Agenda packet — Cypress City Council, November 18, 2024 (part 1 of 7)

AMENDED AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING

CYPRESS CITY COUNCIL
November 18, 2024
5:00 P.M.
www.cypressca.org 5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, California
Interested in speaking to the City Council? Information about participating in the City Council meeting appears at the end of the agenda.

AGENDA AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, this Special City Council Meeting includes teleconference participation by Council Member Anne Mallari from Cypress City Hall, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630.

CALL TO ORDER
5:00 P.M.

Council Chambers

ROLL CALL
Cypress City Council, also acting as the Ex-Officio Governing Board of Directors of the Cypress Recreation and Park District
Mayor Scott Minikus
Mayor Pro Tem Bonnie Peat
Council Member David Burke
Council Member Anne Mallari
Council Member Frances Marquez
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON AGENDA ITEMS (Three minutes per speaker. The City Council may adjust the time allotted per speaker.)
The public may address the City Council on agenda items prior to any action taken. Although Council Members may provide brief responses, the City Council may not engage in a discussion with members of the public during the meeting. Please complete a Speaker's Card to address the City Council in-person. Please follow the instructions at the end of the agenda and wait for the Mayor/City Clerk to call on you to address the City Council virtually. Speakers providing in-person comments will be called first. Members of the public are encouraged to communicate with the City Council via email at [email protected] or by calling 714-229-6699.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be approved with one motion unless a Council Member requests separate action on a specific item. Council Members voting no or abstaining on a Consent Calendar item may do so without removing the item from the Consent Calendar.

1. Introduce and/or Adopt All Ordinances and Resolutions Presented for Consideration by Title Only and to Waive Further Reading

2. Amend Section 21A of the Municipal Code Related to Purchasing Thresholds Prepared by: Matt Burton, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Recommendation: Introduce for first reading an Ordinance, by title only, amending Section 21A of the Municipal Code authorizing changes in purchasing bid procedures and contract award thresholds.

PUBLIC HEARINGS (Three minutes per speaker)
The public may address the City Council on public hearing items prior to any action taken.

Although Council Members may provide brief responses, the City Council may not engage in a discussion with members of the public during the meeting. Please complete a Speaker's Card to address the City Council in-person. Please follow the instructions at the end of the agenda and wait for the Mayor/City Clerk to call on you to address the City Council virtually. Speakers providing in-person comments will be called first.

Council Members should disclose communications with anyone relevant to a Public Hearing item.

3. Approve a Specific Plan Amendment and Site Plan Review, and Certify an Environmental Impact Report for a Light Industrial/Warehouse Building at 5665 Plaza Drive
Prepared by: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
Recommendation:

1. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending the McDonnell Center Specific Plan; and

2. Adopt a Resolution approving a Site Plan Review for the 5665 Plaza Dr. project; and

3. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, approving the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

November 18, 2024 | Page 2

NEW BUSINESS

4. Approve a Resolution Adopting Procedural Requirements as Prerequisites for Any Council Member Wishing to Retain Separate Legal Counsel to Represent Them on City-Related Matters
Prepared by: Fred Galante, City Attorney
Recommendation: Approve a Resolution adopting procedural requirements as prerequisites for any Council Member wishing to retain separate legal counsel to represent them on City-related matters.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Manager

REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney

ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting will be an adjourned Regular Meeting, to be held on Monday, December 9, 2024, beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Executive Board Room.

Council Members and the public should promptly exit the Council Chambers and proceed through the Civic Center to the parking lot.

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the City Hall bulletin board and City website not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 14th day of November, 2024.

________________________________
Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
November 18, 2024 | Page 3

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Members of the public can participate in the City Council meeting in the following ways:

1. Attend In-Person. First-come, first-served seating is available. All attendees must be free of any symptoms associated with contagious illnesses.

2. Attend Virtually via Webinar. Follow this link:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8280846923543729494. Advanced registration is recommended.

The public may address the City Council virtually during Oral Communications on Agenda Items and Public Hearings. Virtual participants must click the 'hand raise' button prior to the end of the first in-person speaker to indicate they wish to address the City Council. Upon clicking the 'hand raise' button, please unmute your microphone and wait for the Mayor/City Clerk to call on you. = Hand Raise = Unmute

3. Submit Public Comments Prior to the Meeting. The public may submit comments via email to [email protected]. Comments submitted by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be added to the meeting record.

4. Watch the Meeting. The City Council meeting can be viewed on Spectrum Cable Channel 36 or on the City's website at www.cypressca.org/watchlive.

5. Listen to the Meeting. Listen-only teleconferencing is available by calling (631) 992-3221 and entering Access Code 374-290-829. No registration or audio pin is necessary.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the City Clerk at (714) 229-6685 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.

November 18, 2024 | Page 4
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Special 2.

FROM: Matt Burton, Director of Finance and Administrative Services DATE: 11/18/2024
SUBJECT: Amend Section 21A of the Municipal Code Related to Purchasing Thresholds

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce for first reading an Ordinance, by title only, amending Section 21A of the Municipal Code authorizing changes in purchasing bid procedures and contract award thresholds.

DISCUSSION
The City Council’s Strategic Plan includes an objective to recommend updates to the $25,000 administrative purchasing threshold based on an analysis of Orange County cities.

That review found that, among cities with a population greater than 10,000, Cypress' $25,000 limit is the lowest in the county. Purchasing limits in these cities range from $25,000 to $1 million, with the majority having administrative approval authority between $50,000 and $100,000 (Exhibit One attached).

Background
Municipal Code Section 21A establishes the City's purchasing system, including bid procedures and contract award thresholds, which may be updated periodically based on inflation to ensure the purchasing process remains efficient. Section 21A was last updated in 1999, when the City Council increased administrative approval authority for purchases of supplies, equipment, and services to the lowest responsible bidder from $10,000 to $25,000.

The 1999 update made the City's procurement process more efficient by decreasing the time and costs associated with small dollar purchases and enabled the City Council to focus on policymaking. The recommended update has the same goal.

Discussion
In the 25 years since Section 21A was updated, the cost of all goods and services has risen significantly. This has increased the number of contracts and purchases that require City Council consideration. Rampant inflation since the pandemic has dramatically eroded purchasing power, requiring limited staff resources to be spent preparing agenda reports for minor purchases that previously could have been approved administratively.

In addition to the survey of Orange County cities, the recommendation to update the administrative approval threshold is also based on:

Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. CPI is the most widely-accepted methodology for calculating the impact of inflation. Between 1999 and 2024, CPI in Southern California increased by approximately 105 percent, meaning a $25,000 purchase in 1999 is the equivalent of $51,250 in 2024.

Growth in the City's budget. In FY 1998-99, the General Fund operating budget was $16 million. In FY 2024-25, it has increased 150% to $40 million. In 1999, $25,000 represented 0.16 percent of the General Fund operating budget. In 2024, $25,000 represents 0.06 percent of the General Fund operating budget, while $50,000 represents 0.13 percent of the General Fund operating budget.

The volume of contracts that require City Council consideration. The City Council has considered 120 contracts and purchases since 2021. Twenty-eight (23%) were less than $50,000 and 92 (77%) were more than $50,000. 100% of these purchases were approved by the City Council and nearly all of them were approved unanimously. The recommended administrative approval threshold update would impact approximately seven contracts and purchases annually and free up approximately 80 hours of staff time a year.

Additionally, it is common for departments to bring notable matters to the City Council for consideration even when the contract/purchase is under $25,000 and that practice will continue with the recommended update. Finally, all contracts and purchases that are administratively approved must be included in the annual operating budget approved by the City Council. Any contract or purchase that was not included in the Budget, or that requires an additional appropriation, will continue to require City Council approval.

Bidding Requirement
In 2001, the City Council set the bid threshold for supplies and equipment at $2,500 and services at $5,000. However, the City's practice has been more rigorous and the purchasing system has generally operated with a $1,000 bid threshold to ensure purchases are transparent and cost-effective. The availability of information on the Internet, cooperative purchasing agreements, and other technologies have made it possible to adhere to the $1,000 threshold without overtaxing staff.

The Municipal Code establishes two types of bid processes: informal and formal. Purchases under $25,000 are bid informally, which requires a minimum of three bids solicited directly from vendors or online. The informal bids must be summarized/documented before the purchase is approved. Contracts and purchases over $25,000 are subject to formal bidding.

Formal bidding is a significant undertaking and involves preparing and publishing a notice inviting bids, soliciting bids from prospective vendors who have requested to be on the City's bidders' list, and establishing a deadline for the submission of sealed bids. The formal bid process is designed to ensure bidding on larger purchases is competitive and open to all interested vendors. Formal bidding requires considerable staff resources and takes much longer than informal bidding.

The recommended update would only adjust the formal bidding threshold. Informal bidding is still required for all purchases of supplies and equipment having a cost greater than $2,500 and services with a cost greater than $5,000.

At its November 12 meeting, the City Council discussed options for amending the purchasing thresholds. Based on City Council direction, it is recommended that:

Formal bidding is required for contracts or services of more than $50,000, regardless of the length of the contract. This will ensure the City receives the lowest possible market pricing available through a competitive bid process open to all interested parties.

The threshold for administrative approval of informally bid agreements increases to $50,000.

The threshold for administrative approval of formally bid multi-year agreements is $100,000, for up to a maximum five-year term. This means any agreement for more than $100,000 requires City Council approval, regardless of its length, and that any contract with a term (including options) of more than five years requires City Council approval, regardless of its value.

The above thresholds shall be updated by Resolution every five years based on CPI and rounded to the nearest $5,000.

All administratively approved contracts and purchases impacted by the recommended threshold update will be presented to the City Council twice a year and posted on the Transparency in Government page on the website. This new practice is consistent with the City's core values of accountability, transparency, and fiscal prudence, and will be incorporated into the City's fiscal strategies during the upcoming budget process.

No other changes are recommended to the purchasing system or policies, and all other requirements of Section 21A remain in effect.

BUDGET IMPACT
There is no direct budget impact associated with the recommendation. However, the City's limited staff resources required to prepare agenda reports for contracts and purchases will be available to provide other services to the community.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached Ordinance.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Ordinance
Ordinance - Redline
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, AMMENDING SECTION 21A OF THE CYPRESS

MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING UPDATED PURCHASING

AUTHORITY LIMITS FOR CITY PERSONNEL
WHEREAS, section 21A of the Cypress Municipal Code establishes the requirements for the City’s purchasing system and includes monetary limits on bid procedures and contract award thresholds; and
WHEREAS, the current monetary limits on bid procedures and contract award thresholds was last adjusted in 1999 from $10,000 to $25,000; and WHEREAS, inflation since 1999 in the Los Angeles, Long Beach and Anaheim area has increased by more than 100% over this time; and WHEREAS, a survey of all 34 Orange County cities was conducted which indicated Cypress’ threshold was the second lowest in the County; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to periodically update the monetary limits on bid procedures and contract award thresholds to ensure the efficient use of staffing resources and limit the number of routine items presented to City Council for consideration; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Cypress DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 21A of the Cypress Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 21A-10(d).Bidding generally
When there is to be a contract for professional services such as, but not limited to, the services of attorneys, architects, or engineers or where the service contracted for deals with public relations or promotions, elections, negotiations, acquisition of land, trash, garbage or refuse disposal or the like, insurance, bonds, any other services of similar nature to those listed, those items which are in their nature unique and not subject to competition or other services for which by law another officer or body is specifically charged with obtaining. For professional services, a request for qualifications, ('RFQ'), should be used to select the appropriate professional or professionals. For contracts of $50,000 or less the city manager is authorized to enter into the contract. Further, the city manager may enter into contracts up to five years in duration if the total value of the contract does not exceed $100,000 for the term of the contract. All contracts in excess of $50,000 shall be approved by the city council, except as noted above.

These limits shall be updated based on the October Consumer Price Index for Los Angeles - Long Beach – Anaheim, CA as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The first update will be effective in January 2030 and updated every five years thereafter by resolution of the City Council.

Further, the city manager may enter into contracts up to five years in duration if the total value of the contract does not exceed $100,000 for the term of the contract. All contracts in excess of $50,000 shall be approved by the City Council, except as noted above.

These limits shall be updated based on the October Consumer Price Index for Los Angeles - Long Beach – Anaheim, CA as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The first update will be effective in January 2030 and updated every five years thereafter by resolution of the City Council..

Sec. 21A-12.Formal contract procedure
Except as otherwise provided herein and in accordance with the city's power as a Charter City, purchases of supplies, equipment, or services of an individual of an estimated value greater than $50,000 shall be by written contract with the lowest responsible bidder, pursuant to the procedure hereinafter prescribed.

Sec. 21A-13.Open market procedure
Purchases of supplies, equipment, and services of an estimated value in the amount of $50,000 or less may be made by the purchasing officer in the open market pursuant to the procedure prescribed in section 21A-12; provided, however, all bidding may be dispensed with for purchases of supplies, equipment, and services having a total estimated value of less than the amount established by resolution of the city council pursuant to section 21A-10.

Sec. 21A-17.Contracting for the purchase of supplies, equipment, services, or leases; exemption.

The purchasing officer, with the approval of the council, may contract for supplies equipment, services, or leases without observing the procedure required herein regardless of estimated value of such supplies, equipment, services, or leases when the best interests of the city would be served thereby. Whenever the council approves the purchase of supplies, equipment, services, or leases without observing the procedures required in this chapter, the council may require that the purchasing officer solicit informal bids under such conditions and limitations as the city council may impose. This exemption section shall not apply to any public work contract.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and this Ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect as provided by law.

FIRST READING at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cypress held on the _______ day of ________, 2024 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of _____, 2024.
_______________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the ___ day of ___, 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, AMMENDING SECTION 21A OF THE CYPRESS

MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING UPDATED PURCHASING

WHEREAS, it is appropriate to periodically update the monetary limits on bid procedures and contract award thresholds to ensure the efficient use of staffing resources and limit the number of routine items presented to City Council for consideration; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Cypress DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 21A of the Cypress Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 21A-10(d).Bidding generally
When there is to be a contract for professional services such as, but not limited to, the services of attorneys, architects, or engineers or where the service contracted for deals with public relations or promotions, elections, negotiations, acquisition of land, trash, garbage or refuse disposal or the like, insurance, bonds, any other services of similar nature to those listed, those items which are in their nature unique and not subject to competition or other services for which by law another officer or body is specifically charged with obtaining. For professional services, a request for qualifications, ('RFQ'), should be used to select the appropriate professional or professionals. For contracts of $25,000 $50,000 or less the city manager is authorized to enter into the contract. Further, the city manager may enter into contracts up to five years in duration if the total value of the contract does not exceed $100,000 for the term of the contract. All contracts in excess of $25,000 $50,000 shall be approved by the city council, except as noted above.

These limits shall be updated based on the October Consumer Price Index for Los Angeles - Long Beach – Anaheim, CA as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The first update will be effective in January 2030 and updated every five years thereafter by resolution of the City Council.

Sec. 21A-10(h).Bidding generally
Any contract which combines professional services and the acquisition of goods or equipment where the professional services are specifically retained to advise the city on the selection of the goods or equipment and the professional services utilized under the contract also include designing, retrofitting, or modifying the goods or equipment to meet the particular needs of the city. This exemption shall also include the acquisition by the city of 'intellectual property.' In utilizing this exemption, an RFQ shall be used. For contracts of $25,000 $50,000 or less the city manager is authorized to enter into the contract. Further, the city manager may enter into contracts up to five years in duration if the total value of the contract does not exceed $100,000 for the term of the contract. All contracts in excess of twenty-five thousand $25,000 $50,000 shall be approved by the City Council, except as noted above.

These limits shall be updated based on the October Consumer Price Index for Los Angeles - Long Beach – Anaheim, CA as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The first update will be effective in January 2030 and updated every five years thereafter by resolution of the City Council.

Sec. 21A-12.Formal contract procedure
Except as otherwise provided herein and in accordance with the city's power as a Charter City, purchases of supplies, equipment, or services of an individual of an estimated value greater than $25,000 $50,000 shall be by written contract with the lowest responsible bidder, pursuant to the procedure hereinafter prescribed.

Sec. 21A-13.Open market procedure
Purchases of supplies, equipment, and services of an estimated value in the amount of $25,000 $50,000 or less may be made by the purchasing officer in the open market pursuant to the procedure prescribed in section 21A-12; provided, however, all bidding may be dispensed with for purchases of supplies, equipment, and services having a total estimated value of less than the amount established by resolution of the city council pursuant to section 21A-10.

Sec. 21A-17.Contracting for the purchase of supplies, equipment, services, or leases; exemption.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and this Ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect as provided by law.

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
___________________________________

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Special 3.

FROM: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
DATE: 11/18/2024
SUBJECT: Approve a Specific Plan Amendment and Site Plan Review, and Certify an Environmental Impact Report for a Light Industrial/Warehouse Building at 5665 Plaza Drive

RECOMMENDATION

1. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending the McDonnell Center Specific Plan; and

2. Adopt a Resolution approving a Site Plan Review for the 5665 Plaza Dr. project; and

3. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, approving the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

SUMMARY
GLC Cypress, LLC (Goodman) applied for an amendment to the McDonnell Center Specific Plan to remove the maximum square footage requirement and permit light industrial/warehouse uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1. The application proposes to redevelop an office building with a light industrial/warehouse building. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found no significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures and recommended conditions of approval. The project is recommended for approval because it is consistent with the General Plan and the amended McDonnell Center Specific Plan.

DISCUSSION
Project Description
The project proposes to redevelop an existing office building with a 191,394 square foot light industrial/warehouse building with 25 dock-high doors and surface parking on 8.53 acres at Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. The proposed building includes 10,333 square feet of office space, 206 surface parking spaces and landscaping.

Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses
The project is in the 71.23 acre McDonnell Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan), which was adopted in 1982 and amended in 1994. The site is currently occupied by a vacant 150,626 square foot five-story, 1980’s-era office building, surface parking and landscaping. Water, sewer, and dry utilities serve the site from Plaza Drive. The project will demolish the vacant office building.

The project is bounded by:

Direction Land Use Zoning
North Light Industrial PC 5 - Cypress View Limited Specific Plan South Office PC 3 - McDonnell Center Specific Plan
East Light Industrial/Warehouse PC 3 - McDonnell Center Specific Plan West Light Industrial/Warehouse PC 3 - McDonnell Center Specific Plan Regulatory Control
General Plan/Zoning/Specific Plan and Required Discretionary Actions The site is designated as Specific Plan Area by the General Plan, zoned PC-3 and governed by the Specific Plan. The site is in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1. The Specific Plan includes light industrial and warehouse uses in the western portion of Planning Area 1, with only office uses permitted in the eastern portion. This is a function of the Specific Plan being written at the same time the business park was first developed and zoning was set to match the buildings being constructed. The recommended Specific Plan amendment permits light industrial and warehouse uses throughout Planning Area 1 and eliminates a cap on maximum square footage.

Specific Plan Amendment
The recommended Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the buildings that surround the site and accounts for current market trends, which favor light industrial over office - especially on sites located off major arterial streets such as Plaza Drive. After acquiring the site, Goodman attempted to lease the office building for more than two years without success.

The Specific Plan limits maximum square footage in the Planning Areas. However, other Specific Plan standards - such as height, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and parking - regulate development size, making the square footage limit redundant. The recommended amendment removes the maximum square footage limit.

Zoning Ordinance Section 4.20.080 outlines the findings required for a Specific Plan amendment, which are addressed in the attached Specific Plan Amendment Ordinance.

Site Plan Review
The Specific Plan requires Site Plan Review for any new development that requires a building permit and increases square footage. Specific Plan Section VI.C.6 establishes the necessary findings for Site Plan Review approval and the findings are included in the attached Resolution. The recommended amendment applies an administrative review process to light manufacturing and warehouse uses. Other uses (e.g. recycling centers and vocational schools) require the City Council to approve a Conditional Use Permit.

Although tenants have been identified, it is important to note that logistics uses are prohibited throughout Cypress and in the Specific Plan. The recommended amendment does not change this prohibition, and to further clarify that logistics cannot be permitted, the following condition of approval is recommended:

Condition 2.9: Third Party Logistics uses are prohibited within the building. Third Party Logistics refers to business entities that provide short-term storage and fulfillment services for finished consumer goods.

Development Standards
The project meets the Specific Plan development standards :

Standards Required Proposed
Building Setback (from Plaza Dr) 30' ~70'
Building Setback (from interior property line)
5'
West: 85'
North: 60'-3"
East: 43'
Surface Parking Setbacks 10' >10'
Height 99' 51'-6"
Lot Coverage 60% 50.1%
Floor Area Ratio 1.0 0.51
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Access, Parking and Loading
The project will be accessed by two driveways off Plaza Drive. The Specific Plan establishes minimum parking requirements by use, which the project exceeds.

Land Use Parking Standards Parking Spaces
Office 1 space per 250 sf 42
Light Industrial/
Warehouse
Not less than:
2 spaces per 1,000 sf for the first 20,000 sf
1 space per 2,000 sf for the second 20,000
sf
1 space per 4,000 sf above 40,000 sf
86 Spaces Required 128
Spaces Provided 206
The northernmost 60 feet of the site is in the PS (Semi-Public) zone and contains 39 parking spaces. A condition of approval (Condition 2.7) is recommended to require an easement is recorded against the property to ensure the parking is open to the public. Condition 2.8 requires the developer to install signage indicating the parking in the PS zone is open to the public on Monday through Friday from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. and all day on Saturday and Sunday.

Building Design and Landscaping
The building is consistent with the Specific Plan design guidelines and complements the surrounding buildings. The building has a contemporary architectural style, with a neutral color palate and a variety of materials. It features a prominent primary entrance enhanced by increased building height, a canopy and blue reflective glazing. The building is sustainably designed, including:

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified Carbon reduced construction
Photovoltaic solar arrays
Electric vehicle chargers for customers and employees
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Earlier this year, an Initial Study assessed the project’s environmental impacts. Although the study found no significant unavoidable impacts, Goodman agreed to undertake a more comprehensive environmental review and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on May 7, 2024, and a virtual public scoping meeting to gather input on issues analyzed by the EIR was held on May 28, 2024.

The Draft EIR was available for public review from August 12 to September 27, 2024. Four comments were submitted during the 45-day review period (three from government agencies and one from a private party). The comments were addressed and are attached. The comments did not require revisions to critical information in the Draft EIR, nor did they identify new significant information that required the Draft EIR to be recirculated. The Final EIR responds to the comments and includes an Errata section detailing minor modifications to the Draft EIR.

As required by CEQA, the EIR includes a Cumulative Impacts analysis and considers related projects. The EIR did not identify any Significant Unavoidable Impacts. The Draft EIR and Final EIR are attached. Due to file size, the appendices can be found on the website:
https://www.cypressca.org/departments/community-development/information-on-notable-projects/goodman-commerce-center-5665-plaza-drive.

The EIR includes a detailed analysis of all State-mandated environmental issue areas. This enhanced analysis found no additional potential impacts beyond what was identified in the Initial Study. The EIR found the project had no potential impact or a less than significant impact for the environmental factors considered. With the implementation of the measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), all other potential environmental impacts were reduced to less than significant. The MMRP also includes measures to ensure regulatory compliance with other State and local regulations.

Environmental Factor Level of Impact Mitigation
Aesthetics Less than Significant None
Agriculture & Forestry Resources No Impact None
Air Quality Less than Significant None
Biological Resources Less than Significant None
Cultural Resources Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Energy Less than Significant None
Geology and Soils Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant None
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant None Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant None
Land Use and Planning Less than Significant None
Mineral Resources No Impact None
Noise Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Population and Housing Less than Significant None
Public Services Less than Significant None
Recreation Less than Significant None
Transportation Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure TRA-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 Utilities and Services Systems Less than Significant None Wildfire No Impact None
Cumulative Impacts
As required by CEQA, the EIR thoroughly analyzed the project's cumulative impacts, in conjunction with the adjacent project at 5757 Plaza Drive, and found that it will not result in any cumulative impacts. CEQA’s primary focus is on assessing potential environmental changes caused by a project. This involves comparing the potential impacts of the project to the current environmental baseline. The 5757 Plaza Drive project replaced a 338,653 square-foot warehouse with two warehouses totaling 390,000 square feet. This project (5665 Plaza Drive) replaces a 150,626 square-foot office building with a 191,394 square-foot light industrial/warehouse building. Together, the projects total 92,115 square feet of new building in an urbanized, fully developed business park. The relatively minor increase does not result in any cumulative impacts on environmental factors including noise, air quality, traffic, utilities, or police and fire services.

Soil Compaction
The project will use deep dynamic compaction (DDC) to compact soil. DDC is a soil stabilization technique that involves repeatedly dropping a 10-ton weight from 60 feet. DDC may generate vibrations that could be uncomfortable for humans – as was in the case during the development of 5757 Plaza Drive. While those impacts are not expected with this project given its location, several measures are recommended in the MMRP and Conditions of Approval to mitigate potential DDC impacts. Specifically, Conditions 3.3 through 3.10 address DDC and require that Goodman:

Notify nearby businesses and provide the schedule and duration of DDC activities Assign a Disturbance Coordinator responsible for responding to complaints/concerns arising from DDC Identify structures that may be affected by construction vibrations Establish vibration monitoring locations and structure-specific vibration thresholds Prepare a contingency plan if vibration levels approach thresholds. The contingency plan shall include contingencies including lowering the drop height or using a lighter compaction weight
If the mitigation measures do not sufficiently address the DDC impacts, the project will be required to use an alternative soil compaction method known as vibratory stone columns (VSC). VSC involves drilling large holes, approximately 15 to 20 feet deep at 10 foot intervals, filling the holes with rock, and then compacting the material. Although VSC has a lower impact on adjacent properties, it requires importing up to 400 truckloads of rock to the site, and is significantly more costly and time-intensive.

Traffic Impacts
A Traffic Impact Analysis assessed vehicle trips generated by the project and its impact on nearby intersections. The Analysis concluded that, with the required mitigation measures, the project will not cause any operational or level of service deficiencies. The project is expected to generate 406 daily trips, including 29 trips during the AM peak hour and 32 trips during the PM peak hour. This represents a net decrease of 1,030 daily trips compared to the existing office building when it was fully occupied.

Despite the overall reduction in traffic, the project will result in 78 daily heavy truck trips. While this increase is generally considered negligible, the applicant has agreed to the following Condition of Approval to ensure these trips do not impact the community or its business park neighbors:

Condition 2.10: Class 8 trucks providing deliveries to and from the project site shall be directed to access and depart the site via Douglas Drive to Katella Avenue, connecting directly to the I-605 Freeway.

The EIR considered cumulative traffic impacts from 5757 and 5665 Plaza Drive and found, that after both projects are complete, all study intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service C or better. The traffic analysis and trip generation memorandum are attached and included as an EIR appendix.

A vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis was also prepared and determined the project's VMT impact is less than significant.

CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES
The project is consistent with the following General Plan goals/policies:

LU-1: Create a well-balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial, industrial and open space/recreation uses, while providing adequate community services to residents.

LU-2: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses, the circulation network, availability of public facilities, and existing development constraints.

LU-10: Carefully regulate future development in the Business Park to ensure the current high quality environment is maintained.

The project will contribute to the continued economic vitality of the Business Park by replacing the obsolete, vacant office building. The project is compatible with surrounding uses and its design integrates with the Specific Plan. The project will update parking and landscaping, further enhancing the site and surrounding area.

PUBLIC HEARING / PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS
Public hearing notices were posted and mailed to the property owners within 500 feet of the project and to those who responded to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was posted on the website on November 4, 2024. All public noticing requirements have been met. All written communication related to the public hearing received prior to publishing the City Council agenda is attached. Written communication submitted by 3 p.m. on November 18, 2024, will be part of the public hearing administrative record.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
If the City Council identifies issues which should be addressed prior to taking action on this application, the City Council may consider:

1. Adding conditions of approval to address concerns; or

2. Continuing the public hearing and directing staff to work with the applicant to resolve the issues; or

3. Continuing the public hearing, making findings for denial and directing staff to return to City Council with a resolution for denial.

