project development. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site whenever feasible. The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall also be posted at the construction site perimeter. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and duration of ground improvement activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.” A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be established. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels. All signs posted at the construction site shall list the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator.
Prior to issuance of grading permits
Applicant and/or Construction Supervisor/City of Cypress Director of Community Development Department, or designee
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-11 Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure NOI-1
Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan. Due to the close proximity to surrounding structures, the City of Cypress (City) Director of Community Development, or designee, shall verify prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, that the approved plans require that the construction contractor implement the following mitigation measures during project construction activities in the event that the use of heavy equipment is necessary within 25 feet (ft) of surrounding structures or when deep dynamic compaction (DDC) construction activity takes places within 80 ft of surrounding structures:
Notification to nearby businesses detailing the schedule and duration of DDC activities.
Structures that are located within 25 ft of heavy construction activities and within 80 ft of DDC construction activity that have the potential to be affected by ground-borne vibration shall be identified. This task shall be conducted by a qualified structural engineer as approved by the City’s Director of Community Development, or designee.
The Applicant’s construction contractor shall develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan for approval by the City’s Director of Community Development, or designee, to identify appropriate locations in the vicinity of nearby structures where monitoring would be conducted; set up a vibration monitoring schedule; define structure-specific maximum vibration limits based on building inspections; contain provisions to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions at those structures. The plan shall identify construction contingencies that would be implemented if vibration levels approach the established vibration limits at a particular location. Potential contingencies may include one or more of the following:
Prior to issuance
of demolition or
grading permits
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
Department, or
designee
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7-12 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
o Lowering the height of the compaction weight;
o Using a lighter compaction weight; or o Any other alternate method that is safe and appropriate, as determined by the project geotechnical consultant, in consultation with the City’s Director of Community Development (such as utilizing geopier stabilization instead of DDC). 1 At a minimum, vibration during initial site preparation activities at the locations described above shall be monitored. The monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements.
When vibration levels approach the applicable limits established in the vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan, construction shall be suspended and the appropriate mitigation measures identified in the construction contingency plan shall be implemented to reduce vibration levels below thresholds.
4.17: TransportationMitigation Measure TRA-1: Truck Access & Routing Plan and Truck Signage and Striping Plan. The Applicant shall submit a Truck Access and Routing Plan to accommodate the circulation of trucks on site. Additionally, the Applicant shall prepare a Signage and Striping Plan, consistent with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), that directs heavy trucks to the most appropriate access point. The Public Works Director of the City of Cypress, or designee, shall review and approve the Truck Access and Routing Plan and Signage and Striping Plan and confirm they have been incorporated into the project plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Prior to issuance of building permits
Applicant and City of Cypress Public Works Director, or designee 1 Utilizing a geopier stabilization system method is estimated to result in vibration levels of 0.22 at approximately 15 feet, which would ensure that vibration from construction within 10 feet remains lower than the threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for building damage.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-13 Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure TRC-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities. The project Applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/ definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project Applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh Nation from a designated point of contact for the project Applicant/lead agency Prior to ground
disturbing
activities
Applicant and City of
Cypress Engineer, or
designee
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7-14 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh Nation to the project Applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh Nation TCRs. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh Nation monitor and/or Kizh Nation archaeologist. The Kizh Nation will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. Mitigation Measure TRC-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects. Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all grounddisturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section During construction activities
Applicant and/or Construction Supervisor/City of Cypress Director of Community Development Department, or designee
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-15 Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
5097.98 shall be followed.
Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh Nation determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh Nation monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
Mitigation Measure TCR-3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nasgna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In
ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a During project
construction
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
Department, or
designee
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7-16 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
separate treatment plan shall be created. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project Applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 7-17 Table 7.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures and
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
7-18 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 8-1
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
8.1 CITY OF CYPRESS
The following individuals from the City of Cypress were involved in the preparation of this EIR:
• Alicia Velasco, Director of Planning/Community Development
8.2 EIR PREPARERS
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this Draft EIR. The nature of their involvement is summarized below.
