Cypress City Council
July 8, 2024

definitions, all release provisions, the eleven-year-payment schedule and all other terms and provisions of the payment schedule, and all other terms and provisions.

These terms and this letter shall be included in a stipulated judgment to be filed in a Superior Court in the State of California.

Sincerely,
Chantale Fiebig
Counsel for The Kroger Co.

SO AGREED BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
________________________________
Name: David A. Jones
Title: Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Date: March 29, 2024
DocuSign Envelope ID: FEAA1971-4CE1-4B70-9882-B70DCEA90142 3/30/23, 11:15 AM Print Agenda Item
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=1652&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=29773 1/3

CITY OF CYPRESS

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular Item # 7.

FROM: Fred Galante, City Attorney
DATE: 12/13/2021
SUBJECT: Approve Participation in the National Opioid Settlements

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider and take the following actions:

1. Approve Settlement Participation Form for the City’s participation in the National Opioid Settlement with McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and AmerisourceBergen Corporation; and

2. Approve Settlement Participation Form for the City’s participation in the National Opioid Settlement with Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; and

3. Approve the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds - Distributor Settlement; and

4. Approve the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds - Janssen Settlement; and

5. Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute the documents identified in Recommendation Nos. 1 through 4; and

6. Authorize the City Manager to carry out all necessary acts such that the City can participate in the National Opioid Settlements, including, but not limited to, the transmittal of the executed documents in Recommendation Nos. 1 through 4.

SUMMARY
Various states, counties, and cities have been in litigation with the McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and AmerisourceBergen Corporation. (collectively, the “Distributors”) and Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. (collectively, the “Manufacturer”) (for purposes of this report, the Distributors and Manufacturer are collectively referred to as the “Settling Defendants”). The litigation concerns the distribution and manufacture of opioids that have contributed to the opioid addiction epidemic in the United States. Two tentative settlements have been reached with the Distributors and Manufacturer, respectively (“National Opioids Settlements”). A “critical mass” of participation by 3/30/23, 11:15 AM Print Agenda Item
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=1652&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=29773 2/3 states, cities and counties must be achieved in order to proceed. This critical mass is determined by the Settling Defendants in their sole discretion. If a critical mass is not achieved, then the National Opioids Settlements do not proceed and the litigation continues. There are two parts to achieving critical mass: first, a critical mass of states must be achieved and, second, a critical mass of cities and counties must be achieved. At this stage, a critical mass of state participation has already occurred.

DISCUSSION
Assuming there is a critical mass to proceed, the payout amounts under the settlements with the Settling Defendants is contingent upon various factors, including the number of states, cities, and counties participating, with a maximum payout of $21 billion over the course of 18 years by the Distributors and $5 billion over no more than nine years by the Manufacturer to all participating entities. A fraction of that amount will be received by California, its counties, and cities. The actual amount for the City is dependent on a number of variables, including, but not limited to, the number of California cities and counties participating, whether or not cities later sue the Settling Defendants, and certain actions that may be taken by the State of California. Further, the City’s share of the potential amount is determined using three factors: (1) Opioid use disorder; (2) Opioid deaths; and (3) Opioid dosage. If the City participates, the funds will automatically be allocated to the County unless the City opts to receive the funds directly; however, there are certain reporting and tracking requirements if the City receives the funds directly (see below).

By participating in the National Opioid Settlements, the City would be agreeing to a very broad release of claims relating in any way to opioids against the Settling Defendants, which includes both known and unknown claims. However, not participating and litigating on its own means that the City is required to comply with very strict deadlines with respect to litigation.

The National Opioids Settlements will allow for a range of approved abatement uses, which includes a range of intervention, treatment, education, and recovery services. However, the use of funds are restricted to the abatement uses, including 50% per calendar year on high impact abatement uses, identified in the settlements (see, e.g., Attachments 3 and 4, and Exhibit E of Attachments 6 and 7).

There are also significant public reporting and tracking requirements on the expenditures for such funds, which may make County receipt and expenditure of such funds more desirable. For example, the settlement with the Manufacturer would require the following reporting and tracking:

1. Preparation of annual written reports regarding the use of the funds. This report must include a certification that all funds received have been used in compliance with the Manufacturer settlement agreements. This report must be in a form that is approved by the California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”).

2. The City would be required to track all deposits and expenditures.

3. Funds not used for a permitted purpose must be identified and included in the annual report (including any attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs). This information must also be reported to the Manufacturer and the settlement fund administrator.

In terms of enforcement, if DHCS believes that the use of settlement funds is inconsistent with the requirements, it must meet and confer with subdivision (i.e., the City), and if not resolved, DHCS may perform an audit. If the issue is not resolved, DHCS can bring a motion or action in court to resolve the concern or to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement/state-allocation agreement.

There are also time limits on expenditure where money not expended or encumbered within 5 years of receipt must be transferred to the State. However, these requirements only apply to the City if it elects to receive direct distribution and does not apply if the funds go to the County.

The National Opioids Settlements also provide for injunctive relief that requires changes to the Distributors’ and Manufacturer’s conduct. This includes the creation of a clearinghouse through which the Distributors will be required to account for their own shipments and the shipments of the 3/30/23, 11:15 AM Print Agenda Item
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=1652&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=29773 3/3 other distributors, in order to detect, stop, and report suspicious opioids orders. In addition, the Manufacturer (which ceased marketing opioids in 2015 and ceased selling opioids in 2020) will not market or sell any opioid products in the next ten years and has agreed to cease lobbying concerning prescription opioids for ten years.

Approval of Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 would authorize the City to participate in the National Opioid Settlements with the Settling Defendants on the terms and conditions of those settlement agreements. (Attachments 1 and 2)
Approval of Recommendation Nos. 3 and 4 would approve agreements with the State of California on the distribution and use of settlement funds, consistent with the National Settlement Agreements. (Attachments 3 and 4)
Approval of Recommendation No. 5 would approve and authorize the City Manager to execute all documentation necessary to participate in the National Opioid Settlements. (Attachment 5) Approval of Recommendation No. 6 would authorize the City Manager to carry out all necessary acts to allow the City to participate in the National Opioid Settlements, including the transmittal of the above-mentioned executed documents.

City Council approval and authorization to execute, submit, and receipt of all required documents must be completed before January 2, 2022.

BUDGET IMPACT
Use of funds are restricted to the abatement of impacts of the opioid epidemic, including 50% per calendar year on high impact abatement uses, identified in the settlements. The actual amounts the City will receive depends on various factors, such as the number of California jurisdictions that participate in the settlement.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney prepared the report.

APPROVED
BY:

Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Nat'l Opioid Settlement Form
Attachment 2 - Janssen Opioid Settlement Form
Attachment 3 - Final State Agreement Distributors Settlement Attachment 4 - Final State Janssen Agreement Settlement Attachment 5 - Resolution Authorizing CM to Sign Settlement Attachment 6 - Final Distributor Settlement Agreement
Attachment 7 - Janssen Agreement
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 10.

FROM: Mark Lauderback, Chief of Police
DATE: 07/08/2024
SUBJECT: Receive and File the Police Department's Annual Military Equipment Report Per California Assembly Bill 481

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive and file the Police Department's Annual Military Equipment Report per California Assembly Bill 481; and

2. Approve a renewal of the military equipment policy previously adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 1194.

DISCUSSION
In 2022 the City Council adopted an Ordinance approving the Police Department's Military Equipment Policy in accordance with Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481). This bill requires law enforcement agencies to establish a policy for the funding, acquisition, and use of items deemed to be military equipment. The bill also requires that an annual military equipment report be made public on the Police Department's website and a community meeting be held to allow for public comments within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report.

To meet the requirements of the Annual Military Equipment Usage Report pursuant to AB 481 and Government Code § 7072, the following information is to be provided for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:

A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.

The Cypress Police Department did not have any military equipment deployments in the City of Cypress in 2023. Cypress PD does participate in the West County Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT), which includes the cities of Cypress, Fountain Valley, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach and Westminster. For military equipment deployments in these cities, the public may refer to these agencies' military equipment annual reports.

A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.

No violations were discovered in 2023 and officers appear to be operating in a manner that met or exceeded Department and community expectations. The Cypress Police Department did not receive any complaints or concerns related to the use of military equipment.

The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.

The Department conducted an internal audit and determined there were no violations of the military equipment use policy.

The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.

This cost is contained in the current inventory of military equipment, which includes initial purchase costs (See Military Equipment List Attachment).

The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.

This information is contained in the current inventory of military equipment (See Military Equipment List Attachment).

If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

The Cypress Police Department has proposed purchasing eight replacement rifles in the fiscal year 2024-25 budget. These will replace current rifles. Additional ammunition and chemical agents which need to be replenished after being used in the field or in training environments will also be purchased. All items needing to be replenished or replaced are included in the Cypress Police Department Policy.

In compliance with the requirements of AB 481, the information provided in this staff report, which includes the Annual Report and the Military Equipment Policy, was updated and available on the Department's website starting last month. In addition, a community meeting was held on July 3 at 5:00 PM in the Police Department to answer any questions related to military equipment and policy.

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed this report.

APPROVED BY:  Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
2024 Military Equipment List
Ordinance No. 1194

Equipment Qty. Unit cost (approx) Total cost
Remington model 870 breaching shotgun 1 $850 $850
Colt model AR-15A3 (patrol rifle 16" barrel) .223 cal 34 $950 $32,300 Colt model HBAR Sporter (patrol rifle 16" barrel) .223 cal 1 $950 $950 Colt model SP1 (patrol rifle 16" barrel) .223 cal 1 $950 $950 Bushmaster model XM15-E25 (patrol rifle 16" barrel) .223 cal 1 $950 $950 Colt model match target Sporter (patrol rifle 16" barrel) .223 cal 1 $950 $950 Eagle Arms model M15-A2 (patrol rifle 16" barrel) .223 cal 1 $950 $950 Colt model CR6920 (patrol rifle 16" barrel) .223 cal 5 $950 $4,750 Colt model M4 (motor rifle 10" barrel) .223 cal 3 $1,550 $4,650 Remington model 870 less-lethal bean bag shotgun 14 $946 $13,244 Heckler & Koch model 416D (SWAT rifle) 5.56mm 10 $2,300 $23,000 DPMS Panther Arms model LR308 (SWAT rifle) .308 cal 2 $1,330 $2,660 Remington model 700 (SWAT rifle) .308 cal 1 $980 $980
Heckler & Koch model MP5 (SWAT rifle) .40cal 10 $1,978 $19,780 Heckler & Koch model MP5 (SWAT rifle) 9mm 3 $1,978 $5,934 LMT model 40mm launcher 1 $878 $878
SAGE model SL-6 37 mm launcher 1 $1,650 $1,650
Defense Technology model 37mm launcher 1 $859 $859
Winchester 5.56mm 55 grain FMJ training ammunition 18,000 $0.37 $6,660 Winchester .223 cal 55 grain FMJ training ammunition 33,000 $0.46 $15,147 Winchester .223 cal 69 grain JHP duty ammunition 8,800 $0.46 $4,039 Hornady .308 cal 168 grain JHP duty & training ammunition 1,000 $2 $1,790 Combined Tactical Systems model 7290 Flashbang 21 $52 $1,101 Defense Technology model 1069 Yellow Smoke grenade 2 $39 $78 Defense Technology 40mm CS powder Ferret ammunition 15 $26 $386 City of Cypress, Government Code 7070 ( c )
City of Cypress, Government Code 7070 ( c )
Sage International 37mm impact baton 0 $24 $0
Sage International 37mm soft tip impact baton 0 $26 $0
Defense Technology Exact Impact 40mm sponge 5 $20 $100
Combined Tactical Systems model 2581 Super Sock 12 ga. bean bag 650 $8 $4,875 Regional assets
Lenco Bearcat (SWAT vehicle) 1 Westminster PD
LDV Specialty Vehicles (Mobile Command Post) 1 Tri-Cities LRAD Long Range Acoustical Device 1 Westminster PD
Kinetic Breaching Tool (KBT) Model 3-1000 1 SBPD
Transcend Vantage Patrol Robot 1 Westminster PD
Unmanned aircraft system 3 SBPD
60 ORDINANCE NO. 1194

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

CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE CYPRESS POLICE DEPARTMENT' S

MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 ( creating Government Code Section 7070, et seq.), relating to use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies; WHEREAS, AB 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used;
WHEREAS, the Cypress Police Department is in possession of certain items of equipment that qualify under the broad definition of" military equipment" under AB 481; WHEREAS, AB 481 requires that a law enforcement agency possessing and using such qualifying equipment prepare a publicly released and written military equipment use policy document covering the inventory, description, purpose, use, acquisition, maintenance, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process, applicable to the Department' s use of such equipment;
WHEREAS, the Policy and supporting information must be approved by the governing body by ordinance, and reviewed annually;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress, having received the information required under AB 481 regarding the Cypress Police Department' s use of military equipment" as defined in said law, deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve the Military Equipment Use Policy as set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. City Council hereby approves and adopts the following:

Military Equipment Policy
a) The City Council has made the following determinations:
1) The military equipment inventoried and presented to the City Council is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;
2) This military equipment use policy attached hereto as Exhibit " A" (" Policy") will safeguard the public' s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; 3) The equipment described in the Policy is reasonably cost-effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety ( if any);
4) Prior military equipment use complied with the applicable equipment use policy ( which included equipment now defined as military equipment) that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying Policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy 61 nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance by way of the adoption of the Policy by this Ordinance.
b) The Cypress Police Department has made the Policy available on the Police Department' s website for at least 30 days prior to the public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue and described in the Policy. c) The Policy was considered by the City Council as an agenda item in an open session of a regular meeting, noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which public comment was permitted.
d) The Policy shall be made publicly available on the Police Department' s website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. e) The Cypress Police Department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the City Council, containing the information required in Government Code Section 7072, and the City Council shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in ( a)( 1)-( 4) above.
f) The City Council shall review this Ordinance, and vote on whether to renew it, on an annual basis at a regular meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071( e)( 2).
g) The City Council approves the use of the Policy and finds that it satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 7070( d).

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute this Ordinance on behalf of the City of Cypress forthwith upon its adoption.

SECTION 4. The Deputy City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and/ or posted at the designated locations in the City of Cypress.

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective thirty ( 30) days following its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of e City of Cypre at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of May, 2022.
d beleit;

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
6& 91,

CITY CL RK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 9th day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Marquez, Minikus, Peat, Hertz- Mallari and Morales NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
4k1M1?
ki ti Ull

CITY CLERK OF HE CITY OF CYPRESS
62 Policy Cypress Police Department
708 Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708. 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment ( Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
708. 1. 1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include ( Government Code § 7070):

Governing body—The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.

Military equipment— includes, but is not limited to the following:

Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles.

Mine-resistant ambush- protected ( MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers.

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles( HMMWV), two-and- one-half-ton trucks, five- ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached.

Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants.

Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.

Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.

Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.

Firearms and ammunition of. 50 caliber or greater, excluding standard- issue shotguns and standard- issue shotgun ammunition.

Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than . 50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard- issue handguns.

Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.

Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools.

Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service- issued handheld pepper spray.

TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long- range acoustic devices ( LRADs).

Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.

Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/ 05/ 11, All Rights Reserved.

Published Military Equipment- 1 with permission by Cypress Police Department 63 Cypress Police Department
Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708. 2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Cypress Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 708. 3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Support Services Division Lieutenant will act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Cypress Police Department( Government Code § 7071). e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department' s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website ( Government Code § 7072).
g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
708. 4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:
708. 4. 1 FIREARM - PATROL RIFLE
Description: Firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge, firing a single projectile through a rifled bore for every pull of the trigger.

Quantity: 47.

Capabilities: Fires a lethal projectile.

Expected Lifespan: 20+ years.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/ 05/ 11, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment- 2 Published with permission by Cypress Police Department
64 Cypress Police Department
Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Product Description:. 223 caliber Patrol rifle manufactured by Colt, Bushmaster, or Eagle Arms.

Purpose and Authorized Use: May be deployed in any circumstance where personnel can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed ( Policy 311. 3. 3).

Training Required: 16- hour POST approved course with qualification and additional training on safe use and deployment and device functionality. Must demonstrate proficiency with recertification twice per year.

Initial Cost: $ 48,000
Annual Cost: Approximately$ 2,400 for maintenance.
708. 4. 2 KINETIC ENERGY LAUNCHER
Description: Less- lethal weapon which uses a propellant cartridge to launch a kinetic energy impact projectile.

Quantity: 17
Capabilities: Fires a less- lethal kinetic energy projectile.

Expected Lifespan: 20+ years.

Product Description: 37 MM Defense Technology Single Launcher; LMT 40 MM Single Launcher; Sage SL-6 37 MM Multi- Role Launcher; Remington 870 Less-Lethal Shotgun Purpose and Authorized Use: Less-lethal force option ( Policy 307.9. 1).

Training Required: Less- lethal weapons training from POST- approved instructor.

Initial Cost: $ 18, 000
Annual Cost: Approximately$ 50 for maintenance of less- lethal shotgun; $ 150 annual maintenance for other launchers.
708.4. 3 LIGHT SOUND DIVERSIONARY DEVICE ( LSDD)
Description: Device used by SWAT members that produces loud noise and bright light intended to cause disorientation and distraction.

Quantity: 12
Capabilities: Distraction device used to minimize the risks to all parties by the temporary disorientation or distraction of potentially violent or dangerous suspects.

Expected Lifespan: 5 years.

Product Description: Combined Tactical Systems Flash- Bang Model # 7290 Purpose and Authorized Use: To distract/ disorient potentially violent or dangerous suspects.

Training Required: Diversionary device training from POST- approved instructor.

Initial Cost: $ 675
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/ 05/ 11, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Cypress Police Department Military Equipment- 3 65 Cypress Police Department
Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Annual Cost: N/A
708. 4. 4 BREACHING SHOTGUN
Description: Pump-action 12-gauge firearm used by SWAT members to defeat locking mechanisms.

Quantity: 1
Capabilities: Traditional breaching method that provides for quick breaching of multiple locking mechanisms.

Expected Lifespan: 30 years.

Product Description: Remington 870 Tactical Shotgun
Purpose and Authorized Use: May be deployed in any circumstance where the SWAT member needs to breach a door quickly and safely.

Training Required: 40- Hour explosive breaching training with quarterly update training.

Initial Cost: $ 925
Annual Cost: N/A
708. 4. 5 FIREARM - SWAT RIFLE
Description: Firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge, firing one or more projectiles through a rifled bore for every pull of the trigger.

Quantity: 12.

Capabilities: Fires a lethal projectile.

Expected Lifespan: 20+ years.

Product Description: 5. 56 MM or. 308 caliber rifle manufactured by Heckler& Koch or DPMS.

Purpose and Authorized Use: May be deployed in any circumstance where personnel can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed.

Training Required: 16- hour POST approved course with qualification and additional training on safe use and deployment and device functionality. Must demonstrate proficiency with recertification bi- monthly.

Initial Cost: $ 27, 650
Annual Cost: Approximately$ 600 for maintenance.
708.4. 6 FIREARM - SWAT SUBMACHINE GUN
Description: Firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge, firing one or more projectiles through a rifled bore for every pull of the trigger.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/ 05/ 11, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment- 4 Published with permission by Cypress Police Department
66 Cypress Police Department
Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Quantity: 13
Capabilities: Fires a lethal projectile.

Expected Lifespan: 20+ years.

Product Description: 9 MM or.40 caliber submachine gun manufactured by Heckler& Koch.* Note:

These firearms are not in current use but are in the Department's inventory.

Purpose and Authorized Use: May be deployed in any circumstance where personnel can articulate a reasonable expectation that the gun may be needed.

Training Required: Training from a department- authorized instructor.

Initial Cost: $ 27,700
Annual Cost: N/A
708. 4. 7 FIREARM - SWAT BOLT-ACTION RIFLE
Description: Firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge, firing one projectile through a rifled bore for every pull of the trigger.

Quantity: 1.

Capabilities: Fires a lethal projectile.

Expected Lifespan: 20+ years.

Product Description: 308 caliber bolt- action rifle manufactured by Remington.

Purpose and Authorized Use: May be deployed in any circumstance where personnel can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed.

Training Required: 40-hour precision long- rifle training with qualification and additional training on safe use and deployment and device functionality. Must demonstrate proficiency with recertification bi- monthly.

Initial Cost: $ 1, 100
Annual Cost: Approximately$ 50 for maintenance.
708. 5 SHARED MILITARY EQUIPMENT
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department that may be deployed in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies. These items' potential for use within the City of Cypress comes from the Cypress Police Department's participation in the West County Special Weapons and Tactics ( SWAT) Team, a collaboration of law enforcement personnel from the Cypress, Fountain Valley, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, and Westminster Police Departments or through joint use- agreement with the Los Alamitos and Seal Beach Police Departments:

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/05/ 11, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Cypress Police Department Military Equipment- 5 67 Cypress Police Department
Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708. 5. 1 SWAT ARMORED RESCUE VEHICLE
Description: An armored rescue vehicle deployed during high- risk incidents, special events, and community outreach. * Note: This is a regional SWAT asset that is owned and maintained by the Westminster Police Department.

Quantity: 1.

Capabilities: Mobile armored vehicle to support high-risk deployments.

Expected Lifespan: 25 years.

Product Description: Ballistic Engineered Armored Rescue ( BEARCAT) Vehicle, manufactured by Lenco.

Purpose and Authorized Use: To assist police personnel in enhancing public safety by transporting first responders and/ or community members to/from high- risk situations. Provide a mobile platform to safely transport and deploy personnel.

Training Required: Formalized in- house driver operation and safety training.

Initial Cost: Refer to Westminster Police Department.

Annual Cost: N/A
708. 5. 2 MOBILE COMMAND VEHICLE
Description: A customized vehicle used to enhance communication and coordination during emergency incidents, special events, or community outreach. * Note: This is a shared asset that is owned by the Cypress Police Department.

Quantity: 1.

Capabilities: On- scene incident command and control functions may be performed from a mobile command vehicle.

Expected Lifespan: 20 years.

Product Description: Modified command vehicle based on a Freightliner M2 106 chassis.

Purpose and Authorized Use: A mobile command vehicle provides a strategic location for police personnel during emergency incidents, special events, or community outreach events. Use of this equipment is also appropriate for large- scale events that require advanced coordination of large numbers of police and other safety or first responder personnel.

Training Required: Class B driver's license and additional department provided vehicle-specific, driver and operational training.

Initial Cost: $ 450, 000 * Note: This item was purchased in 2007 using federal grant funding.

Annual Cost: Approximately $ 1, 000. * Note: The maintenance costs for this asset are distributed evenly between the cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/ 05/ 11, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment- 6 Published with permission by Cypress Police Department
68 Cypress Police Department
Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708. 5. 3 SWAT KINETIC BREACHING TOOL
Description: A hand- held breaching tool engineered to deliver high- impact energy to defeat locking mechanisms. * Note: This is a regional SWAT asset that is owned and maintained by the Seal Beach Police Department.

Quantity: 1.

Capabilities: Provides for safer and faster breaching.

Expected Lifespan: 30 years.

Product Description: Powder activated kinetic energy force entry tool.

Purpose and Authorized Use: May be deployed in any circumstance where the member needs to breach a door quickly and safely.

Training Required: Training on safe use and deployment and device functionality.

Initial Cost: Refer to the Seal Beach Police Department.

Annual Cost: N/ A
708.5.4 SWAT LONG RANGE ACOUSTICAL DEVICE
Description: A public address system that delivers live or recorded messages. * Note: This is a regional SWAT asset that is owned and maintained by the Westminster Police Department.

Quantity: 1.

Capabilities: Provides public address notifications
Expected Lifespan: 10 years.

Product Description: Self-powered communication system that delivers voice messages and alert tones.

Purpose and Authorized Use: May be deployed in any outdoor circumstances where the member needs to communicate information to the public.

Training Required: Training on safe use and deployment and device functionality.

Initial Cost: Refer to the Westminster Police Department.

Annual Cost: N/A
708. 5. 5 SWAT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ( UAS)
Description: A UAS is an unmanned aircraft and the equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft. An unmanned aircraft, a component of a UAS, is defined by law as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. * Note: This is a regional SWAT asset that is owned and maintained by the Seal Beach Police Department.

Quantity: Refer to the Seal Beach Police Department.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/ 05/ 11, All Rights Reserved.

Military Equipment- 7
Published with permission by Cypress Police Department
69 Cypress Police Department
Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Capabilities: Sustained flight controlled by a remote pilot on the ground.

Expected Lifespan: Refer to the Seal Beach Police Department.

Product Description: Refer to the Seal Beach Police Department.

Purpose and Authorized Use: To assist SWAT personnel in enhancing public safety while protecting the rights and privacy of the general public.

Training Required: Refer to the Seal Beach Police Department. * Note: No Cypress Police Department personnel are trained to operate UAS.

Initial Cost: Refer to the Seal Beach Police Department.

Annual Cost: N/ A
708. 5. 6 SWAT REMOTE CONTROL ROBOT
Description: A remotely controlled ground vehicle that moves on tracks, manufactured by Transcend. * Note: This is a regional SWAT asset that is owned and maintained by the Westminster Police Department.

Quantity: Refer to the Westminster Police Department.

Capabilities: Provides ability for SWAT members to view scenes, deliver items, open doors, and visually clear buildings.

Expected Lifespan: Refer to the Westminster Police Department.

Product Description: Refer to the Westminster Police Department.

Purpose and Authorized Use: May be deployed in any circumstances where the SWAT Commander determines remote viewing of a location or item delivery is appropriate and lawful.

Training Required: Refer to the Westminster Police Department. * Note: No Cypress Police Department personnel are trained to operate this robot.

Initial Cost: Refer to the Westminster Police Department.

Annual Cost: N/ A
708. 6 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue( Government Code§ 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following ( Government Code § 7071):
a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/ 05/ 11, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment- 8 Published with permission by Cypress Police Department
70 Cypress Police Department
Cypress Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in- kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 708.7 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 708. 8 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use ( Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 708. 9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well- publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/ 05/ 11, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Cypress Police Department Military Equipment 9 CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 11.

FROM: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
DATE: 07/08/2024
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions to Implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element, Certify the Housing Element Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report, and Hold a General Municipal Election on November 5, 2024

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Housing Element Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report, approving the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

2. Adopt a Resolution ordering the submission to the qualified voters of a measure to consider approval of an Ordinance repealing the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 and adopting the Cypress Town Center Commons Specific Plan 3.0; authorizing the Mayor to submit an argument in favor of the measure, setting priorities for filing a written argument regarding the measure; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, and providing for the filing of any rebuttal argument.

3. Adopt a Resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange consolidate a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on November 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting a Measure to the voters pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403.

SUMMARY
The State’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) mandated that the City facilitate the addition of 3,936 housing units in Cypress over eight years through its Housing Element.

The City Council approved, and the State certified, a Housing Element that generally allocates Cypress' RHNA between the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP) and the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC). Amendments to the CTCC must be ratified by the voters. If the ballot measure ratifying the amendments is not approved, the State requires the City to reassign the units intended for CTCC to the LASP and the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street. The State also requires additional units as a buffer under these circumstances because the LASP is a less viable housing development location compared to the CTCC.

DISCUSSION
The State mandated that the City facilitate the addition of 3,936 housing units in Cypress over eight years through the RHNA process. Because the City assigned a significant number of housing units to the LASP, the State required the City to plan for an additional 323 units as a buffer. The State required the increase because it considers infill development in the LASP less likely to achieve the State-required density due to constraints including disparate ownership, existing uses, and irregular parcel shape and size. Conversely, the Los Alamitos Race Course/CTCC is more likely to redevelop and produce new housing units. With the required buffer, the Housing Element plans for 4,259 housing units.

After accounting for housing units already permitted/under construction, the City had to determine where to allocate the remaining 2,640 State-required housing units. At the conclusion of an exhaustive, three-year long Housing Element update, the City Council allocated 1,643 housing units (62%) in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (including State-required buffer housing units), 676 housing units (26%) in the Cypress Town Center and Commons 2.0 Specific Plan, and 321 housing units (12%) northeast of the intersection of Katella Avenue and Siboney Street.

The Housing Element includes this allocation because it:

Balances development throughout the community
Reduces the likelihood existing businesses and small business owners will be displaced by housing in the LASP
Takes advantage of the redevelopment opportunity at Los Alamitos Race Course/CTCC, which offers the community the unencumbered ability to provide infrastructure and amenities to support new residents. Conversely, Cypress does not have a reasonable way to provide similar infrastructure and amenities in/around the LASP
Avoids many of the very high density (60 housing units to the acre) sites required in the LASP to meet State mandates
Minimizes State-mandated increases to the initial 3,936 housing unit RHNA when planning housing units where the State determines housing redevelopment difficult A table detailing the City’s RHNA allocation is attached.

Amending the CTCC is a two-step process: first, the City Council must approve submitting the amendments to the CTCC to the voters, and second, those amendments must be ratified by the voters.

The recommended amendments to the CTCC are a one-time action. Should the City Council approve additional future amendments to the CTCC, the voter ratification requirement still applies.

The amendments to the CTCC:

Increase the housing units allowed from 1,250 to 1,926 (135 of these homes have been built as Belmont by Melia Homes)
Expand medium density residential and town center uses
Create a new medium density residential district permitting up to 15 housing units per acre
Set the Town Center and Mixed-Use District density at a maximum of 30 housing units Set the Town Center and Mixed-Use District density at a maximum of 30 housing units per acre and permit mixed-use development
Incorporate minor development standards revisions
Exempt residential development that meets affordability requirements from Site Plan Review (required by State law)
A redline version of the CTCC Specific Plan is attached.

Minor General Plan amendments are also necessary to ensure consistency between the CTCC and the General Plan (for example, removing references to the eliminated Town Center/SFR district). If voters ratify the CTCC amendments, the City Council must consider the General Plan amendments in the next several months.

Public outreach and education efforts
Since 2021, the City has engaged in a comprehensive Housing Element public education and outreach program. The City Council has considered the Housing Element (or matters related to it) approximately 15 times, including three public workshops on RHNA/Housing Element sites selection.

Following the City Council's approval of the Housing Element, the City increased its outreach and educational efforts in anticipation of the community’s need to ratify amendments to the CTCC. This included making more information available on the website, two city-wide mailers, publishing an article in The Progress, hosting community and stakeholder meetings, conducting a six-week digital advertising campaign on Google and social media, and noticing of this public hearing city-wide.

Environmental Review – Program Environmental Impact Report The Housing Element Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) analyzes the impact of implementing the Housing Element sites inventory, including housing in the CTCC, the LASP, and the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan.

The PEIR also considers the impacts of not amending the CTCC and allocating an additional 766 housing units in the LASP and at Orange/Grindlay. It analyzes potential impacts and requires mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant.

The PEIR identifies one significant unavoidable impact on air quality, noting long-term operational emissions, potential conflicts with air quality plans, and exposure risks to sensitive receptors. Despite mitigation efforts, emissions cannot be quantified until the recommended zoning results in home building projects. As a result, those impacts are classified as significant and unavoidable.

If the amendments to the CTCC are not approved, the State requires 90 additional housing units be allocated to the LASP and at Orange/Grindlay, slightly increasing environmental impacts in all categories. Accordingly, the PEIR finds the recommended amendments to the CTCC as the environmentally superior alternative.

It is recommended that the City Council certify the 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report.

Traffic Impacts
The PEIR assesses traffic conditions using a measure called Level of Service (LOS). LOS evaluates the quality of traffic flow at intersections, rating them from Free Flow (A) to evaluates the quality of traffic flow at intersections, rating them from Free Flow (A) to Congested (F). The City’s General Plan Circulation Element deems intersections at which drivers can typically make it through within one signal phase (LOS D) sufficient.

As detailed in the attached table, the PEIR compared 26 intersections for existing traffic conditions (Column I - Existing); projected 2045 conditions without the RHNA sites (Column II - Without Project); projected 2045 traffic with the Housing Element implementation sites (Column III - Sites Inventory); and with the alternative Lincoln Avenue sites inventory (Column IV - LASP Alternative). The PEIR compares to traffic in 2045, because that is the year the County of Orange projects county-wide housing build-out and because it aligns with the Regional Transportation Plan.

Most intersections currently operate at LOS A or B during both AM and PM peaks. By 2045, several intersections (Moody/Lincoln and Valley View/Lincoln) are projected to operate at LOS C or D without the project ( Column II). Both the Sites Inventory and LASP Alternative scenarios largely mirror these future conditions (Columns III and IV). The analysis concludes that while some intersections project at a lower LOS, the changes are consistent across the different scenarios.

The State also required an assessment of transportation-related impacts using a standard known as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). VMT measures the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project/within an area. The VMT analysis found that neither the Sites Inventory nor the LASP Alternative are anticipated to exceed the County of Orange’s transportation impact thresholds.

In short, using either traffic measurement metric (LOS or VMT), the project’s transportation impact is less than significant.

Recommendation

1. Adopt the Resolution certifying the Housing Element Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report, approving the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

2. Adopt the Resolution ordering the submission to the qualified voters of a measure to consider approval of an Ordinance repealing the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 and adopting the Cypress Town Center Commons Specific Plan 3.0; authorizing the Mayor to submit an argument in favor of the measure, setting priorities for filing a written argument regarding the measure and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, and providing for the filing of any rebuttal argument.

3. Adopt a Resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange consolidate a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on November 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting a Measure to the voters pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403.

