Orange City Council
August 22, 2023

and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-Native American resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

4.11.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. 572
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS

IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a proposed project that cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance if the project is implemented and, where impacts cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding its effect, should be described (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) & Section 15126.2(c)). As described in detail in Section 4.0 of this EIR, after the consideration of Project design features, compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and the application of the feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR, the Project is not expected to result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impact.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE

PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources are not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy).

A. Would the project involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources? Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the proposed Project.

The consumption of these natural resources would represent an irreversible change to the environment.

However, development of the Project site would have no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources that may be non-renewable (e.g., construction aggregates, fossil fuels) and, in fact, the Project would crush existing on-site concrete and re-use the crushed concrete as a base material during Project construction to minimize the demand for construction aggregates and fossil fuels (that would be used to power the haul trucks bringing aggregates to the Project site).

Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which will minimize the Project’s demand for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable sources. A more detailed discussion of Project energy consumption is provided in EIR Subsection 4.4, Energy.
573
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

B. Would the primary and secondary impacts of the project generally commit future generations to similar uses?
Implementation of the Project would commit the Project site to a truck terminal facility. The land use proposed is compatible previous historic uses of the property (e.g., manufacturing) and with the existing land use and zoning. Accordingly, the Project and its environmental effects would not compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that are existing today or those that are planned by the City’s General Plan. For this reason, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, off-site properties.

C. Would the project involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents?
EIR Subsection 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the potential for hazardous materials to be transported to/from the Project site and/or used on the Project site during construction and operation. As concluded in Subsection 4.8, mandatory compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials handling, storage, and use, in addition to compliance with the Soil Management Plan by all Project construction contractors (near term) and occupants (long-term) would ensure that any hazardous materials used on-site would be safely and appropriately handled to preclude any irreversible damage to the environment that could result if hazardous materials were released from the Site.

D. Would the project result in consumption of resources that are not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy)?
As discussed in detail under EIR Subsection 4.4, Energy, the Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to the environment related to energy use.

E. Summary
Based on the above, Project construction and operation would require the commitment of limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. However, this commitment of resources would not be substantial and would be consistent with regional and local growth forecasts and development goals for the area. The loss of such resources would not be highly accelerated when compared to existing conditions, and such resources would not be used in an inefficient or wasteful manner. Project construction and operation would adhere to the sustainability requirements of Title 24, Green Building Code, and CALGreen. Therefore, the Project would not result in the commitment of large quantities of natural resources that would result in significant irreversible environmental changes.

5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Project could be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population 574
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). New employees and new residential populations represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.

A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environs where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population of residents or employees.

According to regional population projects included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the City of Orange’s population is projected to grow by 13,100 residents between 2016 and 2045 (approximately 0.3 percent annual growth (SCAG, 2020). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to add 8,300 new jobs (approximately 0.2 percent annual job growth) (ibid). Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the Project’s operations as a truck terminal facility and all other legally permitted uses. The Project’s employees (short-term construction and long-term operational) would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services demands is expected to be accommodated by existing goods and service providers and, based on the amount of existing and planned future commercial and retail services available in areas near the Project site, would be highly unlikely to result in any unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the environment. In addition, the Project would create jobs, a majority of which would likely be filled by residents of the housing units either already built or planned for development within the City and nearby incorporated and unincorporated areas. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Project’s future employees would already be living in the City or the immediate surrounding area, the Project’s introduction of new employment opportunities on the Project site would not induce substantial growth in the area.

The General Plan land use designation for the site is Light Industrial (LI). As the Project vicinity is predominantly built-out, the development of the Project is unlikely to affect the existing uses within the surrounding properties. The Project is limited to the Project site’s boundaries and does not include any components that would indirectly affect existing or planned uses on neighboring properties.

Accordingly, the Project would not induce growth in the Project area.

Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as SCAG.

Significant growth impacts also could occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential 575
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. The Project is consistent with the industrial land use designations applied to the Project site by the City’s General Plan. The Project site and surrounding area is fully developed with industrial and commercial land uses. Further, implementation of the Project would not require the expansion of water and sewer infrastructure, as the Project would connect to existing water and sewer lines within Struck Avenue.

The operation and maintenance of the Project would generate up to approximately 60 to 130 jobs, but any potential growth-inducing impact of the employment of persons at the Project site was accounted for in the City’s General Plan, as the Project would develop the Project site in compliance with the City’s General Plan land use designation. Accordingly, the Project would not directly promote growth either at the Project site or at the adjacent and surrounding properties that were not accounted for in the City’s General Plan.

In conclusion, not reasonably foreseeable that the Project would induce growth in the form of additional economic activity or employment that would result in measurable impacts on the off-site physical environment.

5.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT DURING THE EIR PREPARATION PROCESS CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR “…contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” During the preparation of this EIR, the Project was determined to clearly have no potential to result in significant impacts under nine (9) environmental issue areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

Therefore, these issue areas were not required to be analyzed in detail in EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis. A brief analysis of the Project’s impacts to aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire is presented below and on the following pages.

The thresholds of significance used to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts under each issue area are summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist.

5.4.1 AESTHETICS
Threshold a: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A significant impact would occur if a project were to introduce incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views of a scenic vista. Viewsheds refer to the visual qualities of the geographical area that is defined by the horizon, topography, and other natural features that give an area its visual boundary and context, or by artificial developments that have become prominent visual components of an area.
576
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

According to the Natural Resources Element of the City’s General Plan, portions of the City of Orange are characterized by scenic vistas that include hillsides, ridgelines, or open space areas that provide a unifying visual backdrop to the urban environment. The Project site is within the western portion of the City, where the topography is relatively flat, and very little open space exists. The Project site does not contain any scenic resources and there are no scenic vistas within proximity to the Site. The Project area is within a highly urbanized industrial area. Implementation of the Project would not have an impact to a scenic vista.

Threshold b: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?? Under existing conditions, the Project site does not contain any scenic resources such as, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The Project site contains street trees at the site’s frontage along Struck Avenue. Implementation of the Project would result in the removal and replacement of street trees. The Project Applicant would be required to obtain a tree removal permit, per OMC Section

12.28.020 (Permit-Required for Removal or Planting).

Based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, there are no designated or eligible State scenic highways located in proximity to the Project site (Caltrans, 2019). The nearest State designated scenic highway is a 4.2- mile portion of State Route 91 (SR-91) starting at State Route 55 (SR-55) to the city line of Anaheim located approximately 3.1 miles northeast (Google Earth, 2020). Implementation of the Project would not have the potential to substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway corridor.

No impacts would occur.

As shown in Figure NR-4, Viewscape Corridors, of the General Plan, the City identifies the visual corridors within the City limits. Figure NR-4 identifies the 4.2-mile portion of SR-91, Newport Boulevard from Crawford Canyon Road to Chapman Avenue, and Chapman Avenue to Santiago Canyon Road, a City designated scenic highway (Orange, 2015b). Due to site distance and topography, implementation of the Project would not have the potential to substantially damage scenic resources within City designated scenic corridors. No impacts would occur.

Threshold c: In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Project site is within an urbanized area of the City. Because the Project is in an urban area, the potential impacts of the Project under this threshold are assessed based on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning designations for the site. 577
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

City of Orange General Plan
Table 5-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, below discusses the Project’s consistency with the General Plan goals related to scenic quality.

Table 5-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Maximum Intensity
• 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Consistent. The Project site is designated for Light
Industrial uses. The Light Industrial land use
designation allows for a maximum FAR of 1.0. As
shown on the Project’s Site plans, the Project would
have a maximum FAR of 0.75. Therefore, the Project
would not exceed the maximum permitted FAR.

Height Limit
• 3 Stories
Consistent. The proposed building would be singlestory and constructed up to a height of 45 feet. The Project would not construct 3 stories and would
therefore not exceed the permitted maximum height
limit identified in the General Plan.

Policy 6.1: Ensure that new development is compatible
with the style and design of established structures and the surrounding environment.

Consistent. The Project would redevelop the Site with
a modern building. The Project’s proposed style and
design would be compatible with the surrounding
environment.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not conflict with the site’s underlying zoning classification or other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less-than-significant.

City of Orange Municipal Code (OMC)
The Project site is zoned Industrial Manufacturing (M-2) and as such, the Project would be required to comply with the development standards established in OMC Chapter 17.20, Industrial Districts. The intent and purpose of Chapter 17.20 are to encourage industrial facilities and related uses while recognizing the potential for compatibility between uses through appropriate development and performance standards (Orange, 2021). Chapter 17.20 also intends to promote orderly growth and development through minimal performance standards, sustained property values, protected public safety and health, and further amenities to achieve an environment that is commensurate with prolonged future growth, development, and economic stability. Table 5-2, Zoning Development Standards Consistency Analysis, addresses the Project’s consistency with applicable development standards outlined in the OMC.
578
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Table 5-2 Zoning Development Standards Consistency Analysis Applicable Development Standard Project Consistency
Industrial Manufacturing (M-2) Zoning District
Maximum Permitted Building Height
• 45 feet
Consistent. The Project involves the redevelopment of
the Project site with up to a 45-foot-tall building. The proposed building would not exceed the Zoning
Development Standards’ height limit of 45 ft.

Accordingly, the Project’s proposed building height
would comply with the City’s permitted height in the
M-2 zone.

Development Setbacks
• Exterior Front, Side, and Rear Yards
o When adjacent to or across from an
alley from a residential zone – 20 feet
o When adjacent to an arterial street – 20
feet
o When adjacent to a local street – 10
feet
• Interior Side and Rear Yards
o When adjacent to a separate parcel – 0
Feet
Consistent. The Project site is located immediately
south of Struck Avenue, a local street. The Project’s
closest setback to Struck Avenue will be approximately
80 feet. The Project site is bordered to the east, south, and west by separate parcels containing existing
development. The Project’s interior side and rear
setbacks will be greater than 0 feet.

Landscaping Requirements
• Promote a comprehensive planning effort in
which all design elements of a project
complement each other and are compatible with
their surroundings. In addition, landscape
design must be suitable for the topography and
coordinated with the preparation of the site
grading plan.

Consistent. The Project would incorporate a Projectspecific landscape plan that is designed to be in accordance with the City’s Landscape Ordinance. The
Project’s proposed landscaping would include drought
tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Ornamental
landscaping would be provided along the site’s
northern, eastern, and southern perimeter. Additionally, ornamental trees and shrubs are proposed along the
proposed building’s northern, eastern, and southern
perimeter.

Screening of Mechanical Equipment
• Shielded from view – All mechanical and air
conditioning equipment shall be shielded and
screened from view from adjacent streets and
properties. The screening shall be
architecturally integrated with the building.

Ground-mounted equipment screening shall
consist of a solid wall, solid fence, or sufficient
landscaping. Otherwise, such equipment shall
be enclosed in a building.
• Setback Required – Mechanical equipment shall
not be located in required yards or other setback
areas.

Consistent. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment
would be shielded and screened from view from the
neighboring property and Struck Avenue. The
proposed shielding and screening would be integrated
with the building’s design to seamlessly screen the
mechanical equipment. The Project does not propose
to locate mechanical equipment in yard or setback
areas.

Trash enclosures Consistent. The proposed trash enclosure for the Project would screen views on 3 sides with a 6-foot579 534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Applicable Development Standard Project Consistency
• All developments shall be provided with trash
collection areas adequately and conveniently
placed throughout the development. Trash
collection areas shall be screened from view on
3 sides by a 6-foot-high wall. A visually opaque,
self-latching gate shall be provided.
high wall and will provide a visually opaque selflatching gate to access the trash enclosure.

Undergrounding of Utilities
• Utility lines shall be required to be placed
underground within all commercial or
professional development, planned residential
development, and residential subdivisions.

Consistent. The Project would install new utility lines underground connecting to the existing utility mains
within Struck Avenue.

Threshold d: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Project site is currently developed with a manufacturing use (Nursery Supplies, Inc.) and is primarily surrounded by existing industrial development with the exception of Mary’s Kitchen directly to the north. The Project site generates artificial lighting from building-mounted light fixtures. The Project site is within an urbanized area that includes several sources of artificial lighting including interior and exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, security lighting, and street lighting along Struck Avenue. Other sources of artificial light include vehicle headlights traveling along Struck Avenue.

The Project would introduce new sources of light as necessary for security, safety, and wayfinding.

The Project’s proposed lighting would be similar to existing conditions; therefore, implementation of the Project would not introduce new sources of light that would substantially affect day or nighttime views in the area. Additionally, the Project’s proposed lighting is required to be consistent with OMC Section 17.12.030, Lighting, and Section 17.20.280, Emission of Lighting, Glare, Dust, and Heat, which states that lighting shall be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding premises (Orange, 2021).

Glare is caused by light reflections from the pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and can be a nuisance for pedestrians and other viewers. The proposed building is located at the terminus of a cul-de-sac within a buildout area and will be constructed of concrete tilt-up walls. The Project’s proposed building materials would not result in potential glare impacts within the Project site or surrounding areas, and notably at the street level. Low-reflective windows would be provided at the proposed office areas.

Implementation of the Project would not introduce new sources of glare that would substantially affect day or nighttime views in the area.
580
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

5.4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Threshold a: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
According to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” (DOC, 2016b). The “Urban and Built-Up Land” classification describes land that is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit 10 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel (DOC, 2016b). The nearest Farmland to the Project site is located approximately 0.43 miles north; this land is classified by the DOC as “Unique Farmland,” which describes land that contains lesser quality soils used to produce the State’s leading crops. “Unique Farmland” is usually irrigated, buy may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Due to the Site’s distance from designated Farmland, the Project would not have the potential to convert the Farmland to nonagricultural use. The Project does not have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur.

Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The Project site is zoned as Industrial Manufacturing (M-2) (Orange, 2020). The nearest land zoned for agricultural use is located approximately 4.1 miles northeast of the Project site. As such, the Project does not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. No impacts would occur.

The Williamson Act is a Statewide mechanism for the preservation of agricultural land and open space land. The Act provides a comprehensive method for local governments to protect farmland and open space by allowing lands in agricultural use to be placed under contract (agricultural preserve) between local government and landowner. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, implementation of the Project does not have the potential to conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur.

Threshold c: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
As previously discussed, the Project site is currently zoned as M-2. According to the City’s Zoning Map, there are no lands within the City that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (Orange, 2020). Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to conflict 581
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

with existing zoning or rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impacts would occur.

Threshold d: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? As discussed under the Agricultural and Forest Resources Threshold c, the Project site is zoned M-2 and there are no lands within the City that are zoned forestland. Additionally, the Project site is developed with a light industrial use. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. No impacts would occur.

Threshold e: Would the involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As previously discussed under Agriculture and Forest Resources Threshold a, the Project site is located approximately 0.43-mile southwest of Unique Farmland. Additionally, the Project site is within an urbanized area of the City that contains little open space. Due to the Site’s distance from the Unique Farmland, the Project does not have the potential to convert Farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur.

5.4.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Threshold a: Would the Project physically divide an established community? The Project site is developed with the Nursery Supplies, Inc. manufacturing facility. Existing industrial development borders the Site to the south and west; the BNSF railroad track borders the Site to the east; and Struck Avenue and the public facility uses border the site to the north. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Site with another industrial use with associated parking and landscaping improvements. The Project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur.

Threshold b: Would the Project 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?
Under existing conditions, the Project site is designated for “Light Industrial” land uses by the City of Orange General Plan and “Industrial Manufacturing (M-2)” zone. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site in accordance with the underlying land use designations and applicable zoning ordinance development standards. As previously discussed under Aesthetics Threshold c in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2, the Project would not conflict with the General Plan. Although the proposed building would require a CUP for the proposed truck terminal use, the Project would not conflict with the Zoning Code. Because the Project would be consistent with the underlying General Plan designation for the Site, the Project would not conflict with any applicable goals, objectives, and 582
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

policies of South Coast AQMD’s AQMP and SCAG’s Connect SoCal, which base their assumptions and analyses upon the full build-out of the existing General Plans throughout the region. Refer also to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold b in Section 4.6 of this EIR. No impacts would occur.

5.4.4 MINERAL RESOURCES
Threshold a: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State? According to Appendix A of the City’s General Plan EIR, the City’s mineral resources are limited to sand and gravel resources (aggregate) along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The Project site is located within a developed, urbanized area of the City and is located approximately 0.87-mile east of the Santa Ana River and 1.9 miles north of the Santiago Creek. As such, no mineral resources are anticipated in the Project area and the implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the State.

No impacts would occur.

Threshold b: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
As previously discussed, the Project site is located approximately 0.87-mile east of the Santa Ana River and approximately 2.0 miles north of the Santiago Creek; therefore, the Project does not have the potential to contain any aggregate resources. Additionally, the Site is not permitted for mining use under the Light Industrial land use designation and Industrial Manufacturing zoning classification.

Because the Project site is not delineated as containing mineral resources on the City’s General Plan, the implementation of the Project does not have the potential to result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. No impacts would occur.

5.4.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Threshold a: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? The Project does not include any residential uses; therefore, the Project does not have the potential to directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. Redevelopment of the Project site has the potential to generate 60 to 130 new jobs. According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), as of April 2020, the City of Orange has a labor force of 67,200 persons and of that labor force, 8,300 are unemployed (unemployment rate of 12.4 percent) (EDD, 2020). According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 Jurisdiction – Level Growth Forecast, the City of Orange is anticipated to employ approximately 131,300 persons(SCAG, 2020a). Project employment is well within the growth forecasts of the City and implementation of the Project would further balance the City’s employmentto-population ratio. Therefore, the Project’s proposed employees are not likely to relocate to the City, 583
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

rather, the new jobs associated with the Project would provide employment opportunities for individuals already residing in the City.

The Project involves redevelopment of the site with a permitted use within the Light Industrial land use designation and M-2 zoning classification. Accordingly, the Project would not result in growth that was not already anticipated by the City of Orange General Plan and General Plan EIR. Further, the Project site is already developed and contains existing infrastructure that serves the site’s existing use. The Project would improve Struck Avenue along the site’s frontage and connect to the existing utility connections. In doing so, the Project would be in conformance with the General Plan and applicable infrastructure master plans. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial indirect population growth in the area.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project is not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Impacts would be less-than-significant.

Threshold b: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project site is developed with an approximate 40,000 sf manufacturing facility and does not contain any residential structures. Implementation of the Project would not displace any housing or people and no replacement housing would be required. No impacts would occur.

5.4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES
Threshold a: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire Protection?
ii) Police Protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other Public Facilities?
i) Fire Protection?
The Orange City Fire Department (OCFD) provides fire and emergency response to the City, including the Project site. According to the City General Plan EIR, the OCFD operates 8 fire stations within the City. OCFD Station No. 5, located at 1345 Maple Street, is the closest fire station to the Project site (located approximately 1.1 miles southwest). According to the OCFD, the average response time in 2019 was 3 minutes and 52 seconds (Stefano, 2020).
584
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

As previously discussed, the Project Applicant proposes to demolish the existing on-site structure and redevelop the Site with a building up to 57,900 sf in addition to a maintenance building. Because fire protection services are currently provided to the surrounding area, and based on the Site’s close proximity to an existing fire station, the City’s existing fire protection facilities would adequately serve the Project. The Project is not anticipated to result in the construction of new or physically altered fire facilities. The Project would be required by the OMC Chapter 15.38, Fire Protection Facilities Program¸ to pay a fire protection facilities fee to aid in offsetting the increased demand for fire services created by non-residential development. This fee is due prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The Project’s proposed building would feature fire safety and suppression design, including the type of building construction, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, and paved access. The proposed building would be a concrete tilt-up construction that contains a low fire hazard risk rating. Additionally, a fire alarm system is proposed to be installed, as well as an Early Suppression, Fast Response (ESFR) ceiling-mounted fire sprinklers. ESFR provides protection that exceeds that of in-rack systems. ESFR high output, high-volume systems are in ceiling spaces as with conventional fire sprinkler systems, but they incorporate large, high-volume, high-pressure heads to provide the necessary fire protection for buildings that may contain high-piled storage. While most other sprinklers are intended to control the growth of a fire, an ESFR sprinkler system is designed to suppress a fire, which knocks the fire down to its source.

Based on the foregoing, the Project would receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts would be less-thansignificant. ii) Police Protection?
The City of Orange Police Department provides law enforcement services to the City, including the Project site. The Orange Police Department is located at 1107 N. Batavia Street, which is located approximately 406 feet northwest of the Project site. Implementation of the Project is anticipated to result in similar service calls (typical of an industrial facility) as the existing manufacturing use.

According to the General Plan Public Safety Element, to maintain the City’s ability to serve current residents and businesses, applicants are required to provide for adequate services and equipment to serve businesses of new developments. Land uses will be evaluated and modified, if necessary, to facilitate access to emergency services, meet service standards, and ensure land use compatibility.