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Specific Plan Amendment Ordinance
Site Plan Review Resolution
Project Conditions
EIR Resolution
Draft EIR
Final EIR
EIR Response to Comments and Errata
Site Plan and Elevations
Traffic Study
Trip Generation Comparison Memo
Submitted Public Comments
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS I (SUMMARY), III (DEVELOPMENT

PLAN), V (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), AND VI (IMPLEMENTATION) OF THE

MCDONNELL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN TO REMOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED

SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT AND ALLOW INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSING USES IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF PLANNING AREA 1.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress has considered an application submitted by GLC Cypress, LLC (“Applicant”) for a new 191,394 square-foot (sf) warehouse building and associated parking and landscaping at 5665 Plaza Drive in the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan area (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project requires the following to be approved by the City Council:
an amendment to the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan (Specific Plan Amendment No. 2024-01) and a Site Plan Review (SPR No. 2024-01); and WHEREAS, an application was filed for approval of an amendment to the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 (Specific Plans) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress Municipal Code to remove the maximum permitted square footage requirement and allow industrial/warehousing uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the goals and objectives of the General Plan as laid out in the City Council staff report dated November 12, 2024 and November 18, 2024, and finds that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. 2024-01 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Project and released to the public on August 12, 2024, for a 45-day review period. All required notifications were provided pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.4 and 21161; Guidelines Sections 15082 and 15085) and all comment letters were incorporated into the Final EIR. The City Council has certified the EIR and made all required CEQA findings under separate resolution adopted concurrently herewith; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing where the item was continued to November 18, 2024 and considered testimony on the application; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites for the adoption of this ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, based upon substantial evidence taken from the administrative record and at the public hearing, AS FOLLOWS:

Resolution No.

Page 2 ends

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. Findings. Pursuant to Section 4.20.080 of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress Municipal Code, the City Council finds, after due study and deliberation that the following circumstances exist:

1. The proposed development is in conformance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the general plan.

The project is consistent with the following General Plan goals/policies:

LU-2: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses, the circulation network, availability of public facilities, and existing development constraints.

LU-10: Carefully regulate future development in the Business Park to ensure the current high quality environment is maintained.

The amendment will contribute to the continued economic vitality of the Cypress Business Park by providing additional flexibility to develop the area consistent with current market demand. Allowing industrial and warehousing uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses, the majority of which are light industrial. Removal of the maximum permitted square footage requirement allows for additional flexibility without compromising the high-quality environment within the Business Park. Other existing development standards, including floor area ratio, lot coverage, building height, and parking serve to ensure that development remains consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surrounding uses.

2. The design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities (e.g., fire protection, police protection, water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.), would ensure that the proposed development would not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and base zoning district in which the property is located.

Resolution No.

Page 3 ends

The Project is a new 191,394-square-foot warehouse building. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project identifies the potential for significant effects on the environment from development of the Project, all of which can be reduced through implementation of mitigation measures to a level of insignificance.

The Project, as well as future projects in the Specific Plan Area, will be required to adhere to all development standards, ensuring new development does not adversely impact public health, safety, or general welfare. The Project is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, the majority of which are warehousing and light industrial uses.

3. The proposed development would:
a. Ensure quality development by encouraging greater creativity and aesthetically pleasing designs for the individual components of the development and the development as a whole;
b. Ensure the timely provision of essential public services and facilities consistent with the demand for the services and facilities; and
c. Promote a harmonious variety of housing choices and commercial and industrial activities, if applicable; attain a desirable balance of residential and/or employment opportunities; and result in a high level of amenities and the preservation of the natural and scenic qualities of open space.

The Specific Plan includes design guidelines, development regulations, and infrastructure plans which ensure quality development and the provision of essential public services and facilities. The amendment removes the maximum building square footage limitation within the Specific Plan area; however, the maximum floor area ratio requirement remains. This requirement, along with other development standards, ensures the amendment does not impact the Specific Plan’s provisions for public services and quality development. The Specific Plan allows for a variety of commercial and industrial uses, consistent with the intent for the Cypress Business Park, as outlined in the General Plan.

4. The subject site is:
a. Physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s); b. Physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of development being proposed;
c. Adequate in shape and size to accommodate the proposed development; and d. Served by streets adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development.

The amendment allows light industrial and warehousing uses within the eastern portion of Planning Area 1 of the Specific Plan. This change in allowable uses is suitable because light industrial uses are already permitted in the western portion of Planning Area 1 and the area is bordered by other light industrial uses to the north, east, and west. Although the amendment removes the maximum permitted square footage requirement for the Specific Plan area, the floor area ratio requirement remains in place, ensuring that the intensity of development is suitable Resolution No.

Page 4 ends

for the area and consistent with the General Plan. The site is adequate to meet all development standards that apply to the Project. The EIR for the Project included a traffic analysis which found that the Project will not have significant impacts on traffic or nearby streets and intersections with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and project conditions.

SECTION 3. Subsection A (Project Summary) of Chapter I (Summary) of the McDonnell Center Specific Plan is hereby revised as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

A. Project Summary
A specific plan was prepared for the McDonnell Center in 1982; this Specific Plan represents an amendment to the 1982 document, superseding the 1982 document. Land uses consist of mixed use business park/office, mixed use business park, office, and office/commercial uses in six planning area; four planning areas are affected by this amendment. The amended specific plan consists of the revision of the original specific plan to include the proposed addition of 206,130 square feet of commercial uses to the maximum of 1,554,100 square feet allowed by the 1982 Specific Plan and EIR; this would increase the total allowable square footage to 1,760,230 square feet. Currently, approximately 530,870 square feet of allowable uses have not yet been developed.

The square footages listed in this section and Table 1 (Land Use Summary) are a summary of existing and planned development in the Specific Plan area at the time the amended specific plan was adopted (1994). The square footages shall not serve as a maximum developable area for any Planning Area or for the entire Specific Plan. Development shall not exceed a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0:1 to maintain consistency with the General Plan.

This amended Specific Plan incorporates and replaces the original 1982 Specific Plan.

The following is a summary of the land uses in the amended specific plan:

TABLE 1

LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use Acres Building Area
Industrial/Warehouse 23.94 699,653
Office 33.31 831,761
Commercial 7.42 228,816
Total (net) 64.67 1,760,230
Roads/Rights of Way 6.56
Total (gross) 71.23 1,760,230
Resolution No.

Page 5 ends

SECTION 4. Subsection B (Land Use Plan) of Chapter III (Development Plan) of the McDonnell Center Specific Plan is hereby revised as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

B. Land Use Plan
The land use plan for the McDonald center amended specific plan consists of the intensification of four planning areas adding 206,130 square feet of new development to the 530,870 square feet of undeveloped area remaining under the approved plan (see Exhibit 3, Land Use Plan, and Table 2, Land Use Statistics). The following summarizes the changes from the original 1982 specific plan.

Original Specific Plan Maximum Intensity 1,554,100 square feet Developed Area within original Specific Plan 1,023,230 square feet Remaining Undeveloped Area under Approved Plan 530,870 square feet Amendment to Specific Plan (net increase) 206,130 square feet Total to be Developed 737,000 square feet
Ultimate Total in Specific Plan Area 1,760,230 square feet The square footages listed in this section and Table 2 (Land Use Statistics) are a summary of existing and planned development in the Specific Plan area at the time the amended specific plan was adopted (1994). The square footages shall not serve as a maximum developable area for any Planning Area or for the entire Specific Plan. Development shall not exceed a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0:1 to maintain consistency with the General Plan.

Planning areas which are to be developed under the amendment comprise a total of 737,000 square feet and include the following land uses:

Area 1, Industrial/Warehouse: Planning Area 1 is located in the northwestern corner of the site on Walker Street. The eastern portion of this area has been developed as office use; the western portion is proposed for use as a 210,000 square-foot industrial/ warehouse use. The area will take access through secondary access driveways on Walker Street to the west.

Area 4, Commercial: Planning Area 4 is located on the southeast corner of the Center at the intersection of Valley View Street and Katella Avenue. The site to be developed is sandwiched between two existing commercial uses in Planning Area 4: the Ramada Inn to the west, and the El Torito Restaurant to the east. The site is intended for use as a 9,000 square foot restaurant although other commercial uses which support the businesses of the Center are permitted. Access to the site will be through a driveway Resolution No.

Page 6 ends

connection with Plaza Drive and a secondary access driveway on Katella Avenue.

Area 5, Office: Planning Area 5 is located in the south central portion of the project area, fronting on Katella Avenue. The eastern portion of the Planning Area has been developed as an office use with a parking lot in the area proposed for additional office use. The proposed development of the site would consist of construction of a 150,000 square foot, six story office building and a parking structure to provide parking for the existing use and the new building. Access will be through a secondary access driveway on McDonnell Drive and through internal connections with the existing use.

Area 6, Office/Commercial: Planning Area 6 is located on the southwestern corner of the project area at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Walker Street. The site is currently vacant. The planning area is planned for 368,000 square feet of office uses with supporting commercial retail uses. This area includes a 10,000 square-foot childcare facility for the employees of the businesses within the planning area. The design intent of the planning area is the creation of a campus style office development, utilizing several office and commercial buildings designed as an integrated whole. This may include the development of a central plaza space to link the buildings (see the conceptual design concept in Exhibit 8, Conceptual Site Plan for a possible design scenario). A parking structure will accommodate the parking needs for the Planning Area uses. Access will be through Douglas Drive and secondary driveways on Katella Avenue and Walker Street.

SECTION 5. Subsection C.4 of Chapter V (Development Regulations) of the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan is hereby revised as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

4. Industrial/Warehouse: Planning Areas 1 and 2, as identified on the Land Use Plan Intent: This use is intended for warehousing and associated light industrial uses within Planning Areas 1 and 2 and the western portion of Planning Area 1 of the Specific Plan.

SECTION 6. Subsection C.4 of Chapter VI (Implementation) of the McDonnell Center Specific Plan is hereby revised as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

4. Minor Development Standards Adjustments
The purpose of a Minor Specific Plan Development Standard Adjustment procedure is to provide a simplified means of considering minor deviations from certain development standards set forth in the Specific Plan which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Any person, firm, corporation or other entity may apply in writing to the Planning Director for a minor development standard determination in the provisions Resolution No.

Page 7 ends

contained in this Specific Plan. Applications for minor adjustments shall be limited to any of the following:
 A reduction in lot, yard or building area requirements by not more than ten percent (10%) of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.  A transfer of building floor area between planning areas provided there is no net increase in the total permitted building floor area and no increase in traffic generation.
 A reduction in parking requirements by not more than ten percent (10%).  A minor modification to Architectural or Landscape Architecture Guidelines contained in Section IV or the Landscape Standards in Section V.

The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 18.5 of the Municipal Code.

SECTION 7. The map in Exhibit 3 (Land Use Plan) of the McDonnell Center Specific Plan is hereby replaced with the map included as Attachment A of this ordinance.

SECTION 8. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. The City Council of the City of Cypress declares that it would have adopted all the provisions of this Ordinance that remain valid if any provisions of this Ordinance are declared invalid.

SECTION 9. Effective date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from its adoption.

SECTION 10. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard.

Resolution No.

Page 8 ends

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of November, 2024. _______________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
_________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the ___ day of ______, 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2024-01, FOR A 191,394 SQUARE-FOOT WAREHOUSE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT 5665

PLAZA DRIVE IN THE MCDONNELL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress has considered an application submitted by GLC Cypress, LLC (“Applicant”) for a new 191,394 square-foot (sf) warehouse building and associated parking and landscaping at 5665 Plaza Drive in the McDonnell Center Specific Plan (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires the following to be approved by the City Council:
an amendment to the McDonnell Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan Amendment No. 2024-01) and a Site Plan Review (SPR No. 2024-01); and
WHEREAS, an application was filed for approval of a Site Plan Review for the Project in accordance with the provisions of Section VI.C of the McDonnell Center Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the goals and objectives of the General Plan as laid out in the City Council staff report dated November 12, 2024 and November 18, 2024, and finds that the Project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Project and released to the public on August 12, 2024, for a 45-day review period. All required notifications were provided pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.4 and 21161; Guidelines Sections 15082 and 15085) and all comment letters were incorporated into the Final EIR. The City Council has certified the EIR and made all required CEQA findings under separate resolution adopted concurrently herewith; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing where the item was continued to November 18, 2024 and considered testimony on the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the applicant agrees with the necessity of and accepts all elements, requirements, and conditions of this Resolution as being a reasonable manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work, visit or live in this development in particular.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, based upon substantial evidence taken from the administrative record and at the public hearing, AS FOLLOWS:

Resolution No.

Page 2 ends

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. Findings. Pursuant to the Section VI.C.6 of the Specific Plan, the City Council finds, after due study and deliberation that the following circumstances exist:

1. The proposed project is compatible with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan.

With approval of the specific plan amendment, the Project is compatible with the intent and purpose of the McDonnell Center Specific Plan. The amendment removes the maximum square footage requirement and expands warehousing and light industrial uses into the eastern portion of Planning Area 1, where the project is located. These changes further the Specific Plan’s goal to provide “flexible development guidelines which will accommodate future market trends and tenant needs, without sacrificing the intended high-quality character of the project”. With approval of the conditions included in Exhibit “A”, the project maintains the cohesive nature of the Specific Plan area in regards to landscaping, access, and other factors.

2. Development of the Site Plan will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, interest, convenience, or the general welfare.

With approval of the conditions included in Exhibit “A”, the Project will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Further, the Environmental Impact Report found the Project had a less than significant impact with the implementation of the required mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

3. The Site Plan is compatible with the intent and purpose of the regulations and design guidelines of the McDonnell Center Specific Plan.

With approval of the Specific Plan Amendment and the conditions included in Exhibit “A”, the Project meets all the development standards required by the McDonnell Center Specific Plan. The architectural design of the warehouse is consistent with the Specific Plan design guidelines in that it incorporates a variety of materials, an enhanced building entrance, and a contemporary style. The Project landscaping will enhance the site and maintain the aesthetic standards of the Specific Plan area.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cypress hereby approves Site Plan Review No. 2024-01, subject to the applicable Resolution No.

Page 3 ends

conditions included in Exhibit “A”. The decision of the City Council is final and conclusive as to all things involved.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of November, 2024. _______________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
_________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the 12th day of November, 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
EXHIBIT "A"
PROJECT TITLE: SPR NO. 2024-01
ADDRESS: 5665 PLAZA DRIVE

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. General Conditions

1.1. Unless and until the project applicant and property owner sign and return a Cityprovided affidavit accepting these conditions of approval, there shall be no entitlement of the application. The project applicant and property owner shall have 15 calendar days to return the signed affidavit to the Community Development Department. Failure to do so will render City Council action on the application void. (Planning)

1.2. This permit is granted for the plans dated January 8, 2024, (“the plans”) on file with the Planning Division. The project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions, or unless a minor modification to the plans is approved by the Planning Director. A minor modification may be granted for minimal changes or increases in the extent of use or size of structures or of the design, materials or colors of structures or masonry walls. (Planning)

1.3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City and any agency thereof, or any of its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City or any agency thereof, or any of its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency thereof, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 and Public Resources Code, Division 13, CH. 4 (§ 21000 et seq. - including but not by way of limitation § 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. (City Attorney)

1.4. The applicant’s contractor shall provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance on City form evidencing a comprehensive liability insurance policy with a combined single limit of not less than $500,000 each occurrence in connection with the work performed. Certificate shall include the City, its Council, officers, members of boards or commissions and employees as additional Named Insureds with respect to all claims, actions, damages, liabilities and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under the development executed by the Named Insured and City, including any act or omission of employees, agents, subcontractors, or their employees. Such certificate shall have a 30 day cancellation notice to the City of Cypress. (City Attorney) Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 2

1.5. Any and all correction notice(s) generated through the plan check and/or inspection process is/are hereby incorporated by reference as conditions of approval and shall be fully complied with by the owner, applicant and all agents thereof. (Planning)

1.6. All requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), Orange County Health Department, and Cypress Building and Safety Division shall be satisfied prior to commencement of the business operation. (Planning)

1.7. The applicant shall obtain a Cypress business license prior to commencement of the business operation. (Finance)

1.8. All applicable conditions of the project shall be complied with prior to occupancy of the subject building. (Planning)

1.9. The applicant may request minor modifications of conditions of approval consistent with the intent of the project approval. The modification must be approved in writing by the Planning Director (Conditions of Approval Sections 1-8), City Engineer (Conditions of Approval Sections 9-22 and 24), and the Police Chief (Conditions of Approval Section 23).

2. Planning

2.1. Areas subject to vehicle loading, including internal streets, driveways, etc., shall consist of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) unless an alternative material is approved in the project WQMP for infiltration purposes. (Planning)

2.2. At least two weeks prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall meet with the project planner and members of the Building and Engineering Divisions to ensure that all applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. (Planning)

2.3. Developer shall submit both a lighting plan showing standard heights and light materials and a photometric plan showing light levels on site and at the adjacent property limits, for design review and approval of the Planning Director. (Planning)

2.4. All exterior portions of the site, during the hours of darkness, shall be illuminated with a minimum of one foot-candle of light. In order to minimize light and glare on the project property and adjacent properties, all parking lot and exterior structure light fixtures shall be high cut-off type that divert lighting downward onto the property and shall not cast light on any adjacent property or roadway. Illumination levels at the property lines shall not exceed .5 foot candles. (Planning)

2.5. Project on-site lighting shall be of a type and in a location that does not constitute a hazard to vehicular traffic, either on private property or on adjoining streets. To Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 3
prevent damage from vehicles, standards in parking areas shall be mounted on reinforced concrete pedestals or otherwise protected. Developer shall recess or conceal under-canopy lighting elements so as not to be directly visible from a public street. (Planning)

2.6. That no vending machines, publication racks, telephones, kiosks, donation bins and similar items shall be permitted outside of the buildings. (Planning)

2.7. The easement restricting parking in the 60-foot wide strip on the northern edge of the site shall remain in effect so long as the area is zoned PS-1A. Parking stalls located within the PS-1A zone shall be available for public use from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and all day on Saturday and Sunday. (Planning)

2.8. Signs shall be installed and maintained at the entrances to the site and within the easement referenced above indicating that the parking area within the easement is available for public parking from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and all day on Saturday and Sunday. (Planning)

2.9. Third Party Logistics uses are prohibited within the building. Third Party Logistics refers to business entities that provide short-term storage and fulfillment services for finished consumer goods.

2.10. Class 8 trucks providing deliveries to and from the project site shall be directed to access and depart the site via Douglas Drive to Katella Avenue, connecting directly to the I-605 Freeway.

3. Mitigation Measures

3.1. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit associated with implementation of the project, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. (Planning)

3.2. A copy of the approved Conditions of Approval including Table 6.A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the approved Environmental Impact Report, shall be included in all development plans submitted to the City. (Planning)

3.3. The applicant shall conduct outreach to all property owners and tenants in properties adjacent to the project site property lines to discuss schedule, duration, and to identify the appropriate contacts for future communication, start date, expected duration, concerns or complaints. (Planning)

3.4. A “disturbance coordinator” shall be established. The disturbance coordinator will Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 4
be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise and/or ground vibration. 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.

3.5. Subject to approval of a Temporary Use Permit, permitted hours of construction for grading and ground improvement activities may be modified to 2 pm through 10 pm seven days a week including 8 am to 5 pm on Sundays. Complaints received regarding ground improvement activities occurring past 8 pm, will be evaluated by the Community Development Director and at their discretion, the temporary use permit will be modified as required. (Planning)

3.6. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall 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 “disturbance coordinator.

3.7. The applicant shall prepare a list of parties contacted and share any written communication with Planning, Code Enforcement, and Public Works.

3.8. The Applicant’s DDC 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 will be conducted; set up a vibration monitoring schedule; define structure-specific maximum vibration limits based on building inspections; contain provisions to conduct building surveys to document existing conditions at adjacent structures. The plan shall identify construction contingencies that would be implemented if vibration levels approach the established vibration limits at a particular location.

3.9. Should the applicant utilize deep dynamic compaction ground improvement methods the applicant shall:
o Applicant’s structural engineer shall inspect adjacent structures located within 120’ of site areas being improved with DDC to assess structural integrity and evaluate the ability for each structure to endure vibration and lateral acceleration without damage.
o Applicant’s ground improvement contractor will install seismic monitoring calibrated to alarm when thresholds are exceeded (maximum .5 in/per sec in PPV threshold).
o Further mitigation measures shall be implemented should vibration exceed the Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 5
.5 in/per sec in PPV threshold (sequence of methods to reduce impact) to reduce the threshold to acceptable levels such as:
 Dig a trench along north PL to cut off seismic wave and  Determine distance from north PL where ground acceleration is reduced to acceptable levels.
o For all areas where vibration cannot be reduced to acceptable levels (.5 in/per sec in PPV threshold), Vibratory Stone Columns shall be used instead.

3.10. The applicant will work closely with the City Staff and adjacent property owners to immediately address complaints due to vibration and modify operations to minimize perceived or actual impacts. If the City receives two-verified complaints after the implementation measures outlined in Section 3.9, the balance of the project shall utilize Vibratory Stone Columns (VSC).

4. Architectural

4.1. Architectural elevations and site plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

4.2. All architectural treatments shall be constructed as illustrated on plans and renderings submitted. The final exterior color scheme shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to actually painting the structure. (Planning)

4.3. All roof mounted equipment, such as heating and air conditioning units, shall be adequately screened from public view by a parapet wall of equal or greater height than the highest piece of roof mounted equipment or vent, subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. (Planning)

4.4. The transformer boxes and water valves shall be placed in locations acceptable to the Director of Planning and shall be adequately screened from view with plant materials. (Planning)

4.5. During construction, the developer shall provide an adequate number of trash bins at a location acceptable to City staff. Construction bins must be maintained onsite.

Bin rental shall be contracted through the City’s disposal services contractor. (Planning)

5. Signage

5.1. A comprehensive sign program for both building and freestanding monument signs shall be submitted for Community Development Department approval prior to the installation of any signs. The developer shall not erect or display on the subject Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 6
property any signs which have not been approved in writing by the Community Development Department. (Planning)

5.2. The installation and method of sign illumination shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the Building and Safety Division. The business owner shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that the illumination of the sign shall not create glare for vehicular traffic. All electrical conduits, timer devices, and other electrical equipment shall be buried underground or concealed within the sign. (Planning) (Building and Safety)

6. Landscaping

6.1. To the extent feasible and subject to Planning Director approval, the site shall be landscaped in compliance with the McDonnell Center Specific Plan, including landscape requirements for parking areas and setback areas. (Planning)

6.2. A detailed landscape and automatic irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval at least 60 days prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In addition, a bond shall be posted with Public Works to guarantee against defects in plant materials and workmanship for a period of one year from acceptance of the landscape installation. All required landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly condition and comply with the provisions of Section IV.D. (Design Concept, Landscape Guidelines) and Section V.H. (Development Regulations, Landscape). (Planning) (Public Works)

6.3. All new or revised landscape areas shall comply with the City’s water efficiency ordinance as well as the water efficient requirements of the Cypress Zoning Code and the City’s Drought Response Management Plan. All new or revised irrigation shall be provided by a drip or microspray system. (Planning)

6.4. Landscape irrigation pipes and sprinkler heads shall be maintained in good working order so as to cover all landscaped areas. (Planning)

6.5. All trees required to be removed to install the sidewalk along Plaza Drive shall be replaced. The tree species shall be consistent with the McDonnell Center Specific Plan Design Concept (Section IV.D), and subject to Planning Director approval.

Replacement trees shall be a minimum of 24” box size. (Planning)

7. Operational

7.1. All business activity shall occur within the building except for the loading and unloading vehicles which shall occur in the loading docks as indicated on the approved plans. Temporary use permits may be granted for outdoor activity in accordance with Section 19, of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. (Planning) Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 7

7.2. The parking lot shall be used solely for vehicular parking, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Director. (Planning)

8. Property Maintenance

8.1. Continuous Maintenance. The Project property owner shall continually maintain the property so that it is visually attractive and not dangerous to the health, safety and general welfare of both on-site users (e.g. employees) and surrounding properties.

The property owner shall ensure that all facets of the development are regularly inspected, maintained and that any defects are timely repaired. Among the elements to be maintained, include but are not limited to:
a. All walls, fences, and trash enclosures shall be maintained free of significant surface cracks, dry rot, warping, missing panels or blocks, which threaten the structure’s structural integrity.
b. Parking lot surfaces and pedestrian walkways shall be maintained in a safe condition such that any concrete, asphalt, or other driving or walking surfaces are free of potholes, buckled or cracked surfaces, or raised areas. c. The property shall be maintained free of the accumulation of trash and debris.

Trash and debris associated with the business operation shall be stored solely in designated trash enclosures.
d. Exterior building elevations shall be maintained such that buildings are free from broken, missing, or significantly cracked surface finished materials. e. Signage. The developer shall maintain all on-site signs, including posted area signs (e.g. “No Trespassing”) in a clean readable condition at all times. The developer shall remove all graffiti and repair vandalism on a regular basis. f. Lighting. The developer shall maintain any lighting so that they operate properly for safety purposes and do not project onto adjoining properties or roadways.
g. Parking and on-site circulation. The developer shall maintain all parking and on-site circulation requirements, including surfaces, all markings and traffic/directional signs in an un-faded condition as identified on the approved site plan. (Planning)

8.2. The property owner shall maintain the site, the publicly accessible interior, and publicly viewable exterior of the building(s) clear of all graffiti, including but not limited to bathrooms and dining areas if applicable. All graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours once notified in writing by the City. (Planning)

9. Fees

9.1. As applicable, the applicant shall pay the following fees per the adopted Master Fee resolution, as noted below. (Engineering)
Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 8
 Park and Recreation (Prior to issuance of Building Permit)  Drainage Fee for Master Drainage Plan (Prior to issuance of Building Permit)
 City-wide Traffic Improvement (Prior to issuance of Building Permit)  Regional Traffic Improvement (Prior to issuance of Building Permit)  Final Subdivision Map Check (Prior to submittal of Map)  Sanitary Sewer Connection (Prior to issuance of Building Permit)  Grading / On-Site (Non-Structural) Plan Check (Prior to submittal of Grading Plans)
 Grading Permit and Inspection (Prior to Permit issuance)  Building Plan Check (Prior to submittal of Plans)
 Building Permit and Inspection (Prior to Permit issuance)  Public Improvement Plan Check (Prior to submittal of Plans)  Public Improvement Permit and Inspection (Prior to Permit issuance) Within 48 hours of the approval of this project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department the required Fish and Wildlife impact fee in the form of a check payable to the County Clerk-Recorder in the amount required by the County, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination pursuant to Fish and Game Code §711.4 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 753.5. (Planning)

10. Engineering

10.1.That all engineering requirements of the City of Cypress, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer, as may be modified by the City Engineer; and, that security in the form of two (2) Offsite Improvement bonds (faithful performance and labor and materials), certificates of deposit, letters of credit, completion guarantees, or cash, each in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer’s cost estimate and form satisfactory to the City of Cypress, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to guarantee the installation of the related improvements prior to final building and zoning inspections in accordance with an approved construction phasing plan. In the event the developer’s contractor and/or subcontractor fails to diligently prosecute the work within the public right-of-way, the City reserves the right, in its reasonable discretion, to issue a stop work notice and to provide a substitute contractor and/or subcontractor to complete said work at the sole cost and expense of developer. (Engineering)

10.2.The applicant shall submit all public improvement plans per the Public Works Standard Plans and specified design criteria. All plans shall be submitted in an Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 9
acceptable digital format and one copy printed on mylar with the City title block on all sheets. (Engineering)

10.3.Prior to any street construction or relocation, when there are monuments in the project area which control the location of subdivisions, streets or highways, or provide survey control, the developer shall locate and reference the monuments and shall reset them after construction as required by Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering)

10.4.The applicant shall notify the City Engineer through submittal of a revised plan if any changes to the site plan are proposed during the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the City Engineer has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement may be required. (Engineering, Planning)

10.5.The applicant shall make all submittals, including engineering, building, grading, water quality, and inquiries through the department’s online plan check and permit application at https://cypressca.viewpointcloud.com or as determined by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

10.6.Prior to issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall record all easements (reciprocal access, emergency access, etc.) necessary to provide access to the property and building(s) for emergency services. (Engineering)

11. Landscaping within the Public Right-of-Way

11.1. Prior to or with the submittal of building plans, the applicant shall submit a street landscaping and irrigation plan within the public right-of-way to the City Engineer for approval. The subject landscaping and irrigation plans shall be designed to be in conformance with the City’s water efficient landscape ordinance. (Engineering, Maintenance)

11.2. The applicant shall post a Landscape bond, equal to 100% of the cost estimate, to guarantee against any defects in plant materials and workmanship. The applicant shall submit a soils report for all planting areas, prepared by a qualified agricultural laboratory to the City Engineer for approval at least 30 days prior to planting date.