Alternative
When the City Council adopted the Housing Element in June 2022, it considered, but did not select, an alternative RHNA sites selection and inventory. Because the Housing Element requires voter approval, the State required the City to submit the alternative sites inventory for State approval, and it must be implemented if voters do not approve the CTCC zoning amendments that implement the Housing Element.

Should the City Council decide not to approve the amendments to the CTCC required to implement the Housing Element, the City must immediately begin implementing the alternative sites inventory.

In addition to the shortcomings identified in this report when compared to the Housing Element sites inventory, the alternative will likely result in Cypress receiving a significantly higher housing allocation from the State in the next RHNA cycle (which begins in 2026) and may advance support for legislation and/other mandates that erode voters’ voice in the future of Los Alamitos Race Course/CTCC.

BUDGET IMPACT
Sufficient funds are included in the FY 2024-2025 Budget to place the measure on the ballot.

LEGAL REVIEW
The resolutions were approved as to form and content by the City Attorney.

APPROVED BY:  Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
RHNA Unit Allocation
Traffic Level of Service Comparison
Resolution Placing Ordinance on the Ballot
Resolution Consolidating with Orange County
Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Report
Redline CTCC Specific Plan
Full Traffic Assessment
Submitted Public Comments
Presentation Slides
Unit Allocation Plan
With Approved Ballot
Measure
Without Approved Ballot
Measure
Required Units
RHNA 3,936 3,936
State-required buffer 323 413
Total 4,259 4,349
Unit Allocation
Already Entitled Units 504 504
CTCC: Existing Unentitled
Zoning 1,115 1,115
CTCC: Additional Units 676 -
LASP 1,643 2,379
Other Sites 3211 3512
Total 4,259 4,349

1. Includes one site at the NE corner of Katella and Siboney.

2. Includes two sites: NE corner of Katella and Siboney (321 units) and SE corner of Orange and Grindlay (30 units).

TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON
Intersection
I
Existing
II
2045 Without
Project
III
Sites
Inventory
IV
LASP
Alternative
LOS
AM
LOS
PM
LOS
AM
LOS
PM
LOS
AM
LOS
PM
LOS
AM
LOS
PM
Bloomfield St/Lincoln Ave A A B A B A B A
Lexington Dr-Denni St/Lincoln Ave A A C B C B C B
Moody St/Lincoln Ave B A D D D D D D
Walker St/Lincoln Ave A A C C D D D D
Valley View St/Lincoln Ave A A C C C C D C
Bloomfield St/Cerritos Ave B A C B C B C A
Lexington Dr-Denni St/Cerritos Ave A A A A A A A A
Moody St/Cerritos Ave A A A A A A A A
Walker St/Cerritos Ave A A A A A A A A
Valley View St/Cerritos Ave B B C C C C C C
Lexington Drive/Katella Ave A A A B A B A B
Siboney St-LARC/Katella Ave A A A A A A A A
Walker St/Katella Ave A A A B A B A B
Valley View St/Katella Ave A B C C C C C C
Holder St/Katella Ave A A A C B B A C
Knott Ave/Katella Ave A B B D B D B D
6 1004.0005/990526.4
Exhibit “A”
[Ordinance No. ________ to be attached from Agenda Item No. ____] 1 1004.0005/990526.4
RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-XX

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

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED

ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS OF A MEASURE TO CONSIDER

APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE CYPRESS TOWN
CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 AND ADOPT THE CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 TO MEET THE CITY OF CYPRESS’S REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION AT THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 6974
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6974, the City Council of the City of Cypress(City) called and gave notice of the holding of a General Municipal Election, to be held on November 5, 2024, for the purpose of electing Municipal Officers;
WHEREAS, by this Resolution, the City Council also desires to submit to the voters at said election a question authorizing the repeal of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan

2.0 (“CTCC”) and adopt the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (“Amended CTCC”) in compliance with Measure A, as described below; WHEREAS, California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article

10.6 and Section 65588) establishes the requirements for the Housing Element and requires each local government in the State to adopt a Housing Element and review and revise it no less than once every eight years;
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period must accommodate the City’s allocated share of the State’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the methodology for determining future housing need, by income category, within the State and is based on growth in population, households, and employment; WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the City Council of the City approved the 2021-2029 Housing Element, which includes a State-mandated sites inventory that assigns zoning to facilitate the addition of 3,936 housing units, plus required buffer units in the City of Cypress over the next eight years pursuant to the City’s RHNA obligation, which City Council-approved Housing Element allocates Cypress' RHNA between the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the CTCC; WHEREAS, specifically, the City Council-approved Housing Element proposes to amend the CTCC to add 676 additional housing units at the south end of Los Alamitos Race Course instead of adding 766 housing units in Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and at Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street via the Amended CTCC;
2 1004.0005/990526.4
WHEREAS, the Housing Element works in tandem with development policies contained in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, which Land Use Element establishes the location, type, intensity, and distribution of land uses throughout the City, and defines the land use build-out potential;
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2018, the voters of the City of Cypress approved an initiative titled "Measure A", known as the “Cypress Town Center and Commons 2.0 Initiative” establishing the CTCC and amending the Cypress General Plan, the Cypress Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map and the Amended and Restated Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan; WHEREAS, Measure A requires voter approval of any amendment of the CTCC, the Zoning Map or the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cypress that would permit any land use other than those permitted in Measure A and any related amendment of the General Plan; WHEREAS, the City wishes to pursue an election in compliance with Measure A to seek approval of the Amended CTCC and the City Council of the City is authorized and directed by statute to submit to the voters the ballot measure to secure approval of the Amended CTCC in compliance with Measure A, and the City Council therefore wishes to have the voters consider the same at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024; WHEREAS, concurrently with the approval of this Resolution and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City Council approved Resolution No. _____ certifying the Housing Element Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report, approving the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations (collectively, “EIR”); and WHEREAS, Section 9222 of the California Elections Code authorizes the City Council of the City of Cypress to submit to the voters of the City of Cypress, without a petition therefor, a proposition to enact any ordinance to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be enacted accordingly.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS,

CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Cypress, pursuant to its right and authority, hereby orders submitted to the voters at a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, the following question:
3 1004.0005/990526.4
To address the rising cost of living and high cost of
housing (without raising taxes); retain/attract small
businesses; maintain local control ; meet state
housing requirements; provide for housing needs of
workers, seniors, and middle-class families, shall the
City of Cypress measure to approve an ordinance
amending the Cypress Town Center and Commons
Specific Plan to allow for 676 additional housing
units at the Los Alamitos Race Course instead of
adding 766 housing units elsewhere in Cypress, be
adopted?
YES
NO
Section 2. The Ordinance submitted to the voters for enactment is attached hereto and incorporated herewith, which would authorize the City Council to change the General Plan, Cypress Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map for the land as described in the ordinance. The City Clerk shall print the ordinance to be submitted to the voters of the City of Cypress and shall make a copy thereof available to any voter upon request. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make any changes to the text of the attached Ordinance and this Resolution (including, but not limited to, the question to be submitted to the City’s voters as provided in Section 3) as required to conform to any requirements of law.

Section 3. The City Council has considered all public comments received in writing or made at the hearings regarding this matter and posted notice in compliance with applicable law.

The provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and, pursuant to its Resolution No. ______, the City Council has certified the EIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4. The vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50%+1) of the votes cast.

Section 5. The City’s City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the General Municipal Election.

Section 6. The ballots to be used at the General Municipal Election shall be in form and content as required by law.

Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution, together with the attached Ordinance, with the Board of Supervisors and with the Elections Official of the County of Orange.

Section 8. Pursuant to Sections 9280 through 9287 of the California Elections Code, arguments for or against the measure and rebuttal arguments shall be submitted and selected as follows:
4 1004.0005/990526.4
a. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9282, the Mayor is authorized to prepare and file a written argument in favor of the proposed measure, including the names of any persons or organizations supporting the proposed measure, consistent with the requirements of the Elections Code, not to exceed three hundred (300) words, on behalf of the City Council. In the event that an argument is filed against the measure, the Mayor is authorized to prepare a rebuttal argument on behalf of the City Council, which may also be signed by members of the City Council or bona fide associations or by individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.
b. The last day for submission of primary arguments for or against the measure shall be 14 days from the calling of this election, which is July 22, 2024, by 5:30 p.m. pursuant to Election Code Section 9286 and shall be accompanied by Statement Form 9600 pursuant to Elections Code Section 9600. All primary arguments may be changed or withdrawn until and including the last day for submission of primary arguments, after which time no arguments for or against the aforementioned measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.
c. Primary arguments (1) shall not exceed three hundred (300) words; (2) shall be filed with the City Clerk; and (3) shall be accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of the principal officers who is the author of the argument.
d. In the event that more than one argument for or against the measure is timely submitted, the City Clerk shall give preference and priority in the order set forth at California Elections Code Section 9287.
e. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9285, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure, which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the primary arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the primary argument that it seeks to rebut.
f. The last day for submission of rebuttal arguments for or against the measure shall be 10 days after the final date for submission of primary arguments for or against the measure, which is August 1, 2024, by 5:30 p.m. pursuant to Election Code Section 9285 and shall be accompanied by Statement Form 9600 pursuant to Elections Code Section 9600.
g. Rebuttal arguments shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) words and shall be signed by not more than five persons. The author or a majority of the authors of a primary argument relating to the aforementioned measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument. A rebuttal argument may not be signed by more than five (5) authors.

Section 9. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the aforementioned measure to the City Attorney. In accordance with California Elections Code Section 9280, the City Attorney is hereby directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, 5 1004.0005/990526.4
not to exceed five hundred (500) words in length, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the city. In the event the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in no less than 10-point bold type, a legend substantially as follows: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure ____. If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the elections official's office at (insert telephone number) and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.” The impartial analysis shall be filed with the City Clerk by July 22, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. for the submission of the impartial analysis in the voter’s pamphlet materials.

Section 10. The City Clerk shall cause the City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis, and duly selected arguments, to be printed and distributed to voters in accordance with State law regarding same.

Section 11. The City Clerk is directed to transmit this Resolution to the City Attorney. The City Attorney is hereby directed to prepare a synopsis of the Ordinance that shall be published in lieu of the proposed Ordinance with the Notice of Election as provided by section 36933 of the Government Code and section 12111 of the Elections Code.

Section 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

Section 13. The Ordinance is attached as Exhibit A and is made a part hereof.

Section 14. That this Resolution is effective on the day of its adoption. 6 1004.0005/990526.4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress, California, at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of July, 2024. __________________________________
Scott Minikus, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, TO REPEAL THE CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 AND ADOPT THE CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 TO MEET THE CITY OF CYPRESS’S REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION WHEREAS, by Resolution No. ____, the City Council (“City Council”) of the City of Cypress (“City”) approved submission to the voters at the General Municipal Election scheduled for November 5, 2024, a question authorizing the repeal of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (“CTCC”) and adopt the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (“Amended CTCC”) in compliance with Measure A, as described below; WHEREAS, California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article

10.6 and Section 65588) establishes the requirements for the Housing Element and requires each local government in the State to adopt a Housing Element and review and revise it no less than once every eight years;
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period must accommodate the City’s allocated share of the State’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”), the methodology for determining future housing need, by income category, within the State and is based on growth in population, households, and employment; WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the City Council of the City approved the 2021-2029 Housing Element, which includes a State-mandated sites inventory that assigns zoning to facilitate the addition of 3,936 housing units in the City of Cypress over the next 8 years pursuant to the City’s RHNA obligation, which City Council-approved Housing Element allocates Cypress' RHNA between the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the CTCC;
WHEREAS, specifically, the City Council-approved Housing Element proposes to amend the CTCC to add 676 additional housing units at the south end of Los Alamitos Race Course instead of adding 736 housing units on Lincoln Avenue via the Amended CTCC; WHEREAS, the Housing Element works in tandem with development policies contained in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, which Land Use Element establishes the location, type, intensity, and distribution of land uses throughout the City, and defines the land use build-out potential;
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2018, the voters of the City of Cypress approved an initiative titled "Measure A", known as the “Cypress Town Center and Commons 2.0 Initiative” establishing the CTCC and amending the Cypress General Plan, the Cypress Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map and the Amended and Restated Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan; WHEREAS, Measure A requires voter approval of any amendment of the CTCC, the Zoning Map or the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cypress that would permit any land use other than those permitted in Measure A and any related amendment of the General Plan; PAGE 2 OF 4
01225.0005/756350.4
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit to the voters the ballot measure to secure repeal of the CTCC approval of the Amended CTCC attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (available at the Cypress Planning/Community Development Department and at:
https://www.cypressca.org/departments/community-development/housing-elementimplementation-ballot-measure) in compliance with Measure A, which the City Council directed for the voters to consider the same at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City Council approved Resolution No. _____ certifying the Housing Element Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report, approving the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, Section 9222 of the California Elections Code authorizes the City Council of the City of Cypress to submit to the voters of the City of Cypress, without a petition therefor, a proposition to enact any ordinance to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be enacted accordingly.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHINO, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Pursuant to the laws of the State of California relating to elections, the City Council called and ordered to be held a General Municipal Election in the City of Cypress, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting to the City’s qualified voters this Ordinance the repeal of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (“CTCC”) and adoption of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (“Amended CTCC”).

Section 2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) have been complied with, and, pursuant to its Resolution No. ______, the City Council has certified an Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2023040560) analyzing the environmental impacts associated with update to the City’s General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0, the 2012 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance, approved the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Section 3. If a majority of the voters of the City of Cypress voting at the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, vote in favor of this Ordinance, then this Ordinance repealing the CTCC and adopting the Amended CTCC attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (available at the Cypress Planning/Community Development Department and at:
https://www.cypressca.org/departments/community-development/housing-elementimplementation-ballot-measure) shall become a valid and binding ordinance of the City of Cypress, and shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the City Council of PAGE 3 OF 4
01225.0005/756350.4
the City of Cypress, and this Ordinance shall go into effect ten (10) days after that date, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9217.

Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The People of the City of Cypress declare that they would have enacted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof irrespective of any determination of invalidity.

Section 5. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the approval thereof and cause same to be published or posted pursuant to law.

APPROVED BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS AT THE ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024.
__________________________________
Scott Minikus, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
PAGE 4 OF 4
01225.0005/756350.4
EXHIBIT “A”
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0
[see attached]
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER

AND COMMONS
July 2024
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 Table of Contents i
1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Overview and Vision ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Location and Surrounding Environment ........................................................................................ 1-6 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Land Use Plan and Districts.............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Circulation Plan................................................................................................................................. 2-7

2.3 Water Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 2-10

2.4 Wastewater Plan............................................................................................................................. 2-10

2.5 Drainage Plan ................................................................................................................................. 2-11

2.7 Solid Waste ...................................................................................................................................... 2-14

2.8 Natural Gas and Electricity............................................................................................................ 2-14 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Purpose and Intent........................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Residential District Development Standards ................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District Development Standards ............................................... 3-7

3.4 Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District Development Standards ....................... 3-11

3.5 Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District Development Standards............................................. 3-16

3.6 Medium-Density Residential District Development Standards.................................................. 3-18

3.7 Public Park District Development Standards............................................................................... 3-19

3.8 Public Park Overlay ........................................................................................................................ 3-20

3.9 Tree Replacement.......................................................................................................................... 3-21

3.10 Building Height Notification/Restriction........................................................................................ 3-21 4 SUSTAINABLE GUIDELINES......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Storm Water Management ............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Landscaping ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Building Materials.............................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.5 Indoor Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.6 Lighting............................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.7 Building Envelope ............................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.8 Water Conservation ......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.9 Energy Conservation........................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.10 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning .................................................................................... 4-2 5 IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Authority and Scope ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Purpose of the Specific Plan............................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Relationship of this Specific Plan to the Existing Specific Plan..................................................... 5-1

5.4 Relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan ................................................................. 5-1

5.5 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance...................................................................... 5-2

5.6 Amendments and Adjustments...................................................................................................... 5-2

5.7 Administration ................................................................................................................................... 5-4

5.8 Site Plan Review................................................................................................................................ 5-4

5.9 Severability ........................................................................................................................................ 5-6

5.10 Phasing............................................................................................................................................... 5-6

5.11 Financing ........................................................................................................................................... 5-7 6 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Relationship of Specific Plan to General Plan............................................................................... 6-1

6.2 General Plan Conformance Analysis............................................................................................. 6-1 CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 List of Figures ii
1 INTRODUCTION
Figure 1- 1: Regional Map ............................................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1- 2: Vicinity Map................................................................................................................... 1-3 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Figure 2- 1: Land Use Plan................................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2- 2: Residential Subdistricts ................................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 2- 3: Backbone Circulation .................................................................................................. 2-8 Figure 2- 4: Water Plan................................................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2- 5: Wastewater Plan......................................................................................................... 2-13 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(No Figures)
4 SUSTAINABLE GUIDELINES
(No Figures)
5 IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 5- 1: Conceptual Phasing Plan............................................................................................... 8 6 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS
(No Figures)
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 List of Tables 1 INTRODUCTION
(No Tables)
2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Table 2- 1: Land Use Plan Summary Table........................................................................................ 2 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table 3- 1: Residential Development Standards.............................................................................. 4 4 SUSTAINABLE GUIDELINES
(No Tables)
5 IMPLEMENTATION
(No Tables)
6 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS
(No Tables)
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 1. Introduction 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview and Vision
The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (Specific Plan) establishes a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework for the use and development of approximately 151.4 acres of land in the City of Cypress (City), California (Specific Plan Area).

The Specific Plan Area is generally bounded by Cerritos Avenue to the north, Katella Avenue to the south, and Lexington Drive to the west, as depicted in Figures 1-1, Regional Map, and 1-2, Vicinity Map.

This Specific Plan divides the Specific Plan Area into six land use districts that will govern the design and development of a mixed-use, sustainable community. One of the primary features of the plan is two town center/mixed-use districts, which are intended to be the City's "main street" and a gathering place for the community, and will include a vibrant mix of entertainment, retail, restaurant, commercial and residential uses. The creation of the town center will enable future residents to live within walking distance of stores, restaurants, and recreational areas, while visitors will be able to walk and shop along the concourses and enjoy an assortment of public plazas. The two districts are located in the eastern and southern portions of the Specific Plan Area. The mixed-use (town center/HDR) district permits higherdensity residential use, while the mixed-use (town center/MDR) district permits medium-density residential use, as well as age-restricted housing (with a qualified occupant of 55 or older).

Another critical component of this Specific Plan is 20 acres of public park space that will be spread throughout the Specific Plan Area. Two public parks, one 10.2 acres and the other 8 acres, will be located within the public park district, adjacent to Cerritos Avenue. An additional two acres of public park space will be provided within the mixed-use (town center/HDR) district and/or one of the other districts and may be integrated with one or both of the other public parks or be a separate public park. This brings the total amount of public park space to a minimum of 20 acres, which will provide substantial recreational opportunities for both existing and future residents of Cypress. These public parks will provide ample space for recreation and gatherings and could potentially include some combination of playing fields, sports courts, walking trails, picnic areas and restroom facilities.

The residential district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential opportunities and lifestyles. Residential units adjacent to Cerritos Avenue will generally match the densities of the existing neighborhood north of Cerritos Avenue. Further south, smaller-lot, single-family homes are permitted, as well as single-family attached units, including townhomes and condominiums. Trails and greenways are envisioned to connect the neighborhoods and provide pedestrian and bike routes to the public parks and town center.

The senior housing/medium-density residential district allows age-restricted housing (with a qualified occupant of 55 or older), as well as multi-family housing, at a variety of densities. This district provides an opportunity to extend the senior housing use that was developed as part of the nearby Barton Place project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park).

This Specific Plan provides a regulatory framework that ensures the ultimate development of each land use district that is consistent with the overall vision of the Specific Plan.

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Regional Map
Figure 1-1
Specific Plan
Area

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
0 3000 6000 May 2024
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Vicinity Map
Figure 1-2
Specific Plan
Area

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
0 650 1300 May 2024
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 1. Introduction 1-4

1.1.1 Historical Use and Development of Specific Plan Area In 1946, Frank Vessels, Sr. acquired approximately 300 acres of land in what is now part of the City of Cypress (City) for the purpose of establishing a quarter horse ranch. Non-betting horse races at the Los Alamitos Race Course (Race Course) commenced in 1947 and continued until 1951, when the first pari-mutuel horse racing began. The present grandstand was built in 1960 and, when the State of California legalized quarter horse racing in 1968, the Race Course grew to become the premier quarter horse track in the United States. The former, adjoining Cypress Golf Club (Golf Course) was constructed in 1961 and permanently closed in 2004.

Hollywood Park Realty Enterprises, Inc. purchased the Race Course and the Golf Course in 1984 from Millie Vessels. Subsequently, it approached the City concerning the redevelopment potential of the Golf Course and underutilized portions of the Race Course property.

Following Hollywood Park Realty's proposal, the City directed the preparation of a specific plan (which was titled Cypress Plaza Specific Plan) for the entire Race Course and Golf Course properties to ensure that the property would be redeveloped in a manner that was compatible with the surrounding community.

On November 3, 1987, the voters of the City of Cypress approved an initiative titled "Measure D", which was codified in Sections 5.28 and 5.28.090 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance). This initiative requires voter approval of (1) any amendment of the PS (Public and Semi-Public) Zone of the Zoning Map or the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cypress that would permit any land use other than those permitted in the PS Zone on the date of the enactment of this measure and (2) any related amendment of the General Plan.

On April 17, 1990, the Cypress City Council adopted the original Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan (Original Specific Plan), which established comprehensive guidance and regulations for the development of approximately 298.2 gross acres of land within the City that included the Race Course and Golf Course properties. Subsequently, on April 24, 1990, in accordance with Measure D, the voters of the City of Cypress approved an initiative that changed the General Plan land use designation and the zoning designation for approximately 75 acres of land within the Original Specific Plan area (which included all of Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the Land Use Plan in the Original Specific Plan), consistent with the previouslyadopted Original Specific Plan. The Original Specific Plan was subsequently amended several times in connection with proposed development projects within the Original Specific Plan area.

On June 5, 2012, the voters of the City of Cypress approved "Measure L", a ballot initiative that, among other things, amended and restated in its entirety the Original Specific Plan, as previously amended. This Amended and Restated Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan (2012 Specific Plan) established a new Planning Area 9, which consisted of portions of Planning Areas 6, 7 and 8 from the Original Specific Plan, and permitted a range of senior housing, retail and commercial uses. It also confirmed the intent to redevelop the Golf Course.

1.1.2 The 2016 Initiative and Response to Resident Concerns In 2016, an initiative, titled "Measure GG" and referred to as the Cypress Town Center and Commons Initiative, was placed on the ballot. This initiative included the approval of a new Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan (2016 Specific Plan) that covered a portion of the land governed by the Existing Specific Plan, primarily including the Race Course and the northern portion of the former Golf Course. This initiative was narrowly disapproved by City of Cypress voters in November 2016.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 1. Introduction 1-5
That proposed Specific Plan was thereafter modified to respond to concerns raised by residents in 2016. Set forth below is a description of those concerns and how they were addressed in this modified Specific Plan, which is titled Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (2018 Specific Plan):
• In the 2016 Specific Plan, the entire public park was located on Race Course property, which meant that the public park could not be developed for use by Cypress residents until after closure of the Race Course, which would not occur for several years. – The public park space has been divided into multiple parcels, one of which include 9 acres of the public park district that is located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lexington Drive. This parcel is located on a portion of the former Golf Course and can be developed with a public park prior to the closure of the Race Course. The total acreage of the public parks remains 20 acres. • The 2016 Specific Plan allowed the Director of Community Development to approve uses in each district that were "similar" to the listed permitted and conditionally permitted uses. – That provision has been removed with respect to all districts, except for the town center district and the town center uses in each of the mixed-use districts. • The land use plan in the 2016 Specific Plan included a mixed-use (town center/mediumdensity residential) district adjacent to Cerritos Avenue that allowed a maximum height of 99 feet for town center structures.
– The districts established in this Specific Plan that border Cerritos Avenue do not allow town center uses and the maximum height of structures in those districts is 35 feet.
• The 2016 Specific Plan permitted a maximum structure height of 99 feet in the town center district.
– The maximum height of structures in the town center district and town center structures in each of the mixed-use districts has been reduced to 75 feet. • The 2016 Specific Plan included an adjustment procedure pursuant to which the Director of Community Development could increase the height of structures by not more than 10% of the otherwise maximum height.
– That provision has been removed with respect to structures within the residential and town center districts and town center structures in each of the mixed-use districts.
• The 2016 Specific Plan allowed "government enterprises (local, State or federal)" in the residential district.
– That use has been eliminated in the residential district and is not allowed in the new senior housing/medium-density residential district. • The 2016 Specific Plan only permitted a maximum of 1.7 acres of senior housing. – This Specific Plan allows up to 39.1 acres of senior housing.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 1. Introduction 1-6

1.1.3 2018 Initiative and Subsequent Development
In accordance with "Measure D", on June 5, 2018, the voters of the City of Cypress approved the 2018 Specific Plan titled "Measure A" and referred to as the "Cypress Town Center and Commons 2.0 Initiative". The 2018 Specific Plan superseded and replaced the 2012 Specific Plan with respect to all of the real property within the area governed by the 2018 Specific Plan (2018 Specific Plan Area).

In May 2018, the owner of the land on which the former Golf Course was located donated to the City nine acres of land within the 2018 Specific Plan Area located within and adjacent to the designated Public Park District at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lexington Drive. The City subsequently developed Lexington Park on that site.

Melia Homes recently developed a multi-family residential project with 135 residential units (Melia Project) on the eastern seven acres of the land within the designated Town Center District in the 2018 Specific Plan (and which is part of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District in this Specific Plan).

1.1.4 Green and Healthy Lifestyle
This Specific Plan places a strong emphasis on wellness in that active recreation opportunities are integrated into the land use districts. A trail system is envisioned within the residential and public park districts affording residents and visitors opportunities to walk, jog, run, bike for exercise or simply for casual enjoyment, and will provide convenient access to the public parks, theaters, shopping, dining, and workplaces. The proximity and connectivity of the planned residential neighborhoods to the town center and public parks will enable residents to leave their cars at home more often.

This Specific Plan promotes good health through the inclusion of sustainable design guidelines and alternatives to improve air quality and reduce pollutant emissions. It also promotes landscaping to enhance the Specific Plan Area, along with "green" infrastructure to improve water quality for existing and new residents.

1.2 Location and Surrounding Environment
Until early 1987, the entire Specific Plan Area was operated as a race track and a golf course.

The Race Course will continue operating for a period of time, but development within the mixed-use (town center/HDR) district established by this Specific Plan can occur while the Race Course remains in operation. The Golf Course permanently closed in 2004, so that a portion of the Golf Course property, which includes the western public park district at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lexington Drive and portions of the senior housing/medium-density residential district and the residential district, can be developed while the Race Course remains in operation.

Following the adoption of the Original Specific Plan, portions of the Original Specific Plan area were developed with a variety of commercial uses, including big-box retail, a hotel, retail centers, offices, restaurants and two churches. In addition, the City of Cypress acquired approximately 13.3 acres of the property adjacent to Katella Avenue (City Parcel), which it subsequently sold for the development of a mixed-use project that has been completed.

Most recently, in October 2015, following the voter approval of the 2012 Specific Plan, the Cypress City Council certified a final environmental impact report and approved the entitlements for the Barton Place project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park), pursuant to which a mixed-use project consisting of senior housing and a commercial/retail center was developed within Planning Area 9 and a portion of Planning Area 6 in the 2012 Specific Plan area.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 1. Introduction 1-7
The Specific Plan Area is adjacent to the City of Los Alamitos boundary on the west and south.

All of the Specific Plan Area is located within the City of Cypress. It includes all of the land within the 2018 Specific Plan Area other than approximately three acres of land owned by Seacoast Grace Church.

The area surrounding the Specific Plan Area includes a variety of land uses. Land uses south of Katella Avenue are located in the City of Los Alamitos and include commercial, office, and single-family residential uses. Land uses west of Lexington Drive are located in the City of Los Alamitos and include business park. Land uses north of Cerritos Avenue, which are located in the City of Cypress, are primarily residential with some retail commercial. Adjacent to the Specific Plan Area within the original 300-acre Race Course property are Cottonwood and Seacoast Grace Churches, business parks, retail commercial uses, a hotel, the former City Parcel and the recently approved Barton Place project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park), a senior housing and related uses. The Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos, is located approximately one-quarter mile south of the Specific Plan Area.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-1
2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Section establishes and describes the land use districts within the Specific Plan Area and provides a blueprint for the infrastructure necessary for the implementation of this Specific Plan.

2.1 Land Use Plan and Districts
This Specific Plan establishes six Land Use Districts within the 151.4-acre Specific Plan Area, as shown on Figure 2-1, Land Use Plan, below. The centerpiece of the land use plan is the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) and Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) Districts located in the eastern and southern portions of the Specific Plan Area and will allow a vibrant mix of retail, entertainment, restaurant, hotel, residential and other urban uses that will serve as a gathering place and “main street” for the community. The Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District permits higher-density residential use with a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/gross acre, while the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District permits medium-density residential use with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units/gross acre, as well as age-restricted housing (with a qualified occupant of 55 or older) in a portion of that district.

The land use plan also includes a Public Park District that sets aside 18.2 acres of land exclusively for two public parks, which will be large enough to provide a variety of passive and active recreational uses. The park amenities will be easily accessible to Cypress residents and future visitors and residents of the Specific Plan Area. As discussed below, an additional 2 acres of public park will be, or have been, provided in one or more of the other Land Use Districts, for a total of approximately 20 acres of public parks.

The north-central portion of the Specific Plan Area has been designated as a Residential District, which is reserved for residential uses with a variety of housing opportunities to address a cross-section of housing needs in the community, primarily single-family homes, both detached and attached. Greenways and trails will connect the neighborhoods to the town center and the parks in the Public Park District to allow for easy pedestrian and bicycle access to these destinations.

The western portion of the Specific Plan area adjacent to the western Public Park District has been designated as a Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, which is reserved for senior housing and/or medium-density residential uses. The senior housing will be agerestricted and related uses, such as assisted living facilities, are permitted. Medium-density residential uses (which are not age-restricted) are also permitted.

These Land Use Districts and the location, distribution and extent and intensity of essential facilities to be located within and support the Specific Plan Area are described in more detail below and summarized in Table 2-1, below.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-2
Table 2- 1: Land Use Plan Summary Table
Land Use District Area
(Acres) FAR(1) Residential Units
Potential
Development
Capacity (sq. ft.)
Public Park 18.2(2) N/A N/A N/A
Mixed-Use (Town
Center/HDR)

24.1 0.6:1 629,878
Mixed-Use (Town
Center/MDR)

9.5 0.6:1
1,926 (aggregate
total for Residential,
Senior
Housing/MediumDensity Residential,
Medium-Density
Residential and
Mixed-Use Districts)
248,292
Residential 46.2 N/A N/A
Senior Housing/MediumDensity Residential23.1 N/A N/A
Medium-Density Residential 20.7 0.6:1
Roads 9.6 N/A N/A N/A
Total: 151.4 1,926(3) 879,170
Note:
(1) This development restriction on floor area ratio (FAR) does not apply to residential development or the residential component of a mixed-use development. The maximum (FAR) allowed on any development parcel is 1.0:1.
(2) The minimum amount of public park space within the Specific Plan Area shall be 20 acres. In addition to the 18.2 acres of public park space within the Public Park District, a 2-acre public park has been designated as a land use overlay within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, provided that this additional required public park space may be located (a) in any Land Use District or multiple Land Use Districts and (b) adjacent to one or both of the Public Park Districts in order to increase the size of the public parks that will be developed there.
(3) The aggregate total of 1,926 residential units includes the 135 residential units previously developed as the Melia Project. Therefore, an additional 1,791 residential units are allowed in these districts that permit residential uses.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Land Use Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 2-1
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
0 300 600 May 2024
Winners Circle
Residential
District

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

23.1 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

6.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
MDR) District

2.0 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR)
District

7.6 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

15.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay *
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
See Table 2-1, Land Use Plan
Summary Table, for explanation
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-4

2.1.1 Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District
The Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District is a flexible land use district that includes approximately 24.1 acres of land and permits a mixture of retail and entertainment uses, as well as hotel, multi-family residential uses and commercial uses, to create a "main street" and gathering place for the community and provide additional housing for the community with a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/acre. Specific uses envisioned for the town center portion of the district include restaurants, movie theaters and boutique stores designed within a pedestrian-friendly environment.

2.1.2 Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District
The Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District includes approximately 9.5 acres of land and permits a mixture of retail and entertainment uses, as well as hotel, multi-family residential uses and commercial uses, to create a "main street" and gathering place for the community and provide additional housing for the community with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units/acre. Specific uses envisioned for the town center portion of the district include restaurants, movie theaters and boutique stores designed within a pedestrian-friendly environment.

2.1.3 Public Park District
The Public Park District includes approximately 18 acres of land located in two parcels in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area. As described in Chapter 3, the only uses permitted in the Public Park District are public parks and related and supporting improvements, facilities and roadways.

It is anticipated that these public parks will provide areas for recreation, gatherings and reflection for Cypress residents. The park amenities could potentially include some combination of playing fields, sports courts, tot-lots, walking trails, picnic areas and restroom facilities.

The western Public Park District includes approximately 10 acres of land and is located at the southeastern corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lexington Drive, adjacent to the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District. It has recently been developed as Lexington Park (other than approximately 1.2 acres in the southwestern corner of the western Public Park District on which a maintenance yard for the Race Course is currently operated). The central Public Park District is approximately 8 acres in size and is located at the Cerritos Avenue/Moody Street intersection, adjacent to the Residential District, a convenient location for existing residents north of Cerritos Avenue and future residents of the Residential District.