Therefore, it is anticipated that emergency response would occur with acceptable response times.

According to OMC Chapter 3.13, Police Facility Development Fee, the Project Applicant would be required to pay fair share fees to help finance police facilities required by new development to avoid adversely impacting existing police protection facilities. Additionally, the Project plans would be reviewed and approved by the City of Orange Building and Police Departments, which would ensure that adequate safety and crime prevention measures are provided within the Project’s design. 585
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Therefore, implementation of the Project is not anticipated to result in the new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts would be less-than-significant. iii) Schools?
The City provides school services through the Orange Unified School District. The Project Applicant proposes to demolish the existing manufacturing facility and redevelop the site with a single building.

Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to result in substantial direct growth in the population, nor an increase in student population. The Project would be required to pay appropriate school fees applicable to all new development in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 and Senate Bill (SB) 50 to offset potential impacts on school services. No impact would occur. iv) Parks?
According to the General Plan Natural Resources Element, the City owns and has developed 22 parks (Orange, 2015b). The City provides approximately 1.81 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The City anticipates developing approximately 43.5 acres of planned future parks; the nearest park to the Project site is Killefer Park located approximately 0.39-mile southeast. The proposed Project would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional parks. No impact would occur. v) Other public facilities?
Other public facilities include public libraries. The City’s public libraries operate according to the Public Library Facilities Master Plan (2002-2020). This master plan outlines current and projected future demand based on the City’s General Plan buildout; it is intended to ensure that the California State Library’s recommended standard of 4 volumes and 0.7 square foot per capita is maintained and that the City’s library service needs are met as future development occurs. The nearest library to the Project site is Charles P. Taft Library, located approximately 1.0-mile northeast. The proposed Project would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional libraries or demand for library services. No impact would occur.

5.4.7 RECREATION
Threshold a: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As previously stated, the City has owned and developed 22 parks and approximately 15 miles of equestrian, biking, and recreational trails. Parks and open space make up 31.8 present of land use in the City (Orange, 2010a). The Project Applicant does not propose to construct any residential uses on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not create a substantial population increase that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, resulting in physical deterioration of park facilities. No impact would occur. 586
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Threshold b: Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any adverse physical effects on the environment due to the construction of recreational facilities. No impact would occur.

5.4.8 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Threshold a: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water and Wastewater Treatment
The City of Orange Water Division provides potable water service (water supplies include imported water, groundwater, and surface water) to over 139,000 residents within the City’s 32 square-mile planning area. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) provides wastewater services to the City. Under existing conditions, the Project site is developed with a manufacturing facility.

Implementation of the Project would demolish the existing approximately 40,000 sf manufacturing facility and redevelop the Site with an approximately 57,900 sf building in addition to a maintenance building. The Project would connect a new 3-inch water line, 3-inch fire line and 6-inch sewer lines to the existing 10-inch water line and 8-inch sewer line beneath Struck Avenue. Because the Project Applicant proposes to redevelop the Site with a permitted use under the Light Industrial land use designation and M-2 Zone Classification, the water demand from the Project site was anticipated and analyzed in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Therefore, the City’s existing water infrastructure and treatment facilities are adequate to serve the Project. OMC Section 13.56.090, Charges for Sewer Mains and Extensions, imposes a sewer main connection fee on non-residential development in the City as a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permits to fund the Project’s fair share of costs to upgrade the City’s sewer system. Additionally, the Project would be required to pay ongoing user fees. Payment of these fees would offset the Project’s potential increase in demand for wastewater collection services.

Although the Project would result in new water and sewer line connections, these connections would occur on-site and would be part of the Project’s construction phase, which is evaluated throughout this EIR. The construction of the Project’s water and sewer lines necessary to serve the Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this EIR. Impacts would be less-than-significant. 587
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater originating on the Project site sheet flows from the south to the northwest to an existing curb gutter along Struck Avenue. Runoff from the Project site enters the existing 30-inch storm drainage main beneath Struck Avenue, which then conveys flows to the Orange County storm drain system that discharges runoff to the Santa Ana River.

Refer to the analysis under Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Threshold c.ii, of this EIR. As discussed, stormwater runoff would be treated on-site and would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage infrastructure which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less-than-significant.

Dry Utilities
Under existing conditions, the Project site is served by Southern California Edison (SCE) for electrical power, Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) for natural gas, and AT&T for telephone and fiber optics. Connections to the existing utility networks are available in the Project area and any offsite improvements would occur within improved rights-of-way, which are inherent to the Project’s construction phase and have been evaluated throughout this EIR. Where necessary, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to a level below significance. Because the Project site has been previously developed with a manufacturing facility that requires electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication services, implementation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to limit the ability of SCE, SoCalGas, or AT&T to provide service to Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new facilities, and impacts would be less-than-significant.

Threshold b: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
The City of Orange provides water service to the City. Under existing conditions, the City of Orange provides water services to the Project site. The City receives its water from 2 main sources:
groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin, managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and imported water from the MWD, managed by the Municipal Water District of Orange County. Groundwater is pumped from 15 active wells in the City. According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City relies on approximately 6,515 acre-feet per year (AFY) of imported water and 20,372 AFY of groundwater form the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin. Additionally, the City relied on 1,757 acre-feet of surface water purchased through the Serrano Water District in 2015.

The City’s UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2040 under normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The City’s total water demand for 2015 was 588
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

approximately 28,643 AF. The City’s forecasts for projected water demand based on the population projections of the Southern California Associations of Governments (SCAG), which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within City of Orange’s service. Because the Project Applicant would redevelop the site with a use permitted under the Light Industrial land use designation, the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and, therefore, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the 2015 UWMP and analyzed therein. As stated above, the City is anticipated to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands until the year 2040 under a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years. Therefore, the City has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. Impacts would be less-than-significant.

Threshold c: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The OCSD provides wastewater treatment for the City of Orange via 2 reclamation plants: Reclamation Plant No.1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a total rated primary capacity of 108 million gallons per day (mgd) and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 has a total rated primary capacity of 168 mgd and a secondary treatment capacity of 90 mgd (Carollo, 2020). According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City’s Sewer Master Plan estimated a wastewater generation rate of 23.7 mgd in the City, which includes wastewater flow from industrial, commercial, and residential land uses.

The Project site is developed with an approximately 40,000 sf manufacturing facility that requires wastewater treatment services. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structure and redevelop the Site with an approximately 57,900 sf building in addition to a maintenance building.

The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site with a use that is consistent with the Site’s underlying land use designation; therefore, the wastewater generation associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the City’s General Plan EIR and the City’s Sewer Master Plan and analyzed therein. As such, the OCSD’s existing wastewater treatment facilities are anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s project demand in addition to its existing commitments.

Impacts would be less-than-significant.

Threshold d: Would the Project 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?
The City of Orange contracts with a private service provider to collect solid waste, green waste (grass clippings, tree, and shrub clippings), and items for recycling. Waste collected from the City is disposed of at 1 of 3 landfills in Orange County: Olinda Alpha Landfill, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, and the Pima Deshecha Landfill. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD) owns and operates these landfills.
589
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Olinda Alpha Landfill is permitted to accept 8,000 tons per day (tpd), the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is permitted to accept 11,500 tpd, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill is permitted to accept 4,000 tpd.

Additionally, the Olinda Alpha Landfill has a closure date of December 21, 2021; the Frank R.

Bowerman Landfill has a closure date of December 31, 2053; and the Pima Deshecha Landfill has a closure date of December 31, 2102. (CalRecycle, 2020a; CalRecycle, 2020b; CalRecycle, 2020c) It should be noted that the Project is anticipated to be constructed by the year 2022 and by this time, the Olinda Alpha Landfill is expected to be closed.

Implementation of the Project would generate an incremental increase in solid waste volumes requiring off-site disposal during short-term construction and long-term operational activities. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with mandatory waste reduction requirements as described below in Utilities and Service Systems Threshold g.

Construction Impact Analysis
Solid waste requiring disposal would be generated by the construction process, primarily consisting of discarded demolition materials and packaging. The Project would reuse 10,905 tons of crushed concrete and asphalt.

Based on the size of the Project (63,300 sf) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA) construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds per sf (lbs/sf) for non-residential uses, approximately 137.4 tons of waste is calculated to be generated during the Project’s construction phase ([63,300 sf x 4.34 lbs/sf]/2,000 lbs/ton = 137.4 tons) (EPA, 2009, p. 10). California Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requires that a minimum of 50% of all solid waste be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies); therefore, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 68.7 tons during its construction phase. The Project’s construction phase is anticipated to last for approximately 220 days; therefore, the Project is calculated to generate approximately 0.31 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfill during its construction phase.

The Project’s non-recyclable construction waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at 1 of the 3 landfills as described above. The Project’s estimated total construction solid waste would represent approximately 0.9 percent of the daily tpd at Olinda Alpha Landfill, 0.6 percent at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, and 1.7 percent at the Prima Deshecha Landfill. As previously stated, the Olinda Alpha Landfill has a closure date of December 31, 2021, and the Project’s construction is anticipated to be completed by 2022. Although the Olinda Alpha Landfill will be closed during a portion of the Project’s construction phase, the Frank R. Bowerman and Pima Deshecha Landfill will be open during the Project’s entire construction phase. These 2 landfills have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the Project’s construction phase. Impacts would be less-thansignificant. 590
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Operational Impact Analysis
Based on a daily waste generation factor of 1.42 lbs of waste per 100 sf of industrial building obtained from CalRecycle, long-term, on-going operation of the Project would generate up to approximately

0.45 tons ([63,300 sf x {1.42 lbs/100sf}]/2,000 lbs/ton= 0.45 tons) of solid waste per day (CalRecycle, 2006). Implementation of the Project would result in an approximately 0.45-ton net daily increase in solid waste generation. It should be noted that by the time the Project is operational, the Olinda Alpha Landfill will be closed; however, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill and Prima Deshecha Landfill are anticipated to be open during the lifetime of the Project. Although the implementation of the Project would increase the amount of solid waste generated at the Project site, the Project’s projected solid waste would be below the Frank R. Bowerman and Prima Deshecha Landfill daily disposal volume.

Additionally, according to AB 939, at least 50 percent of the Project’s solid waste is required to be diverted from landfills; therefore, the Project would generate approximately 0.23 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfilling (0.45 tons per day x 50% = 0.23 tons per day).

The non-recyclable solid waste generated during the long-term operation of the Project would be disposed at 1 of the 2 landfills described above. The Project’s estimated solid waste is well below the maximum daily capacities of any of the 2 landfills. The Project is not anticipated to cause these landfills to exceed their maximum daily permitted solid waste amounts. Impacts would be less-than-significant.

Threshold e: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
AB 939 requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. SB 2202 clarified that local governments shall continue to diver 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. SB 1016 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. For the 2017 reporting year, the City’s per employee disposal rate was 7.10 lbs/person/day, which is less than the City’s Disposal Rate Target of 14.4 lbs/person/day.

Additionally, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code Section 42911), the Project is required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. Additionally, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program), the future occupant of the Project would be required to arrange for recycling services, if the occupant generates four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week. The implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations. Impacts would be less-than-significant. 591
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

5.4.9 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones:

Threshold a: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Threshold b: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, would the Project thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Threshold c: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Threshold d: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The State Responsibility Area (SRA) is the land where the State of California is financially responsible for the preservation and suppression of wildfires. The SRA does not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership; therefore, the Project site does not have the potential to be in an SRA. Based on the review of Figure PS-1, Environmental and Natural Hazard Policy Map, of the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (Orange, 2010b). Additionally, according to CalFire, the Project site is not within a VHFHSZ (CalFire, 2011). As such, no impacts related to wildfire would occur. 592
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

6.1 INTRODUCTION
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. In compliance with Section 15126.6(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an EIR must “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives”. This section identifies potential alternatives to the Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[b] – 15126.6[f]) are provided below to explain the foundation and requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR. • The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objective, or would be more costly (Section 15126.6[b]).
• The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact (Section 15126.6[e][1]).
• The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (Section 15126.6[e][2]).
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent) (Section 15126.6[f]).
593
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

• For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (Section 15126.6[f][2][A]).
• If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location (Section 15126.6[f][2][B]).
• An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (Section 15126.6[f][3]).

6.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As stated in Section 3.0 of this EIR, and pursuant to Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines, the objectives that have been established for the Project are listed below.

1. Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a truck terminal consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation infrastructure such as the SR-57 and I-5.

2. Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of a truck terminal with warehouse and office spaces that are responsive to local and regional trade demands.

3. Provide development that will enhance the City’s economic well-being and employment opportunities for community residents.

4. Develop the site with a use that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible with other existing and planned development in the local area.

5. Provide a fully secured premise with active management to strengthen the security and safety for the local area.

6. Redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meet current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Standards with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure.

6.3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As demonstrated in Section 4.0 of this EIR, implementation of the Project would not result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance after the implementation of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and feasible mitigation measures.
594
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

It should be noted that although the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for the following topical issues: Biological Resources (due to the potential to impact nesting migratory birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code); Cultural Resources (due to the potential to encounter buried archaeological resources); Geology and Soils (due to the potential to encounter buried paleontological resources); Hazards and Hazardous Materials (due to the potential to uncover contaminated soils); and Tribal Cultural Resources (due to the potential to encounter buried tribal cultural resources) . These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project.

6.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS An EIR is required to identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected as infeasible. Among the factors described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 in determining whether to exclude alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR are: a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, b) infeasibility, or c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the Project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) notes:
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site…”
In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and, for a variety of reasons, rejected. Alternatives were rejected because either: 1) they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the Project, 2) they would not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts, or 3) they were considered infeasible to construct or operate. A summary of the alternatives that were considered but rejected are described below.

6.4.1 ALTERNATIVE SITE
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project. The key question and first step in the analysis is determining whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by developing the project at another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)). 595
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

To meet the Project Objectives and implement the Project, the Alternative Site for consideration in this analysis could include other parcels within the Light Industrial land use areas where the City of Orange anticipates future industrial development. For this alternative, any development within these areas would need to be consistent with the Project, the Project Objectives, and development anticipated in the area, as presented in City of Orange General Plan and zoning. Implementing the Project on a different parcel would require acquisition of developed property, demolition of existing operational structures, and discontinuing existing land uses, which is likely to disrupt existing businesses and operations, and would result in environmental impacts similar to those identified for the Project.

The Project’s potentially significant impacts – all of which are related to aspects of the Project’s construction and would be reduced to less than significant levels with the application of mitigation measures identified in this EIR – are also likely to occur at other sites in the City. Development at an Alternative Site would only move Project impacts to a different location. Additionally, the Projectrelated increase in truck and vehicular trips and the associated air pollutant emissions, off-site increases in traffic-related noise, and GHG emissions, which would be less than significant with the Project, would also occur with development at an alternative site.

It would not be feasible for the owner to control or otherwise have access to another site of a similar size to the Project site. CEQA does not require the consideration of infeasible sites that are not owned by the landowner or that could not be reasonably acquired by the landowner to be analyzed as alternatives to the Project (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][1]).

6.4.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON-SITE
It is typical to consider alternative development scenarios for a Project (reduced intensity, reduced development area, alternative site plan, alternative use, etc.) when identifying potential alternatives to avoid or reduce potential significant impacts resulting from construction or operation of a project to a less than significant level. As previously identified, and as demonstrated through the analysis presented in Section 4.0 of this EIR, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. The Project’s potential impacts are less than significant with incorporation of the Project-level mitigation measures in this EIR.

Implementation of an alternative development scenario at the Project site that could potentially meet the established Project Objectives would require the removal of the existing building, site preparation, grading/excavation, and building construction. All impacts that require Project-level mitigation are associated with construction activities, not operation, and would therefore also occur under a potential alternative development scenario onsite. For that reason, there is no need to further evaluate alternative development scenarios.

6.4.3 ALTERNATIVE LAND USE
An Alternative Land Use was considered in response to public comment received during the scoping meeting requesting an alternative that considered development of the site with smaller buildings for 596
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

small businesses. To accommodate this request, the Alternative Land Use assumes the development of a total of 60,000 sf of business park uses within a single building or multiple buildings with multiple small business tenants. The ITE Trip Generation Manual includes trip generation rates for Business Park (ITE Land Use Code 770). This rate includes business park uses that consists of a group of flextype or incubator one- or two-story buildings served by a common roadway system. Tenants may be start-up companies or small mature companies that require a variety of space. The space may include offices, retail and wholesale stores, restaurants, recreational areas and warehousing, manufacturing, light industrial, or scientific research functions. Based on 60,000 sf of business park uses, this alternative would generate 81 AM peak hour, 73 PM peak hour, and 746 average daily trips.

Because this alternative would involve redevelopment of the site, impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources would remain the same as the Project. Mitigation measures are required to reduce these potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant. Under this alternative, the projected trips would increase from 396 to 746 average daily trips, resulting in an increase in impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and off-site traffic related noise impacts. Because this alternative would increase environmental impacts and would not reduce any of the Project’s significant impacts, this alternative was rejected from further evaluation.

6.5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
When considering potential alternatives to the Project, the City focused on alternatives that are required by CEQA or that would avoid or reduce the potentially significant impacts. As discussed previously, because the Project’s potentially significant impacts, prior to mitigation, are related to construction, alternatives that would avoid these impacts are: 1) a no project/no development alternative and 2) an alternative that considers retention and reuse of the existing building.

Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires than an EIR evaluate a “no project” alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project alternatives: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan; and (2) when the project is other than a land use/regulatory plan (such as a specific development on an identifiable property), the no project alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Both no project alternatives have been evaluated herein.

For the alternatives evaluated below, it is assumed that relevant regulatory requirements and Projectspecific mitigation measures would also be implemented and thus serve to reduce or avoid potential significant impacts similar to the Project.
597
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

6.5.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/No Development Alternative considers no development on the Project site beyond what occurs on the site under existing conditions (as described in EIR Section 3.0). As such, the Project site would remain with an existing vacated 40,000 square foot concrete tilt-up manufacturing building.

Under this alternative, no future operations or improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the Project’s parking, utility, and infrastructure improvements would occur.

A. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The focus of this analysis is to determine if the No Project/No Development Alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the site vacant with the existing manufacturing building and associated parking, therefore, no environmental impacts would occur. This alternative would eliminate the Project’s construction-related impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources.

B. Conclusion
The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project site. However, this alternative would fail to meet all of the Project’s objectives, as described in Subsection 6.2.

6.5.2 NO PROJECT/EXISTING ZONING ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative considers redevelopment of the Project site with a warehouse building that would be allowed under the existing M-2 zoning. Under this alternative, the site would be redeveloped with a 201,520 square foot warehouse building which represents continuation of development consistent with the existing community development type and zoning designations.

A. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The focus of this analysis is to determine if the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Because this alternative would result in redevelopment of the Project site, it would result in the same constructionrelated impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources as the Project.

B. Conclusion
Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project As presented in Section 4.0 of this EIR, all potentially significant impacts of the Project can be mitigated to less than significant and no significant and unavoidable impacts would occur. Project598 534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for inadvertent discovery of archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources. In addition, Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for biological resources (potential to impact nesting migratory birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code) and hazardous materials (potential contaminated soils). The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the Project’s significant impacts.

Attainment of Project Objectives
The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would involve redevelopment of the site with a 201,520 square foot warehouse building. This alternative would not fully meet Project Objectives 1 (Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a truck terminal consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation infrastructure such as the SR57 and I-5) and 2 (Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of a truck terminal with warehouse and office spaces that are responsive to local and regional trade demands) because the site would not be developed with a truck terminal use. The remaining Project Objectives 3–6 as listed under Subsection 6.2, would be attained with this alternative.

6.5.3 REUSE ALTERNATIVE
The Reuse Alternative addressed in this section assumes the Project does not proceed and the existing 40,000 square-foot concrete tilt-up manufacturing building and parking lot would remain and be reused by a future tenant. Until the end of 2020, the Project site was occupied by Nursery Supplies, Inc., a manufacturer of plastic nursery planting pots. Under the Reuse Alternative, the existing building and associated facilities on-site would be retained and reoccupied for use with a similar manufacturing use that is consistent with that allowed by-right pursuant to the M-2 zone. The M-2 zone intends to provide the continuation and development of heavy manufacturing industries in a location where they are compatible with and will not adversely impact adjacent land uses.

A. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts
The focus of this analysis is to determine if the Reuse Alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. As previously noted, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the analysis addresses significant effects that might occur if the identified Project-level mitigation measures are not applied.

