City rezone identified parcels in the sites inventory within 18 months of the 2021–2029 Housing Element’s adoption date to ensure the provision of adequate and appropriate sites for future housing development. The proposed project is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0, Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance and would not directly result in physical development.
After reviewing the NOP of a DEIR, DTSC requests consideration of the following comments:
1. The proposed project encompasses multiple active and nonactive mitigation and clean-up sites where DTSC has conducted oversight that may be impacted as a result of this project. This may restrict what construction activities are permissible in the proposed project areas in order to avoid any impacts to human health and the environment.
2. Due to the broad scope of the project, DTSC is unable to determine the locations of the proposed sites, whether they are listed as having documented contamination, land use restrictions, or whether there is the potential for the sites to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, DTSC recommends providing further information on the proposed project and areas that may fall under DTSC's oversight within future environmental documents. Once received, DTSC may provide additional comments on future environmental documents as further information becomes available. Please review the project area in EnviroStor, DTSC’s public-facing database.
DTSC believes the City of Cypress must address these comments to determine if any significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will occur and, if necessary, avoid significant impacts under CEQA. DTSC recommends the department connect with our unit if any hazardous waste projects managed or overseen by DTSC are discovered. Please refer to the City of Cypress EnviroStor Map for additional information about the areas of potential contamination.
DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NOP of a DEIR for the Cypress S-1-1,
cont.
S-1-2
S-1-3
S-1-4
S-1-5
Alicia Velasco
June 14, 2024
Housing Element Implementation Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like any clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance.
Sincerely,
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
S-1-5
cont.
Alicia Velasco
June 14, 2024
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP – Permitting Division - CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP – Permitting Division - CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
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» -8
2.1.1 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL (DTSC)
Letter Code: S-1
Date: June 14, 2024
Response to Comment S-1-1
This comment provides introductory remarks and summarizes the proposed project.
The City acknowledges this comment. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft EIR, no further response is required.
Response to Comment S-1-2
This comment states that the proposed project encompasses several active and nonactive mitigation and/or cleanup sites known to DTSC that may restrict the permissible construction activities within these sites.
The City acknowledges this comment. As stated in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project in January 2024, the proposed project is programmatic in nature and does not directly propose any physical development. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to prepare a project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (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. Projectspecific 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. As such, the potential conditions within each opportunity site pertaining to hazardous conditions would be addressed in future CEQA documents.
Response to Comment S-1-3
This comment notes that DTSC is unable to determine the exact locations of the proposed sites and their potential to contain hazardous materials. The comment recommends that the City provide further information on the proposed project and each site within future environmental documents, which DTSC may provide additional comments on.
The City acknowledges this comment. As stated in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project in January 2024, future development would be required to prepare a project-specific Phase I 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
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) 2-9 the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300–15332. As such, per DTSC’s request, the potential conditions within each opportunity site pertaining to hazardous conditions would be addressed in future CEQA documents.
Response to Comment S-1-4
This comment states that the City must address the preceding comments to analyze potentially significant impacts under CEQA. This comment recommends coordination with DTSC upon discovery of any hazardous waste projects and provides a reference to the City of Cypress EnviroStor Map.
As previously stated, information regarding the status of each opportunity site pertaining to hazardous materials would be addressed in future project-specific environmental documents, as appropriate. These project-specific environmental documents will reference available Cortese List databases, including EnviroStor.
Response to Comment S-1-5
This comment provides concluding remarks and contact information.
The City acknowledges this comment and looks forward to future communications with DTSC regarding future developments facilitated by the proposed project. 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» -10 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) 3-1
3.0 ERRATA
This section of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides changes to the Draft EIR that have been made to clarify, correct, or add to the environmental impact analysis for the proposed 2021-2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (project). Such changes are a result of further review of, and public comments related to, the Draft EIR. The changes described in this section are generally minor changes that do not constitute significant new information, change the conclusions of the environmental analysis, or require recirculation of the document (State California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15088.5).
Such changes to the Draft EIR are indicated in this section under the appropriate Draft EIR section.
Deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with underline. 1) Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The impact conclusion statement at the beginning of the first paragraph under Threshold 4.4.2 has been revised to accurately reflect that impacts under this threshold would be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated rather than Less Than Significant.
It should be noted that this impact statement was accurately presented in the final paragraph of analysis under this threshold, and in Section 1.0, Executive Summary, of the Draft EIR. This change was made for clarification only and has no effect on the analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft EIR.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Impact. An evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is provided below.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT
I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2024
3 P:\CCP2201.01\Final EIR\Final EIR RTC.docx «06/26/24» -2 This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, before taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a document designed to provide to the public and to local and State governmental agency decision-makers an analysis of potential environmental consequences of a project to support informed decision-making.
This Draft Program EIR (PEIR) has been prepared by the City of Cypress (City) to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the proposed 2021-2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project); to discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid the identified potentially significant environmental impacts.
This PEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
The City is the Lead Agency, and as such, has reviewed all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports for consistency with applicable City regulations and policies and has commissioned the preparation of this PEIR to reflect its own independent judgment.
Data for this PEIR were obtained from on-site field observations; discussion with affected agencies; review of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, and data; and specialized environmental assessments prepared for the project (e.g., air quality, noise, and traffic).
The Executive Summary is intended to highlight the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the proposed project as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. The Executive Summary includes a brief description of the proposed project, areas of controversy known to the City, including issues raised by agencies and the public, a summary of the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project, and a summary of alternatives evaluated in the EIR. This Executive Summary also provides a table summarizing (1) the potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of project implementation and operation; (2) the level of significance prior to implementation of mitigation measures; (3) regulatory compliance measures and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project, and (4) the level of significance after mitigation measures are implemented.
1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is 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 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), and the Zoning Ordinance and would not directly result in physical development. 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. 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. In order for the 2021–2029 Housing Element 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -2 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.
The proposed project divides the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) between the CTCC Specific Plan area, the CBPC Specific Plan area, and the LASP area. Under the proposed project, the majority of the zoning in the CTCC Specific Plan would remain unchanged, the allowable residential density within several parcels of the CTCC Specific Plan Area would increase up to 30 dwelling units per acre to accommodate a maximum of 676 units.1 The existing unit cap of 1,250 units would also 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. With these 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.
The proposed project also includes one opportunity site on Katella Avenue adjacent to the CTCC Specific Plan area (Site #115, 4955 Katella) in the CBPC Specific Plan area. The zoning on this parcel would be amended from a Professional Office/Hotel and Support Commercial zoning designation to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which would accommodate an estimated 321 units.
The remaining RHNA sites would be accommodated within the LASP. The proposed project would expand the maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac to the majority of the LASP area, increasing development potential by approximately 1,317 units. With these amendments, the LASP could accommodate a total of approximately 1,644 units.
Overall, the proposed rezoning actions 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. Table 1.A provides a summary of the proposed project scenario.
Table 1.A: Proposed Project Summary
Specific Plan Proposed Increase In Housing Unit
Capacity
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 1,317
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 676
Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan 321 Total 2,314
Source: City of Cypress Planning Department (2023).
1.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123, this PEIR acknowledges the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved that are known to the City or were raised during the scoping process. The City held a public scoping meeting at the Cypress Community Center on May 2, 2023, to present the 1 Although the revised densities layout could facilitate the development of up to 731 units, the City would impose a unit cap and no more than 676 units would be permitted.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-3 proposed project and to solicit input from interested parties regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in this PEIR.
During the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, the City received one comment letter from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12. Caltrans requested that the proposed project’s potential short- and long-term traffic impacts through the preparation of a Traffic Impact Study, including analysis of vehicles miles traveled (VMT). In addition, the analysis of the proposed project should include the evaluation of potential impacts on the movement of goods, transportation system, and long-range development planning. Lastly, Caltrans indicated that any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State right-of-way would require an encroachment permit and all associated potential environmental concerns must be adequately addressed.
This PEIR addresses the above area of concern in detail, examines project-related and cumulative environmental impacts, identifies significant adverse environmental impacts, and proposes mitigation measures and/or alternatives designed to reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts. Appendix B to this PEIR includes the Initial Study and a copy of the written comment received in response to the NOP. Appendix B also includes a comment summary.
1.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, including those effects that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level. The following is a summary of the impacts that are considered significant adverse and unavoidable after all mitigation is applied. These impacts are also described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Existing Environmental Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
1.4.1 Air Quality
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality.
Specifically, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational pollutant emissions, have the potential to conflict or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans under Indicator 1 (as detailed in Section 4.1, Air Quality), and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
While Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 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 occur under the proposed project. Without quantification to guarantee a less than significant finding, future development projects may still exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (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 project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. In addition, because information regarding operational characteristics of future specific development projects and the associated emissions cannot be determined at the time of this analysis, cumulative growth within the City could result in potential toxic air contaminant (TAC) health risks that could cumulatively contribute to elevated health risks in the City. Therefore, in an 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -4 abundance of caution, the proposed project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable.
1.5 ALTERNATIVES
1.5.1 Alternatives Evaluated in this PEIR
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21100 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. The following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project but that may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the alternatives considered in this PEIR include the following:
• Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative: CEQA requires analysis of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C), the lead agency should proceed to analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. • Reduced Intensity Alternative. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan) would remain unchanged, and no units would be proposed in the CTCC Specific Plan area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative divides the proposed housing units between the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan) area and the LASP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative proposes to accommodate 321 units in the Cypress Business and Professional Center 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. 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. • Alternative 2: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Mixed Density. Under Alternative 2, the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan) would remain unchanged and would be able to accommodate a total of 1,115 units. Alternative 2 also 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 Planned Business Park (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
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-5 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, the proposed project 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.
• Race Course Avoidance Alternative. Under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative, opportunity sites within the CTCC Specific Plan would be modified to avoid and preserve in place key components of the Los Alamitos Race Course, including the track, grandstands, and race course entry. 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 56.5 acres of CTCC Specific Plan area from future development and would reduce the total number of housing units within the CTCC Specific Plan area by approximately 560 units as compared to the proposed project. Overall, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would accommodate an estimated 1,243 units within the CTCC Specific Plan area and approximately 1,754 housing units at the opportunity sites. With the removal of approximately 560 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 3,700 housing units instead of the proposed project’s increase of 4,260 housing units.
1.5.2 Identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the proposed project and the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives and the proposed project.
The No Project Alternative would have the least impact on the environment as the opportunity sites would remain in their existing conditions and would thereby avoid most of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not provide accommodation for the City’s RHNA allocation and the City would not be able to meet its housing obligations as defined by the State RHNA allocations. Because local jurisdictions are required by State law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.) to plan for their fair share of projected housing construction needs in their region and implementation of the No project Alternative would not meet this requirement, a No Project Alternative was considered and rejected by the City of Cypress. In addition, the No Project Alternative cannot be the only Environmentally Superior Alternative. As such, the EIR shall also identify the proposed project or one of the other alternatives as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
All impacts under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to or less than the proposed project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts on the environment because the opportunity sites would be developed at a reduced density, thereby reducing most of 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -6 the proposed project’s environmental impacts. However, 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 as required by State law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.).
In addition, 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 key historic elements of the Los Alamitos Race Course, thereby reducing most of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. However, 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.
As such, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. With the exception of air quality, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on the environmental impact areas analyzed in this PEIR. In contrast, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality, and greater environmental impacts associated with energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Further, implementation of the proposed project would meet all of the identified project objectives, including meeting the City’s RHNA requirement of 3,936 as required by State law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.). Accordingly, it is determined that the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because implementation would result in the least environmental impacts while meeting all of the project’s objectives.
1.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 1.A identifies the potential project environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation is incorporated into the project. Environmental topics addressed in this PEIR include Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities.
1.6.1 Secondary Effects of Mitigation Measures
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D), if any mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed. The mitigation measures proposed (as listed on Table 1.A) require the Applicant/Developer to provide the City with lighting, grading, excavation or other construction plans, or provide evidence that the project would adhere to existing programs, regulations, or recommendations in technical reports. The regulations and policies listed in the mitigation measures have been evaluated during their respective adoptions or approval processes. No secondary effects related to the proposed mitigation measures are expected to occur.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-7 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.2: Air Quality
Threshold 4.2.1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Significant and Unavoidable Impact. 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 longterm operational pollutant emissions. Although there is no feasible mitigation to reduce operational pollutant emissions to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the implementation of all feasible measures to reduce operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 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 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 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 the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots.
Project Applicants shall use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -8 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Threshold 4.2.2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, PM2.5, or PM10 emissions. According to SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the significance thresholds are generally not considered to result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Therefore, based on the fact that emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed any of the air quality significance thresholds for any criteria pollutants, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable air quality impact. Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements (as specified in RCM AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4), construction impacts related to the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under applicable NAAQS or CAAQS would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the City. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. Given the extremely low level of CO concentrations in the City, and lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly or result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Impacts related to CO hot spots would be less than significant.
While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 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 occur 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.
Refer to Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1.
Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM AQ-1: 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM AQ-2: 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM AQ-3: 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM AQ-4: 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM AQ-5: All future projects shall comply with the latest Energy Code and Title 24 solar requirements for new residential development.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Threshold 4.2.3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the localized significance thresholds established by SCAQMD. In order to further reduce construction impacts, the project would comply with emission reduction measures required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rule 403. With implementation of RCM AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4, the potential health impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure RCMs AQ-1 through AQ-4. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.2.4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Residential land uses could result in generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment. However, unlike odor-generating land uses such as wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solidwaste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities, these are not considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts from potential odors No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-9 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation generated from future housing development associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.
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. Additionally, 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. Therefore, impacts associated with other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant.
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed project is the South Coast Air Basin. Air pollution is inherently a cumulative impact measured across an air basin. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, PM2.5, or PM10 emissions.
However, even with the with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and compliance with regulatory requirements through implementation of RCM AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4, operational impacts from criteria pollutant emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, which could hinder the attainment of air quality standards. Therefore, air quality emissions associated with future development that may occur under the proposed project could result in cumulatively considerable impacts, even with implementation of mitigation.
Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures RCM AQ-1 through AQ-4 and Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
4.4: Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.4.1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Several of the opportunity sites for residential development identified in the City of Cypress’ (City) General Plan 2021–2029 Housing Element overlap with the Los Alamitos Race Course, which qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Additionally, several of the opportunity sites contain structures along Lincoln Avenue that are of historic age or could be of historic age upon redevelopment. The proposed project is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance and would not directly result in physical development. Further, the specific location and configuration of future development at the LARC and Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites has not yet been determined and is not under consideration as part the programmatic update. As such, impacts to historical resources under the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.4.2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
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 project has 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. With the implementation of RCM CUL-1, project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM CUL-1: 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.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.4.3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. No known human remains are present on the project site, and there are no facts or evidence to support the idea that Native Americans or people of European descent are buried on the project site. 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. 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 Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM CUL-2: In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to 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 Less Than Significant Impact.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -10 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 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.
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.
Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. Under the 2045 General Plan build-out assumptions, 1,742 new households could be developed on and around the site of the Los Alamitos Race Course, which was identified in this section’s analysis as a historically significant cultural resource. Because this development is reasonably foreseeable, the loss of the LARC would have the potential to occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project moves forward. Further, as the proposed project does not include any physical development of the LARC, these potential impacts to the LARC would be evaluated on a project-specific basis as future development projects are proposed. Each development proposal received by the City shall be subject to the requirements of CEQA, including an environmental review, if applicable. If there were any potential for significant impacts to cultural resources as a result of reasonably foreseeable development projects in Cypress, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. As such, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.5: Energy
Threshold 4.5.1: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. The proposed project is estimated to consume 12,540,998.1 gallons of gasoline and 3,993,660.6 gallons of diesel fuel during construction, which would increase the annual construction generated fuel use in Orange County by approximately
0.1 percent for gasoline fuel usage and 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage. As such, project construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. 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. It is not expected that future residential development would include any unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. In addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs. The proposed project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. For these reasons, fuel consumption during construction would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Operation. The estimated potential increase in electricity demand associated with the 2,314 additional housing units that would be allowed under the proposed project is 8,482,740.0 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, which would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by approximately less than 0.1 percent. Electrical and natural gas demand associated with project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. All future residential development would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the latest Title 24 standards.
Fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is estimated at approximately 920,640.0 gallons of gasoline and 111,188.8 gallons of diesel fuel per year, which would increase the annual fuel use in Orange County by approximately 0.1 percent for gasoline fuel usage and approximately 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
As such, the buildout of the 2,314 additional housing units that would be allowed under the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-11 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Threshold 4.5.2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. Energy usage during project-related construction activities would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange County, and the State’s available energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, 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 No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Energy Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed project would result in an increase in demand for electricity, this increase would not require SCE to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial environmental impacts. The proposed project, in combination with cumulative development, is well within SCE’s system-wide net annual increase in electricity supplies over the 2018 to 2030 period, and there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for estimated net increases in energy demands. Similarly, additional natural gas infrastructure is not anticipated due to cumulative development.
The proposed project’s share of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SoCalGas service area would be negligible. It is anticipated that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas demand of cumulative development without additional facilities. In addition, both SCE and SoCalGas demand forecasts include the growth contemplated by the proposed project and the other cumulative development within their respective service areas. Increased energy efficiency to comply with building energy efficiency standards would reduce energy consumption on a per-square-foot basis. Furthermore, utility companies are required to increase their renewable energy sources to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate of 60 percent renewable supplies by 2030. SCE and SoCalGas plan to continue to provide reliable service to their customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand. Transportation energy use would also increase; however, this transportation energy use would not represent a major amount of energy use when compared to the amount of existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips and VMT throughout Orange County and the region. The proposed project and cumulative development are required to comply with various federal and State government legislation to improve energy efficiency in buildings, equipment, and appliances, and reduce VMT. As such, the proposed project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 4.7.1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD then requires the construction GHG emissions to be amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years, added to the operational emissions, and compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier. The proposed project would generate 64,871 MT CO2e during construction. When annualized over the 30-year life of the project, annual emissions would be 2,162.4 MT CO2e. Including construction emissions, 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 proposed project was evaluated based on the efficiency-based threshold.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the facilitation of 2,314 additional housing units within the City with a corresponding population increase of 4,605 residents. The proposed project would result in per service population 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.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -12 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Threshold 4.7.2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan and SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. The proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, Executive Order B-30-15, SB 32, and AB 197 and would be consistent with applicable State plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. 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.
Mitigation Measure 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.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis of impacts related to GHG emissions is inherently cumulative. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would have no conflict with applicable statewide and regional climate action measures. In addition, as discussed above, the project’s operational-related GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold. GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, and therefore the cumulative impact would also be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Refer to Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.10: Land Use and Planning
Threshold 4.10.1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the City of Cypress’ (City) General Plan 2019–2029 Housing Element update and rezoning program would result in changes in land use in some cases, as described in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR, Project Description. These changes would occur on the Lincoln Avenue and Katella Avenue opportunity sites described in the Draft Housing Element. As these areas are currently urbanized, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, project impact is less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
No mitigation required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.10.2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, 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, any 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 Housing Element Update and the necessary conforming changes to land use designations, zoning, and Specific Plans, the 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, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community because land use changes proposed within the City are intended to tie into the existing uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Development would occur within existing areas of development, which is not expected to divide an established community. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with respect to consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Specific Plans because the project would include necessary document amendments to ensure consistency. These changes would not have cumulative impacts because they are administrative actions to properly reflect existing uses. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed zoning changes and updated land use designations would be required to adhere to all applicable development policies and guidelines. Because the City’s General Plan 2045 buildout assumption is already anticipated and accounted for in the City’s General Plan, implementation of the City of Cypress Housing Element Update would not contribute to a cumulative effect due to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Consequently, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
No mitigation required. Less Than Significant Impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-13 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.11: Noise
Threshold 4.11.1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Threshold 4.11.2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Threshold 4.11.3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Cumulative Noise Impacts.
4.12: Population and Housing
Threshold 4.12.1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 located in urbanized settings with a full range of public services and utilities. As such, 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.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the buildout of the households under the baseline General Plan buildout scenario could result in cumulatively significant population increases. However, future development allowed under the proposed project would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA. In addition, future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project, as well as the remaining development associated with the City’s General Plan 2045 build-out assumptions, would be required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicable development regulations. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project are not considered to be cumulatively considerable.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.13: Public Services
Threshold 4.13.1(i): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the population served by the OCFA 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 minimums identified 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. Further, adherence to Standard Condition PS-1 would be required to coordinate with OCFA to determine the appropriate development impact fees required for the project in order to offset potential impact to OCFA staffing and service ability. Therefore, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measure 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.
Less Than Significant Impact.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -14 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Threshold 4.13.1(ii): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an officer-to-resident ratio of 1.0 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 in order 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 No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.13.1(iii): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately 547 additional students in the CSD, 25 in the CESD, 64 students in the LOSAL (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. In addition, 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure 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.
Cumulative Public Services Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the buildout of the additional households could result in a cumulatively significant impact to public services within the City. However, developers of future residential development projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project, as well as the remaining development associated with the City’s General Plan 2045 build-out assumptions, would be required to analyze potential impacts to public services and pay their fair share of development impact fees. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project on public services are not considered to be cumulatively considerable.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.15: Transportation
Threshold 4.15.1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Threshold 4.15.2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Threshold 4.15.3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Threshold 4.15.4: Result in inadequate emergency access?
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-15 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Cumulative Transportation Impacts.