Test results shall include concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, ph, salinity, sodium status, and boron saturation extract. Drought tolerant landscape is encouraged. The landscaping will be irrigated from the private property meter and the applicant or successor in interest will pay for all water. (Engineering, Maintenance)

11.3. Prior to issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install all new public right-of-way landscaping and irrigation per the approved street Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 10
landscaping and irrigation plan. (Engineering, Maintenance)

11.4. The applicant or his successor in interest shall maintain all landscaping planted in the public right-of-way located along the frontage of their property in a healthy and safe condition. (Engineering, Maintenance)

12. Sewer and Wastewater

12.1. The developer shall construct new private sewer laterals with cleanouts at a location approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

12.2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a sewer plan signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all the proposed public and/or private sewer lines meeting the requirements of the City Design Standards for Sewer Facilities to be approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

12.3. All sewer lines within the development shall be private sewer lines and shall be maintained and cleaned by the developer, or successor in interest. The City of Cypress shall have no responsibility for maintenance of the private sewer lines. (Engineering)

13. Street Trees

13.1. If trees are planted within the public right of way, they shall be installed in accordance with the approved street landscape plan subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering)

13.2. The applicant or successor in interest shall trim all trees in the public right-of-way along the property frontage on Plaza Drive annually or as prescribed by the City Engineer and maintain the trees in a healthy and safe condition. (Maintenance)

14. Street Lighting

14.1. The applicant shall bear the full cost of upgrading the existing street light along the property frontage on Plaza/Douglas Drive to energy efficient LED fixtures.

Street lighting shall be approved by the City Engineer and meet the City of Cypress design standards.

15. Streets

15.1. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, including temporary, the applicant shall install new sidewalks and driveway approaches that are compliant with the American Disabilities Act along the property frontage on Plaza Drive. The developer shall comply with the following requirements regarding the improvements:
 Within 90 days issuance of any grading or demolition permit, submit plans to Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 11
Public Works for both the sidewalk and associated landscaping within the tenfoot parkway strip within the public right of way and obtain approval by the City Engineer.
 Construct all improvements in accordance with Cypress Public Works standards and specifications to satisfaction of the City Engineer.  Prior to construction, obtain and pay for a permit and inspection services. As part of the permit, submit a bond to guarantee its construction acceptable to the City Engineer and maintain a schedule on file with the City Engineer for the work.
 Sidewalks shall be a minimum width of five feet, clear of all obstructions (including utilities, street lights, fire hydrants, etc).  Adjust utility vaults and boxes to grade in accordance with the corresponding utility’s requirements and standards.
 Relocate any utilities as necessary securing the appropriate approvals from the respective utilities.
 Plant new trees at 1:1 ratio on private property along the property frontage for any tree removed as part of the sidewalk improvements. Submit the size and types of trees and locations for approval to the Planning Director.  Landscaping within the public right of way parkway strip shall be drought tolerant and water efficient.
 Irrigate all landscaping within the public right-of-way from the private property meter and the developer or successor in interest shall pay for all water.  The developer or his successor in interest shall maintain all landscaping planted in the public right-of-way located along the frontage of their property in a healthy and safe condition.
 Grant easements to the City for pedestrian purposes for any sidewalk or driveways, as needed, for compliance with ADA requirements prior to issuance of a permit for construction.

15.2. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, including temporary, the applicant shall resurface Plaza Drive (2” grind and overlay asphalt concrete pavement) along the project, 5757 and 5755 Plaza Drive frontages. Construct all improvements in accordance with Cypress Public Works standards and specifications to satisfaction of the City Engineer.

15.3. Remove and replace any damaged street, pavement or other concrete improvements as a result of damage due to this work and appropriately clean Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 12
the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)

15.4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall remove and replace any existing public improvements at the development site which have existing damage, are damaged due to construction, or otherwise below current standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)

16. Traffic

16.1. The access driveway to the development shall be designed in accordance with City standards and approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

16.2. The quantity, location, width, and type of public driveways shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Prior to construction of any driveway approach upon public street right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain a public works permit. (Engineering) (Driveways)

16.3. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall provide adequate sight distance per Engineering Standard Plan 204 and 205 at all street intersections, driveways, and parkways, in a manner meeting the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall make all necessary revisions to the plan to meet the sight distance requirement such as removing slopes or other encroachments from the limited use area in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) (Sight Distance)

16.4. The applicant shall bear the full cost of the traffic signal modification improvements at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Douglas Drive/Warland Drive. The improvements shall consist of installation of a new southbound vehicle signal head on an existing pole in the northwest corner. The City will construct the improvements. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy, the applicant shall settle all payments related to this improvement.

All costs for the improvements including, but not limited to, design (city to hire/manage design engineer), construction, construction management, permitting and inspection shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant. (Engineering)

16.5. Any proposed land uses which generate trips in excess of those analyzed in the “Goodman Commerce Center Traffic Analysis” dated January 11, 2024 shall be prohibited until a reassessment is performed and, potentially, additional traffic improvements are completed. (Engineering)

17.Utilities

17.1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install all new utility services underground. (Engineering)

17.2. Arterials shall be crossed by boring only. In public streets, lateral open cuts Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 13
spaced within 20 feet of each other shall be covered with a one-inch continuous asphalt concrete cap. (Engineering)

19. Drainage

19.1. Prior to issuance of grading permits at the direction of the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit a grading plan for approval signed and stamped by a registered California civil engineer and using actual grades from an Orange County Surveyor's Benchmark. (Engineering)
The applicant shall ensure the following requirements are met:
- Drainage is solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. - The Grading Plan is consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan, Site Plan and any Improvement Plan for proposed public storm drains. - Submittal of a Preliminary Grading Plan if deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
- The topography of the area surrounding this development shall be made to establish existing drainage flow patterns.
- The minimum slope standards are met for 1% for landscape areas, AC parking areas 1.5%, Concrete .2%.
- All surface runoff and subsurface drainage directed to the nearest acceptable drainage facility, as determined by the City Engineer.
- Drainage facilities discharging onto adjacent property shall be designed to imitate the manner in which runoff is currently produced from the site or alternatively, the applicant may obtain a drainage acceptance and maintenance agreement, suitable for recordation, from the owner of said adjacent property.
- All drainage facilities must be consistent with the County of Orange Grading Ordinance as supplemented by the Engineering Division and Local Drainage Manual.

20.Storm Water Quality – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

20.1 Development must be undertaken in accordance with conditions and requirements of the Santa Ana Region National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R8-2009-0030 as amended by Order No.

R8-2010-0062.

20.2 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP must include best management practices for source control, pollution prevention, site design, and low impact development as well as structural treatment controls among many factors. Site design for controlling urban runoff must first evaluate infiltration, then harvest and water re-use, then evapotranspiration and only bio-treatment if the other three are not feasible. The WQMP must identify the routine structural and non- Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 14
structural measures specified in the current Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and utilize the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (OC TGD) as well as the Model WQMP.

Applicable WQMP projects must also:
 Utilize the City’s current WQMP template;
 Utilize the City’s online WQMP application system for submittal;  Address site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing connected impervious areas, creating reduced or zero discharge areas, and conserving natural areas;  Incorporate Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP;  Include post-construction Treatment Control BMP(s) as defined in the DAMP;
 Include and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that (1) describes the long- term operation and maintenance requirements for pos-construction Treatment Control BMP(s); (2) identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the referenced Treatment Control BMP(s); (3) describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the references Treatment Control BMP(s); (4) includes the Water Quality Implementation Covenant and Agreement.

20.3 Prior to issuance of and grading or building permits, the applicant must submit a certified copy of the approved Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) along with the final approved Grading Plan and all other supporting documentation on a USB flash drive in a single digital file (pdf) format acceptable to the City Engineer. The Preliminary WQMP Submittal and subsequent approval of the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan does not guarantee approval of the Final Water Quality Management Plan. Should the final calculations and submittals not meet the required thresholds necessary to meet the obligations of the City under the NPDES Permit for development and its incorporated documents such as the DAMP and OC TGD. alterations to the site and the site plan may be required as prescribed by the City Engineer to the WQMP. Any significant alteration to the site plan due to the Final WQMP may require approval of the Council for the revision. Additionally, the WQMP must identify a responsible party and implement funding sources for maintaining post construction BMPs as required as part of the development and must ensure that appropriate easements and ownerships are properly recorded in public records and access is made available for inspection of said devices.

20.4 The owner is responsible for providing a Water Quality Implementation Covenant and Agreement and an Operations and Maintenance plan that outlines the funding and maintenance of water quality BMPs, consent to inspect, and indemnification on the forms provided by the City for all postconstruction stormwater mitigation and treatment devices, as required by the Santa Ana Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R8-2009-0030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062. The Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 15
agreement will be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Before final acceptance of project improvements, the owner or his/her designated representative must certify that the treatment device was constructed and installed in accordance with the approved plans. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the City's NPDES Implementation Program in a manner meeting the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Water Quality Manager, including:
 Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the BMP Exhibit from the project's approved WQMP and Maintenance Covenant and Agreement have been implemented, constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications
 Demonstrate that the applicant has complied with all non-structural BMPs described in the project's WQMP
 Demonstrate that copies of the project's approved WQMP and Covenant and Agreement (with attached O&M Plan) are available for each of the initial occupants
 Agree to provide a compliance deposit to pay for any required inspections and any additional non-compliance inspections as the City deems necessary
 Submit certified record drawings as well as the project engineer’s postconstruction certification as well as the owner’s post construction certification on a template provided by the City
 Agree to pay for an inspection (special investigation) from the City for a date 12 months after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project to verify compliance with the approved WQMP, Maintenance Covenant and Agreement and O&M Plan.
 Demonstrate that the applicant has RECORDED one of the following:

1. The CC&R's (that must include the approved WQMP, Maintenance Covenant and Agreement and O&M Plan) for the project's Homeowner’s Association;

2. A Water Quality Implementation Covenant and Agreement that has the approved WQMP and O&M Plan attached; or

3. The final approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. (Engineering, Water Quality) (NPDES/WQMP Compliance Measures)

20.5 All onsite storm drain inlets, whether newly constructed or existing, must be labeled “No Dumping Drains to Ocean” before occupancy in accordance with city requirements.

20.6 All exterior metal building surfaces, including roofs, must be coated with rustinhibitive paint, or approved equal, to prevent corrosion and release of metal contaminants into the storm drain system prior to occupancy.

Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 16

20.7 Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) must include a structure to cover the enclosure with a solid roof design below to direct stormwater away from entering the enclosure. All litter/waste material must be kept in leak-proof containers. Area(s) must be paved with impermeable material. No other area may drain onto these areas. The trash enclosure and/or recycling area(s) may not drain to the storm drain system and all cleanups must be performed using dry cleanup methods. Trash Enclosures for projects regulated by the current NPDES Permit may be required to design to slope to an interior trapped area floor drain and connected to a pre-treatment device such as an interceptor or clarifier before plumbing to the sanitary sewer system. Additionally, there must be a posted sign on the trash enclosure informing users that hazardous materials are not to be disposed therein. Enclosures for air compressors must include a roof installation similar to trash enclosures, and direct water from entering the enclosure. Additionally, trash enclosures may be required to be modified to meet the current solid waste requirements.

20.8 Any areas, including but not limited to delivery areas/handling docks and outdoor work areas to be utilized for material storage and handling must be covered, constructed on impermeable pavement, designed to eliminate run-on from other areas, and be graded and constructed to prevent runoff from the area Additionally, the development must be designed and constructed with no drain in this area. If these conditions cannot be met, BMPs such as oil/water separators, sand filters, and/or detention basins must be installed to treat all stormwater runoff before it is discharged to the storm drain system. If other areas drain onto the area, treatment for these areas must be included in the design of BMPs. The design must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval before the issuance of grading permit.
 Loading/truck docks are not required to be covered if no material handling/ storage occurs in these areas.

20.9 Food facilities, including industrial kitchens or bakeries, must be designed with contained areas for cleaning mats, equipment and containers. This wash area must be inside or covered and designed to prevent run-on or runoff from the area. The area may not discharge to the storm drain; indoor or covered area wash waters must drain through a grease interceptor to the sanitary sewer or be collected for ultimate disposal to the sanitary sewer or an authorized location (pumped/trucked offsite). Wash areas located outside must be covered and bermed; wash water must be collected and pre-treated through a grease interceptor and not allowed to drain to storm drain. Additionally, there must be a sign posted instructing that all washing activities be conducted in this area.

Employees must be instructed, and signs posted indicating that all washing activities be conducted in this area. Additionally, food facilities are required to obtain a FOG permit through the City’s online application and permitting system prior to project close-out and or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

20.10 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant must Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 17
submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in a manner meeting approval of the City Engineer and the Building Official and in accordance with requirements of the Santa Ana Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R8-2009-0030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062. The ESCP must be developed and implemented to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES Implementation Program and State water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP must identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. must be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into local drainage ways or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion.
 Any proposed work in the public right-of-way will require that the ESCP is submitted to the City for review and approval and shall describe how the applicant will ensure that all BMPs will be maintained during construction.

The ESCP must be updated as needed to address the changing circumstances of the project site. A copy of the current ESCP must be kept at the project site and be available for City review on request.

20.11 For projects that disturb one (1) acre or more of soil or are part of a larger common plan of development, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with California's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Permit No. CAS000002/Order No. 2009-009- DWQ as amended) by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number; or other proof of filing in a manner meeting the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Projects subject to this requirement must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current SWPPP must be kept at the project site and be available for City review on request. The applicant must ensure that the SWPPP is consistent with any City approved plan including the grading plan, site plan, building plans, and water quality management plan.

20.12 If a change of ownership takes place for the entire development or portions of the common plan of development where construction activities are still ongoing, development must provide the City with Proof of a Change of Information form (COI) with the State GCP.

20.13 Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant must clean all on site storm drain systems, catch basins, filters, storm drain lines, inlet boxes, etc. Additionally, upon direction of the City Engineer, the applicant must clean any public storm drain systems, catch basins, filters, lines, inlet boxes that the City Engineer has determined have been impacted by the applicant's construction. If clean-up is not performed, the City may make arrangements to clean the system at developer’s expense.

Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 18

20.14 The owner is responsible for maintaining and operating all on-site private improvements.

20.15 All property areas must be maintained free of litter/debris.

20.16 All onsite storm drains must be cleaned at least twice a year; once immediately before October 1st (the beginning of the rainy season), and once in January.

Additional cleaning may be required by the City Engineer.

20.17 Generator or tank enclosure areas must be paved with impermeable material.

No other area may drain onto these areas. The enclosure area must not drain to the storm drain system or the sanitary sewer and all cleanups must be performed using dry cleanup methods. There must be no slope on the interior floor of the enclosure and the area must be bermed to prevent run-on of stormwater. The generator or tank must have adequate secondary containment to contain 110 percent of fuel or liquid in tank in event of a spill.

20.18 There must be no pressure washing of parking or loading areas, material and waste storage areas, or building site, unless the City approves a collection system to keep water from entering the storm drain.

20.19 Landscaping must be properly maintained with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to urban runoff pollution.

20.20 Prior to grading or building permit close-out and or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate that compliance with the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitter to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing coverage under the current Industrial General Permit.

Additionally, the applicant will be subject to all requirements of Section 13-29 of the Cypress Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution prevention including, but not limited to obtaining Water Quality permit prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.

20.21 Any applicant, occupant or its successor shall be responsible for the cost of any water quality inspections by the City that are mandated by the State of California or by the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency (USEPA) presently or in the future.

20.22 The WQMP Improvement Bonds must incorporate all post-construction stormwater devices from the approved WQMP and include two (2) bonds (faithful performance and labor and material) with each equal to 100% of the engineer’s cost estimate. These costs will be provided in the WQMP for review and inclusion in the WQMP Improvement Bond and shall cover device defects Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 19
 Community Development Department  Planning Division  as well as malfunctions and possible replacement in the event the device is damaged or not operating per the manufacturer’s specification or intended design.

20.23 The applicant will be subject to all requirements of Section 13-29 of the Cypress Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution prevention including, but not limited to, obtaining a Water Quality permit through the City’s online application and permitting system, prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.

20.24 No person or person(s) shall make any modifications to drainage approved in the grading plan or approved WQMP without prior written approval from the City Engineer.

20.25 Certified full trash capture trash devices must be installed to address the Statewide Trash Amendments adopted April 7, 2015. Existing storm drain inlets located within this project must be retrofitted to address the above trash policies. Additionally, proposed post-construction BMPs must devices that are State certified for full-trash capture.

21. Building and Safety

21.1. The applicant shall submit building, grading, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plans in compliance with the current adopted (2022) California Building Code and Cypress Municipal Code.

21.2. Applicant/developer shall provide a single point of contact for all phases of the permitting process and the construction process. The point of contact may be different for permitting and construction. The applicant/developer will provide a 24- hour contact number. This person will be responsible for all communications with Building and safety including but not limited to application, plan submittal, permit issuance, inspection requests and any other requests or inquiries. (Building and Safety)

21.3. The applicant will schedule a pre-construction meeting with both the Building Official and City Engineer (or designees) prior to any work starting on the project site. The meeting shall take place one to two weeks prior to the start of construction. All contractors including their superintendents, designers/engineers will be required to attend unless otherwise directed by the Director of Public Works. (Building and Safety, Engineering)

21.4.Construction bins for non-recyclable and recyclable materials generated from any construction site (residential and non-residential) must be placed “on site” out of the public right-of-way unless permit is obtained from the City Engineer. (Building & Safety)

21.5. A pre-grading SWPPP’s inspection is required prior to grading permit issuance.

Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 20
 Community Development Department  Planning Division  All required grading stormwater BMPs shall be installed and inspected by the Building Division prior to release of the grading permit.  A grading permit may be issued prior to BMP installation/inspection if the applicant, or the contractor performing the work, posts a cash bond (with compliance schedule) in a form and amount approved by the Public Works Director. Cash bonds will be forfeited if any grading work occurs prior to authorization to proceed. Surrendering the cash bond does not permit the applicant to perform any work not previously authorized.

21.6. Delivery, loading and unloading of construction materials shall occur on site and not within the Public Right of Way unless a permit is obtained from the City Engineer. (Building and Safety)

22. Solid Waste

22.1. The applicant shall construct new or modify its existing trash enclosure structures to house all required solid waste containers (trash, recycle, organics) and possess a solid covered roof that prohibits stormwater to enter and then discharge from the enclosure. (Public Works, Water Quality) (Trash Enclosures)

22.2. The applicant shall subscribe to solid waste services from the City’s solid waste hauler with no less than one time per week service for trash, recycling, and organics recycling. These shall be properly maintained and not allowed to overflow. Source separated organic recycling is required unless alternatives are approved in writing from the Public Works Director. (Public Works, Water Quality)

22.3. For phased construction, as buildings are occupied, the applicant shall ensure there is adequate room and clearance for solid waste trucks and for placement of construction bins on site during construction. Access ways shall not be blocked without written approval of the Building Official. (Public Works)

22.4. The applicant shall not install a trash compactor at the site without first having received written approval from the City’s solid waste hauler. (Public Works)

23. Security

23.1. The property address shall be clearly identified on both sides of the freestanding sign base. A minimum of six-inch lettering shall be used for the property address. The property address shall also be posted in a visible location on the building. (Police Department.)

23.2. The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. (Police Department)

23.3. All exterior commercial doors, during the hours of darkness, shall be illuminated with a minimum of one footcandle of light. All exterior bulbs shall be protected by weather and vandalism resistant cover(s). (Police Department) Conditions of Approval
SPR No. 2024-01 5665 Plaza Dr. Page 21
 Community Development Department  Planning Division 

23.4. The landscaping and lighting plans for the project shall also be subject to review by the Cypress Police Department. (Police Department)

23.5. The applicant will provide a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design study for approval by the planning and police departments. (Police Department)

23.6. The building tenants shall install a surveillance camera system, colored monitor, and silent alarm. (Police Department)

24. Fire

24.1. The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the Orange County Fire Authority for review. Approval shall be obtained on each plan prior to the event specified. Specific submittal requirements may vary from these listed below.

Prior to issuance of a building permit,:
 Fire master plan (service code PR145)
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
 Architectural (service codes PR200/PR224)
 Tanks storing hazardous materials (service codes PR300-PR305)  Underground piping for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems (service code PR470-PR475)
 Fire sprinkler system (service codes PR400-PR465)

24.2 Prior to OCFA issuance of a precise grading permit or a building permit, if a grading permit is not required approval shall be obtained for a fire master plan.

24.3 Irrevocable reciprocal access easements for emergency access purposes to the benefit of the Cypress shall be recorded prior to approval of the fire master plan.

24.5 The applicant shall receive clearance from the OCFA prior to bringing combustible building materials on-site. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714- 573-6150 with the Service Request number of the approved fire master plan at least five days in advance to schedule the lumber drop inspection.

Effective: 11/18/2024
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA,

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND ADOPTING

FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 191,394 SQUAREFOOT WAREHOUSE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT 5665 PLAZA DRIVE IN THE MCDONNELL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress has considered an application submitted by GLC Cypress, LLC (“Applicant”) for a new 191,394 square-foot (sf) warehouse building and associate parking and landscaping at 5665 Plaza Drive in the McDonnell Center Specific Plan (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA No. 2024-01) and a Site Plan Review (SPR No. 2024-01), that required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”); and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of the Draft EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069007); and WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for comment for the public, responsible, and trustee agencies for a 30-day public review period between May 7, 2024 and June 5, 2024, during which time the City held a public scoping meeting on May 28, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for the Draft EIR was issued on August 12, 2024, and the Draft EIR was circulated for public review from August 12, 2024 through September 27, 2024; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review period, the Final EIR was prepared, which includes written responses to the comments received during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR are full and complete in compliance with CEQA. The responses to comments do not affect the analysis in the Draft EIR, and do not require the recirculation of information; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies the potential for significant effects on the environment from development of the Project, all of which can be reduced through implementation of mitigation measures to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the approval of the Project must include findings regarding mitigation measures and alternatives. The City has prepared the Findings of Fact set forth in Exhibit A, which findings are incorporated herein by this reference; and
Resolution No.

Page
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure monitoring and implementation of the mitigation measures which is set forth in Exhibit B and is incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024 and November 18, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider certification of the EIR and approval of the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cypress City Council determines, finds, and certifies as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq., and all applicable state and local guidelines, and that it reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council further certifies that it has fully reviewed the Final EIR prior to considering the approval of the Project.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts Findings of Fact for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SECTION 3. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Cypress.

SECTION 4. The City hereby directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse as required by CEQA.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 18
th day of November, 2024.
_______________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
Resolution No.

Page
ATTEST:
_________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
Exhibit A
Findings Of Fact

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Findings of Fact
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the environmental impacts of a project be examined and disclosed prior to approval of a project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 1”].
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 2”]. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 3”].

Having received, reviewed and considered the EIR prepared for the 5665 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2024040017, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings Regarding the CEQA Documents for the project are hereby adopted by the City of Cypress (City).

1.2 Document Format
These Findings have been categorized into the following sections:
1) Section 1.0 provides an introduction to these Findings. 2) Section 2.0 provides a summary of the project, overview of other discretionary actions required for the project, and a statement of project objectives. 3) Section 3.0 provides a summary of those activities that have preceded the consideration of the Findings for the project as part of the environmental review process, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 4) Section 4.0 sets forth findings regarding those potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined to be less than significant with the implementation of project design features.
5) Section 5.0 sets forth findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined can feasibly be

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 2
mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures included in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. 6) Section 6.0 sets forth findings for significant and unavoidable project impacts. 7) Section 7.0 sets forth findings regarding growth-inducing impacts. 8) Section 8.0 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the project. 9) Section 9.0 contains findings regarding the MMRP for the project. 10) Section 10.0 contains other relevant findings adopted by the City with respect to the project.

The Findings set forth in each section herein are supported by findings and facts identified in the administrative record of the project.

1.3 Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions regarding the proposed project are located at the City of Cypress Community Development Department, located at 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California 90630. The City Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record for the project.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 3

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 Project Description/Location
The proposed project would be located on an approximately 8.53-acre site (project site) at 5665 Plaza Drive in Cypress, California. Currently, the project site is developed with a 150,626 square-foot, fivestory office building, a surface parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. The project site is bounded by industrial and office uses to the north, industrial uses to the west, Plaza Drive to the south, and Goodman Commerce Center Project to the east. The Goodman Commerce Center Project, approved in April 2023, was under construction at the time of the preparation of this EIR.

The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing 150,626-square-foot five-story office building on the project site and the construction of a new 191,394-square-foot light industrial building with 181,061 square feet of warehouse space and 10,333 square feet of office space. The maximum height of the proposed building would be approximately 51 feet, 6 inches to the top of the parapet wall. The proposed project would include a truck loading area with 25 dock-high loading doors on the west side of the proposed building. The project site is currently accessible from two driveways along Plaza Drive. The new westernmost driveway would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck-loading docks on the proposed building’s west side. The eastern driveway would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east. The proposed project would include parking stalls throughout the project site’s perimeter, new water and sewer lines connecting with existing water and sewer mains within Plaza Drive, new stormwater infrastructure, and new ornamental landscaping.

2.2 Discretionary Actions
The City is the Lead Agency and has principal authority and jurisdiction over all land use entitlements within its incorporated boundaries. The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals by the City:
• The City Council would certify that the Final EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and identifies appropriate mitigation measures to address any potentially significant effects;
• Specific Plan Amendment to the McDonnell Center Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1, and removal of the maximum developable area requirement while retaining the 1.0:1 floor-area ratio (FAR) to maintain consistency with the General Plan; and
• Site plan approval.

2.3 Statement of Objectives
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 vacant office building.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 4
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) To establish a use consistent with the business park and light industrial uses in proximity to the project site.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for the proposed project by the City to the State Clearinghouse on May 7, 2024. The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the project, SCH No. 2024040017. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for a period of 30 days, from May 7, 2024, to June 5, 2024, during which comments were solicited and received, pertaining to environmental issues/topics that the Draft EIR should evaluate. These NOP responses were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR, which upon release, was made available to all Responsible/Trustee Agencies and interested groups and individuals, as required under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087. A virtual public scoping meeting was held on May 28, 2024.

The State-mandated public review of the Draft EIR began on August 12, 2024, and concluded on September 27, 2024. The Final EIR includes a Response to Comments package, which presents all written comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and includes responses to these comments and associated changes made to the EIR in the form of an Errata.

The EIR includes any exhibits or appendices thereto, the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the EIR, the comments which were received by the City regarding the EIR, and the City's written responses to comments raised in the public review and comment process, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084, the EIR has been reviewed and analyzed by the City of Cypress as the lead agency with respect to the project and the EIR. The following findings for the project and each fact in support of a finding are thus based upon substantial evidence in the record.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 5

4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO

IMPACTS OR BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City finds, based upon the analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR, that the following environmental effects of the proposed project either have no impact or are less than significant, and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The City hereby finds that existing regulatory requirements, policies, and/or project conditions have been identified and incorporated into the project which avoids or substantially lessens the potentially significant effect on the environment to a less than significant level.

4.1 Aesthetics
Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista: No Impact
A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista generally include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access. Although the City of Cypress does not provide a definition of scenic vistas, potential scenic vistas include areas with views of the coastline, mountains, or other prominent scenic features that are considered significant visual resources for residents and businesses. The City is almost entirely developed and neither the project site nor other properties in the project vicinity provide substantial views of any water bodies, mountains, hilltops, or any other significant visual resources. As such, the City has not designated any scenic corridors or scenic vistas within its boundaries.