With respect to archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources, the Reuse Alternative would not involve any excavation or grading activities. Therefore, the potential to discover previously unidentified archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources is eliminated. Reuse of the existing building would not require removal of trees on site. As such, the potential for impacts to biological resources under the Reuse Alternative would be less than with the Project. However, the Reuse Alternative would not result in remediation of the site in the event that unknown contaminated 599
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

soils are present. Additionally, this alternative would result in increased operational energy demand and GHG emissions compared to the Project, because it would not redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meets current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Standards with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure.

The Project would not result in any significant impacts before mitigation for any other topical issues and therefore do not need to be assessed under the Reuse Alternative.

B. Conclusions
Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project As presented in Sections 4.0 of this EIR, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the Reuse Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. However, Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for inadvertent discovery of archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources. In addition, Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for biological resources (potential to impact nesting migratory birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code) and hazardous materials (potential discovery of contaminated soils).

These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project. As described above, the Reuse Alternative would eliminate these impacts and mitigation measures would not be required, because no grading would occur. However, as noted above, the Reuse Alternative would not result in remediation of the site in the event that unknown contaminated soils are present. Additionally, this alternative would result in increased operational energy demand and GHG emissions compared to the Project, because it would not redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meets current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Standards with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure.

Attainment of Project Objectives
The discussion below addresses the ability of the Reuse Alternative to attain the project objectives.

1. Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a truck terminal consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation infrastructure such as the SR-57 and I-5. The Reuse Alternative would not involve the redevelopment of the Project site with a truck terminal, rather it would involve the continued use or reuse of the existing building and facilities at the Project site for manufacturing use. Therefore, the Reuse Alternative does not meet the overall intent of this Project objective and redevelopment of the Project site is necessary to accomplish this objective.
600
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

2. Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of a truck terminal with warehouse and office spaces that are responsive to local and regional trade demands. The Reuse Alternative would not include entitlements for redevelopment responsive to local and regional trade demands. Additionally, the existing outdated and underutilized building would not have the ability to attract a high-quality tenant responsive to local and regional trade demands. The Reuse Alternative does not meet the overall intent of this Project objective and redevelopment of the Project site is necessary to accomplish this objective.

3. Provide development that will enhance the City’s economic well-being and employment opportunities for community residents. While the Reuse Alternative could conceivably continue to generate revenue and employment opportunities, the existing outdated and underutilized building constructed in 1977 would not have the ability to attract a high-quality tenant to enhance additional property tax revenue and employment opportunities for the City.

Therefore, the Reuse Alternative would not meet this objective.

4. Develop the site with a use that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible with other existing and planned development in the local area. The existing building is compatible with other existing development in the local area. However, the Reuse Alternative would not result in a new modern building that would complement new and planned development in the local area. Therefore, the Reuse Alternative partially meets this objective.

5. Provide a fully secured premise with active management to strengthen the security and safety for the local area. The Reuse Alternative would not include the installation of an approximately 8-foot-high tubular steel fencing along the site’s perimeter to protect visitors and/or employees on-site from vandalism and theft and from traversing the OCTA/SCRRA Railroad track immediately east of the site. In addition, the Reuse Alternative would not provide active management on-site for safety and security. Therefore, the Reuse Alternative would not meet this objective.

6. Redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meet current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Standards with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure. The Reuse Alternative would not involve the redevelopment of the Project site, rather it would involve the continued use or reuse of the existing building that was constructed in 1977. The Project would not result in the development of a modern building that meets current building code standards and would not be as energy efficient as redevelopment of the site. Therefore, the Reuse Alternative would not meet current California Building Code and California Green Building Code standards. 601
534 Struck Avenue
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

6.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. As discussed above, the No Project/No Development Alternative, would not require grading or construction and would not cause construction-related impacts.

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, if the No Project/No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Reuse Alternative has been selected as the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. Because no grading would occur under the Reuse Alternative, impacts related to archaeological resources, biological resources, paleontological resources, hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources would be eliminated. However, the Reuse Alternative would not result in remediation of the site in the event that unknown contaminated soils are present during grading. Additionally, this alternative would result in increased operational energy demand and GHG emissions compared to the Project, because it would not redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meets current California Building Code and California Green Building Code standards with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure. As described above, the Reuse Alternative does not meet the overall intent of Project Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6; and only partially meets Project Objective 4.

For the reasons outlined in Section 6.4 above, there is no need to further evaluate alternative sites or alternative development scenarios (reduced intensity, reduced development area, alternative site plan, etc.) compared to the Project. Any alternative development scenario would have similar impacts as the Project related to construction activities, and the Project would not result in any significant operational impacts that would be avoided by a development alternative. 602
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 PERSONS CONTRIBUTING TO EIR PREPARATION

7.1.1 CITY OF ORANGE
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner

7.1.2 T&B PLANNING, INC.

Nicole Morse, Esq.

Principal
Kristen Goddard, AICP
Senior Planner
Tracy Chu
Assistant Project Manager
Cristina Maxey
Graphic Specialist
Rhea Smith
GIS/Graphics Technician

7.2 DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO THIS EIR
The following reports, studies, and supporting documentation were used in preparing the 534 Struck Avenue Project EIR and are bound separately as Technical Appendices. A copy of the Technical Appendices is available for review at the City of Orange, Planning Division, Community Development Department, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866.

Appendix A1: Written Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Appendix A2: Notice of Preparation (NOP), and Written Comments on the NOP.

Appendix B1: Urban Crossroads, 2023a. 534 Struck Avenue Air Quality Impact Analysis. January 12, 2023.

Appendix B2: Urban Crossroads, 2023b. 534 Struck Avenue Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. January 12, 2023.
603
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Appendix C: Noreas, Inc., 2023 Struck Avenue Project General Biological Technical Report.

February 2023.

Appendix D: Duke Cultural Resources Management, 2021. Cultural and Paleontological Resource Letter Report for the 534 Struck Avenue Project, City of Orange, Orange County, California. April 30, 2021.

Appendix E: Urban Crossroads, 2023c. 534 Struck Avenue Energy Analysis. January 12, 2023.

Appendix F: GeoTek, 2020a. Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, Proposed Warehouse Facility, 534 West Struck Avenue, Orange, Orange County, California. March 31, 2020.

Appendix G: Urban Crossroads, 2023d. 534 Struck Avenue Greenhouse Gas Analysis. January 12, 2023
Appendix H1: GeoTek, 2020b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 375-331-04, 534 Struck Avenue, Orange, Orange County, California 92867. March 31, 2020.

Appendix H2: GeoTek, 2020c. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 534 Struck Avenue, Orange, Orange County, California 92867. June 30, 2020.

Appendix H3: Ramboll, 2020. Soil Management Plan, Proposed Industrial Development, 534 Struck Avenue, Orange, California. August 12, 2020.

Appendix I1: Albert A. Webb Associates, 2021a. Priority Water Quality Management Plan.

November 2021.

Appendix I2: Albert A. Webb Associates, 2021b. Preliminary Drainage Study. February 2021.

Appendix J: Urban Crossroads, 2022a. 534 Struck Avenue Noise and Vibration Analysis, City of Orange. October 23, 2022.

Appendix K1: Urban Crossroads, 2022b. 534 Struck Avenue Traffic Analysis. October 26, 2022.

Appendix K2: Urban Crossroads, 2023e. 534 Struck Avenue Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Screening Evaluation. January 5, 2023.
604
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

7.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The following reports, studies, and supporting documentation were used in the preparation of this EIR and are incorporated by reference within this EIR. A copy of the following reports, studies, and supporting documentation is a matter of public record and is generally available to the public at the location listed.

Cited As: Citation:

Orange,
2010a
City of Orange, 2010. General Plan EIR. March 2010. Accessed January 27, 2022.

Available on-line:
https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/communitydevelopment/general-plan Orange,
2010b
City of Orange, 2010. City of Orange General Plan. March 2010. Accessed January 13, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/communitydevelopment/general-plan Orange,
2011
City of Orange, 2011. Stormwater Local Implementation Plan. July 2011.

Available on-line: https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/publicworks/engineering-division/storm-water/local-implementation-plan Orange,
2015a
City of Orange, 2015. General Plan Land Use Element. December 2015. Accessed January 12, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/208/6376981725556 30000
Orange,
2015b
City of Orange, 2015. General Plan Natural Resources Element. December 8, 2015.

Accessed January 12, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/210/6376981725592 70000
Orange,
2015c
City of Orange, 2015. General Plan Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation.

December 2015. Accessed January 12, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/196/6376981725343 00000
Orange,
2015d
City of Orange, 2015. General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element. December 8, 2015. Accessed January 12, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/192/6376981725259 70000
Orange,
2020
City of Orange, 2020. Zoning Map. September 1, 2020. Accessed January 12, 2022.

Available on-line:
https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/40/63770760741330 0000
Orange,
2021
City of Orange, 2021. City of Orange Municipal Code. November 9, 2021. Accessed January 12, 2022. Available on-line:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code 605
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

7.4 DOCUMENTS AND WEBSITES CONSULTED
Cited As: Citation:

BSC, n.d. Building Standards Commission, n.d. California Building Standards Code. No date.

Accessed Available on-line: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes CAB, n.d. California Architects Board, n.d. Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act. No date. Available on-line: https://www.cab.ca.gov/general_information/esbssa.shtml CA
Legislative
Info, n.d.

CA Legislative Information, n.d. Fish and Game Code, Division 4, Chapter 2. No date. Accessed Available on-line:
http://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=4.& chapter=1.&part=2.&lawCode=FGC
CA
Legislative
Info, n.d.

CA Legislative Information, n.d. Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. No date.

Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC &sectionNum=5097.98
CA
Legislative
Info, n.d.

CA Legislative Information, n.d. Health and Safety Code 7050.5. No date. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC &sectionNum=7050.5
CA
Legislative
Info, n.d.

CA Legislative Information, n.d. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. No date. Available on-line:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chap ter=7.5.&lawCode=PRC
CA
Legislative
Info, n.d.

CA Legislative Information, n.d. Natural Hazards Disclosure Act. No date.

Available on-line:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1 103.2.&lawCode=CIV
CA
Legislative
Info, n.d.

CA Legislative Information, n.d. Hazardous Waste Control Law. No date.

Available on-line:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCo de=HSC&division=20.&title=&part=&chapter=6.5.&article=
CA
Legislative
Info, n.d.

CA Legislative Information, n.d. California Water Code. No date. Available online:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=WAT&t ocTitle=+Water+Code+-+WAT
CalFire,
2011
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. October 2011. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5892/c30_orange_vhfhsz_2.pdf CalRecycle,
2006
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2006. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. 2006. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates 606
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

CalRecycle,
2020a
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2020. Olinda Alpha Landfill. 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2757?siteID=2093 CalRecycle,
2020b
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2020. Frank R.

Bowerman Landfill. 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2103 CalRecycle,
2020c
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2020. Pima Deschecha Landfill. 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2085 Caltrans,
2019
California Department of Transportation. 2019. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highway. August 2019. Accessed January 27, 2022.

Available on-line:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-andeligible-aug2019_a11y.xlsx Carollo,
2020
Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo). 2020. Upgrades to Plants Nos. 1 and 2. Accessed May 12, 2020. Available:
https://www.carollo.com/projects/ocsd-upgrades-to-plant-nos-1-and-2 CBSC, 2019 California Building Standards Code, 2019. Guide to Title 24 California Building Standards Code. Available on-line: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/PageContent/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources-List-Folder/Guidebooks--- Title-24
CDC, n.d. California Department of Conservation. n.d. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. No date.

Available on-line: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shma CDFW, n.d. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, n.d. Threatened and Endangered Species. No date. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA
CDFW, n.d. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, n.d. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). No date. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/nccp
Center for
Climate and
Energy
Solutions,
2015
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2015. Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris. December 12, 2015. Available on-line:
https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/outcomes-of-the-u-n-climatechange-conference-in-paris.pdf CNRA, 2019 California Natural Resources Agency, 2019. CEQA Article 5. 2019. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2019_CEQA_Statutes_and_ Guidelines.pdf
DOC, 2016a California Department of Conservation, 2016. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. 2016. Available on-line:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/
607
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

DOC, 2016b California Department of Conservation, 2016. Calfornia Important Farmland Finder. 2016. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
DTSC, n.d. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, n.d. Official California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5. No date. Available on-line:
https://dtsc.ca.gov/title22/
DTSC, 2019 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2019. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Substances Law Code Excerpts. Available on-line:
https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2019/06/HSC-2018-Full-Doc.pdf DWR, n.d. California Department of Water Resources, n.d. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). No date. Available on-line:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-GroundwaterManagement DWR, 2020 California Department of Water Resources, 2020. Basin Prioritization. May 1, 2020. Available on-line: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Basin-Prioritization EDD, 2020 California Employment Development Department. 2020. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places - April 2020, Orange County. 2020.

Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-forcities-and-census-areas.html EDR, 2016 EDR, 2016. Guidance on ASTM's REC-HERC-CREC Definitions. April 18, 2016.

Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://edrnet.com/guide-rec-definitions/
EPA, 2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Estimating 2003 BuildingRelated Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. 2009. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf EPA, 2019 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. Summary of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Available on-line: https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/summary-occupational-safety-and-health-act EPA, 2020a United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Summary of Clean Water Act. September 9, 2020. Available on-line: https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/summary-clean-water-act EPA, 2020b United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Summary of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Available on-line: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensiveenvironmental-response-compensation-and-liability-act EPA, 2020c United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Available on-line: https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act 608
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

EPA, 2020d United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Available on-line: https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act EPA, 2020e United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Summary of the Noise Control Act. Available on-line: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summarynoise-control-act FEMA, 2009 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. FEMA FIRM No. 06059C0161J.

December 3, 2009. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=534%20struck%20avenue%2C %20orange%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor
FHWA,
2017
Federal Highway Administration, 2017. Highway Traffic Noise. June 6, 2017.

Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/
FTA, 2006 Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration _Manual.pdf
FTA, 2018 Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Available on-line:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-ftareport-no-0123_0.pdf Google Earth
Pro, 2021
Google Earth Pro, 2021. Multiple Dates. Version 7.3.2.5776. Computer Software.

NAHC, n.d. Native American Heritage Commission, n.d. State Laws and Codes. No date.

Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line: http://nahc.ca.gov/codes/state-lawsand-codes/ NOAA, n.d. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, n.d. American Indian Religious Freedom Act. No date. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://coast.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/Summary%20of%20Law %20-%20American%20Indian%20Religious%20Freedom%20Act.pdf NPS, n.d. National Parks Service, n.d. California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4308.

No date. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/627/files/california%20code%20of%20regulations .doc
NPS, n.d. National Parks Service, n.d. Fossils and Paleontology Laws, Regulations, and Policies. No date. Available on-line: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/fossilprotection.htm NPS, 2021a National Park Service, 2021. The National Historic Preservation Program:

Overview. October 20, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nhpa.htm
609
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

NPS, 2021b National Park Service, 2021. National Historic Landmarks Program. September 3, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1582/index.htm
NPS, 2021c National Park Service, 2021. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. March 30, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm
NPS, 2021d National Park Service, 2021. About the Antiquities Act. October 20, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/about.htm NPS, 2020 National Park Service, 2020a. National Register of Historic Places FAQ. September 23, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/faqs.htm
OHP, n.d. Office of Historic Preservation, n.d. California Register of Historical Resources. No date. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238
OPR, 2005 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines.

November 14, 2005. Accessed January 27, 2002. Available on-line:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/011414_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf OPR, 2017a Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017. General Plan Guidelines. 2017.

Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html OPR, 2017b Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017. Technical Advisory AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA. June 2017. Accessed January 27, 2022.

Available on-line:
http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Technical-Advisory-AB-52-andTribal-Cultural-Resources-in-CEQA.pdf OPR, 2019 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2019. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2019. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf OSHA, 2002 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2002. Hearing Conservation. 2002.

Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3074.pdf OSHA, n.d. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d. Trucking Industry. No date.

Available on-line: https://www.osha.gov/trucking-industry OSHA, n.d. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d. California State Plan. No date.

Available on-line: https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/california.html

SARWQCB,
2019
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2019. Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. June 2019. Accessed January 14, 2022. Available online:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ 610
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

SAWPA,
2019
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, 2019. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM). February 19, 2019. Accessed January 14, 2022.

Available on-line: https://sawpa.org/owow/owow-irwm-plans/ SCAG, 2018 Southern California Association of Governments, 2018. Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region. April 2018. Available on-line:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/final_report_03_30_18.pdf?1604268012 SCAG,
2020a
Southern California Association of Governments, 2020. 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

September 3, 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176 SCAG,
2020b
Southern California Association of Governments, 2020. Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. September 3, 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growthforecast.pdf?1606001579 SCEC, 1999 Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999. Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in CA. March 1999. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.tugraz.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Institute/IAG/Files/33_Liquefaction_ Mitigation-DMG_SP117.pdf
SWRCB,
2014
California State Water Resources Control Board, 2014. 0A – Federal, State and Local Laws, Policy and Regulations. June 23, 2014. Available on-line:
http://waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/encyclopedia/0a_laws_policy .shtml
SWRCB,
2016
California State Water Resources Control Board, 2016. A Compilation of Water Quality Goals. January 2016. Available on-line:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_goals/docs/ wq_goals_text.pdf
SWRCB,
2017
California State Water Resources Control Board, 2017. Watershed Management.

August 3, 2017. Available on-line:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/watershed/ USFWS,
2017
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017. ESA Basics. February 2017. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.fws.gov/law/endangered-species-act
USFWS,
2020
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. April 16, 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratorybird-treaty-act.php 611
534 Struck Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

7.5 PERSONS CONSULTED/WRITTEN OR VERBAL COMMUNICATION

7.5.1 PUBLIC SERVICE CORRESPONDENCE
Orange City Fire Department
Robert Stefano, Deputy Chief of Operations

7.5.2 TRIBAL CONSULTATION
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairman
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
Samuel Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director
San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chief
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural Coordinator
612
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1870-20
APPENDICES CAN BE VIEWED ON THE CITY”S WEBSITE UNDER

THE PROJECT NOTICES & ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS SECTION
USING THE LINK BELOW:
https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/communitydevelopment/planning-division/current-projects 613
614
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2021090399
534 Struck Avenue
City of Orange, California
Lead Agency
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Project Applicant
Prologis, L.P.
17777 Center Court Drive North, Suite 100
Cerritos, CA 90703
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
Conditional Use Permit No. 3137-21
Major Site Plan Review No. 1039-21
Design Review No. 5028-21
Environmental Review No. 1870-20
June 28, 2023
615
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Public Review Process.........................................................................................................1-2

1.2 List of EIR Commenters......................................................................................................1-2 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments Received During the Public Review Period.........................2-1 Section 3.0 Clarifications and Revisions ........................................................................................3-1 616
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Orange, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the 534 Struck Avenue Project (Project) (SCH No. 2021090399) and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency.

According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The City Council will consider certification of the EIR, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Facts, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project.

This Final EIR document is organized as follows:

Section 1 provides a brief introduction to this document, a summary of the public review process, and a list of commenters.

Section 2 provides responses to the public comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period. Responses are provided in the form of individual responses to comment letters received. Comment letters are followed immediately by the responses to each letter.

Section 3 contains revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received from agencies and interested persons as well as errata identified in the EIR. This information does not constitute significant new information and recirculation of the EIR for further review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required. 617
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

1.1 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Orange (City) has taken steps to provide opportunities for public participation in the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on July 29, 2022 to responsible agencies, local government agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day public review period (from August 1, 2022, to August 30, 2022) in order to solicit comments and inform agencies and the public of the Project. The NOP was also distributed to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH) for distribution to State agencies. The NOP was posted on the City’s website, Newspaper, and at the County Clerk’s office on July 29, 2022. The Project was described; potential environmental effects associated with Project implementation were identified; and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the NOP. A copy of the NOP and comments received are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The City received 5 comment letters in response to the NOP. Table 1-1 of the Draft EIR provides a brief summary of the NOP comments received that address environmental and related issues.

CEQA requires that a Draft EIR have a review period lasting at least 45 days for projects that have been submitted to the SCH for review (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105[a]). The Draft EIR was available for public review for 45 days, beginning on March 31, 2023 and ending on May 15, 2023.

The Draft EIR was distributed to various public agencies, organizations, and individuals on March 30, 2023. The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft EIR. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR was distributed to the SCH for distribution to State agencies and was posted on the City’s website. The NOA was posted also at the County Clerk’s office on March 31, 2023. The NOA was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, and interested parties that received the NOP, to individuals who had previously requested the NOA or EIR, and to individuals who provided NOP comments on March 30, 2023. The NOA and Draft EIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/communitydevelopment/planning-division/current-projects.

The Planning Commission, as a recommending body, is scheduled to hold a public hearing on July 17, 2023, to consider whether to recommend approval of the Project, associated actions, and certification of the EIR to City Council.