4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.16.1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less Than Significant Impact. No tribal archaeological resources have been previously recorded within or in the vicinity of any of the proposed opportunity sites, and none were discovered as a result of the records searches conducted for properties on and adjacent to the sites. 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. No information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the project site was provided by any of the Native American Tribes contacted as part of the AB 52 and SB 18 process for the proposed project. 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 project area, and there are no known tribal cultural resources on the project site. 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 of or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.16.2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact. Native American consultation for the proposed project was conducted in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52. As part of these consultations, review of the SLF by the NAHC yielded negative results. Subsequently, Native American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to consult on the proposed project. Because the Tribal outreach process yielded no knowledge of significant Tribal resources, it can reasonably be assumed that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.
Because future development of the project’s opportunity sites could require excavation and other potentially disturbing aspects of construction into soils, there is a potential to uncover undiscovered tribal cultural resources during excavation, including human remains. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 sets forth requirements for the treatment of unearthed archaeological resources. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-2 requires compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains. The proposed project would be required to adhere to these Regulatory Compliance Measures. Impacts of the impact of the proposed project to previously unknown deposits with tribal cultural significance or previously undiscovered human remains would be less than significant.
Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to known and unknown tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or otherwise determined by the lead agency to be significant.
Further, each individual development proposal received by the City is required to undergo individual environmental review pursuant to CEQA, including SB 18 and AB 52 outreach. Impacts of other projects on tribal cultural resources are generally sitespecific resulting from ground disturbing activities, which would require unique impact analysis to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant impacts.
Additionally, when resources can be assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources are less than No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -16 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation significant. As such, adherence to the regulatory standards in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 would ensure that the proposed project, together with the related projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources.
4.17: Utilities and Service System
Threshold 4.17.1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact.
Water. Future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would result in approximately 86,834,354 gallons per year (gpy) or 267 af per year (afy) of indoor water use. The proposed project’s anticipated water usage accounts for 1.7 percent of the 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 GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area. Additionally, some of the 2,314 units would replace existing urban uses that currently use water. 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 water. 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.
As such, the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities or infrastructure and impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 240 af of wastewater annually, or 214,116 gallons of wastewater per day. This accounts for 0.11 percent of OCSD’s 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. Additionally, some of the 2,314 units would replace existing urban uses that currently consume water and are assumed in the water use projections. 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 wastewater treatment. 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. In addition, as requested by OCSD, future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to provide project-specific impact analysis via sewer study to demonstrate the adequacy of existing wastewater facilities to properly transport and treat wastewater flows generated by the future project. As such, the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities or infrastructure and impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater/Drainage. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project which disturbs 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 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 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). 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, and no mitigation is required. Additionally, some of the 2,314 units would replace existing urban uses that currently contribute to stormwater flows and given that existing urban uses are probably older structures and not built to current stormwater standards there could be a net benefit. 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 stormwater drainage. 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.
As such, the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities or infrastructure and impacts would be less than significant.
Electric Power. 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 No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (01/29/24) 1-17 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 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. Additionally, some of the 2,314 units would replace existing urban uses that are older structures not built to current Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, all of which consume electricity, thereby likely decreasing any net gain in electricity consumption. 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 electric power. 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. As such, the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical facilities or infrastructure and impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas. The estimated potential increase in natural gas demand at the opportunity sites is anticipated to be approximately 25,701,324 KBTU per year, or approximately 257,075 therms per year. Therefore, operation of the 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, anticipated natural gas consumption by the proposed project is 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 impact. Additionally, some of the 2,314 units would replace existing urban uses that are older structures not built to current Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, several of which consume natural gas, thereby likely decreasing the net gain in natural gas consumption. 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 natural gas. 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. As such, the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities or infrastructure and impacts would be less than significant.
Telecommunication Facilities. Any future projects that would be developed in accordance with the proposed project would be responsible for constructing adequate tele-communication 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. Therefore, the project impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.17.2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. 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.
Development of 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 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.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «01/29/24» -18 Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Regulatory Compliance Measures, and Level of Significance Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Threshold 4.17.3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 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 the 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 the 2,314 units 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.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.17.4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. 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 (less than 1 percent) compared to the total amount of solid waste received by the three landfills. The proposed project would not require the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of solid waste disposal that would result in significant environmental impact and the OCWR solid waste disposal system would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Furthermore, some of the 2,314 housing units 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.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the buildout of the additional households could result in cumulatively significant impact to utility facilities and capacity. However, developers of future residential development projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project, as well as the remaining projects associated with the City’s General Plan 2045 build-out assumptions, would be required to analyze potential impacts to utilities systems, ensure that utility providers would have adequate capacity and supply to serve the residential projects as well as existing conditions, and would be required to comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, and federal law. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project would not be considered cumulatively considerable.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «01/04/24» 2-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the proposed 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project) in Cypress, California. The City of Cypress (City) is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project”1 and, as such, is the “Lead Agency” for the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary action on the proposed project. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City and any Responsible Agencies during deliberations on the proposed project. CEQA Section 21069 defines a “Responsible Agency” as a public agency other than the Lead Agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The approvals and permits associated with the proposed project are described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.
The City, as Lead Agency, determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an EIR would be required to more fully evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts that may result from development of the proposed project. As a result, this EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). This EIR also complies with the procedures established by the City for the implementation of CEQA.
Questions regarding the preparation of this document and City review of the proposed project should be referred to the following person:
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
City of Cypress Community Development Department
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Phone: (714) 229-6720
Email: [email protected]
2.1 PURPOSE AND TYPE OF EIR/USES OF THE EIR
This EIR has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. As the Lead Agency, the City has the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project. In that capacity, the City has decided to prepare this EIR and, after the public review process, will decide whether to certify the Final EIR.
The City and any Responsible Agencies have the authority to make decisions on discretionary actions relating to development of the proposed project. As stated previously, this EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City and Responsible Agencies during deliberations on the proposed project. No Responsible Agencies have been identified for this project. This EIR evaluates a reasonable worst-case scenario of potential impacts associated with the 1 As defined in Public Resources Code Section 21067.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «01/04/24» -2 proposed project and identifies feasible mitigation and alternatives for any identified potentially significant impacts.
This EIR will serve as a Program EIR (PEIR) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168.
According to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared for a series of actions that are related geographically, as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions, or in connection with the issuance of plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program (per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168(a)). The advantages of a PEIR include the ability to provide a more exhaustive consideration of alternatives and cumulative effects than might be possible in a single project-specific EIR; to avoid duplication of basic policy considerations; provide the lead agency with the ability to consider broad program-wide policies and mitigation measures that would apply to specific projects or later activities within the overall program (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168 (b)); and use the PEIR when examining later activities to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168(c)). If a later activity is found to be within the scope of the PEIR, no further environmental documents would be required.
As the Lead Agency for the proposed project under CEQA, the City must consider the information contained in the Final EIR prior to taking any discretionary action with respect to the proposed project. This EIR provides information to the Lead Agency and other public agencies, the general public, and decision-makers regarding the potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project. The purpose of the public review of this EIR is to evaluate the adequacy of the environmental analysis in terms of compliance with CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 states the following regarding the standards from which adequacy is judged:
“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(a) states:
“The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «01/04/24» 2-3
2.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
In compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to promote opportunities for the public and other public agencies to participate in the environmental review process. The City conducted the scoping process and held a public scoping meeting, prepared an IS, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project, and determined that an EIR was required to evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project and related actions. Further, this Draft EIR is subject to public review and comment. These topics related to the environmental review process are described in further detail below.
2.2.1 Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
The City, as the Lead Agency, issued an NOP for the EIR on April 21, 2023, which was distributed via the State Clearinghouse (SCH). The SCH issued a project number for the EIR (SCH No.2023040560).
The primary purpose of preparing the IS was to scope the environmental analysis and evaluate potential environmental impacts that may result from project approval. The IS was also used to scope out environmental issues that were determined to be “less than significant” or “no impact.” The IS is attached as Appendix A to this EIR.
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to responsible agencies and individuals for a period of 30 days, during which time written comments were solicited pertaining to environmental issues and topics that the EIR should evaluate.
Responses to the NOP were received from the following agency:
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12
2.2.2 Scoping Meeting
The City held a public scoping meeting to present the original project and to solicit input from interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the Draft EIR. The in-person scoping meeting was held on May 2, 2023. No environmental issues or concerns were raised at the scoping meeting. Appendix B includes copies of written comments received in response to the NOP.
2.2.3 Areas of Controversy
Issues and concerns raised in response to the NOP or at the scoping meeting included:
• Comments from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 regarding:
traffic impact study, transportation planning, system planning, active transportation planning, goods movement and encroachment permit.
This is not an exhaustive list of areas of controversy, but rather key issues that were raised during the scoping process. This EIR addresses each of these areas of concern or controversy in detail, examines project-related and cumulative environmental impacts, identifies significant adverse environmental impacts, and proposes mitigation measures and/or alternatives designed to reduce 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «01/04/24» -4 or eliminate potentially significant impacts. Appendix A to this EIR includes the NOP and IS.
Appendix B includes a copy of the written comment letters received in response to the NOP.
2.2.4 EIR Public Review Period
This EIR is being distributed to numerous public agencies and other interested parties for review and comment. This EIR is also available at the following locations and on the City’s website for the proposed project (add website location):
City of Cypress
Community Development Department
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Cypress Branch Library
5331 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
All comments received from agencies and individuals on this EIR will be accepted during the public comment period, which will not be less than 45 days, in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. All comments on this EIR should be sent to the following City contact person:
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
City of Cypress Community Development Department
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Email: [email protected]
Following the close of the public comment period, the City will prepare written responses to all written comments received during the public comment period and will compile these comments and responses, together with any text changes to this EIR, into a Final EIR that includes all of the information required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR will be provided to all public agencies that submitted comments on this EIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR. The Final EIR shall consist of the EIR or a revision of the draft; comments and recommendations received on the EIR either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the EIR; the response of the City to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process and in comments submitted on the Draft EIR; and any other information added by the City.
The City will make findings regarding the extent and nature of the impacts as presented in the Final EIR. The Final EIR must be certified as complete by the City Council prior to making a decision on the requested entitlements for the proposed project. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings regarding the proposed project.
2.3 SCOPE OF THIS EIR
As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this EIR must identify the effects of the proposed project that are determined to be significant. Environmental topics addressed in this EIR include: Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; and Utilities and Service Systems.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «01/04/24» 2-5
2.4 FORMAT OF THE EIR
This EIR contains the information and analysis required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, including Section 15122–15131, and is generally organized as follows:
• Chapter 1.0: Executive Summary. Chapter 1.0 contains the Executive Summary of this EIR, which lists all significant project impacts, feasible mitigation measures that have been recommended to reduce any significant impacts of the proposed project, and the level of significance of each impact following feasible mitigation. The summary is presented in a table format.
• Chapter 2.0: Introduction. Chapter 2.0 contains a discussion of the purpose and intended use of this EIR.
• Chapter 3.0: Project Description. Chapter 3.0 includes a discussion of the proposed project’s opportunity sites location and existing environmental setting, overall project relationship to the City’s General Plan, background and related planning documents, description of the proposed project and opportunity sites, projects objectives, and discretionary actions, permits, and other approvals.
• Chapter 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis. Chapter 4.0 includes an analysis of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. It is organized into the following topical sections: air quality, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, , land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources and utilities and service system. The environmental setting discussions describe the “existing conditions” of the environment on the proposed projects opportunity sites as they pertain to the environmental issues being analyzed (CEQA Guidelines §15125).
The impact discussions identify and focus on the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The direct and indirect effects of the proposed project on the environment are identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects, as necessary (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2[a]).
Chapter 4.0 also includes within the analysis of each environmental topic a discussion of the cumulative effects of the proposed project when considered in combination with other projects causing related impacts, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. For the purposes of the EIR, a summary of build-out projections contained in the adopted General Plan and related planning documents was developed to determine potential cumulative impacts. LSA developed the General Plan build-out assumptions by reviewing the land use assumptions in the City’s Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) and adjusting them to reflect anticipated growth allowed under the General Plan and or approved projects in a related planning document.
The discussions of mitigation measures identify and describe feasible measures that could minimize or lessen potentially significant impacts for each significant environmental effect identified in this EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15126[e]). The levels of significance before and after 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «01/04/24» -6 mitigation are provided. Significant unavoidable adverse effects are identified where mitigation is not expected to reduce the effects to less than significant levels. • Chapter 5.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. In accordance with CEQA, the alternatives discussion in Chapter 5.0 describes a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the proposed project and are capable of eliminating or substantially reducing any of the proposed project’s significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a less than significant level. The alternatives analyzed in Chapter 5.0 include three alternatives: (1) the No Project Alternative, (2) the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and (3) Alternative 2 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Mixed Density. • Chapter 6.0: Other CEQA Considerations. Chapter 6.0 contains discussions on the following topics as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126: (1) growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project; and (2) whether there are any significant irreversible environmental changes caused by the proposed project, adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project for which either no mitigation or only partial mitigation is feasible. • Chapter 7.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d) requires that public agencies adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any changes that it has either required in a project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. Chapter 7.0 provides a list of all proposed project mitigation measures, defines the parties responsible for implementation and review, and identifies the timing for implementation of each mitigation measure. • Chapter 8.0: Significant Unavoidable Impacts. Chapter 8.0 summarizes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated identified in Chapters 4.0 and
6.0. • Chapter 9.0: List of Preparers. Chapter 9.0 provides the organizations and persons contacted during preparation of this EIR, the EIR preparers and technical report authors, and other experts involved in the preparation of this EIR.
• Chapter 10.0: References. Chapter 10.0 provides the references used in this EIR.
2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.
Informational details from the documents that have been incorporated by reference are summarized in the appropriate sections of this EIR, along with descriptions regarding how the public may review these documents. All documents are available for review at the City of Cypress, Community Development Department. These documents include:
• City of Cypress General Plan (available online at: https://www.cypressca.org/departments/ community-development/planning-division)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «01/04/24» 2-7 • City of Cypress Municipal Code (available online at: https://qcode.us/codes/cypress/) • Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan • Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan
• Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «01/04/24» -8 This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING As illustrated by Figure 3-1, Regional Location, the City of Cypress (City) (also referred to as the “planning area”) includes approximately 6.6 square miles, in the northwestern portion of the County of Orange, California. The City is bordered on the north by the cities of La Palma and Buena Park, on the east by the cities of Anaheim and Stanton, on the south and west by the city of Los Alamitos, and on the west by the cities of Long Beach, Hawaiian Gardens, and Lakewood. Regional vehicular access to the City is provided via State Route 22 (SR-22), Beach Boulevard (State Route 39 [SR-39]), State Route 91 (SR-91), and Interstates 405 and 605 (I-405 and I-605, respectively).
Cypress began as a small dairy community established along Pacific Electric's rail line between Los Angeles and Santa Ana in the early 1900s. The new town began to develop around the rail station at what is now the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Walker Street. Soon after the City's incorporation in 1956, Cypress began a period of rapid development that primarily included the addition of single-family housing tracts. Lincoln Avenue emerged as the City’s primary commercial corridor. The Los Alamitos Race Course was built on a 435-acre ranch in the southern portion of the City. Cypress College opened in 1966 on approximately 110 acres southeast of Valley View Street and Lincoln Avenue. The master-planned Cypress Business Park was developed in the mid-1970s and 1980s, providing employment opportunities for the City's residents as well as residents of neighboring communities in the region. An extensive parks and recreation system has been developed to serve City residents and workers. Since the closure of the Cypress Golf Course in the southern portion of the City in 2004, several areas adjacent to the Los Alamitos Race Course have undergone redevelopment, transforming into a Costco, the Cottonwood Church campus, senior housing, and a new sports park. A mixed-use development with 251 residential units, a hotel, and commercial space, which includes The Square retail center, was approved in May 2020 for a 13-acre property at the northeast corner of Siboney and Katella Avenue. Belmont, a 135-unit residential development was approved in May 2021 for a 7-acre property southwest of Vessels Circle, and Citrus Square, a 98-unit senior housing development was approved in October 2021 for the Cypress School District’s former administrative and maintenance facility at the northeast corner of Moody Street and Orange Avenue. All three of these projects are currently under construction. As shown in Figure 3-2, Aerial Imagery, the City is now almost completely built out and contains very limited undeveloped land.
The City is situated within an area typified by a Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by mild winters and dry, warm summers. The interactions of topography and local atmospheric circulation cause this region of California to experience high quantities of photochemical smog.
The City receives its water from two major sources: the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and the groundwater basin underlying the northern half of Orange County. Imported water comes mainly from the Colorado River, with a smaller amount being acquired from the State Water Project in northern California. Coyote Creek, Carbon Creek, Moody Creek, and the Stanton Storm Channel comprise the regional drainage systems for the area.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
City of
Artesia
City of
Cerritos
City of
Hawaiian
Gardens
City of
Lakewood
City of
Long Beach
City of
Fullerton
City of
Anaheim
City of
Seal Beach
City of
Westminster
City of
Buena Park
City of
Cypress
City of Los
Alamitos
City of
Stanton
City of
La Palma
City of
Garden
Grove
Artesia Cerritos
Los Alamitos
Rossmoor
Cypress
Hawaiian
Gardens
La Palma
Stanton
Buena Park
SOURCE: ArcGIS Online Topographic Map (2020)
I:\CCP2201.01\G\Regional_LocaƟon.ai (7/24/2023)
FIGURE 3-1
2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element ImplementaƟon Project Regional LocaƟon
LEGEND
City Boundary
Ã73
Ã261
Ã55
§¨¦10
§¨¦105
§¨¦110
§¨¦710 §¨¦605
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
City of Cypress
Project Vicinity
0 2100 4200
FEET
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-4 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
Katella Ave
Bloomfield Ave
Valley View St
Cerritos Ave
Lincoln Ave
Ball Rd
Knott St
La Palma Ave
Carson St
Del Amo Blvd
Knott Ave
Moody St
Maxar
SOURCE: Maxar Imagery (8/2021)
I:\CCP2201.01\GIS\Pro\Cypress Housing Element Implementation.aprx (7/24/2023 10:24 AM) FIGURE 3-2
2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project 0 0.25 0.5 Miles
City Boundary
Aerial Imagery
Coyote
Creek
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 3-7 Urbanization within the City has eliminated any sizeable expanses of undisturbed native vegetation.
The City’s terrain is nearly flat, with a gradual downward slope from the northeast to the southwest.
3.2 CYPRESS GENERAL PLAN
The Cypress General Plan represents a comprehensive approach for managing the community’s future. The Cypress General Plan also reflects the City’s long-term strategy for directing physical, economic, and cultural development. The General Plan is a legally binding policy document intended to serve as a guide by City officials, developers, and the community when making decisions regarding future development and the management of land and natural resources.
In relation to development, the Cypress General Plan serves as a blueprint guiding the type of community the City desires for its future, and also provides the means by which that desired future can be obtained. The General Plan establishes goals, policies, and directions and uses text, maps, and graphic illustrations to express the organization of the physical, environmental, economic, and social environment sought by the community in order to achieve a healthful, functional, and desirable place in which to reside and work.
3.2.1 State General Plan Requirements
Government Code Section 65302 et seq. requires that every city and county in the State of California (State) prepare and adopt a “comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” As further mandated by the State, the General Plan must serve to:
• Identify land use, circulation, environmental, economic, and social goals and policies for the City and its surrounding planning area as they relate to land use and development; • Provide a framework within which the City Council can make land use decisions; • Provide citizens the opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making process affecting the City; and
• Inform citizens, developers, decision-makers, and other agencies, as appropriate, of the City's basic rules that will guide both environmental protection and land development decisions within the City.
State law requires that the General Plan include the following seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. While these seven elements are required, State law also allows flexibility in how each local jurisdiction structures these elements. In addition to these seven elements, the existing Cypress General Plan includes a Growth Management Element and an Air Quality Element which address issues beyond those required by State law. While State law does not mandate discussion of these issues, once adopted, “optional” issues have the same force and effect as policies related to the General Plan elements required by the State. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24»
3.2.2 General Plan Consistency
In addition to providing a comprehensive strategy for directing future growth, State law mandates that the General Plan be internally consistent. Specifically, Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the various components of a General Plan to, “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” The three primary components required to maintain internal General Plan consistency are as follows:
1. Equal Status among General Plan Elements. All elements of a General Plan have equal status and no one General Plan element takes precedence over any other. As such, the General Plan elements must be consistent in order to avoid potential conflicts between or among the elements.
2. Consistency between Elements and within Individual Elements. All General Plan elements must be consistent with each other. For example, policies and implementation strategies outlined in one General Plan element must not require or encourage an action that would be prohibited or discouraged by policies and implementation strategies in another General Plan element. This includes consistency between Specific Plans and the jurisdiction’s General Plan.
3. General Plan Text, Diagram, and Map Consistency. Text, diagrams, and maps must be consistent with one another and with goals and policies outlined in all elements of the General Plan.
It is also important to note that the General Plan aims to balance competing objectives and community priorities. As such, in interpreting goals, policies, and implementation strategies in the General Plan, care must be given to determine the “best fit” for the action to be taken, aimed towards achieving the City’s short-term and long-term priorities.
3.2.3 Comprehensive Nature of the General Plan
The Cypress General Plan establishes goals, policies, and implementation strategies aimed at guiding the physical, social, environmental, and economic environments. In addition to addressing the Statemandated components of a General Plan, the Cypress General Plan also responds to current and future issues the City faces. In order to fully address these issues, the Cypress General Plan planning area encompasses the current City limits, while also keeping in mind the regional context of its planning efforts. For example, certain issues such as traffic, transit, air quality, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have both a local and regional component. In such cases, the General Plan addresses the degree to which the City’s interests, values, and concerns are congruent or conflict with existing regional policies. Furthermore, it is also the role of the Cypress General Plan to define the extent to which the City can address local issues and those issues that require cooperative actions among several jurisdictions.