The project site is located in a flat area and is surrounded by urban development, including several buildings and surface parking lots. As there are not scenic resources that could be blocked by the proposed project and the surrounding area is characterized by office and light industrial development, the proposed project would neither alter an existing scenic vista nor block views of any scenic vistas.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, no impact would occur. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Damage to Scenic Resources: No Impact
There are no designated State Scenic Highways within the City’s limits. According to the List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the only State-designated Scenic Highway in the County of Orange (County) is a 4-mile segment of State Route 91 (SR-91) from State Route 55 (SR-55) to east of the Anaheim city limits. The nearest State highway that is eligible for official designation as a State Scenic Highway is a portion of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH or State Route 1 [SR-1]), which is located approximately 5.75

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 6
miles southwest of the project site in the City of Seal Beach. Due to distance and intervening land uses, no portion of the project site or the surrounding area is viewable from the officially designated portion of SR-91 or the eligible portion of PCH. As such, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the substantial damage of scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not significantly affect scenic highways and corridors. No impacts would occur related to scenic highways and corridors. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.1-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Degrade Visual Character or Quality of Views: Less Than Significant Impact According to the United States Census Bureau, the City of Cypress is located within the Los Angeles— Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urbanized Area. Because the City is located in an urbanized area, the project site is, therefore, located within an urbanized area. Further, surrounding land uses in the vicinity are representative of urban densities.

In its existing condition, the project site consists of approximately 8.53 acres of land currently developed with a five-story office building and its associated surface parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. The project site is bounded on the east by the approved Goodman Commerce Center Project (approved in April 2023) consisting of two light industrial buildings and is currently under construction. The project site is surrounded by light industrial uses to the north and west and office uses to the south. The project site is visible from several public roadways surrounding the project site (Plaza Drive, Katella Avenue, and Walker Street), and land uses surrounding the project site are urban and include office and light industrial uses.

The project site is within Planning Area 1 of the City’s McDonnell Specific Plan Area (PC-3) and is currently designated as Office, which allows general office uses. As part of the project approval process, the project would require site plan review and an amendment to the McDonnell Specific Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 7
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.1-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Add New Source of Light or Glare: Less Than Significant Impact As discussed above, the project site is surrounded by a variety of office/light industrial uses. The nearest light-sensitive land uses are residential uses approximately 1,400 feet north of the project site along Cerritos Avenue. Other sources of light on and adjacent to the project site include exterior lighting from adjacent properties, streetlights, and vehicle headlights.

Construction would occur primarily during the daylight hours. Any construction-related illumination during the evening and nighttime hours would be shielded to the extent feasible and would consist of the minimum lighting required for safety and security purposes only and would occur only for the duration required for the temporary construction process. Due to its limited scope and short duration, light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area or interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. Minor glare from sunlight on construction equipment and vehicle windshields is not anticipated to impact visibility in the area because (1) relatively few construction vehicles and pieces of construction equipment would be used on the project site, and (2) the construction site would be fenced and shielded from pedestrian and vehicular views. Construction vehicles would not operate at night and thus would not create nighttime sources of glare. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and light and glare impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

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. Light fixtures would be specified and located to incorporate shielding to minimize and eliminate lighting spillover from the project site into neighboring properties. All exterior lighting associated with the proposed project would be implemented in conformance with the exterior lighting requirements in Section M of the McDonnell Specific Plan, which include the following:

1. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries.

2. Light standards and fixtures in parking areas shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height.

Security lighting fixtures shall not project above the fascia or roofline of the building.

Additionally, the proposed project’s exterior lighting would be required to comply with the City’s Lighting Standards 3.11.060, Exterior Lighting, and Section 3.10.060, Light and Glare, of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Section 3.10.060, Light and Glare, requires that light and glare associated with business operations are shielded or directed to avoid illuminating adjacent properties or causing glare that affects motorists. The proposed project would also be required to comply with Cypress Municipal Code Section 3.11.060, Exterior Lighting, which requires that (1) lighting fixtures are appropriate in height, intensity, and scale to the use they are serving; (2) the level of parking lot lights is between 2 and 4 footcandles at the base of the light fixture; and (3) light sources visible from outside a project’s boundary are shielded to reduce glare so that neither the light source nor its image from a reflective

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 8
surface shall be directly visible from any point beyond the property line. Compliance with Cypress Municipal Code Sections 3.10.060 and 3.11.060 would minimize light and glare spillover impacts related to the proposed project. Impacts related to glare from on-site lighting would not occur because the exterior building materials would not include highly reflective materials. Therefore, lighting provided as part of the proposed project would be largely consistent with the type and intensity of existing lighting in the vicinity of the project site.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.1-4 through 4.1-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
All Thresholds: No Impact
The project would not result in any impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources as the project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, there are no lands within the City that are currently under a Williamson Act contract, and there is no forest or timberland present within the project site that could be lost from project implementation. The entire project site and surrounding area is designated as “Urban and Built Up Land” according to the California Department of Conservation, and the proposed project is within Planning Area 1 of the McDonnell Specific Plan, which does not allow for agricultural uses within any of its planning areas.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or forest land, and would not result in loss of forest land.

Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.3 Air Quality
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan: Less Than Significant Impact

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 9
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because the project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds or Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs), and the proposed project is consistent with the land use and growth intensities reflected in the City’s adopted General Plan. Furthermore, the project would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds. Based on the consistency analysis provided in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the regional AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.1-21 through 4.1-22.

Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutant: Less Than Significant Impact Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS).

Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the construction and operations of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under applicable federal or State AAQS. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.1-22 through 4.1-27.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 10
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not result in an exceedance of a SCAQMD LST during project construction or operation. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.1-28 through 4.1-29.

Other Emissions, Such as Odors: Less Than Significant Impact Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors, primarily from equipment exhaust. In addition, the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities may result in odors. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant.

The proposed project would construct a light industrial building. Therefore, the proposed project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances.

Therefore, odors associated with the proposed operations would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.1-29.

4.4 Biological Resources
Adverse Effects on Special Status Species: No Impact

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 11
The perimeter and parking areas of the site are surrounded with landscaped areas consisting of trees and small bushes. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species map does not identify any locations of critical habitat within the project site.

The closest known critical habitat is the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, which contains the Western snowy plover, approximately 6.8 miles south of the project site. Additionally, critical habitat for the Coastal California gnatcatcher is located in the West Coyote Hills approximately 7 miles north of the project site, just north of Ralph B. Clark Park. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), no sensitive plant species have been documented on the project site or in the immediately surrounding area.

The Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) 2016 Natural Community Conservation Plan/ Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), which was adopted for the purpose of permitting freeway capital improvement projects proposed by OCTA and OCTA’s habitat preserve, restoration, and monitoring activities, includes a Plan Area that covers the entirety of Orange County, including Cypress. The City is not a party to the OCTA NCCP/HCP, and development activity within the City is not subject to the provisions of the OCTA NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the OCTA NCCP/HCP does not apply to the proposed project. No special-status species are anticipated to be directly affected by the project due to the lack of suitable habitat on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive or specialstatus species would result from implementation of the proposed project, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special-status species in applicable plans, policies, or regulations. No impacts would occur.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4-1 through 4.4-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Adverse Effects on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community: No Impact The project site is highly disturbed and developed with an office building, a paved parking lot, and landscaping, and does not support any special-status or sensitive riparian habitat as identified in regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or USFWS. Therefore, no impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in a local or regional plan would result from project implementation, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the CDFW or USFWS. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 12
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.4-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Adverse Effect on Protected Wetlands: No Impact
According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by the USFWS, the project site does not contain federally protected wetlands. The project site is located entirely outside of streambeds, banks, and riparian habitat. No potential waters of the United States or CDFW jurisdictional areas are located on the project site.

Although construction activities have the potential to result in temporary indirect effects to water quality including a potential increase in erosion and sediment transport into downstream aquatic areas and the contamination of waters from construction equipment, these potential indirect effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or substantially minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and a Water Quality Management Plan as discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3, provided in Section 4.10, would address erosion-related impacts during construction through implementation of construction site BMPs to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to downstream aquatic areas and water quality. As such, there would be no impacts on State or federally protected wetlands.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4-2 through 4.4-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Interference with Wildlife Movement: Less Than Significant Impact Due to the surrounding urban development, the project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Species that are found on site either fly onto the site or are able to navigate on the ground through long stretches of urban development. Therefore, the project site does not contain any native resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, or wildlife corridors. In addition, no portion of the project site or the immediately surrounding areas contains an open body of water that serves as natural habitat in which fish could exist.

The existing trees on the project site may provide habitat suitable for nesting migratory birds that were observed on the project site. Several of the existing on-site trees, which are primarily ornamental, would be removed during construction. Therefore, the proposed project has the

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 13
potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation and trees are removed during the nesting season.

Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (Title 33, United States Code, Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be subject to the provisions of the MBTA, which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests. Project implementation must be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to active nests during the breeding season. If project construction occurs between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey prior to ground- and/or vegetation-disturbing activities to confirm the absence of nesting birds. As documented in Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1, avoidance of impacts can be accomplished through a variety of means, including establishing suitable buffers around any active nests. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 is applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4-3 through 4.4-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Conflict with Biological Protection Policies: Less Than Significant Impact The Landmark Tree Ordinance in the City’s Municipal Code protects designated landmark trees that are specifically identified in the City’s Inventory of Landmark Trees (July 1996). As shown in this inventory, there are no landmark trees on the project site. The removal of any on-site trees or vegetation would not conflict with the City’s Landmark Tree Ordinance.

Per Article IV of the Municipal Code, Street Trees, any tree within the public right-of-way belongs to the City of Cypress. Any work to street trees conducted as part of the proposed project would be done in accordance with the City Council’s adopted Parkway Tree Policy. The City has not adopted any other policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Therefore, because the project would comply with all local policies and ordinances relating to tree protection, it would not result in any conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 14
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.4-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plan: No Impact
There is no adopted HCP, NCCP, or other habitat conservation plan in the City. As discussed previously, the OCTA NCCP/HCP includes a Plan Area that covers the entirety of Orange County, including Cypress.

The City is not a party to the OCTA NCCP/HCP, and development activity within the City is not subject to the provisions of the OCTA NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the OCTA NCCP/HCP does not apply to the proposed project, and the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or State HCP or NCCP. The proposed project would not result in impacts related to conflict with any provisions of an HCP or NCCP, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other conservation plan. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4-4 through 4.4-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.5 Cultural Resources
Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource: No Impact The South Central Coastal Information Center record search results and field survey identified no previously recorded cultural resources on or in soils on the project site. As such, there are no historical resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 located within the project site. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.2-6.

Disturbance of Human Remains: Less Than Significant Impact

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 15
Although no human remains are known to be on the project site or are anticipated to be discovered during project construction, due to ground disturbance, there is a possibility of inadvertent discovery of human remains. Disturbing human remains could violate the State’s Health and Safety Code as well as destroy the resource. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 requires compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains to less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 is applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.2-7.

4.6 Energy
Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy: Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy because gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the proposed project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1, provided below, which would reduce energy usage on the project site during construction through reducing truck idling times. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1, impacts to energy resources during project construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

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. The estimated potential net increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 3,106,447 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2022 was 20,243.7 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 20,243,721,856 kWh. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent. The estimated potential net increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 38,407 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2022 was 572 million therms (572,454,744 therms). Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent. In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project-related trips.

The proposed project is estimated to result in the net decrease of approximately 6,498 gallons of gasoline and the net increase of approximately 132,401 of diesel fuel per year from existing

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 16
conditions. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, 155.9 million gallons of diesel and

1.2 billion gallons of gasoline are anticipated to be consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2023. Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would not increase the annual gasoline fuel use in Orange County and would increase the annual diesel fuel use by approximately 0.1 percent in Orange County. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would represent a very small percentage of the annual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Orange County. Vehicles associated with trips to and from the project site would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards, which are applicable throughout the State. The proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment uses, and transportation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be necessary.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.

Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1 is applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.3-7 through 4.3-10.

Conflict with or Obstruction of Energy Plans: Less Than Significant Impact Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County and the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Integrated Energy Policy Report. Potential impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 17
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.3-10 through 4.3-11.

4.7 Geology and Soils
Adverse Effects Related to Earthquake Fault Rupture: No Impact According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared for the proposed project, active faults do not appear to be present under or in close proximity to the project site. Additionally, according to the California Geological Survey’s EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp webbased application), the Newport-Inglewood and Whittier Fault Zones are the nearest fault zones located approximately 5.1 miles southwest and 11.6 miles northeast of the project site, respectively.

Therefore, surface rupture is not anticipated to occur within the project site or surrounding vicinity.

No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.4-9.

Adverse Effects Related to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking: Less Than Significant Impact The Geotechnical Evaluation determined no evidence of active faults to be present under or in close proximity to the project site. However, incidental ground cracking and other ground shaking phenomena can occur due to high seismic accelerations and regional seismic activity. Thus, it was determined in the Geotechnical Evaluation that risks associated with seismic shaking and strong ground motion are considered to be moderate. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO1, below, the proposed project’s building would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the most current California Building Code requirements that aim to prevent building collapse and reduce the impacts of seismic ground shaking. Adherence to these requirements would address injury and loss of life and building damage after an earthquake. Therefore, with the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.

Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 is applicable to the proposed project.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 18
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-10.

Adverse Effects Related to Landslides: No Impact
According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, landslides have not been recorded within the City boundaries and are not anticipated based on the lack of any significant topographic features.

Further, according to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the topography of the site is relatively flat to very gently sloping. Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities were not observed at the project site. Both the project site and surrounding properties are flat with no unusual geographic features, and therefore, neither the project site nor the surrounding area has the potential for impacts related to landslides. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No impact would occur.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-11.

Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil: Less Than Significant Impact During project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 in Appendix B of the Initial Study and the MMRP). The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.

Potential soil erosion impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant with adherence to the required regulations discussed above. Operation of the proposed project would result in no impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 19
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 is applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-11.

Expansive Soils: Less Than Significant Impact
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, surface site soils had a “very low” potential for expansion. No recommendations are provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation related to expansive soils due to this very low potential. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils for the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not be located on expansive soil and would not create a direct or indirect risk to life or property. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-13.

Septic Tanks and Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems: No Impact The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because sanitary sewer and wastewater facilities are available in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-13.

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significant Impacts Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Less Than Significant Impact Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, greenhouse gases (GHGs) would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 20
creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 536.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) during construction of the project. When annualized over the 30-year life of the project, annual emissions would be 17.9 MT CO2e.

Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area, mobile, stationary, waste, and water sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. The proposed project would generate a total of 406 average daily trips (ADT), including 262 passenger vehicle trips, 50 two-axle truck trips, 16 three-axle truck trips, and 78 four-axle truck trips, which were included in California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Existing uses would generate a total of 408 ADT.

Mobile sources would be the largest source of GHG emissions for the proposed project at approximately 61 percent of the total project emissions. Energy sources would be the next largest category at approximately 33 percent. Water sources would be approximately 4 percent of the total emissions, and waste sources would be approximately 2 percent of the total emissions. Area sources would be approximately less than 1 percent of the total emissions.

Based on the analysis results, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 2,925.9 metric tons of CO2e per year (MT CO2e/yr) over existing conditions, which would be below the numeric threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, impacts related to operational GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.5-17 through 4.5-19.

Conflict with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Emissions Plan, Policy, Regulation: Less than Significant Impact
Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan Update and the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The proposed project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS; therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 21
targets of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035, and it can be assumed that regional mobile emissions would decrease in line with the goals of the RTP/SCS.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.5-19 through 4.5-21.

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant Hazards Through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals).

These materials are commonly used at construction sites, and the construction activities would be required to comply with applicable State and federal regulations for proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of excess hazardous materials and hazardous construction waste. In addition, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, as detailed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, require compliance with the waste discharge permit requirements to avoid potential impacts to water quality due to spills or runoff from hazardous materials used during construction.

Therefore, with adherence to the regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.

The proposed project includes the development of one light industrial building with both warehouse and office uses. Warehouse and office uses typically do not present a hazard associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment. Operation of the proposed light industrial building would involve the use of materials common to all urban developments that are labeled hazardous such as solvents and commercial cleansers and petroleum products and would include the limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape maintenance. Trucks accessing the businesses on site would contain oil and gasoline to power their engines, which could have the

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 22
potential to result in minor releases of such substances through drips or leaks from truck loading areas.

Any hazardous materials associated with project operations would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not store, transport, generate, or dispose of large quantities of hazardous substances. Therefore, potential impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials resulting from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

The Orange County Fire Authority’s (OCFA) Hazardous Material Division and the Orange County Environmental Health Department both identify types and amounts of waste generated in Orange County and establish programs for managing waste. The OCFA maintains a Hazardous Material Management Plan, which assures that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is available to manage the hazardous waste generated within the County and address issues related to the disposal, handling, processing, storage, and treatment of local hazardous materials and waste products.

The proposed project would be reviewed by the OCFA for hazardous material use, safe handling, and storage of materials. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, conditions of approval would be applied to the proposed project by the OCFA to reduce hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste that is generated on site would be transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with State and federal law. Therefore, due to the type and nature of the proposed project, its implementation would result in less than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 are applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Significant Hazards Through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment: Less Than Significant Impact The project site was historically used for agricultural purposes until approximately 1980. Based on the adjacent railroad line and historical agricultural use, pesticides or herbicides may have been utilized on the project site, and near-surface soils may have at one time contained these compounds.

However, the soils on the project site were reworked when the project site was developed in the early 1990s, and, therefore, it is not anticipated that any hazardous materials in the soils remain related to

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 23
past agricultural use. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) concluded that there was no evidence of recognized environmental conditions at the project site.

The Phase I ESA also determined that the presence of lead-based paint (LBP) was unlikely as the existing office building was built around 1990, and risks related to LBP only apply to paint that is intact but was applied before 1977. In addition, the Phase I ESA determined that previous investigations on the project site indicated the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) in building materials.

However, further investigations in the Asbestos Inspection Report for the project site concluded that no ACMs or asbestos containing construction materials (ACCMs) were used in the construction of the improvements at the site.

For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous material into the environment. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.9-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Hazardous Emissions or Handling Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School: Less Than Significant Impact The closest schools to the project site are the Frank Vessels Elementary School (0.5 mile northeast) and Del Sol School (0.6 mile northwest). Therefore, there are no existing or proposed schools within

0.25 mile of the project site.

The proposed project is not anticipated to release hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils during heavy equipment operation for site excavation, grading, and construction. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction would be limited and would be in compliance with existing government regulations. Future light industrial land uses would not require the use, storage, disposal, or transport of large volumes of hazardous materials that could cause serious environmental damage in the event of an accident. Although hazardous substances could be present and used at the proposed light industrial building, such substances are generally present now in the existing development on the project site, typically found in small quantities, and can be cleaned up without affecting the environment. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or handling of

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 24
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-3 through 4.9-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Location on a Site Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, Creating a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment: Less Than Significant Impact
Under Government Code Section 65962.5, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides a list (Cortese List) of hazardous materials sites. The DTSC’s data management system (EnviroStor) does not include any sites within the City of Cypress. Therefore, the project site is not on the list, impacts related to the project site’s status on the list of hazardous materials sites would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.9-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Airport-Related Safety Hazards for People Residing or Working in the Project Area: Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located approximately 0.25 mile north of the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. The facilities at JFTB Los Alamitos include two runways and associated taxiways, ramp space, and hangars. According to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, the project site is located in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Part 77 Notification Area (Exhibit D1) and the AELUP height restriction

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 25
zone for JFTB Los Alamitos. Height limitations are imposed on projects within a height restriction zone so that structures or trees (1) do not obstruct the airspace required for takeoff, flight, or landing of an aircraft at an airport, or (2) are not otherwise hazardous to the landing or takeoff of an aircraft.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the vicinity of the project site because the proposed project would include the demolition of the existing five-story office building on the project site and replace it with a one-story light industrial building that would not exceed 50 feet in height (the proposed building would have a maximum height of approximately 51 feet, 6 inches, to the top of the parapet). As such, the proposed building would be consistent with the height of surrounding land uses and would not penetrate the 100 to 1 imaginary surface that surrounds the runway at JFTB Los Alamitos. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that, while located within an airport land use plan, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-4 through 4.9-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Impairment or Interference with an Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan: No Impact
The City’s emergency evacuation routes are shown on Exhibit SAF-5 in the Safety Element (2001) of the City’s General Plan. All emergency evacuation activities are coordinated by the City’s Police Chief.

The Police Chief would issue evacuation orders based on information gathered from emergency experts. Evacuation operations would be conducted by law enforcement agencies, highway/ road/street departments, and public and private transportation providers. The project site is located near Katella Avenue and Valley View Street, both of which are identified as emergency evacuation routes by the City. The proposed project does not include any modifications to Katella Avenue or Valley View Street and would not introduce any new driveways or other vehicular access points to either street. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with emergency operations and evacuations, and there would be no impact on emergency response. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 26
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.9-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Wildland Fires: No Impact The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the State through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas of California into different fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ), based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing densities, and occurrence of severe fire weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. As part of this mapping system, CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection for land areas that are generally unincorporated, which are classified as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). In areas where local fire protection agencies (e.g., OCFA) are responsible for wildfire protection, the lands are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). CAL FIRE currently identifies the project site as an LRA.

In addition to establishing local or State responsibility for wildfire protection in a specific area, CAL FIRE designates areas as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) or non-VHFHSZ. According to the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for the Orange County region, the entire City of Cypress is designated as a non-VHFHSZ, and the City does not include an SRA. The nearest VHFHSZ to the project site is approximately 10 miles to the northeast in Coyote Hills on the western side of Fullerton. The nearest SRA is in Puente Hills, approximately 12 miles northeast of the project site.

Because the project site is not located in or near an SRA or VHFHSZ, the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to wildfire. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-5 through 4.9-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Water Quality Degradation: Less Than Significant Impact
Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction, the entirety of the project site would be graded and excavated, and 8.45 acres of soil would be disturbed. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions.

In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 27
concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters. Sediment from increased soil erosion and chemicals from spills and leaks have the potential to be discharged to downstream receiving waters during storm events, which can affect water quality and impair beneficial uses.

Because construction of the proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS000002, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1. As also specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) detailed in the SWPPP would be implemented during construction, in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would detail the BMPs to be implemented during construction. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including incorporation of construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, would ensure that construction impacts related to waste discharge requirements, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, increased pollutant discharge, and alteration of receiving water quality, or impacts on surface water quality to marine, fresh, or wetland waters, would be less than significant.

According to the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F of Draft EIR), borings encountered groundwater at depths of 6 to 9 feet below ground surface (bgs). Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during excavation activities. Groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved solids, nitrate, salinity, or other constituents, or high or low pH levels that could be introduced to surface waters when dewatered groundwater is discharged to receiving waters. If groundwater dewatering is necessary, groundwater would be discharged to either the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system. If discharged to the sanitary sewer system, a permit from the City of Cypress Public Works Department would be required, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2, to ensure that there is sufficient capacity available to accommodate the discharge to prevent sanitary sewer overflow, which can result in a discharge of pollutants to surface waters. If groundwater is discharged to the storm drain system, coverage under the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) NPDES Permit General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001) would be required, as also specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2. This permit requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during groundwater dewatering prior to release to the storm drain system. As a result, groundwater dewatering would not introduce pollutants to receiving waters at levels that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degrade water quality, increase pollutant discharge, or alter the quality of the receiving water. Impacts to surface water quality from groundwater dewatering would be less than significant.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 28
Expected pollutants of concern from long-term operation of the proposed project include suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris.

The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB’s NPDES Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County (Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030, as amended by Order No.

R8-2010-0062) (North Orange County MS4 Permit). The North Orange County MS4 Permit requires that a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) be prepared for priority new development and redevelopment projects. The preparation of a WQMP and compliance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit is specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3.

WQMPs specify the BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. The Preliminary WQMP prepared for the project specifies the Source Control, Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs, and Treatment Control BMPs proposed for the project.

Source Control BMPs are preventative measures that are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into stormwater. LID BMPs mimic a project site’s natural hydrology by using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff rather than allowing runoff to flow directly to piped or impervious storm drains. Treatment Control BMPs are structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters.

The BMPs specified in the Preliminary WQMP would be implemented and maintained, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3. The proposed project BMPs are detailed below.

Proposed Structural Source Control BMPs include storm drain stenciling and signage; design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, and smart controllers; and the incorporation of requirements applicable to loading dock areas from Santa Ana RWQCB’s NPDES Permit. Proposed Non-structural Source Control BMPs include education for property owners, tenants, and occupants; activity restrictions; common area landscape management; BMP maintenance; common area litter control; employee training; housekeeping of loading docks; common area catch basin inspection, and; street sweeping private streets and parking lots.

Due to the high and seasonally mounded groundwater, traditional infiltration BMPs are not feasible for the proposed project. Proposed LID BMPs include a stormwater biofiltration system (Modular Wetland Systems), and a Hydrodynamic Separator to pre-treat stormwater entering the underground system. These proposed BMPS are also utilized as biotreatment BMPs. Stormwater runoff in the proposed condition would be collected by a series of area drains and proposed sump curb inlet catch basins and would be conveyed to an underground storage box in the southwestern parking lot area before being pumped to the proposed Modular Wetland Systems for treatment. The Modular Wetland Systems would treat street, roof, and landscape runoff for the proposed project, as well as reduce project-related flow rates into the existing storm drains by retaining and treating stormwater on the site. The proposed Modular Wetland Systems and catch basins would be designed with internal peak bypass and upstream diversion systems for conveyance of larger storm events. Treated and overflow stormwater from the Modular Wetland Systems would be conveyed via a proposed private

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 29
underground storm drain system to a public point of connection, then to an existing City public 48- inch storm drain system within Plaza Drive. Flows would then be conveyed from the 48-inch storm drain system to the Bolsa Chica Channel, then to Anaheim Bay, ultimately discharging to the Pacific Ocean.

The proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern from runoff from the project site in compliance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit requirements. Compliance with the requirements of the North Orange County MS4 Permit, including incorporation of operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern (as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3), would ensure that water quality impacts related to waste discharge requirements, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, increased pollutant discharge, alteration of receiving water quality, or impacts on surface water quality to marine, fresh, or wetland waters during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degrade water quality, increase pollutant discharges, or alter receiving water quality. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-1 through 4.10-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Depletion of Groundwater Supplies, Interference with Groundwater Recharge, and Impede Sustainable Groundwater Management of Basin: Less Than Significant Impact According to the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F of the Draft EIR) prepared for the proposed project, borings encountered groundwater at depths of 6 to 9 feet bgs. Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during construction activities. However, groundwater dewatering would be localized and temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. In addition, any volume of water removed during groundwater dewatering would be minimal compared to the size of the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, which has a surface area of 350 square miles and a storage capacity of 38,000,000 acre-feet. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve direct groundwater extraction. Increased water use would not substantially affect groundwater supplies because the groundwater basin has been sustainably managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) over the last 10 years, and it is anticipated that the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin will continue to be sustainably managed with implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative. The Basin 8-1 Alternative establishes objectives and criteria for groundwater management within the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Therefore, construction and operational impacts

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 30
related to a decrease in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies, interfere with groundwater recharge, or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10-7 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Alter Existing Drainage Pattern, Substantial Erosion or Siltation, Increase Runoff Resulting in Flooding, Exceed Capacity of Stormwater Drainage, or Impede or Redirect Flood Flows: Less Than Significant Impact
During project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. Project construction would not alter the course of a stream or river. As discussed above, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1). The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to on-site, off-site, or downstream erosion or siltation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

According to the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the proposed project, the on-site impervious surface area would increase by approximately 28,374 square feet (a 9 percent increase) which would increase on-site stormwater flows. Impervious surface areas associated with development of the project site would not be prone to erosion or siltation, because no loose soil would be included in these areas. The on-site pervious surface area for the project would be 0.68 acre, and would contain landscaping that would minimize on-site erosion and siltation by stabilizing the soil. Therefore, onsite erosion and siltation impacts would be minimal.