Following the Planning Commission hearing, City Council, as the final approval body, will hold a public hearing to consider approving the proposed Project, associated actions, and certification of the Final EIR for the Project.

1.2 LIST OF EIR COMMENTERS
In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, following is a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted comments on the Draft EIR. The City received a total of 5 comment letters, including 3 from agencies and organizations and 2 individuals.

Responses to each comment are in Section 2.0. Agency and Organization Comment letters have been assigned a letter (i.e., A, B, C) and each comment within the transmittal is divided into sequential numbered comments (i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3). Individual comment letters have been assigned a number (i.e., 1, 2, 3) and each comment within the transmittal is divided into sequential numbered comments (i.e., 1-1, 1-2, 1-3).
618
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Comment Date of Letter
Agencies and Organizations
A. California Department of Transportation, District 12 May 15, 2023 B. Orange County Health Care Agency Land Use and Water Quality Division May 2, 2023 C. Orange County Transportation Authority May 15, 2023
Individuals

1. Keith Ealy May 12, 2023

2. John Miller April 12, 2023
619
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
All of the comment letters received by the City have been included and responded to in this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). Comments that address environmental concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Comments that do not require a response are indicated below and include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR (i.e., are outside the scope of CEQA); (2) do not raise environmental issues; (3) do not address the Project; or (4) request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines the parameters for public agencies and interested parties to submit comments and the Lead Agency’s responsibility for responding to specific comments. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), comments should be related to:
[T]he sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible…CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or suggested by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises that, “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(d) notes that, “[e]ach responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility;” but, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e), “[t]his section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section [CEQA Guidelines Section 15204].”
Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.
620
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment. d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:

1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or

2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments.

This section includes responses to substantive Draft EIR comments received by the City. With respect to comment letters received, aside from certain courtesy statements, introductions, and closings, individual comments within the body of each letter have been identified and numbered. A copy of each comment letter and the City’s responses to each applicable comment are included in this section.

Brackets delineating the individual comments and a numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter. Responses to each comment identified are included on the page(s) following each comment letter.

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, written responses to public agency comments shall be provided to the public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR.

As described in Section 3.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document the Draft EIR, revisions and information presented in response to comments received do not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring recirculation; therefore, the EIR does not need to be recirculated prior to its certification. 621
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Comment Letter A
A-1
622
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Comment Letter A
A-2
A-3
A-4
623
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Responses to Comment A
California Department of Transportation, District 12, Scott Shelley, Branch Chief, RegionalIGR-Transit Planning, dated May 15, 2023.

A-1 The commenter expresses gratitude for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Project and provides a general summary of the Project Description as provided in the Draft EIR. The commenter notes that Caltrans is a responsible agency for the Project. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to in the following responses below.

A-2 The commenter states that the applicant’s assertion that “the Project site is within an urbanized and industrial portion of the city that is not conducive to walking (pg. 4.10-9)” is an unacceptable characterization of the local context. The commenter then states that complete streets elements are appropriate in all conventional roadway contexts.

The City disagrees with the commenter that the Draft EIR incorrectly asserted that the Project site is within an urbanized and industrial portion of the city that is not conducive to walking.

As discussed in Section 2.3, Surrounding Land Uses, of the Draft EIR, the Project site is surrounded on all sides by industrial and commercial development. Specifically, the City of Orange Corporate Yard and Public Works Department and HUB OC are to the north; the OCTA/SCRRA Railroad, industrial buildings and storage yard to the east, multifamily to the northeast; and several industrial and commercial businesses to the south and west. As described in Section 2.5.7, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the Project site is not located in any of the key commercial corridors of the pedestrian-oriented streetscape master plan as identified by the City and there are no sidewalks provided along the Project’s site frontage from North Parker Street to the Struck Avenue cul-de-sac, or along North Parker Street. Additionally, there are no existing or proposed bicycle facilities in the Project area. While the Project area does not have enhance pedestrian amenities, the City acknowledges that complete streets elements for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit) can be incorporated into roadway designs. However, the Project would enhance pedestrian facilities by providing a sidewalk and landscaping along the Project’s site frontage. Nevertheless, pursuant to Caltrans’s request, the reference to the Project site not being conducive to walking has been removed from the Draft EIR, as shown in in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.

The commenter also rejects the assertation that “no impacts would occur” regarding bicycle and pedestrian circulation and encourages the applicant to work with the City of Orange to supplement its Bikeway Master Plan to enhance safety for all road users. The commenter does not provide any reasoning or support for the assertion that the Project would impact bicycle and pedestrian facilities or circulation. As discussed in Section 2.5.7 of the Draft EIR, under existing conditions, Struck Avenue is classified as a Collector Street (2 lanes undivided) and sidewalks are provided along Struck Avenue, except along the Project’s site frontage, from North Parker Street to the cul-de-sac. The Project would enhance pedestrian facilities by providing a sidewalk and landscaping along the Project’s site frontage.

According to Figure CM-3 of the City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element, there are no existing Class II (on-street, striped) or Class III (signed, but not striped) bike lanes within 624
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

the Project site and its surroundings. The nearest bike lane is a proposed Class I (off-road) bike facility proposed along the Collins Channel, approximately 0.3 miles northwest from the Project site. In addition, according to OCTA’s Orange County Bikeways Map, there are no existing Class I Off Road (Paved), Class II On-Road (striped lanes), or Class III On-Road (Signed Only) bikeways within the Project site and its surroundings1 . Implementation of the
Project would not interfere with the City’s Bikeway Master Plan or result in changes to the existing surrounding bikeways. Thus, no changes were made to the conclusion regarding impacts to bicycle and pedestrian circulation. The Project Applicant is not required to update the City’s Bikeway Master Plan and Struck Avenue is not identified as a proposed bikeway in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.

A-3 The commenter suggests encouraging or incentivizing the use of transit among both construction workers and future employees of the proposed Project. The commenter states that increasing multimodal transportation will lead to a reduction to congestion, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and improve air quality. As discussed in the Section 4.10, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the Project meets the Low VMT Area screening criteria and would result in a less than significant VMT impact (refer to Pages 4.10-11 to 4.10-12). Therefore, no mitigation measures, such as incentivizing transit, are required.

However, with respect to construction, the Project Applicant has entered into a Project Labor Agreement with Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), which will provide that local workers are hired in first priority. This will have the effect of reducing air quality emissions by allowing local workers to work on the construction of a local project instead of commuting to a job site in downtown Los Angeles.

Chapter 10.83 Transportation Demand Management Program of the City’s Municipal Code requires new industrial developments and redevelopment resulting in a job site employment of 100 persons or more are required to prepare a “Transportation Demand Management Program.” This policy would reduce the number of peak-period vehicle trips generated in association with additional development, promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, achieve related reductions in vehicle trips and trip congestion, and achieve air quality improvements.2 It is anticipated that the proposed facility would employ a total of 60 to 130 employees. Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with Chapter 10.83 of the City’s Municipal Code. Accordingly, the commenter’s suggestion will be addressed through the “Transportation Demand Management Program” which the Project Applicant will prepare as part of the Project.

A-4 The commenter concludes the letter and requests continued coordination with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. The City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans and acknowledges Julie Lugaro as the Caltrans contact person. Therefore, no further response is needed.
1 https://www.cityoforange.org/home/showpublisheddocument/326/637699036134830000 2 https://library.qcode.us/lib/orange_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_10-chapter_10_83-10_83_010 625
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Comment Letter B
B-1
B-2
B-3
626
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Responses to Comment B
Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) Land and Water Quality Division (LWQD), Geniece Higgins, Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist, dated May 15, 2023.

B-1 The commenter expresses gratitude for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Project.

The commenter states that the Draft EIR acknowledges the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) at the Project site. The commenter provides records for assessment and cleanup activities for VOCs, conducted at the Project site with OCHCA oversight, which can be found on the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. The City acknowledges this comment and no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed. The City has reviewed the attachments provided and referenced by the commenter, which are included as Appendix A to this Final EIR.

B-2 The commenter states that for all sites with historical uses or releases of hazardous chemicals, a qualified person should be onsite during excavation/grading activities to identify areas with residual contamination to ensure that removal, disposal, and waste tracking is conducted in accordance with applicable regulations. The commenter states that if previously unknown contamination is encountered during site development, the Project Applicant should contact the OCHCA LWQD supervisor at (714) 433-6260 or the Environmental Health Main Line at (714) 433-6000. As discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, there is a potential for the Project site to contain impacted soil or other subsurface features that may need to be appropriately and expeditiously managed due to additional agency oversight and/or any permitting necessary to properly abandon such features (refer to Page 4.7- 10). A Soil Management Plan was prepared (Technical Appendix H3 of the Draft EIR) to provide procedures for efficiently managing potentially-impacted soils and/or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) during site preparation activities. Contractors must follow the applicable California Department of Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations for construction safety in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 8, Sections 1500-1938.

Contractor employees involved in remediation activities must be HAZWOPER-trained personnel. Compliance with the Soil Management Plan by all Project construction contractors and occupants would ensure that any hazardous materials used on-site would be safely and appropriately handled. The City and the Project Applicant will coordinate with OCHCA LWQD if previously unknown contamination is encountered during site development. Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.

B-3 The commenter notes that cleanup cases that have previously been issued No Further Action (NFA) letters were evaluated for NFA based on site use and cleanup standards at the time of NFA determination. The commenter notes that additional evaluation, by a qualified environmental professional familiar with the proposed development, may be necessary. The City acknowledges this comment and understands that standards and regulations at the time of NFA determination may be different to what is in place currently. A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Technical Appendices H1 and H2) and Soil Management Plan (Technical Appendix H3 of the Draft EIR) were prepared by experts to provide procedures for efficiently managing potentially-impacted soils and/or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) 627
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

during site preparation activities (see Response to Comment B-2). Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed. 628
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Comment Letter C
C-1
C-2
C-5
C-6
C-8
C-3
C-7
C-4
629
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Comment Letter C
C-11
C-9
C-10
C-8
(CONT.)
630
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Responses to Comment C
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Dan Phu, Manager, Environmental Programs, dated May 15, 2023.

C-1 The commenter expresses gratitude for providing OCTA with the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for the Project. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to in the following responses below.

C-2 In Section 4.10.1 subsection c: Existing Transit Service on page 4.10-1 of the Draft EIR, the commenter requests removal of the reference to Route 153 as this route does not serve the Project area. Pursuant to OCTA’s request, the reference to Route 153 has been removed from the Draft EIR, as shown in strikeout below and in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.

OCTA Route 50 and Route 153 runs along Katella Avenue and portions of Main Street (north of Katella Avenue).

C-3 The commenter notes there are references to a BNSF railroad. The commenter notes that the railroad on the east side of the property is owned by OCTA and operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). The City acknowledges that the railroad east of the project is owned and operated by OCTA and SCRRA, respectively; however, the railroad spur within the Project site boundary is privately owned.

The commenter requests removal of all references of BNSF from all plans and applicable documents and revise the reference to OCTA/SCRRA. Accordingly, pg. 5-10 has been revised as shown below and in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR.

Existing industrial development borders the Site to the south and west; the BNSF OCTA/SCRRA railroad track borders the Site to the east, and Struck Avenue and the public facility uses border the site to the north.

C-4 The commenter notes that there is an industry track along the eastern property line of the Project site that is proposed to be removed. The commenter notes that coordination with SCRRA is required for the abandonment of the industry track. The commenter requests coordination with SCRRA for the abandonment. Redevelopment of the Project site would include the removal of the existing, unused private railroad spur located on the east side of the Project site. This railroad spur is privately owned and is not owned, maintained, or operated by OCTA/SCRRA; therefore, no approvals form OCTA/SCRRA are required for its abandonment. However, pursuant to the conditions of approval required by the City, the Project Applicant will coordinate with OCTA and SCRRA during submittal of Project plans (e.g. building permits). Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.

C-5 The commenter requests that all site drainage, both temporary and permanent, is drained away from the railroad. Under existing conditions, the Project site slopes down at approximately 1% grade to the west. The existing drainage pattern for the Project site is characterized by draining south to north and east to west. For the majority of the existing site, flows drain to a ribbon gutter located on the western side of the Project site. The ribbon gutter conveys flows off-site 631
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

to Struck Avenue without migration or treatment. The eastern portion of the site, including the existing railroad, drains from south to north along an existing curb and gutter. This includes the existing railroad facility along the eastern boundary of the Project site. All flows from this area drain north to Struck Avenue and west to North Batavia Street.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, under Project conditions, the Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern by draining flows from south to north, to the northwest corner away from the railroad (refer to Page 4.8-11). Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.

C-6 The commenter states that any Project lighting must be designed and shielded in a manner that does not allow light to shine towards or onto the tracks. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, the Project’s proposed lighting is required to be consistent with the City Municipal Code Section 17.12.030, Lighting, and Section 17.20.280, Emission of Lighting, Glare, Dust, and Heat, which states that lighting shall be directed, controlled, screened, or shaded in a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding premises.

Implementation of the Project would not introduce new sources of light that would substantially affect day or nighttime views in the area (refer to Page 5-8). Thus, no further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.

C-7 The commenter states that any landscaping and trees near the railroad tracks must be maintained and avoid encroaching onto the railroad. The commenter references Section 26.4.2 General Clearances of the SCRRA Design Criteria Manual3 for any trees along the right of way (ROW) line. The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Metrolink’s Manual to ensure adequate visibility along the railroad right of way. Although no environmental impact has been identified, in order to address the commenters concerns, the following measure will be added to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program:

Prior to approval of the final landscape plan, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City and OCTA with respect to the type and location of trees at the northeast corner and along the northern boundary of the Project site to ensure consistency with Metrolink’s Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)’s Design Criteria Manual.

C-8 The commenter notes that a Right of Way Encroachment Agreement with SCRRA may be necessary during construction. The commenter requests contact and coordination with SCRRA and references Metrolink’s ROW Encroachment4
. The Project Applicant will contact and
coordinate with SCRRA should a Right of Way Encroachment Agreement be necessary. No further response is needed. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.

C-9 The commenter requests coordination with OCTA and Metrolink for the final design and construction of the Project. Refer to Response to Comment C-7, the Project Applicant will coordinate with OCTA and Metrolink during final design and construction drawings.

C-10 The commenter requests confirmation that Metrolink has reviewed the proposed Project.

SCRRA/Metrolink was provided the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR and link to 3 https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/engineering/scrra_design_criteria_manual.pdf 4 https://metrolinktrains.com/about/agency/right-of-way/ 632
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

download the Draft EIR. No comments were received from Metrolink during the public review period, which occurred for 45 days from March 31, 2023 to May 15, 2023.

C-11 The commenter concludes the comment letter and encourages communication with OCTA per the comments above. The City and Project Applicant will continue to coordinate with OCTA and acknowledges Dan Phu as the OCTA contact person. Therefore, no further response is needed.
633
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Comment Letter 1
1-3
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-1
1-2
1-4
634
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Responses to Comment 1
Keith Ealy, dated May 12, 2023.
1-1 The commenter introduces themselves and states that they are a property and business owner at 981 N. Parker Street. The commenter expresses concerns with the Project as the Project site is located adjacent to 981 N. Parker Street. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to in the following responses below. 1-2 The commenter expresses concerns with the location of the truck repair shop which is adjacent to their property. The commenter is correct in stating that the 5,400 square foot (sf) maintenance building is located adjacent to their property on the southwest portion of the property. Per the commenter’s concerns, the maintenance building has been relocated to the southeastern portion of the Project site, along the southern Project boundary. Accordingly, Figure 3-2, Truck Terminal Site Plan, has been revised to depict the relocation of maintenance building. The updated figure is shown below in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. 1-3 The commenter expresses concerns with the ventilation of the exhaust fumes coming from the proposed facility. The commenter states that when working on trucks in the shop, the trucks must hook up to an exhaust system which then goes through a ventilation system and ventilated out the roof. The commenter states that their building is less than 20 feet from the proposed development and the fumes from the proposed facility would go directly into their building causing an unhealthful air for their employees and themselves. The commenter notes that they have addressed this situation a couple months back at the City Hall meeting.

Please refer to Response to Comment 1-2 regarding the relocation of the maintenance building.

The purpose of the maintenance building is to provide routine maintenance for trucks entering the site. Common activities include oil changes, tune-ups, tire gauging, cargo weighing, etc.

When needed, diagnostics will be run which may lead to the use of the exhaust capture system.

However, these services are performed on an as needed basis. Additionally, according to Section 4.1, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor approximately 22 feet west of the Project site (refer to Page 4.1-18). Location R6 represents Meter Tech Services & Equipment located at 1035 N. Parker Street in Figure 4.1-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations, of the Draft EIR. For the sensitive receptors that were analyzed, all distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. According to Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, Project construction and operation would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s cancer and non-cancer thresholds during construction or operation. Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations due to the Project, and impacts would be less than significant (refer to Page 4.1-32). Nevertheless, to address the commenter’s concerns, the maintenance building has been relocated to the south boundary of the Project site, which is adjacent to a parking area to the south. The relocation of the maintenance building would increase the distance of this building from sensitive receptors and further reduce the air quality impacts of the Project, although they were found to be less than significant. 635
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

1-4 The comment states that the facility must be relocated to a different part of the property. The commenter recommends the east side next to the railroad tracks. Refer to Response to Comment 1-2 regarding the relocation of the maintenance building. Thus, no further response is required.
1-5 The commenter states that they cannot stand for the location of the truck repair shop and that it would put a great health hazard on their employees and themselves. Refer to Response to Comment 1-2 and 1-3. Thus, no further response is required. 1-6 The commenter expresses concerns with the proposed truck routes. The commenter states that there is no truck route available and that Struck Avenue is a small street. With the new apartments being built at the end of the block, the commenter states that this will cause a lot of traffic and danger to pedestrians.

As discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of the Draft EIR, the proposed multifamily (low-rise) development north of the Project was analyzed in the traffic study as shown in Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Land Use Summary and Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Location Map. As discussed in Section 4.10, Transportation, the analysis under Threshold “a” indicates that the Project would not conflict with relevant programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system. Each related project is required to comply with all applicable relevant programs, plans, and policies. Therefore, no cumulative impact would occur. Moreover, as concluded in the Traffic Analysis (Technical Appendix K1 to this EIR), the Project would not result in deficiencies at any of the 9 study area intersections analyzed, including Struck Avenue at Katella Avenue, Main Street, or Batavia.

As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, trucks would be required to utilize Citydesignated truck routes to and from the Project site (refer to Page 3-7). The implementation of the Project would not require widening of surrounding roadways to accommodate truck-trailer traffic. Truck-trailers would travel to and from the site from the SR-57 and Katella Avenue.

Katella Avenue north of the Project is identified as a truck route. Truck-trailer travel would be limited to:
• Truck-trailer Truck-trailers exiting the site would travel west on Struck Avenue, turn right onto northbound Batavia Street and turn left onto westbound Katella Avenue to access the SR-57.
• Truck-trailers entering the site would exit the SR-57 at Katella eastbound, turn right at Batavia Street southbound, and turn left onto Struck Avenue eastbound. • Traveling eastbound from SR-57 on Katella Avenue, truck-trailers would be prohibited from turning right onto Struck Avenue to access the site. West of Batavia Street, all eastbound and westbound truck-trailer movement will occur on Katella Avenue.

Additionally, the City will impose conditions of approval to require 1) posting of the truck routes in the building; 2) tenant provided driver education on the truck route; and 3) truck route street signage.
636
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

The commenter suggests that an increase in traffic in the area would result in increased safety hazards. As discussed in the Traffic Analysis (Technical Appendix K1 to this EIR), the Project would generate a total of 26 AM and 23 PM peak hour trips with 7 AM and 7 PM peak hour trips from 4+-axle trucks. As shown in Figure 4.10-5, Project Driveway Truck Access, Project’s driveways would be widened to accommodate 40-foot width and install stop control on the northbound approach (egress Project traffic) to implement a cross-street stop-controlled intersection. Additionally, the truck exit would occur at the westernmost driveway (driveway 1) away from the existing driveway across Struck Avenue to the north, which would provide access to the proposed Orange City Yard Affordable Housing Project, located approximately 220 feet north of the Project site. Therefore, there is adequate turning radius and queuing for trucking entering and exiting the Project site.

The current speed limit on Struck Avenue is 25 miles per hour. Due to the short distance along Struck Avenue, trucks will tend to travel at slower speeds, especially when carrying goods.

The Project would also improve pedestrian circulation by improving the sidewalk along the Project’s frontage. All Project driveways would be required to be designed to ensure all sight distance requirements are met. This ensures truck drivers and pedestrians maintain good visibility to minimize conflicts. The City has installed the necessary traffic control devices along Batavia (e.g. crosswalks and traffic signals) and has installed signage and roadway striping per the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) and City requirements along all roadways in the vicinity. Additionally, red curb marking are installed as required by the City to maintain sight distance at driveways and intersections. Moreover, Struck Avenue has existing street lights per City standards for uniform lighting. Based on the preceding, the Project would not result in an increase in safety hazards to pedestrians.