3.3 BACKGROUND AND PLANNING DOCUMENTS
The City recently updated its Housing Element for the 6th Cycle Planning Period from 2021 to 2029.
To comply with State Housing law, the City’s Housing Element was updated to ensure the City’s policies and programs can accommodate the estimated housing growth needs identified in the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 3-9 Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the Planning Period. Per the RHNA, the City is allocated 3,936 dwelling units to accommodate the estimated growth needed at various income levels. The 2021–2029 Housing Element included a candidate site analysis to accommodate the 3,936-unit RHNA and any estimated “carryover” from the 5th Cycle Housing Element, and an additional analysis of candidate sites to address future “no net loss” provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 166. As required by State Housing law, including Assembly Bill (AB) 1397, the 2021–2029 Housing Element identified land in the City’s ability to accommodate this estimated growth through available sites and appropriate zoning.
Pursuant to State law, the City adopted an update to its Housing Element covering the 6th Cycle Planning Period from October 2021–October 2029. The 2021–2029 Housing Element addresses the needs of all income levels. It contains an analysis and update of housing and population data based on the most current conditions and sources of information. The revisions incorporate current population and housing projections based upon SCAG’s RHNA adopted in March 2021 for the 6th Cycle Planning Period.
The Housing Element calls for the continuation of existing policies and programs to enable the City to meet future housing demands for all economic segments of the community that address housing quality and quantity, housing affordability and access, equal housing opportunities and natural resources, and energy efficiency and conservation, and identifies new programs in conformance with recent housing legislation for implementation during the 2021–2029 Housing Element cycle.
The goals of the Housing Element are to promote housing that helps to create safe, livable, and sustainable neighborhoods, facilitate the construction and provision of quality housing to meet the City’s diverse needs, create opportunities for affordable housing, particularly in vulnerable areas and in areas of opportunity, and promote equitable and accessible housing options and resources.
The 2021–2029 Housing Element does not propose or approve any specific development projects.
The 2021–2029 Housing Element acknowledges and addresses recent State legislation regarding requirements for local density bonus programs, surplus lands, accessory dwelling unit (ADU) streamlining, and removing local barriers to housing. It is not possible to predict which properties in the City, if any, may propose and qualify for density bonus programs. The 2021–2029 Housing Element includes a policy that requires that a rezoning program be undertaken during the early portion of the 6th Cycle Planning Period to ensure internal consistency between the various elements of the City’s General Plan and its Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the 2021–2029 Housing Element contains several programs that require amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to ensure the provision of adequate and appropriate sites for future housing development to accommodate the City’s unmet housing needs. Future discretionary governmental approval of site-specific housing projects, including those proposing a density bonus component, will require review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, if applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The proposed project would include an update to the City’s General Plan, Specific Plans and Zoning Code and is necessary to provide consistency with the 2021–2029 Housing Element. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-10 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24»
3.3.1.1 Land Use Element
The Land Use Element and the Land Use Policy Map establish the overall policy direction for land use planning decisions in the City. The General Plan Land Use Policy Map displays graphically the location and distribution of land use in Cypress, whereas the text of the Land Use Element describes the form these uses will take, as well as the programs the City will pursue to implement the land use goals.
Goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element shape and reflect the policies and programs contained in the other General Plan elements. For example, the street system and circulation improvements described in the Circulation Element are designed to accommodate the intensity of uses allowed by land use policy. Housing Element programs focus on alleviating unmet housing needs, neighborhood stabilization, and the rehabilitation of housing units.
The Land Use Element is divided into seven sections: Introduction, Relationship to Other Plans and General Plan Elements, Relationship of Existing Plans and Programs to Citywide Economic Development Efforts, Summary of Existing Conditions, Key Land Uses, Description of the Land Use Plan, and Goals and Policies.
3.3.1.2 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan
Specific Plans are designed to implement General Plan goals and policies by designating land uses, densities, development, and design standards in more specific detail. This is accomplished by designating specific locations and intensities for land uses and specific development standards and design guidelines. A specific plan is able to address smaller areas that have unique qualities and require focused planning attention. A specific plan may be designed to implement any of a general plan's elements.
The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP) was approved by the Cypress City Council in 1998. Prior to its approval, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was prepared and adopted by the City Council in October 1998. The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan has subsequently been amended numerous times, including in 2006 to eliminate the maximum front building setback within the Campus Village land use district, in 2009 to create a new Residential R30 District and to provide for transitional housing, supportive housing, and emergency shelters in conjunction with the 2009 Housing Element Update, and in 2016 to create a Commercial Preservation Overlay. An IS/ND was prepared for the 2006 amendment, while an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the 2009 update. An addendum to the 2009 IS/MND was prepared for the 2016 update.
The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area is situated in the northern portion of the City and extends east to west approximately 3.1 miles. Lincoln Avenue is the major east-west commercial corridor for the City. There are a wide variety of land uses within this specific plan, including, low intensity commercial, retail-commercial, service oriented, and residential uses.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 3-11 The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan serves as a comprehensive policy and regulatory document to guide the continued development and redevelopment of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area. As shown in Figure 3-3, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Planned Land Uses, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan is divided into nine different land use districts, which allow a mix of residential, commercial, mobile home park, public and semi-public, quasi-public, and light industrial uses.
3.3.1.3 Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 In June 2018, the City’s voters approved Measure A, which approved the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the submittal of a proposal to a vote of the people of a particular community that does not involve a public agency sponsored initiative is not a project under CEQA. Therefore, the preparation of a CEQA compliance document (such as an IS/MND or an EIR) was not required for the CTCC Specific Plan.
The CTCC Specific Plan establishes a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework for the use and development of approximately 154.4 acres of land in the City. The CTCC Specific Plan area includes the Los Alamitos Race Course property and is generally bounded by Cerritos Avenue to the north, Katella Avenue to the south, and Lexington Drive to the west.
As shown in Figure 3-4, Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 Planned Land Uses, this CTCC Specific Plan area is divided into six land use districts. One of the primary features of the CTCC Specific Plan is the town center district, which is 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.
Additionally, the CTCC Specific Plan provides 20 acres of public park space that will be spread throughout the CTCC Specific Plan Area.
The CTCC Specific Plan’s 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, singlefamily 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.
3.3.1.4 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan The Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (1990 CBPC Specific Plan), for which an EIR was prepared and certified, was approved by the Cypress City Council on April 17, 1990. The 1990 CBPC Specific Plan provided guidance and regulations for the development of the 298.2 gross acres within its planning area, which generally consisted of the area bound by Katella Avenue to the south, Cerritos Avenue to the north, Walker Street to the east, and Denni Street/Lexington Avenue to the west. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-12 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE: Herdman Architecture + Design, ScoƩ Peterson Landscape Design, Inc.
NO SCALE
FIGURE 3-3
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Planned Land Uses
2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element ImplementaƟon Project Commercial Preservation
QP
I:\CCP2201.01\G\LincolnAve_SPLU.ai (1/24/2024)
Lincoln Avenue
Moody Street
Walker Street
Valley View Street
Holder Street
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-14 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
0 450 900
SOURCE: Forma, 12/2017
FEET
FIGURE 3-4
Cypress Town Center and Commons
Specific Plan 2.0 Planned Land Uses
2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element ImplementaƟon Project Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Lexington Drive
Walker Street
Denni Street
Moody Street
Siboney Street
Vessels Circle
Enterprise Drive
Winners Circle
Residential
District
73.6 Ac.
Public Park
District
8.0 Ac.
Public Park
District
9.0 Ac.
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential
District
24.1 Ac.
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR)
District
15.0 Ac.
Town Center
District
17.5 Ac.
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/
SFR/MDR)
District
4.2 Ac.
!
3.0 Ac. Public Park
Overlay
!
kj
kj See Table 2-1, Land Use Plan
Summary Table for explanation
I:\CCP2201.01\G\Cypress_Town_Ctr_Commons_SPLU.ai (1/24/2024) RecreaƟon/Open SpaceCommercial/Mixed UseResidenƟal Uses LEGEND
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-16 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 3-17 The 1990 CBPC Specific Plan included 11.8 acres of Mixed-Use Business Park, 33.4 acres of Professional Office, 21.2 acres of Professional Office and Hotel and Support Commercial uses, 8.2 acres of Mixed Use Business Park/General Retail Commercial, 93.6 acres of renovated golf course, and 130 acres of race track uses within its planning area by establishing policies and zoning designations.
In June 2012, the City approved the Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (2012 CBPC Specific Plan), which made minor adjustments to the permitted range of commercial uses and senior housing and related uses. Figure 3-5, Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan Planned Land Uses, shows the planned land uses within the 2012 CBPC Specific Plan. As shown in Figure 3-5, a large portion of the CBPC Specific Plan area is now subject to the CTCC Specific Plan.
3.3.1.5 City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance implements the policies of the Cypress General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City. The City’s Zoning Ordinance has been adopted to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of residents while preserving and enhancing the City’s aesthetic quality. The City is divided into zoning districts that directly correspond to the land use designations outlined in the Land Use Element of its General Plan. The City’s Zoning Ordinance classifies, regulates, restricts, and separates the use of land and structures, regulates and limits the bulk, height, and type of structures in the various zoning districts, and regulates areas of yards and other open areas abutting and between structures, and regulates the density of population.
3.4 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, 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. 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. The proposed project would update the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan to be “internally consistent,” meaning any and all conflicts must be acknowledged and resolved. 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.
The 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies several adequate sites that are 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 in order to meet its RHNA allocation of 3,936 units. The City has identified several opportunity sites that are candidates for future housing development. The City identified two different potential rezoning scenarios in the 2021– 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-18 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
0 375 750
SOURCE: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF), 11/2011 FEET
FIGURE 3-5
Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan Planned Land Uses
2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element ImplementaƟon Project I:\CCP2201.01\G\Cypress_Business_TownCenter_PLU.ai (7/24/2022) Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0
LEGEND
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-20 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 3-21 2029 Housing Element, one of which was selected as the preferred scenario and has been identified as the proposed project in this Draft EIR.
1 Table 3.A, Proposed Project Opportunity Sites Summary, provides a summary of the proposed project and Figure 3-6, Opportunity Sites, shows the locations of the opportunity sites and their proposed densities under the proposed project.
As shown in Table 3.A, the proposed project divides the City’s RHNA between the CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan area and LASP area. Located on the Los Alamitos Race Course site, the CTCC Specific Plan currently allows the development of residential units throughout seven districts which range in density from 8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to approximately 17 du/ac. As currently approved, the CTCC Specific Plan utilizes maximum density requirements in various districts as well as a maximum unit cap of 1,250 units in the CTCC Specific Plan area.2 Under the proposed project, the majority of the zoning in the CTCC Specific Plan would remain unchanged. The allowable residential density within several parcels of the CTCC Specific Plan Area would increase to up to 30 dwelling units per acre to accommodate an additional 676 units.3 The existing unit cap of
1,250 units would also 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. With these 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.
The proposed project also includes one opportunity site on Katella Avenue adjacent to the CTCC Specific Plan area (Site #115, 4955 Katella) in the CBPC Specific Plan area. The CBPC Specific Plan area limits residential land uses to Senior Housing. The zoning on this parcel would be amended from a Professional Office/Hotel and Support Commercial zoning designation to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, which would accommodate an estimated 321 units. The primary building on the site is a big box type structure which accommodates two tenants. One half of the building is occupied by a gym and the other half of the building is currently vacant (formerly an Office Depot).
Under the proposed project, the remaining RHNA sites would be accommodated within the LASP.
The LASP currently allows for residential development at 30 du/ac within the RM-30 and Residential Mixed Use districts. The proposed project would expand the maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac to the majority of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area, increasing development potential by approximately 1,317 units. With these amendments, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan could accommodate a total of approximately 1,644 units.
1 The second rezoning scenario included in the 2021–2029 Housing Element will be evaluated as a project alternative in the EIR being prepared for the implementation of the 2021–2029 Housing Element. 2 While the unit cap within the CTCC Specific Plan is 1,250 units, the City has approved the 135-unit Belmont project which has been included as an entitled project. Therefore, there are 1,115 remaining units that may be permitted within the CTCC Specific Plan as currently adopted. 3 Although the revised densities layout could facilitate the development of up to 731 units, the City would impose a unit cap and no more than 676 units would be permitted. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-22 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
FIGURE 3-6
Opportunity Sites
2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project FEET
0 1320 2640
I:\CCP2101.01\G\Opportunity_Sites.ai (1/11/2024)
LEGEND
City Boundary
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-24 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 3-25 Overall, the proposed rezoning actions 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. Table 3.A provides a summary of the proposed project scenario.
Table 3.A: Proposed Project Summary
Specific Plan Proposed Increase In
Housing Unit Capacity
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 1,317
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 676
Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan 321 Total 2,314
Source: City of Cypress Planning Department (2023).
The City would be required to hold an election to implement changes to the CTCC Specific Plan. An in-depth evaluation of Alternative 2 is included in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR.
Changes to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the CBPC Specific Plan would be implemented through the City’s typical public hearing process.
The proposed project would update the current General Plan Land Use Element, LASP, CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance to bring the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances into conformity with the City’s recently adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element. Descriptions of the General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and Zoning Ordinance are provided below. Specific text amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning Ordinance that would be made to implement the changes discussed above are provided in Appendix A
3.4.1 Project Summary
The proposed project includes the approval of updates to the General Plan Land Use Element, LASP, CTCC Specific Plan, 2012 CBPC Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. Although the project proposes these updates, future project-specific design details facilitated by approval of these updates are unknown at this time. The proposed project involves the adoption of citywide programmatic policy documents; future project-specific actions would be subject to further environmental review and the regulations contained in the 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
FIGURE 3-65
Opportunity Sites
2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element ImplementaƟon Project FEET
0 1320 2640
I:\CCP2101.01\G\Opportunity_Sites.ai (1/24/2024)
LEGEND
City Boundary
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-26 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 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, 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 this document addresses the 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.
3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The City has established the following intended objectives, which would aid decision-makers in their review of the project and its associated environmental impacts:
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.
In addition to these objectives, the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements contain numerous goals, implementation strategies, and policies to guide the use of land and circulation of the City.
These citywide policies aim to provide a holistic and comprehensive guide for the City, whereas future projects facilitated by project approval would provide a refined direction for distinct areas within the City.
3.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS, PERMITS, AND OTHER APPROVALS This Draft EIR analyzes and documents the environmental impacts of the proposed project and all discretionary actions associated with the project. Refer to Chapter 2.0, Introduction, for further discussion of this document. In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the designated Lead Agency for the proposed project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and project approval. Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed project and/or mitigation. Trustee Agencies are public agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» 3-27 The legislative and discretionary actions to be considered by the City as a part of the proposed project include:
• 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.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
3-28 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\3.0 Project Description.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (01/05/24) 4-1
4.0 EXISTING SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, IMPACTS, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Chapter Format
This chapter contains 11 sections, and each section addresses one environmental topic listed in Appendix G of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15397).
For each environmental impact issue analyzed, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes a detailed explanation of the existing conditions, thresholds of significance that will be applied to determine whether the project’s impacts are significant or less than significant, analysis of the environmental impacts, and a determination of whether the project would have a significant impact if implemented. A “significant impact” or “significant effect” means “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, flora fauna, ambient noise, and object of aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not considered to be a significant effect on the environment.” (14 CCR Section 15382). Each environmental topic section in Chapter 4.0 also includes a discussion of the cumulative effects of the project when considered in combination with other projects, causing related impacts, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130.
Each of the sections is organized into eleven subsections, as follows:
• Introduction briefly describes the topics and issues covered in the section. • Methodology describes the approach and methods employed to complete the environmental analysis for the issue under investigation.
• Existing Environmental Setting describes the relevant physical conditions that exist at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that may influence or affect the issue under investigation. This section focuses on physical site characteristics that are relevant to the environmental topic being analyzed.
• Regulatory Setting lists and discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, plans, and policies that relate to the specific environmental topic and how they apply to the proposed project. • Thresholds of Significance sets forth the thresholds that are the basis of the conclusions regarding significance, which are primarily the criteria in Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Cypress (City) Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, General Plan, or Zoning Code.
• Project Impacts describes the potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the proposed project is implemented. Evidence is presented to show the cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed project and potential changes in 2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (01/05/24) -2 the environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), this EIR is required to “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects” of the proposed project. The magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, and range or other parameters of a potential impact are ascertained to the extent feasible to determine whether impacts may be significant. In accordance with CEQA, potential project impacts, if any, are classified as follows for each of the environmental topics discussed in this EIR. ○ Significant and Unavoidable Impact: If the proposed project is approved with significant and unavoidable impacts, the decision-making body is required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 explaining why the project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects caused by those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. ○ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: This classification refers to potentially significant environmental impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance.
If the proposed project is approved, the decision-making body is required to make findings pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that significant impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible through implementation of mitigation measures. ○ Less Than Significant Impact: Less than significant impacts are environmental impacts that have been identified but are not potentially significant. No mitigation is required for less than significant impacts.
○ No Impact: A “no impact” determination is made when the proposed project is found to have no environmental impact.
• Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the project, if any, prior to mitigation.
• Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures describe relevant and applicable laws or regulations that must be adhered to with respect to the construction and/or operation of the proposed project and would reduce or lessen potential impacts related to a particular issue area and identifies project-specific measures that avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for a potentially significant impact. • Level of Significance after Mitigation describes the significance of potential impacts after implementation of mitigation measures. Potential significant unavoidable impacts are clearly stated in this section.
• Cumulative Impacts refers to potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur as a result of project implementation together with all other reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects in the vicinity of the project site that produce related impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Projects that have progressed to the stage where CEQA review has been initiated are normally treated as
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (01/05/24) 4-3 foreseeable probable future projects. For each of the environmental topics considered in this EIR, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis is defined.
Thresholds of Significance
The threshold questions used in this EIR are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Effects Evaluated in this EIR
The discussion of potential effects is presented by environmental resource area in this EIR. As part of the Initial Study (Appendix B) prepared for the proposed project, the following environmental issues were considered but no adverse impacts were identified. These topics will not be analyzed further in the EIR as no new information identifying any one of them as a potentially significant impact was presented during the scoping process. As a result, there is no further discussion about the following issues in the EIR.
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Biological Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Mineral Resources
• Recreation
Related Projects
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, cumulative impacts are anticipated impacts of the proposed project along with reasonably foreseeable growth. Reasonably foreseeable growth may be based on either:
• A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or • A summary of projections contained in the adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, and that described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
For the purposes of the EIR, a summary of build-out projections contained in the adopted General Plan and related planning documents was developed to determine potential cumulative impacts. As stated above, an analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan and related documents and the proposed project is provided in the cumulative impacts discussion under each individual impact category in Chapter 4.0.
2021- 2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (01/05/24) -4 It is noted that some of the General Plan projects may never be built, or may be approved and built at reduced densities. However, to provide a conservative forecast, the future baseline forecast assumes that all of the related projects will be fully built out by 2045.
The discussion of cumulative impacts “should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness” (Environmental Protection Info. Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 524). A proposal that has not crystallized to the point that it would be reasonable and practical to evaluate its cumulative impacts need not be treated as a probable future project (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 397).
Rather, a potential future project qualifies for inclusion in an analysis of cumulative impacts only to the extent the future project is “both probable and sufficiently certain to allow for meaningful cumulative impact analysis” (Id. at 398; see City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 902 [when “review[ing] the agency’s decision to include information in the cumulative impacts analysis[,] ... [w]e determine whether inclusion was reasonable and practical”]).
LSA developed the General Plan build-out assumptions by reviewing the land use assumptions in the City’s Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) and adjusting them to reflect anticipated growth allowed under the General Plan and/or approved projects in a related planning document. The TAZs contained household data for 2016, which was updated to reflect 2045 anticipated build-out conditions. The updates made to the TAZ household data are described in Table 4.A below. As shown in Table 4.A, the number of households in the City is anticipated to grow by approximately 2,687 between 2016 and 2045 under the baseline General Plan build-out scenario.
Table 4.A: General Plan Cumulative Growth Assumptions
TAZ General Location of City 2016 Households 2045 Households Anticipated
2016–2045 Household
Growth
501 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 752 813 61
504 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 321 381 60
505 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 519 531 12
506 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 1,164 1,193 29
507 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 737 1,237 500
508 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 848 975 127
509 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan 543 699 156
519 Race Track Super Block 0 1,742 1,742
TOTAL 4,884 7,571 2,687
Source: LSA (2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-1
4.1 AIR QUALITY
This section describes the potential air quality impacts for the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (project) using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook1 , and associated updates. In
keeping with these guidelines, this section describes existing air quality and evaluates short-term impacts during construction, long-term emissions associated with operation, and how potential impacts correlate to human health. Air quality modeling data are included in Appendix C.
4.1.1 Methodology
The proposed project does not propose or approve any specific development projects. Under current zoning, the City of Cypress (City) has the capacity to accommodate the development of up to 1,946 new housing units, which includes 504 housing units that are already entitled and/or under construction. Therefore, the proposed rezoning action that is part of the 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. As such, future development of the additional 2,314 units associated with the proposed project would result in criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction and operational sources.