8.2.1 LSA
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this Draft EIR:
• Ryan Bensley, AICP, Principal in Charge
• Chris Jones, AICP, Project Manager
• Lynnea Palecki, Assistant, Environmental Planner
• Amy Fischer, Principal/Air Quality, Noise and Global Climate Change Specialist • Bianca Martinez, Air Quality Specialist
• Ken Wilhelm, Principal/Transportation
• Debmalya Sinha, Principal/Transportation
• JT Stephens, Principal/Noise
• Matt Phillips, Graphics Technician
• Jason Thomas Graphics & GIS Specialist
• Mitchell Alexander, GIS Specialist
• Jessie Quigley, GIS Specialist
• Lauren Johnson, Senior Technical Editor
• Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor
8.3 TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARERS
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the technical reports in support of this Draft EIR. The nature of their involvement is summarized below.
8.3.1 G3Soil Works
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Geotechnical Investigation and Report Update, Proposed Goodman Commerce Center, 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive, Cypress, California (May 4, 2022) and the Updated Earthwork Considerations Goodman Commerce Center Cypress Building 3, 5665 Plaza Drive Cypress, California (August 25, 2023):
• Daniel J. Morikawa, P.E., Director of Engineering
• Steve E. Stricklen, CEO / Principal Geotechnical Engineer • Erik C. Haaker, P.G., C.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -2
8.3.2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 5665 Plaza Drive Cypress, California (September 3, 2021):
• Alicia Jansen, Associate Scientist
• Brian Viggiano, PG, Senior Geologist
• Kevin Miskin, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer
8.3.3 Pacific Environmental Company
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Asbestos Inspection Report 5665 Plaza Drive Cypress, California, 90630 (August 10, 2021):
• Michael Lyssy, Certified Asbestos Consultant
8.3.4 PBLA Engineering, Inc.
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) GCC Cypress Building 3 (September 20, 2023):
• Steven D. Levisee, Engineer
8.3.5 Urban Crossroads
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis (November 2023):
• Aric Evatt, PTP, Principal
• Charlene So, P.E., Senior Associate
8.4 PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER
8.4.1 Goodman North America Management, LLC
The project Applicant/Developer was consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR:
• Blair Dahl, Vice President Entitlements & Construction, Southwest Region, Goodman
8.5 PERSONS CONSULTED
8.5.1 Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
The following individuals were consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR:
• Andrew Salas, Chairman
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 9-1
9.0 REFERENCES
SECTION 4.1: AIR QUALITY
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993, currently being revised.
_____. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Website: http://www. aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf (accessed May 13, 2024). _____. n.d. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf (accessed May 13, 2024).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Outdoor Air Quality Data. 2021. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report (May 13, 2024).
Urban Crossroads. 2023. Goodman Center Commerce Center Traffic Analysis. November 21, 2023.
SECTION 4.2: CULTURAL RESOURCES
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1999. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register), OHP Technical Assistance Series #6.
City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan. Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element.
Page COSR-7. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpublished document/686/ 636123 123792970000 (accessed May 13, 2024).
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) 5665 Plaza Drive Cypress, California. September 2021.
National Park Service (NPS). The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
Website: https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm (accessed January 10, 2024).
SECTION 4.3: ENERGY
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Airborne Toxic Control Measures. Website: https://ww2.arb. ca.gov/resources/documents/airborne-toxic-control-measures (accessed May 13, 2024).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. Medium and Heavy-Duty Truck Prices and Fuel Economy 2013–2026. Website: efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=206180 (accessed May 13, 2024).
_____. 2019a. California Energy Consumption Database. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca. gov/ (May 13, 2024).
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
9 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -2 _____. 2019b. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasby county.aspx (accessed May 13, 2024).
_____. 2020. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website: https://www.energy.ca. gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demandnatural-gas-california (accessed May 13, 2024). _____. 2023. 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Docket No. 23-IEPR-01. _____. 2023. 2022 Total System Electric Generation. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2022-total-system-electric-generation#:~ :text=Highlights%20for%202022,(9%2C456%20GWh)%20from%202021. (accessed May 15, 2024).
Southern California Edison (SCE). Fact Sheets. Website: https://newsroom.edison.com/fact-sheets/ fs (accessed December 2023).
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2019. About SoCalGas. Website: https://www3.so calgas.com/about-us/company-profile (accessed November 6, 2023).
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). “Table 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S.
Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: https://www.bts.dot.gov/bts/bts/content/average-fuelefficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed May 13, 2024).
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Table F3: Motor gasoline consumption, price, and expenditure estimates, 2017.
Website: eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html&sid =CA (accessed May 13, 2024).