Therefore, no additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
1-7 The commenter concludes the comment letter and provides their contact information. The commenter notes that the Project Applicant is a multi-billion company moving in and they can move the truck repair building to the other side of the property. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are needed.
637
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Comment Letter 2
2-3
2-1
2-10
2-12
2-4
2-6
2-5
2-7
2-9
2-8
2-2
2-11
2-13
2-14
638
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Responses to Comment 2
John Miller, dated April 12, 2023.
2-1 The commenter inquires whether trucks would be directed to go down Struck to Katella per map provided. Trucks would be prohibited from traveling directly to the SR-57 from Struck to Katella. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, truck-trailers would travel to and from the Project site from the SR-57 and Katella Avenue. Katella Avenue, which is north of the Project site, is identified as a truck route. Truck-trailer travel would be limited to:
• Truck-trailer Truck-trailers exiting the site would travel west on Struck Avenue, turn right onto northbound Batavia Street and turn left onto westbound Katella Avenue to access the SR-57.
• Truck-trailers entering the site would exit the SR-57 at Katella eastbound, turn right at Batavia Street southbound, and turn left onto Struck Avenue eastbound. • Traveling eastbound from SR-57 on Katella Avenue, truck-trailers would be prohibited from turning right onto Struck Avenue to access the site. West of Batavia Street, all eastbound and westbound truck-trailer movement will occur on Katella Avenue.

No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-2 The commenter states there is no way a truck or trailer could make a turn from Struck to Katella or Katella to Struck. Refer to Response to Comment 2-1. All eastbound and westbound truck routes will occur on Katella Avenue and would be prohibited from traveling from Struck Avenue to Katella Avenue and vice versa.
2-3 The commenter states that the soil sample report shows several samples around the property.

The commenter asks why two testing locations are within an area highlighted in green and two others that are behind 1015 and 1031 are highlighted in orange.

The commenter is referring to the borings on Figure 2, Boring Location Map, of the Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated June 30, 2020. The colors on the figure have no relevance to soil contamination. The colored areas were part of the base map provided by the civil grading plan to depict the storm water design which are no longer applicable to the Project. The commenter is correct in stating that VOC concentrations were detected above screening levels in Borings 11 and 12, which are located in the green highlight. As discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) was prepared (Technical Appendix H3) to provide procedures for efficiently managing potentiallyimpacted soils and/or USTs during site preparation activities (refer to Page 4.7-10).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 would ensure that the Project Contractor adheres to the protocols and performance standards stipulated in the SMP and any contaminated soils or other contaminated materials encountered during Project construction that are determined to be hazardous by an applicable government oversight agency are 639
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

appropriately remediated so that they would not pose a hazard to the public or the environment during construction or in the long-term. Thus, no additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required. 2-4 The commenter requests testing of Boring B-10 and inquires about the levels. Table IA of the Limited Phase II ESA, which is Appendix H2 to the Draft EIR, discusses the results of the soil samples at each boring location collected on the Project site. At Boring B-10, no levels of Freon 113, Dichlorodifluoromethane, Tetrachloroethene, and Trichloroethene were detected at all depth levels. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-5 The commenter requests a copy of the results from the testing of Boring B-10. Refer to the Limited Phase II ESA, Appendix H2 to the Draft EIR, on the results of the soil testing at the Project site. The technical appendices to the Draft EIR can be found on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityoforange.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planningdivision/current-projects. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-6 The commenter states that based on the site plan, trailer stalls would be placed against their property line. The commenter is correct in stating that trailer parking stalls would be placed surrounding the proposed building against the property line. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required. 2-7 The commenter inquires about the type of fencing that will be installed, chain-link or block wall. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project Applicant would install an approximately 8-foot-high tubular steel fencing along the site’s perimeter to enclose the proposed building, parking area, truck court and loading dock area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-8 The commenter states that the plans say the fencing will be 8’ tubular steel. The commenter is correct in stating that the fencing will be 8’ tubular steel. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required. 2-9 The commenter prefers block wall due to the possibility of a trailer backing into the fence. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.
2-10 The commenter inquires about the engine rebuilding/tractor run for hours with diesel at the maintenance building. Refer to Response to Comment 1-3 on the operation of the maintenance building. Thus, no further response is required. .
640
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

2-11 The commenter states that the engine rebuilding/tractor run will emit smells and emissions into the air. Refer to Response to Comment 1-3 on the operation of the maintenance building. As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, localized air quality impacts were evaluated at sensitive receptor land uses nearest the Project site as shown on Figure 4.1-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations (refer to Page 4.1-18). The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor approximately 22 feet west of the Project site (refer to Page 4.1-31).

At the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.16 in one million which is less than the South Coast AQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors are located at a greater distance than the MEIW analyzed herein, and DPM dissipates with distance from the source, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein.

As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers.

In addition, the Project would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 2485, “Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel‐ Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling,” which limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for commercial trucks. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-12 The commenter states that 62 automobile stalls are allotted on property. The commenter is correct in stating that the Project would provide 62 automobile parking stalls. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR.

No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
2-13 The commenter states that 150-200 employees are estimated for the Project. This estimation is from the previously circulated Mitigated Negative Declaration (No. 1870-20) and is incorrect.

As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, it is anticipated that the facility would employ approximately 60 to 130 employees (refer to Page 3-5). The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required. 2-14 The commenter inquiries about overflow parking for employees and asks if employees will be parking on Parker or Struck Avenue. As stated above, the Project would employ approximately 60 to 130 employees in three shifts. According to the City’s Municipal Code and shown in Figure 3-2, Truck Terminal Site Plan, of the Draft EIR, a total of 47 parking spaces is required for the Project. The Project would provide a total of 62 parking spaces, exceeding the City’s requirements. Additionally, a total of 188 trailer parking spaces would be provided onsite.

Therefore, no additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
641
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

This page intentionally left blank.
642
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

SECTION 3.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS
Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) text generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City, are stated in this section of the Final EIR. The information included in this section does not constitute substantial new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines states in part:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

None of the information contained in this section constitutes significant new information or changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR. There were no new significant environmental impacts identified following circulation of the Draft EIR. Likewise, there were no substantial increases in the severity of environmental impacts identified after circulation of the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required because no new information was added to the EIR.

CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the Draft EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the Draft EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined.
643
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Table S-1 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

1. Page S-9 is hereby modified to add MM 4.2-2 from EIR, Section 4.2, Biological Resources.

MM 4.2-2 Prior to approval of a grading permit, a note shall be placed on grading plans that “no personnel working within Project limits will “take” or destroy plants, animals, or active nests (or eggs) of birds that are protected under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).” During pre-construction surveys, a biologist shall train all field staff on appliable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements, environmental laws, and regulations associated with working around biological resources. Verification of training shall be provided to the Community Development Director.

Section 2.0 – Environmental Setting

2. Page 2-11 is hereby modified in response to Comment A-2.

The Project site is not located in any of the key commercial corridors of the pedestrian-oriented streetscape master plan as identified by the City. The Project site is within an urbanized and industrial portion of the City that is not conducive to walking. Under existing conditions, sidewalks are provided along Struck Avenue, except along the Project’s site frontage.

Section 3.0 – Project Description

1. Figure 3-2, Truck Terminal Site Plan, Figure 3-4, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Figure 3- 5, Proposed Grading Plan, are hereby modified in response to Comment 1-2.

Section 4.10 – Transportation

1. Page 4.10-1 is hereby modified in response to Comment C-2.

The Project site is currently served by Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) with bus service along Katella Avenue Main Street. OCTA Route 50 and Route 153 runs along Katella Avenue and portions of Main Street (north of Katella Avenue). OCTA Route 53 runs along Main Street. As shown in Figure 4.10-3, Existing Transit Routes, the closest existing bus stop is located at Batavia Street at Katella Avenue for OCTA Route 50, approximately 0.3 miles northwest from the Project site.

Section 5.0 – Other CEQA Considerations

1. Page 5.10 is hereby modified in response to Comment C-3.

The Project site is developed with the Nursery Supplies, Inc. manufacturing facility. Existing industrial development borders the Site to the south and west; the BNSF OCTA/SCRRA railroad track borders the Site to the east; and Struck Avenue and the public facility uses border the site to the north. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Site with another industrial use with associated parking and landscaping improvements. The Project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur. 644
645
646
647
534 Struck Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399
Attachment A
OCHCA Comment Letter Attachments
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
534 Struck Avenue Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2021090399

Prepared for:

City of Orange
300 E Chapman Ave
Orange, CA 92866
Prepared by:

T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
714-505-6360
June 2023
795
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

CEQA Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document that includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. The appropriate reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code §21081.6).

The City of Orange will coordinate the monitoring of the mitigation measures and regulatory requirements with each applicable City department or division, while various City departments/divisions would be responsible for monitoring and verifying compliance of specific mitigation measures and regulatory requirements (see the beginning on page 3). Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure and regulatory requirement has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure and regulatory requirement; and 3) retention of records in the project file.

Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed 534 Struck Avenue Project (the “Project”) include the following:

1. Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a truck terminal consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation routes, including State Route 57 (SR-57) and Interstate 5 (I-5).

2. Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of a truck terminal with warehouse and office spaces that are responsive to local and regional trade demands.

3. Provide development that will enhance the City’s economic well-being and employment opportunities for community residents.

4. Develop the site with a use that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible with other existing and planned developments in the local area.

5. Provide a fully secured premise with active management to strengthen the security and safety for the local area.

6. Redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meet current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Stands with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure.

Overview of the Project
The Project site is located at 534 Struck Avenue in the City of Orange, Orange County, California. The Project entails a proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 3137-21, Major Site Plan Review No. 1039-21, and Design Review No. 5028-21. The Project Applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with a 57,900 796
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

sf truck terminal, that includes 52,900 sf of warehouse space and 5,000 sf of office space, and a 5,400- sf maintenance building. Refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the Project.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
This MMRP delegates responsibilities for monitoring the implementation of the 534 Struck Avenue Project mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, and allows responsible City entities flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure or regulatory requirement. The timing for monitoring and reporting is described in the monitoring and reporting summary table, below.

Adequate monitoring requires demonstration of monitoring procedures and implementation of mitigation measures and regulatory requirements.

In order to enhance the effectiveness of the monitoring program, the City will utilize existing systems where appropriate. These inspectors are familiar with a broad range of regulatory issues and will provide first line oversight for much of the monitoring program during construction activities.

Program Changes
If minor changes are required to this MMRP, they will be made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would be permitted after further review by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities and/or minor modifications to mitigation measures that achieve the same or better end results. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6.
797
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Air Quality
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to air quality. No mitigation is required.

Biological Resources
MM

4.2-1
In the event that vegetation and tree removal should
occur between March 15 and September 1, the
Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days
prior to commencement of construction activities.

The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall
document the negative results if no active bird nests
are observed on the Project site or within the vicinity during the clearance survey with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of Orange Community
Development Department prior to construction,
indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would
occur before construction can proceed. If an active
avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction
clearance survey, construction activities shall stay
outside of a 200-foot buffer around the active nest.

For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be 500- feet. A biological monitor shall be present to
delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to
monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity.

Prior to the commencement of construction activities
and the issuance of any permits, results of the prePrior to construction; Project
Applicant/Project
Biologist
Prior to the
commencement of
construction
activities and the
issuance of any
permit; City of
Orange Director of
Community
Development
798
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
construction survey and any subsequent monitoring
shall be provided to the City of Orange Community
Development Department.

MM

4.2-2
Prior to approval of a grading permit, a note shall be
placed on grading plans that “no personnel working
within Project limits will “take” or destroy plants,
animals, or active nests (or eggs) of birds that are
protected under the Federal or State Endangered
Species Acts and Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA).” During pre-construction surveys, a
biologist shall train all field staff on appliable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements,
environmental laws, and regulations associated with
working around biological resources. Verification of
training shall be provided to the Community
Development Director.

Prior to approval of a
grading permit;
Project Biologist
Prior to approval of
a grading permit and
during preconstruction
surveys; City of
Orange Director of
Community
Development
Cultural Resources
MM

4.3-1
In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities,
all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering
the materials until a qualified archaeologist who
meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology has
evaluated the resource. The Applicant shall include a
standard inadvertent discovery clause in every
construction contract to inform contractors of this
requirement. Any previously undiscovered resource
found during construction-related activities shall be
recorded on the appropriate Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for
During subsurface
earthwork activities;
Project
Applicant/Project
Archaeologist
In the event a
potentially significant
cultural resource is
encountered during
subsurface earthwork
activities; City of
Orange Director of
Community
Development
799
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified
archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural
resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, wood, or shell artifacts, or features
including hearths, structural remains, or historic
dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be
significant under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5,
the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and
implement a research design and archeological data
recovery plan that will capture those categories of
data for which the site is significant in accordance
with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate
technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report
complete with methods, results, and
recommendations, and provide for the permanent
curation or repatriation of the recovered resources in
cooperation with the designated most likely
descendant as needed. The report shall be submitted
to the City of Orange, the South-Central Coastal
Information Center, and the State Historic
Preservation Office, if required.

Energy
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to energy. No mitigation is required.

Geology and Soils
MM

4.5-1
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
Applicant shall provide written evidence to the
Community Development Department that the
Applicant has retained a qualified paleontologist to
respond on an as-needed basis to address
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
Project
Applicant/Project
Paleontologist
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
City of Orange
Director of
Community
800
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
unanticipated paleontological discoveries.

In the event that paleontological resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all
construction activities within 100 foot vicinity of the find shall halt until the qualified paleontologist
identifies the paleontological significance of the find.

If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be
collected and prepared to the point of identification,
identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible,
cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections
of a museum repository. At the conclusion of
curation, a report of findings shall be prepared to
document the results of the monitoring program.

Construction shall not resume within the vicinity until the site paleontologist states in writing that the
proposed construction activities would not
significantly damage paleontological resources.

Development
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation is required.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM

4.7-1
The Project Contractor shall adhere to the protocols
and performance standards stipulated in the SMP
(Technical Appendix H3). Contractors working at the
site follow all applicable Cal/OSHA regulations for
construction safety. A Completion Report shall be
prepared at the conclusion of grading activities. The
report shall document field monitoring activities and
visual observations made during grading/excavations,
During construction;
Project Contractor
Prior to issuance of
building permits;
City of Orange
Director of
Community
Development
801
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
as well as soil sampling locations and results. The
report shall include a description of the location of
impacted soil encountered, actions taken to
characterize and mitigate impacts, confirmation soil
sampling results, and disposition of any excavated
soil. In addition, the report shall include a description of encountered subsurface structures and steps to
remove and close such structures. The report shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Orange
Community Development Director, prior to issuance
of building permits.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to hydrology and water quality. No mitigation is required.

Noise
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to noise. No mitigation is required.

Transportation
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation. No mitigation is required.

Tribal Cultural Resources
MM

4.11-1
Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing
activity at the project site, the Project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the
tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to
Assembly Bill A52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting
Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be
submitted to the City of Orange Planning and Building
Prior to the
commencement of
any ground disturbing
activity; Project
Applicant/Native
American Monitor
Prior to issuance of
any permits
necessary to
commence a grounddisturbing activity;
City of Orange
Director of
Community
802
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Department prior to the issuance of any permit
necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during
the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing
activities into areas of undisturbed soils. Ground
disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as
activities that may include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing,
tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling,
and trenching, within the Project site. The Tribal
Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will
provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end
when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project
site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives
and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming
ground-disturbing activities at the Project site have
little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural
Resources.

Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources,
construction activities shall cease in the immediate
vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal
monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe. If the
resources are Native American in origin, the
Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational,
Development
803
Lead Agency: City of Orange SCH No. 2021090399

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains
and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the
Project site, all ground disturbance shall immediately
cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health &
Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and
grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

Work may continue on other parts of the Project site
while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes
place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a nonNative American resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical
resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time
allotment and funding sufficient to allow for
implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate
mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan
established for the resources shall be in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for
historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for
unique archaeological resources
804
Findings of Fact
Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the:
534 Struck Avenue Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2021090399
Lead Agency
City of Orange
300 East Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92866
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Project Applicant
Prologis, L.P.
17777 Center Court Drive North, Suite 100
Cerritos, CA 90703
August 1, 2023
805
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
i
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Summary.................................................................................................................1

1.4 Environmental Review and Public Participation ..................................................................2

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings.................................................................................5

2.1 General Findings.................................................................................................................5

2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) and EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation. ...................................................................................................6

2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to Less than Significant................................................................................................................. 30

2.4 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ............................................................. 39

2.5 Project Alternatives........................................................................................................... 40

3.0 Additional Facts on Record..............................................................................................48

3.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures.................................................... 48

3.2 Custodian of Record.......................................................................................................... 48 806
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
1 1.0 Introduction
The City Council of the City of Orange (the “City Council”) in approving the 534 Struck Avenue Project (the “Project”), makes the Findings presented herein. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, as described in Subsection 1.4 below, including the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project on behalf of the City of Orange (the “City”) acting as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Hereinafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Draft EIR), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

1.3 Project Summary

1.3.1 Site Location
The approximate 9.94-acre Project site (“Project site”) is located within the north-central portion of Orange County, California. The Project site is located within the City of Orange, north of Collins Avenue, east of Batavia Street, south of Struck Avenue, and west of the Orange County Transportation Authority/Southern California Regional Rail Authority (OCTA/SCRRA) Railroad, at 534 Struck Avenue, Orange, CA 92867. Under existing conditions, the Project site contains an approximate 40,000 square-foot concrete tilt-up building and parking lot and was occupied until the end of 2020 by Nursery Supplies, Inc. manufacturing facility.

1.3.2 Project Description
The Project Applicant is processing a Conditional Use Permit (No. 3137-21), Major Site Plan Review (No. 1039-21), and Design Review (No. 5028-21) for the 534 Struck Avenue Project (“Project”) to redevelop the Project site with a 57,900 square feet (sf) truck terminal, that includes 52,900 sf of warehouse space and 5,000 sf of office space, and a 5,400-sf maintenance building. The proposed building would be 45 ft in height and include 84 dock doors in a cross-dock configuration. The Project would provide a total of 62 automobile parking stalls consisting of 59 standard parking stalls, 2-9 ft. by 18 ft. accessible parking stalls, and 1-12 ft by 18 ft accessible parking stall. Additionally, the Project would provide 188 trailer parking stalls. Ornamental landscaping, lighting, and walls would be installed per compliance with the OMC. The Project would require the demolition of the existing manufacturing facility totaling 40,000 sf, associated parking, and removal of an unused portion of the existing, privately owned railroad spur located on the east side of the site. Additionally, the Project would remove approximately 315 linear feet of on-street parking along Struck Avenue.

1.3.3 Project Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the Project is to accomplish the orderly development of an appropriately zoned and designated truck terminal in the City of Orange while also contributing to increased employment opportunities within the area. The Project objectives have been refined throughout the planning and design process for the proposed Project and are listed below:
807
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
2 A. Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a truck terminal consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation routes, including State Route 57 (SR-57) and Interstate 5 (I-5).

B. Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of a truck terminal with warehouse and office spaces that are responsive to local and regional trade demands.

C. Provide development that will enhance the City’s economic well-being and employment opportunities for community residents.

D. Develop the site with a use that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible with other existing and planned developments in the local area.

E. Provide a fully secured premise with active management to strengthen the security and safety for the local area.

F. Redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meet current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Stands with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure.