Construction activities would generate emissions from off-road construction equipment, and on roadways as a result of construction-related truck hauling, vendor deliveries, and worker commuting. Operational activities would also generate emissions associated with miscellaneous onsite sources, such as natural gas combustion for cooking, heating, and landscaping equipment, and from operational-related traffic. This analysis used the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.14 to quantify the criteria pollutant emissions for both construction and operation of the proposed project. The maximum daily emissions are calculated for the criteria pollutants. The CalEEMod output sheets are contained in Appendix C of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
CalEEMod provides a platform to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a project. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The model also provides default values for water and energy use. Specifically, the model performs the following calculations:
• Short-term construction emissions associated with demolition, site preparation, grading, building, architectural coating (painting), and paving from off-road construction equipment; onroad mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, delivery, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and roads; and emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from architectural coating and paving.
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-qualityhandbook-(1993), (accessed June 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -2 • Operational emissions, such as on-road mobile vehicle traffic generated by the land uses, fugitive dust associated with roads, volatile emissions of reactive organic gases (ROGs) from architectural coatings, off-road emissions from landscaping equipment, volatile emissions of ROGs from consumer products and cleaning supplies, natural gas usage in the buildings, electricity usage in the buildings, water usage by the land uses, and solid waste disposal by the land uses.
In addition, CalEEMod contains default values and existing regulation methodologies to use in each specific local air quality district region. Appropriate statewide default values can be used if regional default values are not defined. This analysis used project-specific inputs and relevant model default factors for the Orange County area, which is within the SCAQMD jurisdiction for the emissions inventory, consistent with SCAQMD requirements.
4.1.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The City of Cypress is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. Background information about air pollutants and health effects, climate, meteorological conditions, and regional air quality conditions in the Basin and local air quality conditions in the vicinity of the City is provided below.
4.1.2.1 Air Pollutants and Health Effects
Both State and federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Two criteria pollutants, O3 and NO2, are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, SO2, and Pb are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally.
The primary pollutants of concern in the City are O3, CO, and suspended particulate matter.
Significance thresholds established by an air quality district are used to manage total regional and local emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants.
These emission thresholds were established for individual development projects that would contribute to regional and local emissions and could adversely affect or delay the air basin’s projected attainment target goals for nonattainment criteria pollutants.
Because of the conservative nature of the significance thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual development project emissions, there is no direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOX) and ROGs.
Further, 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
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-3 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. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the air quality districts have considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.
Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality.
Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise. These populations are referred to as sensitive receptors.
Air pollutants and their health effects, and other air pollution-related considerations are summarized in Table 4.1.A and are described in more detail below.
Ozone. O3 is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOX. The main sources of ROG and NOx, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including combustion in motor vehicle engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. Automobiles are typically the largest source of ozone precursors. Ozone is referred to as a regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with ozone production through the photochemical reaction process. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, and shortness of breath and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is a class of air pollutants that consists of heterogeneous solid and liquid airborne particles from humanmade and natural sources. Particulate matter is categorized in two size ranges: PM10, for particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and PM2.5, for particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Motor vehicles are the primary generators of particulates, through tailpipe emissions as well as brake pad and tire wear, and entrained road dust.
Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves, industrial facilities, and ground-disturbing activities such as construction are other sources of such fine particulates. These fine particulates are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest parts of the human lung and can cause adverse health effects. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), studies in the United States and elsewhere have demonstrated a strong link between elevated particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks, and studies of children’s health in California have demonstrated that particle pollution may significantly reduce lung function growth in 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -4 Table 4.1.A: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Ozone (O3) Precursor sources:1 motor vehicles,
industrial emissions, and consumer
products.
Respiratory symptoms.
Worsening of lung disease leading to
premature death.
Damage to lung tissue.
Crop, forest, and ecosystem damage.
Damage to a variety of materials, including
rubber, plastics, fabrics, paints, and metals.
Particulate Matter
Less than 2.5
Microns in
Diameter (PM2.5)
Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
Fireplaces, woodstoves.
Windblown dust from roadways, agriculture,
and construction.
Premature death.
Hospitalization for worsening of
cardiovascular disease.
Hospitalization for respiratory disease.
Asthma-related emergency room visits.
Increased symptoms, increased inhaler
usage.
Particulate Matter
Less than 10
Microns in
Diameter (PM10)
Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
Fireplaces, woodstoves.
Windblown dust from roadways, agriculture,
and construction.
Premature death and hospitalization,
primarily for worsening of respiratory
disease.
Reduced visibility and material soiling.
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX)
Any source that burns fuels such as cars,
trucks, construction and farming equipment,
and residential heaters and stoves.
Lung irritation.
Enhanced allergic responses.
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Any source that burns fuels such as cars,
trucks, construction and farming equipment,
and residential heaters and stoves.
Chest pain in patients with heart disease.
Headache.
Light-headedness.
Reduced mental alertness.
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
Industrial processes.
Worsening of asthma: increased symptoms,
increased medication usage, and emergency
room visits.
Lead (Pb) Contaminated soil. Impaired mental functioning in children. Learning disabilities in children.
Brain and kidney damage.
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
Industrial sources, such as chrome platers.
Neighborhood businesses, such as dry
cleaners and service stations.
Building materials and products.
Cancer.
Reproductive and developmental effects.
Neurological effects.
Source: California Air Resources Board (2018).
1 Ozone is not generated directly by these sources. Rather, chemicals emitted by these precursor sources react with sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere.
children.2 Statewide attainment of particulate matter standards could reduce premature deaths, hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disease, asthma-related emergency room visits, and episodes of respiratory illness in California.
Carbon Monoxide. CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles. CO transport is limited – it 2 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).
Website: ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed June 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-5 disperses with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels that adversely affect local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina (chest pain) in persons with serious heart disease. Extremely high levels of CO, such as those generated when a vehicle is running in an unventilated garage, can be fatal.
Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a reddish-brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes.
Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection.
Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless, acidic gas with a strong odor. It is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and diesel. SO2 has the potential to damage materials and can cause health effects at high concentrations. It can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. SO2 also reduces visibility and the level of sunlight at the ground surface.
Lead. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions.
The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery factories. Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The USEPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of USEPA regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.
Volatile Organic Compounds. VOCs (also known as ROGs and reactive organic compounds) form from the combustion of fuels and the evaporation of organic solvents. VOCs are not defined as criteria pollutants, however, because VOCs accumulate in the atmosphere more quickly during the winter, when sunlight is limited and photochemical reactions are slower, they are a prime component of the photochemical smog reaction. There are no attainment designations for VOCs.
Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Some examples of TACs include benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. Potential human health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -6 at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another.
TACs do not have ambient air quality standards, but are regulated by the USEPA, the CARB, and the SCAQMD. In 1998, the CARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. The CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities and land uses that are characterized by use of diesel-fueled engines.3 High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truck stops) were identified as posing the highest risk to adjacent receptors.
Other facilities associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, high volume transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure.
Unlike TACs emitted from industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most diesel particulate matter is emitted from mobile sources—primarily “off-road” sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and truck-mounted refrigeration units, as well as trucks and buses traveling on freeways and local roadways.
The CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is intended to substantially reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and associated health risks through introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel—a step already implemented—and cleaner-burning diesel engines.4 The technology for reducing diesel particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty trucks is well established, and both State and federal agencies are moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control systems to reduce and remediate diesel emissions.
4.1.2.2 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Both State and federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health.
Both the USEPA and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for CO, O3, NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.
3 CARB. 2000a. Fact Sheet – California’s Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. October.
Website: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/factsheets/rrpfactsheet.pdf (accessed June 2023). 4 CARB. 2000b. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. Prepared by the Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division.
Website: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf (accessed June 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-7 Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards establish limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.5 State and federal standards for the criteria air pollutants are listed in Table 4.1.B below.
4.1.2.3 Existing Climate and Air Quality
The following provides a discussion of the local and regional air quality and climate in the City of Cypress.
Climate/Meteorology. Air quality in the City of Cypress is not only affected by various emission sources (e.g., mobile and industry), but also by atmospheric conditions (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and rainfall). The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second-largest urban area in the United States gives the Basin some of the worst air pollution in the nation.
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the City is the Anaheim Station.6 The monthly average maximum temperature recorded at this station ranged from 69.7°F in December to 87.1°F in August, with an annual average maximum of 77.4°F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station ranged from 46.9°F in December to 64.5°F in August, with an annual average minimum of 55.4°F.
These levels are representative of the City.
The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between November and April. Summer rainfall is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the Basin and along the coastal side of the mountains. Average monthly rainfall at the Anaheim station varied from 0.01 inch in August to 3.47 inches in February, with an annual total of 14.09 inches. Patterns in monthly and yearly rainfall totals are unpredictable due to fluctuations in the weather.
The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude) as a result of the Pacific high. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. This phenomenon is observed in mid-afternoon to late afternoon on hot summer days when the air appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions frequently break by midmorning. 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Criteria Air Pollutants. October. Website:
www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants (accessed June 2023). 6 Western Regional Climate Center. Recent Climate in the West. Website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu, (accessed June 2023).
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -8 Table 4.1.B: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards 1 Federal Standards 2
Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 Ozone
(O3)
8 1-Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
– Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
9 24-Hour 50 μg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 –
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
9 24-Hour – 35 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12.0 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) – Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
1-Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
10 Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
0.03 ppm
(57 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
53 ppb
(100 μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence 1-Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3)
100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) –
Lead
(Pb)12,13
30-Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic
Absorption
– –
High-Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Calendar
Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3(for certain areas)l Same as
Primary
Standard
Rolling 3-
Month
Average i
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
11 24-Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) –
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
1-Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
75 ppb
(196 μg/m3)
11 –
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
–
0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)11
–
VisibilityReducing
Particles 12
8-Hour See footnote 14
Beta Attenuation
and
Transmittance
through Filter
Tape
No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride 10 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
Source: Ambient Air Quality Standards (California Air Resources Board 2016).
Table notes continued on the following page
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-9 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
Contact USEPA for further clarification and current national policies. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4 Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7 Reference method as described by the USEPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the USEPA. 8 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 9 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3 . The existing national
24- hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3 , as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 10 To attain the 1-hour national standard, the three-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb).
California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 11 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm).
To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 12 The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 13 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 14 In 1989, the CARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
°C = degrees Celsius
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
CARB = California Air Resources Board
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
ppb = parts per billion
ppm = parts per million
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -10 Winds in the City blow predominantly from the south-southwest, with relatively low velocities. Wind speeds in the City average about 5 miles per hour (mph). Summer wind speeds average slightly higher than winter wind speeds. Low average wind speeds, together with a persistent temperature inversion, limit the vertical dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin. Strong, dry, north or northeasterly winds, known as Santa Ana winds, occur during the fall and winter months, dispersing air contaminants. The Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time.
The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are CO and NOX because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and NOx to form photochemical smog. Smog is a general term that is naturally occurring fog that has become mixed with smoke or pollution. In this context it is better described as a form of air pollution produced by the photochemical reaction of sunlight with pollutants that have been released into the atmosphere, especially by automotive emissions.
Attainment Status. CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for all State standards. An attainment designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A nonattainment designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An unclassified designation signifies that data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The USEPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as one of the following: does not meet the primary standards, or cannot be classified, or better than national standards. For SO2, areas are designated as: does not meet the primary standards, does not meet the secondary standards, cannot be classified, or better than national standards. Table 4.1.C provides a summary of the attainment status for the Basin with respect to both National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively).
Air Quality Monitoring Results. Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and are maintained by the local air pollution control district and State air quality regulating agencies.
The SCAQMD, together with the CARB, maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Basin. The air quality monitoring station closest to the City is the station at 1630 West Pampas Lane in Anaheim.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-11 Table 4.1.C: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
O3 1 hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
O3 8 hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
SO2 N/A Attainment/Unclassified
Lead Attainment Partial Nonattainment1
All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (2016b). 1 Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only for near-source monitors. Expect redesignation to attainment based on current monitoring data.
CO = carbon monoxide
N/A = not applicable
NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
O3 = ozone
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size SO2 = sulfur dioxide
Pollutant monitoring results for 2020 to 2022 at the Anaheim monitoring station, shown in Table 4.1.D, indicate that air quality in the vicinity of the City has generally been good. As indicated in the monitoring results, the federal PM10 standard was not exceeded during the 3-year period. The State PM10 standard was exceeded 5 times in 2020, 1 time in 2021, and an unknown number of times in 2022. Similarly, the federal PM2.5 standard had 12 exceedances in 2020, 10 exceedances in 2021, and no exceedances in 2022. The State 1-hour ozone standards were exceeded 6 times in 2021, no times in 2021, and an unknown number of times in 2022. The State 8-hour ozone standards were exceeded 16 times in 2020, no times in 2021, and an unknown number of times in 2022. The federal 8-hour standards were exceeded 15 times in 2021, no times in 2021, and 1 time in 2022. The CO and NO2 standards were not exceeded in this area during the 3-year period. SO2 data were not available from 2020–2022 at air quality monitoring stations in Orange County.
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
The USEPA and the CARB regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles. The SCAQMD is the regional agency primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations.
The applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework is discussed below.
4.1.3.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act. At the federal level, the USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The USEPA air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was enacted in 1963. The federal CAA was amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -12 Table 4.1.D: Ambient Air Quality in the Project Vicinity Pollutant Standard 2020 2021 2022
Carbon Monoxide (CO)1
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.3 2.1 2.4
Number of days exceeded: State: > 20 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 35 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.7 1.5 1.4
Number of days exceeded: State: > 9 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 9 ppm 0 0 0
Ozone (O3)
1 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.142 0.089 0.102
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 6 0 ND
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.097 0.068 0.076
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.07 ppm 16 0 ND
Federal: > 0.07 ppm 15 0 1
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
1 Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 74.8 63.6 67.0
Number of days exceeded: State: > 50 µg/m3 5 1 ND
Federal: > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) ND 23.2 ND Exceeded for the year: State: > 20 µg/m3 ND Yes ND
Federal: > 50 µg/m3 ND No ND
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
1 Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 60.2 54.4 33.1
Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m3 12 10 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 12.2 11.5 9.9 Exceeded for the year: State: > 12 µg/m3 Yes No No
Federal: > 15 µg/m3 No No No
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.071 0.067 0.053
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.250 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.013 0.012 0.012 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.053 ppm No No No
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) ND ND ND
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm ND ND ND
Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) ND ND ND
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.04 ppm ND ND ND
Federal: > 0.14 ppm ND ND ND
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) ND ND ND
Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.030 ppm ND ND ND
Sources: CARB (2021) and USEPA (2021).
1 Data taken from the Anaheim monitoring station at 1630 West Pampas Lane.
CARB = California Air Resources Board
ND = No data. There were insufficient (or no) data to determine the value. ppm = parts per million
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-13 The federal CAA required the USEPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS and required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The federal CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The USEPA has responsibility to review every state’s SIPs to determine conformity with the mandates of the federal CAA and determine if implementation would achieve air quality goals. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan may be prepared for the nonattainment area, which imposes additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated timeframe may result in sanctions on transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.
The USEPA is also required to develop National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which are defined as those which may reasonably be anticipated to result in increased deaths or serious illness, and which are not already regulated. An independent science advisory board reviews the health and exposure analyses conducted by the USEPA on suspected hazardous pollutants prior to regulatory development.
4.1.3.2 State Regulations
California Clean Air Act. In 1988, the CCAA required that all air quality districts in the State endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for CO, ozone, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources and mandates that air quality districts focus particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources. Each nonattainment district is required to adopt a plan to achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors. A Clean Air Plan shows how a district would reduce emissions to achieve air quality standards. Generally, the State standards for these pollutants are more stringent than the national standards.
California Air Resources Board. The CARB is the State’s “clean air agency”. The CARB’s goals are to attain and maintain healthy air quality, protect the public from exposure to toxic air contaminants, and oversee compliance with air pollution rules and regulations.
Assembly Bill 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act. Under Assembly Bill 2588, stationary sources of air pollutants are required to report the types and quantities of certain substances that their facilities routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act are to collect emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, determine health risks, and notify nearby residents of significant risks.
The California Air Resources Board Handbook. CARB has developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook7 (CARB Handbook), which is intended to serve as a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use 7 CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). April. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -14 decision-making process. According to the CARB Handbook, air pollution studies have shown an association between respiratory and other non-cancer health effects and proximity to high-traffic roadways. Other studies have shown that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing chemicals emitted from cars and trucks are responsible for much of the overall cancer risk from airborne toxics in California. The CARB Handbook recommends that county and city planning agencies strongly consider proximity to these sources when finding new locations for “sensitive” land uses such as homes, medical facilities, daycare centers, schools, and playgrounds.
Land use designations with air pollution sources of concern include freeways, rail yards, ports, refineries, distribution centers, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and large gasoline service stations. Key recommendations in the CARB Handbook include taking steps to avoid siting new, sensitive land uses:
• Within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day;
• Within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard; • Immediately downwind of ports (in the most heavily impacted zones) and petroleum refineries; • Within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation (for operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet); and
• Within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater).
The CARB Handbook specifically states that its recommendations are advisory and acknowledges land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality-of-life issues.
The recommendations are generalized and do not consider site-specific meteorology, freeway truck percentages, or other factors that influence risk for a particular project site. The purpose of this guidance is to further examine project sites for actual health risk associated with the location of new sensitive land uses.
4.1.3.3 Regional Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over most air quality matters in the Basin. This area includes all of Orange County, Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin and is tasked with implementing certain programs and regulations required by the CAA and the CCAA. The SCAQMD prepares plans to attain CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point) sources. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-15 emissions sources, and enforces such measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary.
• Regulation IV - Prohibitions: This regulation sets forth the restrictions for visible emissions, odor nuisance, fugitive dust, various air pollutant emissions, fuel contaminants, start-up/shutdown exemptions, and breakdown events.
○ Rule 402 - Nuisance: This rule restricts the discharge of any contaminant in quantities that cause or have a natural ability to cause injury, damage, nuisance, or annoyance to businesses, property, or the public. Future development projects that are implemented in accordance with the proposed zoning and updated land use designations will be required to comply with Rule 402.
○ Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust: This rule requires the prevention, reduction, or mitigation fugitive dust emissions from a project site. Rule 403 restricts visible fugitive dust to a project property line, restricts the net PM10 emissions to less than 50 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
) and restricts the tracking out of bulk materials onto public roads. Additionally, Rule 403 requires an applicant to use one or more of the best available control measures (identified in the tables within the rule). Control measures may include adding freeboard to haul vehicles, covering loose material on haul vehicles, watering, using chemical stabilizers, and/or ceasing all activities. Finally, Rule 403 requires that a contingency plan be prepared if so determined by the USEPA. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403(e), Additional Requirements for Large Operations, includes requirements to provide Large Operation Notification Form 403 N, appropriate signage, additional dust control measures, and employment of a dust control supervisor that has successfully completed the Dust Control training class in the South Coast Air Basin. Future development projects that are implemented in accordance with the proposed zoning and updated land use designations will be required to comply with Rule 403.
• Regulation XI - Source Specific Standards: Regulation XI sets emissions standards for different sources.
○ Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings: This rule limits the amount of VOCs from architectural coatings and solvents, which lowers the emissions of odorous compounds. Future development projects that are implemented in accordance with the proposed zoning and updated land use designations will be required to comply with Rule 1113.
The SCAQMD is responsible for demonstrating regional compliance with ambient air quality standards but has limited direct involvement in reducing emissions from fugitive, mobile, and natural sources. To that end, the SCAQMD works cooperatively with CARB, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, and other federal and State government agencies. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) to meet the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. Every several years, SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and the 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -16 20-year horizon.8 The Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan is the currently adopted AQMP. Key elements of the Final 2022 AQMP include:
• Calculating and taking credit for co-benefits from other planning efforts (e.g., climate, energy, and transportation)
• A strategy with fair-share emission reductions at the federal, State, and local levels • Investment in strategies and technologies meeting multiple air quality objectives • Seeking new partnerships and significant funding for incentives to accelerate deployment of zero-emission and near-zero emission technologies
• Enhanced socioeconomic assessment, including an expanded environmental justice analysis • Attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2019 with no additional measures • Attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard by 2025 with implementation of a portion of the O3 strategy
• Attainment of the 1-hour O3 standard by 2022 with no reliance on “black box” future technology (CAA Section 182(e)(5) measures)
The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOx technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other CAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard.
Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG is a council of governments for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, and Ventura counties. It is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy and community development, and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the majority of the Southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG prepares the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which address regional development and growth forecasts and form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP and are used in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The RTP, RTIP, and AQMP are based on projections originating within local jurisdictions.
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2016a. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.
March.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-17 Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) provides growth forecasts that are used in the development of air quality-related land use and transportation control strategies by the SCAQMD. The RCP is a framework for decision‐making for local governments, assisting them in meeting federal and State mandates for growth management, mobility, and environmental standards, while maintaining consistency with regional goals regarding growth and changes. Policies within the RCP include consideration of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of government.
SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (collectively called Connect SoCal) on September 3, 2020. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding and takes into account operations and maintenance costs, to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness.
Using growth forecasts and economic trends, the RTP provides a vision for transportation throughout the region for the next 20 years. It considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality‐of‐life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. The SCS is a required element of the RTP, which integrates land use and transportation strategies to achieve CARB emissions reduction targets. The inclusion of the SCS is required by Senate Bill (SB) 375, which was enacted to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning. The RTP/SCS would successfully achieve and exceed the GHG emission‐reduction targets set by the CARB by achieving an 8 percent reduction by 2020, an 18 percent reduction by 2035, and a 21 percent reduction by 2040 compared to the 2005 level on a per capita basis. This RTP/SCS also meets criteria pollutant emission budgets set by the USEPA.