The Specific Plan Area will include a minimum of 20 acres of public park space. In addition to two Public Park District parcels, which include 18.2 acres of land, a 2-acre public park overlay was designated within a portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, provided that this additional public park space may be located in any Land Use District(s) and may be located adjacent to one or both of the Public Park Districts in order to increase the size of the public parks that will be developed there. The precise location(s) of these 2 additional acres of public park will be determined based on the development projects proposed in the Specific Plan Area. Parks will be a permitted land use in all of the Land Use Districts.

2.1.4 Residential District
The Residential District includes approximately 46.2 acres of land and is intended to accommodate a variety of single-family residential opportunities. In addition to the residential units, trails and greenways are envisioned to connect the neighborhoods and provide pedestrian and bike routes to the central public park and town center. The Residential District is divided into two subdistricts, which are depicted on Figure 2-2, Residential Subdistricts.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-5

1. Single-Family Detached Subdistrict
The Single-Family Detached Subdistrict is approximately 19.0 acres in size and allows the development of single-family homes in the area located just south of Cerritos Avenue. A mixture of lot sizes is permitted to respond to a variety of residential needs. The residential lots located within 100 feet of Cerritos Avenue will have a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet.

2. Single-Family Attached Subdistrict
The Single-Family Attached Subdistrict is an approximate 27.2-acre parcel and permits the development of attached residential housing to accommodate a variety of lifestyles, as well as related recreational and open space amenities. The types of permitted residential units include townhomes, compact residential lots and other attached homes.

2.1.5 Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District The Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District is approximately 23.1 acres in size and is located adjacent to the western Public Park District. This District provides an opportunity to extend the senior housing use that was approved as part of the Barton Place project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park), which has been developed at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Enterprise Drive. If developed as senior housing, residential uses could include single-family detached and/or attached units, as well as condominiums, and for-sale and rental multi-family units. The District also permits medium-density residential uses, including attached homes, condominiums, and for-sale and rental multi-family units.

2.1.6 Medium-Density Residential District
The Medium-Density Residential District is a flexible land use district of approximately 20.7 acres in size that allows medium-density residential uses. It is anticipated that no development will occur within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District until the Race Course ceases operation.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Residential Subdistricts SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 2-2
0 300 600 May 2024
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Single-Family Detached
Subdistrict

19.0 Acres
Single-Family Attached
Subdistrict

27.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

23.1 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

6.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
MDR) District

2.0 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR)
District

7.6 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

15.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-7

2.2 Circulation Plan
Primary access to the Specific Plan Area will be from Katella Avenue, which is designated as a Major Arterial in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Cerritos Avenue, which is designated as a Primary Arterial in the Circulation Element, and the extension of Vessels Circle.

Additional access to the site will be provided from Lexington Drive and Enterprise Drive.

The backbone circulation for the Specific Plan Area has been designed to accommodate the contemplated development under this Specific Plan and is depicted on Figure 2-3. The backbone circulation improvements include the extension of Moody Street south of Cerritos Avenue to Siboney Street, the extension of Vessels Circle to the west to intersect with the Moody Street extension, and the required future widening of Lexington Drive adjacent to the Specific Plan Area.

2.2.1 General Provisions

1. No development shall be permitted on parcels without improved street access. For purposes of this standard, a street is a maintained public street or alley or a private street subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

2. Portions of any lot within any future right-of-way required under the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan or in this Specific Plan shall not be occupied by structures, other than those encroachments normally permitted in rights-of-way. All other required setbacks, yards and open spaces shall be calculated on the basis of the establishment of the future rights-of-ways, and future right-of-way lines shall be considered to be lot lines for purposes of determining such setbacks, yards and open spaces.

3. Installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets and alley paving, street lighting and street trees shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Cypress Standard Plans and this Specific Plan.

4. All street names within the Specific Plan Area shall be approved, and changed if necessary, by the City Engineer.

5. No structures shall be constructed over existing pipeline, power line, drainage, transmission line or other similar easements, except where such easement has been abandoned or vacated or the grantee of such easement has consented to such structural encroachment.

6. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Specific Plan, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy with respect to residential development in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, the applicable developer shall construct the required half-width roadway improvements adjacent to the western boundary of the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District to widen Lexington Drive.

7. Bus turnouts and passenger waiting areas shall be provided at bus stops as determined necessary by the City Engineer.

8. Internal streets within the Specific Plan Area may be public or private.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Circulation Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 2-3
0 300 600 May 2024
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Lexington
Drive
Widening
Legend
Backbone Circulation
Residential
District

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

23.1 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

6.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
MDR) District

2.0 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR)
District

7.6 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

15.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac. Public
Park Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
Vessels Circle
Moody Street
Extension Vessels Circle
Extension
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-9

2.2.2 Parking
Off-street parking will be required as set forth in Article 2, Section 5 (Residential Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), as applicable, except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in, and as more specifically set forth in Chapter 3 (Development Standards) of, this Specific Plan and this Section 2.2.3, and also subject to the following general requirements:

1. If the calculation of required parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or higher shall be rounded up to the next whole number.

2. On-street parking may be permitted on all streets within the Specific Plan Area, subject to approval as part of the site plan review process.

3. On-street parking may be utilized to meet the parking requirements for uses in the Public Park District and the town center uses in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District.

4. On-street parking may be utilized to meet the guest parking requirements for residential uses in the Residential District, the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District.

5. Off-street parking is permitted anywhere within the Specific Plan Area.

2.2.3 Alternative Parking Requirements
As an alternative to compliance with the applicable parking requirements in this Specific Plan (including referenced requirements in the Zoning Ordinance), a developer may submit a parking study, including without limitation a shared parking analysis, to the City as part of the site plan review process to demonstrate why and the extent to which the parking requirements for the applicable development project should be different from the applicable parking requirements herein. If the parking study is approved as part of the site plan review process, the parking requirements for such project may differ from the applicable parking requirements herein in accordance with the parking study. Alternative parking arrangements may include, without limitation, the use of tandem spaces, shared parking between or within land use districts and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces based on bicycle spaces provided.

2.2.4 Street Section Standards
Streets shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and the City of Cypress Standard Plans, unless alternative street standards are proposed and approved pursuant to Section 2.2.5, below.

2.2.5 Alternative Street Sections
In order to provide an opportunity for innovative and more functional design in the Specific Plan Area, street section standards that are different from the street sections standards in the City's Standard Plans may be proposed and approved as part of the site plan review process for a development project. The applicable developer shall demonstrate why and the extent to which the street section requirements for the applicable development project should be different from the applicable street section requirement(s) in the City's Standard Plans. If one or more alternative street sections are approved as part of the site plan review process, those street sections shall be permitted in lieu of the applicable street sections in the City's Standard Plans.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-10

2.2.6 Land Use District Access

1. Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District
Access to the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District will be from Moody Street, as extended to the south (from Cerritos Avenue), Vessels Circle, as extended to the west (from Walker Street) and Siboney Street (from Katella Avenue).

2. Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District
Access to the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District will be from Moody Street, as extended to the south (from Cerritos Avenue), Vessels Circle, as extended to the west (from Walker Street). and Siboney Street (from Katella Avenue).

3. Public Park District
Access to the western portion of the Public Park District will be from Lexington Drive and/or Cerritos Avenue. Access to the central portion of the Public Park District will be from the extension of Moody Street and/or Cerritos Avenue.

4. Residential District
Access to the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict will be from Cerritos Avenue and the extension of Moody Street. However, single-family residences shall front on local streets (private or public) within the Specific Plan Area and not on offsite public roads.

Access for the Single-Family Attached Subdistrict will be from the extension of Moody Street (from Cerritos Avenue) and Siboney Street (from Katella Avenue) and may be from Enterprise Drive.

5. Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District
Access to the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District will be from Lexington Drive and/or Cerritos Avenue.

2.3 Water Plan
An extensive network of water lines currently serves the Specific Plan Area and adjacent properties. Golden State Water Company is the water purveyor. There are existing water lines within Lexington Drive, Cerritos Avenue, and Katella Avenue, as depicted on Figure 2-4 (Water Plan), that currently serve, and would continue to serve, the Specific Plan Area. Golden State Water Company has indicated that these existing lines are adequate for the proposed uses within the Specific Plan Area.

Precise water system requirements will be determined as development projects are proposed within the Specific Plan Area as part of the site plan review process and, where applicable, the subdivision map process. Water mains will be dedicated to the water company after construction and acceptance.

2.4 Wastewater Plan
The City will be responsible for reviewing and approving the collection of wastewater within the Specific Plan Area, and the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) will be responsible for wastewater treatment. Existing sewer lines consist of a 30-inch CSDOC regional sub-trunk in Lexington Drive that flows south to Katella Avenue, a 21-inch City sewer which connects to the CSDOC facility at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Lexington Drive, and a trunk line in Enterprise Drive. The existing trunk sewer lines adjacent to the Specific Plan Area are shown on the Wastewater Plan in Figure 2-5.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-11
New development that occurs within the Specific Plan Area will connect to the existing trunk sewer lines. Precise sewer system requirements will be determined as development projects are proposed within the Specific Plan Area as part of the site plan review process and, where applicable, the subdivision map process. New collection lines will be offered for dedication to the City after construction.

2.5 Drainage Plan
The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintains regional storm channels for offsite areas, while the City maintains local storm drains in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.

Previous discussions with OCFCD staff indicate that the flood control systems around the Specific Plan Area were not designed to accept drainage runoff from the Specific Plan Area with respect to the contemplated town center and residential uses.

Consequently, the existing drainage system surrounding this area will not be adequate to serve the Specific Plan Area. The proposed drainage solution involves the use of low impact development (LID) principles to manage storm runoff. With respect to each development project, the applicable portion of the Specific Plan Area will be graded and landscaped to reduce the volume of storm water that flows off the Specific Plan Area and enters the City's storm drain system. This approach will reduce post-development impacts on hydrology and improve the quality of runoff that discharges to the City's storm drain system. To the extent possible, this approach will maximize onsite storage of storm water flows and promote infiltration at various locations within the Specific Plan Area. Rain that falls on the Specific Plan Area will be managed onsite through water qualify best management practices, which may include the use of porous pavements, grassed swales, bioretention swales, filter/buffer strips, and other landscaping features that function to hold and treat rainwater. If further reductions in offsite storm water discharges are necessary, other approaches to infiltrate runoff into the subsurface may be utilized, including French drains. In some cases, an onsite biotreatment system and/or biofiltration proprietary devices may be utilized to improve the quality storm water before it is discharged from the Specific Plan Area to the offsite drainage system. The employment of these LID principles will minimize use of hard surfaces, concrete curbs, gutters, and other similar conveyances where appropriate and feasible.

This concept may be used in conjunction with onsite flood control facilities, either surface or subsurface, to store runoff on a temporary basis until after the rain event abates and sufficient capacity is available within the City’s storm drain system to allow for discharge from the Specific Plan Area. Onsite retention ponds or subsurface storage vaults may be centralized such that multiple development parcels share the same storage systems, or they may be stand-alone and parcel-specific.

Because of the widely diversified land uses proposed in this Specific Plan, a combination of drainage and treatment systems may be appropriate and will be determined during the project development and design stage. The developer must obtain approval from the City Engineer for the method selected in each instance.
12"
10"
8" 8"
12"
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Water Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 2-4
0 300 600 May 2024
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Legend
Existing Water
Residential
District

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

23.1 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

6.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
MDR) District

2.0 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR)
District

7.6 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

15.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
21" 18"
30"
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Wastewater Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 2-5
0 300 600 May 2024
Legend
Existing Sewer
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Residential
District

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

23.1 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

6.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
MDR) District

2.0 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR)
District

7.6 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

15.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 2. Development Plan 2-14

2.7 Solid Waste
The City of Cypress currently contracts with a private solid waste hauler to collect and dispose of the solid waste/refuse generated by the City. Solid waste/refuse collected in the City would be transported to an appropriate landfill.

2.8 Natural Gas and Electricity
The Specific Plan Area is located within the service areas of the Southern California Gas Company (natural gas) and the Southern California Edison Company (electricity). The existing utility network can be expanded to meet the future demands associated with development in the Specific Plan Area. Precise system requirements will be determined as development projects are proposed within the Specific Plan Area as part of the site plan review process and, where applicable, the subdivision map process.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-1
3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

3.1 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Chapter 3 is to set forth the standards and regulations governing the use of land within the Specific Plan Area. All development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the standards and regulations applicable to the Land Use District(s) in which a development project is located.

The provisions of this Specific Plan shall apply throughout the Specific Plan Area except where, and so far as, any such provision conflicts with State law, in which case State law shall apply.

3.1.1 General Provision
All construction and development within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's then current building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, grading and excavation regulations.

3.2 Residential District Development Standards
The Residential District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential products within two subdistricts, as described in Chapter 2. The uses described in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, below, shall be permitted or conditionally permitted, as applicable, in the Residential District.

3.2.1 Permitted Uses

1. The following uses are permitted in the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict:
a. Single-family dwelling units
b. Accessory structures under 15 feet in height
c. Home occupations
d. Model home/subdivision sales offices
e. Private yard/garage sales
f. Second dwelling units not more than 640 square feet
g. Second-story decks and balconies
h. Senior housing
i. Temporary uses/activities
j. Animal keeping (not more than 3 dogs and/or cats)
k. Community care, small
l. Day care homes, large
m. Day care homes, small
n. Group homes
o. Residential care homes, small
p. Schools-K–12, public
q. Swimming pools
r. Nature preserves
s. The permitted uses set forth in Section 3.7.1, below, for the Public Park District t. Public and private utility substations, reservoirs, or pumping plants, not including offices.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-2

2. The following uses are permitted in the Single-Family Attached Subdistrict:
a. Single-family dwelling units
b. Condominiums/townhouses
c. Accessory structures
d. Duplexes
e. Home occupations
f. Model home/subdivision sales offices
g. Private yard/garage sales
h. Second dwelling units not more than 640 square feet
i. Second-story decks and balconies
j. Senior housing
k. Temporary uses/activities
l. Animal keeping (not more than 3 dogs and/or cats)
m. Community care, small
n. Day care homes, large
o. Day care homes, small
p. Group homes
q. Residential care homes, small
r. Schools-K–12, public
s. Swimming pools
t. Nature preserves
u. The permitted uses set forth in Section 3.7.1, below, for the Public Park District v. Public and private utility substations, reservoirs, or pumping plants, not including offices.

3.2.2 Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit

1. The following uses may be permitted in the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 4.19.070 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. Accessory structures over 15 feet in height
b. Condominium conversions
c. Granny units
d. Second dwelling units more than 640 square feet
e. Churches
f. Day care centers
g. Schools-K–12, private
h. Tennis courts, private
i. Raising of horses (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course) j. Horse race tracks (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course) k. Riding academies or stables (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course).

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-3

2. The following uses are conditionally permitted in the Single-Family Attached Subdistrict:
a. Condominium conversions
b. Granny units
c. Churches
d. Day care centers
e. Schools-K–12, private
f. Tennis courts, private
g. Raising of horses (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course) h. Horse race tracks (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course) i. Riding academies or stables (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course).

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-4

3.2.3 Development Standards
See Table 3-1 below.

Table 3- 1: Residential Development Standards
Single-Family Detached –
Lots within 100 Feet of
Cerritos Avenue Right of
Way
Single-Family Detached –
Lots More than 100 Feet
from Cerritos Avenue
Right of Way
Single-Family Attached
Minimum Parcel Size 6,000 square feet 3,600 square feet 5,000 square feet Maximum Allowable
Density
5 dwelling units/gross
acre(8)
8 dwelling
units/gross acre(8)
10 dwelling units/gross
acre
Minimum Parcel Width 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet
Minimum Parcel Depth 90 feet 40 feet 60 feet
Maximum Structure
Height(1)
35 feet and
2 stories
35 feet and
2 stories
35 feet and 3 stories
Setbacks(2)
Minimum Front Setback,
Single-Story(3)
20 feet 10 feet 10 feet from edge of
private driveway
Minimum Front Setback,
Second-Story
25 feet 10 feet 10 feet from edge of
private driveway
Minimum Interior Side
Setback, Single-Story
5 feet(4) No minimum 0 feet on one side, shall
maintain compliance
with minimum distance
between structures
Minimum Interior Side
Setback, Second-Story
10 feet(4) 5 feet 0 feet on one side, shall
maintain compliance
with minimum distance
between structures
Minimum Street Side
Setback, Single-Story
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum Street Side
Setback, Second-Story
15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum Rear Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage,
Single-Story Structure
60% 60%, excluding common
private drives
60%, excluding common
private drives
Maximum Lot Coverage,
Two-Story Structure
40% 40%, excluding common
private drives
50%, excluding common
private drives
Minimum Dwelling Unit
Size
1,100 square feet 1,100 square feet 1,000 square feet
Minimum distance
between structures on the
same parcel, where
neither structure exceeds
15 feet in height
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-5
Single-Family Detached –
Lots within 100 Feet of
Cerritos Avenue Right of
Way
Single-Family Detached –
Lots More than 100 Feet
from Cerritos Avenue
Right of Way
Single-Family Attached
Minimum distance
between structures on the
same parcel where one or
more structures exceeds
15 feet in height
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum separation
between opposing
second-story bedroom
windows
5 feet(5) N/A N/A
Minimum Driveway Widths 16 feet – 2-vehicle
garages
24 feet – 3 vehicle
garages(6)
16 feet – 2-vehicle
garages
24 feet – 3 vehicle
garages(6)
16 feet – 2-vehicle
garages
24 feet – 3 vehicle
garages(6)
Minimum interior garage
dimension
20-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
2-vehicle garages
20-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
2-vehicle garages
20-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
2-vehicle garages
30-feet by 20-feet with 3-
vehicle garages(7)
30-feet by 20-feet with
3-vehicle garages(7)
30-feet by 20-feet with
3-vehicle garages(7)
Minimum Landscaped
Open Space

N/A N/A N/A
(1) A roof deck shall not be considered a story.
(2) All setbacks shall be measured from property line to the main structure. (3) For parcels located at the closed end of a cul-de-sac (e.g., along a “bulb”), the required minimum front setback shall be reduced by 50 percent.
(4) Additions to the original allowed dwelling unit shall be allowed within the required interior setback; provided, the setback distance between the addition and the interior side property line is the same or greater than that of the original structure, not including the garage or any accessory structure. In any case, the addition shall not be located closer than five feet from an interior side property line, but only when combined with an adjoining side setback of at least ten feet in width.
(5) The separation shall be measured from the edge of one bedroom window to the closest edge of the opposing bedroom window.
(6) A paved driveway shall be provided between each garage and the closest approved access to an adjoining street. No more than one driveway shall be allowed for each single-family dwelling unit. Circular driveways shall be allowed on all parcels that are 100 feet or greater in width. Three-vehicle garages with tandem parking shall have a minimum driveway width of 20 feet, subject to approval as part of the site plan review process. (7) Three-vehicle garages with tandem parking shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and an additional 20 feet of depth for the tandem space, subject to approval as part of the site plan review process. (8) The residential density within the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict that is more than 100 feet from the Cerritos Avenue right of way may exceed 8 dwelling units/gross acre, provided that the overall residential density in the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict does not exceed 8 dwelling units/gross acre.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-6

3.2.4 Maximum Number of Residential Units
The Residential Development Standards in Table 3-1 include the maximum residential densities in each of the subdistricts that comprise the Residential District. The development standards set forth in Section 3.3.4, below, include the maximum residential density for higher-density residential housing in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District. The development standards set forth in Section 3.4.7, below, include the maximum residential density for medium-density residential housing in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, the maximum residential density for medium-density residential housing in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District and the Medium-Density Residential District (collectively, the MDR Districts). The development standards set forth in Section 3.4.6, below, include the maximum residential density for senior housing in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District. Based on these densities, more than 1,926 residential units could be developed within the Residential District, the MDR Districts, (which includes the senior housing density allowed in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District) and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District.

While these densities effectively limit the number of residential units in those districts, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the MDR Districts and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District shall not exceed 1,926 units.

3.2.5 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

1. Single-Family Detached Subdistrict
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to residential and related uses allowed within the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict in accordance with this Section 3.2 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RS-6000 or other zoning district pursuant to the Cypress Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RS-6000 zoning district shall apply. The uses described in Sections 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.2.1, above, shall have the meanings, if any, set forth for them in the Zoning Ordinance as of the effective date of this Specific Plan.

2. Single-Family Attached Subdistrict
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to residential and related uses allowed within the Single-Family Attached Subdistrict in accordance with this Section 3.2 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RS-5000 or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RS-5000 zoning district shall apply. The uses described in Sections 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.2.2, above, shall have the meanings, if any, set forth for them in the Zoning Ordinance as of the effective date of this Specific Plan.

3.2.6 Parking
Off-street parking for the Residential District shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Sections 5 (Residential Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, above, except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b)provided in this Specific Plan.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-7

3.3 Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District Development Standards The Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, as shown on Figure 2-1 (Land Use Plan), is intended to accommodate the development of a variety of retail, entertainment, commercial and higher-density residential uses to create a gathering place and "main street" for the community.

The uses described in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, below, shall be permitted or conditionally permitted, as applicable, in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District.

3.3.1 Permitted Uses

1. Accessory retail uses

2. Appliance stores (large appliance sales and service)

3. Automated teller machines (ATMs)

4. Banks and financial institutions

5. Barber or beauty shops

6. Business support services

7. Bicycle and pedestrian trails

8. Bowling alleys

9. Catering services

10. Commercial, trade or vocational schools

11. Condominiums/townhouses

12. Department stores

13. Dry cleaning service, drop-off only

14. Family/children entertainment centers (indoor) with climbing apparatus, play equipment, food service, video games, party facilities, and similar attractions

15. Financial services

16. Food and beverage establishments, including restaurants, bakeries, cafes, delicatessens, gourmet beer and wine shops, ice cream parlors, open air dining areas and specialty food, but excluding fast-food restaurants, with or without drive-in/through service

17. Florist shops

18. Furniture/furnishings, rentals, sales and service stores

19. Garden centers or plant nurseries

20. Hardware stores

21. Hotels or motels, including conference facilities

22. Interior decorating or drapery shops

23. Live/work units, subject to Section 3.3.7, below

24. Medical/dental offices, clinics or services

25. Motor vehicle leasing/rental (office only; no vehicles onsite)

26. Motor vehicle parts and supplies

27. Multi-family dwelling units, including associated uses such as second-story decks and balconies, clubhouses and swimming pools

28. Office equipment/supply stores

29. Offices, administrative or executive

30. Offices, professional or government

31. Outdoor retail sales and activities
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-8

32. Parks, outdoor activity areas and open space

33. Personal services, general

34. Pet shops

35. Photocopy/desktop facilities

36. Photography studios/supply shops

37. Pharmacies/drug stores

38. Playland, associated with a restaurant

39. Public utility service offices

40. Retail stores, general merchandise

41. Satellite dishes/antenna (less than 3 feet/2 meters in diameter)

42. Shopping centers

43. Sporting goods stores, no firearms

44. Studios - art, dance, karate, music, photography, etc.

45. Tanning studios

46. Temporary uses/activities

47. Theaters, auditoriums, and meeting halls

48. Theaters, movie

49. Travel agencies

50. Veterinarian services and small animal hospitals

51. Wireless communication facilities

52. The permitted uses set forth in Section 3.7.1, below, for the Public Park District

53. Any other use that the Director of Community Development finds is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Section, and similar to the listed permitted uses and compatible with these uses, subject to appeal to the City Council.

3.3.2 Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit The uses set forth below may be permitted, subject to approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 4.19.070 of the Zoning Ordinance:

1. Alternative fuels and recharging facilities

2. Bars/liquor establishments (onsite consumption only)

3. Catering services

4. Churches

5. Clubs or lodges

6. Day care centers

7. Educational institutions, private or public

8. Health/fitness centers

9. Indoor amusement/arcade, cyber cafe, entertainment/recreation centers

10. Libraries

11. Live entertainment and dancing

12. Liquor stores (offsite consumption only)

13. Medical services, laboratories

14. Mixed-use developments, where the residential portion of the development occupies a minimum of 50 percent of the total floor area of the development.

15. Museums
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-9

16. Nightclubs, with or without food service, bar

17. Outdoor amusement/entertainment/recreation centers

18. Pool halls/billiard centers

19. Post offices

20. Public utilities, including, but not limited to substations, reservoirs and pumping stations

21. Restaurants, fast food, with or without drive-through service, or with outdoor seating

22. Restaurants with alcohol sales

23. Raising of horses (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

24. Horse race tracks (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

25. Riding academies or stables (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

26. Any other use that the Director of Community Development finds is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Section, and similar to the listed conditionally permitted uses and compatible with these uses, subject to appeal to the City Council.

3.3.3 Prohibited Uses

1. Warehousing, wholesaling and distribution facilities.

3.3.4 Development Standards

1. Minimum Parcel Area: 10,000 square feet.

2. Minimum Parcel Depth: No minimum.

3. Minimum Parcel Width: 50 feet.

4. Maximum Parcel Coverage by Structures: No maximum.

5. Maximum Residential Density: Overall 30 dwelling units/gross acre.

6. Minimum Residential Density: Overall 20 dwelling units/gross acre.

7. Maximum Structure Height: 75 feet, excluding any roof-mounted equipment and/or architectural details.

8. Setbacks:
a. Minimum front setback: No minimum.
b. Minimum street side setback: 10 feet from streets.
c. Minimum interior side setback: No minimum.
d. Minimum rear setback: No minimum.
e. A multi-family residential building shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from nonresidential buildings.

9. Minimum driveway width for 2-way traffic: 24 feet.

10. Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical equipment placed on any roof, including, but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, ventilation and exhaust equipment, shall be screened in a material consistent with the building and screened from view from any abutting street or highway and any abutting residential area. All such mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integral part of the building, and shall be maintained in a clean and proper condition to prevent a collection of litter and filth and to avoid the emission of unnecessary noise, dust or fumes.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-10

3.3.5 Maximum Floor Area Ratio
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for non-residential development in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District shall not exceed 0.6:1; provided, however, that (a) the FAR for nonresidential development on any development parcel in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District may have a maximum FAR of 1.0:1 and (b) the floor area devoted to parking within a building shall not be considered in calculating the FAR for non-residential development in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District. This section does not apply to residential development or the non-residential component of a mixed-use project.

3.3.6 Maximum Number of Residential Units
As set forth in Section 3.2.4, above, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the MDR Districts and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District shall not exceed 1,926 units.

3.3.7 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

1. Non-Residential Uses
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements and tree removal) with respect to non-residential development in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District in accordance with this Section 3.3 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the CG (Commercial General) or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the CG (General Commercial) zoning district shall apply with respect to such non-residential uses.

The non-residential uses described in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, above, shall have the meanings, if any, set forth for them in the Zoning Ordinance as of the effective date of this Specific Plan.

2. Residential Uses
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to residential development in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR District in accordance with this Section 3.3 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RM-20 (MultipleFamily) or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RM-20 (Multiple-Family) zoning district shall apply with respect to such residential uses. The residential uses described in Section 3.3.1, above, shall have the meanings, if any, set forth for them in the Zoning Ordinance as of the effective date of this Specific Plan.

3.3.8 Live/Work Units

1. Applicability
This Section provides standards for live/work and artists’ lofts/studios to accommodate live/work opportunities. Live/work quarters are especially intended for residential uses in conjunction with office or retail uses, either on the same floor, or on separate floors.

2. Floor Area Requirements
a. A live/work unit shall have a minimum floor area of at least 1,250 square feet. b. The maximum size of the residential portion of the live/work unit shall be 50 percent of the unit.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-11
c. A ground-level live/work unit with street frontage shall devote the initial 25 feet of floor area depth to commercial activity.

3. Unit Access
Where there are multiple live/work units within a single structure, each unit shall be physically separated from other units and uses within the structure, and access to individual units shall be from a common open space, corridor, hallway, or other common access area.

4. Internal Integration of the Live/Work Unit
a. There shall be direct access between the working and living spaces within the live/work unit.
b. There shall be no separate entrance to the living space by a separate door. All access to the living space shall be from the working space. c. The working space shall not be leased separately from the living space; conversely, the living space shall not be leased separately from the working space.

5. Occupancy and Employees
a. At least one full-time employee of business activity occupying the live/work unit shall also reside in the unit; conversely, at least one of the persons living in the live portion shall work in the work portion.
b. The business activity occupying the live/work unit may utilize nonresident employees, as necessary.

3.3.9 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Section 6 (Commercial Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.3.1 and

3.3.2, above, except that off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Section 5 (Residential Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to multifamily and other residential dwelling units, in each case except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding sentence, the minimum parking requirement for multi-family residential dwelling units shall be a total of 1 garage space for each dwelling unit and 1/4 unassigned open space for every dwelling unit, except as otherwise required or permitted by State law.

Parking spaces may be located in the following manner: (a) on the same lot or development parcel as the use the parking is intended to serve; or (b) on an offsite lot or development parcel, provided that (i) such offsite parking is approved as part of the site plan review process for a development project and (ii) a parking covenant is recorded to require the maintenance of such offsite parking spaces. The City shall release such parking covenant at such time as such offsite spaces are not, or are no longer, required to satisfy any parking requirement under this Specific Plan or replacement parking is provided at another onsite or offsite location.

3.4 Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District Development Standards The Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, as shown on Figure 2-1 (Land Use Plan), is a flexible land use designation that allows senior housing and related continuum of care uses, to complement the adjacent Barton Place development (now known as Ovation at Flora Park) and/or the development of medium-density residential uses. The uses described in CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-12
Sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, below, shall be permitted or conditionally permitted, as applicable, in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District.

3.4.1 Permitted Senior Housing Uses
For purposes of this Specific Plan, "senior housing" shall mean independent living units or other independent housing that is occupied by a qualifying resident under State law who is 55 years of age or older, and may include common dining areas and other community facilities.

1. Senior housing

2. Condominiums/townhouses (senior housing only)

3. Multi-family dwelling units (senior housing only)

4. Assisted living and memory care facilities

5. Convalescent/rest homes

6. Accessory structures

7. Home occupations

8. Model home/subdivision sales offices (senior housing only)

9. Private yard/garage sales

10. Second-story balcony

11. Single-family dwelling units (senior housing only)

12. Caretaker/employee housing

13. Swimming pools

14. The permitted uses set forth in Section 3.7.1, below, for the Public Park District

15. Public and private utility substations, reservoirs, or pumping plants, not including offices.

3.4.2 Senior Housing Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit The uses set forth below may be permitted, subject to approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 4.19.070 of the Zoning Ordinance:

1. Churches

2. Raising of horses (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

3. Horse race tracks (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

4. Riding academies or stables (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course).

3.4.3 Permitted Medium-Density Residential Uses

1. Condominiums/townhouses

2. Multi-family dwelling units

3. Single-family dwelling units

4. Accessory structures

5. Duplexes

6. Home occupations

7. Model home/subdivision sales offices

8. Second-story decks and balconies

9. Senior housing

10. Temporary uses/activities
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-13

11. Animal keeping (not more than 3 dogs and/or cats)

12. Community care, small

13. Day care homes, large

14. Day care homes, small

15. Group homes

16. Residential care homes, small

17. Schools-K–12, public

18. Swimming pools

19. Nature preserves

20. The permitted uses set forth in Section 3.7.1, below, for the Public Park District

21. Public and private utility substations, reservoirs, or pumping plants, not including offices.

3.4.4 Medium-Density Residential Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit The uses set forth below may be permitted, subject to approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 4.19.070 of the Zoning Ordinance:

1. Accessory structures over 15 feet in height

2. Condominium conversions

3. Dormitories

4. Assisted living and memory care facilities

5. Churches

6. Community care, large

7. Convalescent/rest homes

8. Day care centers

9. Residential care homes, large

10. Schools-K–12, private

11. Tennis courts, private

12. Raising of horses (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

13. Horse race tracks (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

14. Riding academies or stables (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course).

3.4.5 Prohibited Uses

1. Warehousing, wholesaling and distribution facilities.

3.4.6 Senior Housing Development Standards

1. Minimum parcel size: 10,000 square feet (this requirement relates to the development parcel, not to individual lots).

2. Minimum parcel depth: 100 feet (this requirement relates to the development parcel, not to individual lots).

3. Minimum parcel width: 100 feet (this requirement relates to the development parcel, not to individual lots).

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-14

4. Maximum allowable density: Overall 20 dwelling units/gross acre, provided that an assisted living or memory care facility shall not be considered a multi-family dwelling and no portion of any such facility shall constitute dwelling units.

5. Maximum structure height: 35 feet.

6. Minimum dwelling unit size:
a. One bedroom: 500 square feet.
b. Two bedrooms: 700 square feet.
c. Three (+) bedrooms: 900 square feet.

7. Minimum Open Space: 300 square feet per dwelling unit, provided that any or all of such open space (a) may be common, private or public and (b) shall include balconies, patios and any land occupied by recreational structures or improvements.

8. Driveway widths:
a. 1 to 2 units: Minimum of 12 feet.
b. 3 or more units: Minimum of 20 feet.

9. Minimum landscaped open space: 25 percent.

10. Parcel Coverage and Distance Between Structures:
a. The maximum parcel coverage by structures shall not exceed 60 percent. b. The minimum distance between structures on the same parcel, where neither structure exceeds 15 feet in height, shall be 6 feet. The minimum distance between structures on the same parcel, where one or both structures exceed 15 feet in height, shall be 10 feet. The foregoing requirements shall not apply to structures that are physically connected to one another.