SECTION 4.4: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Safety Element. October 5. _____. 2021. Zoning Map. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/government/departments/ community-development/zoning-map (accessed May 7, 2024).
G3SoilWorks. 2022. Geotechnical Investigation and Report Update Proposed Goodman Commerce Center 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive. May 4, 2022.
_____. 2023 Geotechnical Investigation and Report Update, Proposed Goodman Commerce Center, 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive, (Updated Earthwork Considerations Goodman Commerce Center Cypress). August 25, 2023.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) 5757 Plaza Drive Cypress, California. September 2021.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) 9-3 SECTION 4.5: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
November.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. Connect SoCal: The 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete-040424.pdf?1714175547 (accessed May 13, 2024).
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October. Website: http://www. aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significancethresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed May 13, 2024).
Urban Crossroads. 2023. Goodman Center Commerce Center Traffic Analysis. November 21, 2023.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2022. GHG Data from UNFCCC. Website:
https://di.unfccc.int/time_series (accessed May 13, 2024).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2022. Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-usgreenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (accessed May 13, 2024).
SECTION 4.6: NOISE
Allied Commercial. 2019. KHB – K-Series Rooftop Units Standard and High Efficiency – 50 Hz Product Specifications. April.
City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Noise Element. General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/722/636123118731 230000 (accessed May 13, 2024).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
G3SoilWorks, Inc. 2023. Measured DDC Data. Geotechnical Investigation and Report Update, Proposed Goodman Commerce Center, 5665 and 5757 Plaza Drive, (Updated Earthwork Considerations Goodman Commerce Center Cypress). August 25, 2023.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2016. Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center.
Urban Crossroads. 2023. Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Analysis. November 21, 2023. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
9 P:\A-E\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\05 - Final EIR\Compiled Final EIR.docx (10/31/24) -4 SECTION 4.7: TRANSPORTATION
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG). February 2020.
County of Orange. 2020. Final Draft Guidelines For Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for the County of Orange. September 17, 2020.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory).
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2021. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
SECTION 4.8: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines. Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22491/files/tribal_ consultation_guidelines_ vol-4.pdf (accessed May 2023).
CHAPTER 6.0: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
State of California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2023. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, November 2023. Website: https://view.officeapps. live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Flabormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov%2Ffile%2Flfmont h%2Foransub.xls&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed May 28, 2024).
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
SCH NO. 2024040017
OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DROVE 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)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Index of Comments Received............................................................................................ 1-2
1.2 Format of Responses to Comments.................................................................................. 1-3
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................................................................. 2-1
2.1 State and Regional Agencies............................................................................................. 2-3
2.1.1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12..........................................2-7
2.1.2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCQAMD) ................................................2-14
2.2 Local Agencies................................................................................................................. 2-21
2.2.1 City of Los Alamitos...........................................................................................................2-26
2.3 Interested Parties............................................................................................................ 2-27
2.4 Paul Hastings (On Behalf of Warland Investments Company and Affiliated Entities) ......................................................................................................................... 2-143
3.0 ERRATA............................................................................................................ 3-1 TABLES
Table 1.A: Comments Received During the Public Comment Period..................................................1-2 Table 4.1.6: South Coast AQMD LST Thresholds (lbs/day)..................................................................3-1 Table 4.1.9: Construction Localized Emissions.................................................................................... 3-2 Table 4.1.10: Operational Localized Emissions ................................................................................... 3-3 Table 4.7.2: Baseline 2020 Orange County VMT per Employee..........................................................3-4 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
OCTOBER 2024
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)
ii
This page intentionally left blank
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)
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document comprises the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 5665 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project). It is composed of comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments, and an Errata section that clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR text. The Draft EIR and technical appendices are provided separately.
In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Cypress (City) has provided opportunities for public participation in the environmental process. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 7, 2024, to the California State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day public review period. The NOP was circulated for review from May 7 to June 5, 2024. The State Clearinghouse (SCH) number for this EIR is SCH No. 2020069007. The City also made the NOP available on the City’s website to inform agencies and the public about the proposed project and to solicit input on the scope of the Draft EIR. The NOP described the project and identified potential environmental impacts associated with project implementation. In addition, the City held a virtual Public Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, to present the proposed project and to solicit input from interested parties regarding environmental issues that the Draft PEIR should address. Appendix A of the Draft EIR contains a copy of the NOP, and comments received. Section 2.2.2, Issues Raised, of the Draft EIR identifies areas of concern raised in response to the NOP or at the scoping meeting.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Draft EIR have a review period lasting at least 45 days for projects that have been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 150105(a)). As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the City provided a public Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project at the same time it filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a period of 45 days, from August 12, 2024, to September 27, 2024.