4.1.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress General Plan. The City of Cypress addresses air quality in the Air Quality Element of the City’s General Plan9
. The Air Quality Element contains goals, policies, and implementation actions that are intended to protect the public’s health and welfare by reducing current pollution emissions and by requiring new development to comply with air quality standards. The following goals, policies, and implementing actions related to air quality are presented in the Air Quality Element and are applicable to the proposed project:
• AQ-1.3: Locate multiple family developments close to commercial areas to encourage pedestrian rather than vehicular travel.
• AQ-1.4: Develop neighborhood parks near concentrations of residents to encourage pedestrian travel to the recreation facilities.
9 City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan – Air Quality Element. October 5. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -18 • AQ-3.1: Adopt incentives, regulations, and/or procedures to minimize particulate emissions from unpaved roads, agricultural uses, and building construction. • AQ-4.1: Promote energy conservation in all sectors of the City including residential, commercial, and industrial.
• AQ-4.2: Promote local recycling of wastes and the use of recycled materials. • AQ-4.3: Adopt incentives and regulations to reduce emissions from swimming pool heaters and residential and commercial water heaters.
4.1.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for air quality impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to air quality if it would:
Threshold 4.1.1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Threshold 4.1.2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Threshold 4.1.3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Threshold 4.1.4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
As stated in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make determinations about a project’s impacts. This Draft EIR uses the adopted thresholds of the SCAQMD, the local air quality management district.
It should be noted that according to Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts regarding other emissions (such as odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people (Threshold 4.1.4). Therefore, this topic is not further addressed below.
4.1.4.1 Regional Emissions Thresholds
SCAQMD has established daily emissions thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project in the Basin. The emissions thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the Basin with regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety, these emissions thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project’s contribution to health risks.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-19 Table 4.1.E lists the CEQA significance thresholds for construction and operational emissions established for the Basin.
Table 4.1.E: Regional Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions Threshold (lbs/day) VOCs NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx
Construction 75 100 550 150 55 150
Operations 55 55 550 150 55 150
Source: SCAQMD. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. 2023. Revised March 2023. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25 (accessed January 2024).
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Projects in the Basin with construction- or operation-related emissions that exceed any of their respective emission thresholds would be considered significant under SCAQMD guidelines. These thresholds, which SCAQMD developed and that apply throughout the Basin, apply as both project and cumulative thresholds. If a project exceeds these standards, it is considered to have a projectspecific and cumulative impact.
4.1.4.2 Local Microscale Concentration Standards
The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards. Because ambient CO levels are below the standards throughout the Basin, a project would be considered to have a significant CO impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of the 1-hour or 8-hour standards. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO:
• California State 1-hour CO standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) • California State 8-hour CO standard of 9 ppm
4.1.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.1.1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Significant Unavoidable Impact. A consistency determination plays an essential role in local agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual projects to the air quality plans. A consistency determination fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision-makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed. Only new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review due to the air quality plan strategies being based on projections from local General Plans.
Consistency with the 2022 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 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -20 SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, there are two main indicators of a project’s consistency with the AQMP:
• Indicator 1: Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or emission reductions in the AQMP. • Indicator 2: Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The AQMP strategy is, in part, based on projections from local general plans.
Indicator 1: As demonstrated under Threshold 4.1.2 below, 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.
Indicator 2: 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 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 would not directly result in physical development. As such, this analysis evaluates whether the project would exceed the 2022 AQMP’s assumptions for 2045 or yearly increments based on the horizon year of 2045 and project construction and phasing.
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 2045.10
Although the 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 an unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 units to meet its estimated housing growth needs identified in the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 3,936 units. Overall, the proposed rezoning actions under the proposed project would increase the City’s development capacity by 2,314 housing units on the opportunity sites compared to the City’s existing planning and zoning documents.
10 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579(accessed June 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-21 The proposed project would divide the City’s RHNA between the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (the CTCC Specific Plan), with some of the RHNA also falling within the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan along Katella Avenue. The CTCC Specific Plan would be amended to allow up to 1,926 dwelling units (it currently allows up to 1,250 dwelling units). The majority of the zoning in the CTCC Specific Plan would remain unchanged, with 72.1 acres allowing densities ranging from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre. Densities within the other approximately 62.3 acres would increase, creating an additional medium density district (15 dwelling units per acre) and allowing higher density development (30 dwelling units per acre) in other areas. The City would be required to hold an election to implement changes to the CTCC Specific Plan.
Under current zoning, the City has the capacity to accommodate the development of up to 1,946 new housing units, which includes 504 housing units that are already entitled and/or under construction. Therefore, the proposed rezoning action that is part of 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.
As described further in Section 4.7, Population and Housing, the proposed project would accommodate the construction of 2,314 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 BeachAnaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area was 1.99 persons. Because the proposed project would allow for higher density housing, 1.99 persons per household was deemed appropriate for use in the analysis. Therefore, the additional 2,314 housing units that would potentially be built in the City 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 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.
Summary: 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. As discussed in Threshold 4.1.2 below, although there is no feasible mitigation to reduce operational pollutant emissions to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -22 implementation of all feasible measures to reduce operational impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition, Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) AQ-5 would require that all future projects comply with the latest Energy Code and Title 24 requirements for new residential development. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 4.1.2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Significant 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.
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not necessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.
Construction. It is important to note that the proposed project would not, in and of itself entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development. 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.
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 short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. 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; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Construction-related effects on air quality are typically greatest during the grading phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at construction sites. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving construction sites would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-23 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, whereas fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.
Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The SCAQMD has established Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which would require the contractor to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter generated during the construction period.
In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic.
These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.
Information regarding specific development projects is not yet known; however, due to the scale of development activity associated with the proposed project, this analysis assumes that 2,314 housing units would be constructed over the approximately 22-year planning period. Construction emissions were estimated for the proposed project using CalEEMod. This analysis assumes that construction of the additional housing units allowed under the proposed project would begin in 2023 and end in 2045, which was included in CalEEMod. Site preparation, grading, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as large excavators, cranes, and other related equipment.
As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4, detailed below, 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.
The maximum daily emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that would result from construction of the proposed project are shown in Table 4.1.F and compared to the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. As shown in Table 4.1.F, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD for any of the criteria pollutants.
As shown in Table 4.1.F, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, PM2.5, or PM10 emissions. As discussed above, according to SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the significance thresholds are generally not considered to result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Therefore, based on the fact that emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed any of the air quality significance thresholds for any criteria pollutants, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable air quality impact. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -24 Table 4.1.F: Project Construction Emissions (in Pounds Per Day) Project Construction Maximum Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Peak Daily Emissions 10.8 48.9 112.0 0.1 29.1 11.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2023).
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements (as specified in RCM AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4), construction impacts related to the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under applicable NAAQS or CAAQS would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. As previously stated, the proposed project would not, in and of itself entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development. 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.
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.
PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other particulate matter emission processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles. As discussed above, 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. As such, the proposed project would generate 10,506 average daily trips.
Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which natural gas is used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source.
Typically, area source emissions consist of emissions from the use of architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-25 Long-term operation emissions associated with build out of the 2,314 housing units was calculated using CalEEMod. The proposed project analysis was conducted using land use code Apartments Mid Rise. Trip generation rates used in CalEEMod for the proposed project were based on the project’s trip generation (as identified in Section 4.9, Transportation), which estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately 10,506 average daily trips. Information regarding specific development is not yet known; therefore, default assumptions (e.g., energy and water usage) from CalEEMod were used.
Model results are shown in Table 4.1.G below. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix C of this EIR.
Table 4.1.G: Project Operational Emissions (in Pounds Per Day) Source Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Mobile Sources 20.9 12.9 178.4 0.5 61.3 15.7
Project Area Sources 62.8 1.2 132.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.1
Project Energy Sources 0.4 6.4 2.8 <0.1 0.5 0.5
Total Project Emissions 84.1 20.5 313.2 0.5 61.8 16.3
SCAQMD Thresholds 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Thresholds? Yes No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2023).
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
As shown in Table 4.1.G, project emissions would not exceed the significance criteria for NOX, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions; however, emissions of VOCs would exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the implementation of all feasible measures to reduce operational impacts associated with the proposed project, and Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ5 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.
Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the City. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -26 proposed project. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended to determine a project’s effect on local CO levels.
An assessment of project-related impacts on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be projected. Ambient CO levels monitored at the Anaheim monitoring station, the closest station to the City of Cypress, showed a highest recorded 1-hour concentration of 2.4 ppm (the State standard is 20 ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 1.7 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm) during the past 3 years (Table 4.1.D). The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst-case analysis.
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. The proposed project would generate 10,506 average daily trips in the immediate vicinity of the opportunity sites and would result in 856 a.m. peak-hour trips and in 902 p.m. peak-hour trips. However, as described in Section 4.9, Transportation, the proposed project would not result in any operational deficiencies to the surrounding roadway system. The evaluation of the study area intersections shows that the addition of traffic associated with new residential development allowed under the proposed project’s rezoning action is not expected to create significant level of service changes under General Plan Build out conditions. Therefore, project traffic would not create any significant adverse impacts to nearby intersections.
Therefore, given the extremely low level of CO concentrations in the City, and lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly or result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Impacts related to CO hot spots would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.1.3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not, in and of itself entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development. 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.
The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors such as residential land uses in the immediate vicinity of the opportunity sites as a result of construction and operational activities. The thresholds are based on standards established by the SCAQMD in its
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-27 Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) Methodology11 and are measured against construction and operational emissions that occur on a specific project site. These emissions are primarily generated from heavy‐duty construction equipment and demolition, grading, and trenching activities.
However, the LSTs are applicable to projects at the project‐specific level and are not applicable to programmatic documents, such as the proposed project. Construction and operational emissions associated with future individual projects developed under the proposed project, would however, have the potential to cause or contribute to significant localized air quality impacts to nearby residential land uses. Localized construction impacts of future residential development could potentially exceed the LSTs, particularly for construction of areas larger than 5 acres or areas with more intense construction activities. To address this, regulatory measures (e.g., SCAQMD Rule 201 for a permit to operate, Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, Rule 1113 for architectural coatings, Rule 1403 for new source review, and CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures) are currently in place, and mitigation would be imposed at the project level, which may include use of special equipment.
It should be noted that the amount of emissions from a project does not necessarily correspond to the concentrations of air pollutants. A dispersion modeling analysis would be necessary to calculate health risk from project implementation. However, since it is not possible to translate the amount of an unknown future specific project’s emissions to a particular concentration, it is not possible to calculate the risk factor for a particular health effect at the time of this analysis.
Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Particulate matter can also lead to a variety of health effects in people. These include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Regional emissions of criteria pollutants contribute to these known health effects. The SCAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals and that they are not exposed to elevated concentrations of criteria pollutants in the Basin. To achieve the health-based standards established by the USEPA, the SCAQMD prepares an AQMP that details regional programs to attain the ambient air quality standards.
Although the analysis for the proposed project identifies that construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM2.5, or PM10 emissions, it should be noted that not exceeding the SCAQMD’s numeric regional mass daily thresholds does not necessarily correspond to less than significant health risk impacts to sensitive receptors. This is because the mass daily thresholds are in pounds per day emitted into the air, whereas health effects are determined based on the concentration of emissions in the air at a particular receptor (e.g., ppm by volume of air, or µg/m3 of air). State and federal ambient air quality standards were developed to protect the most susceptible population groups from adverse health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the applicable emissions.
For this reason, the SCAQMD developed the LST Methodology. The LST methodology is based on the amount of emissions that could be generated from a project for a project to not cause or contribute 11 SCAQMD. 2021. Localized Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds (accessed June 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -28 to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and are based on the ambient concentrations of the pollutant and the relative distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. However, as noted above, the LSTs are applicable to projects at the project‐specific level and are not applicable to this programmatic planning level document.
Localized construction impacts of future residential development projects could potentially exceed the LSTs, particularly for construction of areas larger than 5 acres or areas with more intense construction activities. Therefore, without mitigation, exceedances of the LSTs could have the potential to cause or exacerbate an exceedance of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It should be noted that the ambient air quality standards are developed and represent levels at which the most susceptible persons (children and the elderly) are protected. Therefore, the ambient air quality standards are purposefully set low to protect children, the elderly, and those with existing respiratory problems.
However, the SCAQMD acknowledges that they have only been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources; specifically, 6,620 pounds per day (lbs/day) of NOX, and 89,180 lbs/day of VOCs were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone.12 As identified in Table 4.1.F above, based on the scale of development associated with the anticipated 2,314 dwelling units, construction of the proposed project would generate a maximum of 48.9 lbs/day of NOx and 10.8 lbs/day of VOCs. Therefore, it is not expected that any future residential development associated with the proposed project would generate 6,620 lbs/day of NOx or 89,180 lbs/day of VOC emissions.
Therefore, emissions associated with future projects are not sufficiently high enough to correlate health effects on a Basin-wide level.
Current scientific, technological, and modeling limitations prevent the relation of expected adverse air quality impacts to likely health consequences. For this reason, this discussion explains why it is not feasible to provide such an analysis. However, individual projects would still be required to conduct a site-specific localized impact analysis that evaluates potential project health impacts at a project level to immediately adjacent land uses.
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 LSTs.
However, as discussed above, all future discretionary projects 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, RCM 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.
Additionally, refer to the analysis provided under Threshold 4.1.2 for a discussion of potential construction and operational impacts relating to criteria air pollutants. With implementation of RCM 12 Supreme Court of California. 2015. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. County of Fresno, Defendant and Despondent, and Friant Ranch, L.P., Real Part in Interest and Despondent. April.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-29 AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4, the potential health impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.
4.1.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in a potentially significant operational air quality impact. In addition, the following compliance measures are existing SCAQMD regulations that are applicable to the proposed project and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to air quality.
These requirements are considered to be mandatory compliance measures; therefore, they are not mitigation measures.
4.1.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.1.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-1 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-2 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114,
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -30 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-3 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-4 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-5 All future projects shall comply with the latest Energy Code and Title 24 solar requirements for new
residential development.
4.1.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 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
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» 4.1-31 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, bicycle
facilities, or public transportation vehicles.
• Where feasible, Project Applicants shall link culs-desac 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, bulbouts, 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.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.1 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.1 Air Quality.docx «01/29/24» -32 • 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.
• Project Applicants shall use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
4.1.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, operational air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.1.9 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for air quality. The cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed project is the South Coast Air Basin. Each project in the Basin is required to comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations and is subject to independent review.
The Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 standard and PM2.5 standard and as a nonattainment area for the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standard. Thus, the Basin has not met the federal and State standards for these air pollutants. Future development that may take place with implementation of the project would contribute criteria pollutants to the area during project construction and operation.
Air pollution is inherently a cumulative type of impact measured across an air basin. The discussion under Threshold 4.1.2, above, includes an analysis of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air impacts. As discussed above, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, PM2.5, or PM10 emissions.
However, even with the with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, operational impacts from criteria pollutant emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, which could hinder the attainment of air quality standards. Therefore, air quality emissions associated with future development that may occur under the proposed project could result in cumulatively considerable impacts, even with implementation of mitigation. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-1
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section provides a discussion of the existing cultural resource environment and an analysis of potential impacts from implementation of the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation project (proposed project). Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts over 50 years old that may have traditional or cultural value for the historical significance they possess. This section focuses on two particular sites within the boundaries of the proposed project’s opportunity sites, the Los Alamitos Race Course and the Lincoln Avenue Corridor, as sites where historically significant structures could potentially be located. This section summarizes the information obtained from conducting a Historic Resources Assessment and a Historic Resources Sensitivity Study for the Los Alamitos Race Course and the Lincoln Avenue Corridor, respectively.
These studies are then used to inform the determination of whether impacts to historic resources under the proposed project would be significant.
The proposed project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources are evaluated separately and can be found in Section 4.10, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
The Historic Resources Assessment and Historic Resources Sensitivity Study are included as Appendix D to this Draft PEIR.
4.2.1 Methodology
4.2.1.1 Los Alamitos Race Course
The proposed project would involve updates to the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan), ultimately reflecting new, denser residential zoning within the CTCC Specific Plan area to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of housing units. The CTCC Specific Plan area boundaries contain the Los Alamitos Race Course, for which a Historic Resources Assessment was conducted as part of the CEQA environmental review process. Two main components of this assessment were archival research and an intensive-level field study.
Race Course Archival Research. Archival research was conducted during the months of May, June, October, and November 2022. Research methods focused on the review of a variety of primary and secondary source materials relating to the history and development of the Los Alamitos Race Course property. Sources included, but were not limited to, information provided by and on file at the Los Alamitos Race Course, online sources, published literature in local and regional history, news articles, historic aerial photographs, and historic maps. Historical themes included horse racing, Quarter Horses, Frank Vessels, Sr., and pari-mutuel betting in California. A complete list of all references consulted in the preparation of the Historic Resources Assessment is provided in Appendix D.
Field Survey. On June 10, 2022, an LSA architectural historian and an LSA photographer conducted the intensive-level architectural survey of the Los Alamitos Race Course facility. The pair was escorted by the Los Alamitos Race Course Facilities Manager, who provided information about most of the buildings and features, as well as historical information about the facility. The trio began with 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -2 the clubhouse/grandstand building including, but not limited to, Burgart’s bar, the Cypress Room, Vessels Club restaurant, the Finish Line room, the betting area, box seating, and the jockey room.
They then toured the barns and other features. During the survey, numerous photographs of the buildings and track and overview shots were taken. LSA’s architectural historian made notations regarding the structural and architectural characteristics and current conditions of the buildings and features. The architectural historian also made notes regarding the historical information provided by the Facilities Manager.
The field survey included numerous buildings, structures, and features, which are described below.
Construction and alteration information that was gleaned about the buildings, structures, and features during the survey is included. The focus of the survey was the 0.25-mile track used for horse racing, which provides the main architectural and historical significance to the Los Alamitos Race Course.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Series Forms. In August of 2023, California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms were submitted on behalf of the Los Alamitos Race Course. DPR 523 series forms are used for recording and evaluating resources and for nominating properties to the California Register. The forms included a description of the Los Alamitos Race Course as well as an evaluation of its historical significance under State and federal criteria, which will be discussed further within Section 4.2.5, Project Impacts.
4.2.1.2 Lincoln Avenue Corridor
The proposed project would involve updates to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, ultimately reflecting new, denser residential zoning within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area to help meet the City’s RHNA allocation of housing units. A Historic Resources Sensitivity Study (Sensitivity Study) was prepared to identify potential historic-period resources. LSA conducted a limited amount of property-specific research, completed a cursory reconnaissance-level field survey of the buildings using Google Street View, and reviewed various databases to determine whether any of the historicperiod properties have been previously evaluated.
A total of 117 properties within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Area were identified as opportunity sites with the potential to be directly impacted by future development (Potential Impact Areas).
Using a worst-case approach, 143 adjacent properties were recognized as potentially impacted properties based on their proximity to the opportunity sites within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Area. Therefore, a total of 260 properties were considered for the Sensitivity Study.
Research. In order to identify potential impacts related to historic-period resources, LSA identified properties that may be directly and indirectly impacted by new development on the opportunity sites. Historic-period resources are those elements of the built environment that are 50 years of age or older (i.e., built prior to 1973). However, in order to extend the reach of the study through the end of the new Housing Element, historic-period resources were defined as those built prior to 1980 (i.e., those that will be 50 years of age in 2029).
Using Orange County parcel data, a spreadsheet was created listing all of the Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites and the Potential Impact Areas, along with their dates of construction (if included
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-3 in the County data). Using historic aerial photographs, real estate websites, and Google Earth Street View, dates of construction for each of the 260 properties were verified, revised, or approximated.
As a result of these efforts, 186 properties were identified as having buildings that were constructed prior to 1980. Eighty-two (82) of the opportunity sites are developed with historic-period buildings, while 104 of the Potential Impact Areas have historic-period buildings. Currently, there are 50 opportunity sites that are vacant land or have no structures (13) or that have not yet reached the 50-year age threshold (37), making them historically insignificant.
This was followed by reviews of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register; current through 2020), the National Register weekly lists (through July 15, 2022), and the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Built Environment Resources Database (BERD, March 2020)1 to determine whether any of the historic-period buildings in the Historic Resource Impact Area were included in any of those databases. This research found only one property in the Historic Resource Impact Area that has been previously evaluated: 5162 Alaska Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 262-361-40). This property, which is within a Potential Impact Area, was deemed ineligible for listing in the National Register in 2010. It was not evaluated for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or for local designation.
Virtual Field Survey. Following the research stage, a virtual reconnaissance-level field survey was conducted using Google Street View. The Google Street View photographs were taken from 2020 to 2022. The reasons for conducting this survey were to: verify the type of development on each property; confirm the general dates of construction; and identify any historic-period properties in the Historic Resource Impact Area that appear potentially significant for their architecture, as a property type, or for an association with an important event or pattern of development.
Based on the results of the virtual field survey conducted above, certain properties were identified to have a greater potential for historical significance than other historic-period resources in the Historic Resource Impact Area. Most of the properties have sustained alterations and, therefore, are not likely to be significant as exceptional examples of architectural styles, but they may represent an important property type or contribute to an important pattern of development. Resources associated with patterns of development would most likely be part of a collection of similar, geographically linked resources that would form a historic district. Examples might be a collection of commercial resources that illustrate the importance of Lincoln Avenue as a commercial corridor during a specific period in history or a group of residences that exemplify the characteristics of residential development during a particular time-period (e.g., post-World War II residential development).