As a result of the 28,374-square-foot increase in impervious surface area, the proposed project would increase runoff from the project site during storm events, which could increase off-site erosion and siltation. As discussed previously, the proposed BMPs include underground detention and Modular Wetland Systems, which would be designed to further reduce the volume of stormwater discharged to the local storm drain system off site.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 31
According to the Preliminary WQMP, the project site is located in an area of hydrologic condition of concern (HCOC). Specifically, the project site is a tributary to the Bolsa Chica Channel, which has sections that are not concrete lined. Therefore, because the downstream receiving waters are susceptible to hydromodification, the proposed project has the potential to result in downstream erosion or siltation. However, as described in the Preliminary WQMP, the developed condition does not increase the storm volume or the time of concentration after implementation of the proposed project. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any new operational impacts related to substantial on- or off-site and downstream erosion or siltation, and this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

As described above, the proposed project includes underground detention, Modular Wetland Systems, and catch basins to treat and reduce stormwater runoff from the project site. As demonstrated by the hydraulic modeling conducted as part of the Preliminary WQMP, the underground stormwater basin and Modular Wetland Systems would be designed to accommodate the design capture volume of 25,766 cubic feet for the entire project site. The Modular Wetland Systems would treat the required volume and would reduce the peak flow rate below the 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year pre-project peak flow rates. In addition, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-4, a Final Hydrology Study would be prepared based on final project plans and would be approved by the City. The Hydrology Study would confirm that the proposed project drainage facilities comply with City and County requirements. Furthermore, with implementation of the proposed BMPs, operational impacts related to runoff from the site or a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume that would result in flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, substantially increase rate of surface runoff that would result in flooding, create runoff that would exceed capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems, or impede or redirect flood flows. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-4 are applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-7 through 4.10-10 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Location in Flood Hazard, Tsunami, Seiche Zones, Risk Release of Pollutants Due to Project Inundation: No Impact
The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0116J (December 3, 2009), the project site is located within Zone X, which comprises areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year flood). As the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain, the proposed project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 32
According to the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the project site is located within the inundation zone of Prado Dam. There are no open bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site, and the proposed project is therefore not located within an inundation zone of a seiche. The project site is located approximately 6.3 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami inundation zone, according to the Orange County Tsunami Inundation Maps. The levee inundation zone of Coyote Creek/Carbon Creek is located south of the project site; however, the project site is not located within this inundation area. Therefore, no impact from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, and would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. No impacts would occur.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10-10 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Conflict with Implementation of Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan: Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed above, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during construction activities. However, groundwater dewatering would be localized and temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. In addition, any volume of water removed during groundwater dewatering would be minimal compared to the size of the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve direct groundwater extraction. Increased water use would not substantially affect groundwater supplies because the groundwater basin has been sustainably managed by OCWD over the last 10 years, and it is anticipated that the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin would continue to be sustainably managed with implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the sustainable groundwater management plan adopted for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10-10 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 33

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Physical Division of an Established Community: Less Than Significant Impact In its existing condition, the project site consists of approximately 8.53 acres of land currently developed with one five-story office building (150,626 square feet) and associated parking lot. The project site is located in a largely developed portion of the City of Cypress within the McDonnell Specific Plan that consists of numerous office/light industrial uses. The existing five-story office building would be demolished and replaced with a one-story light industrial building that would be approximately 191,394 square feet in size.

Although implementation of the proposed project would result in changes on the project site including the demolition of the existing office building, construction of the proposed light industrial building, a Lot Line Adjustment, and associated improvements, the proposed project would not result in substantial changes to the existing configuration of adjacent parcels. As such, the proposed project would not divide or separate any existing land uses or neighborhoods. Therefore, construction and implementation of the project would not result in the physical division of an established community.

No mitigation would be required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not physically divide an established community.

Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.11-1 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect: Less Than Significant Impact Approval of the proposed project would not introduce any inconsistencies with the 2020–2045 Connect SoCal Plan, the City’s General Plan, or the Cypress Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 34
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.11-1 through 4.11-8 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.12 Mineral Resources
All Thresholds: No Impacts
The project would not result in any impacts related to mineral resources as the project site is not part of a mineral resource zone containing any known valuable mineral resources. The project site has been classified by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-4, indicating that the project site is in an area where information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone. The City of Cypress is not within the proximity of any MRZ-2 zones, and is surrounded by an MRZ-1 zone, indicating the absence of significant mineral deposits in the area. Furthermore, according to the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report, there are no mineral resources as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG; now known as the California Geological Survey or CGS) within the City. Therefore, no significant impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the State would result from project implementation, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts to any known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or any locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.12-1 through 4.12-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.13 Noise
Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels: Less Than Significant Impact Short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition of the existing office building, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structure. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site at the present time but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed project is completed. The combination of the equipment during the site preparation and grading phases, considering the usage factor of each piece of equipment, would result in a combined noise level of 59 A-weighted decibel equivalent continuous sound level (dBA Leq) at a distance of 1,300 feet, which represents the distance from the center of construction activity at the project site to the nearest noise-sensitive hotel use (Courtyard by Marriott) to the southeast. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once project construction is completed.

During deep dynamic compaction activities, the major source of noise would be the crane utilized to

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 35
drop the weight. Construction noise levels would be similar to those during building construction as that construction phase would also include the operation of a crane. Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site, it would cease to occur once project construction is completed. Additionally, with the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1, all feasible and reasonable measures to reduce construction noise would be implemented, and a less than significant impact would occur.

The increase in noise associated with project-related traffic would be very small, ranging from 0.0 to

1.7 dBA along the analyzed road segments. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. These noise level increases are not perceptible by the human ear. Therefore, off-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

Implementation of the proposed project would generate various on-site stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and dock operations. The project would have various rooftop mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, on the proposed building. To be conservative, it is assumed the project could have four (4) rooftop HVAC units that would operate 24 hours per day and would generate sound power levels (SPL) of up to 76 dBA SPL or 63 dBA Leq at 5 feet. Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would be similar to noise readings from truck loading and unloading activities, which generate a noise level of 75 dBA Leq at 20 feet. To present a conservative assessment, it is assumed that unloading activities could occur at half of the 25 docks simultaneously for a period of more than 30 minutes in a given hour. Additionally, at the remaining half of the loading docks, it is conservatively assumed that refrigeration units attached to the trailers would be in operation while waiting to be unloaded. Based on reference measurements, each unit would have a reference noise level of 79.4 dBA at 15 feet. The proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions. Additionally, the proposed project will generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 60 to 55 dBA Leq. 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.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 is applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.6-13 through 4.6-19.

Excessive Noise Levels Due to Proximity to an Airport: Less Than Significant Impact

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 36
The closest airport to the project site is Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos, which is located approximately 0.4 mile to the southwest. The noise contour boundaries of JFTB Los Alamitos show that the project site is located outside of Noise Impact Zone 2 (60 decibel [dB] Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL] or greater); therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to proximity to an airport. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.6-21.

4.14 Population and Housing
Substantial Unplanned Population Growth: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing office building on the project site and the construction of a new one-story light industrial building as well as associated site improvements including landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. The proposed project would not cause or result in direct population growth because the proposed project would not provide new housing on the project site. The proposed light industrial building is anticipated to generate approximately 93 employees.

As of November 2023, the City of Cypress had a labor force of 25,100, and the County of Orange had a labor force of 1,607,700, with approximately 9,655 and 61,143 people unemployed, respectively.1 The November 2023 unemployment rate was 3.8 percent for the City and 3.8 percent for the County.2 It is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to be relocated from outside the region to meet the need for employees resulting from implementation of the proposed project.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be located within a developed area of Cypress that is already served by all utilities. The existing regional infrastructure and the established roadway network would be utilized by employees accessing the project site and would not indirectly or directly induce population growth.
1 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%2Flfmonth%2Foransub.xls&wdOrigin= BROWSELINK (accessed December 5, 2023). 2
Ibid.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 37
Operation of the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth or accelerate development in an underdeveloped area, and any impacts to population growth would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.14-1 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Displacement of People or Housing Resulting in Need for Replacement Housing: No Impact As previously stated, the project proposes to demolish the existing office building on the project site and construct a new light industrial building as well as associated site improvements including landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. There are no existing housing units or people living on the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace housing or persons, nor require or necessitate the development of replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation would be required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project would result in no impacts. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.14-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.15 Public Services
Fire Protection Services: Less Than Significant Impact
As a non-residential project, the proposed project would not be expected to result in an excessive increase in calls for service. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Further, the City’s Safety Element states that separation and setback requirements, adopted in the City’s Municipal Code, assist in minimizing the risk of urban fire spread. The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s setback requirements. In addition, as discussed in further detail in Section

4.20, Wildfire, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 38
The proposed project would adhere to the development standards described in the City’s Municipal Code related to public safety. The proposed project would also be designed to comply with all OCFA requirements, including providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the project site and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with current editions of the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, and related codes.

As stated in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the City and therefore would be able to be served by Fire Station No. 17. The OCFA would review and comment on the site plan prior to approval. As part of the review, the OCFA would impose standard conditions of approval, which would ensure all impacts regarding fire protection would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new fire protection facilities or the upgrade of existing facilities, which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts relating to fire protection services. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.15-1 through 4.15-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Police Protection Services: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not increase the City’s population, as it proposes a non-residential development. The project site is currently developed with existing office uses; the proposed project would introduce light industrial uses, which are anticipated to require a demand for police services similar to or slightly less than the existing uses on the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the Cypress Police Department’s ratio of police officers per 1,000 residents and would not trigger the need for new or physically altered police facilities. Impacts to police services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts relating to police protection services. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 39
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.15-3 through 4.15-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Schools: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing office building on the project site and the construction of a new light industrial building, as well as associated site improvements including landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. The proposed project would not cause or result in direct population growth because the proposed project would not provide new housing on the project site.

Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. As a light industrial project, the proposed project would not add any students because it does not include any new housing. Nevertheless, the Applicant would be required to pay school fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1, below). The fees are collected by the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) and shared with Cypress School District (CSD).

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a project’s impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the required fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts relating to school facilities. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.15-4 through 4.15-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Parks: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would not directly generate new residents to the City’s population as it is a nonresidential development. The project does not propose any residential uses and, therefore, would not increase the population or demand related to parks. Although the project is anticipated to increase the City’s employment by 93 jobs, the number of employees would be minor compared to the amount of parks and recreational space within the City. While it is possible that employees may visit parks and

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 40
recreational facilities in the City during lunch breaks or after-work hours, it is unlikely that the use of parks by project employees would increase the use of those parks to a level that would contribute to substantial physical deterioration of those facilities. Impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts relating to parks. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.15-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact
The Cypress Senior Center, which provides a variety of services for senior residents, is located at 9031 Grindlay Street, approximately 1.8 mile north of the project site. The Cypress Community Center, which provides regular classes and programming for local residents, is located at 5700 Orange Avenue, approximately 1.3 mile north of the project site. The proposed project would not generate population growth as it is a non-residential development and would not generate an increased demand for the use of these public facilities. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts to these facilities. Impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts to other public facilities beyond those identified in the Initial Study. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.15-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.16 Recreation
Deterioration of Parks and Other Recreation Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact The project does not propose any residential uses and, therefore, would not increase the population or demand related to parks. Although the project is anticipated to increase employment by 93 jobs, the number of employees would be minor compared to the amount of parks and recreational space within the City. While it is possible that employees may visit parks and recreational facilities in the City during lunch breaks or after-work hours, it is unlikely that the use of parks by project employees

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 41
would increase the use of those parks to a level that would contribute to substantial physical deterioration of those facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.16-1 through 4.16-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Resulting in an Adverse Physical Effect: Less Than Significant Impact
In its existing condition, the project site is currently developed with a five-story office building and associated parking lot. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing structure, and development of a new one-story light industrial building. The project would not include recreational facilities nor develop residential uses that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, impacts to recreation requirements would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.16-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.17 Transportation
Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Related to the Circulation System: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is anticipated to generate a net increase of 196 two-way trips per day with a net reduction of 28 a.m. peak hour trips and a net reduction of 22 p.m. peak hour trips (in passenger car equivalents [PCE]). Since the proposed project is likely to generate fewer than 50 net new peakhour trips and fewer than 25 net new peak-hour trips at any single intersection, the implementation

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 42
of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any operational or level of service (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 that allow for the safe movement of people and goods. General Plan Policies CIR-2.5 and CIR-2.8 encourage the development of adequate sidewalks, particularly to provide connections to surrounding alternative modes of transportation.

The project site currently provides sidewalks along Plaza Drive and Walker Drive allowing for pedestrian connections to nearby transit. Therefore, the proposed project would not inhibit the use of alternative transportation in the area and would not conflict with circulation policies in the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Potential impacts are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.7-11 through 4.7-12.

Conflicts or Inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b): Less Than Significant Impact The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory) recommends that a project generating 110 average daily trips (ADT) or less be screened out of a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis due to the presumption of a less than significant impact. This recommendation is not based on any analysis of GHG reduction but is instead based on the potential trip generation of a project that would be categorically exempt under CEQA. The proposed project includes the demolition of 150,626 square feet of office space and the construction of a new light industrial building that would be approximately 191,394 square feet in size. The proposed project does not qualify for any of the screening criteria, including the screening threshold for small projects because the proposed project would generate a net increase of 196 ADT and a total of 604 ADT. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis was prepared.

Additionally, the proposed project would constitute a significant impact if the project VMT metric is greater than 85 percent of the regional existing VMT metric. Hence the proposed project would constitute a significant impact if the project VMT per employee is greater than 85 percent of the Orange County VMT per employee (threshold). The project’s VMT per employee would be lower than the Orange County regional threshold; therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, and no mitigation measures are required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 43
The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Potential impacts are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.7-12 through 4.7-13.

Inadequate Emergency Access: Less Than Significant Impact Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways at Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. Plaza Drive would allow for adequate emergency access and all project improvements, including driveways, would be designed consistent with applicable emergency access standards. All emergency access routes to the proposed project and adjacent areas would be kept cleared and unobstructed during demolition and construction of the proposed project. No roadway closures or lane closures are anticipated as part of project construction. Therefore, the proposed project’s effects on emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Potential impacts are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.7-14.

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource That is Listed or Eligible for Listing in the California Register or in a Local Register of Historical Resources as Defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k): No Impact
The project site does not contain any “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or Public Resources Code 5020.1(k).

Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with Assembly Bill 52. As part of the consultation process, a review of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) yielded negative results. Subsequently 21 Native American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to consult on the proposed project. During that process, the 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

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 44
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.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate any impacts on tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the State or local register of historical resources. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.8-5 through 4.8-6.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunication Facilities That Would Cause a Significant Environmental Effect: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1, included here, and Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-4, in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, existing facilities would have the capacity to serve the anticipated uses, and the proposed project would not substantially increase demand upon these facilities as compared to historic and existing conditions at the project site. Therefore, impacts to these utility facilities would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities that would cause a significant environmental effect.

Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-4 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.19-1 through 4.19-9 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Insufficient Water Supplies: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and Golden State Water Company (GSWC) would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water under a worst-case scenario as forecast in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Taking

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 45
into account population growth, GSWC is able to meet demand in the multiple dry year scenario for years 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045. The proposed project is anticipated to use approximately 122,345 gallons per day (gpd) or 137 acre-feet per year (afy). Further, the total amount of anticipated water usage by the proposed project represents less than 0.1 percent of the West Orange System’s current annual water demand. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2, which requires the proposed project to comply with all State laws for water conservation measures, including the use of low-flow fixtures. Therefore, water demand from the proposed project would be within GSWC’s current and projected water supplies available to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future developments during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.19-9 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Inadequate Capacity to Serve Projected Wastewater Treatment Demand in Addition to the Provider’s Existing Commitments: Less Than Significant Impact Although the proposed project would increase wastewater generation on site, the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project could be accommodated within the existing design capacity of Orange County Sanitation District’s (OC SAN) Treatment Plant No. 1, which would serve the project site. Therefore, the City’s Public Works Maintenance Division and OC SAN would have adequate capacity to serve the projected demand of the proposed project in addition to their existing commitments. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would be adequately served by the wastewater treatment provider’s existing capacity in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 46
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.19-10 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Solid Waste Generation in Excess of State or Local Standards or Capacity of Local Infrastructure:

Less Than Significant Impact
Non-hazardous waste from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be recycled to the extent feasible, and where necessary, would likely be disposed of at the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Construction waste is anticipated to be minimal compared to waste generated throughout the lifetime of the project during operation. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant production of solid waste that would exceed the daily available capacity (1,000 tons per day [tpd]) at the Olinda Alpha Landfill, the proposed project would not result in an impact related to City, State, or federal statutes and regulations related to solid wastes. The proposed project would generate approximately 0.49 tpd (980 pounds) of solid waste during operation, a net increase of approximately 0.48 tpd (960 pounds) over the existing uses on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute an insignificant amount of solid waste per day to the remaining daily capacity at the Olinda Alpha Landfill (approximately 0.61 percent). Moreover, the proposed project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to solid waste and landfill facilities, and no mitigation would be required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.19-10 through 4.19-11 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

Conflict with Federal, State, and Local Solid Waste Management and Reduction Statutes and Regulations: Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project involves the demolition of the existing structure on the site, site grading, and construction of the proposed light industrial building on the project site. Demolition, site preparation (vegetation removal, grading, and filling activities) and construction activities would generate typical construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, metals, cardboard, and green wastes. The proposed project would comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3).

The proposed project would comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, and federal law. In addition, the proposed project would not result in an excessive production of solid waste that would exceed the capacity of the existing

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 47
landfill serving the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact related to federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations associated with solid waste. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.19-11 through 4.19-13 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

4.20 Wildfire
All Thresholds: No Impact
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the State through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas of California into different fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ), based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing densities, and occurrence of severe fire weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. As part of this mapping system, CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection for land areas that are generally unincorporated, and they are classified as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). In areas where local fire protection agencies (e.g., Orange County Fire Authority [OCFA]) are responsible for wildfire protection, the lands are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). CAL FIRE currently identifies the project site as an LRA. In addition to establishing local or State responsibility for wildfire protection in a specific area, CAL FIRE designates areas as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) or nonVHFHSZ.

According to the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for the Orange County region, the entire City of Cypress is designated as a non-VHFHSZ, and the City does not include an SRA. The nearest VHFHSZ to the project site is approximately 10 miles to the northeast in Coyote Hills on the western side of Fullerton. The nearest SRA is in Puente Hills, approximately 12 miles northeast of the project site. Because the project site is not located in or near an SRA or VHFHSZ, the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to wildfire. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to wildfire.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 48
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.20-1 through 4.20-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR).

5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City finds, based upon the threshold criteria for significance presented in the Draft EIR, that the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project listed below can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with feasible mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. No substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the following impacts would, in fact, occur at levels that would necessitate a determination of significance.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(b), requires a description of any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.

5.1 Aesthetics
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.3 Air Quality
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.4 Biological Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.5 Cultural Resources
Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
According to the City of Cypress General Plan, there are no known archaeological resources located in Cypress. The project site has been previously disturbed to construct an office building and a surface parking lot. The existing office building at the project site would be demolished, materials removed or repurposed, and the entirety of the site would be graded for the construction of the proposed project. During site preparation/grading activities, there is the potential to encounter unknown cultural resources. In the event that historical or archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, operations shall cease and Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be implemented. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 49
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

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, including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2, and shall be assessed, handled, and treated consistent with accepted standards, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and guidelines for archaeology and historic preservation. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Department, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific requirements regarding California PRC (Section 21083.2[g]) and the treatment of archaeological resources as specified above.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.2-6 through 4.2-9.

5.6 Energy
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.7 Geology and Soils
Adverse Effects Related to Seismic-Related Ground Failure Including Liquefaction: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
According to the California Geological Survey’s EQ Zapp, the project site is located in a Liquefaction Hazards Zone of required investigations. The Geotechnical Evaluation included a subsurface exploration and has determined the presence of potentially liquefiable soils to depths of 50 feet.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 50
Further analysis determined potential dynamic settlements of approximately 2.9 inches to 5.27 inches during a strong seismic event.

This dynamic settlement as a result of severe seismic activity is expected to occur over a large area and would result in areal subsidence, and the potential differential settlement is expected to be significantly less over any relatively small segment. However, given the nature of the proposed project, which includes a light industrial facility with office and warehouse uses, differential settlements under current conditions could be significant. Thus, remedial grading, foundation considerations, and/or in-situ ground improvement measures are recommended in the Geotechnical Evaluation to help mitigate potential adverse effects due to soil liquefaction.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the construction contractor to comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation to reduce the proposed project’s impact related to liquefaction.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the proposed project’s impacts related to liquefaction would be reduced to less than significant. The project would also be required to adhere to Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-1 Implementation of Geotechnical Evaluation Recommendations. The Applicant’s construction contractor shall implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, as applicable, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress’ (City) Building Official, or designee. The City’s Building Official, or designee, shall confirm recommendations have been implemented into the design and construction of the proposed project prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.4-10 through 4.4-11.

Location on Unstable Geologic Unit Resulting in Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in detail under Threshold GEO-1(iii) in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 would be required to address the proposed project’s impacts with respect to

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 51
liquefaction. Provided that design and remedial grading and ground improvement (as necessary) are performed in accordance with the applicable requirements in the California Building Code (adopted by the City as its Building Code with certain amendments), and current standards of practice in the area, excessive settlement resulting from liquefaction and compression of existing undocumented fill and some layers of loose sands and silty sands on the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-12 through 4.4-13.

Directly or Indirectly Destroy Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature:

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The project site contains Artificial Fill, which has no paleontological sensitivity, and Young Alluvium, Unit 2, which has low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 feet and high paleontological sensitivity below 10 feet. With a maximum excavation depth of 8 feet during construction, the proposed project is expected to remain in deposits with no or low paleontological sensitivity. However, in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would require work in the immediate area of the discovery to be halted and a qualified paleontologist to assess the discovery. These procedures would reduce potential impacts to scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources encountered during construction.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 52
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure GEO-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-2 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-2 Procedures for Unexpected Paleontological Resources Discoveries.

In the event that paleontological resources are encountered, work in the immediate area of the discovery shall be halted and the Applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist who meets the qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to assess the discovery. The qualified, professional paleontologist shall make recommendations regarding the treatment and
disposition of the discovered resources, as well as the need for subsequent paleontological mitigation, which may include, but not be limited to, paleontological monitoring, collection of observed resources, preservation, stabilization and identification of collected resources, curation of resources into a museum repository, and preparation of a monitoring report of findings, consistent with well accepted standards, such as those established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The City of Cypress shall ensure that the recommendations from the qualified, professional paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.4-13.

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.11 Land Use and Planning
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.12 Mineral Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 53

5.13 Noise
Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of ground-borne vibration. For typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 0.089 inch per second (in/sec) in peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet.

The closest surrounding buildings to the project site include existing industrial buildings located approximately 5 feet north of the edge of the project site. The industrial building would experience vibration levels of up to 0.995 in/sec PPV. This vibration level at the nearest building from construction equipment would potentially exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for building damage. At a distance of approximately 8 feet from typical construction activities, vibration 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 deep dynamic compaction (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.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI-1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM 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)

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 54
construction activity takes places within 80 ft of surrounding structures:
• Notification to nearby businesses detailing the schedule and duration of DDC activities.
• Structures that are located within 25 ft of heavy construction activities and within 80 ft of DDC construction activity that have the potential to be affected by ground-borne vibration shall be identified. This task shall be conducted by a qualified structural engineer as approved by the City’s Director of Community Development, or designee.
• The Applicant’s construction contractor shall develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan for approval by the City’s Director of Community Development, or designee, to identify appropriate locations where monitoring would be conducted; set up a vibration monitoring schedule; define structure-specific maximum vibration limits based on building inspections; contain provisions to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions at those structures. The plan shall identify construction contingencies that would be implemented if vibration levels approach the established vibration limits at a particular location. Potential contingencies may include one or more of the following:
 Lowering the height of the compaction weight;
 Using a lighter compaction weight; or
 Any other alternate method that is safe and appropriate, as determined by the project geotechnical consultant, in
consultation with the City’s Director of Community
Development (such as utilizing geopier stabilization instead of DDC).
• At a minimum, vibration during initial site preparation activities at the locations described above shall be monitored. The monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements.
• When vibration levels approach the applicable limits established in the vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan, construction shall be suspended, and the appropriate mitigation

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 55
measures identified in the construction contingency plan shall be implemented to reduce vibration levels below thresholds.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.6-19 through 4.6-21.

5.14 Population and Housing
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.15 Public Services
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.16 Recreation
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.17 Transportation
Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Vehicular traffic to and from the project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that serve the project area. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways at Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. The proposed project would include the relocation of the existing driveways. The new westernmost driveway would be the primary truck access point and path to the truck loading docks on the proposed building’s west side. The eastern driveway would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east.

It is anticipated that Driveway 1 (on Douglas Drive) and Driveway 2 (on Plaza Drive) would be utilized by heavy trucks to access the project site. Driveway 1 is anticipated to be able to accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks as currently designed, providing access to and from the east on Plaza Drive and south on Douglas Drive. Driveway 1 would serve as the primary driveway for heavy trucks accessing the project site. While Driveway 2 would accommodate the ingress and egress of heavy trucks along Plaza Drive, it is 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 to direct heavy trucks to the driveway on Douglas Drive. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to transportation hazards.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 56
Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.7, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) TRA-1 below is feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM 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.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR page 4.7-14.

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource That is Determined by Lead Agency to Be Significant Pursuant to Criteria in Subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The project site is not likely to contain any prehistoric site or archaeological resources based on archival research and field surveys conducted for the project site. There is little potential for the proposed project to impact prehistoric resources due to the low likelihood of resource presence, significant prior disturbance from past grading and development activities on the project site and in the surrounding area. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1, as provided in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, has been included to mitigate potentially significant impacts associated with the unlikely discovery of archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources (TCRs), on the project site. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

During the consultation process, the Kizh Nation provided mitigation measures to address potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, which incorporate the recommendations of the Kizh Nation, would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City’s consultation with the Kizh Nation or any other interested local Native American tribe, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 57
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measures TRC-1 through TCR-3.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.8, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measures (MMs) TCR-1 through TCR-3 below are feasible and made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities. The project Applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the 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.

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.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 58
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.

MM 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 ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.

Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 59
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.

MM 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, before

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 60
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 finalreportshall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC.

The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 4.8-6 through 4.8-11.

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.20 Wildfire
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 61

6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

6.1 Aesthetics
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.3 Air Quality
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.4 Biological Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.5 Cultural Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.6 Energy
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.7 Geology and Soils
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.11 Land Use and Planning
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.12 Mineral Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.13 Noise
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 62

6.14 Population and Housing
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.15 Public Services
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.16 Recreation
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.17 Transportation
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.19 Utilities
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.20 Wildfire
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 63

7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e) require that an EIR analyze growth-inducing impacts and discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) also requires a discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To address these issues, potential growth-inducing effects were examined through analysis of the 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 construction-related jobs. However, as discussed in Section 4.14 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix B of the Draft EIR), it is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to be relocated from outside the region to meet the need for employees resulting from implementation of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not provide or remove housing on the project site. it is unlikely that the employment offered by the proposed project would cause people to move or relocate to the area solely for the purpose of being close to the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would not induce either short- nor long-term population growth.

In its existing condition, the project site is developed with an underutilized five-story office building.

The project site currently does not generate revenue 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.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 64
The proposed project includes the development of a light industrial facility. The proposed project would require an amendment to the McDonnell Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1, and removal of the maximum developable area requirement while retaining the 1.0:1 floor-area ratio (FAR) to maintain consistency with the General Plan. This amendment would not allow for residential uses or add any permanent residents to the project site.

Therefore, the project would not directly increase the City’s population beyond existing levels. The proposed Specific 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.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project does not directly result in any significant growthinducing impacts. The proposed project does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development, and the proposed project is consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to the Draft EIR pages 6-1 through 6-2.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 65

8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives were addressed in the Draft EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
• Alternative 2: Reduced Footprint Alternative
• Alternative 3: No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative • Alternative 4: Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns

8.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Description: Consistent with State 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 continue to exist without any changes. The No Project Alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no new development of any kind were to occur on the project site. The No Project Alternative would allow existing conditions on the project site to remain unchanged. While the No Project Alternative would lessen or avoid impacts of the proposed project and require no mitigation measures, none of the project objectives would be achieved.

Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

The City finds that while the No 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 would attract new businesses to operate in the City; (4) encourage business development that would generate a range of employment opportunities for the community; or (5) help attract new business enterprises that would result in a positive flow of revenue to the City. As a result, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.