11. Setbacks:
a. Front: 10 feet.
b. Rear: 5 feet.
c. Side (interior, each): 5 feet; two story – 10 feet.
d. Street side: 10 feet.

3.4.7 Medium-Density Residential Development Standards

1. Minimum parcel size: No minimum.

2. Minimum parcel depth: No minimum.

3. Minimum parcel width: No minimum.

4. Maximum allowable density: Overall 15 dwelling units/gross acre.

5. Maximum structure height: 35 feet and 3 stories, provided that a roof deck shall not be considered a story.

6. Minimum landscaped open space: An average of 400 square feet per dwelling unit, provided that any or all of such open space (a) may be common, private or public and (b) shall include balconies, patios and any land occupied by recreational structures or improvements.

7. Driveway widths:
a. 1 to 2 units: Minimum of 12 feet.
b. 3 or more units: Minimum of 16 feet.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-15

8. Parcel coverage and distance between structures:
a. The maximum parcel coverage by structures shall not exceed 60 percent. b. The minimum distance between structures on the same parcel, where neither structure exceeds 15 feet in height, shall be 6 feet. The minimum distance between structures on the same parcel, where one or both structures exceed 15 feet in height, shall be 10 feet.

9. Minimum setbacks:
a. Front: 20 feet (for parcels located at the closed end of a cul-desac (e.g., along a “bulb”), the required minimum front setback shall be reduced by 50 percent).
b. Rear: 10 feet, except for detached garages with alley access, which require a setback of 12 feet from the centerline of the alley.
c. Interior side: single-story – 5 feet; second-story – 10 feet. d. Street side: 10 feet.

All setbacks shall be measured from property line to the main structure.

10. Minimum interior garage dimension: 20 feet by 20 feet, clear with no obstructions.

3.4.8 Maximum Number of Residential Units
As set forth in Section 3.2.4, above, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the MDR Districts and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District shall not exceed 1,926 units.

3.4.9 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

1. Senior Housing Development
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to senior housing and the related uses allowed within the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District in accordance with this Section 3.4 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RM-20 (Multiple-Family) or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RM-20 (Multiple-Family) zoning district shall apply.

The uses described in Sections 3.4.1and 3.4.2, above, shall have the meanings, if any, set forth for them in the Zoning Ordinance as of the effective date of this Specific Plan.

2. Medium-Density Residential Development
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to multi-family residential and related uses allowed within the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District in accordance with this the Section 3.4 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RM-15 or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RM-15 zoning district shall apply. The uses described in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, above, shall have the meanings, if any, set forth for them in the Zoning Ordinance as of the effective date of this Specific Plan.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-16

3.4.10 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Section 5 (Residential Zoning Districts and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.4.1 and

3.4.2 (Senior Housing), above, and Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 (Medium-Density Residential), above, in each case except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding sentence or elsewhere in this Specific Plan, (i)the minimum parking requirement for multi-family residential dwelling units shall be a total of 1 garage space for each dwelling unit and 1/4 unassigned open space for every dwelling unit and (ii) the minimum parking requirement for senior housing shall be a total of 1 garage space for each dwelling unit and 1 unassigned open space for every 20 dwelling units, in each case except as otherwise required or permitted by State law.

Parking spaces may be located in the following manner: (a) on the same lot or development parcel as the use the parking is intended to serve; or (b) on an offsite lot or development parcel, provided that (i) such offsite parking is approved as part of the site plan review process for a development project and (ii) a parking covenant is recorded to require the maintenance of such offsite parking spaces. The City shall release such parking covenant at such time as such offsite spaces are not, or are no longer, required to satisfy any parking requirement under this Specific Plan or replacement parking is provided at another onsite or offsite location.

3.5 Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District Development Standards The Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District, as shown on Figure 2-1 (Land Use Plan), is a flexible land use designation that allows an expansion of the town center uses permitted and conditionally permitted in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District (if and to the extent demand for additional town center uses exists in the future) and/or the development of medium-density residential, senior housing and related uses allowed in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District. The uses described in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2, below, shall be permitted or conditionally permitted, as applicable, in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District.

3.5.1 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Town Center Uses All of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, as set forth in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, above.

3.5.2 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Medium-Density Residential and Senior Housing Uses All of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, as set forth in Sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, above.

3.5.3 Prohibited Uses

1. Warehousing, wholesaling and distribution facilities.

3.5.4 Town Center Development Standards
The development standards for the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District set forth in Section

3.3.4, above, shall govern the development of town center uses in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-17

3.5.5 Medium-Density Residential and Senior Housing Development Standards The development standards for the medium-density residential uses set forth in Section 3.4.7, above, and the development standards for the senior housing uses set forth in Section 3.4.6, above, shall govern the development of medium-density residential and senior housing uses in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District, except that the maximum height of senior housing structures shall be 55 feet.

3.5.6 Maximum Floor Area Ratio
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for non-residential development in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District shall not exceed 0.6:1; provided, however, that (a) the FAR for nonresidential development on any development parcel in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District may have a maximum FAR of 1.0:1 and (b) the floor area devoted to parking within a building shall not be considered in calculating the FAR for non-residential development in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District. This section does not apply to residential development or the non-residential component of a mixed-use project.

3.5.7 Maximum Number of Residential Units
As set forth in Section 3.2.4, above, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the MDR Districts and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District shall not exceed 1,926 units.

3.5.8 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

1. Town Center Development
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to non-residential development allowed within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District in accordance with this Section 3.5 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the CG (Commercial General) or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the CG (Commercial General) zoning district shall apply.

2. Medium-Density Residential Development
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to medium-density residential and related uses allowed within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District in accordance with this Section 3.5 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RM-15 or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RM-15 zoning district shall apply.

3. Senior Housing Development
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-18
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to senior housing and related uses allowed within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District in accordance with this Section 3.5 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RM-20 or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RM-20 zoning district shall apply.

3.5.9 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Section 6 (Commercial Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.5.1, above, and the applicable requirements in Article 2, Section 5 (Residential Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Section 3.5.2, above, in each case except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding sentence, the minimum parking requirement for multi-family residential dwelling units shall be a total of 1 garage space for each dwelling unit and 1/4 unassigned open space for every dwelling unit, except as otherwise required or permitted by State law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in in this Specific Plan, off-street parking may be provided on all or any portion of the land within Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District that is currently owned by Seacoast Grace Church with respect to any land use on the Seacoast Grace Church property, including the portion of the Seacoast Grace Church property that is located outside of the Specific Plan Area.

Parking spaces may be located in the following manner: (a) on the same lot or development parcel as the use the parking is intended to serve; or (b) on an offsite lot or development parcel, provided that (i) such offsite parking is approved as part of the site plan review process for a development project and (ii) a parking covenant is recorded to require the maintenance of such offsite parking spaces. The City shall release such parking covenant at such time as such offsite spaces are not, or are no longer, required to satisfy any parking requirement under this Specific Plan or replacement parking is provided at another onsite or offsite location.

3.6 Medium-Density Residential District Development Standards The Medium-Density Residential District, as shown on Figure 2-1 (Land Use Plan), allows the development of medium-density residential and related uses allowed in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District. The uses described in Section 3.6.1, below, shall be permitted or conditionally permitted, as applicable, in the Medium-Density Residential District.

3.6.1 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Medium-Density Residential Uses All of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses relating to medium-residential development in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, as set forth in Sections

3.4.3 and 3.4.4, above.

3.6.2 Medium-Density Residential Development Standards
The development standards for medium-density residential uses set forth in Section 3.4.7, above, shall govern the development of medium-density residential uses in the MediumDensity Residential District.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-19

3.6.3 Maximum Number of Residential Units
As set forth in Section 3.2.4, above, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the MDR Districts and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District shall not exceed 1,926 units.

3.6.4 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to the medium-density residential and related uses allowed within the Medium-Density Residential District in accordance with this Section 3.6 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RM-15 or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RM-15 zoning district shall apply.

3.6.5 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Section (Residential Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.6.1, above, except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding sentence, the minimum parking requirement for multi-family residential dwelling units shall be a total of 1 garage space for each dwelling unit and 1/4 unassigned open space for every dwelling unit, except as otherwise required or permitted by State law.

Parking spaces may be located in the following manner: (a) on the same lot or development parcel as the use the parking is intended to serve; or (b) on an offsite lot or development parcel, provided that (i) such offsite parking is approved as part of the site plan review process for a development project and (ii) a parking covenant is recorded to require the maintenance of such offsite parking spaces. The City shall release such parking covenant at such time as such offsite spaces are not, or are no longer, required to satisfy any parking requirement under this Specific Plan or replacement parking is provided at another onsite or offsite location.

3.7 Public Park District Development Standards
The Public Park District, as shown on Figure 2-1 (Land Use Plan) has been established to provide land for public parks.

3.7.1 Permitted Uses

1. Recreation facilities

2. Access and service roads

3. Community garden/farmers market

4. Dog parks

5. Gazebos and other shade structures

6. Hiking and biking trails

7. Lakes, pools and ponds

8. Outdoor event area/lawn

9. Parking lots
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-20

10. Picnic areas and associated facilities, including bar-b-ques, seating, shade structures, etc.

11. Recreation/community center, clubhouse, cultural/events center

12. Refreshment/concessions stands

13. Restroom facilities

14. Flood control facilities

15. Utility easements and rights of way

16. Public utility substations, reservoirs and pumping plants, not including offices.

3.7.2 Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit

1. Raising of horses (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

2. Horse race tracks (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)

3. Riding academies or stables (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of the Los Alamitos Race Course).

3.7.3 Development Standards

1. Minimum Parcel Area No minimum.

2. Minimum Parcel Depth: No minimum.

3. Minimum Parcel Width: No minimum.

4. Building Site Coverage: No maximum.

5. Building Setbacks:
a. Front: 10 feet
b. Rear: 5 feet
c. Side (interior or between buildings): Single Story - 5 feet; Two Stories- 10 feet d. Street Side: 10 feet.

3.7.4 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Section 8 (Special Purpose Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.7.1 and

3.7.2, above, except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan.

3.8 Public Park Overlay
A 2-acre public park, as shown on Figure 2-1(Land Use Plan), has been designated as a land use overlay (Public Park Overlay) within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, provided that this additional required public park space may be located (a) in any Land Use District or multiple Land Use Districts and (b) adjacent to one or both of the Public Park Districts in order to increase the size of the public parks that will be developed there. The precise location(s) of these 2 additional acres of public park space will be determined based on the development projects proposed in the Specific Plan Area. Parks are a permitted land use in all of the Land Use Districts.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter 3, the provisions of Section 3.7, above, for the Public Park District shall govern the use and development of public park space within the Public Park Overlay.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-21

3.9 Tree Replacement
Existing trees within the Specific Plan Area may be removed, provided that any such proposed tree removal for a development project shall be described in the site plan review application for such project for informational purposes. If any such trees are removed, such trees will be replaced onsite with an equivalent number of specimen trees (48” box or larger) to be planted as part of the landscaping for the applicable development project. These replacement trees shall be planted in addition to normal tree planting requirements.

3.10 Building Height Notification/Restriction
The Specific Plan Area is located in proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos (JFTB), which is governed by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the JFTB. The Planning Area for the JFTB in the AELUP includes the area that lies above or penetrates the 100:1 Imaginary Surface, which is graphically shown in Appendix D to the AELUP, as well as Exhibit SAF-7 in the Safety Element of the City's General Plan. As those graphics reflect, a portion of the Specific Plan Area is located within the area where the construction of improvements could potentially penetrate the 100:1 Imaginary Surface, which would require notification to the Federal Aviation Administration and could result in a reduction in the height of proposed improvements.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 4. Sustainable Guidelines 4-1
4 SUSTAINABLE GUIDELINES

4.1 Introduction
One of the goals of this Specific Plan is to encourage the conservation of natural resources by requiring consideration of sustainable design strategies and conservation measures with respect to development projects proposed within the Specific Plan Area. Accordingly, the applicants for new development projects within the Specific Plan Area will consider the sustainable design strategies and conservation measures described in this chapter, as well as the California Green Building Standards Code and the City's Residential Green Building Suggestions and Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines. While appropriate sustainability strategies and conservation measures will be determined on a project-by-project basis, such strategies may include, but are not limited to, the following:

4.2 Storm Water Management

1. Use pervious paving materials wherever possible to filter storm water runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge.

2. Divert storm water runoff into detention basins to increase groundwater recharge, reduce drainage runoff, and control the rate of storm flows from the site.

3. Encourage the use of storm water management best practices, including infiltration basins, bioswales and biotreatment.

4.3 Landscaping

1. Prioritize the use of native and drought tolerant plant species to reduce water demand.

2. Limit the use of turf as groundcover and encourage water-conserving native groundcovers or perennial grasses, shrubs, and trees.

3. Encourage the use of automated irrigation systems that respond to changing weather conditions and irrigate by hydrozone.

4. Encourage the use of micro-irrigation techniques such as high efficiency, xeriscape irrigation systems that reduce the amount of water devoted to landscaped areas, and utilize drip and bubbler irrigation and low-angle, low-flow nozzles on spray heads.

5. Promote the use of mulch and environmentally friendly fertilizers to promote healthy soil and growing conditions.

6. Provide landscaped shade canopies to reduce the heat island effect in surface parking areas.

7. Provide a landscape palette that prioritizes non-evasive plant species.

4.4 Building Materials

1. Encourage the use of locally sourced building materials.

2. Use renewable or recycled building materials to the extent feasible. Such materials may include flooring alternatives like bamboo, wheatboard, and cork. Linoleum, exposed concrete, and recycled- content ceramic tiles are also desirable materials.

3. Encourage the use of insulation that consists of recycled content, such as cellulose, newspaper, or recycled cotton.

4.5 Indoor Air Quality

1. Use flooring and insulation products that are low emitters of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and formaldehyde.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 4. Sustainable Guidelines 4-2

2. Use low- and zero-VOC paints, finishes, adhesives, caulks, and other substances to improve indoor air quality and reduce the harmful health effects of off-gassing.

4.6 Lighting

1. Encourage the use of low-contrast lighting, low-voltage fixtures and energy-efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent and light emitting diodes.

2. Promote the use of lights with automated occupancy sensors in nonresidential buildings that automatically shut off when rooms are unoccupied.

3. Utilize solar-powered lights in landscaped areas for energy savings where possible.

4.7 Building Envelope

1. Install radiant barriers to reduce summer heat gain and winter heat loss.

2. Use natural ventilation techniques, such as operable windows, to take advantage of airflow for cooling interiors and reduce energy demand.

3. Use passive design to improve building energy performance through skylights, building orientation, landscaping and colors.

4. Consider reducing heat gain with the use of “cool roofs” that are painted with a highly reflective coating or employ light-colored materials.

5. Utilize water- and energy-saving fixtures and appliances, such as showerheads, toilets, washing machines, clothes dryers, refrigerators, and dishwashers certified as Energy Star compliant.

6. Encourage the use of recirculating hot water systems, which reduce the need to heat water, or tankless water heaters that heat water as needed instead of storing hot water in tanks, thereby reducing standby energy use.

7. Utilize a minimum insulation value of R30 in ceilings to reduce the need for additional heating and cooling.

8. Utilize programmable thermostats to provide more efficient and effective heating and cooling.

4.8 Water Conservation

1. Install sensor-operated faucets in public restrooms.

2. Utilize dual flush or other toilets using less than 1.6 gallons per flush.

3. Consider waterless urinals in public restrooms and in nonresidential buildings.

4.9 Energy Conservation

1. Utilize energy-efficient windows, such as models with spectrally selective low-e glass and with wood, vinyl, or fiberglass frames.

2. Utilize efficient building materials that take advantage of heat storage or thermal mass to reduce energy needed for heating and cooling interiors.

3. Reduce the number and area of east and west facing windows to reduce heat gain.

4. Insulate domestic hot water pipes where feasible.

5. Insulate attics.

6. Use dual pane and tinted windows where appropriate.

4.10 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

1. Design and install heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems according to the standards provided by the Air Conditioning Contractors of America handbooks or other comparable high-performance HVAC standards.

2. Install sealed-combustion/sealed-duct furnaces and water heaters for increased efficiency and indoor air quality.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 4. Sustainable Guidelines 4-3

3. Install only Energy Star-qualified ceiling fans to circulate air and reduce the demand on heating and cooling systems.

4. Locate windows in a manner that promotes natural cross ventilation.

5. Promote smart climate controls for both residential and commercial buildings to efficiently regulate temperature controls.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-1
5 IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 Authority and Scope
This Specific Plan has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code (Government Code), Title 7, Article 8, Section 65450 et seq., which grants a local planning agency the authority to prepare a specific plan for the systematic implementation of a general plan for all or a portion of the area covered by the general plan. Pursuant to Section 65451 of the Government Code, a specific plan is designed to identify the proposed distribution, location and extent of land uses and major components of public and private facilities needed to support those land uses, as well as standards and criteria by which development will proceed and a program of implementation measures necessary to carry out contemplated development.

This Specific Plan serves as the policy and regulatory document for development within the Specific Plan Area and essentially sets forth the zoning for the Specific Plan Area. All development within the Specific Plan Area shall be consistent with the standards and regulations set forth in this document. Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, landscaping and tree removal) that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the applicable land use district pursuant to the Cypress Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), this Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, as more specifically discussed in Chapter 3 (Development Standards) with respect to each Land Use District. Where no such conflict exists and/or the Zoning Ordinance includes a less restrictive standard or requirement than this Specific Plan, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to such standard or requirement shall apply, as more specifically discussed in Chapter 3 (Development Standards) with respect to each Land Use District.

5.2 Purpose of the Specific Plan
This Specific Plan serves a planning and regulating function to provide for the orderly growth and development of the Specific Plan Area. It is the intent of this Specific Plan to establish development standards, regulations and guidelines that will ensure quality development within the Specific Plan Area that (a) contributes to the City's employment and revenue base, (b) permits the development of a vibrant town center that will become a destination and gathering place for the community, (c) designates a land use district for two public parks on approximately 18 acres of land and a public park overlay for an additional 2 acres of public park space, for a total of approximately 20 acres of public park space, (d) provides a variety of housing opportunities, (e) is generally consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, and (f) is compatible with surrounding land uses. The development standards, regulations and guidelines, and the related public and private facility plans, establish a comprehensive development program for the Specific Plan Area.

5.3 Relationship of this Specific Plan to the Existing Specific Plan This Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 supersedes and replaces the 2018 Specific Plan, and the 2018 Specific Plan has been repealed and has no further force or effect.

5.4 Relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan Pursuant to Section 65454 of the Government Code, a specific plan shall be consistent with the local jurisdiction’s general plan. The development standards, regulations and guidelines in CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-2
this Specific Plan are generally consistent with the applicable goals and policies in the Cypress General Plan, as discussed in Chapter 6.

5.5 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
In accordance with "Measure D", the 2018 Specific Plan was approved by the voters of the City of Cypress on June 5, 2018 as part of a ballot initiative titled "Measure A" and referred to as the "Cypress Town Center and Commons 2.0 Initiative". For that reason, no environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was required in connection with the 2018 Specific Plan (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378(b)(3)). However, discretionary approvals for development projects proposed within the Specific Plan Area under this Specific shall be subject to environmental review under CEQA, unless such development project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the CEQA statute or the State CEQA Guidelines or to the extent that environmental review under CEQA has already been completed for such development project.

This Specific Plan was prepared in connection with the City's Housing Element Implementation Project (Implementation Project), which implements the City's updated 2021–2029 Housing Element that the City Council adopted on June 27, 2022. The updated Housing Element includes the addition of 676 multi-family residential units within portions of the Specific Plan Area beyond the number of multi-family residential units permitted under the 2018 Specific Plan. This necessitated the repeal of the 2018 Specific Plan and its replacement with this Specific Plan. Pursuant to the 2018 Specific Plan, City of Cypress voters most approve this Specific Plan. In accordance with the CEQA, the City prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) for the Project that, among other things, analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the additional 676 multi-family residential units allowed in the updated Housing Element on portions of the Specific Plan Area. The City circulated the Draft PEIR for public comment on May 7, 2024, for a 45-day review period. The City responded to comments on the Draft PEIR and incorporated the comments and responses into the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Implementation Project, which the City Council certified on July 8, 2024. On July 8, 2024, the City Council also approved the Implementation Project pursuant Resolution No. _________________, subject to voter approval of this Specific Plan.

On November 5, 2024, the voters of the City of Cypress approved this Specific Plan pursuant to a ballot initiative titled "Measure ___" and referred to as the "Cypress Town Center and Commons Housing Initiative." As a result of that voter approval, this Specific Plan superseded and replaced the 2018 Specific Plan.

5.6 Amendments and Adjustments

5.6.1 Amendments
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 65453(a) of the Government Code, this Specific Plan may only be amended or repealed by a vote of the people. However, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 5.6 or any other provision of this Specific Plan or "Measure ___", a vote of the people shall not be required with respect to a proposed adjustment of this Specific Plan in accordance with Section 5.6.2, below.

5.6.2 Adjustments
This adjustment procedure is established to allow the Director of Community Development to approve modifications to this Specific Plan that do not substantially alter the distribution, location, extent or density of the uses, improvements and facilities required pursuant to this Specific Plan, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 4.19.050 (Adjustments) of the Cypress Zoning CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-3
Ordinance (or any successor ordinance), provided that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 4.19.050 (or any successor ordinance), (a) the Director of Community Development shall be required to approve any requested adjustment if the following findings can be made in a positive manner: (i) the proposed adjustment is generally consistent with the intent of this Specific Plan and (ii) the proposed adjustment is one of the permitted adjustments described below, and (b) in the event that an application or applications are submitted to the City for a development project that request multiple entitlements, including one or more requested adjustments, then the City Council, acting as the City's planning agency, shall have original jurisdiction with respect to such adjustment(s) and shall consider and take action on the requested adjustment(s) together with the other requested entitlements. The approval of an adjustment pursuant to this Section 5.6.2 does not constitute an amendment to the Specific Plan and does not require a vote of the people.

The adjustments allowed shall be limited to the following:

1. Changes in the boundaries of any Land Use District or Subdistrict that result in less than a 10% change in the original acreage within any Land Use District Areas, provided that (a) in no event shall the Public Park District include less than 18 acres of land and (b) in no event shall the size of the Public Park Overlay be less than 2 acres.

2. The transfer of up to 5% of the number of residential units allowed or required in a Residential Subdistrict, the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, the MixedUse (Town Center/MFR) District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District or the MediumDensity Residential District to the other Residential Subdistrict and/or such other Land Use District(s), provided that the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District shall not exceed 1,926 units.

3. The following modifications in development standards:
a. To reduce a lot, yard or setback, or building area requirement by not more than 20% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
b. To increase the floor area for non-residential uses within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District or the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
c. To increase the height of structures by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan, but only with respect to non-town center structures located in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District, non-town center structures located in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and structures located in the Public Park District or the Public Park Overlay.
d. To decrease the landscape area requirements by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
e. To increase the maximum allowable parcel coverage by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
f. To increase the allowed projection of eaves, fireplaces, landings, masonry chimneys, overhangs, stairways, and steps into any required front, side, or rear setback or width between structures by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
g. To decrease the required interior side setback for uses within the Residential District to a minimum of three feet for the purpose of constructing a room addition to the primary dwelling unit. The room addition shall maintain the same or greater setback distance from the interior side parcel line as the primary dwelling. Garages CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-4
and other accessory structures shall not be used to justify a reduced interior side setback.

4. Modifications to the conceptual layout of circulation and infrastructure plans shown in Figures 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5 in Chapter 2 of this Specific Plan, the sizing of infrastructure facilities and the width of street sections, based on more detailed site planning, traffic studies, environmental review and/or civil engineering.

5. Other minor modifications to, or minor relief from, the standards, regulations, requirements and restrictions in this Specific Plan as the Director of Community Development finds is consistent with the intent of this Section and similar to the permitted adjustment described above.

5.7 Administration
Although every effort has been made to include provisions in this Specific Plan that are clear, the necessity of interpreting such provisions in light of specific and unusual cases may occur from time to time. When such interpretation is necessary, the Director of Community Development shall be responsible for the interpretation of the provisions of this Specific Plan, subject to appeal to the City Council. The Director of Community Development shall be the City administrator responsible for enforcing the standards, regulations and procedures set forth in this Specific Plan. The Director of Community Development shall have the administrative authority for interpretation related to the enforcement of this Specific Plan.

5.8 Site Plan Review
This Specific Plan shall be implemented through site plan review. A site plan shall be required for (1) all residential construction within the Specific Plan Area, with the exception of Qualifying Multi-Family Residential Projects (as defined in Section 5.8.7, below), new accessory buildings or structures, such as garages, carports, swimming pools and sheds, room additions, alterations to existing buildings and structures and similar construction that comply with all applicable development standards, and except as otherwise provided under State law, and (2) all non-residential and mixed-use construction of new buildings or additions to existing nonresidential and mixed-use buildings within the Specific Plan Area, with the exception of new buildings, building additions and accessory buildings that do not exceed 3,000 square feet.

The approval of site plan review shall be required prior to issuance of building permits and, in the event that an application or applications have been submitted to the City for a development project that request multiple entitlements, including the approval of site plan review, then the City Council, acting as the City's planning agency, shall have original jurisdiction with respect to the site plan review application concurrently with its consideration and action on the other requested entitlements. The requirement for site plan review for development projects that require the approval of a subdivision map, but where no developer plan has been proposed, may be satisfied by submitting to the City a site plan that includes only information relating to the existing use, if any, of the applicable property.

The site plan review procedure is necessary for the following reasons:

1. To ensure consistency with the intent of this Specific Plan.

2. To encourage innovative town center and residential design and development.

3. To assure substantial long-range compliance with the General Plan.

4. To adapt to specific or special development conditions that occur from time to time while continuing to implement this Specific Plan.

5. To promote compatibility of uses within the Specific Plan Area.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-5

5.8.1 Procedures
The site plan shall include plans, drawings, illustrations, designs, reports and other detailed information as required herein, and shall be submitted to Planning Division of the Community Development Department for review and comment. Applicants are encouraged to submit preliminary plans for review and comment by the Planning Division prior to the preparation of a final site plan. Comment from other City departments and service agencies shall be sought by the Planning Division prior to the preparation of a recommendation by the Director of Community Development with respect to the final site plan. Following such administrative review, the Director of Community Development shall prepare a staff report with his/her recommendations, which shall be submitted along with the final site plan to the City Council at the earliest possible regular meeting. The City Council shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the site plan review in accordance with Section 5.8.5, below.

5.8.2 Environmental Determination
The site plan review process is discretionary, and is therefore potentially subject to the requirements of CEQA. Upon submittal of a site plan review application by an applicant, the Planning Division shall review the same and determine whether environmental review is required under CEQA and, if so, the appropriate level of environmental review. The City Council may not approve the application until such time as any required environmental review under CEQA has been completed and the City Council has adopted or certified, as applicable, the appropriate CEQA document.

5.8.3 Time Limitation
The approval of site plan review in accordance with this policy shall be valid for a period of three years from the effective date of approval. The approval shall lapse after such threeyear period unless either (a) the privileges under the site plan review approval have been exercised by the grantee, which privileges shall be deemed exercised if the developer has demonstrated a good-faith intent to proceed with the development of the project in accordance with State law, or (b) before the date on which the site plan review approval will lapse, the grantee or the City files an application to extend such approval in compliance with the following sentence. The Director of Community Development may, in the exercise of his/her sound discretion, extend the duration of a site plan review approval for three additional periods of 12 months each, provided that the extension application is filed with the Community Development Department prior to the expiration date. The Director of Community Development may approve or disapprove an application for the extension of a site plan review approval, subject to appeal to the City Council in accordance with Section

5.27.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. As part of the action, the Director may, in the exercise of his/her sound discretion, also modify existing conditions of approval or add new conditions to reflect any change in circumstances related to the applicable development project and surrounding properties.

5.8.4 Site Plan Requirements
A site plan shall consist of plans, drawings, illustrations, designs, and any other detailed information as required to determine compliance with the provisions of the Specific Plan when development projects are proposed on portions of the Specific Plan Area. The following list of plans and information is required:

1. All applicable tentative tract maps or tentative parcel maps.

2. A physical description of the site, including boundaries, easements, existing topography, natural features, existing buildings, structures and utilities.

3. Location, grades, widths and types of improvements proposed for all streets.

4. A site plan depicting the location of all proposed structures, landscape and hardscape areas, parking areas, walks, internal circulation, access, adjacent streets, sign type and CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-6
placement and fence/wall type and placement. In addition, elevations (for all sides), a materials board and one set of colored elevations shall be required as part of site plan review.

5. Description of the extent to which design guidelines have been incorporated into the site plan.

6. A tabulation of square footage, area devoted to parking, number of parking spaces, landscape coverage, building coverage, and building or other structure heights for all proposed commercial uses within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) and Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) Districts.

7. A tabulation of the number of residential units in any residential project.

5.8.5 Findings for Approval of Site Plan Review
The Director of Community Development shall make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve or deny an application for site plan review based on the following findings, and the City Council shall make all of the following findings in order to approve or conditionally approve any such application:

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

2. Development pursuant to the site plan will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

5.8.6 Compliance with Objective Design Standards
All multi-family residential development within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the applicable requirements in Section 3.17.310 (Objective Standards For Multi-Family Dwellings) of the Zoning Ordinance, except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided under this Specific Plan.

5.8.7 Exception for Multi-Family Residential Projects with Affordable Housing.

A multi-family residential project within the Specific Plan Area where 20 percent or more of the residential units are affordable to a lower income household (Qualifying Multi-Family Residential Project) shall be exempt from the site plan review requirement in this Section 5.8. “Lower income household” shall mean household whose income does not exceed the lowincome limits applicable to Orange County, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 50079.5 and published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, section 6932 (or its successor provision) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. A Qualifying Multi-Family Residential Project shall be reviewed ministerially for compliance with all applicable objective standards contained in this Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, including, to the extent applicable, Section 3.17.310 (Objective Standards for Multi-family Dwellings) of the Zoning Ordinance.

5.9 Severability
This Specific Plan serves as the implementation tool for the General Plan. In the event that any provision of this Specific Plan or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed separate, distinct and independent, and shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Specific Plan or applications thereof, which can be implemented without the invalid provision or application.

5.10 Phasing
This section of this Specific Plan sets forth the potential timing and sequence of development within the Specific Plan Area. There are many factors that contribute to the eventual pattern CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-7
of development, including adequate level of infrastructure, market considerations, financing and the present operation of Los Alamitos Race Course.

It is the primary intention of this conceptual phasing plan to identify areas that can be developed while the Race Course remains in operation. However, this phasing plan is conceptual and a guideline and does not mandate any particular order of development or dictate any required phasing of infrastructure improvements. The actual phasing of development may be different from the conceptual phasing plan and will be dictated by numerous factors such as market conditions, financing considerations and the timing of the closure of the Race Course that are not predictable at this time. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the development of the approximate 4 acres of land currently owned by Seacoast Grace Church may not proceed according to the sequence shown on the Conceptual Phasing Plan.

Figure 5-1 depicts the Conceptual Phasing Plan. Phase 1 is the development of a portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and the western Public Park District (other than approximately 1.2 acres in the southwestern corner of the western Public Park District on which a maintenance yard for the Race Course is currently operated, which is anticipated be improved and added to Lexington Park following the closure of the Race Course). Phase 2 includes the development of the northern portion of the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District and the northwest portion of the Residential District. Phase 3 consists of the development of the remainder of the Residential District and the Medium-Density Residential District, the central Public Park District, and additional portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and a portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District. Phase 4 is the development of the remainder of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and the remainder of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District.

5.11 Financing
The developers of the Specific Plan Area will be responsible for all onsite improvements and infrastructure with respect to all commercial and residential development thereon and will pay their respective fair shares of any required offsite improvements relating to such development.

Basic funding approaches include, but are not limited to:
• Assessment districts established pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 for construction or acquisition of a wide variety of public improvements. • Community facilities districts established by public agencies pursuant to the Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 to construct and provide public services and Improvements.

Improvements and fees that may be financed in this manner include, but are not limited to:

1. Water and sewer facilities

2. Roadways, including landscaping, lighting and signs

3. Storm drains, drainage channels, and retention basins

4. Telephone, gas, electric and cable television facilities

5. Parks, open space and recreational improvements.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Conceptual Phasing Plan SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 5-1
0 300 600 May 2024
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Legend
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Residential
District

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

23.1 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

6.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
MDR) District

2.0 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR)
District

7.6 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

15.7 Acres
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
HDR) District

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-1
6 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS

6.1 Relationship of Specific Plan to General Plan
This Specific Plan was approved by the voters on November 5, 2024 as part of a ballot initiative titled “Measure ___” and known as the “Cypress Town Center and Commons Initiative 3.0." The previously established "Specific Plan" land use designation for the Specific Plan Area will allow the eventual development of at least 20 acres of public parks in the City, permit the development of a new town center that is intended to be a gathering place for the entire community, increase the City's tax base and provide significant revenue for the City, establish new employment centers and encourage single-family, multi-family and senior housing and related facilities. The permitted land uses are compatible with the existing adjacent residential, senior housing, church, commercial and retail uses previously developed within and near the Specific Plan Area. This Specific Plan provides specific development standards, regulations and guidelines that will assure quality development and minimize potential land use conflicts with surrounding uses.