4.2.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.2.2.1 Pre-Settlement
The area that is now Cypress (including all opportunity sites analyzed under the proposed project) was prehistorically occupied by the Gabrielino Native American people. 1 California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2020. Built Environment Resources Database (BERD).
March 2020.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -4
4.2.2.2 Settlement and Development
The historic period in California is divided into three periods: Spanish/Mission Period (1769–1821), Mexican/Rancho Period (1821–1848), and the American Period (1848–Present). Spanish exploration of southern California began in the late 1700s as expeditions began seeking routes from San Diego to the Los Angeles basin and further regions of “Alta California.” One of the logical, geographic passages between the Pacific Coast and the Los Angeles Basin was what is now known as Santa Ana Canyon. Some of the more notable and documented explorers to use this route, which went through what would become Orange County, were Don Gaspar Portolá, Juan Bautista de Anza, and Don Pedro Fages. In 1784, General Pedro Fages received a petition from three of his soldiers who wanted land to build homes and graze the cattle they had acquired. 2 Fages agreed and that same
year (1784) Manuel Perez Nieto was granted 300,000 acres, which became known as Los Nietos and included the area that would become Cypress.
3 After Manuel’s death in 1804, the land was divided
among his four surviving children and Juan Jose Nieto received the acres called Los Alamitos (approximately 28,000 acres) and Los Coyotes (approximately 49,000 acres), which include Cypress. 4 In 1806, Nieto built an adobe house in the southwest corner of Rancho Los Alamitos. 5 In 1821, Mexico won independence from Spain and took over Alta California. In 1834, Juan Jose Nieto was formally granted Los Alamitos by Governor Juan Figueroa and a few months later sold it to the governor for just $500.6 Figueroa later sold it to Abel Stearns in 1842. 7 Eventually Stearns
owned both ranchos (Los Alamitos and Los Coyotes) and “built up the largest land and cattle empire in the area”.
8 In 1848, Alta California came under control of the United States, and in 1850, it was admitted to the Union. In 1861, Stearns borrowed on the Rancho from money lender Michael Reese to finance a business venture in Los Angeles.
9 By 1865, Stearns was in jeopardy of losing his land to Reese so a group of his friends formed the Robinson Trust to save him from bankruptcy. 10 In 1866, Reese
foreclosed on a portion of the Rancho and began leasing it to the Bixbys, who were sheep farmers from Maine.
11 Meanwhile, in 1868, the Trust began to sell 120- to 160-acre tracts and by the time Stearns died in 1871, he was on his way to another fortune. 12 2
Carpenter, Virginia. 2003. Ranchos of Orange County: Chronologies of Early California. Produced in cooperation with Jane Mueller. California: The Paragon Agency Publishers. 3 Ibid. 4
Ibid. 5
Ibid. 6
Ibid. 7
Ibid. 8 Wheeler, Eileen, and Dr. Warren Beck. City of Cypress History. News-Enterprise Archives. Website:
http://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=6 (accessed January 10, 2023). 9 Carpenter, Virginia. 2003. Ranchos of Orange County: Chronologies of Early California. Produced in cooperation with Jane Mueller. California: The Paragon Agency Publishers. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-5 The 1880s was a boom period in southern California that helped complete “the transition from range land to agricultural economy”.
13 Between 1866 and 1884 the population of Los Angeles
increased from approximately 12,000 to around 100,000 and other cities also were expanding rapidly.
14 Orange County was formed in 1889, putting half of Rancho Los Alamitos in Los Angeles County and half in Orange County.
15 In 1881, John and Jotham Bixby and Isaac Hellman (a banker) bought Rancho Los Alamitos and joined it to Los Cerritos. 16 They formed the Alamitos Land
Company to subdivide part of the Rancho into farm lands. 17 This represents the beginnings of what
would become Cypress.
By the late 1880s, white and sweet potatoes, as well as sugar beets were the main crops. 18 However, dairy farming, which was supported by the beet farming, was a major industry with nearby Buena Park at its center.
19 In the Cypress area almost everyone had cows, but sorghum was what the area was really known for.
20 In 1889, the McWilliams family moved to the area, planted sorghum, and established a makeshift processing plant for it. 21 In its first year, it processed 100
gallons of syrup.
22 Soon other farmers planted sorghum and the industry steadily expanded.23 In 1907, a regular mill was built that processed 15,000 gallons of syrup its first year. 24 As more people moved into the area, the demand grew for schools. In the early 1890s, there were two schools, Centralia and Bloomfield.
25 In 1895, the Cypress School District was formed and a building was constructed on an acre of land donated by Charles Lee Damron.26 The new school was named Cypress School because of the cypress trees planted around the school yard as a windbreak.
For many years, it was the only school in the district. 27 “In 1906, Pacific Electric built a line to the
area to connect Los Angeles to Santa Ana” and development began to cluster around the rail station “at what is now the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Walker Street” within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area.
28 At that time, the community was nicknamed Waterville due to the 13 Wheeler, Eileen, and Dr. Warren Beck. City of Cypress History. News-Enterprise Archives. Website:
http://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=6 (accessed January 10, 2023). 14 Ibid. 15 Carpenter, Virginia. 2003. Ranchos of Orange County: Chronologies of Early California. Produced in cooperation with Jane Mueller. California: The Paragon Agency Publishers. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Wheeler, Eileen, and Dr. Warren Beck. City of Cypress History. News-Enterprise Archives. Website:
http://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=6 (accessed January 10, 2023). 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Epting, Charles. 2014. The New Deal in Orange County California. South Carolina: The History Press. 28 Wheeler, Eileen, and Dr. Warren Beck. City of Cypress History. News-Enterprise Archives. Website:
http://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=6 (accessed January 10, 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -6 preponderance of artesian wells in the area, but the train station was named Cypress reportedly to be consistent with the school.
29 In 1924, the school was replaced with a larger building that became the center of the community’s social life.
30 During the Depression era, the area was hard hit by the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, which damaged Cypress School, and the 1938 flood, which left most of Waterville under two to three feet of water.
31 The school was rebuilt in 1936 using Public Works Administration (PWA) funds and was still the only school in the Cypress School District.
32 Although rural communities like Waterville
suffered less from the Depression, people still struggled. The needy were assisted by a variety of federal relief programs and many school children received free hot lunches. 33 “In 1910, a local farmer named George Miller formed the Southern California Dairy Association, and by the 1940s, dairies emerged as the community’s leading industry”. 34 However, the World War II
years brought many changes to the area as several military facilities moved nearby. These included the United States Naval Station in Los Alamitos (next to Cypress), the Seal Beach Ammunition Depot, the United States Naval Air Station in Santa Ana, the Santa Ana Army Air Base, and Irvine Park which was used as an Army training camp.
35 Aircraft plants and ship yards created jobs in nearby communities such as Long Beach and Santa Monica. The combination of new employment opportunities and men joining the armed services created a shortage of labor in the fields. 36 To
alleviate the shortage, workers from Mexico were brought in through treaty arrangements and later German prisoners of war were used to harvest crops.
37 After the war, returning GIs created such a big demand for housing in surrounding areas that many farmers relocated to Waterville.
38 By the late 1940s, Waterville was the third largest dairy district in the country.
39 When it incorporated in 1956, it took the name Dairy City.40 In the 1950s, Dairy City (now Cypress), Dairyland (now La Palma), and Dairy Valley (now Cerritos) were collectively known as 29 Carpenter, Virginia. 2003. Ranchos of Orange County: Chronologies of Early California. Produced in cooperation with Jane Mueller. California: The Paragon Agency Publishers. 30 Ibid. 31 Wheeler, Eileen, and Dr. Warren Beck. City of Cypress History. News-Enterprise Archives. Website:
http://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=6 (accessed January 10, 2023). 32 Epting, Charles. 2014. The New Deal in Orange County California. South Carolina: The History Press. 33 Wheeler, Eileen, and Dr. Warren Beck. City of Cypress History. News-Enterprise Archives. Website:
http://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=6 (accessed January 10, 2023). 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Epting, Charles. 2014. The New Deal in Orange County California. South Carolina: The History Press.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-7 “Moo-Valley”.41 In 1957, the city’s name was changed to Cypress. 42 In the 1960s, skyrocketing real
estate prices in Moo Valley resulted in an exodus of dairy farmers to Riverside County. 43 4.2.2.3 Los Alamitos Race Course
In 1947, Frank Vessels, Sr., built a race track on his 435-acre ranch and stallion farm in present-day Cypress.44 It was initially used for training and match racing the Quarter Horses (QH) he bred there, but by the Spring, Vessels’ new race track “located two miles west of Stanton on Katella Road near the Los Alamitos Air Station” began to host motorcycle races sanctioned by the American Motorcycle Association.
45 In August 1947, a crowd variously estimated at between one and two thousand showed up to watch the first full card of QH racing, six non-pari-mutuel races (fans could not bet on the horses). Soon the QH races became a weekly event.46 At that time, the track was located a little southwest of where it is today in an area between Vessels’ home and the railroad tracks. The area is now developed with Ovation at Flora Park, a 55+ residential community.
Attendance at the QH races was so high that Vessels had to scale back the races to once a month.
During this time, it was only legal to bet on thoroughbred (TB) horse races and standardbreds (trotters), because the sport generated State tax revenues, which were used, among other things, to improve the breeds. In 1948, the State Attorney General ruled that Quarter Horse racing was legal based on current law, because by then registered Quarter Horses were a recognized breed. Despite this ruling, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), which was controlled by the breeders of thoroughbreds, refused to allow betting on QH races.47 This prompted the QH breeders to organize.
Vessels founded and became president of the Pacific Coast Quarter Horse Association, an affiliate of the national association, and began lobbying Sacramento for pari-mutuel wagering on Quarter Horses.48 The State Legislature passed a bill allowing the State’s six major tracks to include one Quarter Horse race per day. Bay Meadows at San Mateo was the first, carding 25 sprints. 49 Finally,
the CHRB agreed to pari-mutuel betting on QH races. This had a profound impact on the sport of horse racing and the industry of horse breeding in California.
In December 1951, the first pari-mutuel all-Quarter Horse meet was held at Vessels’ track, with more than 400 sprinters from various states and over 4,100 spectators the first day. 50 On closing
41 Wheeler, Eileen, and Dr. Warren Beck. City of Cypress History. News-Enterprise Archives. Website:
http://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=6 (accessed January 10, 2023). 42 Ibid. 43 Whiting, David. 2015. Cypress Evolves from Cow Town to Community Town. The Orange County Register.
Website: https://www.ocregister.com/2015/08/04/whiting-cypress-evolves-from-cow-town-tocommunity-town/ (accessed January 10, 2024). 44 Long Beach Press-Telegram. 1947. Cycle Club Bills Races on New Vessels Track. page 16. 45 Ibid. 46 Chamberlain, Richard. 2000. Los Alamitos Race Course 50 Years of Racing 1951-2000. Brochure provided by Facilities Manager, Frank Sherran, June 2022. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -8 day, more than 7,000 fans showed up, indicating that Quarter Horse racing would maintain its popularity.
51 In 1952, Monita and Black Easter Bunny won “divisions of the first Los Alamitos Invitational Championship, then called the California Championship”.52 By 1953, a new track was under construction northwest of the original track (Historicaerials.com var.53). The new track (in the current location) opened in 1954 in time for the Fall meet and soon became the “premier Quarter Horse track in the country”. 54 By 1959, Los Alamitos Race Course was
the second largest revenue generator in the City of Cypress. Frank Vessels, Sr., was inducted into the American Quarter Horse Association Hall of Fame (1989). Los Alamitos Race Course is the premiere Quarter Horse (QH) race track in California, hosting the Champion of Champion stakes race since 1972 ($750,000 purse, 440 yards distance.) The golden age of horse racing came to an end around 1970, when attendance declined due to off track betting (OTB) and competition from other forms of entertainment. The track stayed in the Vessels family until 1984, when it was sold to Hollywood Park.55 By 1989, it was under a new ownership group, including Edward Allred, that soon began a series of renovations to the buildings and the track’s interior. 56 Although Los Alamitos Race Course
has sustained alterations to most, if not all, of its buildings and features, including the oval, it retains enough integrity to convey an association with the historic period. All major features remain including the grandstand, barns, clubhouse, and, of course, the race track itself. The period of significance for Los Alamitos Race Course is 1954, when the track was built at the current location, to 1970, which is the end of the golden age of horse racing.
4.2.2.4 Lincoln Avenue
Lincoln Avenue runs east to west across Cypress and is the City’s major commercial corridor. Rather than characteristic groupings of activity along Lincoln Avenue, the corridor contains a dispersion of low intensity commercial uses. Current land uses include commercial retail, service oriented, office, and residential uses.
57 In order to rectify Lincoln Avenue’s fragmented land use pattern, the City adopted a Redevelopment Plan in 1990 that was intended to enhance the visual character and economic vitality of the Lincoln Avenue area. A Specific Plan was enacted in 1993, which heavily valued citizen input. In order to enhance the attractiveness of the corridor, structures located along Lincoln Avenue are subject to strict development guidelines as laid out in the Specific Plan.
Most of the properties along the Lincoln Avenue corridor have sustained alterations and are therefore unlikely to be significant as exceptional examples of architectural styles. However, they 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Historicaerials.com. var. Historic aerial photographs of the Los Alamitos Race Course property. Website:
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed January 10, 2024). 54 Chamberlain, Richard. 2000. Los Alamitos Race Course 50 Years of Racing 1951-2000. Brochure provided by Facilities Manager, Frank Sherran, June 2022. 55 Ibid. 56 Los Angeles Times. 1991. Los Alamitos: Track Celebrates 40th Anniversary. Website: https://www.latimes. com/archives/la-xpm-1991-12-04-sp-244-story.html (accessed November 2022). 57 City of Cypress. 1998. Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/show publisheddocument/9679/637363678383730000 (accessed May 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-9 may represent an important property type or contribute to an important pattern of development.
Resources associated with patterns of development would most likely be part of a collection of similar, geographically linked resources that would form a historic district. Examples might be a collection of commercial resources that illustrate the importance of Lincoln Avenue as a commercial corridor during a specific period in history or a group of residences that exemplify the characteristics of residential development during a particular time-period. As described earlier in this section, the post- World War II era would be an example of a period of rapid residential development in the City.
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting
4.2.3.1 Federal Regulations
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The NHPA requires that the federal government list significant historic resources on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Federal agencies must consult the National Register when planning to undertake or grant approval through permits for a project. Prior to the issuance of any license or implementation of any project, the federal agency must consider the effects of a project or license on any historical buildings, sites, structures, or objects that are included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register (16 United States Code [USC] Section 470(f)). This typically includes consultation with the federal agency responsible for the undertaking; the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); local Native American groups and individuals; local and State historical societies and organizations; and relevant archival sources, including the appropriate facility of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). A cultural resource is evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register according to four criteria. These criteria generally require that the resource be 50 years of age or older and significant at the local, State, or national level according to one or more of the following:
A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and/or
D. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Properties that are not 50 years of age or older must have “exceptional significance” in accordance with National Register Criteria Considerations. The National Register also requires that a resource possess integrity, which is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” The aspects of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
To determine which of these factors are most important will depend on the particular National Register criterion under which the resource is considered eligible for listing. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -10 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The NAGPRA (Public Law 101-601; 25 USC 3001-3013) describes the rights of Native American lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations with respect to the treatment, repatriation, and disposition of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, referred to collectively in the statute as cultural items, with which they can show a relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation. It requires that federal agencies and museums receiving federal funds inventory holdings of Native American human remains and funerary objects and provide written summaries of other cultural items.58
4.2.3.2 State Regulations
California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. California HSC Section 7050.5 states that, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the Coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. PRC Section 5097.5 provides for the protection of cultural resources and prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.
California Register of Historical Resources (PRC Section 5020 et seq.). State law also protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources in CEQA documents. A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). These criteria are nearly identical to those for the National Register, which are listed above under Section 4.2.3.1, Federal Regulations.
The SHPO maintains the California Register. Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the National Register are nominated to the California Register and then selected to be listed on the California Register, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest.
The California Register criteria are based on National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 58 National Park Service (NPS). The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
Website: https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm (accessed January 10, 2024).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-11
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate of time needed to develop the perspective to understand the resource’s significance (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 4852[d][2]).
The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity, which is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance” (California Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 1999:2)59. To retain integrity, a resource should have its original location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Which of these factors is most important depends on the particular criterion under which the resource is considered eligible for listing. 60 4.2.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that are applicable to cultural resources relevant to the proposed project.
4.2.3.4 Local Regulations
Cypress General Plan. The Conservation/Open Space/Recreation (COSR) Element of the Cypress General Plan identifies goals and policies related to cultural resources (and includes references to paleontological resources). Goal COSR-5 is to “preserve Cypress’ archaeologic and palaeontologic resources”.61 COSR-5.1 and COSR-5.2 were identified as policies in order to achieve Goal COSR-5.
Policy COSR-5.1 is “to update records of resource finds and locations when required”62 and COSR-5.2 states that “[p]rior to development in previously undeveloped areas, [the City will] require strict adherence to the CEQA guidelines for environmental documentation and mitigation measures where development will affect archaeological or paleontological resources.”63 However, the City’s General Plan does not identify any historic resources and does not contain any specific policies to protect historic resources. In fact, the City’s General Plan states that a record search was conducted by the Regional Information Center at UCLA on November 1, 1991, and 59 California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1999. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register), OHP Technical Assistance Series #6. 60 Ibid. 61 City of Cypress. 2001. Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. Website: https://www.cypress ca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/686/636123123792970000 (accessed January 10, 2024). 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -12 yielded negative results for any recorded prehistoric or historic sites. This search also involved a review of maps from the years 1896–1942, which showed a high volume of development between 1942 and 1996. The City contains no National Register listed or eligible properties, or any State Landmarks.
4.2.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for cultural resources impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to cultural resources if it would:
Threshold 4.2.1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Threshold 4.2.2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Threshold 4.2.3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
As discussed in Section 4.5 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to archaeological resources (Threshold
4.2.2) and human remains (Threshold 4.2.3) with the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCM) CUL-1 and RCM CUL-2, respectively. Therefore, these topics are not further addressed below.
4.2.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.2.1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
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, which qualifies 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.
Los Alamitos Race Course. The approximately 125-acre Los Alamitos Race Course (LARC) property is located within the CTCC Specific Plan, which would be rezoned under the proposed project in order to accommodate additional residential development consistent with the City’s RHNA allocation as described in the updated 2021–2029 Housing Element.
For the purposes of this assessment, the area considered to be part of LARC includes the track itself (including the 1954 quarter-mile chute, the pre-1970 smaller track, and the post-1970 expanded track), grandstands, barns/stables, offices, parking lots, and other built environment features associated with the course. To determine the potential effects of the project on historic resources, a Historic Resources Assessment (HRA) was prepared in October 2023. The HRA included archival research, an intensive-level field survey, and an evaluation of the LARC under the criteria for listing
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-13 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 and are attached as an appendix to the HRA (Appendix D of this PEIR).
Based on the Historic Resources Assessment’s findings, the Los Alamitos Race Course is considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA. Based on the boundaries of the opportunity sites within the Cypress Town Center and Commons (see Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites, as provided in Chapter 3.0, Project Description), several areas bordering and overlapping with the LARC (see Figure 3-4, Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 Planned Land Uses, also in Chapter 3.0) would allow for increased residential densities. These parcels’ close proximity and/or overlap with the Los Alamitos Race Course would potentially adversely affect the LARC’s current structure and operations under future development scenarios.
This PEIR evaluates a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, the CTCC Specific Plan, the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), and Zoning Ordinance that 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 and is not under consideration as part the programmatic update. Future development within these sites would be subject to adopted development guidelines/standards as well as project-specific CEQA evaluations in which impacts to the LARC would be evaluated in greater detail and mitigated as necessary. As such, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to the LARC as a historical resource.
Lincoln Avenue. Lincoln Avenue is of particular interest due to the presence of historic-age structures (built in 1980 or earlier; 50 years of age as of 2029) along the corridor. Lincoln Avenue is located within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, which would be rezoned under the proposed project in order to accommodate residential development consistent with the City’s RHNA allocation as described in the updated 2021–2029 Housing Element.
To determine the potential effects of the project on historic resources, a Sensitivity Study was prepared on November 22, 2022. As noted in the Sensitivity Study, 117 properties were designated as potentially directly impacted as they are located on an opportunity site and 143 properties were designated as potentially indirectly impacted as they are located within close proximity to an opportunity site.
Reviews of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register; current through 2020), the National Register weekly lists (through July 15, 2022), and the California Office of Historic 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -14 Preservation’s (OHP) Built Environment Resources Database64 found that none of the properties were listed or eligible for listing in the databases. A structure at 5162 Alaska Avenue, a potentially indirectly affected site, was evaluated and found ineligible for listing in the California Register or for local designation.
The virtual field survey identified certain structures with greater potential for historical significance than others based on factors such as property type, architecture, and grouping. Properties listed in Tables 4.2.A and 4.2.B have been identified as properties that appear to have a greater potential for historical significance than other historic-period resources in the Historic Resource Impact Area.