1.3.4 City of Orange Actions Covered By the EIR
The City of Orange has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City serves as the Lead Agency for the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15050. The role of the Lead Agency was previously described in detail in Section 1.0 of the EIR. As part of the approval process for the proposed Project, the City’s City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the certification of the EIR. The City Council will decide whether to approve, approve with changes, or deny this Project. The anticipated approvals required for the Project are summarized below:
• Certification of the 534 Struck Avenue Project Environmental Impact Report • Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Fact • Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3137-21, Major Site Plan Review No. 1039-21, Design Review No. 5028-21, and Environmental Review No. 1870-20

1.4 Environmental Review and Public Participation
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project through the use of mitigation measures which have been found to be feasible; and to disclose to the public the reasons why the City has initiated the Project in the manner chosen in light of the significant environmental effects which have been identified in the EIR. In order to do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
808
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
3 • Originally prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project. On September 23, 2021, the City circulated a Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1870-20 for the Project. The MND was circulated for public review from September 23 to October 25, 2021. During the 30-day public review period, comments received requested additional technical analysis, therefore, in order to address the environmental concerns raised, additional analyses were prepared and an EIR was prepared to provide comprehensive environmental review of the Project.
• Prepared a Notice of Preparation for the Project. The Notice of Preparation identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in detail in the Project’s EIR as: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources;
• The Notice of Preparation was sent to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Orange County Clerk, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on August 1, 2022, for a 30-day review period; • The Notice of Preparation was advertised in the Orange County Registrar, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on July 28, 2022; • Mailed the Notice of Preparation to all property owners within a 400-foot radius of the Project site on July 28, 2022;
• Held two publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meetings at Orange City Hall Weimer Room and Shaffer Park Community Room on August 22, 2022, to solicit comments from the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR; • Prepared a Draft EIR and mailed a Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and copies of the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse on March 30, 2023; • Mailed a Notice of Availability to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Orange County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice on March 30, 2023, to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on March 31, 2023, and ending on May 15, 2023; • Mailed the Notice of Availability to all property owners and occupants within a 400-foot radius of the Project site on March 30, 2023;
• Made the Notice of Availability and Draft EIR available to the public at the public counters in the Community Development Department, the City Clerk’s Office and on the City’s website;
809
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
4 • Published the Notice of Availability in the Orange County Registrar, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on March 30, 2023; • Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR; • Sent written responses to comments to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments the Draft EIR on March 31, 2023 (five comment letters were received); • Sent notice of the Planning Commission’s hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on July 6, 2023;
• Planning Commission notices were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 400- foot radius of the Project site on July 6, 2023;
• Planning Commission notice was posted at the site in accordance with noticing requirements on July 6, 2023;
• Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were available to the public at the public counters in the Community Development Department, the City Clerk’s Office and on the City’s website on July 6, 2023; • Sent notice of the City Council’s hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on August 8, 2023; • City Council notice was posted at the site in accordance with noticing requirements on August 8, 2023;
• Held a public hearing of the City Council on August 22, 2023, and, after full consideration of all comments, written and oral, certified that the Final EIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA and approved the Project.

All of the documents identified above and all of the documents which are required to be part of the administrative record pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e) are on file with the City of Orange, Planning Division, Community Development Department, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866. Questions should be directed to Robert Garcia, Senior Planner. 810
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
5 2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings

2.1 General Findings

2.1.1 Independent Judgment Finding
 Finding
The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.  Facts in Support of the Finding
The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an independent, professional consulting firm hired by the Project Applicant, but working under the supervision and direction of the City’s Community Development Department and Planning Division staff. The City Council, as the City’s final decisionmaking body for the Project, received and reviewed the EIR and the comments, written and oral, provided by public agencies and members of the public prior to certifying that the EIR complied with CEQA. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff and its consultants, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses, by City staff, and the review and careful consideration of the Final EIR by the City Council, including comments and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency, and of the City Council as the decision-making body for the Project.

2.1.2 Finding of the Absence of any Need to Recirculate the EIR  Finding
The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
 Facts in Support of the Finding
The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications and minor modifications to the Draft EIR. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information contained in it and has determined that the new information added to the Final EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact nor a feasible mitigation measure or an alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the Project Applicant declined to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. No information provided to the City Council indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR.

2.1.3 General Finding on Mitigation Measures
It is the City’s intent to adopt and implement all mitigation measures identified in the EIR which are applicable to the Project. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval 811
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
6 or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures.

2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) and EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation.

Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines § 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact.

Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas:

2.2.1 Air Quality
A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.1-25) • Facts in Support of Findings
The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD’s) 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the applicable air quality plan for the Project site, which estimates longterm air quality conditions for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels.

Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS), a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements.

Accordingly, if a proposed project is consistent with these growth forecasts, and if available emissions reduction strategies are implemented as effectively as possible on a project-specific basis, then the project is considered to be consistent with the 2016 AQMP. The Project’s localized and regional construction-source and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance threshold and LST thresholds. The Project would not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) violations. The Project’s proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designation, growth projections and would not exceed the regional or localized construction and operational thresholds. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the AQMP. (EIR, p. 4.1-24 through 4.1-25). 812
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
7 B. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.1-26) • Facts in Support of Findings
Under the Project, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant (see EIR, Table 4.1-5). Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. Furthermore, Project operationsource emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants (see EIR, Table 4.1-6). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required (EIR, p. 4.1-26).

C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.1-27 through 4.1-32) • Facts in Support of Findings
The EIR evaluated the proposed Project’s localized impact to air quality for emissions of Carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), Fine Particulate Matter (10 microns or smaller; PM10), and Fine Particulate Matter (2.5 microns or smaller; PM2.5) by comparing the Project’s on-site emissions to the South Coast AQMD’s applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) thresholds.

The proposed Project would not result in construction emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD’s LSTs (see EIR, Tables 4.1-7). Accordingly, construction of the Project would not result in the exposure of any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. Further, at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions is estimated at 2.36 in one million, which is less than the South Coast AQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location.

Operational emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s LSTs for any criteria pollutant at the nearest sensitive receptor (see EIR, Table 4.1-8). Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant localized impact during operational activity. Additionally, the Project would not result in potentially adverse concentrations or CO Hot Spots. Lastly, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent residences, workers, or nearby schools (EIR, p. 4.1-27 through

4.1-32).
813
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
8 D. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.1-32) • Facts in Support of Findings
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. 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 is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public odor nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (EIR, p. 4.1-32).

2.2.2 Biological Resources
A. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.2-6)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The City identifies significant wildlife habitat as being in the City’s undeveloped hillside areas, East Orange, and park and open spaces (particularly near Santiago Creek, Santiago Oaks Regional Park, Irvine Regional Park, and Peters Canyon Regional Park). The Project site is in the western portion of the City and is fully developed with a manufacturing facility. Additionally, the properties surrounding the Project site are fully developed and urbanized. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, urbanized areas provide low habitat value for sensitive species. According to the biological survey results, no federal or State listed plant or wildlife species were observed within the study area. The Project site does not include United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-designated critical habitat for plants or wildlife and the Project site does not include the substantive habitat requirements necessary to support special-status plants and wildlife. As such, implementation of the Project would not have the potential to have an adverse effect either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the local or regional plans, policies or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Wildlife Service. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.2-6).
814
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
9 B. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.2-6)
• Facts in Support of Findings
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, riparian habitat and wetlands within the existing urbanized area of the City occur along the Santiago Creek. The Project site is located approximately 1.9 miles north of the Santiago Creek. No riparian, river, or obvious indicators of a well-defined water conveyance bed, bank, or channel were detected within the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.2-6).

C. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.2-6)
• Facts in Support of Findings
There are no wetlands on the Project site. The nearest wetland habitat to the Project site is at the Santiago Creek located approximately 1.9 miles south. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not have an adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.2-6).

E. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, pp. 4.2-7 to 4.2-8) • Facts in Support of Findings
The Project would result in the removal of ornamental trees. According to Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 12.32.030, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain a Tree Removal Permit.

According to OMC Section 12.32.060, the Project’s ornamental trees are not considered Historical Trees. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources following compliance with OMC Section 12.32.030 and impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.2-8).
815
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
10 F. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? • Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.2-8)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is not within an Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Habitat Reserve Area.

No other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans apply to the site. Therefore, implementation of the Project does not have the potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.2-8)

2.2.3 Cultural Resources
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.3-11)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is not designated as a historic resource nor is the site proposed as a historic resource.

Additionally, no listed or designated historical resources are in proximity to the site; the majority of historical resources identified are in the Old Towne Historic District and Plaza District. Additionally, according to the cultural resource record search, no cultural resources have been recorded within the Project area. However, two potential historic resources were recorded within one-half mile of the Project: P-30-176663 and P-30-159932. P-30-176663 is a portion of the BNSF Railroad located a onehalf mile southwest of the Project site. This portion of the BNSF Railroad was determined ineligible for listing on the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) because it is currently in use and has had continual maintenance and upgrades necessary for modern rail and thus diminished the historic integrity. P-30-159932 consists of several buildings located in the Old Towne Orange Historic District and is listed on the NRHP (No. 97000617). Due to the site’s location and limited physical disturbance area, implementation of the Project does not have the potential to result in a substantial adverse change to these resources. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.3-11).

Implementation of the Project would demolish the existing structure and redevelop the site. As shown in Figure 2-3, the Project site is developed with an approximate 40,000 sf manufacturing facility that was constructed in approximately 1977. The northern portion of the site contains ornamental landscaping and a concrete paved parking lot and the existing structure. The southern portion of the site is concrete paved and was used to store the facility’s products (planters and pots). The site’s existing structures are not 50 years old and do not meet the criteria listed above and, therefore, are not considered historically significant. Therefore, redevelopment of the Project site would not impact historical resources; no impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.3-11). 816
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
11 C. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.3-12) • Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site and surrounding properties are developed and are not used as cemeteries. As such, human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries are not anticipated to be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. Based on the Project-specific geotechnical investigation, the near-surface soils encountered at the 10 boring sites were undocumented fill soils.

Ground disturbance will involve approximately 20 feet in depth for the water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the northwest corner of the Project, 12 feet for utilities, and 5 feet in depth for the remainder of the Project (EIR, p. 4.3-12).

If, in the unlikely event that, human remains were uncovered during grading activities, proper treatment is required in accordance with applicable State law. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 to 7055 describes the general provisions for proper treatment of human remains. Specifically, the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during onsite grading activities. Additionally, compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 requires that disturbance of the site remain halted until the County Coroner can evaluate the find and notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) if the remains are of Native American origin. The NAHC is responsible for contacting the most likely Native American descendent, for consultation. Following compliance with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels (EIR, p. 4.3-12).

2.2.4 Energy
A. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, pp. 4.4-5 through 4.4-10) • Facts in Support of Findings

1. Construction
The total electricity usage from on-site Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 121,593-kilowatt hour (kWh). Project construction would represent a “single‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require ongoing or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose. Project construction activities would consume an estimated 51,463 gallons of diesel fuel. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of Project construction. Diesel fuel would be supplied by existing commercial fuel providers serving the City and region (EIR, pp. 4.4-5 through 4.4-6).

With respect to estimated VMT for the Project, the construction worker trips (personal vehicles used by workers commuting to the Project from home) would generate an estimated 178,433 VMT during the 16 months of construction. The estimated annual fuel consumption resulting from Project construction worker trips is 6,338 gallons during full construction of the Project. It should be noted 817
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
12 that construction worker trips would represent a “single‐event” gasoline fuel demand and would not require ongoing or permanent commitment of fuel resources for this purpose. Construction vendor trips would generate an estimated 89,052 VMT along area roadways. It is estimated that 14,614 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction vendor trips during full construction of the Project. It should be noted that Project construction vendor trips would represent a “single‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose (EIR, 4.4-6).

The equipment used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards. There are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. In general, construction processes promote conservation and efficient use of energy by reducing raw materials demands, with related reduction in energy demands associated with raw materials extraction, transportation, processing, and refinement.

Use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations. Therefore, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary (EIR, p. 4.4-7).

2. Operation
The Project would result in a 1,300,864 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 127,584 gallons of fuel. Trip generation and VMT generated by the Project are consistent with other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Ed., 2021); and CalEEMod. As such, Project operations would not result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption compared to other industrial uses (EIR, p. 4.4-8).

Project on-site equipment would consume an estimated 4,642 gallons of natural gas. On-site equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed operations that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project on-site equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. The Project would result in 1,220,180 kilo British Thermal (kBTU)/year or natural gas and 395,861 kWh/year of electricity. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration. Lastly, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary (EIR, pp. 4.4- 8 through 4.4-9).
818
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
13 Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. In compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and City requirements, the Project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mean of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary (EIR, p. 4.4-10).

B. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, 4.4-10 through 4.4-12) • Facts in Support of Findings
Transportation and access to the Project site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems.

The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) because Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site. The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‐21). The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21 (EIR, p. 4.4-10).

Electricity would be provided to the Project by Southern California Edison (SCE). As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). Additionally, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development of the proposed Project would support the goals presented in the 2021 IEPR (EIR, p. 4.4-11).

The Project supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with or obstruct, implementation of the State of California Energy Plan (EIR, p. 4.4-11).

The 2022 version of Title 24 was adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and will become effective on January 1, 2023. As the Project building construction is anticipated in 2024, it is presumed that the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 standards in place at that time.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant impact on energy resources. The Project would be subjected to Title 24 standards (EIR, p. 4.4-11).
819
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
14 CCR, Title 24, Part 11: CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that were published on July 1, 2022 and will become effective on January 1, 2023. The Project would be required to comply with the applicable standards in place at the time plan check submittals are made (EIR, p.

4.4-11).

Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493. California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS (EIR, p. 4.4-11).

The Project would use energy from SCE, which have committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption (EIR, p. 4.4-12).

As demonstrated above, the Project would not conflict with any federal or State plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.4-12).

2.2.5 Geology and Soils
A. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

I) 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 evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.5-7)
• Facts in Support of Findings
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site is not within a State of California AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Additionally, the Project site is not within any other fault zone. The nearest active faults to the Project site are the San Joaquin Hills and Elsinore fault zones located approximately 7.5 miles to the south and 8.3 miles to the northeast, respectively. Fault rupture would not occur on the Project site since no active faults cross the Project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5-7).
820
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
15 II) Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.5-7) • Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is located within the highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems. The San Joaquin Hills and Elsinore fault zones located approximately 7.5 miles to the south and 8.3 miles to the northeast, respectively, of the Project site. As a result, the Project would likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life (EIR, p. 4.5-7).

The Project’s proposed building would be constructed in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and OMC Section 15.04.010, California Building Code Adopted by Reference, structures built for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed the CBC standards for earthquake resistance. The CBC includes earthquake safety standards based on a variety of factors including occupancy type, types of soils and rocks on-site, and strength of probable ground motion at the project site. In accordance with CBC requirements, a Geotechnical Investigation (Technical Appendix F of the EIR) was prepared to determine site-specific geologic conditions and appropriate design parameters.

The Project would demonstrate compliance with applicable seismic-related design requirements and the City of Orange Building Division would ensure incorporation of the Geotechnical Investigation’s recommended design criteria as a standard condition of approval. Following compliance with the CBC, impacts concerning seismic ground shaking would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.5-7).

III) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.5-8)
• Facts in Support of Findings
Seismic-related ground failure includes, but is not limited to, liquefaction. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to fluids when subject to highintensity seismic events. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater, 2) low-density non-cohesive (granular) soils and 3) high-intensity ground motion.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation (Technical Appendix F of the EIR) and the Department of Conservation (DOC) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map, the Project site is not within a Liquefaction Zone (DOC, 2016a; GeoTek, 2020a). The Project does not have the potential to expose people or structures to seismic-related liquefaction. Therefore, no impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5- 8).

IV) Landslides?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.5-8)
• Facts in Support of Findings
Seismic events can cause the soils within a slope to become unstable and slip causing a landslide.

According to the DOC Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map, the Project site is not within a Landslide Zone. The Project does not have the potential to expose people or structures to seismicrelated landslides. Therefore, no impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5-8). 821
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
16 B. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, pp. 4.5-8 through 4.5-9) • Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is fully developed and contains ornamental landscaping within the site’s northern portion. Because the Project site is fully developed and contains very little exposed soils, erosion is occurring on the site is minimal (EIR, p. 4.5-8).

Grading and earthwork activities associated with Project construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. Project construction would be required to comply with the water quality management measures identified in OMC Section 7.01.050, Controls for Water Quality Management. The Project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct storm water discharges, which involves the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities, including grading. The Project would also be required to demonstrate compliance with South Coast AQMD 403, which would reduce the potential for wind erosion during construction through the implementation of dust control measures. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., OMC Chapter 7.01.050 and South Coast AQMD Rule 403), impacts during construction would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.5-8 through 4.5-9).

Long-term operational impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be required to comply with the requirements outlined in the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in compliance with OMC Chapter 7.01, Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges. The BMPs identified in the Project’s WQMP would reduce the Project’s potential operational impacts concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The Project site is within a highly urbanized area with minimal elevation changes. The Project would redevelop the Project site with a single approximately 57,900 sf truck terminal, that includes 52,900 sf of warehouse space and 5,000 sf of office space, and a 5,400-sf maintenance building and would contain a similar amount of impervious surfaces as compared to the site’s existing development. Any exposed soil would be minimal and associated with landscaping areas. Project operations would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during operation.

Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.5-9).

C. 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-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The Project does not have the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that would result in onor off-site landslides. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5-9).

The Project site’s potential for lateral spreading is considered low based on the site’s relatively flat topography, distance from slopes, and no potential for liquefaction. The Project does not have the 822
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
17 potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that would result in lateral spreading. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5-9).

According to the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation (Technical Appendix F of the EIR), undocumented fill soils were encountered at depths ranging from 3 to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs) that consist of medium dense to dense silty sand, very dense/hard clayey sand to sandy clay, clayey silt, and silty clay. Older alluvial fan deposits located beneath the undocumented fill and/or the existing ground surface consists of medium dense to very dense sand and silty and clayey sands and stiff to very stuff sandy silts and sandy clays. A shrinkage factor of approximately 5 to 15 percent may be considered for undocumented fill materials requiring removal and recompaction. A shrinkage factor of approximately 0 to 10 percent may be considered for excavation and recompaction of native soils.

The Project would implement the recommendations identified within the Geotechnical Investigation in accordance with CBC requirements and to preclude impacts related to subsidence and shrinkage.

Additionally, the City of Orange Building Division would ensure incorporation of the Geotechnical Investigation’s recommended actions as a standard condition of approval to the Project’s building permit. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.5-10).

The Project does not have the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that would result in liquefaction. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5-10).

D. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.5-10) • Facts in Support of Findings
According to the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation, the Project’s on-site near-surface soils have a very low to medium expansion potential. Recommendations for foundation construction are outlined in Section 5.3, Design Recommendations, of the Geotechnical Investigation. Design parameters are detailed in Section 5.3.1 of the Geotechnical Investigation (Technical Appendix F of the EIR), the City of Orange Building Division would ensure incorporation of the Geotechnical Investigation’s recommended actions as a standard condition of approval to the Project’s building permit. Following the implementation of the Geotechnical Investigation recommendations, impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.5-10).

E. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.5-10)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. The Project would connect to the City’s existing wastewater service, which currently provides service to the site and surrounding area. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5-10). 823
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
18 2.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, pp. 4.6-26 through 4.6-27) • Facts in Support of Findings
The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the Project are estimated to be approximately 1,736.21 MT CO2e per year, which would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold of significance (see EIR, Table 4.6-4). Therefore, project-related emissions would not have a potential significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change. Impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.6-26).

B. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.6-27 through 4.6-32) • Facts in Support of Findings
The Project will not conflict with any of the provisions of the 2017 Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories (see EIR, Table 4.6-5). Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.6-27).

2.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
B. Would the Project 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?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.7-12 through 4.7-13) • Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed Project would comply with the requirements of applicable laws and regulations governing upsets and accidents including the requirements of the hazardous materials disclosure program, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, the hazardous materials release response plans and inventory program, and California Health and Safety Code Section 25500.

Additionally, strict adherence to the City of Orange emergency response plan requirements would be required through the duration of the Project construction phase (EIR, p. 4.7-12).

These requirements would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for upset and accident conditions. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste would be 824
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
19 required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.

Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant (EIR, p. 4.7-12).

Regulatory requirements pertaining to upsets and accidents following during the construction phase would also be implemented during the operational phase. For the operational phase, both the federal government and the State of California require that the operator files a hazardous materials business plan. These requirements would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.7-13).

C. Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? • Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.7-13)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The closest existing schools to the Project site are California Elementary School and Yorba Middle School located approximately 0.78 miles east of the Project site. Implementation of the Project would not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.7-13).

D. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.7-13) • Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site appears on the EnviroStor database sites; however, this listing represents a historic recognized environmental condition (REC) at the site. A historic REC refers to a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority. The status of the site is listed as “refer: other agency” and no further action (NFA) was recommended for the site as “remediation of soil was completed by Orange County.” With the consideration of the absence of reported violations, spills, or releases, the Project site is not considered to be a REC. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment and impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p.

4.7-13).
825
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
20 E. For a project within 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? • Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.7-13)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The closest airport to the Project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport located approximately 8.0 miles northwest. The Project site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. Implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working within the Project area. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.7-13).

F. Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.7-13) • Facts in Support of Findings
As shown in Figure PS-4 of the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, Katella Avenue is the closest designated evacuation corridor in the City to the Project site. The Project is not anticipated to affect access to Katella Avenue during construction, and would not require road closures or otherwise impact the functionality of this, or other designated evacuation corridors (EIR, p. 4.7-13).