The previously established zoning designation of "PC (Planned Community)" for the Specific Plan Area is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of "Specific Plan" for the Specific Plan Area.

The City's 2021-2029 Housing Element includes a State-mandated sites inventory that assigns zoning to facilitate the addition of 3,936 housing units in Cypress (Cypress’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment). Voter approval of this Specific Plan was required to modify the permitted uses and development standards for portions of the Specific Plan Area set forth in the 2018 Specific Plan to allow 676 of the additional 3,936 units assigned in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. These modifications include (1) modifying the names of some of the Land Use Districts, (2) changing the permitted residential use in the Medium-Density Residential District (previously a portion of the Residential District and Single-Family Detached Subdistrict in the 2018 Specific Plan) from single-family to multi-family use, (3) increasing the maximum residential density in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District (which was previously the Town Center District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFD/MDR) District and a portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District in the 2018 Specific Plan) to 30 dwelling units/gross acre and (4) increasing the aggregate maximum number of residential units in the Specific Plan Area to 1,926 units (including the 135 residential units previously developed as the Melia Project).

Based on the consistency analysis below, this Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan.

6.2 General Plan Conformance Analysis
Section 65450 et seq. of the Government Code allows the adoption and administration of specific plans as an implementation tool for elements contained within a general plan.

Specific plans must demonstrate consistency between its regulations, guidelines and programs and the local general plan.

This Specific Plan is consistent with the applicable development goals and policies in the General Plan, which is comprised of eight elements, including the Land Use, Circulation, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation, Noise, Housing, Safety, Growth Management and Air Quality Elements. The General Plan elements have been reviewed and their applicable goals and policies addressed as they pertain to development within the six Land Use Districts established hereunder. The general consistency of this Specific Plan with applicable goals and policies in the General Plan is discussed below.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-2

6.2.1 Land Use Element
Applicable Land Use Goals and Policies
Goal LU-1: Create a well-balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial, industrial and open space/recreation uses, while providing adequate community services to City Residents.

Policy LU-1.2: Allow for multi-family infill in designated areas to satisfy regional housing needs.

Policy LU-1.4: Locate residential uses within close proximity of commercial centers to encourage pedestrian access, and to provide a consumer base for commercial uses.

Policy LU-1.5: Encourage the development of neighborhood-serving commercial uses in areas of Cypress presently underserved by such uses.

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

Policy LU-2.1: Ensure a sensitive transition between commercial or business park uses and residential uses by implementing precise development standards with such techniques as buffering, landscaping, and setbacks.

Policy LU-2.2: Where residential/commercial mixed use is permitted, ensure compatible integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts.

Policy LU-2.7: Encourage the provision of pedestrian linkages between adjacent commercial uses and commercial and residential uses to encourage pedestrian activity and reduce vehicle trips.

Goal LU-3: Revitalize older commercial and residential uses and properties.

Policy LU-3.1: Encourage and continue the use of redevelopment activities in the Civic Center project area, on Lincoln Avenue, and on the Los Alamitos Race Track and former Cypress Golf Club.

Goal LU-4: Improve urban design in Cypress to ensure that development is both architecturally and functionally compatible and to create identifiable neighborhoods, commercial, and business park districts.

Goal LU-5: Ensure that public facilities and services are available to accommodate development allowed under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Goal LU-12: Establish land use patterns that protect the public from impacts (noise, potential accidents) associated with the Joint Forces Training Center (JFTC) Los Alamitos.

Policy LU-12.3: Continue to prohibit new residential development on existing vacant land within the 65 CNEL contour of the Joint Forces Training Center (JFTC) Los Alamitos.

Goal LU-14: Attract high quality businesses to Commercial and Business Park areas.

Policy LU-14.3: Assist in the development of the property surrounding the Los Alamitos Race Course by providing site marketing and city permit procedure assistance.

Goal LU-17: Facilitate the expansion of the local serving retail sector.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-3
Method of Implementation
This Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies described above. The Specific Plan Area is located in an area of Cypress developed with residential, commercial, retail, business park, and light industrial uses. Business parks have previously been developed on the east and west sides of Walker Street and west of Lexington Drive. There is an existing residential neighborhood north of Cerritos Avenue. The area along the north side of Katella Avenue includes existing and approved commercial, retail and senior housing uses. The area south of Katella Avenue includes commercial and retail development, and beyond that a residential area. Multiple churches are located in and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area.

The implementation of the Specific Plan will revitalize the entire Specific Plan Area, which includes the Race Course Property and the Golf Course Property, sites that the Land Use Element specifically target for redevelopment. The establishment of the Residential District will encourage the development of a variety of high-quality housing in close proximity to the multiple planned public parks and town center within the Specific Plan Area and other commercial/retail uses along Katella Avenue. The Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District (Mixed-Use Districts) will facilitate the development of a vibrant town center and gathering place for the community that includes a balanced mix of retail, entertainment, commercial and residential uses. The Mixed-Use Districts, the MediumDensity Residential District and the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District allow significant opportunities for medium-density and higher-density residential development to meet the City's regional housing needs as reflected in its 2021-2029 Housing Elements. The Public Park District and Public Park Overlay provides for multiple public parks with opportunities for active and passive recreation for all ages in close proximity to residents. The Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District allows housing and related care facilities for seniors, a growing demographic group, as well as medium-density residential uses.

Future development within the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District and the Single-Family Detached and Single-Family Attached Subdistricts will provide a variety of housing in close proximity to the commercial and open space uses in the Public Parks and Mixed-Use Districts. In addition, both Mixed-Use Districts permit the development of residential housing integrated with neighborhood commercial and retail services. Trails and greenways will connect the residential Subdistricts and Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, and provide convenient pedestrian and bike access to the public parks and town center areas. The Mixed-Use Districts are located adjacent to existing retail and commercial developments and encourages growth of retail commercial uses. Retail and commercial development within the Mixed-Use Districts will create a desirable and sustainable commercial center for future residents within the Specific Plan Area as well as the surrounding communities.

The new development permitted under this Specific Plan will be compatible with the existing and approved uses in the surrounding area. The mix of retail, entertainment, commercial and residential uses permitted in the Mixed-Use Districts is consistent with the existing and approved commercial and retail uses on both sides of Katella Avenue. The residential uses permitted in the Residential District and the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District are consistent with the existing residential uses to the north of Cerritos Avenue and south of Katella Avenue, as well as the senior housing community to be developed adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. The development standards that govern the Residential District and the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District ensure that residential development adjacent to Cerritos Avenue will be compatible with the existing residential neighborhood to the north of Cerritos Avenue. In addition, the senior housing and medium-density residential uses permitted in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District are fully compatible with CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-4
the approved senior housing and commercial/retail uses to the southeast along Katella Avenue.

The development standards, regulations and guidelines in this Specific Plan will also ensure sensitive transitions between the various retail, commercial, residential and open-space uses within the Specific Plan Area, and between those uses and the surrounding residential, commercial, retail and business park uses.

The Residential District is located adjacent to the Public Park and Mixed-Use Districts, allowing convenient pedestrian access to the central public park and retail/entertainment area.

The establishment of the Land Use Districts, together with development standards, regulations and guidelines in this Specific Plan, will ensure that development within the Specific Plan Area is both architecturally and functionally compatible with surrounding uses and create identifiable residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. The Residential District contains two Subdistricts that will create distinct, identifiable neighborhoods that are compatible with the character of nearby residential neighborhoods. The Mixed-Use Districts will attract high-quality businesses and will serve as a public gathering place for the community.

As described in Chapter 2 (Development Plan), the Circulation, Water, Wastewater and Drainage Plans for the Specific Plan Area will ensure that public facilities and services are available to accommodate the development allowed under this Specific Plan.

Development pursuant to this Specific Plan will be consistent with the height and noise limitations and notification requirements in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos (JFTB), as described in the Safety Element of the General Plan (where it is identified by its former name, the Joint Forces Training Center), and therefore will not constitute an aviation hazard. No portion of the Specific Plan Area where residential uses are permitted is located in an area of noise incompatibility for residential uses (i.e., within the 65 CNEL contour in the AELUP). All future development within the Specific Plan Area will be consistent with the applicable height and noise limitations associated with the JFTB.

6.2.2 Circulation Element
Applicable Circulation Goals and Policy
Goal CIR-1: Maintain a safe, efficient, economical, and aesthetically pleasing transportation system providing for the movement of people, goods, and services to serve the existing and future needs of the City of Cypress.

Policy CIR 1.3: Encourage development which contributes to a balanced land use, which in turn serves to reduce overall trip lengths (i.e., jobs/housing balance, locate retail in closer proximity to resident/patrons).

Goal CIR-2: To facilitate alternative modes of transportation, including public transportation, bicycles, ridesharing, and pedestrians, to support the land use plans and related transportation needs.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-5
Method of Implementation
This Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies described above. The Circulation Plan described in Section 2.3 of this Specific Plan depicts the backbone circulation improvements within the Specific Plan Area. The Land Use Districts established in this Specific Plan are organized such that residential uses are located in close proximity to employment centers and retail uses, thereby promoting alternative forms of transportation (e.g., walking and cycling) and reducing vehicle miles traveled. The development of neighborhood entertainment and retail uses within the Mixed-Use Districts will also reduce vehicular trip generation by providing local employment opportunities and retail and entertainment destinations within walking distance from nearby residential neighborhoods.

Primary access to the Specific Plan Area will be from Katella Avenue, which is designated as a Major Arterial in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Cerritos Avenue, which is designated as a Primary Arterial in the Circulation Element, and the extension of Vessels Circle.

Additional access to the site may be provided by Enterprise Drive and Lexington Drive. The Circulation Plan includes backbone circulation improvements for the Specific Plan Area.

These improvements include the extension of Moody Street south of Cerritos Avenue, the extension of Vessels Circle to the west, the extension of Siboney Street north of Katella Avenue, as well as the future required widening of Lexington Drive adjacent to the Specific Plan Area.

Individual development projects within the Specific Plan Area will be required to conform to applicable City standards and criteria, including the City’s street standards and other requirements relating to traffic circulation.

Greenways and pedestrian and biking trails are envisioned to facilitate alternative modes of transportation by connecting the Residential District to the central public park and town center areas and the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District to the western public park. In addition, the Mixed-Use Districts are envisioned as pedestrian-friendly entertainment and retail destinations, designed for patrons to stroll by the various businesses.

6.2.3 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element
Applicable Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Goals and Policies Goal COSR-1: Conserve ground water and imported water resources.

Policy COSR 1.2 Promote the use of native trees in landscaping to conserve water resources.

Policy COSR 1.3: Protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of pollution.

Policy COSR 1.4: Conserve imported water by utilizing water conservation techniques, water conserving appliances, and drought-resistant landscaping.

Goal COSR-3: Conserve energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices.

Policy COSR-3.1: Encourage innovative site planning and building designs that minimize energy consumption by taking advantage of sun/shade patterns, prevailing winds, landscaping, and building materials.

Policy COSR-3.2: Encourage new development and existing structures to install energy saving features.

Goal COSR-4: Reduce solid waste produced in the City.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-6
Goal COSR-6: Provide recreation/park facilities and programs for all those who live and work in Cypress.

Policy COSR-6.1: Continue to require new developments to provide recreational opportunities for their residents in accordance with the City's park standard, three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Policy COSR-6.6: Design new and renovated parks for convenient and accessible use by handicapped, elderly, and otherwise less mobile persons within the community.

Goal COSR-8: Preserve open space resources to maintain the high quality of life in Cypress.

Policy COSR-8.1: Continue to ensure that adequate useable private open space is provided in residential developments, and that such areas are maintained as open space into perpetuity.

Policy COSR-8.2: Promote visually pleasing landscaped corridors and a sense of spaciousness throughout the community.

Method of Implementation
This Specific Plan is consistent with all of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element goals and policies described above. The development standards in Chapter 3 and the sustainable guidelines in Chapter 4 (Sustainable Guidelines) of this Specific Plan set forth the development standards, setback requirements and guidelines that can be utilized to ensure that water and energy conservation features are integrated into development projects within the Specific Plan Area. Specifically, Chapter 4 discusses development options that will improve conservation of resources. Section 4.2 sets forth methods to reduce storm water runoff and improve water quality and groundwater recharge. The guidelines identified in Section 4.8 assist in the conservation of water resources. Section 4.3 encourages the use of native and drought tolerant plants and the use of efficient irrigation systems that reduce water demand. The guidelines contained in Sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7, relate to the use of certain building materials, indoor air quality, lighting, and building envelope considerations to promote specific methods of conservation and energy efficiency. Solid waste generated by the project would be required to comply with Chapter 12 of the Cypress Municipal Code, as well as the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and AB 939, consistent with the General Plan.

The Specific Plan provides for a minimum of 20 acres of public park space that will be permanently maintained as open space. Additional private open space and recreational facilities are envisioned in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, the SingleFamily Attached Subdistrict and potentially in the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict, the Medium-Density Residential District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District and the MixedUse (Town Center/HDR) District. The ample open space within the Specific Plan Area is consistent with Policy COSR-6.1 that new development projects provide recreational opportunities for their residents in accordance with the City's park standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The open space and parklands envisioned in the Specific Plan Area will enhance the quality of life for all residents by providing various opportunities of passive and active recreation.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-7

6.2.4 Noise Element
Applicable Noise Element Goals and Policy
Goal N-1: Reduce noise impacts from transportation noise sources.

Goal N-2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.

Goal N-3: Minimize noise spillover from commercial uses into nearby residential neighborhoods.

Goal N-4: Minimize the noise impacts associated with the development of residential units above ground floor commercial uses in mixed use developments.

Method of Implementation
This Specific Plan is consistent with all of the General Plan Noise Element goals and policy described above. Noise levels would also have to comply with the applicable standards in the General Plan Noise Element and the City’s Noise Ordinance, as well as the applicable noise requirements in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos. The development standards in Chapter 3 of this Specific Plan, including the building setback requirements set forth therein, will soften and buffer development from surrounding noises generated by existing or future development projects.

It is anticipated that residential and related development in the Residential, Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) and Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) Districts will be oriented away from potentially excessive noise-producing non-residential uses. Similarly, non-residential uses in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) and Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) Districts will be developed in a manner that minimize noise impacts on future residents. In order to minimize any noise impacts on residents associated with the development of residential units above ground-floor commercial uses in the Mixed-Use Districts, the permitted non-residential uses anticipated on the ground floor will be retail uses that have minimal noise impacts.

As previously discussed, no portion of the Specific Plan Area where residential uses are permitted is located within 65 dB CNEL Contour for the JFTB, consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-12.3.

6.2.5 Housing Element
Applicable Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goal HOU-3: Encourage the provision of a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price to meet the existing and future needs of Cypress residents. Establish a balanced approach to meeting housing needs of both renter and owner households.

Policy HOU-3.4: Facilitate the development of senior housing with supportive services.

Policy HOU-3.6: Encourage use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing.

Goal HOU-4: Ensure the provision of adequate housing sites through appropriate land use, zoning, and specific plan designations to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs.

Policy HOU-4.4: Ensure compatibility of new residential development with existing development to enhance the City's residential neighborhoods.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-8
Goal HOU-6: Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice.

Policy HOU-6.3: Encourage the provision of adequate housing to meet the needs of families of all sizes.

Method of Implementation
This Specific Plan is consistent with all of the Housing Element goals and policies described above. The Single-Family Detached and Single-Family Attached Subdistricts , Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District, Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and Medium-Density Residential District provide for a wide variety of housing opportunities to address a cross-section of housing needs in the community. The residential uses permitted in the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict and the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District are compatible with the existing residential neighborhood north of Cerritos Avenue.

Chapter 4 sets forth a list of sustainable guidelines for all development within the Specific Plan Area, and new residential projects within the Specific Plan Area will also be subject to the California Green Building Standards Code and the City’s Residential Green Building Suggestions and Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines. This Specific Plan authorizes the development of up to 1,926 dwelling units within the Specific Plan Area and therefore meets the City’s goals and policies to meet the need of existing and future residents.

More specifically, the Residential, Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential, Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR), Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) and Medium-Density Residential Districts offer a range of housing types that provide housing options for a broad range of individuals and families of all sizes and ages. This ensures a balanced approach to meeting housing needs of both renter and owner households. The housing types contemplated by this Specific Plan are intended to provide housing options at a range of price levels and promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice. The establishment of the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District provides an opportunity to develop additional senior housing and related uses to complement the senior housing in the adjacent Barton Place project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park).

6.2.6 Safety Element
Applicable Safety Element Goals
Goal SAF-1: Protect residents, workers, and visitors from flood hazards, including dam inundation.

Goal SAF-2: Protect life and property in Cypress from seismic events and resulting hazards.

Goal SAF-3: Minimize risks to life and property associated with the handling, transporting, treating, generating, and storing of hazardous materials.

Goal SAF-4: Minimize property damage and injury to persons from underground pipeline hazards.

Goal SAF-5: Protect life and property in Cypress from urban fires. Maintain the Orange County Fire Authority’s high level of service to community businesses and residents.

Goal SAF-6: Maintain the police department’s high quality of service to the City.

Goal SAF-7: Use good design as a means to promote human safety.

Goal SAF-8: Protect Cypress residents from air operation accidents.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-9
Method of Implementation
This Specific Plan is consistent with all of the Safety Element goals described above. This Specific Plan provides for an evaluation of public services and development within the Specific Plan Area with respect to circulation, water supply, sanitary sewers, drainage, solid waste disposal and energy. An efficient system for each of these services, together with adherence to applicable development regulations, will contribute to public health and safety.

The City of Cypress is in a seismically active region, and within a dam inundation area. Future development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to meet all applicable building codes and standards with regard to dam inundation and seismicity. Any use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials would have to be done in accordance with all applicable federal, State and local laws. Prior to construction, agencies having jurisdiction over underground power lines or pipelines would be consulted to ensure that no damage or injuries result from future construction within the Specific Plan Area. The Orange County Fire Authority currently provides fire suppression services to the Specific Plan Area, and it is anticipated that it would provide service to the entire Specific Plan Area when it is fully developed. The Cypress Police Department currently provides police service to the Specific Plan Area, and it is anticipated that it would continue to provide service to the Specific Plan Area.

As previously discussed, development pursuant to this Specific Plan will be consistent with the height and noise limitations and notification requirements in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos (JFTB), as described in the Safety Element of the General Plan (where it is identified by its former name, the Joint Forces Training Center), and therefore will not constitute an aviation hazard. No portion of the Specific Plan Area where residential uses are permitted is located in an area of noise incompatibility for residential uses (i.e., within the 65 CNEL contour in the AELUP). The eastern portion of the Specific Plan Area is located within the 100:1 Imaginary Surfaces area established in the AELUP and currently shown on Exhibit SAF-7 in the Safety Element, which could potentially require notification to the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to certain proposed structures within the Specific Plan Area and a potential reduction in the height of such structures. All future development within the Specific Plan Area will be consistent with the height and noise limitations associated with the JFTB.

6.2.7 Growth Management
Applicable Growth Management Element Goals
Goal GM-1: Reduce traffic congestion.

Goal GM-2: Ensure that adequate transportation facilities are provided for existing and future inhabitants of the City.

Goal GM-4: Strive to maintain the good balance between jobs and housing in Cypress.

Method of Implementation
This Specific Plan is consistent with all of the Growth Management Element goals described above. Section 2.2, Circulation Plan, of this Specific Plan includes standards and requirements to address traffic associated with development in the Specific Plan Area and Figure 2-3 depicts the backbone circulation improvements within the Specific Plan Area and the required dedication to widen Lexington Drive. The Land Use Districts permit a variety of retail/commercial uses, housing and parklands in close proximity to each other, which will help maintain a good jobs/housing balance, promote pedestrian activity and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-10
The Specific Plan permits a mix of residential and commercial/retail uses that will provide a good balance of jobs and housing, and this combination of residential areas and employment centers will greatly improve the existing jobs/housing balance within the Specific Plan Area, which currently consists of commercial and institutional uses. The development of retail/commercial uses within the Mixed-Use Districts and other Land Use Districts will also reduce vehicular trip generation by providing local employment opportunities and retail/commercial destinations in close proximity to nearby existing and proposed residential neighborhoods.

6.2.8 Air Quality
Applicable Air Quality Element Goals and Policies
Goal AQ-1: Reduce air pollution through proper land use and transportation planning.

Policy AQ-1.3: Locate multi-family developments close to commercial areas to encourage pedestrian rather than vehicular travel.

Policy AQ-1.4: Develop neighborhood parks near concentrations of residents to encourage pedestrian travel to recreational facilities.

Policy AQ-1.5: Encourage design of commercial areas to foster pedestrian circulation.

Goal AQ-2: Improve air quality by reducing the amount of vehicular emissions in Cypress.

Goal AQ-4: Reduce emissions through reduced energy consumption.

Method of Implementation
This Specific Plan is consistent with the Air Quality Element goals and policies described above.

It permits a wide range of retail/commercial and residential uses within the Specific Plan Area in close proximity to one another, which will reduce the need for onsite residents to use their vehicles to purchase goods and services available in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) and Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) Districts and other nearby retail/commercial sites. In addition, the multiple public parks will be developed in the Public Park District (and, with regard to the Public Park Overlay, elsewhere within the Specific Plan Area) in close proximity to all of the residential areas within the Specific Plan Area and the existing residential neighborhood on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, which will encourage pedestrian travel to recreational facilities.

As a result, fewer vehicle trips will be required to parks and other recreational areas in other parts of the City. The town center areas are envisioned as pedestrian-friendly retail and entertainment destinations designed to foster pedestrian circulation. Close proximity between residential and non-residential uses leads to fewer vehicle trips and reduced energy consumption, which in turn results in reduced emission of air pollutants. In addition, transit is available on Katella Avenue.

Chapter 4 (Sustainable Guidelines) sets forth sustainable guidelines to reduce energy consumption.
1 RESOLUTION NO.

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

CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE

COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, WITH THE STATEWIDE

GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE FOR THE

SUBMISSION OF A MEASURE TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN

ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 AND ADOPT THE CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 TO MEET THE CITY OF CYPRESS’S

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION TO THE VOTERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress called a General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024, for the purpose of submitting a Measure to the voters of the City of Cypress to consider approval of an Ordinance to repeal the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 and adopt the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 to meet the City of Cypress’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for their consideration; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the city, the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the county election department of the County of Orange canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. By Resolution No. _____ approved concurrently herewith, the City Council called for submission of the following question to the voters of the City of Cypress at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024:

To address the rising costs of living and high cost of
housing (without raising taxes); retain/attract small
businesses; maintain local control; meet state
housing requirements; provide for housing needs of
workers, seniors, and middle-class families, shall the
City of Cypress measure to approve an ordinance
amending the Cypress Town Center and Commons
Specific Plan to allow for 676 additional housing units Yes
No
2 at the Los Alamitos Race Course instead of adding
766 housing units elsewhere in Cypress, be adopted?
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the California Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 for purposes of considering the above measure to the voters of the City of Cypress.

SECTION 3. That the vote requirement for the above measure to pass is a majority (50%+1) of the votes cast.

SECTION 4. That the county election department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide election, including, but not limited to Section 10418 of Elections Code.

SECTION 5. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the county election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

SECTION 6. That the City of Cypress recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any such additional costs.

SECTION 7. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the county election department of the County of Orange.

SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of July 2024.
____________________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
___________________________________
3 CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the 8th day of July 2024; by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
6 1004.0005/992843.2
EXHIBIT “1”

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(PROVIDED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT)
1 1004.0005/992843.2
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS (1)

ADOPTING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15091; (2) CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2023040560) FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC UPDATE TO THE CITY’S

GENERAL PLAN, LINCOLN AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0, THE 2012 CYPRESS

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE; (3) ADOPTING THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (4)

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress (“City”) has proposed a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP), the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan), the 2012 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), and the Zoning Ordinance (collectively, “Proposed Project”);
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project would not directly result in physical development, but instead, includes amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and an update of the City’s General Plan to reflect the 2021–2029 Housing Element adopted on June 27, 2022 and, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”), an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), finding no substantial evidence that adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element may have a significant effect on the environment; WHEREAS, the Proposed Project would update the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and the LASP to be “internally consistent,” meaning any and all conflicts must be acknowledged and resolved;
WHEREAS, in order for the 2021-2029 Housing Element to be internally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans, the Proposed Project would rezone sites and/or amend the General Plan to accommodate the City’s housing needs, as set forth in the 2021-2029 Housing Element;
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project divides the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment between the CTCC Specific Plan area, the CBPC Specific Plan area, and the LASP area, with the majority of the zoning in the CTCC Specific Plan remaining unchanged, the allowable residential density within several parcels of the CTCC Specific Plan Area increasing up to 30 dwelling units per acre to accommodate a maximum of 676 units, the existing unit cap of 1,250 units would also 2 1004.0005/992843.2
be removed to allow development within these districts up to the existing maximum allowable density regardless of the number of units already developed within the CTCC Specific Plan area; WHEREAS, with the aforementioned proposed changes, an estimated 1,791 units could be accommodated within the CTCC Specific Plan area, in addition to the 135-unit Belmont project currently under construction;
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2018, the voters of the City of Cypress approved an initiative titled "Measure A", known as the “Cypress Town Center and Commons 2.0 Initiative” establishing the CTCC Specific Plan and amending the Cypress General Plan, the Cypress Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map and the Amended and Restated Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan; WHEREAS, Measure A requires voter approval of any amendment of the CTCC Specific Plan, the Zoning Map or the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cypress that would permit any land use other than those permitted in Measure A and any related amendment of the General Plan; WHEREAS, concurrent with the approval of this Resolution, the City Council of the City is approving a Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Cypress of a Measure to Consider Approval of an Ordinance to Repeal the Cypress Town Center And Commons Specific Plan 2.0 and adopt the Cypress Town Center And Commons Specific Plan 3.0 to Meet the City of Cypress’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation at the General Municipal Election to Be Held on November 5, 2024;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the Proposed Project and has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (SCH NO. 2023040560) (“EIR”) to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project; to discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid the identified potentially significant environmental impacts; WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA Section 21080.4, a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) was prepared by the City and distributed for public comment to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on April 21, 2023, after which a public scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period at the Cypress Community Center on May 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was subsequently circulated for public review from the required 45 days from May 7, 2024 through June 21, 2024, a copy of the Draft EIR was circulated through the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2023040560) and posted on the City’s website, and was available at the planning counter at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR ended on June 21, 2024; and 3 1004.0005/992843.2
WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared on the Proposed Project, comments were received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments, and well as any appropriate revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR, were made in response to the comments received in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cypress Planning/Community Development Department on June 27, 2024, posted a legal notice in compliance with State law and the Cypress Charter concerning the City Council’s consideration of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the EIR was presented to the City Council at its regular meeting on July 8, 2024;
WHEREAS, the opportunity to provide public testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was then provided by and considered by the City Council during a public hearing, which was then closed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt a resolution (1) adopting the findings required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091; (2) certifying the EIR for the Proposed Project; (3) adopting the proposed mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and (4) adopting a statement of overriding considerations, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the recitals above of this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein.

Section 2. Administrative Record. All evidence introduced before the City Council at the public hearing on the EIR held on July 8, 2024, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding, including all documents specified under applicable State law, and shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under CEQA.

Section 3. EIR Contents. The EIR consists of the following:
a. The Final EIR including all Technical Appendices attached; b. The Draft EIR including all Technical Appendices attached; c. The Notice of Preparation and comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation;
d. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
e. Additions and corrections to the remaining portions of the Draft EIR that have been made pursuant to public comments and Draft EIR review including all Technical 4 1004.0005/992843.2
Appendices attached thereto;
f. Comments received on the Draft EIR with Responses to each of the Comments made;
g. The Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft EIR for public review; and g. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
(All hereafter collectively referred to as the “EIR”) The EIR supplements the FEIR, which is included in the administrative record.

Section 4. Accompanying Documents To EIR. Documents that shall accompany and be part of the EIR are:
a. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
b. Findings of Fact; and
c. Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Section 5. Certification Of Compliance With California Environmental Quality Act.

The City Council does hereby find that the EIR (Exhibit “1” to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the Planning/Community Development Department), the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit “2” to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit “3” to this Resolution) have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 6. CEQA Findings of Fact, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
a. Adoption of Findings of Fact. The City Council does approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit “2” of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the Planning/Community Development Department.
b. Certification of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The City Council certifies that (1) the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) that the EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis. c. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As more fully identified and set forth in EIR and in the Findings of Fact for this Project, which is Exhibit “2” to this Resolution, the City Council finds that the mitigation measures described and specifically identified in the above-referenced documents are feasible and shall become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the particular mitigation measures as 5 1004.0005/992843.2
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. d. Adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations. Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the Proposed Project directly, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council issues and approves a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit “2,” which identifies air quality emissions associated with future development that may occur under the Proposed Project, and that they render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable, either in its current form or as may be modified or amended by the City Council. Additionally, the Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit “2” identifies the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable, either in its current form or as may be modified or amended by the City Council. e. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As required by applicable State law, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit “3” of this Resolution. The City Council finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the City and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Section 7. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall become effective immediately. The Planning/Community Development Department is directed to file a Notice of Determination.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 8th day of July, 2024, by the following vote:

CITY OF CYPRESS
Scott Minikus, Mayor
ATTEST:

Aisha Farnell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
6 1004.0005/992843.2
Fred Galante, City Attorney
Exhibits:

1. Environmental Impact Report (provided as a separate document).

2. CEQA Findings of Fact which include: Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant; Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant; Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; Alternatives Considered and Rejected; and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7 1004.0005/992843.2
EXHIBIT “2”

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

Having received, reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the 2021-2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project), State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2023040560; as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings Regarding the CEQA Documents for the project are hereby adopted by the City of Cypress (City).

1.2 Document Format
These Findings have been categorized into the following sections:
1) Section 1.0 provides an introduction to these Findings. 2) Section 2.0 provides a summary of the project, overview of other discretionary actions required for the project, and a statement of project objectives. 3) Section 3.0 provides a summary of those activities that have preceded the consideration of the Findings for the project as part of the environmental review process, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 4) Section 4.0 sets forth findings regarding those potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined to be less than significant with the implementation of project design features.
5) Section 5.0 sets forth findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined can 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 2
feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures included in the MMRP for the project.
6) Section 6.0 sets forth findings for significant and unavoidable project impacts. 7) Section 7.0 sets forth findings regarding growth-inducing impacts. 8) Section 8.0 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the project. 9) Section 9.0 contains findings regarding the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project.
10) Section 10.0 contains other relevant findings adopted by the City with respect to the project. 11) Section 11.0 contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project. 12) Section 12.0 contains information pertaining to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

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

1.3 Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions regarding the proposed project are located at the City of Cypress Community Development Department, located at 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California 90630. The City is the custodian of the administrative record for the project.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 3

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 Project Description/Location
The proposed project is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP), Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan), Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), and Zoning Ordinance and would not directly result in physical development; however, it would facilitate future housing development within areas of the City. The proposed project includes amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and an update of the City’s General Plan to reflect the 2021–2029 Housing Element adopted on June 27, 2022, which identified a RHNA allocation of 3,936 units. The 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies several adequate sites that are able to accommodate the development of up to 1,946 new housing units (including 504 housing units that are already entitled (approved or currently under construction), but the City has a large unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 units in order to meet its RHNA allocation. The 2021–2029 Housing Element outlined several sites that are candidates for future housing development (opportunity sites) and identified two potential rezoning scenarios, one of which was selected as the preferred scenario and was identified as the proposed project in the Draft EIR.

The proposed project divides the City’s RHNA between the CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan area and LASP area (the proposed project would amend each of these plans to achieve the City’s proposed rezoning objectives). The proposed rezoning action under the proposed project would increase the City’s development capacity to 4,260 units, or an increase of 2,314 units compared to the City’s existing planning and zoning documents.

The proposed project involves the adoption of citywide programmatic policy documents; future project-specific actions could be subject to further environmental review and the regulations contained in the City’s adopted General Plan. As such, the following individual development components would be finalized on a project-by-project basis following approval of the proposed project:
• Type of use and number of units/square footage
• Circulation plan and number of parking spaces
• Building design and finalized site plan
• Lighting and landscaping
• Project design features
• Conservation and sustainability features
• Phasing and construction information
Following approval of the proposed project, the future physical improvements associated with changes in the General Plan, LASP, CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance would be subject to further review on a project-specific basis. In other words, unless otherwise exempt under CEQA, each future discretionary project would be subject to a project-level CEQA review at the time it is proposed for consideration by the City. Therefore, the impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR possessed potential environmental implications associated with the amendment of the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance at a programmatic level, not for a project-specific development or for any specific proposal. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 4

2.2 Discretionary Actions
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and certifying the adequacy of the EIR for the proposed project. It is expected that the City, at a minimum, would consider the data and analyses contained in this EIR when making their permit determinations. Prior to implementation of the proposed project, discretionary permits and approvals must be obtained from local, state and federal agencies, as listed below.
• EIR Certification: The EIR was prepared as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance document for the proposed project and documents the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and all discretionary actions associated with the project. • General Plan Update/Amendment: The proposed project includes updates to the existing General Plan Land Use Element.
• Specific Plan Amendments: The proposed project includes amendments to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, the CTCC Specific Plan, and the 2012 CBPC Specific Plan. • Zoning Amendment: The proposed project includes an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to resolve potential zoning inconsistencies resulting from adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

2.3 Statement of Objectives
The following objectives have been established for the project by the City:
1) Provide consistency between the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City's General Plan, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City's Zoning Ordinance.
2) Meet the City's housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement (3,936 new dwelling units).
3) Implement sustainable planning and development practices by creating compact new developments and walkable neighborhoods to minimize the City's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and energy usage.
4) Promote changes in land use and development that reflect changes in the regional economy.