Supporting Evidence – Please see the Draft EIR pages 5-7 through 5-10.

8.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Footprint Alternative
Description: The purpose of the Reduced Footprint Alternative is to reduce the proposed light industrial square footage and facility footprint, which are the primary sources of project-related air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation impacts. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop a smaller light industrial building (127,596 square feet, which is 63,798 square feet less than the proposed project) on the same site as the proposed project. It can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative. The reduced

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 66
development proposed under this development would also reduce the capacity and employment opportunities of the project.

Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

The City finds that the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in lesser levels of impact in most of the environmental impact areas, with the exception of Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, in which impacts would be similar to those under the proposed project. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would fulfill the project objectives to a lesser extent and would not provide the same capacity or employment opportunities as the proposed project. As such, this alternative would only partially meet project objectives.

Supporting Evidence – Please see the Draft EIR pages 5-10 through 5-14.

8.3 Alternative 3: No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative Description: The purpose of the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative is to eliminate cold storage space in the proposed light industrial building and truck refrigeration units, which are the primary source of project-related operational air quality impacts and GHG emissions. The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would develop the same use as the proposed project on the same project site.

As such, it can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative.

Finding – The City adopts CEQA Finding 3.

The City finds that the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would result in lesser levels of impact in most of the environmental impact areas, with the exception of Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources, in which impacts would be similar to those under the proposed project. While the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative would reduce the operational emissions of criteria pollutants, operational GHG emissions, operational energy consumption, and stationary noise levels, when compared with the proposed project, this alternative would not totally fulfill Project Objectives 2 and 4, as warehouse projects without cold storage would by definition exclude certain users and generally not be as competitive as warehouses with cold storage. As such, this alternative would only partially meet project objectives.

Supporting Evidence – Please see the Draft EIR pages 5-14 through 5-18.

8.4 Alternative 4: Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative Description: The purpose of the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative is to reduce vibratory impacts to sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the proposed project. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would include the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, the Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would only include the use of deep dynamic compaction activities within the central portion of the project site and would utilize stone columns around the periphery of the project site during construction. The

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 67
Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would reduce impacts to ground-borne vibration during project construction when compared with the proposed project. As such, it can be assumed that construction methods, equipment, and activities would be similar for both the proposed project and this alternative. It can also be assumed that alterations to topography and vegetation on the site would be similar for both developments. The same regulations, ordinances, standards, and policies applicable to the proposed project would also be applicable to this alternative.

Finding – The City adopts CEQA Finding 3.

The City finds that all impacts under the Deep Dynamic and Stone Columns Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. The Deep Dynamic Compaction and Stone Columns Alternative would reduce impacts to ground-borne vibration during project construction from “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” to “Less than Significant” when compared with the proposed project. As a result, this alternative would fulfill all of the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project.

Supporting Evidence – Please see the Draft EIR pages 5-18 through 5-22.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 68

9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when making findings required by Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the Lead Agency approving a project shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval, in order to ensure compliance with project implementation and to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby finds that:
1) A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project, and the mitigation measures are included therein. The MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record of proceedings for the proposed project. 2) The MMRP designates responsibility for implementation and monitoring of proposed mitigation measures. The City’s Community Development Director will serve as the overall MMRP coordinator and will be primarily responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are complied with.
3) The MMRP prepared for the proposed project has been adopted concurrently with these Findings.

The MMRP meets the requirements of Section 21021.6 of the Public Resources Code. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 69

10.0 OTHER FINDINGS
The City hereby finds as follows:
1) The foregoing statements are true and correct.
2) The City is the “Lead Agency” for the project evaluated in the CEQA Documents and independently reviewed and analyzed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR for the project. 3) The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. It requested that responsible agencies respond as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to that agency’s specific responsibilities.
4) The public review period for the Draft EIR occurred for 45 days between August 12, 2024, and September 27, 2024. The Draft EIR and appendices were available for public review during that time. A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse, and notices of availability of the Draft EIR were published by the City. The Draft EIR was available for review on the City’s website. Physical copies of the environmental documents are available at the Cypress Civic Center by appointment only.
5) The CEQA Documents were completed in compliance with CEQA. 6) The CEQA Documents reflect the City’s independent judgment. 7) The City evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons and organizations who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Final EIR provided adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to the comments. The City reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information to the Draft EIR regarding adverse environmental impacts. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR.
8) The City finds that the CEQA Documents, as amended, provide objective information to assist the decision-makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit all comments made during the public review period.
9) The CEQA Documents evaluated the following impacts: (1) air quality; (2) cultural resources; (3) energy; (4) geology and soils; (5) greenhouse gas emissions; (6) noise; (7) transportation; and (8) tribal cultural resources. Additionally, the CEQA Documents considered, in separate sections, significant irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts of the project, as well as a reasonable range of project alternatives. All of the significant environmental impacts of the project were identified in the CEQA Documents.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS OCTOBER 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
October 2024 Findings of Fact 70
10) The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Documents and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the project. The MMRP provides the steps necessary to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable. 11) The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation; the City’s Community Development Director will serve as the MMRP Coordinator. 12) In determining whether the project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2.
13) The impacts of the project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the CEQA Documents.
14) The City made no decisions related to approval of the project prior to the initial recommendation of certification of the CEQA Documents. The City also did not commit to a definite course of action with respect to the project prior to the initial consideration of the CEQA Documents. 15) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the CEQA Documents are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, the custodian of record for such documents or other materials. 16) The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final EIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR.
17) Having reviewed the information contained in the CEQA Documents and in the administrative record, the City finds that there is no new significant information regarding adverse environmental impacts of the project in the Final EIR.
18) Having received, reviewed and considered all information in the CEQA Documents, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, these Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.

Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
7-4 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 7-5 Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
7-6 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 7-7 Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
7-8 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 7-9 Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
7-10 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 7-11 Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
7-12 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 7-13 Table 7.A: 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.

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
7-14 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 7-15 Table 7.A: 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).

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
A UGUST 2024
7-16 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) Table 7.A: 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
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 7-17 Table 7.A: 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.

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT

CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
August 2024
This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................. v

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Summary of Project Description ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Areas of Controversy......................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Significant Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Alternatives....................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................1-6

2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Purpose and Uses of the EIR ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Environmental Review Process......................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Scope of this EIR................................................................................................................ 2-5

2.4 Format of the EIR .............................................................................................................. 2-6

2.5 Incorporation by Reference .............................................................................................. 2-7

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Applicant............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Lead Agency Contact Person............................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Project Overview............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.4 Project Location and Site Description ...............................................................................3-1

3.5 General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning ............................................................................3-5

3.6 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................... 3-15

4.0 EXISTING SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.2 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.3 Energy............................................................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.4 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................4.5-1

4.6 Noise............................................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.7 Transportation ............................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.8 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 4.8-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Selection of Alternatives................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Alternatives Initially Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration ....................5-5

5.4 Alternatives under Consideration ..................................................................................... 5-7

5.5 Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative..................................................5-22 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» ii

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts.................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Energy Impacts ................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts................................................................................................. 6-1

6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes............................................................... 6-3

7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................. 7-1

7.1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements............................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures................................................................................... 7-2

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED................................................ 8-1

8.1 City of Cypress .................................................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 EIR Preparers .................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.3 Technical Report Preparers .............................................................................................. 8-1

8.4 Project Applicant/Developer............................................................................................ 8-2

8.5 Persons Consulted ............................................................................................................ 8-2

9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 9-1

APPENDICES
A: SCOPING SUMMARY
B: INTIAL STUDY
C: CALEEMOD OUTPUT
D: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
E: VMT ANALYSIS AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
F: GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
G: NOISE
H: AB 52 CONSULTATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) iii

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Regional and Project Site Location.................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.2: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................3-7 Figure 3.3: General Plan Land Use in the Project Area .......................................................................3-9 Figure 3.4: McDonnell Center Specific Plan Area..............................................................................3-11 Figure 3.5: Existing Zoning Map ........................................................................................................ 3-13 Figure 3.6: Conceptual Site Plan........................................................................................................ 3-17 Figure 3.7: Proposed Project Renderings..........................................................................................3-19 Figure 3.8: Proposed Building Finishes..............................................................................................3-21 Figure 3.9: Proposed Project Landscaping Plan ................................................................................3-25 Figure 4.1: Cumulative Projects........................................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4.4.1: Boring and CPT Locations............................................................................................4.4-7 Figure 4.6.1: Noise Monitoring Locations ........................................................................................4.6-9 TABLES
Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance ......................................................1-7 Table 3.1: Non-Discretionary Permits/Approvals..............................................................................3-27 Table 4.1: Summary of Cumulative Projects ....................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4.1.1: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................................4.1-3 Table 4.1.2: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants................................................................4.1-8 Table 4.1.3: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ...................................................................4.1-16 Table 4.1.4: Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity.................................................................4.1-17 Table 4.1.5: Regional Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions ............................4.1-19 Table 4.1.6: SCAQMD LST Thresholds (lbs/day).............................................................................4.1-20 Table 4.1.7: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions ............................................................4.1-24 Table 4.1.8: Project Operational Emissions....................................................................................4.1-26 Table 4.1.9: Construction Localized Emissions...............................................................................4.1-28 Table 4.1.10: Operational Localized Emissions ..............................................................................4.1-29 Table 4.3.1: Estimated Annual Energy Use.......................................................................................4.3-8 Table 4.5.1: Senate Bill 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets.....................4.5-5 Table 4.5.2: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases.......................................................4.5-11 Table 4.5.3: GHG Emissions (MT/yr) ..............................................................................................4.5-19 Table 4.6.1: City of Cypress Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .................................................4.6-3 Table 4.6.2: Exterior Noise Level Standards.....................................................................................4.6-4 Table 4.6.3: Interior Noise Level Standards......................................................................................4.6-5 Table 4.6.4: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ......................................................................4.6-6 Table 4.6.5: Existing Noise Level Measurements.............................................................................4.6-8 Table 4.6.6: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax).................................4.6-15 Table 4.6.7: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project ..........................................4.6-17 Table 4.6.8: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment........................................4.6-20 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» iv Table 4.7.1: Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (2023) Conditions............................. 4.7-6 Table 4.7.2: Baseline 2020 Orange County VMT per Employee ...................................................... 4.7-7 Table 4.7.3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds................................................................... 4.7-9 Table 4.7.4: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ....................................................................... 4.7-9 Table 4.7.5: Proposed Project Trip Generation Comparison......................................................... 4.7-11 Table 4.7.6: Baseline Project and Regional VMT Per Employee Comparison................................ 4.7-13 Table 4.7.7: Future Year Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary .............................. 4.7-16 Table 5.1: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives.............................................................................................................................. 5-23 Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program................................................................. 7-3

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily trips
amsl above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
Basin South Coast Air Basin
BMPs Best Management Practices
BTU British Thermal Units
C2H3Cl vinyl chloride
C2F6 hexafluoromethane
CAA (federal) Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
California Register California Register of Historical Resources Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CA MUTCD Caltrans 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CARB California Air Resources Board
CARB Handbook Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective CAT Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
vi P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CF4 tetrafluoromethane
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of Cypress
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COSR Conservation/Open Space/Recreation
County County of Orange
CPT cone penetrometer test
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
dB decibel(s)
dBA A-weighted decibel(s)
DDC deep dynamic compaction
du dwelling unit
EIA United States Energy Information Administration
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC EMission FACtor Model
EO Executive Order
EQ Zapp California Geological Survey’s California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application
ESA Environmental Site Assessment

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) vii EV electric vehicle
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
ft foot/feet
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GCC global climate change
GHG greenhouse gas
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWP global warming potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants
HBW home-based work
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HVAC heating ventilation and air conditioning
I-5 Interstate 5
I-605 Interstate 605
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
IS Initial Study
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JFTB Joint Forces Training Base
Kizh Nation Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation kWh kilowatt hours
lbs/day pounds per day
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day-night average noise level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax maximum A-weighted sound level
LOS level of service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
viii P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» LT long-term measurement
Ma million years ago
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPAH (County of Orange) Master Plan of Arterial Highways mpg miles per gallon
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric tons
MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MT CO2e/yr metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year MT/yr metric tons per year
MW megawatt
N2O nitrous oxide
N/A not applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
ND no data
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) ix NPS National Park Service
O3 ozone
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
OCWD Orange County Water District
OHP (California) Office of Historic Preservation
OPR (California) Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Orange County Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PC Planned Community
PCE passenger car equivalents
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
Project Applicant Goodman
proposed project 5665 Plaza Drive Project
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
ROGs reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient
SB Senate Bill
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
x P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCG Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.

SCH State Clearing House
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf square foot/feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SHMA Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas
SOX sulfur oxides
SPA Specific Plan Amendment
Specific Plan McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan
SPL sound power levels
SR-22 State Route 22
SR-91 State Route 91
SRA Source Receptor Area
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAZ traffic analysis zone
TCR tribal cultural resources
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TISG Transportation Impact Study Guide
TRUs Transport Refrigeration Units

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) xi TRU ACTM Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities where TRUs Operate
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USC United States Code
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
v/c volume-to-capacity
VdB vibration velocity decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number
Working Group GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
ZEVs zero emission vehicles
ZNE zero net energy
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
xii P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, before taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a document designed to provide to the public and to local and State governmental agency decision-makers an analysis of potential environmental consequences of a project to support informed decision-making.

This EIR has been prepared by the City of Cypress (City) to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the proposed 5665 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project); to discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid the identified potentially significant environmental impacts.

This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [Cal. Code Regs.] Tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.). For purposes of CEQA, the City is the Lead Agency, and as such, has reviewed all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports for consistency with applicable City regulations and policies and has commissioned the preparation of this EIR to reflect its own independent judgment.

Data for this EIR were obtained from on-site field observations; discussion with affected agencies; review of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, and data; and specialized environmental assessments prepared for the project (e.g., air quality, noise, and traffic).

The Executive Summary is intended to highlight the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the proposed project as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. The Executive Summary includes a brief description of the proposed project, areas of controversy known to the City, including issues raised by agencies and the public, a summary of the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, and a summary of alternatives evaluated in the EIR. This Executive Summary also provides a table summarizing (1) the potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of project implementation and operation; (2) the level of significance prior to implementation of mitigation measures; (3) regulatory compliance measures and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project, and (4) the level of significance after mitigation measures are implemented.

1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would be located on an approximately 8.53-acre site (project site) at 5665 Plaza Drive in the City of Cypress, California. In its existing setting, the project site is developed with one five-story office building (150,626 square feet) and associated parking lot with existing light poles, and landscaping. The project site is bounded by industrial and office uses to the north, industrial uses to the west, Plaza Drive to the south, and the Goodman Commerce Center Project to the east. The Goodman Commerce Center Project, approved in April 2023, was under construction at the time of the preparation of this EIR.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -2 The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing 150,626-square-foot five-story office building on the project site and the construction of a new 191,394-square-foot light industrial building with 181,061 square feet of warehouse space and 10,333 square feet of office space. The maximum height of the new light industrial building would be approximately 51 feet, 6 inches to the top of the parapet wall. The proposed project would provide 25 loading docks on the west side of the proposed building. The proposed project would relocate the existing 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. Additionally, the proposed project would include a lot line adjustment to move the project site’s eastern property line approximately 20 feet east, and amendments to the McDonnell Center Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses within the eastern portion of Planning Area 1 and an increase in the maximum allowable square footage of Planning Area 1.

Required discretionary actions associated with the proposed project include the following:
certification of the EIR; a Specific Plan Amendment to the McDonnell Center Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses within 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; and a Site plan approval.

1.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123, this EIR acknowledges the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved that are known to the City or were raised during the scoping process. On May 7, 2024, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was posted to the City’s website and distributed by the City via the State Clearinghouse (SCH). The NOP was circulated for review from May 7 to June 5, 2024. The SCH number for this EIR is SCH No. 2020069007. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to public agencies and interested individuals and was posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s Office for a period of 30 days.

During the 30-day public scoping period, written comments were solicited pertaining to environmental issues/topics that this EIR should evaluate. 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. One public comment was received during the Scoping Meeting. The issues and concerns raised in response to the NOP or at the scoping meeting are summarized as follows:

Allyssa J. Holcomb, Garrett Stiepel Ryder, LLP, on behalf of Warland Investments Company • Air Quality: Concern related to excessive air pollution due to the assumption that the proposed project could foreseeably be used as a logistics center. Concern that the proposed project failed to address the impact of refrigerated trucks on air quality and did not evaluate the air quality impact of off-site effects, such as vehicle and truck trips. Concerns regarding the cumulative short and long-term impacts to air quality in surrounding areas due to the proposed project. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Concern that proposed project emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions threshold and concern that the analysis also fails to clearly evaluate the effects of off-site GHG emissions.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-3 • Land Use: Suggestion that the City should limit the scope of the EIR to current permitted land uses.
• Noise: Concern related to increased noise generation due to the proposed project’s foreseeable use as a logistics center.
• Traffic: Concern related to increased traffic congestion due to the proposed project’s foreseeable use as a logistics center. Concern related to the Truck Distribution Map in the Traffic Analysis for the proposed project. It was stated that the analysis failed to account for truck traffic from the combined 5665 Plaza Drive Project and Goodman Commerce Center Project. It was stated that the proposed project made the incorrect assumption that 100 percent of truck traffic would exit via Driveway 1 and omitted detailed projections for truck routes, especially regarding the impact on nearby residential areas. Concern that the Traffic Analysis inaccurately estimated daily truck trips by solely evaluating the 5665 Plaza Drive project, rather than considering the Goodman Commerce Center as a logistics hub, leading to a significant underestimation of truck traffic impacts.

City of Los Alamitos
• Air Quality: Suggestion that the Draft EIR include an evaluation of the proposed project's impact on air quality due to the proposed change in land use.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Suggestion that the Draft EIR include an evaluation of the proposed project's impact on GHG emissions due to the proposed change in land use. • Noise: Suggestion that the proposed project include an evaluation of the project's noise impacts due to the change in land use, proximity to sensitive noise receptors, and maximum noise levels provided in applicable General Plans, including the City of Los Alamitos General Plan. • Traffic: Suggestion that the Draft EIR include the existing truck routes, the project's impact to and along the truck routes, and any impacts or needs to modify truck routes. Suggestion that the proposed project should provide a traffic and/or access analyses that evaluates the daily truck trips and their distribution and influence on Los Alamitos roadways.

Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
• Tribal Cultural Resources: Outlined the City’s tribal consultation requirements under Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.

1.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, including those effects that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -4

1.5 ALTERNATIVES

1.5.1 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR
PRC Section 21100 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 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. The following four alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project but that may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, 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 NOP was published (May 2024) would remain unchanged. 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. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing five-story office building on the project site would remain in place. 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: The No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative includes the construction and operation of a light-industrial building on the project site similar to the proposed project; however, Alternative 3 would not include any refrigerated space in the light industrial building or the access to the project site by refrigerated trucks.

Similar to the proposed project, the Alternative 3 would be located on an approximately 8.53-

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-5 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, the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative 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. However, Alternative 3 would see reduced operational emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. • Alternative 4: Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) and Stone Columns: Alternative 4 would occupy the same building footprint as the proposed project; however, under Alternative 4, both DDC and stone columns would be utilized to reduce the liquefaction potential of project soils.

DDC is a ground improvement technique that 10-ton weight that 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 ground pressure combined with a high frequency, low amplitude vibratory hammer. Under Alternative 4, stone columns would be placed around the periphery of the project site, while DDC would only be implemented near the central portions of the project site to reduce vibratory impacts to nearby buildings. Like 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.

1.5.2 Identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the project and the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if the No Project/No Build Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives and the proposed project. Putting aside the No Project Alternative, Alternative 4 is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because this alternative 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. Alternative 4 would also meet all of the project objectives of the proposed project. Accordingly, it is determined that Alternative 4 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.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -6

1.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 1.1 identifies the potential project environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation is incorporated into the project. Environmental topics addressed in this EIR include Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

1.6.1 Secondary Effects of Mitigation Measures
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D), if any mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed. The mitigation measures proposed (as listed on Table 1.1) require the Applicant/Developer to provide evidence that the project would adhere to existing programs, regulations, or recommendations in technical reports. The regulations and policies listed in the mitigation measures have been evaluated during their respective adoptions or approval processes. No secondary effects related to the proposed mitigation measures are expected to occur.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-7 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation

4.2: Air Quality
Threshold AIR-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP because the project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds or Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs), and the proposed project is consistent with the land use and growth intensities reflected in the adopted General Plan. Furthermore, the project would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds. Based on the consistency analysis provided in Section 4.1 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the regional AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold AIR-2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds for VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM2.5, and PM10. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operation. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold AIR-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in an exceedance of a SCAQMD LST during project construction or operation. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold AIR-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors, primarily from equipment exhaust. In addition, the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities may result in odors. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant.

Operation. The proposed project would construct a light industrial building. Therefore, the proposed project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed operations would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed project is the South Coast Air Basin.

Each project in the Basin is required to comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations and is subject to independent review. Per SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered to be cumulatively considerable. Conversely, projects that do not exceed project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.

The Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 standard and PM2.5 standard and as a nonattainment area for the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standard. Thus, the Basin has not met the federal and State standards for these air pollutants. Future development that may take place with implementation of the project would contribute criteria pollutants to the area during project construction and operation.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -8 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Air pollution is inherently a cumulative type of impact measured across an air basin. The discussion under Threshold AQ-2, above, includes an analysis of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air impacts. As discussed above, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, PM2.5, or PM10 emissions. The proposed project’s construction- and operation-related regional daily emissions are less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. In addition, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations on a project-by-project basis would substantially reduce potential impacts associated with the related projects and basin-wide air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions and the proposed project’s cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

4.4: Cultural Resources
Threshold CUL-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. The SCCIC record search results and field survey identified no previously recorded cultural resources on or in soils on the project site. As such, there are no historical resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 located within the project site. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. No Impact.

Threshold CUL-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the City of Cypress General Plan, there are no known archaeological resources located in Cypress. The project site has been previously disturbed to construct an office building and a surface parking lot. The existing office building at the project site would be demolished, materials removed or repurposed, and the entirety of the site would be graded for the construction of the proposed project. During site preparation/grading activities, there is the potential to encounter unknown cultural resources. In the event that historical or archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, operations shall cease and Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be implemented. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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, including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2, and shall be assessed, handled, and treated consistent with accepted standards, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and guidelines for archaeology and historic preservation. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Department, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific requirements regarding California PRC (Section 21083.2[g]) and the treatment of archaeological resources as specified above.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Threshold CUL-3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. Although no human remains are known to be on the project site or are anticipated to be discovered during project construction, due to ground disturbance there is a possibility of inadvertent discovery of human remains. Disturbing human remains could violate the State’s Health and Safety Code as well as destroy the resource. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 requires compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains to less than significant. No mitigation is required.

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 Less Than Significant Impact.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-9 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 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.

Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Because impacts to cultural resources are typically site specific, the geographic scope of the proposed project for purposes of the cumulative impacts analysis would be the project site and the immediately surrounding area. The proposed project would have no impacts to historical resources. Therefore, when combined with the potential impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects identified in Table 4.1, Summary of Cumulative Projects, in Chapter

4.0 of this EIR, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts.

The cumulative projects all likely involved or would involve some level of ground disturbance with potential for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. As previously discussed, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 in the case of accidental discovery of archaeological resources and Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 in the event human remains were accidentally discovered. Compliance with these measures would reduce any impacts to these resources associated with the proposed project to less than significant. Similarly, the cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to discovery of these resources. Accordingly, any cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-1, provided under Thresholds CUL-2 and CUL-3 above.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

4.5: Energy
Threshold ENG-1: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy because gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the proposed project.

Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Construction activities would comply with all existing regulations, as required through the City’s development permitting process, and would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1 which would reduce energy usage on the project site during construction through reducing truck idling times. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1, impacts to energy resources during project construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operation. 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. The estimated potential net increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 3,106,447 kWh per year. Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2022 was 20,243.7 GWh or 20,243,721,856 kWh. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent. The estimated potential net increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 38,407 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2022 was 572 million therms (572,454,744 therms).

Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent. In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel projectrelated trips. The proposed project is estimated to result in the net decrease of approximately 6,498 gallons of gasoline and the net increase of approximately 132,401 of diesel fuel per year from existing conditions. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, 155.9 million gallons of diesel and 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline are anticipated to be consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2023. Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would not increase the annual gasoline fuel use in Orange County and would increase the annual diesel fuel use by approximately 0.1 percent in Orange County. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would represent a very small percentage of the annual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Orange County. Vehicles associated with trips to and from the project site would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards, which are applicable throughout the State. The proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment uses, and transportation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be necessary.

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 five minutes of idling.

Less Than Significant Impact.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -10 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Threshold ENG-2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange County and the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, as demonstrated above, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Potential impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Cumulative Energy Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The geographic area for cumulative analysis of electricity is that of the SCE service area, while the geographic area for cumulative analysis of natural gas service is that of the SoCalGas service area. Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for electricity and natural gas service. However, this increase would be minimal and would not require SCE to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial environmental impacts. The proposed project would not result in the demand for natural gas during construction; however, operation of the proposed project would increase on-site natural gas demand. As discussed previously, the estimated potential net increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 3,106,447 kWh per year. Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2022 was 20,243.7 GWh or 20,243,721,856 kWh and operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent. By 2030, consumption in Orange County is anticipated to increase by 12,000 GWh for the low-demand scenario and by 22,000 GWh for the high-demand scenario.1 While this forecast represents a large increase in electricity consumption, the proposed project’s share of cumulative consumption would be negligible. Energy use associated with the proposed project, in combination with energy use from the cumulative projects, would be within SCE’s system-wide net annual increase in electricity supplies over the 2018 to 2030 period, and there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for estimated net increases in energy demands.

The estimated potential net increase in natural gas demand associated with proposed project operations is 38,407 therms per year.

Development of the cumulative projects is not anticipated to require additional natural gas infrastructure or result in a substantial increase in demand. Total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2022 was 5,026 million therms (1,646 million therms for the industrial sector). Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2022 was 572 million therms (352 million therms for the residential sector and 221 million therms for the non-residential sector).2 Per SoCalGas’s forecast, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area is expected to remain steady through 2030 for low- and mid-demand scenarios and to increase by approximately 650 million therms under a high-demand scenario due to intense energy efficiency efforts.3 Proposed project operations would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent. It is anticipated that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas demand of the proposed project and the cumulative projects without the need to develop additional facilities. In addition, both SCE and SoCalGas demand forecasts include the growth contemplated by the proposed project and the cumulative projects within their respective service areas. Increased energy efficiency to comply with building energy efficiency standards would reduce energy consumption on a per-square-foot basis. Furthermore, utility companies are required to increase their renewable energy sources to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate of 60 percent renewable supplies by 2030. SCE and SoCalGas plan to continue to provide reliable service to their customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.

In addition, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel project-related trips. The proposed project is estimated to result in the net decrease of approximately 6,498 gallons of gasoline and the net increase of approximately 132,401 of diesel fuel per year from existing conditions. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, 157.1 million gallons of diesel and 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline are anticipated to be consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2024.

Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1 provided under Threshold ENG-1above. Less Than Significant Impact. 1 CEC. 2018. California Energy Demand, 2018–2030 Revised Forecast. Publication Number: CEC-200-2018-002-CMF. February. Website: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed May 13, 2024). 2 CEC. 2019b. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed May 13, 2024). 3 CEC. 2018. California Energy Demand, 2018–2030 Revised Forecast. Publication Number: CEC-200-2018-002-CMF. February. Website: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed May 13, 2024).

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-11 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would not increase the annual gasoline fuel use in Orange County and would increase the annual diesel fuel use by approximately 0.1 percent in Orange County. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would represent a very small percentage of the annual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Orange County.

Compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1 would help ensure that the proposed project does not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.

4.6: Geology and Soils
Threshold GEO-1(i): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidences of known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)
No Impact. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, active faults do not appear to be present under or in close proximity to the project site. Additionally, according to the California Geological Survey’s EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp web-based application), the Newport-Inglewood and Whittier Fault Zones are the nearest fault zones located approximately 5.1 miles southwest and 11.6 miles northeast of the project site, respectively. Therefore, surface rupture is not anticipated to occur within the project site or surrounding vicinity. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required No Impact.