Table 4.2.A: Opportunity Sites – Potentially Significant APN Address Year Built Property Potential Significance
244-361-04 4656 Lincoln Avenue 1952 Hyatt Die Cast (COM) Post-WWII commercial development; association
with local economy
244-051-09 4872 Lincoln Avenue 1929 SFR Inter-war pattern of development
244-071-09 5200 Lincoln Avenue 1936 Calvary Old Path Church Architecture 244-461-06 5302 Lincoln Avenue 1924 American Rental
(SFR converted to COM)
Inter-war pattern of
development; architecture
244-461-07 5312 Lincoln Avenue 1926 J.D. Coulter Company (SFR converted to COM)
Inter-war pattern of
development
244-461-09 5332 Lincoln Avenue 1923 SFR Inter-war pattern of development.
244-461-10 5342 Lincoln Avenue 1952 Made in the Shade (COM) Post-WWII pattern of development
262-424-10 5381 Lincoln Avenue 1970 Sound Avenue and sign (COM) Post-WWII pattern of development
262-424-11 5391 Lincoln Avenue 1965 Lincoln Animal Hospital (COM) Post-WWII commercial development
244-471-06 5500 Lincoln Avenue 1968 Juanito’s Mexican Food (COM) Post-WWII commercial development; property type
262-472-33 5591 Lincoln Avenue 1968 Dalton’s Café (COM) Post-WWII commercial development
262-472-35 5641 Lincoln Avenue 1971 Family Dentist (COM) Architecture 262-472-37 5661 Lincoln Avenue 1948 Driving School (COM) Post-WWII pattern of development
244-472-05 5662 Lincoln Avenue 1961 Peacock Motel and sign Tourism; property type 244-472-06 5682 Lincoln Avenue 1963 Cloud 99 motel and sign Tourism; property type 134-011-55 6046 Lincoln Avenue 1961 Paw House Pet Grooming and sign (COM)
Post-WWII commercial
development
262-473-02 8972 Walker Street 1928 COM Inter-war pattern of development
Source = Compiled by LSA (2023).
APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number
COM = Commercial
SFR = Single-family residential
64 California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2020. Built Environment Resources Database (BERD).
March 2020.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-15 Table 4.2.B: Potential Impact Areas - Potentially Significant APN Address Year Built Property Potential Significance
262-361-39 5172 Alaska Avenue 1960 SFR Post-WWII residential development
244-042-21 9302 Alderbury Street 1965 SFR Post-WWII residential development
244-461-17 5301 Bishop Street 1927 SFR Architecture
244-461-16 5311 Bishop Street 1927 SFR/MFR Architecture 244-061-22 through 244-061-25 and
244-061-55 through 244-061-59
9141-9221 Julie Beth
Street
1965–
1966
SFR Post-WWII residential
development
244-481-01 5762 Lincoln Avenue 1971 Post Office Architecture 244-042-15 through 244-042-020 4681-4751 Newman
Avenue
1965 SFR Post-WWII residential
development
244-361-08 through 244-361-021 9100-9230 Whitney
Way
1968 SFR Post-WWII residential
development
Source = Compiled by LSA (2023).
APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number
MFR = Multi-family residential
SFR = Single-family residential
Typically, historic-period resources are those elements of the built environment that are 50 years of age or older (i.e., built prior to 1973). However, in order to extend the life of the historic resources analysis, historic-period resources have been defined for the proposed project as those built prior to 1980 (i.e., those that will be 50 years of age in 2029). Ultimately, findings from the research and virtual field survey reveal that a total of 186 properties in the Historic Resource Impact Area that are currently developed with historic-period (pre-1980) buildings. Further, some of the residences included in the Historic Resource Impact Area may contribute to important patterns of residential development. Therefore, the sensitivity for historic resources along Lincoln Avenue was categorized as high in the Sensitivity Study.
Under the proposed project, several opportunity sites along the Lincoln Avenue Corridor would be rezoned for residential use, allowing for up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that some existing structures would be demolished or repurposed in order to construct the higher density dwelling units planned by the City to meet its RHNA allocation under the 2021– 2029 General Plan Housing Element Update. Because the structures are the potential source of their historical significance, demolition could potentially adversely affect their historical value.
The specifications of future residential build out 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 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.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -16 The proposed project is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance and would not directly result in physical development. Further, the specific location and configuration of future development at the LARC and Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites have not yet been determined and are not under consideration as part the programmatic update. As such, impacts to historical resources under the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.2.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to cultural resources.
4.2.6.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
As stated above under Section 4.2.4, Thresholds of Significance, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to archaeological resources (Threshold 4.2.2) and human remains (Threshold 4.2.3) with the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measures RCM CUL-1 and RCM CUL-2, respectively. These Regulatory Compliance Measures were identified in the Initial Study and would not apply to the discussion of Threshold 4.2.1 discussed in this section. However, they are listed below, as they pertain to the Cultural Resources topic.
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during
excavation, grading, or construction activities, work
shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of Qualified
Archaeologists has evaluated the find in accordance
with federal, State, and local guidelines to determine
whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological
resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the
California Public Resources Code (PRC). The Applicant
and its construction contractor shall not collect or move any archaeological materials and associated materials.
Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other
portions of the project site. Any found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State and local
guidelines, including those set forth in PRC Section
21083.2. Prior to commencement of grading activities,
the Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community
Development Department, or designee, shall verify that
all project grading and construction plans include
specific requirements regarding California PRC (Section 21083.2[g]) and the treatment of archaeological
resources as specified above.
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-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
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» 4.2-17 Coroner notified immediately consistent with the
requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to 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.
4.2.7 Level of Significance after Mitigation
No mitigation is required. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources.
4.2.8 Cumulative Impacts
Defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable projects in an area of interest.
According to the CTCC Specific Plan, more than 1,000 residential units could potentially be developed within the CTCC Specific Plan’s Residential District, Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, and the Mixed-Use District.65 Because the Residential District encompasses the 65 City of Cypress. 2017. Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0. Website: https://www. cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9683/637363679477400000 (accessed May 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.2 Cultural Resources.docx «01/16/24» -18 Los Alamitos Race Course, residential development of this scale would encroach upon the LARC property. Further, as discussed in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, the 2045 General Plan build-out assumptions used for the proposed project’s cumulative impact analysis are based upon anticipated growth allowed under the City’s General Plan in conjunction with the City’s Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) land use assumptions. Under these assumptions, 1,742 new households could be developed on and around the site of the Los Alamitos Race Course, which was identified in this section’s analysis as a historically significant cultural resource. Because this development is reasonably foreseeable, the loss of the LARC would have the potential to occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project moves forward.
Though certain areas of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 could potentially be developed with minimal impacts to the LARC, the full anticipated 2045 General Plan build-out could result in potentially significant impacts to the historical resource. As the proposed project does not include any physical development of the LARC, it would be speculative to evaluate the potential impacts of future development on the LARC as a historic resource without understanding the proposed design and configuration of such development and how it would address the existing structures and other physical features on the LARC property. These potential impacts to the LARC would be evaluated on a project-specific basis as future development projects are proposed.
Further, each development proposal received by the City that requires discretionary approval shall be subject to the requirements of CEQA, including an environmental review, if applicable. If there were any potential for significant impacts to cultural resources as a result of reasonably foreseeable development projects in Cypress, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. As such, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» 4.3-1
4.3 ENERGY
This section discusses energy use resulting from implementation of the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (project) and evaluates whether the proposed project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with any applicable plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
4.3.1 Methodology
The proposed project does not propose or approve any specific development projects. Under current zoning, the City has the capacity to accommodate the development of up to 1,946 new housing units, which includes 504 housing units that are already entitled and/or under construction.
Therefore, the proposed rezoning action that is part of the 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. As such, future development of the additional 2,314 units associated with the proposed project would result in energy demand associated with construction and operational sources.
The energy use analysis in this section is based on information from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.14 modeling results in Appendix E of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). Operational fuel consumption (diesel fuel and gasoline) from vehicle trips was estimated for the horizon year (2045) of the proposed project based on trip estimates from CalEEMod and fuel efficiencies from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMission FACtor Model (EMFAC2021) model. Estimates of fuel consumption (diesel fuel and gasoline) from construction trucks and construction worker vehicles were based on trip estimates from CalEEMod and fuel efficiencies from the CARB EMFAC2021 model.
The analysis focuses on the four sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project:
electricity, natural gas, the equipment fuel necessary for project construction, and vehicle fuel necessary for project operations. For the purposes of this analysis, the amount of electricity, natural gas, construction fuel, and fuel use from operations are quantified and compared to that consumed in Orange County. The electricity/natural gas use of the proposed project is analyzed as a whole on an annual basis.
4.3.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.3.2.1 Electricity
Electricity is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources (including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources) into energy. Electricity is used for a variety of purposes (e.g., lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration, and for operating appliances, computers, electronics, machinery, and public transportation systems).
According to the most recent data available, in 2020, California’s electricity was generated primarily by natural gas (37.06 percent), renewable sources (33.09 percent), large hydroelectric (12.21 percent), nuclear (9.33 percent), coal (2.74 percent), and other and unspecified sources. Total 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.3 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» -2 electric generation in California in 2020 was 272,576 gigawatt-hours (GWh), down 2 percent from the 2019 total generation of 277,704 GWh.1
The City is within the service territory of Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electricity to more than 15 million people in a 50,000-square-mile (sq mi) area of Central, coastal, and Southern California.2 According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the SCE service area in 2021 was 103,045 GWh (36,375 GWh for the residential sector and 51,057 GWh for the non-residential sector). Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 18,931.8 GWh (18,931,838,624 kilowatt-hours (kWh).3
4.3.2.2 Natural Gas
Natural gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel. Fossil fuels form when layers of decomposing plant and animal matter are exposed to intense heat and pressure under the surface of the Earth over millions of years. Natural gas is a combustible mixture of hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas is found in naturally occurring reservoirs in deep underground rock formations. Natural gas is used for a variety of uses (e.g., heating buildings, generating electricity, and powering appliances such as stoves, washing machines and dryers, gas fireplaces, and gas grills).
Natural gas consumed in California is used for electricity generation (45 percent), residential uses (21 percent), industrial uses (25 percent), and commercial uses (9 percent). California continues to depend on out-of-state imports for nearly 90 percent of its natural gas supply.4
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the natural gas service provider for the project site. SoCalGas provides natural gas to approximately 21.8 million people in a 24,000 sq mi service area throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border.5 According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2021 was 6,755 million therms (2,308 million therms for the residential sector). Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 580 million therms (580,187,556 therms).6
1 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. 2020 Total System Electric Generation. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-systemelectric-generation (accessed June 2023). 2 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2020. About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are (accessed June 2023). 3
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020a. Electricity Consumption by County and Entity. Website:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx and http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil. aspx (accessed June 2023). 4
CEC. 2021c. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california (accessed June 2023). 5
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2020. About SoCalGas. Website: https://www3.socalgas. com/about-us/company-profile (accessed June 2023). 6
CEC. 2020b. Gas Consumption by County and Entity. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasby county.aspx and http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed June 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» 4.3-3
4.3.2.3 Petroleum/Transportation Energy
Petroleum is also a non-renewable fossil fuel. Petroleum is a thick, flammable, yellow-to-black mixture of gaseous, liquid, and solid hydrocarbons that occurs naturally beneath the earth's surface.
Petroleum is primarily recovered by oil drilling. It is refined into a large number of consumer products, primarily fuel oil, gasoline, and diesel.
The average fuel economy for light‐duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.9 mpg in 2020.7 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. The Act, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by year 2020,
8 applies to cars and light trucks of Model Years 2011
through 2020. In March 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, further detailed below.
Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline consumed by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. According to the most recent data available, total gasoline consumption in California was 289,918 thousand barrels or 1,464.7 trillion British thermal units (BTU) in 2020.9 Of the total gasoline consumption, 273,289 thousand barrels or 1,380.7 trillion BTU were consumed for transportation.10 Based on fuel consumption obtained from CARB’s EMFAC2021, approximately 1.230 billion gallons of gasoline and approximately 156 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2023.
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting
4.3.3.1 Federal Regulations
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under this Act, consumers and businesses can obtain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products (including hybrid vehicles), building energy-efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are available for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment.
7 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). “Table 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: https://www.bts.dot.gov/bts/bts/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-dutyvehicles (accessed June 2023). 8 United States Department of Energy. 2007. “Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007.” Website:
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa (accessed June 2023). 9 A British Thermal Unit is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit. 10 United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2021a. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Table F3: Motor gasoline consumption, price, and expenditure estimates, 2020. Website: eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html&sid=CA (accessed June 2023).
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.3 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» -4 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. On March 31, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized the CAFE standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. The amended CAFE standards would require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026 by increasing fuel efficiency by 8 percent annually for model years 2024–2025, and 10 percent annually for model year 2026. The final standards are estimated to save about 234 billion gallons of gas between model years 2030 to 2050.
4.3.3.2 State Regulations
Assembly Bill 1575, Warren-Alquist Act. In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, the State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1575 (also known as the Warren-Alquist Act), which created the CEC. The statutory mission of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs; license power plants of 50 megawatts or larger; develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources; plan for and direct State responses to energy emergencies; and, perhaps most importantly, promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 to require EIRs to include, where relevant, mitigation measures proposed to minimize the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created Appendix F to the State CEQA Guidelines.
Appendix F assists EIR preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines also states that the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy and the means of achieving this goal, including (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
Senate Bill 1389, Energy: Planning and Forecasting. In 2002, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
In compliance with the requirements of SB 1389, the CEC adopts an Integrated Energy Policy Report every 2 years and an update every other year. The most recently adopted report includes the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report11 and the 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. 12 The
Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, including decarbonizing buildings, 11 CEC. 2022a. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission. Docket Number 21-IEPR01. 12 CEC. 2022b. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. California Energy Commission. Docket Number 22-IEPR-01.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» 4.3-5 integrating renewables, energy efficiency, energy equity, integrating renewable energy, updates on Southern California electricity reliability, climate adaptation activities for the energy sector, natural gas assessment, transportation energy demand forecast, and the California Energy Demand Forecast. The Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs.
Renewable Portfolio Standards. SB 1078 established the California Renewable Portfolio Standards program in 2002. SB 1078 initially required that 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable resources by 2017; however, this standard has become more stringent over time. In 2006, SB 107 accelerated the standard by requiring that the 20 percent mandate be met by 2010. In April 2011, SB 2 required that 33 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable resources by 2020. In 2015, SB 350 established tiered increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standards of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. In 2018, SB 100 increased the requirement to 60 percent by 2030 and required that all State's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045. SB 100 took effect on January 1, 2019.13 Title 24, California Building Code. Energy consumption by new buildings in California is regulated by the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), known as the California Building Code (CBC). The CEC first adopted the Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the State. The CBC is updated every 3 years, and the current 2022 CBC went into effect on January 1, 2023. The efficiency standards apply to both new construction and rehabilitation of both residential and non-residential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings, provided these standards meet or exceed those provided in CCR Title 24.
California Green Building Standards Code. In 2010, the California Building Standards Commission adopted Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code took effect on January 1, 2011. The CALGreen Code is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent update consisting of the 2022 CALGreen Code standards that became effective January 1, 2023. The CALGreen Code established mandatory measures for residential and non-residential building construction and encouraged sustainable construction practices in the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. Although the CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the CALGreen Code standards have co-benefits of reducing energy consumption from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. 13 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2020. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program.
Website: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/rps/ (accessed June 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.3 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» -6 California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. On September 18, 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted California’s first Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting a roadmap for energy efficiency in California. The Plan articulates a long-term vision and goals for each economic sector and identifies specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving those goals. The Plan also reiterates the following four specific programmatic goals known as the “Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies” that the CPUC established in Decisions D.07-10- 032 and D.07-12-051:
• All new residential construction will be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020. • All new commercial construction will be ZNE by 2030.
• 50 percent of commercial buildings will be retrofitted to ZNE by 2030. • 50 percent of new major renovations of State buildings will be ZNE by 2025.
4.3.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional energy regulations that apply to the proposed project.
4.3.3.4 Local Regulations
Cypress Municipal Code. The City of Cypress has adopted the 2022 CALGreen Code and incorporated the CALGreen Code by reference into the City Municipal Code (Chapter 5, Buildings, Article 1, Building Code, Section 5-1 California Building Codes – Adopted).
Cypress General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project:
COSR-3: Conserve energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices.
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.
COSR-3.2: Encourage new development and existing structures to install energy saving features.
4.3.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for energy impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to energy if it would:
Threshold 4.3.1: Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Threshold 4.3.2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» 4.3-7
4.3.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.3.1: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for energy through day-to-day operations and fuel consumption associated with construction activities. This section discusses energy use resulting from implementation of the proposed project and evaluates whether the proposed project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Construction. It is important to note that the proposed project would not, in and of itself entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development. 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.
Construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units that could occur with implementation of the project would occur through the horizon year 2045, which would cause fuel consumption associated with construction activities. 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.
Construction activities would include grading, site preparation, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Construction activities require energy associated with the manufacture and transportation of building materials, grading activities, and building construction.
Construction activities also typically require electricity to power construction-related equipment and do not involve the consumption of natural gas.
Transportation energy represents the largest energy use during construction and would be from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles that would use petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel fuel and/or gasoline). Therefore, the analysis of energy use during construction focuses on fuel consumption. Construction trucks and vendor trucks hauling materials to and from a site would be anticipated to use diesel fuel, whereas construction workers traveling to and from a site would be anticipated to use gasoline-powered vehicles. Fuel consumption from transportation uses depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles, and the travel mode.
Information regarding specific development projects is not yet known; however, due to the scale of development activity associated with the proposed project, this analysis assumes that up to 2,314 additional housing units would be constructed over the approximately 22-year planning period.
Construction emissions were estimated for the project using CalEEMod. This analysis assumes that construction of the additional housing units allowed under the proposed project would begin in 2023 and end in 2045, which was included in CalEEMod. Grading, site preparation, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as large excavators, cranes, and other related equipment.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.3 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» -8 Estimates of fuel consumption (diesel fuel and gasoline) from construction equipment, construction trucks, and construction worker vehicles were based on default construction equipment assumptions and trip estimates from CalEEMod and fuel efficiencies from EMFAC2021. Fuel consumption estimates are presented in Table 4.3.A. CalEEMod output sheets and detailed energy calculations are included in Appendix E of this PEIR.
Table 4.3.A: Construction Energy Consumption Estimates
Energy Type Total Energy Consumption (gallons)
Gasoline 12,540,998.1
Diesel Fuel 3,993,660.6
Source: Compiled by LSA (June 2023).
As indicated in Table 4.3.A, the proposed project is estimated to consume 12,540,998.1 gallons of gasoline and 3,993,660.6 gallons of diesel fuel during construction. As discussed above, the proposed project would be constructed over an approximately 22-year planning period; therefore, when averaged over a 22-year period, the proposed project would consume 570,045.4 gallons of gasoline per year and 181,530.0 gallons of diesel fuel per year during construction. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, 1.230 billion gallons of gasoline and approximately 156 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2023. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would increase the annual construction generated fuel use in Orange County by 0.1 percent for gasoline fuel usage and 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage.
As such, project construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies.
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. It is not expected that future residential development would include any unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. In addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy, as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs. The proposed project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. For these reasons, fuel consumption during construction would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Operation. As previously stated, the proposed project would not, in and of itself, entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development.
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.
Operational activities associated with the additional housing units would result in energy demand associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips. 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.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» 4.3-9 Long-term operation-related energy consumption associated with the 2,314 additional housing units that would be allowed under the proposed project was calculated using CalEEMod. Energy and natural gas consumption was estimated for the project using default energy intensities in CalEEMod.
In addition, the proposed project would also result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel fuel consumed by project-related vehicle trips. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were based on the project’s trip generation estimates. The proposed project would generate 10,506 average daily trips. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CARB’s EMFAC2021 model, which provided projections for typical daily fuel usage in Orange County.
Electricity, natural gas, and fuel usage estimates associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 4.3.B.
Table 4.3.B: Project Operational Energy Consumption
Estimates
Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption
Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) 8,482,740.0
Natural Gas Consumption (therms/year) 257,064.0
Automotive Fuel Consumption
Gasoline (gallons/year) 920,640.0
Diesel Fuel (gallons/year) 111,188.8
Source: Compiled by LSA (June 2023).
kWh = kilowatt-hours
As shown in Table 4.3.B, the estimated potential increase in electricity demand associated with the 2,314 additional housing units that would be allowed under the proposed project is 8,482,740.0 kilowatt-hours per year. Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 18,931.8 GWh (18,931,838,624 kilowatt-hours. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent.
As shown in Table 4.3.B, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with the 2,314 additional housing units is 257,064.0 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 580 million therms (580,187,556 therms). Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by less than 0.1 percent.
Electrical and natural gas demand associated with project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. All future residential development would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the latest Title 24 standards. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.3 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» -10 Construction of the 2,314 additional housing units that would be allowed under the proposed project would also result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel fuel consumed by project-related vehicle trips. As shown in Table 4.3.B, fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is estimated at approximately 920,640.0 gallons of gasoline and 111,188.8 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 1,230 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 156 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2023. Therefore, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would increase the annual fuel use in Orange County by approximately
0.1 percent for gasoline fuel usage and approximately 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Although the proposed project would result in an increase in demand for electricity, this increase would not require SCE to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial environmental impacts because each of the opportunity sites are already served by utilities or directly adjacent to existing urban development. Similarly, natural gas infrastructure is not anticipated due to cumulative development. Transportation energy use would also increase; however, this transportation energy use would not represent a major amount of energy use when compared to the amount of existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips and VMT throughout Orange County and the region. As such, the build out of the 2,314 additional housing units that would be allowed under the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.3.2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. In 2002, the State Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels for the Integrated Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators, in implementing incentive programs for ZEVs and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
The most recently adopted report includes the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report14 and the 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update.15 The City of Cypress relies on the State integrated energy plan and does not have its own local plan to address renewable energy or energy efficiency. 14 CEC. 2022a. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission. Docket Number 21-IEPR01. 15 CEC. 2022b. 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. California Energy Commission. Docket Number 22-IEPR-01.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–202 9 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» 4.3-11 As indicated above under Threshold 4.3.1, energy usage during project-related construction activities would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange County and the State’s available energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, as demonstrated above under Threshold 4.3.1, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.3.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to energy, and no mitigation is required.