Promote land uses that transform now-vacant or under-utilized sites. 5) Provide high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the diverse population of the City.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for the proposed project by the City to the State Clearinghouse on April 21, 2023. The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the project, SCH No. 2023040560. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 5
circulated to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for a period of 30 days, from April 21, 2023, to May 22, 2023, during which comments were solicited and received, pertaining to environmental issues/topics that the Draft EIR should evaluate. These NOP responses were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR, which upon release, was made available to all Responsible/Trustee Agencies and interested groups and individuals, as required under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087. A virtual public scoping meeting was held on May 2, 2023, at 6:00 p.m.

The State-mandated public review of the Draft EIR began on May 7, 2024, and concluded on June 21, 2024. The Final EIR includes a Response to Comments package, which presents all written comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and includes responses to these comments and associated changes made to the EIR in the form of an Errata.

The EIR includes any exhibits or appendices thereto, the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the EIR, the comments which were received by the City regarding the EIR, and the City's written responses to comments raised in the public review and comment process, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084, the EIR has been reviewed and analyzed by the City of Cypress as the lead agency with respect to the project and the EIR. The following findings for the project and each fact in support of a finding are thus based upon substantial evidence in the record. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 6

4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO

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

4.1 Aesthetics
Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista: Less Than Significant Impact Although the City of Cypress does not provide a definition of scenic vistas, potential scenic vistas include areas with views of the coastline, mountains, or other prominent scenic features that are considered significant visual resources for residents and businesses. The City is almost entirely developed and does not provide substantial views of any water bodies, mountains, hilltops, or any other significant visual resources. As such, the City has not designated any scenic corridors or scenic vistas within its boundaries.

The proposed project is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan), and the City’s Zoning Code and would not directly result in physical development. Additionally, the proposed project would not include any changes to the General Plan, Specific Plans, or Zoning Code regarding scenic vistas or designate any scenic vistas in any elements of the General Plan. Therefore, the project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not significantly affect scenic vistas. Potential impacts to scenic views are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

Damage to Scenic Resources: No Impact
There are no designated State Scenic Highways within the City’s limits. According to the List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways published by Caltrans, the only State-designated Scenic Highway in the County is a 4-mile segment of State Route 91 (SR-91) from State Route 55 (SR55) to east of the Anaheim city limits. The nearest State highway that is eligible for official designation as a State Scenic Highway is a portion of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH or State Route 1 [SR-1]), which is located approximately 4 miles southwest of the City boundary. Due to distance and intervening land 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 7
uses, none of the opportunity sites are visible from the officially designated portion of SR-91 or the eligible portion of PCH. As such, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the substantial damage of scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

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

Implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element would potentially alter existing development patterns in the City by allowing higher density residential development on the opportunity sites; however, it should be noted that lower density development and/or non-residential development is already allowed on the opportunity sites. Any future residential development that is allowed under the rezoning program would be subject to project-specific environmental evaluations to address any conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and would be subject to comply with applicable development regulations. As detailed in Appendix I, Zoning, of the Cypress Municipal Code, future development must comply with residential zoning district requirements.

Future projects would be required to adhere to applicable City design and development standards that have been, or are being, established under the rezoning program to regulate development to be consistent with the quality and character of the City.

New development on the opportunity sites would be required to be in scale with existing development and adjacent uses, which are primarily commercial, institutional, and residential uses. Although the aesthetic character of the opportunity sites may change with implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element, all future projects would be required to conform to all applicable development standards and design guidelines in the City’s Municipal Code, General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans, that regulate scenic quality. Therefore, the project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Potential impacts are considered 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 8
less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.1-2 through 4.1-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Add New Source of Light or Glare: Less Than Significant Impact As described above, implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element and rezoning program would not approve any specific development projects. Instead, the proposed project would amend the City’s Zoning Code and the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and CTCC Specific Plan to allow for higher residential densities. As infill development/redevelopment occurs on the opportunity sites identified in the 2021– 2029 Housing Element, there is potential for additional light sources to be added to the opportunity sites by new housing development. Any new housing development on the opportunity sites would be required to comply with all applicable requirements related to light and glare, including applicable regulations of the 2019 State Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and all applicable lighting standards in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and/or the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the CTCC Specific Plan. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would comply with City Zoning Ordinances Section 3.11.060.A (Exterior Fixtures), 3.11.060.B (Intensity), Section 3.11.060.C (Security Lighting), Section 3.11.060.D (Shielding of Light Source), and Section 3.14.050.C.4 (Required Improvements for Off-Street Parking Areas).

Further, individual development projects would be assessed for project-specific impacts due to light and glare. Therefore, compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance would ensure implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element and rezoning program and would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.1-3 through 4.1-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
All Thresholds: No Impact
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 9
The project would not result in any impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources as the opportunity sites do not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, there are no lands within the City that are currently under a Williamson Act contract, and there is no forest or timberland present within the opportunity sites that could be lost from project implementation.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

4.3 Air Quality
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would rezone sites and/or amend the General Plan to accommodate the construction of up to 2,314 additional dwelling units on the opportunity sites. Localized construction and operational impacts associated future housing development could potentially exceed the Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). However, all future discretionary projects facilitated by the proposed project would be reviewed in accordance with CEQA and would require further evaluation at the project level to demonstrate whether emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs and require project-specific mitigation. In addition, Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4 would be required for construction of future projects to ensure compliance with SCAQMD standard conditions, including Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to control fugitive dust and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to control VOC emissions from paint. Furthermore, any necessary mitigation would be imposed at the project level once such future projects are proposed.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) AQ-1 through AQ-4 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.1-27 through 4.1-29.

Other Emissions, Such as Odors: Less Than Significant Impact 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 10
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. In addition, the new residential uses or higher density residential uses allowed by the rezoning program would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other material which “cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public…” Further, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment and unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. In addition, by the time such emissions reached any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered to be less than significant.

The proposed project would rezone sites and/or amend the General Plan to accommodate the construction of up to 2,314 additional dwelling units on the opportunity sites. Residential land uses could result in generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment, but these are not considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts associated with other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

4.4 Biological Resources
Adverse Effects on Special Status Species: Less Than Significant Impact The opportunity sites, where future land use changes may occur, are situated in developed settings with no connections to contiguous native habitats, aquatic resource areas (such as rivers or riparian corridors), or sensitive natural communities. Project proponents shall have a qualified biologist conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities.

However, structures and vegetation within and surrounding the opportunity sites could provide suitable nesting habitat for a variety of native resident and migratory bird species, including raptors such as Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (Title 33, United States Code, Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. To ensure compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, preconstruction nesting bird 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 11
surveys will be conducted prior to any vegetation clearing or initial ground disturbance activities planned to occur during the nesting bird season (February 15 through August 31). Pursuant to Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) BIO-1, if future project construction occurs between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities. With successful implementation of RCM BIO-1, impacts to nesting birds would be avoided. No other special-status or otherwise protected species would be impacted.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special-status species in applicable plans, policies, or regulations. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

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

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

Adverse Effects on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community: No Impact The opportunity sites where future land use changes may occur are situated in developed settings with no connections to contiguous native habitats, aquatic resource areas (such as rivers or riparian corridors), or sensitive natural communities. The opportunity sites are currently developed and located in an urban area. There are no natural streams or riparian habitat present on the opportunity sites. The closest critical habitat in proximity to the opportunity sites is a minimum of 5 miles to the northeast of the closest opportunity site. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities, as identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), exist on the opportunity sites.

Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.4-2 through 4.4-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR). 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 12
Adverse Effect on Protected Wetlands: No Impact
The opportunity sites where future land use changes may occur are situated in developed settings with no connections to contiguous native habitats, aquatic resource areas (such as rivers or riparian corridors), or sensitive natural communities. The opportunity sites are located within an urbanized area and do not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. While an artificially constructed pond is present on a portion of one of the opportunity sites, the feature was excavated on dry land and does not have a nexus with any jurisdictional waters of the United States. Therefore, development of the opportunity sites would have no impacts on federally protected wetlands.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

Interference with Wildlife Movement: Less Than Significant Impact The opportunity sites where future land use changes may occur are situated in developed settings with no connections to contiguous native habitats, aquatic resource areas (such as rivers or riparian corridors), or sensitive natural communities. The opportunity sites are currently developed and located in an urban area. Due to the surrounding urban development, the opportunity sites do not function as wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation would not occur as a result of the Housing Element implementation and rezoning program since the opportunity sites are largely developed and surrounded by existing urban/ suburban development. Species that are found on site either fly onto the site or are able to navigate on the ground through long stretches of urban development. Therefore, the opportunity sites do not contain any native resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, or wildlife corridors. In addition, no portion of the opportunity sites or the immediately surrounding areas contains an open body of water that serves as natural habitat in which fish could exist. The lack of ground cover and suitable foraging habitat make the sites undesirable for many local wildlife species, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 13
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.4-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Conflict with Biological Protection Policies: Less Than Significant Impact The Landmark Tree Ordinance in the City’s Municipal Code protects designated landmark trees that are specifically identified in the City’s 1996 Inventory of Landmark Trees. According to this inventory, there are landmark trees located on the opportunity sites. Adherence to RCM BIO-2 would ensure that any removal of on-site trees as part of the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Landmark Tree Ordinance. Further, any work to street trees conducted as part of the proposed project would be done in accordance with the City Council’s adopted Parkway Tree Policy. The City has not adopted any other policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Therefore, compliance with RCM BIO-2 would ensure that the proposed project would comply with all local policies and ordinances relating to tree protection, it would not result in any conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) BIO-2 is applicable to the proposed project.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plan: No Impact
There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other habitat conservation plan in the City. However, the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) includes a Plan Area that covers the entirety of Orange County. Only some portions of the Plan Area fall within a designated Permit Area, or the area in which OCTA would request authorization from CDFW and USFWS to issue permits due to potential project-related impacts to certain identified species. Because the opportunity sites do not fall within a Permit Area, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impacts related to conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other conservation plan. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 14
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

4.5 Cultural Resources
Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource: Less Than Significant Impact Several of the opportunity sites for residential development identified in the City of Cypress’ General Plan 2021–2029 Housing Element overlap with the Los Alamitos Race Course (LARC), the essential features of which qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, as discussed in detail below. Additionally, several of the opportunity sites contain structures along Lincoln Avenue that are of historic age or could be of historic age upon redevelopment.

To determine the potential effects of the project on historic resources, a Historic Resources Assessment (HRA) was prepared, including archival research, an intensive-level field survey, and an evaluation of the LARC under the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). Upon these evaluations, the LARC was determined to be eligible for both the National Register and the California Register.

These eligibilities stem from the LARC’s association with the establishment and success of organized Quarter House racing in California (National Register Criterion A/California Register Criterion 1) and with Frank Vessels, Sr., who had a profound impact on quarter horse racing and breeding in California (National Register Criterion B and California Register Criterion 2). California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms recording and evaluating the site as a historic resource were prepared. Therefore, the opportunity sites’ close proximity and/or overlap with the essential features of Los Alamitos Race Course would potentially adversely affect them during future development activities.

However, the proposed project represents a policy action and does not propose any physical development at this time. Further, the specific location and configuration of future development within the LARC opportunity sites has not yet been determined. As such, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to the LARC as a historical resource.

Opportunity sites along Lincoln Avenue were also analyzed due to the presence of historic-age structures (built in 1980 or earlier; 50 years of age as of 2029) along the corridor. A Sensitivity Study was conducted in November 2022 and determined that the sensitivity for historic resources along Lincoln Avenue was categorized as high.

It is reasonable to assume that some existing structures would be demolished or repurposed in order to allow for future development enabled by the proposed project. However, the specifications of future residential buildout along Lincoln Avenue are not yet known and no physical development is proposed at this time as part of the project. However, at such time that future development proposals at the opportunity sites are considered, those development projects would be subject to adopted development guidelines/standards. This development would include mandatory CEQA review for any 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 15
development requiring discretionary approval. As such, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to the Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites as potential historical resources.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

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

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.2-12 through 4.2-16.

Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource: Less Than Significant Impact The opportunity sites associated with the City’s General Plan 2021–2029 Housing Element are either presently developed or heavily disturbed, and according to the City of Cypress General Plan Conservation, Open Space and Recreation Element, there are no known archaeological resources located at the opportunity sites. The opportunity sites have been previously disturbed to construct various structures as well as material stockpiling and storage purposes. Future development would likely include demolition, site preparation/grading activities, during which there is the potential to encounter unknown cultural resources. In the event that historical or archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, operations shall cease and Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) CUL-1 will be implemented, which sets forth procedures to follow in the event of inadvertent discoveries. With the implementation of RCM CUL-1, project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.5-1 through 4.5-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Disturbance of Human Remains: Less Than Significant Impact No known human remains are present on the opportunity sites, and there are no facts or evidence to support the idea that Native Americans or people of European descent are buried on the opportunity sites. However, as described previously, buried and undiscovered archaeological remains, including human remains, may be present below the ground surface in portions of the opportunity sites. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 16
Disturbing human remains could violate the State’s Health and Safety Code, as well as destroy the resource. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during future construction, the proper authorities would be notified, and standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains during the earthmoving activities would be adhered to. Construction contractors are required to adhere to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097, and Section 7050.5 of the State’s Health and Safety Code. To ensure proper treatment of burials in the event of an unanticipated discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, the law requires that all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find halt immediately, the area of the find be protected, and the contractor immediately notify the County Coroner of the find.

The contractor, the Applicant, and the County Coroner are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and Section 7050.5 of the State’s Health and Safety Code. Compliance with these provisions (specified in RCM CUL-2), would ensure that any potential impacts to unknown buried human remains would be less than significant by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains as required by State law.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) CUL-2 is applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.5-2 through 4.5-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

4.6 Energy
Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy: Less Than Significant Impact Project construction and operation would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. As such, electrical and natural gas demand associated with project construction and operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Furthermore, impacts related to energy use during construction would be temporary and relatively small in comparison to Orange County’s overall use of the State’s available energy resources. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 standards.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 17
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

Conflict with or Obstruction of Energy Plans: Less Than Significant Impact Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-10 through 4.3-11.

4.7 Geology and Soils
Adverse Effects Related to Earthquake Fault Rupture, Strong Seismic Ground Shaking, or Seismic-Related Ground Failure: Less Than Significant Impact According to the California Department of Conservation, there are no active faults or Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones near any of the opportunity sites or within the City of Cypress. Because of the distance to the nearest fault, the proposed project would neither negate nor supersede the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, nor would the proposed project expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map.

The proposed project is programmatic in nature and would not directly result in physical development. The proposed project would make possible new residential development that could potentially directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Future residential development projects facilitated by the proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable City safety and development standards that have been, or are being, established with the project to regulate development. Further, all future projects would be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), which includes design criteria for seismic loading and other geologic hazards. The CBC includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without collapsing and measures such as anchoring to the foundation and structural frame design. Project conformance with the CBC and local requirements relative to grading and 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 18
construction would ensure that the proposed project does not result in the exposure of people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.

Lastly, all future projects implemented in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments would be designed in accordance with engineering design standards and recommendations of the future project’s geotechnical reports in order to reduce the risk of liquefaction. Therefore, impacts associated with the rupture of an earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and liquefaction would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.7-1 through 4.7-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Adverse Effects Related to Landslides: No Impact
According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, landslides have not been recorded within the City boundaries and are not anticipated based on the lack of any significant topographic features. The opportunity sites and the land surrounding them is flat with no unusual geographic features, and therefore, neither the sites nor the surrounding area have the potential for impacts related to landslides.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.7-4 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil: Less Than Significant Impact Any future development associated with the proposed project which disturbs more than 1 acre of soil would be subject to the Construction General Permit which requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If applicable, a SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 19
Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. If a future project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would be subject to the requirements of Section 5.106 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), which requires projects that disturb less than 1 acre of soil and that are not part of a larger common plan to comply with the local municipal code and/or implement a combination of erosion control. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit or 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.7-4 through 4.7-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Landslides, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapsible Soils: Less Than Significant Impact
Because the opportunity sites are located in relatively flat areas, landslides or other forms of natural slope instability do not represent a significant hazard to the opportunity sites or the surrounding area.

Moreover, the proposed project does not include any physical improvements that would increase risks associated with landslides on the site. In addition, as previously discussed, the opportunity sites are not within an area susceptible to landslides. All excavations required for construction of any future projects implemented in accordance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning code amendments must be performed in accordance with City and State Building Codes, and the State Division of Occupational Safety and Health requirements.

Although the opportunity sites are within an area susceptible to liquefaction, all future projects implemented in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments would be designed in accordance with engineering design standards and recommendations of the future projects’ geotechnical reports in order to reduce the risk of liquefaction. Therefore, any future projects that are implemented on any of the opportunity sites would not be susceptible to liquefaction or lateral spreading. Further, all future projects implemented in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments of the proposed project would comply with City and State Building Codes, and geotechnical evaluations would be prepared to evaluate the potential for subsidence.

Therefore, impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 20
The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and would not result in on- or offsite landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.7-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Expansive Soils: Less Than Significant Impact
All future projects implemented in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments of the proposed project would comply with City and State Building Codes, and geotechnical evaluations would be prepared on a project-by-project basis to determine if the future projects are located on expansive soil, and address potential impacts, if any. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.7-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Septic Tanks and Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems: No Impact The proposed project does not consist of physical development, and therefore, would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The City of Cypress operates and maintains the local sewer collection system, which then transmits the wastewater to the Orange County Sanitation District for treatment. Development associated with the opportunity sites would be connected to the City’s sewer collection system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be utilized. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 21
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.7-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Destruction of Paleontological Resources or Unique Geologic Features: No Impact Adoption of the proposed project does not require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development. All future development implemented in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments of the proposed project may require subsequent project-specific environmental evaluation to determine whether they could result in any potentially significant impacts related to paleontological resources. Potential impacts to paleontological resources are location- and project-specific (e.g., the project may require excavation) and although the opportunity sites are identified, determinations regarding the presence of paleontological resources cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the specific details of a project are known and a paleontological assessment is prepared. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature due to the occurrence of future projectspecific paleontological resource analysis. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.7-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significant Impacts Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units that could take place during implementation of the project through the horizon year 2045 would cause short-term GHG emissions. The primary source of emissions is the operation of construction equipment. Before development can take place, each discretionary development project is required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; to comply with the requirements of CEQA; and to obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Using CalEEMod, it was estimated that the proposed project would generate 64,871 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) during construction. When annualized over the 30-year life of the project, annual emissions would be 2,162.4 MT CO2e.

Operational activities associated with the additional housing units would result in long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with mobile, area, waste, water, and stationary sources 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 22
as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Before development can take place, each discretionary development project is required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; to comply with the requirements of CEQA; and to obtain all necessary clearances and permits.

Mobile source GHG emissions include project-generated vehicle trips, and the proposed project was estimate 10,506 average daily trips. Energy source emissions would be generated at off-site utility providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by the additional housing units allowed under the proposed project. The new housing units allowed under the proposed project would be designed to comply with the water efficiency and energy conservation requirements included in the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). Area-source emissions would be associated with architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment.

Waste source emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by landfilling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project-generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.

Following guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Mobile source emissions would be the largest source of GHG emissions for the project at 67 percent of the total. Energy source emissions would be the next largest category at approximately 27 percent, and waste sources would be about 4 percent of the total emissions, respectively. In addition, water source emissions would be approximately 2 percent of the total emissions. Area sources would be less than 1 percent of the total emissions.

According to SCAQMD, a project would have less than significant GHG emissions if it would result in operational-related GHG emissions of less than 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Based on the analysis results, the proposed project would result in 15,016.6 MT CO2e/yr, which would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Therefore, consistent with the SCAQMD’s interim guidance, the following discussion compares the proposed project to the efficiency-based threshold. The additional 2,314 housing units that would potentially be built in the City would result in an increase in 4,605 residents.

The proposed project would result in per service population (SP) emissions of 3.3 MT CO2e/yr/SP, which would be below the SCAQMD’s plan-level screening threshold of 4.1 MT CO2e/yr/SP. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-17 through 4.4-20. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 23

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant Hazards Through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials:

Less Than Significant Impact
Construction of future development projects associated with the proposed project would potentially temporarily increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). These materials are commonly used at construction sites, and the construction activities would be required to comply with applicable State and federal regulations for proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of excess hazardous materials and hazardous construction waste. During the time that grading permits are issued, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.

The proposed project would allow increased residential densities in parts of the City and would allow residential uses in areas where they are not currently allowed. Residential uses typically do not present a hazard associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment because residents are not anticipated to use, store, dispose or transport large volumes of hazardous materials. Hazardous substances associated with residential uses are typically limited in both amount and use such that they can be contained without impacting the environment. Further, such materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations.

The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) maintains a Hazardous Material Management Plan, which assures that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is available to manage the hazardous waste generated within the County and address issues related to the disposal, handling, processing, storage, and treatment of local hazardous materials and waste products. All development applications in the City are reviewed by the OCFA for hazardous material use, safe handling, and storage of materials prior to the issuance of project specific grading permits. If necessary, the OCFA requires conditions of approval to reduce hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste that is generated on site would be transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with State and federal law. The proposed project would not affect the City’s review process. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 24
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Significant Hazards Through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment: Less Than Significant Impact Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to prepare project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) and subsequent documentation, as necessary, to determine if future development would 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. Project specific impacts would be assessed and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Some future infill and redevelopment projects associated with the proposed project may qualify for CEQA exemptions, provided that they meet the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300-15332. The proposed project includes the implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element and rezoning program. The proposed project itself is programmatic and does not propose any physical development, and therefore impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant, no mitigation required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

Hazardous Emissions or Handling Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste Within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, as it does not entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development. All opportunity sites are greater than a quarter mile from an existing or proposed school. The closest school to an opportunity site is King Elementary, located approximately 0.3-mile north of the Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites at 8710 Moody Street. As subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur under the 2021–2029 Housing Element Update and rezoning program, project specific impacts would be assessed and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Some future infill and redevelopment projects associated with the proposed project may qualify for CEQA exemptions, provided that they meet the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300-15332. Therefore, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to the emission of hazardous emissions or the 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 25
handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

Location on a Site Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, Creating a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment: Less Than Significant Impact
A preliminary screening of the opportunity sites was conducted based on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) has been compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Hazardous Materials Data Management Program. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) compiles information from subsets of the following databases to make up the Cortese List:

1. The DTSC list of contaminated or potentially contaminated hazardous waste sites listed in the California Sites database (formerly known as ASPIS):

Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 244-361-04 was identified as a hazardous waste and substance site in 1994 for the previously on-site Hyatt Die Cast and Engineering corporation and in 1995 for the previously on-site Lincoln Avenue self-storage facility. Two programs, one historical and one tiered permit were filed against the Hyatt Die Cast & Engineering Corp. The Tiered permit is considered inactive and the historical permit was referred to another agency.

The program filed against the Lincoln Avenue Self Storage facility was a historical program and has been referred to another agency.

2. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) listing of leaking underground storage tanks:

APN 244-361-04 was identified as a currently active Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) cleanup site. Nine APNs (244-071-01, 244-361-04, 262-424-09, 262-412-01, 244-341- 02, 262-357-15, 244-461-06, 244-051-29, 262-423-08, and 262-424-01) associated with opportunity sites were previously LUST cleanup sites but have since been completed. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 26

3. The California Integrated Waste Management Board list of sanitary landfills that have evidence of groundwater contamination or known migration of hazardous materials (formerly WB-LF, now Assembly Bill 3750):

The proposed project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous-materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 nor is the project located within one-quarter mile of any LUST cleanup sites (SWRCB GeoTracker 2020).

4. Sites with active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO):

One opportunity site has an “active” CDO/CAO for the Los Alamitos Racecourse located at 4961 Katella Avenue.

The proposed project itself is programmatic and does not propose any physical development, but future development associated with the proposed project would include residential land uses. As subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur under the 2021–2029 Housing Element Update and rezoning program, projects would be evaluated for site-specific impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. Future development is required to prepare a project specific Phase I ESA and subsequent documentation to determine if future development would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, impacts under the proposed project would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

Airport-Related Safety Hazards for People Residing or Working in the Project Area: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project’s opportunity sites are divided between Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.

The Katella Avenue opportunity sites are located approximately 1 mile north of the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. However, according to the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) 2017 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JFTB Los Alamitos, these opportunity sites are not located within an impact zone. However, the Katella Avenue opportunity sites are located in an AELUP height restriction zone for JFTB Los Alamitos. Height limitations are imposed on projects within a height restriction zone so that structures or trees (1) do not obstruct the airspace required for takeoff, flight, or landing of aircraft at an airport, or (2) are not otherwise hazardous to the landing or 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 27
taking off of aircrafts. Structures on these opportunity sites are restricted to 350 feet in height. Future development associated with the proposed project may not exceed the AELUP height limitations. As discussed above the proposed project itself is programmatic and does not propose any physical development. Some future infill and redevelopment projects associated with the proposed project may qualify for CEQA exemptions, provided that they meet the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300–15332. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to flight patterns or pose a hazard to air traffic and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.9-6 through 4.9-7 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Impairment or Interference with an Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan:

No Impact
Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of additional housing within the City, the opportunity sites are not located along an emergency evacuation route according to emergency evacuation route maps associated with the City’s General Plan Safety Element. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with emergency operations and evacuations, and there would be no impact on emergency response.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.9-7 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Wildland Fires: No Impact The City is located within a fully urbanized area. There are no wildlands adjacent or in the vicinity of the opportunity sites, and the City is not designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone on the statewide CAL FIRE Map. Therefore, there would be no risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 28
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.9-7 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Water Quality Degradation, Pollutant Discharge Increases, and Alteration of Receiving Water Quality: Less Than Significant Impact
Future projects facilitated by the proposed project would generally be required to comply with applicable construction permits and regulations associated with water quality, as detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) HYD-1. If construction of future projects associated with the 2021–2029 Housing Element would disturb greater than one acre of soil, those projects would be required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ). Compliance with the Construction General Permit would require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), including, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on-site and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.

Future projects that disturb less than one acre of soil and that are not a part of a larger common plan, would be required to comply with Section 4.106 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code requires implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion and to retain sediment on site. The CALGreen Code also requires compliance with Section 13- 23 of the Cypress Municipal Code. Chapter 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal Code requires projects that qualify as new development or significant redevelopment as outlined in the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff, Orange County (Orange County MS4 Permit)(Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062) comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City of Cypress Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including the preparation of a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) to specify BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff (RCM HYD-2). Any groundwater dewatering during construction activities would be required to comply with the appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge requirements permit, as detailed in RCM HYD-3, which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 29
dewatering prior to its release to surface waters. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would be required to obtain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Public Works Department.

Furthermore, the implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element and rezoning program is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future residential projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Some of the future infill and redevelopment projects may qualify for CEQA exemptions, provided that they meet the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300–15332. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the proposed project would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to hydrology and water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degradation of water quality, increase pollutant discharges, or alter receiving water quality.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-2 through 4.10-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Depletion of Groundwater Supplies, Adverse Impacts on Groundwater Quality, and Interference with Groundwater Recharge: Less Than Significant Impact In the event that future development associated with the proposed project requires groundwater dewatering during construction activities, each individual project would be required to comply with the appropriate NPDES Groundwater Discharge Permit (as detailed in RCM HYD-3), which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release to surface waters. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would be required to obtain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Public Works Department.

The City is located within the Coastal Plain of Orange County Basin (Basin 8-1). Basin 8-1 is designated as a medium priority basin due to the heavy reliance on the Basin 8-1’s groundwater as a source of water supply. As required by the SGMA, the agencies within the Basin 8-1 have agreed to collaborate in order to ensure that Basin 8-1 is sustainably managed. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 30
manages, replenishes, and protects the Orange County Groundwater Basin located in the Coastal Plain of Orange County Basin. The basin is Orange County’s largest source of drinking water. The City of Cypress is located in OCWD District 4. OCWD operates the world’s largest water purification system for indirect potable reuse, which is used to replenish and maintain groundwater levels within the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) approved an alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Orange County Groundwater Basin, demonstrating how water managers have already achieved or will receive sustainable groundwater management.

The proposed project is programmatic and is intended to guide development of future residential projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.

Any future physical improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a projectspecific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Some of the future infill and redevelopment projects may qualify for CEQA exemptions, provided that they meet the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300–15332. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the proposed project would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to hydrology and water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to surface or groundwater quality or the depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to the depletion of groundwater supplies, creation of an adverse impact on groundwater quality, and interference with groundwater recharge.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies, create an adverse impact on groundwater quality, or interference with groundwater recharge. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) HYD-3 is applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-5 through 4.10-6 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Increase Runoff, Downstream Erosion, or Siltation; Exceed the Capacity of Stormwater Drainage Systems; and Hydromodification Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact Any future development associated with the proposed project which disturbs more than 1 acre of soil would be subject to the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP (as described in RCM HYD-1). If applicable, a SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site.

If a project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would be subject to the requirements of Section

5.106 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) requires projects that 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 31
disturb less than 1 acre of soil and that are not part of a larger common plan to comply with the local municipal code and/or implement a combination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent pollution of stormwater runoff during construction activities (RCM HYD-1).

The opportunity sites are comprised of parcels with existing development or previous grading and do not contain natural streams, federally protected wetlands, or riparian habitat. Applicable NPDES requirements would prevent substantial additional sources of polluted runoff being discharged to the storm drain system through implementation of construction BMPs that target pollutants of concern in runoff from the opportunity sites as well as testing and treatment (if required) of groundwater prior to its discharge to surface waters (RCMs HYD-1 and HYD-2). As specified in the City Municipal Code and the Construction General Permit or the 2019 CALGreen Code and with implementation of the construction BMPs, impacts related to increased runoff, on-site, off-site, downstream erosion or siltation, or capacity of stormwater drainage systems, would be less than significant.

Significant redevelopment projects are subject to specific hydromodification requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit and must implement measures for site design, source control, runoff reduction, stormwater treatment, and baseline hydromodification management (RCM HYD-2).

Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if they drain into hardened channels, the rate and volume of storm water runoff does not significantly exceed those of the predevelopment condition for a two-year frequency storm event, or if the site infiltrates at least the runoff from a twoyear storm event. Compliance with RCM HYD-2 would ensure impacts related to hydromodification would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not increase runoff, downstream erosion, or siltation; exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems; or result in hydromodification impacts.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) HYD-2 and HYD-3 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-6 and 4.10-7 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns and Increased Surface Runoff Flow Rate or Volume:

Less Than Significant Impact
Future development associated with the proposed project which would disturb more than 1 acre of soil would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and would include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, as detailed in RCM HYD-1. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct on-site surface runoff and would include detention facilities, if required, to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site does not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of construction BMPs as specified in RCM 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 32
HYD-1, potential construction impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume that would result in flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Future physical improvements associated with the proposed project would be required to demonstrate that proposed drainage improvements would be sized appropriately to accommodate any potential increase in flow so that on-site flooding would not occur. Future development projects would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Some of the future infill and redevelopment projects may qualify for CEQA exemptions, provided that they meet the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300-15332.

In addition, individual projects contemplated under the proposed project would be evaluated for sitespecific impacts to hydrology and water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality. Furthermore, the opportunity sites are comprised of parcels with existing development or previously graded there are no streams or rivers traversing any of the opportunity site parcels. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to alteration of existing drainage patterns or increased surface runoff flow rate or volume.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, or substantially change runoff flow rates or volumes. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

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

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10-8 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Development of Housing or Structures within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area: No Impact According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) No. 06059C0108J and No. 06059C0116J (December 3, 2009), the opportunity sites are located within Zone X, which comprises areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year flood) or are areas with reduced flood risk due to existence of a levee. As the Katella Avenue and Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites are not located within a 100-year floodplain, the proposed project would not facilitate the development of housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 33
The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not place structures or housing within a 100- year flood hazard area. No impact would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-8 through 4.10-9 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Flooding, Including Flooding as a Result of the Failure of a Levee or Dam and Impacts Related to Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow:

Less Than Significant Impact
According to the Safety Element of the City of Cypress General Plan, the Katella Avenue opportunity sites are located within the inundation zone of Carbon Canyon Dam and the Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites are located within the inundation zone of either Prado Dam or Whittier Narrows Dam. During a flood, Seven Oaks Dam stores water destined for Prado Dam for as long as the reservoir pool at Prado Dam is rising. When the flood threat at Prado Dam has passed, Seven Oaks Dam begins to release its stored flood water at a rate that does not exceed the downstream channel capacity.

Working in tandem, the Prado and Seven Oaks Dams provide increased flood protection to Orange County.

Prado Dam is maintained and inspected to ensure its integrity and to ensure that risks are minimized.

In addition, construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project was initiated in 1989, which is nearly complete and will provide increased levels of flood protection to more than 3.35 million people in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Improvements to the Santa Ana River channel include construction of new levees and dikes. The Prado Dam embankment has been raised and the outlet works have been reconstructed to convey additional discharges.

In conjunction with the Brea and Fullerton Dams, Carbon Canyon Dam is vital for the flood control protection of portions of the coastal plains in Orange County. The current water control manual for Carbon Canyon Dam was approved in December 1990.