Threshold GEO-1 (ii): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Geotechnical Evaluation determined no evidence of active faults to be present under or in close proximity to the project site. However, incidental ground cracking and other ground shaking phenomena can occur due to high seismic accelerations and regional seismic activity. Thus, it was determined in the Geotechnical Evaluation that risks associated with seismic shaking and strong ground motion are considered to be moderate. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, below, the proposed project’s building would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the most current CBC requirements that aim to prevent building collapse and reduce the impacts of seismic ground shaking. Adherence to these requirements would address injury and loss of life and building damage after an earthquake. Therefore, with the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

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.

Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold GEO-1 (iii): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the California Geological Survey’s EQ Zapp, the project site is located in a Liquefaction Hazards Zone of required investigations. The Geotechnical Evaluation included a subsurface exploration and has determined the presence of potentially liquefiable soils to depths of 50 feet. Further analysis determined potential dynamic settlements of approximately 2.9 inches to 5.27 inches during a strong seismic event. Given the nature of the proposed project, which includes a light industrial facility with office and warehouse uses, differential settlements under current conditions could be significant. Thus, remedial grading, foundation considerations, and/or in-situ ground improvement measures are recommended in the Geotechnical Evaluation to help mitigate potential adverse effects due to soil liquefaction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires the construction contractor to comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation to reduce the proposed project’s impact related to liquefaction would be required. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the proposed project’s impacts related to liquefaction would be reduced to less than significant. The project would also be required to adhere to Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1.

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.

Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 is provided above.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Threshold GEO-1(iv): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element (2001), no significant topographic features exist within the City. Further, according to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the topography of the site is relatively flat to very gently sloping. Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities were not observed at the project site. Both the project site and surrounding properties are flat with no unusual geographic features, and therefore, neither the project site nor the surrounding area has the potential for impacts related to landslides. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. No Impact.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

Construction. During project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 in Appendix B of the Initial Study and the MMRP). The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Operation: Operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Potential soil erosion impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant with adherence to the required regulations discussed above. Operation of the proposed project would result in no impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. No mitigation is required.

Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, which is provided in Appendix B of the Initial Study and in the MMRP to the Draft EIR.

Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold GEO-3: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Landslides and Unstable Slopes.

Less Than Significant Impact. Because the project site is in a flat area, landslides or other forms of natural slope instability do not represent a significant hazard to the project site or the surrounding area. The site is not within an area susceptible to landslides as both the project site and surrounding properties are flat with no unusual geographic features. Therefore, potential impacts related to landslides would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Lateral Spreading.

Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Evaluation indicates that heavy lateral spreading is considered a low risk while ground cracking displacements, and localized spread is considered a moderate risk. These risks would be reduced by the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, which would include ground treatment and dewatering, as well as providing a capping of engineered fill. Therefore, potential impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Landslides and Unstable Slopes
Less Than Significant Impact. Because the project site is in a flat area, landslides or other forms of natural slope instability do not represent a significant hazard to the project site or the surrounding area. In addition, as discussed under Threshold GEO-1(iv), the site is not within an area susceptible to landslides as both the project site and surrounding properties are flat with no unusual geographic features. Therefore, potential impacts related to landslides would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Lateral Spreading
Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Evaluation indicates that heavy lateral spreading is considered a low risk while ground cracking displacements, and localized spread is considered a moderate risk. These risks would be reduced by the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, which would include ground treatment and dewatering, as well as providing a capping of engineered fill. Therefore, potential impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Subsidence
Less Than Significant Impact. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, the proposed project’s buildings would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the most current CBC requirements that aim to prevent building collapse and reduce the impacts of seismic ground shaking. Adherence to these requirements would address injury and loss of life and building damage during and after an earthquake. The proposed project’s compliance with the most current CBC requirements would also reduce the project’s impacts related to subsidence. Adherence to these requirements would address the removal and replacement of site soils. Therefore, with the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Liquefaction and Compressible/Collapsible Soils
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Threshold GEO-1(iii) above, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 would be required to address the proposed project’s impacts with respect to liquefaction. Provided that design and remedial grading and ground improvement (as necessary) are Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, which are provided under Threshold GEO-1 above.

Less Than Significant Impact.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-13 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation performed in accordance with the applicable requirements in the CBC, and current standards of practice in the area, excessive settlement resulting from liquefaction and compression of existing undocumented fill and some layers of loose sands and silty sands on the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Threshold GEO-4: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, surface site soils had a “very low” potential for expansion. No recommendations are provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation related to expansive soils due to this very low potential. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils for the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold GEO-5: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because sanitary sewer and wastewater facilities are available in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

No mitigation is required. No Impact.

Threshold GEO-6: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site contains Artificial Fill, which has no paleontological sensitivity, and Young Alluvium, Unit 2, which has low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 feet and high paleontological sensitivity below 10 feet. With a maximum excavation depth of 8 feet during construction, the proposed project is expected to remain in deposits with no or low paleontological sensitivity. However, in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction, Mitigation Measure GEO-2, detailed below, would require work in the immediate area of the discovery to be halted and a qualified paleontologist to assess the discovery. These procedures would reduce potential impacts to scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources encountered during construction.

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 who meets the qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology to assess the discovery. The qualified, professional paleontologist shall make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the discovered resources, as well as the need for subsequent paleontological mitigation, which may include, but not be limited to, paleontological monitoring, collection of observed resources, preservation, stabilization and identification of collected resources, curation of resources into a museum repository, and preparation of a monitoring report of findings, consistent with well accepted standards, such as those established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The City of Cypress shall ensure that the recommendations from the qualified, professional paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. Typically, geology and soils impacts are specific to a particular project site and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a proposed project and development within a larger cumulative area. Moreover, while seismic conditions are regional in nature, seismic impacts on a given project site are site-specific.

While seismic events may affect a broad region, development of the cumulative projects would not increase the intensity, frequency, or duration of seismic events or the properties of off-site geology or soils. The CBC (adopted by reference in Chapter 15.08 [Construction Codes] of the City’s Municipal Code) contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes, liquefaction, ground shaking, landslides, and other seismically induced hazards, as codified in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1. In addition, the Geotechnical Evaluation recommendations would reduce potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, compressible/collapsible soils as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Cumulative development projects would be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA including, as necessary, site-specific investigation of potential geologic, seismic, or soil-related impacts. It is reasonable to expect that such site-specific investigation would appropriately identify the siting, design, and construction criteria established in the CBC and/or by the City to address site-specific geologic/soil conditions affecting future development, and that the City would condition future development to fully satisfy said criteria. Therefore, cumulative geologic, seismic, or soil-related impacts would be rendered to a less than significant level, and the project’s contribution to such impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown paleontological resources and unique geologic features, when combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in the City of Cypress, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the overall loss of paleontological remains unique to the region. However, each development proposal received by the City is required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there were any potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and Mitigation Measure GEO-2 and Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, which are provided under Threshold GEO-1 and GEO-6 above.

Less Than Significant Impact.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources are less than significant. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure that the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features.

4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction. Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 536.4 MT CO2e during construction of the project. When annualized over the 30-year life of the project, annual emissions would be 17.9 MT CO2e.

Operation. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area, mobile, stationary, waste, and water sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. The proposed project would generate a total of 406 average daily trips (ADT), including 262 passenger vehicle trips, 50 two-axle truck trips, 16 three-axle truck trips, and 78 four-axle truck trips, which were included in CalEEMod. Existing uses would generate a total of 408 ADT.

Mobile sources would be the largest source of GHG emissions for the proposed project at approximately 61 percent of the total project emissions. Energy sources would be the next largest category at approximately 33 percent. Water sources would be approximately 4 percent of the total emissions and waste sources would be approximately 2 percent of the total emissions. Area sources would be approximately less than 1 percent of the total emissions.

Based on the analysis results, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 2,925.9 MT CO2e/yr over existing conditions, which would be below the numeric threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, impacts related to operational GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update and SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS. The proposed project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS; therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction targets of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035, and it can be assumed that regional mobile emissions would decrease in line with the goals of the RTP/SCS.

The proposed project would consist of a 191,394-square-foot light industrial building. Based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, or reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, that when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (1) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs, and (2) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs across the world. Land use projects may contribute to the phenomenon of global climate change in ways that would be experienced worldwide, and with some specific effects felt in California. However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project impacts and global warming. Table 4.1: Summary of Cumulative Projects identifies the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects that when considered with the proposed project could result in cumulative impacts. The analysis of impacts related to GHG emissions is inherently cumulative. Potential No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-15 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation cumulative impacts would occur if the proposed project, when considered with the cumulative projects would result in significant impacts to GHGs. While the proposed project would generate GHGs as part of project construction and operations, these emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable statewide and regional climate action plans and policies. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

4.11: Noise
Threshold NOI-1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition of the existing office building, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed structure. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site at the present time but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed project is completed.

The combination of the equipment during the site preparation and grading phases, considering the usage factor of each piece of equipment, would result in a combined noise level of 59 dBA Leq at a distance of 1,300 feet, which represents the distance from the center of construction activity at the project site to the nearest noise-sensitive hotel use (Courtyard by Marriott) to the southeast. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once project construction is completed. During deep dynamic compaction activities, the major source of noise would be the crane utilized to drop the weight. Construction noise levels would be similar to those during building construction as that construction phase would also include the operation of a crane. Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site, it would cease to occur once project construction is completed. Additionally, with the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1, all feasible and reasonable measures to reduce construction noise would be implemented, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Operation. The increase in noise associated with project-related traffic would be very small, ranging from 0.0 to 1.7 dBA along the analyzed road segments. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment; These noise level increases are not perceptible by the human ear; therefore, off-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Condition 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 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. 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 perimeter signs posted at the construction site perimeter shall list the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator.

Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold NOI-2: Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction. Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of ground-borne vibration. For typical construction activity, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 0.089 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 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 Mitigation Measure NOI-1
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

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 Less Than Significant Impact.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

For 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 as detailed below. 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 groundborne 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 geotechnical consultant, in consultation with the City’s Director of Community Development (such as utilizing geopier stabilization instead of DDC). 4
• 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.

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?
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.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact. 4 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
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-17 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Noise 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 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. 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, on-site noise sources associated with the proposed project would not exceed any applicable noise standards. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with the City’s noise level standards and include mitigation measures if standards are exceeded. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

4.13: Transportation
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a net increase of 196 two-way trips per day with a net reduction of 28 a.m. peak hour trips and a net reduction of 22 p.m. peak hour trips (in passenger car equivalents [PCE]). Since the proposed project is likely to generate fewer than 50 net new peak-hour trips and fewer than 25 net new peak-hour trips at any single intersection, the implementation 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.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold TRA-2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant 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 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 No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

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)? Less Than Significant Impact 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 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.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, described below, would require the installation of on-site traffic signing and striping to direct heavy trucks to the driveway on Douglas Drive. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to transportation hazards.

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.

Less Than Significant Impact.

Threshold 4.13.4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways at Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive.

Plaza Drive would allow for adequate emergency access and all project improvements, including driveways, would be designed consistent with applicable emergency access standards. All emergency access routes to the proposed project and adjacent areas would be kept cleared and unobstructed during demolition and construction of the proposed project. No roadway closures or lane closures are anticipated as part of project construction. Therefore, the proposed project’s effects on emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

Cumulative Transportation 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) • 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.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-19 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation The City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element identifies LOS D or better as the desired citywide operating standard for most City streets. 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 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.

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.

4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources
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)?
No Impact. The project site does not contain any “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC 5020.1(k).

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. 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.

No mitigation is required. No Impact
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.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is not likely to contain any prehistoric site or archaeological resources based on archival research and field surveys conducted for the project site. There is little potential for the proposed project to impact prehistoric resources due to the low likelihood of resource presence, significant prior disturbance from past grading and development activities on the project site and in the surrounding area. However, Mitigation Measure CUL-1, as provided in Section 4.2 Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1, which is provided above in Threshold CUL-2, and CUL-3 under Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1
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 Less Than Significant Impact.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

During the consultation process, The Kizh Nation provided mitigation measures to address potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, which incorporate the recommendations of the Kizh Nation, would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City’s consultation with the Kizh Nation or any other interested local Native American tribe, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance. 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.

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 that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh Nation TCRs.

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.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 1-21 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 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-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.

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.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

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.

Cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

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 grounddisturbing activities, which would require unique impact analysis to 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.

See Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through TCR-3 under Threshold TCR-2 above. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the proposed 5665 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project) in Cypress, California. The proposed project would include 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. The proposed building would include 181,061 square feet of warehouse space and 10,333 square feet of office space. The maximum height of the proposed building would be approximately 51 feet, 6 inches, to the top of the parapet. The proposed project would include a truck loading area with 25 dock-high loading doors on the west side of the proposed building. The project site is currently accessible from two driveways along Plaza Drive which will be relocated as part of the project. 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. The proposed project would include parking stalls throughout the project site’s perimeter, new water and sewer lines connecting with existing water and sewer mains within Plaza Drive, new stormwater infrastructure, and new ornamental landscaping.

The City of Cypress (City) is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project”5 and, as such, is the “Lead Agency” for purposes of preparing an EIR for the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary action on the proposed project. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City and any Responsible Agencies during deliberations on the proposed project. CEQA Section 21069 defines a “Responsible Agency” as a public agency other than the Lead Agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The approvals and permits associated with the proposed project are detailed further in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.

The City, as Lead Agency, determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an EIR would be required to more fully evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts that may result from development of the proposed project. As a result, this EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). This EIR also complies with the procedures established by the City for the implementation of CEQA.

2.1 PURPOSE AND USES OF THE EIR
This EIR has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. As the Lead Agency, the City has the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project. In that capacity, the City has decided to prepare this EIR and, after the public review process, will decide whether to certify the Final EIR. 5 As defined in Public Resources Code Section 21067.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -2 The City and any Responsible Agencies have the authority to make decisions on discretionary actions relating to development of the proposed project. As stated previously, this EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City and Responsible Agencies during deliberations on the proposed project. This EIR evaluates a reasonable worst-case scenario of potential impacts associated with the proposed project and identifies feasible mitigation and alternatives for any identified potentially significant impacts.

This EIR will serve as a project EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. According to Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project EIR is appropriate for specific development projects and should examine the environmental impacts that could result from all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.

As the Lead Agency for the proposed project under CEQA, the City must consider the information contained in the Final EIR prior to taking any discretionary action with respect to the proposed project. This EIR provides information to the Lead Agency and other public agencies, the general public, and decision-makers regarding the potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project. The purpose of the public review of this EIR is to evaluate the adequacy of the environmental analysis in terms of compliance with CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 states the following regarding the standards from which adequacy is judged:
“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(a) states:
“The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to promote opportunities for the public and other public agencies to participate in the environmental review process. An Initial Study (IS) was completed for the proposed project and the City initially determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be prepared. However, based on

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 2-3 comments received from the public, the City decided that an EIR would be prepared to evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project and related actions.

Preparation of an EIR required the City to engage in public scoping for the project. To conduct public scoping, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR and held a public scoping meeting.

The scoping process is further discussed below.

2.2.1 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Meeting
On May 7, 2024, an NOP for the EIR was posted to the City’s website and distributed by the City via the State Clearinghouse (SCH). The NOP was circulated for review from May 7 to June 5, 2024. The SCH number for this EIR is SCH No. 2020069007. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to public agencies and interested individuals and was posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s Office for a period of 30 days. A full list of the agencies and individuals contacted is presented in Appendix A of this EIR, Public Involvement. During the 30-day public scoping period, written comments were solicited pertaining to environmental issues/topics that this EIR should evaluate. 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. One public comment was received during the Scoping Meeting.

Responses to the NOP were received from the following agencies:
• City of Los Alamitos
• Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
In addition, the following organizations and interested parties submitted written comments on the NOP:
• Allyssa J. Holcomb (on behalf of Warland Investments Company)

2.2.2 Issues Raised
Issues and concerns raised in response to the NOP or at the scoping meeting included:

Allyssa J. Holcomb, Garrett Stiepel Ryder, LLP, on behalf of Warland Investments Company • Air Quality: Concern related to excessive air pollution due to the proposed project’s foreseeable use as a logistics center. Concern that the proposed project failed to address the impact of refrigerated trucks on air quality and did not evaluate the air quality impact of off-site effects, such as vehicle and truck trips. Concerns regarding the short and long-term impacts to air quality in surrounding areas due to the proposed cumulative redevelopment of 5665 Plaza Drive. Stated that the proposed project does not consider the air quality impacts of refrigerated trucks accessing the project site and also fails to evaluate off-site air quality impacts. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Concern that the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD threshold and concerned that the analysis also fails to clearly evaluate the effects of off-site Greenhouse gas emissions. Concerns related to the failure to meet "Less than Significant" emissions by exceeding the 3,000 MT CO2e per year SCAQMD threshold and the failure to evaluate the effects of off-site GHG emissions.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -4 • Land Use: Suggestion that the City should not only limit the scope of the EIR to current permitted uses.
• Noise: Concern related to increased noise generation due to the proposed project’s foreseeable use as a logistics center
• Traffic: Concern related to increased traffic congestion due to the proposed project’s foreseeable use as a logistics center. Concern related to the Truck Distribution Map in the Traffic Analysis for the proposed project. It was stated that the analysis failed to account for truck traffic from the entire Goodman Commerce Center (the 5665 Plaza Drive Project and the Goodman Commerce Center Project). It was stated that the proposed project made the incorrect assumption that 100 percent of truck traffic would exit via Driveway 1 and omitted detailed projections for truck routes, especially regarding the impact on nearby residential areas. Concern that the Traffic Analysis inaccurately estimated 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.

City of Los Alamitos
• Air Quality: Suggestion that the Draft EIR include an evaluation of the proposed project's impact on air quality due to the proposed change in land use.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Suggestion that the Draft EIR include an evaluation of the proposed project's impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions due to the proposed change in land use. • Noise: Suggestion that the proposed project include an evaluation of the project's noise impact due to the change in land use, proximity to sensitive receptors, and maximum noise levels indicated in any applicable General Plans, including the City of Los Alamitos General Plan. • Traffic: Suggestion that the Draft EIR include the existing truck routes, the project's impact to and along the truck routes, and any impacts or needs to modify truck routes. Suggestion that the proposed project should provide a traffic and/or access analyses that evaluates the daily truck trips and their distribution and influence on Los Alamitos roadways.

NAHC
• Tribal Cultural Resources: Outlined the City’s tribal consultation requirements under Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18
This is not an exhaustive list of areas of controversy, but rather key issues that were raised during the scoping process. Section 15064(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines states, “economic and social changes resulting from the project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.” Therefore, economic issues are not addressed under CEQA and will not be address in this EIR. This EIR addresses each of the remaining areas of concern or controversy in detail, examines projectrelated and cumulative environmental impacts, identifies significant adverse environmental impacts, and proposes mitigation measures and/or alternatives designed to reduce or eliminate potentially

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 2-5 significant impacts. Appendix A includes the NOP and copies of written comments received in response to the NOP. Appendix A also includes a comment summary.

2.2.3 EIR Public Review Period
This EIR is being distributed to numerous public agencies and other interested parties for review and comment. This EIR is also available on the City’s website:
https://www.cypressca.org/departments/community-development/information-on-notableprojects/goodman-commerce-center-5665-plaza-drive Additionally, a copy of this EIR will be available for public review at the Planning Division counter at Cypress City Hall located at 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630.

All comments received from agencies and individuals on this EIR will be accepted during the public comment period, which will not be less than 45 days, in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

All comments on this EIR should be sent to the following City contact person:

Alicia Velasco
Planning Director
City of Cypress
Community Development Department
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Email: [email protected]
Following the close of the public comment period, the City will prepare written responses to all written comments received during the public comment period and will compile these comments and responses, together with any text changes to this EIR, into a Final EIR that includes all of the information required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR will be provided to all public agencies that submitted comments on this EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR. The Final EIR shall consist of the EIR or a revision of the draft; comments, and recommendations received on the EIR either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the EIR; the response of the City to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process and in comments submitted on the Draft EIR; and any other information added by the City.

The City will make findings regarding the extent and nature of the impacts as presented in the Final EIR. The Final EIR must be certified as complete by the City Council prior to making a decision on the requested entitlements for the proposed project. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings regarding the proposed project.

2.3 SCOPE OF THIS EIR
As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this EIR must identify the effects of the proposed project that are determined to be significant. The IS for the proposed project identified 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -6 impacts associated with Aesthetics, Agricultural/Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/ Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities/Service Systems, and Wildfire would all be less than significant. Accordingly, the environmental topics addressed in this EIR include Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

2.4 FORMAT OF THE EIR
This EIR contains the information and analysis required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15122–15131, and is generally organized as follows:
• Chapter 1.0: Executive Summary. Chapter 1.0 contains the Executive Summary of this EIR, which lists all significant project impacts, feasible mitigation measures that have been recommended to reduce any significant impacts of the proposed project, and the level of significance of each impact following feasible mitigation. The summary is presented in a table format.
• Chapter 2.0: Introduction. Chapter 2.0 contains a discussion of the purpose and intended use of this EIR.
• Chapter 3.0: Project Description. Chapter 3.0 includes a discussion of the proposed project’s geographical setting, the project site’s previous uses, and the proposed project’s objectives, characteristics, components, and construction phases, as well as the anticipated discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals for the proposed project. • Chapter 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis. Chapter 4.0 includes an analysis of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. It is organized into the following topical sections: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The environmental setting discussions describe the “existing conditions” of the environment on the project site and in the vicinity of the site as they pertain to the environmental issues being analyzed (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125).

The impact discussions identify and focus on the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The direct and indirect effects of the proposed project on the environment are identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects, as necessary (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[a]).

Chapter 4.0 also includes within the analysis of each environmental topic a discussion of the cumulative effects of the proposed project when considered in combination with other projects causing related impacts, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Cumulative impacts are based on the build out of the proposed project and the known relevant approved and proposed projects in the surrounding area.

The discussions of mitigation measures identify and describe feasible measures that could minimize or lessen potentially significant impacts for each significant environmental effect identified in this EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[e]). The levels of significance before

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 2-7 and after mitigation are provided. Significant unavoidable adverse effects are identified where mitigation is not expected to reduce the effects to less than significant levels. • Chapter 5.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. In accordance with CEQA, the alternatives discussion in Chapter 5.0 describes a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the proposed project and are capable of eliminating or substantially reducing any of the proposed project’s significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a less than significant level. The alternatives analyzed in Chapter 5.0 include four alternatives: (1) the No Project Alternative, (2) the Reduced Footprint Alternative, (3) the No Refrigeration Warehouse Alternative, and (4) the Modified Geotechnical Approach Alternative. • Chapter 6.0: Other CEQA Considerations. Chapter 6.0 contains discussions on the following topics as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126: (1) growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project; and (2) whether there are any significant irreversible environmental changes caused by the proposed project, adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project for which either no mitigation or only partial mitigation is feasible. • Chapter 7.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d) requires that public agencies adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any changes that it has either required in a project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. Chapter 7.0 provides a list of all proposed project mitigation measures, defines the parties responsible for implementation and review, and identifies the timing for implementation of each mitigation measure. • Chapter 8.0: Significant Unavoidable Impacts. Chapter 8.0 summarizes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated as identified in Chapters 4.0 and 6.0.
• Chapter 9.0: List of Preparers. Chapter 9.0 provides the organizations and persons contacted during preparation of this EIR, the EIR preparers and technical report authors, and other experts involved in the preparation of this EIR.
• Chapter 10.0: References. Chapter 10.0 provides the references used in this EIR.

2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.

Informational details from the documents that have been incorporated by reference are summarized in the appropriate sections of this EIR, along with descriptions regarding how the public may review these documents. All documents are available for review at the City of Cypress, Community Development Department. These documents include:
• City of Cypress General Plan (available online at: https://www.cypressca.org/government/ departments/community-development/planning-division/city-plans) 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -8 • City of Cypress Municipal Code (available online at: https://qcode.us/codes/cypress/) • McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan (available online at: https://www.cypressca.org/ home/showpublisheddocument/9697/637363718993530000)

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 3-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter of the EIR describes the proposed 5665 Plaza Drive Project (proposed project), including the project overview and a description of the proposed project’s location, objectives, and the approvals required for project implementation.

3.1 PROJECT APPLICANT
GLC Cypress LLC
c/o Goodman North America Management
3333 Michelson, Suite 1050
Irvine, CA 92612
Project Representative: Blair Dahl

3.2 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15050, the City of Cypress is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for adoption of the EIR and approval of the proposed project.

Alicia Velasco
Planning Director City of Cypress
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Phone: (714) 229-6720
Email: [email protected]

3.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Goodman (the Project Applicant) proposes to demolish an existing 150,626-square-foot five-story office building on an 8.53-acre site at 5665 Plaza Drive (project site) in the city of Cypress and construct a new 191,394-square-foot light industrial building, with associated office space, landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements.

3.4 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

3.4.1 Regional Location
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. The city of Cypress is located in northwestern Orange County, California, approximately 20 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. The project site is approximately 3.5 miles south of State Route 91 (SR-91), approximately 4.75 miles southwest of Interstate 5 (I-5), approximately 2.75 miles east of Interstate 605 (I-605), and approximately

2.2 miles north of State Route 22 (SR-22). Local access to the project site is provided via Plaza Drive.

Figure 3.1, Regional and Project Site Location, shows the location of the project site within Cypress and northwestern Orange County.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
3 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -2 This page intentionally left blank
Howard Avenue
Saint Alban Street
Angela Avenue
Gateway Drive
Plaza Drive
Hope Street
Moody Street
Warland Drive
Orangewood Avenue
Walker Street
West Cerritos Avenue
Katella Avenue
Ball Road
Valley View Street
Regional and Project Site Location
SOURCE: Google Maps (2023)
J:\CCP2201.04\GIS\Pro\Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive Project\Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive Project.aprx (5/28/2024) FIGURE 3.1
5665 Plaza Drive Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 0 500 1000 FEET
Project Site
City Boundary
73 261
47 39
142
72 90
60 1
55 22
19 57
91 §¨¦105
§¨¦110
§¨¦605
§¨¦710 §¨¦5
§¨¦405
Project Location

STANTON

CYPRESS

LOS ALAMITOS
Joint Forces
Training Base
Los Alamitos
Cypress
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 3-5

3.4.2 Existing Project Site Conditions
The project site is currently developed with a 150,626-square-foot, five-story, office building, a surface parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. As of May 2024, the existing office building was vacant and had no tenants. However, the existing office building has historically been occupied. The current vacancy of the existing office building is not consistent with historic on-site operations, which may be re-established under existing regulations. In August 2023, 61,756 square feet (approximately 41 percent) of the existing 150,626 square foot building was leased and occupied by Toyo Tire and an accounting firm. To be conservative, the analysis in this EIR assumes a baseline condition of 37,657 square feet or 25 percent occupancy. This conservative estimate is lower than the historic occupancy levels, as reflected by the previous tenant conditions in August 2023.

The project site is bounded by industrial and office uses to the north, industrial uses to the west, Plaza Drive to the south, and the Goodman Commerce Center Project to the east. The Goodman Commerce Center Project, approved in April 2023, was under construction at the time of the preparation of this EIR. The Goodman Commerce Center Project consists of two light industrial buildings totaling 390,268 square feet. Figure 3.2, Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses, depicts the project site in a local setting.

3.5 GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN, AND ZONING

3.5.1 General Plan/Specific Plan
The City of Cypress General Plan Land Use Policy Map designates the project site as “Specific Plan Area.” Figure 3.3, General Plan Land Use in the Project Area, depicts General Plan land uses at the project site and in the surrounding areas. The project site is in the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area, shown in Figure 3.4, McDonnell Center Specific Plan Area. The McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan covers approximately 71 acres in the southeastern portion of the City. The project site is within Planning Area 1 of the Specific Plan area and is currently designated for general office uses.