Additionally, the Project would not affect emergency access. The Project is required to comply with applicable fire codes established by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The Project would be required to go through the City’s development review and permitting process and would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations in the California Fire Code and the OMC. Incorporation of applicable design and safety standards and regulations would ensure that the Project’s development does not interfere with the provision of local emergency services. Based on the foregoing, the implementation of the Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s Emergency Operation Plan, the General Plan Public Safety Element, or any other emergency response plan. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.7- 13).

G. Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.7-14)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is fully developed and is within a completely urbanized area that is void of any wildland areas. Additionally, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project site is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.7-14).
826
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
21 2.2.8 Hydrology/Water Quality
A. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.8-7 through 4.8-10) • Facts in Support of Findings

1. Construction
Short-term construction activities have the potential to result in water quality impacts. The grading/excavation required for project implementation would result in exposed soils that may be subject to wind and water erosion. Although erosion occurs naturally in the environment, improperly managed construction activities can lead to substantially accelerated rates of erosion that are considered detrimental to the environment. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures (EIR, p. 4.8-8).

The SWRCB adopted the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities, including grading. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges and to describe and ensure the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges resulting from construction activity (EIR, p. 4.8-8).

2. Operation
The Project would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

The LIP requires all private and public construction projects to implement and be protected by an effective combination of erosion and sediment controls and waste and materials management BMPs, such as source control BMPs (e.g. site planning and landscaping, use of pervious pavement), structural BMPs (e.g. protection from rain, secondary containment, etc.), and treatment control BMPs (e.g. constructed wetlands and vegetative swales), to prevent discharges into the storm drain system or watercourses. Table A-8.3 of the LIP provides a comprehensive list of designated construction BMPs.

The minimum requirements for all construction sites include erosion and sediment control, and waste and materials management control (Table A-8.2 of the LIP), which would be implemented during the Project’s construction phase. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with Chapter 7.01, Water Quality and Stormwater Discharges, of the OMC. This chapter includes conditions and requirements related to the control of urban pollutants to stormwater runoff (EIR, p. 4.8-8). 827
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
22 Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP, the City’s LIP, and Chapter 7.01 of the OMC would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.8-8).

The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site with a building up to 57,900 sf, a maintenance building, and associated parking and landscaping. The anticipated pollutants to be generated at the Project site include: suspended solids and sediments, nutrients and pesticides (from the proposed landscaping), heavy metals (from truck-trailers both active and stored), oil and grease, toxic organic compounds (TOCs), pathogens (bacteria/virus), and trash and debris (from all vehicular traffic) (EIR, p. 4.8-9).

The Stormwater Program’s specific water pollutant control elements are documented in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The DAMP satisfies the NPDES permit conditions to reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable for the protection of water quality at receiving water bodies and the support of designated beneficial uses. The DAMP contains guidance on both structural and non-structural BMPs for meeting these goals. With implementation of the DAMP requirements, as required by OMC Chapter 7.01 the Project would be required to prepare a WQMP in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES permit (EIR, p. 4.8-9).

The Project Applicant has prepared a WQMP, which includes non-structural BMPs, such as educational materials for property owners, tenants, and occupants; activity restriction; common area landscape management; BMP maintenance; spill contingency plant; uniform fire code implementation; common area litter control; employee training; housekeeping of loading docks, common area catch basin inspection; and street sweeping private streets and parking lots. Structural BMPs included in the Project’s WQMP include providing storm drain signage; trash storage areas; efficient irrigation systems and landscape design; and loading docks. The WQMP will also include Low Impact Development BMPs and/or Treatment Control BMPs to address the predicted pollutants generated from the project site during general tenant categories at the site (EIR, p. 4.8-9).

As described above, a construction-related SWPPP (development SWPPP) is required as part of the Construction General Permit when any project disturbs greater than one (1) acre of soils. A postconstruction SWPPP is required for the site as an Industrial General Permit holder (land use SWPPP).

The WQMP is separate from the SWPPP and is the local document showing how operations will be protective of water quality during use of the land. It should be noted that under existing conditions, flows generated from the site drain to Struck Avenue unmitigated and untreated. Implementation of the Project would have a beneficial impact on water quality because it would capture all on-site flows and treat flows from smaller more frequent storm events, prior to being discharged into the City’s storm drainage system (EIR, p. 4.8-9 through 4.8-10).

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality or result in potential discharge of stormwater to affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.8-10).
828
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
23 B. Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.8-10 through 4.8-11) • Facts in Support of Findings
According to the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation, groundwater was not encountered at the Project site during subsurface investigations to the maximum depth explored (30 feet bgs). Implementation of the Project would not include the construction of a potable groundwater well and no potable groundwater wells are located on-site. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s water resources have adequate supply to serve the Project site in addition to past, present, and future commitments under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years through the year 2040. Additionally, the Project does not propose a General Plan Amendment to modify the site’s land use designation, and the proposed uses are already anticipated in the City’s General Plan and UWMP. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not have the potential to substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.8-10).

Under existing conditions, approximately 89 percent of the Project site contains impervious surfaces that provides little opportunity for infiltration. The Project would create similar impervious surface conditions, increasing the Project site’s impervious surface coverage from 89 to 91 percent. Therefore, redevelopment of the site would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge (EIR, p. 4.8-10 through 4.8-11).

Additionally, as shown in Figure N-2 of the City General Plan Natural Resources Element, groundwater recharge facilities for the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin include the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The Project site is located approximately 0.87 miles east of the Santa Ana River and approximately 1.9 miles north of the Santiago Creek. Implementation of the Project would not have the potential to interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.8-11).

C. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

I) Result in substantial Erosion or siltation on- or off-site? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.8-13) • Facts in Support of Findings
The Project would increase the amount of impervious surface coverage on the Project site from 89 percent to 91 percent. However, the Project would maintain the site’s existing drainage pattern.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the site’s drainage pattern in such a way that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Additionally, the Project would construct an integrated storm drain system on-site with BMPs to minimize the amount of waterborne pollutants carried from the Project site. The Project’s proposed BMPs are designed to treat runoff with medium 829
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
24 to high efficiency and effectiveness; furthermore, they are highly effective at removing sediment from stormwater runoff flows. Therefore, stormwater runoff leaving the Project site would not carry substantial amounts of sediment. Because there are no exposed soils at the Project site’s discharge points, there is no potential for the Project’s stormwater runoff to result in erosion as it leaves the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.8-13).

II) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, pp. 4.8-13 through 4.8-14) • Facts in Support of Findings
Under existing conditions, peak stormwater runoff flows are discharged into the existing storm drain line beneath Struck Avenue, which is designed to accept the 10-year peak flows from the Project site and surrounding developments. Implementation of the project would reduce peak flows discharging from the Project site. As such, the Project proposed drainage improvements would not result in on-site or off-site flooding. Impacts would be less than significant. The Project’s proposed detention basin would throttle 100-year storm event peak flows down to 10-year peak flows. As such, the Project proposed drainage improvements would not result in on-site or off-site flooding. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.8-13).

III) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity or existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.8-14) • Facts in Support of Findings
All captured flows will be directed towards a proposed outlet structure near the northwestern corner of the site. Flows are expected to pond up within the outlet structure before spilling out of the structure and into a concrete-lined u-channel. The u-channel conveys the on-site flows north towards a proposed parkway culvert (type B) that will discharge all flows underneath the sidewalk and onto Struck Avenue.

Within the outlet structure, an internal weir wall is proposed to divert approximately 2.0 cfs of flows east towards the proposed treatment vaults for water quality treatment. Flows that have been treated by the proposed Modular Wetlands (MWS) vaults are then directed towards a proposed pump located northeast of the treatment vaults. The pump will discharge the water quality flows into a second concrete-lined u-channel. From there, treated flows are directed towards a second proposed parkway culvert (type B) that will discharge treated flows underneath the sidewalk and onto Struck Avenue.

Stormwater discharge peak flow would be less than existing conditions. BMPs would ensure that pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.8-14). 830
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
25 IV) Impede or redirect flood flows?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.8-14)
• Facts in Support of Findings
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map No. 06059C0161J, the Project site is within Zone X (Unshaded), an area of minimal flood hazard. The Project does not have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.8-14).

D. Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.8-15)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone. The Project does not have the potential to release pollutants due to 100-year flood inundation. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.8-14).

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map No. 06059C0161J, the Project site is within Zone X (Unshaded), an area of minimal flood hazard. The Project does not have the potential to release pollutants due to Project inundation. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.8-15).

A tsunami is a sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a seafloor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank (EIR, p. 4.8-15).

The Project site is located approximately 13 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Due to site distance, the Project would not be subject to tsunami-related inundation. Additionally, there are no enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water in proximity to the Project site. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.8- 15).

E. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.8-15)
• Facts in Support of Findings
Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP. Additionally, as discussed previously, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and no impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.8-15).

The Project site is within the Coastal Plain of Orange County Basin (Basin 8-1). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) classifies this basin as a medium-priority basin. According to 831
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
26 the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in “high”- and “medium”-priority basins are required to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs. GSPs are detailed road maps for how groundwater basins will reach long term sustainability. The GSA for Basin 8-1 is comprised of the OCWD, City of La Habra, and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). These agencies collaborated and submitted an Alternative to a GSP titled Basin 8-1 Alternative on January 1, 2017, to the DWR. This Alternative documents the basin conditions; basin management is based on measurable objectives and minimum thresholds defined to prevent significant and unreasonable impacts on the sustainability indicators defined in the Alternative (EIR, p. 4.8-15).

Groundwater is anticipated to be located at a depth greater than 40 below ground surface (bgs). The Project’s potable water would be supplied by the City, which relies on groundwater and imported water. As identified in the City’s UWMP, the City’s potable water resources contain enough water to meet demands under a normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year hydrologic conditions from 2020 through 2040. Additionally, the Project site is not within a groundwater recharge area. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative and no impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.8-15).

2.2.9 Noise
A. 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? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, pp. 4.9-10 through 4.9-18) • Facts in Support of Findings

1. Construction
The Project’s only potential to cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels would occur during the construction phase. Construction activities on the Project site, especially those involving the use of heavy equipment, would create intermittent, temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Noise generated by heavy construction equipment including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators can reach high levels.

However, construction-related noise increase would: 1) be transitory (i.e., varying from day-to-day and throughout the day), 2) completely cease upon completion of Project construction, and 3) not represent a recurring, periodic source of noise. Although periodic and temporary, construction noise has the potential to be substantial compared to existing ambient noise levels. As such, the Project’s construction-related activities are required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.24.040). The City’s Noise Ordinance includes a provision that exempts construction activities during the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 am and 8:00 pm on a Sunday or a Federal holiday. the Project’s construction-related noise at the off-site receiver locations will satisfy the 80 dBA Leq significance threshold. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.9-10, 4.9-12). 832
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
27 Future tenants of the proposed Project are currently unknown. Therefore, this operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of warehouse use activities at the Project site. To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The on-site Projectrelated noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, truck terminal activity, roof-top air conditioning units trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements and truck movements (EIR, p. 4.9-12).

According to the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.24.040, the maximum allowable exterior sound levels for uses in proximity to residential uses are 55 dBA Leq from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm (daytime) and 50 dBA Leq from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am (nighttime). Public facility uses do not have a threshold for maximum allowable exterior sound levels established in the Municipal Code (EIR, p. 4.9-12).

2. Operation
The operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City of Orange daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards (see EIR Table 4.9-4). Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations (EIR, p. 4.9-16).

To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with the development of the Project, noise contours were developed based on the Traffic Analysis (Technical Appendix K1). The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area (EIR, p. 4.9-16).

The Existing without Project exterior noise levels range from 62.6 to 73.0 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. The Existing with Project conditions range from 62.8 to 73.1 dBA CNEL. The Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 4.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments(see EIR Table 4.9-5). Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise of greater than or equal to 3 dBA Leq if ambient noise is greater than 65 dBA Leq and greater or equal to 5 dBA Leq if ambient noise is less than 65 dBA Leq, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic (EIR, p. 4.9-17).

The OYC without Project exterior noise levels range from 63.5 to 73.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography; and with Project conditions will range from 63.6 to 73.3 dBA CNEL. The Project’s off-site traffic noise level increases range from

0.0 to 3.9 dBA CNEL (see EIR Table 4.9-6). Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise of greater than or equal to 3 dBA Leq if ambient noise is greater than 65 dBA Leq and greater or equal to 5 dBA Leq if ambient noise is less than 65 dBA Leq, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases on receiving land uses due to the Project-related traffic under OYC traffic conditions (EIR, p. 4.9-18). 833
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
28 B. Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, pp. 4.9-18 through 4.9-20) • Facts in Support of Findings
Construction activities on the Project site would utilize heavy equipment that has the potential to generate low levels of intermittent, localized ground-borne vibration. The Project’s construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts are heavy construction equipment and trucks. At distances ranging from 31 feet to 563 feet from construction activity, construction vibration levels are calculated to range from 0.001 to 0.064 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV; in/sec). Based on the maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all noise sensitive receiver locations.

Additionally, the vibration level reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Therefore, Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site (EIR, p. 4.9-19).

Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include nor require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in substantial or perceptible ground-borne vibration. Trucks would travel to and from the Project site during long-term operation; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at low-to-normal speeds on smooth, paved surfaces–as expected on the Project site and surrounding roadways–typically do not exceed 0.004 in/sec PPV, which is lower than the Caltrans vibration thresholds of 0.3 in/sec PPV for building damage and 0.04 in/sec PPV annoyance.

Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not generate or expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels, and a less than significant impact would occur (EIR, p. 4.9-20).

C. 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?
• Finding: No Impact (EIR, p. 4.9-20)
• Facts in Support of Findings
The Project site is not in proximity to any private airstrip or airport and is not within an airport land use plan. The closest airport to the Project site is the Fullerton Municipal Airport located approximately

8.0 miles northwest. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with air travel. No impacts would occur (EIR, p.9-20).
834
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
29 2.2.10 Transportation
A. Would the Project conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, pp. 4.10-7 through 4.10-9) • Facts in Support of Findings
The Project would utilize routes consistent with the City’s truck routes. Additionally, the City will impose conditions of approval to require: 1) posting of the truck routes in the building; 2) tenant provided driver education on the truck route; and 3) truck route street signage. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant. The Project site is not located within the identified major commercial and employment areas of the City. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to interfere with the City’s goal to provide convenient and attractive transit amenities and streetscape features to encourage transit use. No impacts would occur. Implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City’s Bikeway Master Plan. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.10-8 through 4.10-9).

B. Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
• Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.10-12) • Facts in Support of Findings
According to the City’s TIA Guidelines, “residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.” VMT performance for the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) containing the Project was collected using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). The TAZ containing the Project (i.e., OCTAM TAZ #457) has an existing VMT per service population of 24.85 VMT per service population and the City’s impact threshold is 31.3 VMT per service population. The Project is located in a TAZ that generates VMT below the City’s VMT impact threshold. Based on the review of applicable VMT screening thresholds, the Project meets the Low VMT Area screening criteria and would therefore result in a less than significant VMT impact (EIR, p. 4.10-12).

C. 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)? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.10-13) • Facts in Support of Findings
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via two driveways along the site’s northern boundary on Struck Avenue. The Project’s proposed driveway 1, located at the site’s northwest corner, and driveway 2, located at the site’s northeast corner, would accommodate the wide turning radius of the 835
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
30 heavy trucks. Due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid on the site plan at each applicable Project driveway anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers. EIR Figure 4.10-5, Project Driveway Truck Access, shows that the Project driveways would accommodate the wide turning radius of the heavy trucks (WB‐67, 53‐foot trailer) as currently designed. Additionally, the truck exit would occur at the westernmost driveway (driveway 1) away from the existing driveway across Struck Avenue to the north, which would provide future access to the proposed Orange City Yard Affordable Housing Project, located approximately 220 feet north of the Project site. The Project would not increase hazards and impacts are less than significant (EIR, p. 4.10-13).

D. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? • Finding: Less than Significant Impact (EIR, p. 4.10-13) • Facts in Support of Findings
According to the City General Plan Public Safety Element, the City has an emergency plan which establishes emergency preparedness and emergency response procedures. All City arterials are recognized as primary emergency response routes and non-arterials are recognized as secondary emergency response routes. The Project would have two driveways along Struck Avenue. All Project driveways would be subject to the City’s site access and circulation requirements identified in OMC Chapter 12, Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places. Additionally, the Project’s internal drive aisles will provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. Moreover, all construction staging would occur within the boundaries of the Project site and would not interfere with the circulation of nearby roadways or implementation of the City’s emergency plan. The Project would provide adequate emergency access for fire vehicles via Struck Avenue. Impacts would be less than significant (EIR, p.

4.10-13).

2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to Less than Significant
The EIR for the Project identifies significant adverse direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project and includes mitigation measures to avoid or lessen the impacts. Those impacts and mitigation measures are identified in the following sections. The City Council finds, based on the facts set forth in the record, which include but are not limited to the facts as set forth below, that the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures will mitigate the Project’s identified significant adverse direct and cumulative impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. These findings have been prepared and considered in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15091.
836
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
31 2.3.1 Biological Resources
D. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
 Potential Significant Impact
The Project has the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Threshold “d”).  Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that implementation of the Project would require the removal of existing ornamental trees within the northern portion of the site. These existing trees have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for nesting birds. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant impact identified in the EIR.
 Facts in Support of the Finding
The Project site is fully developed within an urbanized setting and is located outside the identified wildlife corridors. There are no areas within the Project’s vicinity which could function as a wildlife corridor or nursery site for wildlife. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not have the potential to interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.2-7).

No nesting birds, remnant raptor nests, or bat guano were detected within the Project site. The Project requires removal of existing ornamental trees within the northern portion of the site. These existing trees have the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for nesting birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. To reduce the Project’s potential impacts on migratory birds, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures (MM) 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, which require a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site. If the nesting bird clearance survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, MM 4.2-1 requires buffers to ensure that any nesting birds are protected according to the MBTA. MM 4.2-2 requires a note on grading plans to ensure that construction workers comply with MBTA. With the implementation of MM 4.2-1 and MM 4.2-2, the Project’s potential construction-related impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant (EIR, p. 4.2-7).

MM 4.2-1 In the event that vegetation and tree removal should occur between March 15 and September 1, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no active bird nests are observed on the Project site or within the vicinity 837
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
32 during the clearance survey with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of Orange Community Development Department prior to construction, indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur before construction can proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 200-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be 500-feet. A biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Prior to the commencement of construction activities and the issuance of any permits, results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of Orange Community Development Department.

MM 4.2-2 Prior to approval of a grading permit, a note shall be placed on grading plans that “no personnel working within Project limits will “take” or destroy plants, animals, or active nests (or eggs) of birds that are protected under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).” During pre-construction surveys, a biologist shall train all field staff on appliable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements, environmental laws, and regulations associated with working around biological resources. Verification of training shall be provided to the Community Development Director.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section §15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project which avoid and lessen the significant environmental effect to less than significant as identified in the EIR.

2.3.2 Cultural Resources
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
 Potential Significant Impact
The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5 (Threshold “b”).
 Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that implementation of the Project has the potential, however unlikely, to unearth and adversely impact significant unknown archaeological resources that may be buried beneath the ground surface and discovered during Project construction activities. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant impact identified in the EIR.
838
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
33  Facts in Support of the Findings
The Project site is developed with a manufacturing facility and associated parking. The Project site is within an urbanized portion of the City and is surrounded by existing industrial uses. Because the Project site is developed, the site was subject to construction and ground-disturbing activities similar to that which would occur under the Project. Given the highly disturbed condition of the Project site and its surroundings, the potential for the Project’s construction activities to affect an unidentified archaeological resource is considered low. However, while unlikely, the presence of previously undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources on the Project site remains possible. It is possible that subsurface disturbance would occur at levels not previously disturbed (e.g., deeper excavation) or may uncover undiscovered archaeological resources at the site. Therefore, impacts are potentially significant. (EIR, p. 4.3-11 through 4.3-12)
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project grading activities. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to important archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. (EIR, p. 4.3-14)
MM 4.3-1 In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the resource. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resource found during construction-related activities shall be recorded on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation or repatriation of the recovered resources in cooperation with the designated most likely descendant as needed. The report shall be submitted to the City of Orange, the South-Central Coastal Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office, if required.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section §15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project which avoid and lessen the significant environmental effect to less than significant as identified in the EIR. 839
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
34 2.3.3 Geology and Soils
F. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
 Potential Significant Impact
The Project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Threshold “f”).
 Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that implementation of the Project would not impact any known paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. However, Project construction activities have the potential unearth and adversely impact paleontological resources that may be buried beneath the ground surface. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant impact identified in the EIR.  Facts in Support of the Findings
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, Orange County has designated most of the area generally east of SR-55 as an area of paleontological resource sensitivity. However, the Project site is located

1.5 miles west of SR-55 and is developed with an existing manufacturing facility with associated parking and landscaping. There is a low potential for unique geologic features to be present on-site per the General Plan EIR. Additionally, according to the Cultural Resources Study (Technical Appendix D), the Project site does not contain any fossil localities; however, two fossil localities located within 3 miles of the Project site were identified in similar deposits to those underlying the Project site. The presence of multiple nearby fossil localities in deposits similar to those underlying the Project site indicates a high sensitivity for paleontological resources within the Project site. Although the Project site was previously disturbed, the Project’s construction activities have the potential to increase the depth of excavation and uncover unidentified paleontological resources. Therefore, in the unlikely event that Project excavation uncovers unknown paleontological resources, construction activities could result in a potentially significant impact. (EIR, p. 4.5-11).

However, incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be encountered during grounddisturbing activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1, the Project’s potential impact to paleontological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. (EIR, p. 4.5-13) MM 4.5-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide written evidence to the Community Development Department that the Applicant has retained a qualified paleontologist to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated paleontological discoveries.

In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all construction activities within 100 foot vicinity of the find shall halt until 840
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
35 the qualified paleontologist identifies the paleontological significance of the find. If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected and prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a museum repository. At the conclusion of curation, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program. Construction shall not resume within the vicinity until the site paleontologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities would not significantly damage paleontological resources.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section §15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project which avoid and lessen the significant environmental effect to less than significant as identified in the EIR.

2.3.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
 Potential Significant Impact
The Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (Threshold “a”).  Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that implementation of the Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant impact identified in the EIR.  Facts in Support of the Finding
The Project site was previously occupied by Nursing Supplies, Inc., a manufacturer of plastic nursery planting pots. The site has reported past evidence of soil contamination and underground storage tanks.

Additionally, the site has reported compliance violations from the County of Orange Health Care Agency – Environmental Health regarding spill control and secondary containment for bulk storage containers on site. The site was “cleaned” of contaminated soils approximately 34 years ago. As part of the limited Phase II ESA investigation, detectable quantities of the VOC constituents freon 113; 1,1,1-trichloroethene; dichlorodifluoromethane; trichlorofluoromethane; trichloroethene; and tetrachloroethene were detected from all borings. VOC concentrations for the constituents trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene were detected above screening levels for industrial air in two of the 16 borings, which include B-11 and B-12. These two borings are in the southwest corner, within the proposed parking area and/or stormwater disposal area of the Project site. Therefore, contaminated soils encountered during construction could pose a health risk to workers and the general public during removal, handling, and transport. Contaminated soils would be removed and disposed of off-site in accordance with all applicable regulatory guidelines (EIR, p. 4.7-8 through 4.7-9). 841
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
36 There is a potential for the Project site to contain impacted soil or other subsurface features (pits, sumps, clarifies, or USTs) that may need to be appropriately and expeditiously managed due to additional agency oversight and/or any permitting necessary to properly abandon such features. In order to ensure public and worker safety, an SMP was prepared (Technical Appendix H3) to provide procedures for efficiently managing potentially-impacted soils and/or USTs during site preparation activities. During earthwork activities the grading contractor is required to follow the SMP in areas of potentially impacted soil. Contractors must follow the applicable California Department of Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations for construction safety in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 8, Sections 1500-1938. Contractor employees involved in remediation activities must be HAZWOPER-trained personnel. SMP Section 3, includes several requirements including but not limited to dust control and storm water runoff control measures; procedures and notification protocols for managing impacted soils; engineering controls to limit vapor emissions, toxic air contaminants, and visibly contaminated/odorous soils; and permitting procedures for removal of inadvertent discovery of subsurface features (i.e., USTs, sumps, pits, clarifiers). Additionally, the SMP outlines the soil sample methodology, applicable performance standards, characterization, and proper disposal. SMP, Section 4 establishes excavation and soil removal procedures. SMP, Section 5 describes construction BMPs to reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants from construction activities, which include but are not limited to, keeping spill kits on-site, checking all equipment for leaks and repair leaking equipment properly, limit fugitive dust during excavation, protecting storm drains, and scheduling excavation work for dry weather periods when possible. A comprehensive list of the Project’s construction BMPs is provided in Appendix F.3 of the Soil Management Plan, in Technical Appendix H3 of the EIR. Without implementation of the SMP, potential impacts related to routine transport, use, or disposal of contaminated or potentially contaminated soils are potentially significant (EIR, p. 4.7-9).

However, incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 would ensure that any contaminated soils or other contaminated materials encountered during Project construction that are determined to be hazardous by an applicable government oversight agency are appropriately remediated so that they would not pose a hazard to the public or the environment during construction or in the long-term. As such, implementation of the Project would result in an improved environmental condition by addressing and remediating any existing environmental hazards. Accordingly, the impacts would be less than significant after the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 (EIR, p. 4.7-17).

MM 4.7-1 The Project Contractor shall adhere to the protocols and performance standards stipulated in the SMP (Technical Appendix H3). Contractors working at the site follow all applicable Cal/OSHA regulations for construction safety. A Completion Report shall be prepared at the conclusion of grading activities. The report shall document field monitoring activities and visual observations made during grading/excavations, as well as soil sampling locations and results. The report shall include a description of the location of impacted soil encountered, actions taken to characterize and mitigate impacts, confirmation soil sampling results, and disposition of any excavated soil. In addition, the report shall include a description of encountered subsurface structures and steps to remove and close such structures. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Orange Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permits.
842
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
37 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section §15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project which avoid and lessen the significant environmental effect to less than significant as identified in the EIR.

2.3.5 Tribal Cultural Resources
A. 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) that is:
i. 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) or
ii. 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?  Potential Significant Impact
The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or 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 (Threshold “a”).  Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that implementation of the Project has the potential to unearth and adversely impact significant tribal cultural resources that may be buried or masked at the Project Site and/or at the excess fill dirt sites. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant impact identified in the EIR.  Facts in Support of the Finding
There are no resources on the Project site that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). Implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a listed historical resource and no impacts would occur.
843
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
38 As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. In compliance with AB 52, the City of Orange distributed letters on July 9, 2020 to those Native American tribes that have requested notification for AB 52 notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City on the Project. Only the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation has requested consultation with the City of Orange. The City conducted Tribal Consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on September 10, 2020. The results of the Sacred Lands File search were received from the NAHC on February 24, 2019. This search did not identify any sacred lands within the Project, nor in the vicinity (EIR, p. 4.11-4).

Because the Project would require excavation for construction into previously undisturbed soils, there is a potential to uncover undiscovered prehistoric artifacts or tribal cultural resources during excavation. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface tribal cultural resources on the Project site remains possible, and these could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and construction at the Project site. As a result, impacts to tribal cultural resources are potentially significant (EIR, p. 4.11-4).

Incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-1 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant (EIR, p. 4.11-6).

MM 4.11-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the Project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Orange Planning and Building Department prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities into areas of undisturbed soils. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project site. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the Project site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the 844
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
39 Consulting Tribe. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-Native American resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section §15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project which avoid and lessen the significant environmental effect to less than significant as identified in the EIR.

2.4 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d)).
 Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not directly or indirectly induce growth in the surrounding area which could result in a significant adverse effect to the environment.  Facts in Support of the Findings
A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environs where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population of residents or employees. The Project’s construction-related and operational-related employees would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services needs is expected to be accommodated by existing goods and service providers, and based on the amount of existing and planned future commercial and retail services available in areas near the Project site, would be highly unlikely to result in any unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the environment. In addition, the Project would create jobs, a majority of which would likely be filled by residents of the housing units either already built or planned for development within the City and nearby incorporated and unincorporated areas. 845
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
40 Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Project’s future employees would already be living in the City or the immediate surrounding area, the Project’s introduction of new employment opportunities on the Project site would not induce substantial growth in the area (EIR, p. 5-3).

The General Plan land use designation for the site is Light Industrial (LI). As the Project vicinity is predominantly built-out, the development of the Project is unlikely to affect the existing uses within the surrounding properties. The Project is limited to the Project site’s boundaries and does not include any components that would indirectly affect existing or planned uses on neighboring properties.

Accordingly, the Project would not induce growth in the Project area (EIR, p. 5-3).

Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as SCAG.

Significant growth impacts also could occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. The Project is consistent with the industrial land use designations applied to the Project site by the City’s General Plan. The Project site and surrounding area is fully developed with industrial and commercial land uses. Further, implementation of the Project would not require the expansion of water and sewer infrastructure, as the Project would connect to existing water and sewer lines within Struck Avenue (EIR, pp. 5-3 through 5-4).

The operation and maintenance of the Project would generate up to approximately 60 to 130 jobs, but any potential growth-inducing impact of the employment of persons at the Project site was accounted for in the City’s General Plan, as the Project would develop the Project site in compliance with the City’s General Plan land use designation. Accordingly, the Project would not directly promote growth either at the Project site or at the adjacent and surrounding properties that were not accounted for in the City’s General Plan (EIR, p. 5-4).

In conclusion, it is not reasonably foreseeable that the Project would induce growth in the form of additional economic activity or employment that would result in measurable impacts on the physical environment (EIR, p. 5-4).

2.5 Project Alternatives

2.5.1 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis A. Alternative Site
 Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that no reasonably feasible and available Alternative Site exists for the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the Project while allowing for the feasible attainment of most of the Project’s basic objectives. 846
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
41  Facts in Support of the Findings
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is determining whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by developing the project at another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2]).

To meet the Project Objectives and implement the Project, the Alternative Site for consideration in this analysis could include other parcels within the Light Industrial land use areas where the City of Orange anticipates future industrial development. For this alternative, any development within these areas would need to be consistent with the Project, the Project Objectives, and development anticipated in the area, as presented in City of Orange General Plan and zoning. Implementing the Project on a different parcel would require acquisition of developed property, demolition of existing operational structures, and discontinuing existing land uses, and would result in environmental impacts similar to those identified for the Project (EIR, p. 6-4).

The Project’s potentially significant impacts – all of which are related to aspects of the Project’s construction and would be reduced to less than significant levels with the application of mitigation measures identified in the EIR – are also likely to occur at other sites in the City. Development at an Alternative Site would only move Project impacts to a different location. Additionally, the Projectrelated increase in truck and vehicular trips and the associated air pollutant emissions, off-site increases in traffic-related noise, and GHG emissions, which would be less than significant with the Project, would also occur with development at an alternative site (EIR, p. 6-4).

It would not be feasible for the owner to control or otherwise have access to another site of a similar size to the Project site. CEQA does not require the consideration of infeasible sites that are not owned by the landowner or that could not be reasonably acquired by the landowner to be analyzed as alternatives to the Project (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][1]) (EIR, p. 6-4).

B. Alternative Development Project On-Site
 Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that no reasonably feasible and available Alternative Development Project On-Site exists for the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the Project while allowing for the feasible attainment of most of the Project’s basic objectives.
 Facts in Support of the Findings
It is typical to consider alternative development scenarios for a Project (reduced intensity, reduced development area, alternative site plan, alternative use, etc.) when identifying potential alternatives to avoid or reduce potential significant impacts resulting from construction or operation of a project to a less than significant level. As previously identified, and as demonstrated through the analysis presented in Section 4.0 of the EIR, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. The 847
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
42 Project’s potential impacts are less than significant with incorporation of the Project-level mitigation measures in the EIR (EIR, p. 6-4).

Implementation of an alternative development scenario at the Project site that could potentially meet the established Project Objectives would require the removal of the existing building, site preparation, grading/excavation, and building construction. All impacts that require Project-level mitigation are associated with construction activities, not operation, and would therefore also occur under a potential alternative development scenario onsite. For that reason, there is no need to further evaluate alternative development scenarios. (EIR, p. 6-4).

C. Alternative Land Use
• Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that no reasonably feasible and available Alternative Land Use exists for the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the Project while allowing for the feasible attainment of most of the Project’s basic objectives.  Facts in Support of the Findings
An Alternative Land Use was considered in response to public comment received during the scoping meeting requesting an alternative that considered development of the site with smaller buildings for small businesses. To accommodate this request, the Alternative Land Use assumes the development of a total of 60,000 sf of business park uses within a single building or multiple buildings with multiple small business tenants. The ITE Trip Generation Manual includes trip generation rates for Business Park (ITE Land Use Code 770). This rate includes business park uses that consists of a group of flextype or incubator one- or two-story buildings served by a common roadway system. Tenants may be start-up companies or small mature companies that require a variety of space. The space may include offices, retail and wholesale stores, restaurants, recreational areas and warehousing, manufacturing, light industrial, or scientific research functions. Based on 60,000 sf of business park uses, this alternative would generate 81 AM peak hour, 73 PM peak hour, and 746 average daily trips (EIR, pp. 6-4 through 6-5).

Because this alternative would involve redevelopment of the site, impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources would remain the same as the Project. Mitigation measures are required to reduce these potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant. Under this alternative, the projected trips would increase from 396 to 746 average daily trips, resulting in an increase in impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and off-site traffic related noise impacts. Because this alternative would increase environmental impacts and would not reduce any of the Project’s significant impacts, this alternative was rejected from further evaluation (EIR, p. 6-5). 848
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
43 2.5.2 No Project/No Development Alternative
 Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the No Project/No Development Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project but would not attain any of the objectives for the Project.

Accordingly, the City rejects the No Development Alternative.  Facts in Support of the Findings
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires than an EIR evaluate a “no project” alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project alternatives: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan; and (2) when the project is other than a land use/regulatory plan (such as a specific development on an identifiable property), the no project alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed.

The No Project/No Development Alternative considers no development on the Project site beyond what occurs on the site under existing conditions (as described in EIR Section 3.0). As such, the Project site would remain with an existing vacated 40,000 square foot concrete tilt-up manufacturing building.

Under this alternative, no future operations or improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the Project’s parking, utility, and infrastructure improvements would occur. (EIR, p. 6-6).

Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project site.

Attainment of Project Objectives
This alternative would fail to meet all of the Project’s objectives, as described in Subsection 6.2. (EIR, p. 6-6)

2.5.3 No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative
 Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in the same construction-related impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources as the Project. This alternative would not fully attain the objectives for the Project. Accordingly, the City rejects the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative (EIR, p. 6-6).
849
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
44  Facts in Support of the Findings
The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative considers redevelopment of the Project site with a warehouse building that would be allowed under the existing M-2 zoning. Under this alternative, the site would be redeveloped with a 201,520 square foot warehouse building which represents continuation of development consistent with the existing community development type and zoning designations. (EIR, p. 6-6).

Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project All potentially significant impacts of the Project can be mitigated to less than significant and no significant and unavoidable impacts would occur. Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for inadvertent discovery of archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources. In addition, Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for biological resources (potential to impact nesting migratory birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code) and hazardous materials (potential contaminated soils). The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the Project’s significant impacts. (EIR, p. 6-6 through 6-7)
Attainment of Project Objectives
The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would involve redevelopment of the site with a 201,520 square foot warehouse building. This alternative would not fully meet Project Objectives 1 (Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a truck terminal consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation infrastructure such as the SR57 and I-5) and 2 (Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of a truck terminal with warehouse and office spaces that are responsive to local and regional trade demands) because the site would not be developed with a truck terminal use. The remaining Project Objectives 3–6 as listed under Subsection 6.2, would be attained with this alternative (EIR, p. 6-7).

2.5.4 Reuse Alternative
 Findings
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Reuse Alternative would eliminate constructionrelated impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and paleontological resources. This alternative would not result in remediation of the site in the event that unknown contaminated soils are present. Additionally, this alternative would result in increased operational energy demand and GHG emissions compared to the Project. Accordingly, the City rejects the Reuse Alternative (EIR, pp. 6-7 through 6-8).
 Facts in Support of Findings
The Reuse Alternative assumes the Project does not proceed and the existing 40,000 square-foot concrete tilt-up manufacturing building and parking lot would remain and be reused by a future tenant.

Until the end of 2020, the Project site was occupied by Nursery Supplies, Inc., a manufacturer of plastic 850
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
45 nursery planting pots. Under the Reuse Alternative, the existing building and associated facilities onsite would be retained and reoccupied for use with a similar manufacturing use that is consistent with that allowed by-right pursuant to the M-2 zone. The M-2 zone intends to provide the continuation and development of heavy manufacturing industries in a location where they are compatible with and will not adversely impact adjacent land uses (EIR, p. 6-7).

With respect to archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources, the Reuse Alternative would not involve any excavation or grading activities. Therefore, the potential to discover previously unidentified archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources is eliminated. Reuse of the existing building would not require removal of trees on site. As such, the potential for impacts to biological resources under the Reuse Alternative would be less than with the Project. However, the Reuse Alternative would not result in remediation of the site in the event that unknown contaminated soils are present. Additionally, this alternative would result in increased operational energy demand and GHG emissions compared to the Project, because it would not redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meets current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Standards with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure (EIR, pp. 6-7 through 6-8).

The Project would not result in any significant impacts before mitigation for any other topical issues and therefore do not need to be assessed under the Reuse Alternative (EIR, p. 6-8).

Avoid or Substantially Lessen the Significant Impacts of the Project The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; therefore, the Reuse Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant and unavoidable impact. However, Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for inadvertent discovery of archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources. In addition, Project-level mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant for biological resources (potential to impact nesting migratory birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code) and hazardous materials (potential discovery of contaminated soils). These potentially significant impacts are associated with construction activities, not operation of the Project. As described above, the Reuse Alternative would eliminate these impacts and mitigation measures would not be required, because no grading would occur. However, as noted above, the Reuse Alternative would not result in remediation of the site in the event that unknown contaminated soils are present. Additionally, this alternative would result in increased operational energy demand and GHG emissions compared to the Project, because it would not redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meets current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Standards with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure (EIR, p. 6-8).

Attainment of Project Objectives
The discussion below addresses the ability of the Reuse Alternative to attain the project objectives. 851
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
46 A. Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a truck terminal consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation infrastructure such as the SR-57 and I-5. The Reuse Alternative would not involve the redevelopment of the Project site with a truck terminal, rather it would involve the continued use or reuse of the existing building and facilities at the Project site for manufacturing use. Therefore, the Reuse Alternative does not meet the overall intent of this Project objective and redevelopment of the Project site is necessary to accomplish this objective.

B. Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of a truck terminal with warehouse and office spaces that are responsive to local and regional trade demands. The Reuse Alternative would not include entitlements for redevelopment responsive to local and regional trade demands. Additionally, the existing outdated and underutilized building would not have the ability to attract a high-quality tenant responsive to local and regional trade demands. The Reuse Alternative does not meet the overall intent of this Project objective and redevelopment of the Project site is necessary to accomplish this objective.

C. Provide development that will enhance the City’s economic well-being and employment opportunities for community residents. While the Reuse Alternative could conceivably continue to generate revenue and employment opportunities, the existing outdated and underutilized building constructed in 1977 would not have the ability to attract a high-quality tenant to enhance additional property tax revenue and employment opportunities for the City.

Therefore, the Reuse Alternative would not meet this objective.

D. Develop the site with a use that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible with other existing and planned development in the local area. The existing building is compatible with other existing development in the local area. However, the Reuse Alternative would not result in a new modern building that would complement new and planned development in the local area. Therefore, the Reuse Alternative partially meets this objective.

E. Provide a fully secured premise with active management to strengthen the security and safety for the local area. The Reuse Alternative would not include the installation of an approximately 8-foot-high tubular steel fencing along the site’s perimeter to protect visitors and/or employees on-site from vandalism and theft and from traversing the OCTA/SCRRA Railroad track immediately east of the site. In addition, the Reuse Alternative would not provide active management on-site for safety and security. Therefore, the Reuse Alternative would not meet this objective.

F. Redevelop the Project site with a new modern building that meet current California Building Code and California Green Building Code Standards with increased energy efficiency with existing available infrastructure. The Reuse Alternative would not involve the redevelopment of the Project site, rather it would involve the continued use or reuse of the existing building that was constructed in 1977. The Project would not result in the development of a modern building that meets current building code standards and would not be as energy 852
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
47 efficient as redevelopment of the site. Therefore, the Reuse Alternative would not meet current California Building Code and California Green Building Code standards. 853
534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399
48 3.0 Additional Facts on Record

3.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures Pursuant to § 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code the City of Orange hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). The City finds that the MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes (i.e., mitigation measures) imposed on the Project to mitigate or avoid effects on the environment during Project implementation. The MMRP is on file with the City of Orange, Planning Division, Community Development Department, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866.

3.2 Custodian of Record
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Orange, Planning Division, Community Development Department, 300 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866. The custodian for these records is the Planning Division Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code § 21081.6.
854