Whittier Narrows Dam and Reservoir is a central element of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area flood control system. Construction of the dam was completed in 1957. Flood releases from the dam may be reduced as necessary so as not to exceed the flow conveyance capacity of downstream flood risk management channels. An extensive system of the USACE and County telemetered rain gages and stream gages monitor precipitation and streamflow throughout the watershed on a continuous basis to aid in management of water releases.

Although development associated with the proposed project would be constructed in an inundation zone, the proposed project would not increase the chance of inundation from failure of Carbon Canyon Dam, Whittier Narrows Dam, or Prado Dam. Additionally, the entire City of Cypress is within a dam inundation zone. The potential for dam failure is remote and the City’s emergency evacuation plans would be implemented if these dams were susceptible to rupture during heavy rains or other 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 34
events. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project related to the exposure of people and structures to significant risk associated with flooding as a result of dam failure would be less than significant.

There are no open bodies of water in the vicinity of the City; therefore, it is not located within an inundation zone of a seiche. The City is also relatively flat and not at risk from mudflow. The City is located approximately 5 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. No opportunity sites are located within a tsunami inundation zone, according to the Orange County Tsunami Inundation Maps. Therefore, impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or be subject to inundation be seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-9 through 4.10-10 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Impacts Related to an Increase in Pollutants for which the Receiving Waterbody is Already Impaired as Listed on the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is programmatic in nature and would not include any physical development or directly result in an increase of pollutants to any receiving waters. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) HYD-2, preparation of a WQMP would ensure BMPs would be implemented and maintained during future project operation to target and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site during operation. Preparation of a WQMP specify how a future project would target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff from the project site, including those contributing to downstream water quality impairments. Therefore, with implementation of RCM HYD-2, impacts related to an increase in pollutants for which the receiving waterbody is already impaired as listed on the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in increased pollutants within an impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) HYD-2 would be applicable to the proposed project.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 35
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-10 through 4.10-11 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Exacerbation of Sensitive Conditions within Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts on Surface Water Quality to Either Marine, Fresh, or Wetland Waters: No Impact
According to the Orange County MS4 Permit, Environmentally Sensitive Areas are areas such as those designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) or waterbodies listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The opportunity sites are not tributary to an ASBS. As discussed above, the proposed project is programmatic in nature and would not include any physical development.

Future development associated with the proposed project would be evaluated for impacts to any CWA Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly result in an increase of pollutants to any receiving waters. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not exacerbate sensitive conditions within environmentally sensitive areas or have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10-11 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Impacts to Aquatic, Wetland, or Riparian Habitat: Less Than Significant Impact Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The opportunity sites are currently developed and located in urban areas. No natural streams, federally protected wetlands, or riparian habitat are located on the opportunity sites. Future development associated with the proposed project would implement construction and operational BMPs, as specified in RCM HYD-1 and HYD-2. Consequently, development of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) HYD-1 and HYD-2 would be applicable to the proposed project. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 36
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.10-11 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Significant Environmental Effects Related to the Operation of New or Retrofitted Stormwater Treatment Control Best Management Practices: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is a policy level project and would not directly propose any physical development and therefore would not result in impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Future physical improvements associated with the proposed project would be required to demonstrate that new or retrofitted stormwater treatment BMPs would not cause significant environmental impacts occur. Future development projects would be subject to separate environmental review on a projectspecific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Some of the future infill and redevelopment projects may qualify for CEQA exemptions, provided that they meet the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300-15332. Additionally, a project-specific WQMP would be required to detail BMP maintenance and inspection plans which would minimize potential odors and vectors. Therefore, impacts related to BMPs would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not include new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practices, the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.10-11 through 4.10-12 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Physical Division of an Established Community: Less Than Significant Impact The opportunity sites are within an urbanized area and future residential development within the opportunity sites would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, impacts related to the physical division of an established community would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 37
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.11-1 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect: Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would result in land use changes within the City. These changes would occur exclusively within existing specific plans and would require rezoning to accommodate residential development, or higher density residential development than currently allowable, consistent with the City’s RHNA allocation. A project’s inconsistency with a plan or policy is only considered significant if such inconsistency would result in a significant physical environmental impact (per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382).

The proposed project would include rezoning of sites to allow higher densities than are allowed under current designations, and would amend the General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and the Specific Plans as needed to align with this change and other aspects of the updated 2021–2029 City General Plan Housing Element. Therefore, existing land use policies that are not already consistent with the proposed project would be amended accordingly, eliminating any possible land use conflicts.

With adoption of the 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element Update and the necessary conforming changes to land use designations, zoning, and Specific Plans, the proposed project would create consistency between the 2021–2029 General Plan Housing Element Update and applicable City land use and planning policies. Additionally, any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed zoning changes would be reviewed against applicable land use policies as a part of the future development review process. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.5-11 through 4.5-22.

4.12 Mineral Resources
Loss of Availability of Known Mineral Resources or a Locally Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site: No Impact
The opportunity sites have been classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as MRZ-1 and MRZ-4, indicating that they are in an area where either (1) adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 38
their presence, or (2) information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone.

The City of Cypress (City) is not within the proximity of any MRZ-2 zones, and is surrounded by an MRZ-1 zone, indicating the absence of significant mineral deposits in the area. Furthermore, according to the City’s General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, there are no mineral resources as defined by the CDMG within the City. Because the project site is clearly shown to not be a part of a mineral resource zone containing any known valuable mineral resources, there is a high unlikelihood of minerals being extracted at the opportunity sites. Therefore, no impact related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a mineral resource recovery site that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the State would result from project implementation.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resources that would a value to the region or the residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a local important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impacts would occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

4.13 Noise
Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels: Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the City of Cypress’ 2021–2029 Housing Element update and rezoning program would alter existing development patterns and increase residential density. These activities could result in the potential demolition of structures, construction, and site grading, the location of residential uses near stationary noise sources, as well as increased traffic generation. All these activities have the potential to increase ambient noise and vibration levels within the City of Cypress and to exceed acceptable noise standards.

Many of the opportunity sites are adjacent to primary noise sources within the City (major roadways).

The provision of additional housing units could result in noise-sensitive land uses being located within or adjacent to noise contours above 60 CNEL. However, any new construction would need to be consistent with the General Plan Noise Element.

Potential sources causing a permanent increase in ambient noise include noise resulting from increased traffic on roadways within the City. It is projected that traffic volumes on some streets within the City would increase and some would decrease due to the proposed land use changes and subsequent changes in average daily trip (ADT) generation. The significance criteria define a significant impact to occur if the project would result in a substantial (3 dBA or greater) permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project. For traffic noise to increase by 3 dBA, traffic volumes would have to double. The anticipated change in traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would result in traffic noise increases of up to 0.2 dBA, which is considered less than the threshold of perceptibility for humans (i.e., 3 dBA). Therefore, traffic noise 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 39
regulated under the proposed project would not be readily perceptible in a suburban outdoor environment, and would not increase noise levels in excess of applicable standards, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-7 through 4.6-10.

Excessive Ground-borne Vibration or Ground-borne Noise Levels: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would allow for the development of additional housing units on the opportunity sites and would not generate vibration. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be highly unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Therefore, vibration generated by project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.6-10.

Excessive Noise Levels Due to Proximity to an Airport: Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not within the 60 A-weighted decibel community noise equivalent level (dBA CNEL) or 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft-related operations.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.13-1 through 4.13-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR). 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 40

4.14 Population and Housing
Substantial Unplanned Population Growth: Less Than Significant Impact As discussed above, the City’s housing need allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 is 3,936 units. The 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies several adequate sites that able to accommodate the development of up to 1,946 new housing units (504 of which have already been entitled), but the City has a large unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 units to meet its RHNA allocation of 3,936 units. In addition to the 1,946 units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, the proposed project would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 4,260 housing units, corresponding net population increase of approximately 4,605 persons.

Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed rezoning and updated land use designations would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicable development regulations. Ultimately, as part of the development review process, all future projects would be required to demonstrate during the development review process that service providers would ensure adequate public services and utilities are available. Additionally, each of the opportunity sites is in urbanized settings with a full range of public services and utilities. Future residential uses would replace existing land uses and not induce additional growth or require the extension of roads or other infrastructure, because the roads and infrastructure are already in place with adequate capacity to serve the new development on the opportunity sites.

Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of new housing in the City, the new housing would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, as the proposed project is designed to meet the City’s housing need allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 of 3,936 units as determined by the SCAG RHNA. As such, the proposed project is consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City as evaluated in the SCAG RHNA. In addition, the opportunity sites are in urbanized settings with a full range of public services and utilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause indirect substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads and other infrastructure. Impacts associated with unplanned population growth, directly or indirectly, would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.7-6 through 4.7-8.

Displacement of People or Housing Resulting in Need for Replacement Housing: No Impact Under existing conditions, no housing currently exists on the opportunity sites, and implementation of the proposed project would not displace any housing or associated populations. Instead, the proposed project intends to provide the City with an up to an additional 2,314 housing units, which 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 41
would add approximately 4,605 residents to the City’s population. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

4.15 Public Services
Fire Protection Services: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project is programmatic in nature and would not directly result in physical development. However, the proposed project would accommodate an additional 2,314 housing units within the City at the opportunity sites. In addition to the 1,946 units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, the proposed project would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 4,260 housing units. According to the 2017 American Housing Survey, the average household size in structures that have 50 or more housing units (the highest housing density type evaluated in the American Housing Survey) in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area was 1.99 persons. As such, the construction of up to 2,314 additional housing units under the proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 4,605 persons. This increase in the City’s population could result in an increase in fire protection calls within the City; however, such calls would be generally consistent with the types of calls the OFCA responds to at similar residential developments in the City. Additionally, each of the opportunity sites are either currently developed or surrounded by existing development and are in areas of the City already served by OCFA.

As discussed above, the OCFA currently serves more than 1,984,758 residents from its 77 fire stations throughout the County, including Fire Station No. 17 within the City and Fire Station Nos. 2 and 84 nearby. The addition of 4,605 residents would increase the population served by 0.2 percent. This increase in population served by OFCA is negligible (less than 1 percent and would not impact OCFA’s ability to serve the City.

Any future housing projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all OCFA requirements, including providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the opportunity sites, hydrants spaced to meet the minimumsidentified in the fire code, and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. Any future development projects would be required to obtain City approval of building plans prior to issuance of building permits and would be required to demonstrate during the development review process that fire service providers would be able to provide adequate fire protection through building design requirements and access. Further, all future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be subject to additional CEQA review related to specific development applications. As detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measure 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 42
(RCM) PS-1, during the development and CEQA review process, future projects would be required to coordinate with OCFA to determine the appropriate development impact fees required for the project to offset potential impact to OCFA staffing and service ability. Therefore, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) PS1 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-11 through 4.8-12.

Police Protection Services: Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would facilitate the construction of 2,314 housing units, which is estimated to result in a net increase of 4,605 persons to the City’s population. This increase in the City’s population could result in an increase in calls to law enforcement within the City; however, such calls would be generally consistent with the types of calls the CPD responds to at similar residential developments in the City. Additionally, each of the opportunity sites are surrounded by existing development and are in areas of the City already served by CPD.

CPD currently has 55 sworn personnel and in 2019, had an officer-to-resident ratio of 1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. Since 2019, the officer-to-resident ratio has fluctuated around 1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. In 2021, the City had a population of 49,926, increasing the officer-to-resident ratio to 1.1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. The increase of 4,605 persons in the City as facilitated by the proposed project would result in an officer-to-resident ratio of 1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents, which is consistent with the officer-to-resident ratio of the City since 2019. Although the proposed project would likely result in an increase in calls to law enforcement within the City due to the population increase associated with the construction of 2,314 additional housing units, CPD has confirmed that it anticipates hiring additional officers to adequately serve future population growth in the City, including the population increase associated with the proposed project. In addition, CPD has confirmed that it has adequate facilities to accommodate additional officers.

Any future housing projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable policies and codes related to the provision of police services. Any future development projects would be required to obtain City approval of building plans prior to issuance of building permits and would be required to demonstrate during the development review process that law enforcement providers would be able to provide adequate police protection services. Future housing projects at the opportunity sites would be subject to additional CEQA review related to specific development applications. Therefore, impacts on police protection services would be less than significant.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 43
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-12 through 4.8-13.

Schools: Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would result in 2,144 units in the Cypress School District (CSD), 79 units in the Centralia Elementary School District (CESD), 91 units in the Los Alamitos Unified School District (LAUSD), and 2,144 units in the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). Based on the above generation factors, it is estimated that the 2,314 additional residential units allowed under the proposed project would result in 547 additional students in the CSD, 25 in the CESD, 64 students in the LAUSD (46 elementary school students and 18 middle/high school students), and 429 students in the AUHSD. The increase in students as a result of project implementation would increase the demand for school facilities. However, future development allowed under the proposed project would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA, which is based on population estimates, including school-aged children, for the City. Therefore, although implementation of the proposed project would facilitate an increase in demand for school facilities, this increase in demand is consistent with the increase in the City’s population.

AUHSD’s enrollment was 27,748 students in the 2022–2023 school year. 429 new middle and high school level students represents a 1.5 percent increase to AUHSD’s student enrollment population.

According to the AUHSD Facilities Master Plan Update, the AUHSD is experiencing an overall decline in enrollment of approximately 3,200 students through the 2025–2026 school year in the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, and Stanton. With the AUHSD’s projected decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that AUHSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new middle and high school level students generated with implementation of the proposed project.

According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study completed for the CSD by Cooperative Strategies and dated April 30, 2020, the CSD had a facilities capacity of 4,400 students in the 2019–2020 school year. As previously discussed, CSD’s enrollment was 3,389 students in the 2022–2023 school year. As such, the CSD is operating under capacity and has an additional 1,011 seats available for new students. The 547 new elementary level students under the proposed project could be accommodated by the CSD’s available capacity. In addition, with implementation of RCM PS-1, it is expected that CSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new elementary level students generated by the additional housing units allowed under the proposed project. The fees would be collected by the AUHSD and shared equally with the CSD.

The CESD had been experiencing a decline in enrollment between the 2016–2017 school year and the 2020–2021 school year; however, since the 2020–2021 school year, the school district has registered 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 44
a small increase in enrollment. Under the proposed project, 25 new elementary level students would be added to the CESD. The Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under the proposed project would be required to pay fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) PS-2. Although in recent years the CESD has experienced a slight increase in enrollment, because of the district’s historic decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that CESD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate elementary school level students generated with implementation of the proposed project.

The LAUSD has been experiencing a decline in enrollment since the 2016–2017 school year. The proposed project would generate 46 new elementary level students and 18 new middle/high school level students, for a total of 64 new students, within the LAUSD. This increase in students can be accommodated by the LAUSD. In addition, the Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under the proposed project would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-2. With the LAUSD’s continued pattern of decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that LAUSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new students generated with implementation of the proposed project.

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a project’s impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the required fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. However, Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) PS2 would be applicable to the proposed project.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-13 through 4.8-16.

Parks: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project could add up to 4,605 new residents to the City’s population, which could increase usage of City parks and recreational facilities. Impacts to recreational facilities remain less than significant by requiring every subdivider to either dedicate land, pay a park fee, or do both, for the purposes of providing park and recreational facilities pursuant to Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. All future projects implemented in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments would be required to comply with the City of Cypress General Plan. Therefore, because the proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of public recreation facilities and 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 45
because in-lieu park fees would be paid, as described in Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1, impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

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

Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact
The Cypress Community Center, which provides regular classes and programming for local residents, is located at 5700 Orange Avenue. The Cypress Senior Center is located at 9031 Grindlay Street. The proposed project could increase the City’s population by up to 4,605 residents, which would increase demand for use of these public facilities. The project-related population increase and accompanying demand for community services and programs at the Cypress Senior Center and the Cypress Community Center. However, the proposed project is not expected to trigger the need for new or physically altered community facilities because those facilities were designed to accommodate community classes and social events throughout the year. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts to these facilities. Impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not generate substantial impacts to other public facilities beyond those identified in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

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

4.16 Recreation
Deterioration of Parks and Other Recreation Facilities: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project consists of programmatic updates that would make possible new residential development that could potentially result in significant impacts. The proposed project has the potential to develop approximately 2,314 housing units on the opportunity sites, which could add 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 46
approximately 4,605 residents to the City’s population. The City’s Municipal Code states a goal of providing 3.0 acres of land per 1,000 residents for park and recreational purposes, and an additional

1.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for purposes that are made available at K-12 schools through a cooperative arrangement between the City, local school districts, and local park and recreation districts. The City currently has 82 acres of parkland available for its 50,151 residents, and it currently provides approximately 1.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The additional 4,605 residents would change this ratio to 1.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

As specified in the City of Cypress Municipal Code Section 25-43, Relation of Land Required to Population Density, the City collects park dedication and in-lieu fees which are applicable to new residential construction that qualify as dwelling units as defined by section 6.31.020(D) of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance and Section 205(D) of the 2001 California Building Code as they currently exist.

Impacts to recreational facilities remain less than significant by requiring every subdivider to either dedicate land, pay a park fee, or do both, for the purposes of providing park and recreational facilities (as set forth in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) REC-1). All future projects implemented in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments would be required to comply with the City of Cypress General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

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

Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Resulting in an Adverse Physical Effect: Less Than Significant Impact
Although the proposed project would not directly result in physical development, the Housing Element update and rezoning program would allow for the development of additional housing in the Cypress, which could result in the potential addition of approximately 4,605 residents. This increase in population could incrementally increase usage of City parks and recreational facilities. The proposed project would not include any recreational facilities that would be open to the general public, and would not cause or accelerate the substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities, so it would not require the construction or expansion of off-site recreational facilities.

The City of Cypress Municipal Code, Section 25-43, establishes a standard of 3.0 acres of land per 1,000 residents for park and recreational purposes, and an additional 1.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for purposes that are made available at K–12 schools through a cooperative arrangement 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 47
between the City, local school districts, and local park and recreation districts. This arrangement results in a total of 4.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments would comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 25, Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City’s Municipal Code (as set forth in Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1), which requires the payment of an inlieu park fee, the dedication of land for park and recreational purposes, or both, based on a standard of 3.0 acres of land for park and recreational purposes for each 1,000 residents.

For all future projects developed in accordance with the updated General Plan and Zoning code amendments, the City will require the Applicant to pay fees and/or dedicate parkland as identified in Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. Therefore, with the payment of in-lieu park fees and/or the dedication of parkland, impacts to recreation requirements would be less than significant. Therefore, any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment; however, the project’s potential impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.16-2 through 4.16-3 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

4.17 Transportation
Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Related to the Circulation System: Less Than Significant Impact
Based on the significance threshold criteria determined by the City of Cypress, no operational deficiencies would occur at any of the studied intersections under the General Plan Buildout (2045) conditions with implementation of the proposed project. In 2045, all intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) and intersections along Valley View Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Katella Avenue would also operate at an acceptable LOS (E or better). Based on the LOS analysis, implementation of the proposed project would not create significant LOS changes under General Plan Build out conditions.

In addition, a VMT analysis was conducted for the proposed project based on the OCTAM model, using the County of Orange as the region. Based on the significance threshold criteria determined by the County of Orange, the cumulative citywide VMT per service population, under the proposed project rezoning scenario, would be lower than the regional threshold. Based on VMT analysis results, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the threshold based on service population. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 48
LOS and VMT analyses showed that the proposed project would not exceed significance thresholds established by the City of Cypress and County of Orange. Additionally, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would address transportation design and emergency access. The City’s Circulation Element includes numerous policies and implementation measures that are aligned with the objectives and priorities identified in the scoping comment letter from Caltrans District 12. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-14 through 4.9-17.

Conflicts or Inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b): Less Than Significant Impact
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), project-related transportation impacts are generally best measured by evaluating the project’s VMT, which refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The proposed project would result in a significant impact related to VMT if the cumulative citywide VMT per service population is higher than Orange County’s baseline VMT per service population. Under general build-out conditions in the year 2045, the VMT under the proposed project scenario would not exceed Orange County’s threshold. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant transportation impact.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Potential impacts are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.9-18.

Increase in Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses: Less Than Significant Impact
While implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element and rezoning program would allow infill development/redevelopment, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Subsequent development of the opportunity sites would be analyzed on a project-by-project basis as design and layout of the projects are determined. Site-specific traffic 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 49
analysis assessing potential hazard would be required for any subsequent infill development/redevelopment in accordance with City standards to reduce impacts to less than significant. As subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur, potential project specific impacts would be assessed, and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts of the proposed project related to geometric hazards would therefore be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Potential impacts are less than significant.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.17-1 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

Inadequate Emergency Access: Less Than Significant Impact While implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element and rezoning program would allow infill development/redevelopment, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Subsequent development of the opportunity sites would be analyzed on a project-by-project basis as design and layout of the projects are determined. Site-specific traffic analysis assessing emergency access would be required for any subsequent infill development/redevelopment in accordance with City standards to reduce impacts to less than significant. As subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur, potential project specific impacts would be assessed, and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts of the proposed project to emergency access would therefore be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to page 4.17-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 50

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource That is Listed or Eligible for Listing in the California Register or in a Local Register of Historical Resources as Defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k): Less Than Significant Impact
In January 2020, a cultural resource record search was completed as part of the environmental review process for the proposed mixed-use Cypress City Center project, located directly across Katella Avenue to the south of the CBPC Specific Plan opportunity site. A record search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Fullerton. The California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Historical Landmarks (SHL), California Points of Historical Interest (SPHI), and various local historical registers were examined. No tribal archaeological resources had been previously recorded within the Cypress City Center site, and none were discovered as a result of the record search . Because the Cypress City Center site is located within the CBPC Specific Plan Area, this record search can be reasonably applied to the proposed project’s opportunity sites within the CTCC Specific Plan and CBPC Specific Plan. Numerous previous searches have concluded that the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP) Area contains no archaeological sites with the potential to yield tribal cultural resources. An IS/MND prepared for the City’s 2009 Housing Element Update, which included an amendment to the LASP, found that no historic and/or cultural resources were located on or adjacent to the LASP area. This has been upheld by other reports in the following years. As a result of the conditions discussed above, a new tribal cultural resource records search under the proposed project was determined to be unnecessary by the City.

Native American consultations were conducted in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52. As part of these consultations, the City asked the NAHC to conduct a record search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) to identify known tribal cultural resources, which yielded negative results. The City also asked the NAHC to provide a list of recommended tribal contacts applicable to the project, which were contacted on November 8, 2022, and formally invited to consult with the City on the proposed project, as well as to provide information on known tribal cultural resources not contained within NAHC or CHRIS records.

At the time of the EIR’s preparation, one response has been received. Chairman Andrew Salas responded on behalf of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation that consultation regarding the project was not necessary. Chairman Salas stated that the tribal government would like consultation for all future projects within the project’s location. Therefore, no further action or consultation with the above NAHC-listed tribes is required at this time; however, consultation is requested by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for future City projects on a caseby-case basis.

No information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the opportunity sites was provided by the tribe. Therefore, no tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or in a local register exist within the opportunity sites, and there are no known tribal cultural resources on the opportunity sites. However, because future development of the opportunity sites could require excavation and other potentially disturbing aspects of construction into soils, there is a potential to uncover undiscovered tribal cultural resources 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 51
during excavation, including human remains. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of undiscovered subsurface tribal cultural resources within the project site is possible, and these resources could potentially be affected by construction activities.

Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) CUL-1, as detailed with respect to Cultural Resources, requires compliance with California PRC Section 21083.2(g) for the treatment of unearthed archaeological resources. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM CUL1 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on unknown unique archaeological resources to less than significant, in the event that previously unknown deposits with tribal cultural significance are discovered during construction activities within any of the opportunity sites. As also discussed with respect to Cultural Resources, Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM CUL-2 requires compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM CUL-2 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains to less than significant, in the event that previously unknown remains are discovered during construction activities within any of the opportunity sites.

The proposed project would have less than significant impacts pertaining to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined as a site, feature, place, or 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 or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.10-5 through 4.10-8.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunication Facilities That Would Cause a Significant Environmental Effect: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is programmatic in nature but would accommodate an additional 2,314 housing units at the opportunity sites, which would result in a net population increase of approximately 4,605 persons.

According to CalEEMod projections, future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would result in approximately 86,834,354 gallons per year (gpy) or 267 acre-feet per year (afy) of indoor water use. The proposed project’s anticipated water usage accounts for 1.7 percent of the 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 52
estimated water demand and 1.1 percent of the total available water supplies in the service area for 2045. This represents a minimal increase in water demand within the Golden State Water Company (GSWC) Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area.

The future residential development facilitated by the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 240 acre-feet of wastewater annually, or 214,116 gallons of wastewater per day. This accounts for 0.11 percent of the Orange County Sanitation District’s (OCSD) daily capacity, 0.10 percent of the current capacity of Reclamation Plant No. 1, and 0.13 percent of the current capacity of Reclamation Plant No. 2. Consequently, anticipated wastewater generation by the proposed project is negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the available capacities of OCSD, Reclamation Plant No. 1, and Treatment Plant No. 2.

Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project which disturb more than 1 acre of soil would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and would include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct on-site surface runoff and would include detention facilities, if required, to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site would not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems. If applicable, a SWPPP would also detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. If a future project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would be subject to the requirements of Section 5.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code requires projects that disturb less than 1 acre of soil and that are not part of a larger common plan to comply with the local municipal code and/or implement a combination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent pollution of stormwater runoff during construction activities.

The new development allowed under the proposed project would also comply with the Orange County MS4 Permit, which requires the preparation of a Final WQMP and implementation of operational BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff from project sites.

Compliance with the Orange County MS4 Permit would reduce operational impacts related to surface water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and/or degradation of water quality to a less than significant level.

Based on the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed project, the estimated electricity demand associated with the operation of the new residential development allowed under the proposed project is approximately 8,482,740 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Therefore, operation of the future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would increase annual electricity consumption in the SEC service area and Orange County by approximately 0.01 and 0.04 percent, respectively. Consequently, anticipated electricity consumption by the proposed project is negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the total consumption of the SCE service area and Orange County.

The proposed project would not require the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of electricity services that would result in significant environmental impacts.

Based on the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed project, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand at the opportunity sites is anticipated to be approximately 25,701,324 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year, or approximately 257,075 therms per year. Therefore, operation of the 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 53
new residential development allowed under the proposed project would increase annual consumption in the SoCalGas service area and Orange County by approximately 0.005 and 0.04 percent, respectively. Consequently, the anticipated natural gas consumption by the proposed project would be negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the total consumption of the SoCalGas service area and Orange County. The proposed project would not require the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of natural gas service that would result in significant environmental impacts.

Telephone, television, and internet services are offered by a variety of providers in the City. Any future projects that would be developed in accordance with the proposed project would be responsible for constructing adequate telecommunication facility extensions on their respective project sites. The construction and expansion of these facilities would occur on site during the site preparation and earthwork phase and are not expected to impact any telephone, cable, or internet services offsite that serve the surrounding areas. Additionally, telecommunication facilities are generally installed concurrently with utility expansions and impacts associated with the expansion of telecommunications facilities are already considered in the air quality, noise, and construction traffic analysis.

Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicable development regulations pertaining to utilities. As a part of the development review process, all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs. Additionally, some of the housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urban uses that currently generate a demand for the utilities discussed above and are assumed in respective utility provider projections.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.11-10 through 4.11-15.

Insufficient Water Supplies: Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project would accommodate an additional 2,314 housing units at the opportunity sites.

In addition to the 1,946 housing units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, the proposed project would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 4,260 housing units.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 54
According to water demand factors included in the CalEEMod emissions model, future development allowed under the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 86,834,354 gallons per year (gpy) or 267 afy of indoor water use. Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand associated with the new development proposed as part of the project would represent approximately

1.7 percent of the GSWC’s anticipated water demand in 2045. Additionally, some of the 2,314 housing units that would be accommodated with implementation of the proposed project would replace existing uses that currently are assumed in the water use projections. The project-generated increase in water demand would be considered less than significant and would fall within existing capacity and available supply.

According to the 2020 UWMP, GSWC’s available water supply would meet the future projected demand for normal year demands from 2025 through 2045. GSWC’s Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area has a diverse water supply portfolio that allows GSWC to conjunctively use surface and groundwater assets. Water supply reliability is a result of the projected reliability of MWDOC, a member agency of MWD, which expects to provide reliable imported water supplies, OCWD management of the Orange County Groundwater Bain to ensure reliability, and conservation derived supply. Groundwater imported water from MWDOC, and the small amount of recycled water delivered within the service area by the City of Cerritos and the City of Seal Beach are all resilient during dry conditions and GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area is therefore not faced with shortages during normal or dry years. In addition, as previously discussed, the residential units facilitated by the proposed project are anticipated to use 1.1 percent of the total available water supplies in the service area for 2045. This represents a minimal increase in water demand within the GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in insufficient water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and adequate water supply would be available to accommodate the future residential development on the opportunity sites facilitated by the proposed project. The proposed project would increase demand for water supplies; however, the GSWC would have sufficient water supplies to the serve the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to water supplies.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.11-15 through 4.11-16.

Inadequate Capacity to Serve Projected Wastewater Treatment Demand in Addition to the Provider’s Existing Commitments: Less Than Significant Impact 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 55
The proposed project is anticipated to generate 214,116 gpd of wastewater. However, the 214,116 gpd of wastewater generated by the proposed project would only represent a small fraction of the primary daily treatment capacity of OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Reclamation Plant No. 2 (0.10 percent and 0.13 percent, respectively). Additionally, through its Capital Improvement Program, the OCSD strives to continue maintaining its facilities at optimal levels by planning, designing, and preparing for future demand by developing Facilities and Biosolids Master Plans that address 20-year planning horizons. Through these long-range planning activities, the OCSD would be able to accommodate the growth in demand for wastewater treatment generated by the proposed project and other projects in its service area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant contribution to demands on the treatment capacity of Reclamation Plant No. 1 or Treatment Plant No. 2. Additionally, fees required by the OCSD would sufficiently offset potential impacts generated by the proposed project. Furthermore, some of the 2,314 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urban uses that currently generate wastewater.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment capacity.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.11-16 through 4.11-17.

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

Less Than Significant Impact
Solid waste from future residential development allowed under the proposed project would be required to comply with State and local solid waste reduction, diversion, and recycling policies and regulations. According to CalEEMod calculations, the future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would generate approximately 1,711 tons of solid waste per year. Currently, OCWR maintains and operates three Class III sanitary landfills including the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Prima Deshecha Landfill. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is currently permitted by the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) to receive a maximum of 11,500 tons per day (tpd) of waste, with a currently annual average of 8,500 tpd. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is currently permitted by the CalRecycle to receive a maximum of 8,000 tpd of waste, but currently receives an average of approximately 7,000 tpd. The Prima Deshecha Landfill is currently permitted by CalRecycle to receive 4,000 tpd. The additional solid waste generation of 1,711 tons of solid waste per year, or 4.69 tpd, facilitated by the proposed project represents 0.04 percent,

0.06 percent, and 0.1 percent of the daily permitted tonnage of the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Prima Deshecha Landfill, respectively. Consequently, anticipated solid waste generation by the proposed project is negligible (substantially less than 1 percent) compared to the total amount of solid waste received by the three landfills. The proposed project would not require 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 56
the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of solid waste disposal that would result in significant environmental impacts and the OCWR solid waste disposal system would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Furthermore, some of the 2,314 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urban uses, most of which currently generate solid waste. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generation from any future projects developed in accordance with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.11-17.

Conflict with Federal, State, and Local Solid Waste Management and Reduction Statutes and Regulations: Less Than Significant Impact
The City currently contracts with Valley Vista Waste and Recycling Services, a private solid waste hauler, to collect and dispose of the solid waste generated throughout the City. The California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 939) changed the focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies (e.g., source reduction, recycling, and composting).

The purpose of the diversion strategies is to reduce dependence on landfills for solid waste disposal.

AB 939 established mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995, 50 percent by 2000, and 75 percent by 2020. The City provides curbside recycling for both residential and commercial uses, as well as curbside residential green waste, which both count toward the City’s solid waste diversion rate. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) tracks and monitors solid waste disposal on a per capita basis.

Although implementation of the proposed project does not involve any physical development, there is a potential for demolition of existing structures in the City and potential construction of 2,314 units.

Demolition and construction activities would generate typical construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, metals, cardboard, and green wastes. The proposed project would comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (pursuant to Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1). The applicants for future development would also be required to submit a Materials Questionnaire should the contractor haul away its own demolition waste. As stipulated by City Ordinance No. 1166 and the 2019 California Green Building Standards, the proposed project would be required to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition debris in order to obtain building permits.

Additionally, Valley Vista Services certifies 75 percent diversion for all construction and demolition material, which would contribute to an increased waste diversion rate within the City.

The proposed project would comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, and federal law. Therefore, the proposed project would 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 57
result in less than significant impacts related to federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.19-3 through 4.19-5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR).

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

In addition to establishing local or State responsibility for wildfire protection in a specific area, CAL FIRE designates areas as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) or non-VHFHSZ.