3.5.2 Current Zoning
Figure 3.5, Existing Zoning Map, depicts zoning for the City. The project site is located in a PC (Planned Community) zoning district. The City’s zoning ordinance describes PC zoning districts as being:
…established to provide opportunity for the design and development of integrated, master-planned projects in areas of the city which may benefit from special design standards and land uses not otherwise possible under conventional zoning district regulations. The PC zoning district is intended to permit a compatible mix of land uses, planned commercial developments, and business parks, and a variety of housing styles and densities. The PC zoning district is consistent with all residential and business park land use designations of the general plan. Each PC zoning district established shall be indicated by a unique zoning district designation.6
6 City of Cypress Municipal Code, Section 2.08.020(C), PC (Planned Community) Zoning District. Website:
https://ecode360.com/43174998 (accessed May 10, 2024).
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE
OFFICE

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL
Walker Street
Katella Avenue
West Cerritos Avenue
Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses
SOURCE: Nearmap (June 17, 2023)
J:\CCP2201.04\GIS\Pro\Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive Project\Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive Project.aprx (5/28/2024) FIGURE 3.2
5665 Plaza Drive Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 0 200 400 FEET
Project Site
City Boundary
Cypress
Los Alamitos

LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
(UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3.3
General Plan Land Use in the Project Area
5665 Plaza Drive Project DraŌ Environmental Impact Report I:\CCP2201.04\G\General_Plan.ai (5/15/2024)
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
3 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -10 This page intentionally left blank
FIGURE 3.4
McDonnell Center Specific Plan Area
5665 Plaza Drive Project Draft Environmental Impact Report I:\CCP2201.04\G\Specific_Plan.ai (5/17/2024)
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3.5
Existing Zoning Map
5665 Plaza Drive Project DraŌ Environmental Impact Report I:\CCP2201.04\G\Zoning_Map.ai (5/15/2024)

.:?@.3.:9@

6)'/*.'@
1%4@5<4(%7.)9@

@
@
@@
@@
@ @
@@
@
@
@
@

@
@
@
@

@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54))49.:?@4')4:.=)@$54)@
%73@4.3%2@
=)72%?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54))49.:?@4')4:.=)@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54)%73@4/3%2@
=)71%?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@<2:.62)@%3.1?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@<2:.62)@%3.1?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@<2:.62)@%3.1?@$54)%73@4.3%1@
=)72%?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@<2:.62)@%3.1?@$54).=.'@)4:)7@53&.4.4,@$54)@ 5&.2)@53)@
%70@$54)@

@

@
@
@
@
@

+.')@
75*)99.54%2@$54)@

+.')@
75*)99.54%1@ $54).=.'@)4:)7@53&.4.4,@$54)@
533)7'.%2@
).,-&57-55(@$54)@
533)7'.%2@)4)8%2@$54)@
533)7'.%2@)4)8%1@$54).=.'@)4:)7@53&.4.4,@$54)@
533)7'.%2@)%=?@
533)7'.%2@)%=?.4'514@=)4<)@53&.4.4,@$54)@

@
@

<9.4)99@
%70@$54)@
4(<9:7.%2@.,-:@$54)@

@

@

@

2%44)(@)9.()4:.%1@)=)2563)4:@$54)@

<&1.'@%4(@ )3.6<&1.'@$54)@

<&1.'@%4(@ )3.6<&1.'@ $54).=.'@)4:)7@53&.4.4,@$54)@

2%44)(@<9.4)99@
%70@

2%44)(@533)7'.%1.,-:@4(<9:7.%2@

2%44)(@533<4.;@$54)@
?67)99@!5>4@)4:)7@%4(@533549@
@
<90@536%4?@4(<9:7.%1@
%70@
@
?67)99@57657%:)@)4:)7@

@
'@544)11@)4:)7@

@
#%72%4(@@?67)99@<9.4)99@)4:)7@

@
?68)99@".)>@.3.:)(@

@
577)4:5@

7%4,)@=)4<)@
@
@
.4'514@=)4<)@
@
7/4(2%?@@
8%4,)@=)4<)@
@
#.'0)7@7.=)@
@
)4:)89:54)@
@
?67)99@
%70@
@
%7354?@

@
%'0%?@
2%')@

@
DĐŽŶŶĞůůĞŶƚĞƌ
ǇƉƌĞƐƐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ
tĂƌůĂŶĚͬǇƉƌĞƐƐ
ǇƉƌĞƐƐsŝĞǁ>ŝŵŝƚĞĚ
ǇƉƌĞƐƐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĞŶƚĞƌΘ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů
>ƵƐŬͬǇƉƌĞƐƐ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůWĂƌŬ
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 3-15 With the exception of certain uses, the zoning ordinance defers to the specific plan in identifying permissible and conditionally permissible uses. The project site is in the PC-3, McDonnell Center Planned Community Zone, and applicable zoning is provided in the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan. The McDonnell Specific Plan Area is divided into six planning areas that are designated for industrial/warehouse, office, or commercial uses. The McDonnell Specific Plan also constitutes the zoning for the project site. In its existing condition Planning Area 1 currently includes light industrial uses in the western portion of the planning area and office uses in the eastern portion of the planning area. The project site is within the eastern portion of Planning Area 1 and is currently designated for general office uses. The proposed project would not include or require any amendments to the City’s General Plan or City’s Zoning Ordinance; however, the project does include a proposed amendment to the McDonnell Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses within 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. Office uses would still be allowed within the eastern portion of Planning Area 1.

3.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

3.6.1 Project Objectives
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. To establish a use consistent with the business park and light industrial uses in proximity to the project site.

3.6.2 Project Characteristics
The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing five-story office building on the project site and the construction of a concrete tilt-up light industrial building with associated office and warehouse uses, inclusive of a second-story office mezzanine and attendant loading docks. The proposed building would be 191,394 square feet in size, and the project includes associated site improvements such as landscaping, surface parking, and utility improvements. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
3 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -16

3.6.3 Site Design/Layout
The proposed project would include one new light industrial building with a truck loading area on the west side and surface automobile parking along the remaining sides of the proposed building.

Figure 3.6, Conceptual Site Plan, shows the conceptual site plan for the proposed project. The proposed building is depicted in Figure 3.7, Proposed Project Renderings, and Figure 3.8, Proposed Building Finishes, presents the finishes for the proposed 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.

The proposed building would include a truck loading area with 25 dock-high loading doors on the west side of the building. The loading area would be recessed and not visible from the public right-of-way along Plaza Drive. Other than the truck loading area, surface parking, providing 206 parking stalls, and landscaped areas would generally surround the perimeter of the proposed building.

3.6.4 Operational Characteristics
The ultimate tenant has not been identified at this time; therefore, specific details about the future operation of the proposed building are not available. This analysis assumes that the proposed building would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, depending on business and operational needs. Additionally, it is assumed that up to 100 percent of the warehouse space would be refrigerated, and that up to 100 percent of all trucks accessing the project site would have transport refrigeration units.

3.6.5 Access and Parking
The project site is currently accessible from two 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. The eastern driveway would be a shared driveway with the parcel to the east.

A total of 206 surface parking stalls would be provided around the project site’s perimeter, consisting of 156 standard stalls, 4 standard accessible parking stalls, 4, van accessible parking stalls, 11 electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS), and 31 electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) stalls.

SOURCE: HPA
FIGURE 3.6
Conceptual Site Plan
5665 Plaza Drive Project Draft Environmental Impact Report FEET 0 70 114
I:\CCP2201.04\G\Site_Plan.ai (5/17/2024)

PLAZA DRIVE

PARKING

TRUCK LOADING
AREA
(Two Floors - 10,333 sq.ft.)
(181,061 sq.ft.)

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

PARKING
5665 PLAZA DRIVE PROJECT
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
3 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -18 This page intentionally left blank
FIGURE 3.7
Proposed Project Renderings
5665 Plaza Drive Project DraŌ Environmental Impact Report SOURCE: HPAI:\CCP2201.04\G\Project_Renderings.ai (5/15/2024) 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
3 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -20 This page intentionally left blank
FIGURE 3.8
Proposed Building Finishes
5665 Plaza Drive Project DraŌ Environmental Impact Report SOURCE: HPAI:\CCP2201.04\G\Building_Finishes.ai (5/15/2024) 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 3-23

3.6.6 Landscaping
The majority of on-site landscaping would be along the perimeter of the project site and within the surface parking lot. Trees and ornamental vegetation would border the project site on all sides.

Additional landscaping would be provided near the eastern driveway from Plaza Drive, which would include enhanced landscaped areas and decorative paving. The proposed project would result in the removal and replacement of several trees. To the extent feasible, the proposed project would use drought-tolerant vegetation and non-invasive plantings, consistent with Chapter 29, Article I, Water Efficient Landscape Requirements, of the City’s Municipal Code. Parking areas would feature landscaping consistent with Cypress Municipal Code Section 3.13.060, which requires that parking areas include landscaped buffer zones between parking areas and rights-of-way, and between parking areas and drive aisles. The landscaping plan for the proposed project is shown on Figure 3.9, Proposed Project Landscaping Plan.

3.6.7 Utilities and Drainage
New water and sewer lines would be constructed on site and would connect to the existing water lines and sewer mains within Plaza Drive. An underground stormwater chamber, allowing for capture and treatment of stormwater that falls on the project site, would be constructed beneath the truck loading area along the west side of the building. The stormwater chamber would be approximately 8 feet wide and 403 feet long and extend approximately 8 feet in depth. The electrical utilities for the project site would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and connect to existing infrastructure in the public right-of-way along Plaza Drive adjacent to the project site. Solid waste services would be provided by Valley Vista Services of Orange County.

The proposed project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to drainage and water quality. After project grading and construction, the proposed project would increase the impervious surface area on the project site by 28,374 square feet.

3.6.8 Project Design Features
The proposed project would be designed to comply with the water efficiency and energy conservation requirements included in the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24). Building features necessary to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified would be incorporated.

3.6.9 Construction Schedule
Development of the proposed project would require the demolition of the existing structure on the site, excavation and grading of the site, delivery of materials and personnel, construction of the building and parking areas, and landscaping of the project site. Construction of the proposed project would take place in a single phase. Demolition is anticipated to take 60 days, and construction is anticipated to take approximately 10 months. Construction is tentatively anticipated to begin in October 2024 and end in July 2025. Construction is expected on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Per Section 13-70 of the City’s Municipal Code, Special Provisions, construction is permitted within the City between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise-generating construction activities are permitted on Sundays or federal holidays.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
3 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -24 This page intentionally left blank
7
(
216,7(3/$176&+('8/(
75((6
6<0%2/ %27$1,&$/1$0( &200211$0( 6,=(
)250
+7;635'
;&$/
0,1

:$7(5
86( '(6&5,37,21
/$*(56752(0,$)$8(5,

786&$525$
786&$525$&5$3(0<57/( %2;
67'

+;
:
;& 0 )/2:(5,1*75((
/23+267(021&21)(5786 %5,6%$1(%2; %2;
67'
+;
: 0 (9(5*5((1
&$123<
C7,38$1$7,38 7,3875(( %2;
67'
+;
:
/ 6(0,'(&,'8286
%52$'&$123<
6+58%6*5$66(6 *5281'&29(56
6<0%2/ .(< %27$1,&$/1$0( &200211$0( 6,=( 63$&,1* :$7(5 86( '(6&5,37,21
$*$9(9,/025,1,$1$ 2&72386$*$9( *$/ 2& / $&&(17 68&&8/(17
$/2(
%/8((/)
%/8((/)$/2( *$/ 2& / $&&(17
68&&8/(17
&$//,67(021
/,77/(-2+1
/,77/(-2+1%277/(%586+ *$/ 2& /
0,'*5281'
)/2:(5,1*
6+58%
&$5,66$0
*5((1&$53(7
':$5)1$7$/3/80 *$/ 2& / (9(5*5((1/2:
6+58%
&$5(;',98/6$ %(5.(/(<6('*( *$/ 2& / 251$0(17$/ *5$66
',$1(//$
/,77/(5(9
/,77/(5(9)/$;/,/< *$/ 2& / 835,*+7$&&(17
',$1(//$7
9$5,(*$7$
9$5,(*$7(')/$;/,/< *$/ 2& 0 835,*+7$&&(17
)(678&$0$,5(, $7/$6)(6&8( *$/ 2& / 251$0(17$/ *5$66
-81&863$7(16 &$/,)251,$*5$<586+ *$/ 2& / 02'8/$5 :(7/$1'3/$17
/$17$1$
1(:*2/'
1(:*2/'/$17$1$ *$/ 2& 9/ )/2:(5,1*/2:
6+58%
08+/(1%(5*,$
(/7252
%8//586+ *$/ 2& / 251$0(17$/
*5$66
2/($
02175$
/,77/(2//,( *$/ 2& / /$5*(6+58%
:(675,1*,$
:<1<$%%,(*(0
&2$67526(0$5< *$/ 2& / (9(5*5((1
+('*(
&$//,$1'5$+$(0$72&(3+$/$ 5('32:'(538)) *$/
2& 0 )/2:(5,1*9,1(
:$7(586(.(<

:$7(5
86( '(6&5,37,21
/$*(56752(0,$)$8(5,

9/ 9(5</2::$7(586(/ /2::$7(586(0 02'(5$7(:$7(586(+ +,*+:$7(586(:$7(586(67$7(',63(5 :$7(586(
&/$66,),&$7,212)/$1'6&$3(63(&,(6

$/625()(55('72$6:8&2/6,9
)257+(&,7<2)&<35(66&$
(;,67,1*3/$176&+('8/(
75((6
6<0%2/ %27$1,&$/1$0( &200211$0(
3/$7$186$&(5)2/,$ /21'213/$1(
(5<7+5,1$&$))5$ &25$/
/23+267(021&21)(5786 %5,6%$1(%2;
127(
7+(/(77(5
(
1(;772$75((6<0%2/,1',&$7(6$1(;,67,1*75((72%( 3527(&7(',13/$&(7+(/(77(5
5 ,1',&$7(6$1(;,67,1*75((72%(5(029('
)5206,7(

/(*(1'
(1+$1&('3$9,1*$7
%8,/',1*(175<
&21&5(7(:$/.:$<6
352326('$&&(1775((6
352326('3$5.,1*75((6
352326('6&5((175((6
'528*+772/(5$17
/$1'6&$3(

(;,67,1*75((',6326,7,21
(;,67,1*75((65(029('
1(:75((6352326('
7
(
786&$525$
67'
;&
/23+267(021&21)(5786 %5,6%$1(%2; %2;
67'
+;
: 0 (9(5*5((1
&$123<
C7,38$1$7,38 7,3875(( %2;
67'
+;
:
/ 6(0,'(&,'8286
%52$'&$123<
6+58%6*5$66(6 *5281'&29(56
6<0%2/ .(< %27$1,&$/1$0( &200211$0( 6,=( 63$&,1* :$7(5 86( '(6&5,37,21
$*$9(9,/025,1,$1$ 2&72386$*$9( *$/ 2& / $&&(17 68&&8/(17
$/2(
%/8((/)
%/8((/)$/2( *$/ 2& / $&&(17
68&&8/(17
&$//,67(021
/,77/(-2+1
/,77/(-2+1%277/(%586+ *$/ 2& /
0,'*5281'
)/2:(5,1*
6+58%
&$5,66$0
*5((1&$53(7
':$5)1$7$/3/80 *$/ 2& / (9(5*5((1/2:
6+58%
&$5(;',98/6$ %(5.(/(<6('*( *$/ 2& / 251$0(17$/ *5$66
',$1(//$
/,77/(5(9
/,77/(5(9)/$;/,/< *$/ 2& / 835,*+7$&&(17
',$1(//$7
9$5,(*$7$
9$5,(*$7(')/$;/,/< *$/ 2& 0 835,*+7$&&(17
)(678&$0$,5(, $7/$6)(6&8( *$/ 2& / 251$0(17$/ *5$66
-81&863$7(16 &$/,)251,$*5$<586+ *$/ 2& / 02'8/$5 :(7/$1'3/$17
/$17$1$
1(:*2/'
1(:*2/'/$17$1$ *$/ 2& 9/ )/2:(5,1*/2:
6+58%
08+/(1%(5*,$
(/7252
%8//586+ *$/ 2& / 251$0(17$/
*5$66
2/($
02175$
/,77/(2//,( *$/ 2& / /$5*(6+58%
:(675,1*,$
:<1<$%%,(*(0
&2$67526(0$5< *$/ 2& / (9(5*5((1
+('*(
&$//,$1'5$+$(0$72&(3+$/$ 5('32:'(538)) *$/
2& 0 )/2:(5,1*9,1(
:$7(586(.(<

9/ 9(5</2::$7(586(/ /2::$7(586(0 02'(5$7(:$7(586(+ +,*+:
&/$66,),&$7,212)/$1'6&$3(63(&,(6

$/625()(55('72$6:8&2/6,9
)257+(&
(;,67,1*3/$176
75((6
6<0%2/ %27$1,&$/
3/$7$186$
(5<7+5,1$
/23+267(0
127(
7+(/(77(5
(
1(;772$
3527(&7(',13/$&(7+(/(77(
)5206,7(





/(*(1'
(1+$1&('3$9,1*$7
%8,/',1*(175<
&21&5(7(:$/.:$<6
352326('$&&(1775((6
352326('3$5.,1*75((6
352326('6&5((175((6
'528*+772/(5$17
/$1'6&$3(

(;,67,1*75((',6326,7,21
(;,67,1*75((65(029('
1(:75((6352326('
FIGURE 3.9
Proposed Project Landscaping Plan
5665 Plaza Drive Project Draft Environmental Impact Report SOURCE: HPA
I:\CCP2201.04\G\Landscape_Plan.ai (5/17/2024)
FEET 0 90 180
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 3-27 Based on the preliminary grading plans, approximately 940 cubic yards of material would need to be exported from the project site. Demolition, grading, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as excavators, loaders, bulldozers, cranes, and other related equipment.

All construction equipment and materials, including construction employees’ personal motor vehicles, would be staged on site or on adjacent property directly east of the project site.

3.6.10 Discretionary Actions and Non-Discretionary Permits/Approvals The City is the Lead Agency and has principal authority and jurisdiction over all land use entitlements within its incorporated boundaries. The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals by the City:
• The City Council would certify that the Final EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and identifies appropriate mitigation measures to address any potentially significant effects;
• Specific Plan Amendment to the McDonnell Center Specific Plan to allow light industrial uses in the eastern portion of Planning Area 1, and removal of the maximum developable area requirement while retaining the 1.0:1 floor area ratio (FAR) to maintain consistency with the General Plan; and
• Site plan approval.

Other non-discretionary actions anticipated to be taken by the City and additional agencies at the staff level as part of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the actions detailed in Table 3.1, below.

Table 3.1: Non-Discretionary Permits/Approvals
Agency Permit/Approval
City of Cypress Community Development
Department
Demolition, building, and grading permits
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB)
Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS000002)
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) (Region 8)
Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) for the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R8-2020- 0006-057 NPDES No. CAG998001)
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Plan Approval, including emergency access and fire water supply City of Cypress Community Development
Department
Lot line adjustment to move the project site’s eastern property line approximately 20 feet east
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 4-1

4.0 EXISTING SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, IMPACTS, AND

MITIGATION MEASURES

OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires an EIR to include a short description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project. This section provides a short description of existing conditions in the proposed project’s physical setting. More detailed descriptions of existing conditions focused on each environmental resource are provided in the subsequent sections. A discussion of cumulative impacts is also required. This chapter identifies a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects that when considered with the proposed project could result in cumulative impacts. More detailed discussions of cumulative impacts focused on each environmental resource are provided in the subsequent sections.

Regional Setting
As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the project site is in the southern part of the city of Cypress, in northwestern Orange County, California. The project site is north of the intersection of Plaza Drive and Douglas Drive. As shown on Figure 3.1: Regional and Project Site Location, regional access to the project site is provided via SR-22, located approximately 2.2 miles south of the project site, SR-91, located approximately 3.5 miles north of the project site, I-605 or the San Gabriel River Freeway, located approximately 2.2 miles west of the project site, and I-5, located approximately 4.75 miles northeast of project site.

Project Site Setting
Figure 3.2: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses, depicts the project site in a local setting.

The project site is approximately 8.5 acres and is currently developed with a 150,626-square-foot, five-story office building, a surface parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. As of May 2024, the existing office building was vacant and had no tenants. Historically, the project site was in agricultural production until the existing building was constructed in the late 1980s.

The project site is located in a largely developed portion of the City of Cypress within the McDonnell Specific Plan that consists of numerous office/light industrial uses. The project site is bounded by industrial and office uses to the north, industrial uses to the west, Plaza Drive to the south, and the Goodman Commerce Center Project to the east. The Goodman Commerce Center Project, approved in April 2023, was under construction at the time of the preparation of this EIR.

Pedestrian access to the project site is provided by way of sidewalks along the left side of Douglas Drive/Plaza Drive from Katella Avenue to the current driveway. There are no sidewalks along Plaza Drive east of the project site. Vehicular access to the project site is provided via an existing driveway at 5665 Plaza Drive and a shared driveway at the adjacent property at 5775 Plaza Drive. Local access to the project site is provided via Plaza Drive. The project site is currently served by existing water, sewer, and dry utilities along Plaza Drive.

The project site is located on a single parcel, Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 241-101-25. 5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
4 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -2

CHAPTER FORMAT
This chapter contains eight sections, and each section addresses one environmental topic identified in Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines. For each environmental topic issue analyzed, the EIR includes a detailed explanation of the existing conditions, thresholds of significance that will be applied to determine whether the project’s impacts are significant or less than significant, analysis of the environmental impacts, and a determination of whether the project would have a significant impact if implemented. A “significant impact” or “significant effect” means “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora fauna, ambient noise, and object of aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered to be a significant effect on the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). Each environmental topic section in this chapter includes a discussion of the cumulative effects of the project when considered in combination with other projects, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130.

Each of the sections is organized into eleven subsections, as follows:
• Introduction briefly describes the topics and issues covered in the section. • Scoping Process describes the number and a brief description of comments received from the public during the public scoping period.
• Methodology describes the approach and methods employed to complete the environmental analysis for the issue under investigation.
• Existing Environmental Setting describes the relevant physical conditions that exist at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that may influence or affect the issue under investigation. This section focuses on physical site characteristics that are relevant to the environmental topic being analyzed.
• Regulatory Setting lists and discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, plans, and policies that relate to the specific environmental topic and how they apply to the proposed project. • Thresholds of Significance sets forth the thresholds that are the basis of the conclusions regarding significance, which are primarily the criteria in Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Cypress Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, General Plan, or Zoning Code.
• Project Impacts describes the potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the proposed project is implemented. Evidence is presented to show the cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed project and potential changes in the environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), this EIR is required to “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects” of the proposed project. The magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, and range or other parameters of a potential impact are ascertained to the extent feasible to determine whether impacts may be significant. In accordance with CEQA, potential project impacts, if any, are classified as follows for each of the environmental topics discussed in this EIR.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 4-3 ○ Significant and Unavoidable Impact: If the proposed project is approved with significant and unavoidable impacts, the decision-making body is required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 explaining why the project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects caused by those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. ○ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: This classification refers to potentially significant environmental impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance.

If the proposed project is approved, the decision-making body is required to make findings pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that significant impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible through implementation of mitigation measures. ○ Less Than Significant Impact: Less than significant impacts are environmental impacts that have been identified but are not potentially significant. No mitigation is required for less than significant impacts.
○ No Impact: A “no impact” determination is made when the proposed project is found to have no environmental impact.
• Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the project, if any, prior to mitigation.
• Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures describes relevant and applicable laws or regulations that must be adhered to with respect to the construction and/or operation of the proposed project and would reduce or lessen potential impacts related to a particular issue area and identifies project-specific measures that avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for a potentially significant impact. • Level of Significance after Mitigation describes the significance of potential impacts after implementation of mitigation measures. Potential significant unavoidable impacts are clearly stated in this section.
• Cumulative Impacts refers to potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur as a result of project implementation together with all other reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects in the vicinity of the project site that produce related impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Projects that have progressed to the stage where CEQA review has been initiated are normally treated as foreseeably probable future projects. For each of the environmental topics considered in this EIR, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis is defined.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The threshold questions used in this EIR are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
4 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -4

EFFECTS EVALUATED IN THIS EIR
The discussion of potential effects is presented by environmental resource area in this EIR. As part of the Initial Study (Appendix B) prepared for the proposed project, the following environmental issues were considered but no adverse impacts were identified. Furthermore, no new information identifying potentially significant impacts to these resources was presented during the scoping process. As a result, there is no further discussion of the following issues in the EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Biological Resources
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, cumulative impacts are anticipated impacts of the proposed project along with reasonably foreseeable growth. Reasonably foreseeable growth may be based on either:
• A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or • A summary of projections contained in the adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, and that described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

Table 4.1, below, presents a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (cumulative projects) considered in the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts for this EIR. As stated above, an analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with these related projects and the proposed project is provided in the cumulative impacts discussion under each individual impact category in Chapter 4.0.

For purposes of identifying projects with potential for cumulative impacts, a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects was developed. As shown in Table 4.1, the projects include various land uses, such as residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

The locations of the related projects are shown on Figure 4.1: Cumulative Projects. Although some projects on the list have been completed since issuance of the NOP, they remain on the list because they are part of the cumulative analysis for the EIR.

CYPRESS

STANTON
Valley View Street
Howard Avenue
West Cerritos Avenue
Denni Street
Orangewood Avenue
Moody Street
Ball Road
Walker Street
Lincoln Avenue
Orange Avenue
Katella Avenue Valley View Street
1 2
3 Cumulative Projects
SOURCE: Google Maps (2023)
J:\CCP2201.04\GIS\Pro\Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive Project\Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive Project.aprx (5/28/2024) FIGURE 4.1
5665 Plaza Drive Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 0 1200 2400 FEET
Project Site
City Boundary
Related Projects
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
4 P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx «08/05/24» -6 This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
A UGUST 2024
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.04 Cypress 5665 Plaza Drive\02 - Working Files\04 - Draft EIR (Public Circulation EIR)\Compiled revised Public draft.docx (08/05/24) 4-7 Table 4.1: Summary of Cumulative Projects
Project No. Project Name Location Status Project Description City of Cypress
1 Goodman
Commerce
Center7
5757 Plaza Drive Under construction as
of 2024
204,909-square-foot office/
warehouse building
185,359-square-foot office/
warehouse building
2 Cypress Town
Center
10727 Champions Lane Under construction as
of 2024
Multifamily apartments 135 du
(condominiums and townhomes)
3 Cypress City
Center
(The Square)
Northwest corner of
Winners Circle and Katella
Avenue
Under construction as
of 2024
251 du apartments
20,800-square-foot retail
120-room hotel
10-screen multiplex movie theater
du = dwelling unit
sf = square foot/feet
It is noted that some of the cumulative projects may not be completed in 2025 (the proposed project’s anticipated buildout year), may never be built, or may be approved and built at reduced densities. However, to provide a conservative forecast, the future baseline forecast assumes that all of the related projects will be fully built out by 2025.

The discussion of cumulative impacts “should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness” (Environmental Protection Info. Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 524). A proposal that has not crystallized to the point that it would be reasonable and practical to evaluate its cumulative impacts need not be treated as a probable future project (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 397).

Rather, a potential future project qualifies for inclusion in an analysis of cumulative impacts only to the extent the future project is “both probable and sufficiently certain to allow for meaningful cumulative impact analysis” (Id. at 398; see City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 902 [when “review[ing] the agency’s decision to include information in the cumulative impacts analysis[,] ... [w]e determine whether inclusion was reasonable and practical”]). 7 The Goodman Commerce Center project, even though it has the same project proponent as the proposed project, is an independent, cumulative project. The proposed project is on a separate parcel and is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Goodman Commerce Center project. (McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, 85 [city could separately consider different utility undergrounding projects because each project was separately approved and independently functional of the other projects]; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1222 [no piecemealing because project was not a “reasonably foreseeable consequence” of another project].) The Goodman Commerce Center project was designed to function as an independent development, with all required public and private improvements (such as internal accessways and driveways). It did not necessitate or compel the proposed project. (Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 280 [“when each action has independent utility and does not subsume or necessitate each other, the actions may properly undergo separate environmental review”].) The proposed project can likewise function independently and proposes all necessary on-site and off-site improvements needed to ensure proper operation of the proposed 191,394-square-foot light industrial building.
5665 P LAZA DRIVE P ROJECT

Cypress City CouncilNovember 18, 2024

Cypress City Council
November 18, 2024