Orange City Council
August 22, 2023

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

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 .......................................................................................................... 48 534 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 Cali fornia 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 P roject objectives have been refine d throughout the planning and design process for the proposed Project and are listed below:
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:
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;

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 J uly 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 a ll 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. 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 decision- making 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 af ter 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 A pplicant 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 tha t 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 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 long- term 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 s trategy 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. Th e 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). 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 operation- source 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 acti vity. 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 c ause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent residences, workers, or nearby schools (EIR, p. 4.1-27 through

4.1-32).

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 m ay 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 (particul arly 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 spe cies 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).

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 De partment 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 al ong 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).

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 maj ority 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 his toric 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 one- half 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 faci lity 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 faci lity’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).

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 St ate 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 im pact 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 electrici ty 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 cons umption resulting from Project construction worker trips is 6,338 gallons during full construction of the Project. It should be noted 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 equipme nt 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 i s 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 refine ment.

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 landfil l 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 Inst itute 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).

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 alter native 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 infra structure 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 w ith, 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 interfe re 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).
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 tha t 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 t he 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 Alquist- Priolo 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).

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 high- intensity 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 seismic - related landslides. Therefore, no impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5-8). 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. T he 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 l andscaping 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 on- or 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 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 sa ndy 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 wastewate r service, which currently provides service to the site and surrounding area. No impacts would occur (EIR, p. 4.5-10). 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 CO 2e 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 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 h andle 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, a s 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).

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 appli cable 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 im plementation 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 d eveloped 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. Imp lementation 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).
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 abse nce 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).

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-relat ed SWPPP (development SWPPP) is required as part of the Construction General Permit when any project disturbs greater than one (1) acre of soils. A post - construction 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 unmitigat ed 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).

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 proj ect 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 approximate ly 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 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 ba sin 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 wi ll 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).

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 Ba sin 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 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, w hich 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).

534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399

27 Future tenants of the proposed Project are currentl y 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 Project- related 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 fac ility 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). 534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399

28 B. Would the Project result in generation o f 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. A t 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 vibrati on 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 si gnificant 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 la nd 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).

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 t o provide convenient and attractive transit amenities and streetscape features to encourage transit use. No impacts would oc cur. 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 corne r, and driveway 2, located at the site’s northeast corner, would accommodate the wide turning radius of the 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 acces s 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 ade quate 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 identi fies 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.

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 i nterfere 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 Projec t 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 are as 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 Measure s (MM) 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, which require a pre- construction 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 require s 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 vicini ty 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 avi an 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 a n 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.

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 qualif ied 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. 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 desi gnated 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 ground- disturbing 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 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 resul ts 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 s pill 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).

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.
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 de fined in Public Resources Code S ection 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.

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 s ubsurface 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 re duced 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 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 quali fied 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 av ailable 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. 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 vi cinity 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 a ffect 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 regi onal 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. 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 Project - related 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 s ite 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 reasona bly 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 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 flex- type 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 me asures 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).

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 ci rcumstance 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).

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 SR- 57 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 construction- related 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 dem and 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 534 Struck Avenue Project
Findings of Fact SCH No. 2021090399

45 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 (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 t ribal 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 potenti ally 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 Stand ards 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.

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 operation al 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 th at 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 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.

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 Projec t 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.