According to the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for the Orange County region, the entire City of Cypress is designated as a non-VHFHSZ, and the City does not include an SRA. The nearest VHFHSZ to the opportunity sites is approximately 6 miles to the northeast in Coyote Hills on the western side of Fullerton. The nearest SRA is in Puente Hills, approximately 10 miles northeast of the opportunity sites. Because the City of Cypress is not located in or near an SRA or VHFHSZ, the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to wildfire.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to pages 4.20-1 through 4.20-2 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR). 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 58

5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

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

5.1 Aesthetics
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

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

5.3 Air Quality
Impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan and a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

Impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants as well as impacts related to other emissions, such as odors were concluded to be less than significant.

5.4 Biological Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.5 Cultural Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.6 Energy
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.7 Geology and Soils
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Future projects within the proposed opportunity sites would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen Code standards regarding water efficiency and energy conservation requirements. Future projects’ compliance with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen Code standards, as 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 59
well as the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, would ensure a reduction of wastewater and water use. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures. Lastly, vehicles traveling to and from the opportunity sites would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program. The second phase of Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Future development implemented in accordance with the proposed rezoning and updated land use designations would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed zoning overlays and updated land use designations would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan. Therefore, since the purpose of the proposed project is to accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

Implementing SCAG’s RTP/SCS will greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation, helping to achieve statewide emissions reduction targets. Before development can take place, each discretionary development project is required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; to comply with the requirements of CEQA; and to obtain all necessary clearances and permits. As such, future additional housing development allowed under the proposed project would be evaluated for its potential to interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035, and whether regional mobile emissions would decrease in line with the goals of the RTP/SCS.

Based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHG emissions, and impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

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

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

MM GHG-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Cypress for residential development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), Project Applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts to the 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 60
City of Cypress for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology. If project-related GHG emissions exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance and/or Statewide GHG reduction targets, the City of Cypress shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions. Mitigation measures could include, but are not limited to, energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, solid waste measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-20 through 4.4-24.

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

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

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

5.12 Mineral Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.13 Noise
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

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

5.15 Public Services
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.16 Recreation
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.17 Transportation
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems
No impacts were concluded to be significant.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 61

5.20 Wildfire
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

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

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

6.3 Air Quality
Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan: Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Consistency with the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) would be achieved if the project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in this plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Per SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, there are two main indicators of a project’s consistency with the AQMP. As for Indicator 1, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational pollutant emissions. As such, the proposed project would not be consistent with Indicator 1.

The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects.

Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities.

The proposed project is programmatic in nature and would not directly result in physical development.

With respect to determining the proposed project’s consistency with AQMP growth assumptions, the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions in SCAG’s RTP/SCS regarding population, housing, and growth trends. According to SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s population, households, and employment are forecast to increase by approximately 1,700 residents, 800 households, and 3,100 jobs, respectively, between 2016 and 2045.

The proposed project would accommodate the construction of 2,314 housing units, which are estimated to result in an increase in 4,605 residents. Future development implemented in accordance with the proposed zoning and updated land use designations would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA and would be required to adhere to the General Plan.

Therefore, since the purpose of the proposed project is to accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the SCAG’s RTP/SCS or the AQMP.

In addition, since the proposed project would not include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities, the proposed project is not a significant project as defined by the 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 62
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project would interfere with SCAQMD’s goals for improving air quality in the region. The proposed project would not conflict with the 2022 AQMP and, as such, would not jeopardize attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS in the area under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The proposed project is therefore considered consistent with Indicator 2.

Based on the discussion above, the proposed project would have the potential to conflict or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans under Indicator 1 because the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational pollutant emissions. Although there is no feasible mitigation to reduce operational pollutant emissions to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 would require the implementation of all feasible measures to reduce operational impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition, Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) AQ5 would require that all future projects comply with the latest Energy Code and Title 24 requirements for new residential development. Imposition of these measures would not reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. As such, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 listed below under Impact

4.3-2, is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will not reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. As such, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.1-19 through 4.1-22.

Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of a Criteria Pollutant for Which the Region is NonAttainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard: Significant and Unavoidable Impact
The Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5. In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the PM10 standard. The Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

Construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units that could occur with implementation of the project would be through the horizon year 2045, which would cause shortterm emissions of criteria air pollutants. However, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4, construction of the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD standard conditions, including Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to control fugitive dust and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to control VOC emissions from paint. Compliance with SCAQMD standard conditions is a regulatory requirement and was considered in the analysis of construction emissions.

With implementation of these measures, construction emissions associated with the proposed project 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 63
would not exceed the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD for any of the criteria pollutants.

Operational activities associated with the additional housing units would result in long-term air pollutant emissions associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment).

Before development can take place, each discretionary development project is required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.

Long-term operation emissions associated with buildout of the 2,314 housing units was calculated using CalEEMod. Project emissions were found to not exceed the significance criteria for NOX, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions; however, emissions of VOCs were found to exceed SCAQMD thresholds.

Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 would require the implementation of all feasible measures to reduce operational impacts associated with the proposed project, and Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) AQ-5 would require all future projects comply with the latest Energy Code and Title 24 solar requirements for new residential development.

While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-5 would significantly reduce criteria air pollutant emissions generated during operational activities associated with the proposed project, there is currently not enough information to quantify emissions of specific project development that may take place under the proposed project. Without quantification to guarantee a less than significant finding, future development projects may still exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Basin is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, Mitigation Measure the following Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will not reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. As such, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

MM AQ-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Cypress shall identify project design details and specifications, where feasible, to document implementation and compliance with the following emission reduction measures. Implementation of the following measures, where applicable, are considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing criteria pollutant emissions generated by the project:
• All Project Applicants shall incorporate design features (e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures) at the proposed residential uses to minimize the potential impacts of air pollution on sensitive receptors.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 64
• All Project Applicants shall incorporate fuel-efficient heating equipment and other appliances, such as water heaters, swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, boiler units, and low or zero-emitting architectural coatings. Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances.
• All Project Applicants shall utilize energy-efficient design features, including appropriate site orientation, use of lighter color roofing and building materials, and use of deciduous shade trees and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling.
• All Project Applicants shall provide Class I and Class II bicycle parking/storage facilities on site. Bicycle parking facilities should be near destination points and easy to find. At least one bicycle parking space for every 20 vehicle parking spaces should be provided.
• All Project Applicants shall provide building access and paths which are physically separated from street parking lot traffic and that eliminate physical barriers such as walls, berms, landscaping and slopes that impede the use of pedestrians, bicycle facilities, or public transportation vehicles. • Where feasible, Project Applicants shall link culs-de-sac and dead-end streets to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
• Where feasible, Project Applicants shall provide traffic reduction modifications to Project roads, such as: narrower streets, speed platforms, bulb-outs, and intersection modifications designed to reduce vehicle speeds and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
• All Project Applicants shall provide a display case or kiosk displaying transportation information in a prominent area accessible to employees, residents, or visitors.
• All Project Applicants shall display bike route maps, bus schedules, and any other transportation information such as carpooling and car sharing. • All Project Applicants shall provide preferential parking spaces near the entrance of buildings for those who carpool/vanpool/rideshare and provide signage.
• Project Applicants shall install 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery powered vehicles.
• Project Applicants shall maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 65
• Project Applicants shall use light-colored paving and roofing materials.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.1-22 through 4.1-26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.12 Mineral Resources
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.13 Noise
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.14 Population and Housing
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.15 Public Services
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.16 Recreation
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.17 Transportation
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 66

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

6.19 Utilities
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

6.20 Wildfire
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 67

7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR:
“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.”
Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) specifies that growth does not necessarily imply impacts that are beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. A project that meets any of these criteria may be considered growth inducing. To address these issues, potential growth-inducing effects were examined through analysis of the following questions:
• Would the project remove obstacles to, or otherwise foster, population growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? • Would the project foster economic growth?
• Would approval of the project involve some characteristic that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Approval of the amendments to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, relevant Specific Plans, and Zoning Ordinance/Zoning Map are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. The proposed zoning changes would allow for the development of residential uses on the opportunity sites. Future development that would be built in accordance with these amendments would be designed to meet the City’s housing need allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 of 3,936 housing units as determined by the SCAG RHNA.

As such, the proposed project is consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City. Future residential uses would replace existing land uses and not would not induce additional growth or require the extension of roads or other infrastructure because the roads and infrastructure are already in place with adequate capacity to serve the opportunity sites.

Therefore, the proposed project would not cause indirect substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads and other infrastructure. Impacts associated with unplanned population growth, directly or indirectly, would be less than significant and no mitigation would be necessary.

The proposed project seeks to establish consistency between the City’s 2021–2029 General Plan Housing Element Update and other applicable land use documents. Under this new Housing Element, the City identifies opportunity sites with the potential to accommodate the City’s unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 housing units in order to meet its RHNA allocation of 3,936 housing units. The 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), from which the RHNA is derived, takes into account demographic and economic changes that have occurred since the adoption of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS. As a result, at least some degree of economic growth has already been accounted for by the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and RHNA. Therefore, the land use changes 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 68
included under the proposed project would represent a response to the City’s economic growth rather than a contributor to it.

Modest economic growth could be expected from the proposed project’s updated high-density residential zoning along the Lincoln Avenue Corridor because it would allow for residential occupation within walking distance of existing commercial retail establishments. As discussed in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, this close proximity would encourage walkability within the area and could therefore provide the retail establishments with an expanded consumer base and potentially increase commercial activity along the corridor. However, this increased commercial activity would not be substantial enough to warrant a significant change in economic growth. As a result, the proposed project is not considered to foster economic growth, and therefore, the proposed project would not result in any economic growth-inducing impacts.

Approval of the proposed project would not involve any characteristics that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Based on this and the preceding analysis, the proposed project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the proposed project does not directly result in any significant growthinducing impacts. The proposed project does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development, and the proposed project is consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 6-4 through 6-6. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 69

8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives were addressed in the Draft EIR:
• No Project Alternative
• Reduced Intensity Alternative
• Alternative 2: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Mixed Density • Race Course Avoidance Alternative

8.1 No Project Alternative
Description: State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative for decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving it. Under the No Project Alternative, the City may fail to implement its housing element, thus violating California’s housing element law. In this case, a court can order the City to halt all development until an adequate element is adopted or order approval of specific affordable housing developments.

Therefore, this alternative may result in the State taking over control of the City’s Housing Element and implementing minimum zoning requirements to accommodate housing for a diversity of housing to meet the needs of multiple income categories. RHNA compliance by each jurisdiction has received significant oversight by the State Department of Housing and Community Development due to the ongoing housing crisis facing California. Therefore, a No Project Alternative is not possible.

Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

The No Build Alternative would be infeasible to implement because the City would be unable to implement its 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element without the proposed discretionary actions.

Therefore, this alternative was not analyzed in depth in the Draft EIR.

Supporting Evidence – Please see Draft EIR pages 5-5 through 5-6.

8.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative
Description: Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the existing residential density permitted in the CTCC Specific Plan would remain unchanged, and no additional units would be proposed in the CTCC Specific Plan area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative divides the proposed housing units between the CBPC Specific Plan area and LASP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative proposes to accommodate 321 units in the CBPC Specific Plan area and 1,317 units in the LASP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative also includes an opportunity site located on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street, which would accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate-income units. In total, the Reduced Intensity Alternative proposes to accommodate an increase of 1,668 units at the opportunity sites (approximately 646 units less than the proposed project). In addition to the 1,946 units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 3,614 housing units.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 70
Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

The City finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in less than significant impacts in all but one of the environmental impact areas and could be less impactful in most of the environmental impact areas, with the exception of Land Use and Planning and Tribal Cultural Resources, in which impacts would be similar to those under the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, though impacts would occur to a lesser degree under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not reduce or eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would either not meet the project objectives or meet them to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Most notably, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet the RHNA requirement of 3,936 housing units as required by State law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.).

Supporting Evidence – Please see Draft EIR pages 5-8 through 5-10.

8.3 Alternative 2: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Mixed Density Description: Under Alternative 2, the existing residential densities permitted in the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan) would remain unchanged and would therefore be limited to the current maximum of 1,115 residential units. Alternative 2 instead proposes to vary densities within the LASP area between 30 du/ac and 60 du/ac to accommodate the development of approximately 2,378 new units (1,838 lower income units and 540 moderate/above moderate-income units). The Katella Avenue opportunity site in the PBP zone would be included in Alternative 2 as described under the proposed project. Alternative 2 also includes the opportunity site located on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street, which would accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate-income units. Overall, Alternative 2 would accommodate an additional 2,403 housing units at the opportunity sites. In addition to the 1,946 units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, Alternative 2 would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 4,349 housing units. If the City proceeds with Alternative 2, amendments to the LASP and the City’s Zoning Ordinance would be undertaken through the normal public hearing process.

Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

The City finds that Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts in all but one of the environmental impact areas and would have similar or greater impacts than the proposed project in the resource areas of air quality, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. As with the proposed project, this alternative would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not reduce or eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project. Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project in meeting all Project Objectives.

Supporting Evidence – Please see Draft EIR pages 5-11 through 5-30. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 71

8.4 Race Course Avoidance Alternative
Description: Under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative, opportunity sites within the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan) would not include development on the areas where the essential features of the Los Alamitos Race Course, including the track, grandstand, and race course entry, are located. All other proposed project elements, including the opportunity sites within the CBPC Specific Plan area, LASP area, and at the Katella Avenue opportunity site, would remain unchanged. Implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would remove approximately 39.2 acres of CTCC Specific Plan area from future development under the proposed project and would reduce the total number of additional housing units within the CTCC Specific Plan area by approximately 153 additional units as compared to the proposed project. Overall, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would accommodate an estimated 1,638 units within the CTCC Specific Plan area and approximately 2,161 housing units at the opportunity sites. With the removal of approximately 153 units within the CTCC Specific Plan area, implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 4,107 housing units instead of the proposed project’s increase of 4,260 housing units.

Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

The City finds that all impacts under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be similar to or less than the proposed project. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in reduced impacts on the environment because the opportunity sites within the CTCC would be developed at a reduced density in order to preserve the essential features of the Los Alamitos Race Course, thereby reducing most of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. As with the proposed project, this alternative would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality, though impacts would occur to a lesser degree under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would either not meet the Project Objectives or meet them to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Most notably, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not fulfill the intent of the voter approved Measure A, which approved the CTCC Specific Plan.

Supporting Evidence – Please see Draft EIR pages 5-30 through 5-48. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 72

9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when making findings required by Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the Lead Agency approving a project shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval, in order to ensure compliance with project implementation and to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby finds that:
1) A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project, and the mitigation measures are included therein. The MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record of proceedings for the proposed project. 2) The MMRP designates responsibility for implementation and monitoring of proposed mitigation measures. The City’s Community Development Director will serve as the overall MMRP coordinator and will be primarily responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are complied with.
3) The MMRP prepared for the proposed project has been adopted concurrently with these Findings. The MMRP meets the requirements of Section 21021.6 of the Public Resources Code. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 73

10.0 OTHER FINDINGS
The City hereby finds as follows:
1) The foregoing statements are true and correct;
2) The City is the “Lead Agency” for the project evaluated in the CEQA Documents and independently reviewed and analyzed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR for the project; 3) The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. It requested that responsible agencies respond as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to that agency’s specific responsibilities;
4) The public review period for the Draft EIR was for 45 days between May 7, 2024, and June 21, 2024. The Draft EIR and appendices were available for public review during that time. A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse, and notices of availability of the Draft EIR were published by the City. The Draft EIR was available for review on the City’s website. Physical copies of the environmental documents are available at the Cypress Civic Center by appointment only;
5) The CEQA Documents were completed in compliance with CEQA; 6) The CEQA Documents reflect the City’s independent judgment; 7) The City evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons and organizations who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Final EIR provided adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. The City reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information to the Draft EIR regarding adverse environmental impacts. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR. 8) The City finds that the CEQA Documents, as amended, provide objective information to assist the decision-makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit all comments made during the public review period;
9) The CEQA Documents evaluated the following impacts: (1) air quality; (2) cultural resources; (3) energy; (4) greenhouse gas emissions; (5) land use and planning; (6) noise; (7) population and housing; (8) public services; (9) transportation; (10) tribal cultural resources; and (11) utilities and service systems. Additionally, the CEQA Documents considered, in separate sections, significant irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts of the project, as well as a reasonable range of project alternatives. All of the significant environmental impacts of the project were identified in the CEQA Documents; 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 74
10) The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Documents and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the project. The MMRP provides the steps necessary to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable; 11) The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation; the City’s Community Development Director will serve as the MMRP Coordinator; 12) In determining whether the project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2;
13) The impacts of the project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the CEQA Documents;
14) The City made no decisions related to approval of the project prior to the initial recommendation of certification of the CEQA Documents. The City also did not commit to a definite course of action with respect to the project prior to the initial consideration of the CEQA Documents.
15) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the CEQA Documents are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, the custodian of record for such documents or other materials; 16) The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final EIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR;
17) Having reviewed the information contained in the CEQA Documents and in the administrative record, the City finds that there is no new significant information regarding adverse environmental impacts of the project in the Final EIR; and 18) Having received, reviewed and considered all information in the CEQA Documents, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, these Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 75

11.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to PRC § 21081(b), and State CEQA Guidelines §15093(a) and (b), the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (14 CCR § 15093 (a)). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (14 CCR § 15093(b)).

Courts have upheld overriding considerations that were based on a variety of policy considerations including, but not limited to, new jobs, stronger tax base, and implementation of an agency’s economic development goals, growth management policies, redevelopment plans, the need for housing and employment, conformity to community plan, and provision of construction jobs; see Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal App. 3d 671; Dusek v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 173 Cal App. 3d 1029; City of Poway v City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal App. 3d 1037; and Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal App.3d 656.

In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), when implemented, would avoid, or substantially lessen all of the significant effects identified in the Final EIR for the 2021-2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (project). However, certain significant impacts of the project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.

These significant unavoidable impacts would result from air quality impacts due to the potential to conflict or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans under AQMP Indicator No. 1 and exceedance of criteria air pollutant emissions during project operational activities. The project would implement the development-specific air quality mitigation measure identified in this analysis (MM AQ-1), acting to generally reduce the project’s operational-source air pollutant emissions. Based on the analysis presented here, the project is considered to be inconsistent with applicable AQMP Consistency Criteria and operational thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact even after mitigation.

The City finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that are within the purview of the City would be implemented with the project. As identified below, the City further finds that the remaining significant unavoidable effects are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, based upon the facts set forth above, the Final EIR, and the record.

The City finds that any one of the benefits set forth below is sufficient by itself to warrant approval of the project. This determination is based on the findings herein and the evidence in the record. The following economic, legal, social, or technological benefits, independent of the other benefits, 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEME NT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS J ULY 2024
July 2024 Findings of Fact 76
override the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each of the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Having balanced the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts against each of the benefits, the City hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following reasons:

1. All feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to less than significant levels; alternatives to the project are infeasible because while they have similar or less environmental impacts, they do not provide the economic benefits of the project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the project.

2. Consistency between the 2021–2029 Housing Element, the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

3. Meet the City’s housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirement (3,936 new housing units).

4. Provide high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the diverse population of the City.

5. Implement sustainable planning and development practices by creating compact new developments and walkable neighborhoods to minimize the City’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and energy usage.

6. Promote changes in land use and development that reflect changes in the regional economy.

Promote land uses that transform now-vacant or under-utilized sites.

7. Fulfill the intent of the voter approved Measure A, which approved the Cypress Town Center and Comments Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan)
EXHIBIT “3”

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings, CEQA requires that a lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to ensure compliance during project implementation. As required by CEQA, the City adopts, concurrently with the adoption of these Findings, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the Proposed Project. The MMRP, as presented in the Final EIR, is designed to serve this purpose for the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The MMRP requires that the City or other governmental agencies monitor mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate significant impacts, as well as those mitigation measures designed to reduce environmental impacts that are less than significant. The MMRP includes all the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the Proposed Project.

The MMRP describes the procedures for the implementation of all of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP are specific and enforceable and are capable of being fully implemented by the City of Cypress, the various applicants, and/or other identified public agencies of responsibility. It is the intent of the MMRP to (1) verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures of the EIR; (2) provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation; (3) provide a record of the Monitoring Program; (4) identify monitoring responsibility; and (5) establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures.

The MMRP lists mitigation measures according to the same numbering system contained in the Draft EIR sections.

The City finds that the impacts of the Proposed Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and in the MMRP. The City adopts the MMRP for the Proposed Project that accompanies the EIR. The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation measures and conditions within the jurisdiction, of the City. The City approves and will implement all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) 7-1

7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

7.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6, which is part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute, mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs:
• The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes that have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
• The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. • The lead agency shall provide measures to mitigate or avoid potentially significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents that address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
• Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either (1) submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures that would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or (2) refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures that mitigate impacts to resources that are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance with that requirement by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. 2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) -2

7.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project) has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Cypress (City), as the Lead Agency, to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed project will be carried out as described in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).

Table 7.A sets forth the proposed mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this Draft EIR and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.

7.3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROCEDURES
Table 7.B lists all regulatory compliance measures associated with the proposed project as specified in the Initial Study (provided in Appendix B of this Draft PEIR) and describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City to ensure that all standard conditions will be carried out as described in this Draft PEIR.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) 7-3 Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Milestone Responsible Party Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.1: Air Quality
MM AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Cypress shall identify project design details and specifications, where feasible, to document implementation and compliance with the following emission reduction measures. Implementation of the following measures, where applicable, are considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing criteria pollutant emissions generated by the project:
• All Project Applicants shall incorporate design features (e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers,
landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures) at the proposed residential uses to minimize the potential impacts of air pollution on sensitive receptors.
• All Project Applicants shall incorporate fuel-efficient heating equipment and other appliances, such as water heaters,
swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, boiler units, and low or zero-emitting architectural coatings. Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances.
• All Project Applicants shall utilize energy-efficient design features, including appropriate site orientation, use of lighter color roofing and building materials, and use of deciduous shade trees and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling.
• All Project Applicants shall provide Class I and Class II bicycle parking/storage facilities on site. Bicycle parking facilities should be near destination points and easy to find. At least one bicycle parking space for every 20 vehicle parking spaces should be provided.
• All Project Applicants shall provide building access and paths which are physically separated from street parking lot traffic and that eliminate physical barriers such as walls, berms, landscaping and slopes that impede the use of pedestrians, City of Cypress /
Project Applicant
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) -4 Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Milestone Responsible Party Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
bicycle facilities, or public transportation vehicles.
• Where feasible, Project Applicants shall link cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Where feasible, Project Applicants shall provide traffic reduction modifications to Project roads, such as: narrower streets, speed platforms, bulb-outs, and intersection
modifications designed to reduce vehicle speeds and to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
• All Project Applicants shall provide a display case or kiosk displaying transportation information in a prominent area accessible to employees, residents, or visitors.
• All Project Applicants shall display bike route maps, bus schedules, and any other transportation information such as carpooling and car sharing.
• All Project Applicants shall provide preferential parking spaces near the entrance of buildings for those who carpool/
vanpool/rideshare and provide signage.
• Project Applicants shall install 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery
powered vehicles.
• Project Applicants shall maximize use of solar energy including solar panels, including installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs to generate solar energy.
• Project Applicants shall maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots.
• Project Applicants shall use light-colored paving and roofing materials.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) 7-5 Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Milestone Responsible Party Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM GHG-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Cypress for residential development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts to the City of Cypress for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology. If project-related GHG emissions exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds of
significance and/or Statewide GHG reduction targets, the City of Cypress shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Mitigation measures could include, but are not limited, to energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, solid waste measures, and transportation and motor vehicles measures. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.

Project Applicant
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) -6 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.1: Air Quality
RCM AQ-1 Emission Reduction Measures. During clearing,
grading, earth moving, or excavation operations,
excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled
by regular watering or other dust preventative
measures by using the following procedures, in
compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during
construction. The applicable Rule 403 measures are
as follows:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers
according to manufacturers’ specifications to all
inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for 10 days or more).
• Water active sites at least twice daily (locations
where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly
watered prior to earthmoving).
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other
loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6
meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the
top of the load and the top of the trailer) in
accordance with the requirements of California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet
(30 meters) onto the site from the main road.
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15
miles per hour or less.

Project Applicant

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) 7-7 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
RCM AQ-2 Material Hauling. All trucks that are to haul
excavated or graded material shall comply with State
Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to
Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended,
regarding the prevention of such material spilling
onto public streets and roads.

Project Applicant
RCM AQ-3 Construction Painting. Prior to approval of future project plans and specifications, the City of Cypress
shall confirm that the construction bid packages
specify:
• Contractors shall use high-volume low-pressure
paint applicators with a minimum transfer
efficiency of at least 50 percent;
• Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a
volatile organic compound content lower than
required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; and
• To the extent feasible, construction/building
materials shall be composed of pre-painted
materials.

Project Applicant
RCM AQ-4 Air Contaminant Discharge. Future projects shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 prohibits
the discharge of air contaminants or other material
from any type of operations, which can cause
nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number
of people or to the public or which endangers the
comfort or repose of any such persons, or the public.

Project Applicant

4.4: Biological Resources
RCM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are
planned to occur within the active nesting bird
season (February 1 through August 31), the City of
Cypress, or designee, shall confirm that the future
Applicant has retained a qualified biologist who shall
Project Applicant
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) -8 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no
more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities.

The nesting bird survey shall include the work area
and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as
feasible) that could potentially be affected by
project-related activities such as noise, vibration,
increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any
active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone around the
active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be
determined by the qualified biologist based on
species, location, and the nature of the proposed
activities. Project activities shall be avoided within
the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer
active, as determined by the qualified biologist.

RCM BIO-2 Landmark Tree Removal. The Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Department, or
designee, shall review and approve the removal of any
trees required by future development associated with
the Draft Housing Element implementation and
rezoning program. As specified in the City Municipal
Code Section 17-19, the property owner of a landmark
tree shall submit a written request for review and
consideration of the landmark tree removal and
replacement plan at least 30 days prior to said removal.

Public notice of a proposed landmark tree removal shall be posted next to or on the subject landmark tree, at
the local public library, and at the Cypress City Hall
during the entire 30-day application-processing period.

No trees on the proposed project site shall be removed
prior to the approval of a landmark tree removal permit by the Director of the City of Cypress Community
Development Department, or designee.

Project Applicant

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) 7-9 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.5: Cultural Resources
RCM CUL-1 Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during
excavation, grading, or construction activities, work
shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of
Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in
accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines
to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique
archaeological resource,” as defined in Section
21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code
(PRC). The Applicant and its construction contractor
shall not collect or move any archaeological materials
and associated materials. Construction activity may
continue unimpeded on other portions of the project
site. Any found deposits shall be treated in
accordance with federal, State and local guidelines,
including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2.

Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community
Development Department, or designee, shall verify
that all project grading and construction plans
include specific requirements regarding California
PRC (Section 21083.2[g]) and the treatment of
archaeological resources as specified above.

Project Applicant
RCM CUL-2 Human Remains. In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50
feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the
County Coroner notified immediately consistent with
the requirements of California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
Project Applicant
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) -10 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are
determined to be Native American, the County
Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and
notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the
permission of the property owner, the MLD may
inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall
complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend
scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native
American burials. Consistent with CCR Section
15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be
Native American and an MLD is notified, the City of
Cypress shall consult with the MLD as identified by
the NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment
and disposition of the remains. Prior to the issuance
of grading permits, the Director of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or designee,
shall verify that all grading plans specify the
requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section
5097.98, as stated above.

4.6: Energy
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to energy.

4.7: Geology and Soils
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to geology and soils.

4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to greenhouse gas emissions.

4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to hazards and hazardous materials.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) 7-11 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to hydrology and water quality.

4.11: Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to land use and planning.

4.12: Mineral Resources
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to mineral resources.

4.13: Noise
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to noise.

4.14: Population and Housing
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to population and housing.

4.15: Public Services
RCM PS-1 Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to
coordinate with OCFA to determine the appropriate
development impact fees required in order to offset
potential impact to OCFA staffing and service ability.

Prior to the approval of a future project
implemented in accordance with the proposed
project, the designated site developer shall enter
into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with OCFA
that details the agreed-upon development impact
fees required for the project.

Project Applicant
RCM PS-2 Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/Developer of future
residential development projects facilitated by the
proposed project shall provide proof to the Director
of the City of Cypress Community Development
Department, or designee, that payment of school
fees to the appropriate school districts have been
made in compliance with Section 65995 of the
California Government Code.

Project Applicant
2021– 2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 I:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\Alicia\Housing Element PEIR\Final DEIR and EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (07/01/24) -12 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.16: Recreation
RCM REC-1 Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the
Applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the
applicable provisions of Chapter 25 (Subdivisions),
Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City of Cypress (City) Municipal Code, or other fees as
determined by the City, to the Director of the City
Community Development Department, or designee.

Project Applicant

4.17: Transportation
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to transportation.

4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed project would not require regulatory compliance measures unique to tribal cultural resources. Please see RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 for relevant measures in Section 4.5 above.

4.19: Utilities and Service Systems
RCM UTIL-1 Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The
construction contractor shall comply with the
provisions of City of Cypress Ordinance No. 1166 and
the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code,
which would reduce construction and demolition
waste. Ordinance No. 1166 is codified in Article VIII,
Materials Questionnaire for Certain Construction and
Demolition Projects within the City of Cypress in the
Cypress Municipal Code.

Project Applicant

4.20: Wildfire
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to wildfire.

June 2024
FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2021–2029 CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT

CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
SCH #2023040560
This page intentionally left blank

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx (06/26/24) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Index of Comments Received............................................................................................ 1-2

1.2 Format of Responses to Comments.................................................................................. 1-3

2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 State Agencies................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.1 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)................................................................2-8

3.0 ERRATA............................................................................................................ 3-1 TABLE
Table 1.A: Comments Received During the Public Comment Period..................................................1-2 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx «06/26/24» ii This page intentionally left blank

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Cypress HE Final EIR RTC.docx (06/27/24) 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document comprises the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (project). It is composed of comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments, and an Errata section that clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR text. The Draft PEIR and technical appendices are provided separately.

In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Cypress (City) has provided opportunities for public participation in the environmental process. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on April 21, 2023, to the California State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day public review period. The City also made the NOP available on the City’s website to inform agencies and the public about the proposed project and to solicit input on the scope of the Draft EIR. The NOP described the project and identified potential environmental impacts associated with project implementation. In addition, the City held a virtual Public Scoping Meeting on May 2, 2023, to present the proposed project and to solicit input from interested parties regarding environmental issues that the Draft PEIR should address. Appendix A of the Draft EIR contains a copy of the NOP and comments received. Section 2.2.3 of the Draft EIR identifies areas of concern raised in response to the NOP or at the scoping meeting.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Draft PEIR to have a review period lasting at least 45 days for projects that have been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 150105(a)). As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the City provided a public Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft PEIR for the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project at the same time it filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. The Draft PEIR circulated for public review for a period of 45 days, from May 7, 2024, to June 21, 2024.

The City used several media to solicit comments on the Draft PEIR. On May 7, 2024, the City posted physical notices at three separate locations within the City in the vicinity of the proposed opportunity sites. Additionally, the NOA was mailed to the last known name and address of agencies, organizations, and individuals who previously requested such notice in writing. The City also submitted the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to, and review by, State agencies. The City made a copy of the Draft EIR available at the Cypress Civic Center by appointment. In addition, the City posted the Draft EIR and all technical appendices on the City’s website.

One comment letter from a State agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), was received during the public review period. The comments in the comment letter are included and responded to in this Final EIR. Comments that address environmental issues are responded to thoroughly. Comments that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; (2) do not raise environmental issues; or (3) do request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues, do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx «06/26/24» -2 Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response.

The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.
c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:

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

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

Information provided in this Final PEIR clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the Draft PEIR. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the Draft PEIR as a result of the comments received on the Draft PEIR, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This Final PEIR also includes an Errata section that clarifies and makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received during the public review period.

1.1 INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
The following is an index list of the agencies and individuals that commented on the Draft PEIR prior to the close of the public comment period. The comments received have been organized in a manner that facilitates finding a particular comment or set of comments. The comment letter received is coded with the number as shown in Table 1.A, below.

Table 1.A: Comments Received During the Public Comment Period Comment Code Signatory Date
State
S-1 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 6/14/2024

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx (06/26/24) 1-3

1.2 FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The following pages provide responses to the coded comment letter. The comment code number is provided in the upper right corner of the comment letter, and individual comments within the letter are numbered along the right-hand margin of the letter. The City’s responses to the comment letter immediately follow each letter and are referenced by the index numbers in the margins. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx «06/26/24» -4 This page intentionally left blank

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx (06/26/24) 2-1

2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx «06/26/24» -2 This page intentionally left blank

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT

I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx (06/26/24) 2-3

2.1 STATE AGENCIES

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
June 14, 2024
Alicia Velasco
Planning Director
City of Cypress
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
[email protected]
RE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE CYPRESS HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT DATED MAY 3, 2024 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2023040560
Dear Alicia Velasco,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (Project). The City of Cypress (City) recently updated its General Plan Housing Element for the 6th Cycle Planning Period from 2021 to 2029.

Although the City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies several adequate sites that are able to accommodate the development of up to 1,946 new housing units, Cypress has a large unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 units to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation of 3,936 units. The 2021–2029 Housing Element outlined several sites that are candidates for future housing development and identified two potential rezoning scenarios, which are described below. The 2021–2029 Housing Element did not actually amend the City’s planning and zoning documents Instead, the 2021–2029 Housing Element includes a program that requires that the Comment Letter S-1
S-1-1
Alicia Velasco
June 14, 2024