The City actively solicited comments on the Draft EIR. The City posted physical notices to various locations throughout the City. Additionally, the NOA was mailed to the last known names and addresses of agencies, organizations, and individuals who previously requested such notice in writing. The City also submitted the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to, and review by, State agencies. The City made a copy of the Draft EIR available at the Cypress Civic Center by appointment. In addition, the City posted the Draft EIR and all technical appendices on the City’s website.
Four comment letters were received on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The comments in the comment letter are included and responded to in this Final EIR. Comments that address environmental issues are responded to thoroughly. Comments that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; (2) do not raise environmental issues; or (3) do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues, do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
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)
1-2
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response.
The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.
c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the Draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the Draft EIR, the lead agency should either:
1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or
2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments.
Information provided in this Final EIR clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received on the Draft EIR, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
This Final EIR also includes an Errata section that clarifies and makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received during the public review period.
1.1 INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
The following is an index list of the agencies and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR prior to the close of the public comment period. The comments received have been organized in a manner that facilitates finding a particular comment or set of comments. The comment letter received is coded with the number as shown in Table 1.A, below.
Table 1.A: Comments Received During the Public Comment Period Comment Code Signatory Date
State and Regional
S-1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 09/27/2024 S-2 South Coast Air Quality Management (South Coast AQMD) 09/27/2024 Local
L-1 The City of Los Alamitos 08/21/2024
Interested Parities
IP-1 Paul Hastings, on behalf of Warland Investments Company and Affiliated Entities 09/27/2024
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)
1-3
1.2 FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The following pages provide responses to the coded comment letter. The comment code number is provided in the upper right corner of the comment letter, and individual comments within the letter are numbered along the right-hand margin of the letter. The City’s responses to the comment letter immediately follow each letter and are referenced by the index numbers in the margins. 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)
1-4
This page intentionally left blank
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)
2-1
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
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)
2-2
This page intentionally left blank
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)
2-3
2.1 STATE AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
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)
2-4
This page intentionally left blank
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-12
September 27, 2024
Ms. Alicia Velasco File: LDR/CEQA
Planner Director SCH: 2024040017
City of Cypress 12-ORA-2024-02631
5275 Orange Avenue I-605, PM: R1.441
Cypress, CA. 90630 SR 22, PM: R0.927
I–405, PM 20.551
SR 39, PM 10.657
Dear Ms. Velasco,
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project.
The proposed project will be constructed on an approximately 8.53 acre site located at 5665 Plaza Drive in the City of Cypress. The project includes demolition of the existing five-story office building on the project site and the construction of a new light industrial building totaling approximately 191,394 sf in size. The project site is currently developed with an approximately 150,626 sf, five-story, office building and surface parking lot. The existing building would be demolished and replaced with a new warehouse building including 181,061 sf of warehouse space and 10,333 sf of office space. The building would be one-story and a maximum of approximately 51 feet, 6 inches to the top of the parapet. The proposed building would include a truck loading area with 25 dock-high loading doors on the west side of the building and the installation of new westernmost driveway.
The project site is in the southern part of the City of Cypress, which is in northwestern Orange County, California. The project site is north of the intersection of Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. Local access to the project site is provided by Plaza Drive. The project site is approximately 2.75 miles east of Interstate 605 (I-605), and approximately
2.2 miles north of State Route 22 (SR-22). Access to the site can also be attained by State Route 39 (SR 39) and Interstate 405 (I-405).
State Routes 22 and 39 as well as Interstates 605 and 405 are owned and operated by Caltrans. Therefore, Caltrans is a responsible agency on this project, and has the following comments:
PLAZADISTRICT 12
1750 East 4th Street, Suite 100 | SANTA ANA, CA 92705
(657) 328-6000 | FAX (657) 328-6522 TTY 711
S-1
S-1-1
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” City of Cypress
September 27, 2024
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
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)
2-14
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.
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-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
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)
2-20
This page intentionally left blank
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
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)
2-22
This page intentionally left blank
L-1
L-1-1
L-1-1
L-1-1
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)
2-26
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
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)
2-28
This page intentionally left blank
LEGAL_US_W # 181176245
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