4.3.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project pertaining to energy.
4.3.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
No mitigation is required. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to energy.
4.3.9 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative analysis of electricity is that of the SCE service area, while the geographic area for cumulative analysis of natural gas service is that of the SoCalGas service area.
Construction of the additional 2,314 housing units associated with the proposed project would result in an increased services demand in electricity and natural gas. Although the proposed project would result in an increase in demand for electricity, this increase would not require SCE to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial environmental impacts. As discussed previously, total electricity consumption in the SCE service area in 2021 was 103,045 GWh. By 2030, consumption is anticipated to increase by 12,000 GWh for the low-demand scenario and by 22,000 GWh for the high-demand scenario.16 While this forecast represents a large increase in electricity consumption, the proposed project’s share of cumulative consumption would be negligible. The proposed project, in combination with cumulative development, is well within SCE’s system-wide net annual increase in electricity supplies over the 2018 to 2030 period, and there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for estimated net increases in energy demands. 16 CEC. 2018. California Energy Demand, 2018–2030 Revised Forecast. Publication Number: CEC-200-2018- 002-CMF. February. Website: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed June 2023).
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.3 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.3 Energy.docx «01/16/24» -12 Similarly, additional natural gas infrastructure is not anticipated due to cumulative development.
Total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2021 was 6,755 million therms.
Between 2018 and 2030, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area is forecast to remain steady for the low- and mid-demand scenarios and to increase by approximately 650 million therms in the high-demand scenario due to intense energy efficiency efforts.17 The proposed project’s share of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SoCalGas service area would be negligible. It is anticipated that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas demand of cumulative development without additional facilities. In addition, both SCE and SoCalGas demand forecasts include the growth contemplated by the proposed project and the other cumulative development within their respective service areas. Increased energy efficiency to comply with building energy efficiency standards would reduce energy consumption on a per-square-foot basis.
Furthermore, utility companies are required to increase their renewable energy sources to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate of 60 percent renewable supplies by 2030. SCE and SoCalGas plan to continue to provide reliable service to their customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.
Transportation energy use would also increase; however, this transportation energy use would not represent a major amount of energy use compared to the amount of existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips and VMT throughout Orange County and the region. The proposed project and cumulative development are required to comply with various federal and State government legislation to improve energy efficiency in buildings, equipment, and appliances, and reduce VMT.
As such, the proposed project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.
17 CEC. 2018. California Energy Demand, 2018–2030 Revised Forecast. Publication Number: CEC-200-2018- 002-CMF. February. Website: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed June 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-1
4.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section has been prepared for the proposed 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (project) using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This section summarizes existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and discusses global climate change, its causes, and the contribution of human activities. This section also estimates the likely GHG emissions that would result from construction and operational activities associated with build out of the proposed project, including vehicular traffic, energy consumption and other emission sources.
4.4.1 Methodology
The proposed project does not propose or approve any specific development projects. Under current zoning, the City of Cypress (City) has the capacity to accommodate the development of up to 1,946 new housing units, which includes 504 housing units that are already entitled and/or under construction. Therefore, the proposed rezoning action that is part of the 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. As such, future development of the additional 2,314 units associated with the proposed project would result in GHG emissions from construction and operational sources.
Construction activities would generate emissions from off-road construction equipment, and on roadways as a result of construction-related truck hauling, vendor deliveries, and worker commutes.
Operational GHG emissions are typically associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). This analysis uses the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.14 to quantify GHG emissions for both construction and operation associated with the proposed project. CalEEMod output is contained in Appendix C of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
4.4.2 Existing Environmental Setting
Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth’s average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2° Celsius or 1.1 ± 0.4° Fahrenheit in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. GHGs are released by the burning 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -2 of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities, and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.1
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
• CO2
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere.
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. For the purposes of this air quality analysis, the term “GHGs” will refer collectively to the six gases listed above.
These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The global warming potential is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e). Table 4.4.A shows the GWP for each type of GHG. For example, SF6 is 23,900 times more potent at contributing to global warming than CO2.
1 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” Just as the glass in a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of greenhouse gas results in global warming, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-3 Table 4.4.A: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
Global Warming Potential
(100-Year Time Horizon)
Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1
Methane 12 25
Nitrous Oxide 114 310
HFC-23 270 11,700
HFC-134a 14 140
HFC-152a 1.4 140
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 6,500
PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10,000 9,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900
Source: California Air Resources Board (2017).
The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six GHGs and black carbon.
4.4.2.1 Carbon Dioxide
In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form, as CO2. Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals and plants, volcanic outgassing, decomposition of organic matter and evaporation from the oceans. Human-caused sources of CO2 include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral production, and deforestation.
Natural sources release approximately 150 billion tons of CO2 each year, far outweighing the 7 billion tons of man-made emissions of CO2 each year. Nevertheless, natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land- and ocean-dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man-made CO2; consequently, the gas is building up in the atmosphere.
In 2020, total annual CO2 accounted for 80.2 percent of California's overall GHG emissions.2 Transportation is the single largest source of CO2 in California, which is primarily composed of onroad travel. Electricity production and industrial and residential sources also make important contributions to CO2 emissions in California.
4.4.2.2 Methane
CH4 is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen.
Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Decomposition occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of human-generated CH4 emissions in California and in the United States as a whole. Agricultural processes such as intestinal fermentation, manure management, and rice 2 California Air Resources Board (CARB. 2022a. GHGs Descriptions and Sources in California. Website:
ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-descriptions-sources (accessed June 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -4 cultivation are also significant sources of CH4 in California. Total annual emissions of CH4 accounted for 10.5 percent of GHG emissions in California in 2020.3
4.4.2.3 Nitrous Oxide
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. Nitrous oxide is a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N2O, and the quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in California. Nitrous oxide emissions accounted for 3.5 percent of GHG emissions in California in 2020.4
4.4.2.4 Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol.5 PFCs and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry leads to greater use of PFCs. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for about
5.5 percent of GHG emissions in California in 2020.6
4.4.3 Emissions Sources and Inventories
4.4.3.1 Global Emissions
Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2020 totaled 22.9 billion metric tons (MT) of CO2e. Global estimates are based on country inventories developed as part of the programs of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.7
4.4.3.2 United States Emissions
In 2021, the year for which the most recent data are available, the United States emitted about 6,340.2 million metric tons of CO2e (MMT CO2e). Overall, emissions in 2021 increased by 6 percent relative to the 2020 total GHG emissions. This increase in total GHG emissions was driven by fossil 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gasemissions-and-sinks#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20U.S.%20greenhouse%20gas,sequestration%20from%20 the%20land%20 sector (accessed July 2023). 4
Ibid. 5
The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on January 1, 1989, and was designated to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible for ozone depletion. 6 CARB. 2021. 2022 Scoping Plan Update. May 10. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ 2022-12/2022-sp.pdf (accessed June 2023). 7
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2022. GHG Data from UNFCCC. Website:
https://di.unfccc.int/time_series (accessed June 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-5 fuel combustion due primarily to econimic activity rebounding after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, GHG emissions in 2021 were 17 percent below those of 2005 levels. Of the five major sectors—residential and commercial, agricultural, industry, transportation, and electricity generation—transportation accounted for the highest amount of GHG emissions in 2021 (approximately 28 percent), with electricity generation second at 25 percent and emissions from industry third at 23 percent.8
4.4.3.3 State of California Emissions
The State emitted 369.2 MMT CO2e emissions in 2020, 35.3 MMT CO2e lower than 2019 levels and
61.8 MMT CO2e below the 2020 GHG limit of 431 MMT CO2e.9 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that transportation was the source of 37 percent of the State’s GHG emissions in 2020, which is a smaller share than recent years, as the transportation sector saw a significant decrease of 26.6 MMT CO2e in 2020, likely due in large part to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The next largest sources included industrial sources at approximately 20 percent and electricity generation at 16 percent. The remaining sources of GHG emissions were commercial and residential activities at 10 percent, agriculture at 9 percent, high GWP at 6 percent, and waste at 2 percent.10 It is expected that emissions have increased again since 2020, primarily due to economic activity rebounding after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
4.4.4 Regulatory Setting
4.4.4.1 Federal Regulations
The United States has historically had a voluntary approach to reducing GHG emissions. However, on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.
While there currently are no adopted federal regulations for the control or reduction of GHG emissions, the USEPA commenced several actions in 2009 to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change.
This includes the 2009 USEPA final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emission sources in the United States. Additionally, the USEPA Administrator signed an endangerment finding action in 2009 under the Clean Air Act, finding that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to global climate change, leading to national GHG emission standards.
In October 2012, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), on behalf of the United States Department of Transportation, issued final rules to further reduce GHG emissions and improve CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond (77 8 USEPA. 2021. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. Website: https://www. epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2019 (accessed June 2023). 9
CARB. 2022a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators Report. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020_ ghg_inventory_trends.pdf (accessed June 2023). 10 Ibid. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -6 Federal Register 62624). The NHTSA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have been enacted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act since 1978. This national program requires automobile manufacturers to build a single light-duty national fleet that meets all requirements under both federal programs and the standards of California and other states. This program would increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon, limiting vehicle emissions to 163 grams of CO2 per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025 (77 Federal Register 62630).
On March 31, 2022, the NHTSA finalized the CAFE standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. The amended CAFE standards would require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026, by increasing fuel efficiency by 8 percent annually for model years 2024–2025, and 10 percent annually for model year 2026. The final standards are estimated to save about 234 billion gallons of gas between model years 2030 to 2050.
4.4.4.2 State Regulations
The CARB is the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. Since its formation, the CARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to California’s air pollution problems. Key efforts by the State are described below.
Assembly Bill 1493 (2002). In a response to the transportation sector’s significant contribution to California’s CO2 emissions, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 required the CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. These standards (starting in model years 2009 to 2016) were approved by the CARB in 2004, but the needed waiver of California Clean Air Act Preemption was not granted by the USEPA until June 30, 2009. The CARB responded by amending its original regulation, now referred to as Low Emission Vehicle III, to take effect for model years starting in 2017 to 2025. The Trump administration revoked California’s preemption waiver in 2019; however, the Biden administration restored it in 2021.
Executive Order S-3-05 (2005). Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3- 05 on June 1, 2005, which proclaimed that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
To combat those concerns, the executive order established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets, which established the following goals:
• GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010. • GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. • GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency is required to coordinate efforts of various State agencies to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. A biannual progress report must be submitted to the Governor and the State Legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-7 impacts of global warming on California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and report possible mitigation and adaptation plans to address these impacts.
The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency leads this Climate Action Team (CAT) made up of representatives from State agencies as well as numerous other boards and departments. The CAT members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emission reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. The CAT is also responsible for reporting on the progress made toward meeting the statewide GHG targets that were established in the executive order and further defined under AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The first CAT Report to the Governor and the State Legislature, which was released in March 2006, laid out 46 specific emission-reduction strategies for reducing GHG emissions and reaching the targets established in the executive order. The most recent report was released in December 2020.
Assembly Bill 32 (2006), California Global Warming Solutions Act. California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is AB 32, passed by the State Legislature on August 31, 2006. This legislation aimed at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the State’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. AB 32 required the CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan outlining the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and reducing GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB on December 11, 2008, and contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve the reduction of approximately 169 MMT CO2e, or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 MMT CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario (this was a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent from 2002–2004 average emissions). The Scoping Plan also includes CARB-recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions in GHG emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards:
• Improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT CO2e) • The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e)
• Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT CO2e)
• A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e) The Scoping Plan identifies 18 emission-reduction measures that address cap-and-trade programs, vehicle gas standards, energy efficiency, low carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, regional transportation-related GHG targets, vehicle efficiency measures, goods movement, solar roof programs, industrial emissions, high-speed rail, green building strategies, recycling, sustainable forests, water, and air. The measures were estimated to result in a total reduction of 174 MMT CO2e by 2020.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -8 On August 24, 2011, the CARB unanimously approved both the new supplemental assessment and reapproved its Scoping Plan, which provides the overall roadmap and rule measures to carry out AB 32. The CARB also approved a more robust CEQA equivalent document supporting the supplemental analysis of the cap-and-trade program. The cap-and-trade program took effect on January 1, 2012, with an enforceable compliance obligation that began January 1, 2013.
The CARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The First Update identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments. The First Update defined CARB climate change priorities until 2020, and also set the groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in EOs S-3-05 and B-16-2012. In addition, the First Update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals as defined in the initial Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the State’s “longer-term” GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan,11 to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by Senate Bill (SB) 32.
The 2022 Scoping Plan12 was approved in December 2022. It assesses progress towards achieving the SB 32 2030 target and lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.
Senate Bill 97 (2007). SB 97, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; Public Resources Code, Sections 21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This bill directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California Resources Agency guidelines for mitigating GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA.
The California Natural Resources Agency adopted the amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines in November 2018, which went into effect in December 2018. The amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis, but preserve the discretion granted by CEQA to lead agencies in making their own determinations based on substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs when they perform individual project analyses.
Senate Bill 375 (2008). SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, which establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle GHG 11 CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. 12 CARB. 2021. 2022 Scoping Plan Update. May 10. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ 2022-12/2022-sp.pdf (accessed June 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-9 emissions, was adopted by the State on September 30, 2008. On September 23, 2010, the CARB adopted the vehicular GHG emissions reduction targets that had been developed in consultation with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); the targets required a 6 to 15 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 19 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant GHG reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation alternatives. Through the SB 375 process, MPOs such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will work with local jurisdictions in the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way that reduces GHG emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectives. Pursuant to SB 375, the Los Angeles/Southern California reduction targets for per capita vehicular emissions were 8 percent by 2020 and are 19 percent by 2035, as shown in Table 4.4.B.
Table 4.4.B: Senate Bill 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets
Metropolitan Planning Organization By 2020 (percentage) By 2035 (percentage) San Francisco Bay Area 10 19
San Diego 15 19
Sacramento 7 19
Central Valley/San Joaquin 6-13 13-16
Los Angeles/Southern California 8 19
Source: California Air Resources Board (2018).
Executive Order B-30-15 (2015). Governor Jerry Brown signed EO B-30-15 on April 29, 2015, which added the immediate target of:
• GHG emissions should be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
All State agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. CARB was directed to update the AB 32 Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target. The mid-term target is critical to help frame the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure needed to continue reducing emissions.
Senate Bill 350 (2015) Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act. SB 350, signed by Governor Brown on October 7, 2015, updates and enhances AB 32 by introducing the following set of objectives in clean energy, clean air, and pollution reduction for 2030:
• Raise California’s renewable portfolio standard from 33 percent to 50 percent • Increasing energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent by the year 2030 The 50 percent renewable energy standard will be implemented by the California Public Utilities Commission for the private utilities and by the California Energy Commission for municipal utilities.
Each utility must submit a procurement plan showing it will purchase clean energy to displace other 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -10 non-renewable resources. The 50 percent increase in energy efficiency in buildings must be achieved through the use of existing energy efficiency retrofit funding and regulatory tools already available to State energy agencies under existing law. The addition made by this legislation requires State energy agencies to plan for, and implement those programs in a manner that achieves the energy efficiency target.
Senate Bill 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2016, and Assembly Bill 197. In summer 2016, the State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, SB 32 and AB 197. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in Governor Brown’s April 2015 EO B-30-15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps the State on the path toward achieving its 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, consistent with an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change analysis of the emissions trajectory that would stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 parts per million CO2e and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic impacts from climate change.
The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 meant to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016.
Senate Bill 100. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which raises California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard requirements to 60 percent by 2030, with interim targets, and 100 percent by 2045. The bill also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.
Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the Western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Executive Order B-55-18. EO B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, set a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” EO B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant State agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to other statewide goals, meaning not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO2e from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes.
Title 24, Part 11, Building Standards Code and CALGreen Code. In November 2008, the California Building Standards Commission established the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), which sets performance standards for residential and non-residential development to reduce environmental impacts and encourage sustainable construction practices. The CALGreen Code addresses energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality. The CALGreen Code is updated every 3 years and was most recently updated in 2022 to include new mandatory measures for residential as well as non-residential uses; the new measures took effect on January 1, 2023.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-11 California Building Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6). The California Building Standards Code, or Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains the regulations that govern the construction of buildings in California. Within the Building Standards Code, two parts pertain to the incorporation of both energy efficient and green building elements into land use development. Part 6 is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. These standards were first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption and are updated on an approximately 3-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2023, must follow the 2022 standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.
Cap and Trade. The development of a cap-and-trade program was included as a key reduction measure of the CARB AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The cap-and-trade program will help put California on the path to meet its goal of achieving an 80 percent reduction of GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. The cap-and-trade emissions trading program developed by the CARB took effect on January 1, 2012, with enforceable compliance obligations beginning January 1, 2013. The cap-and-trade program aims to regulate GHG emissions from the largest producers in the State by setting a statewide firm limit, or cap, on allowable annual GHG emissions. The cap was set in 2013 at approximately 2 percent below the emissions forecast for 2020. In 2014, the cap declined approximately 2 percent. Beginning in 2015 and continuing through 2020, the cap has been declining approximately 3 percent annually. The CARB administered the first auction on November 14, 2012, with many of the qualified bidders representing corporations or organizations that produce large amounts of GHG emissions, including energy companies, agriculture and food industries, steel mills, cement companies, and universities. On January 1, 2015, compliance obligation began for distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels. The cap-andtrade program was initially slated to sunset in 2020, but the passage of SB 398 in 2017 extended the program through 2030.
Executive Order N-79-20. EO N-79-20, which was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 23, 2020, sets the following goals for the State: 100 percent of in-State sales of new passenger cars and trucks shall be zero-emission by 2035; 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the State shall be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment in the State shall be zero-emission by 2035, where feasible.
California Integrated Waste Management Act. To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties were required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Through other statutes and regulations, this 50 percent diversion rate also applies to State agencies. In order of priority, waste reduction efforts must promote source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. In 2011, AB 341 modified the California Integrated Waste Management Act and directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop and adopt regulations for 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -12 mandatory commercial recycling. AB 341 also established a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent; the 50 percent disposal reduction mandate still applies for cities and counties under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act. In April 2016, AB 1826 further modified the California Integrated Waste Management Act, requiring businesses that generate a specified amount of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that organic waste in a specified manner. Diverting organic waste from landfills reduces emissions of CH4. This is equivalent to reducing anaerobic decomposition of organic waste that would have otherwise occurred in landfills where organic waste is often buried with other inorganic waste.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard. In January 2007, EO S-01-07 established a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). This executive order calls for a statewide goal to be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020, and that an LCFS for transportation fuels be established for California. The LCFS applies to all refiners, blenders, producers, or importers (“Providers”) of transportation fuels in California, including fuels used by off-road construction equipment. In June 2007, CARB adopted the LCFS under AB 32 pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5, and, in April 2009, CARB approved the new rules and carbon intensity reference values with new regulatory requirements taking effect in January 2011.
The standards require providers of transportation fuels to report on the mix of fuels they provide and demonstrate they meet the LCFS intensity standards annually. This is accomplished by ensuring that the number of “credits” earned by providing fuels with a lower carbon intensity than the established baseline (or obtained from another party) is equal to or greater than the “deficits” earned from selling higher-intensity fuels. In response to certain court rulings, CARB re-adopted the LCFS regulation in September 2015, and the LCFS went into effect on January 1, 2016. In 2018, CARB approved amendments to the regulation to readjust carbon intensity benchmarks to meet California’s 2030 GHG reductions targets under SB 32. These amendments include opportunities to promote zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies for decarbonization of the transportation sector.
Advanced Clean Cars Program. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, which combines the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of ZEVs, into a single package of regulatory standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. The new regulations strengthen the GHG standard for 2017 models and beyond. This will be achieved through existing technologies, the use of stronger and lighter materials, and more efficient drivetrains and engines. The program’s ZEVs regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. The program also includes a clean fuel outlet regulation designed to support the commercialization of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned by vehicle manufacturers by 2015 by requiring increased numbers of hydrogen fueling stations throughout the State. The number of stations will grow as vehicle manufacturers sell more fuel cell vehicles. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the statewide fleet of new cars and light trucks will emit 40 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions than 2012 model year vehicles.
Executive Order B-48-18. In January 2018, Governor Brown signed EO B-48-18 requiring all State entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030, as well as install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2025. It
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-13 specifies that 10,000 of the electric vehicle charging stations should be direct current fast chargers.
This order also requires all State entities to continue to partner with local and regional governments to streamline the installation of ZEV infrastructure. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development is required to publish a Plug-in Charging Station Design Guidebook and update the 2015 Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook to aid in these efforts. All State entities are required to participate in updating the 2016 Zero-Emissions Vehicle Action Plan to help expand private investment in ZEV infrastructure with a focus on serving low-income and disadvantaged communities. Additionally, all State entities are to support and recommend policies and actions to expand ZEV infrastructure at residential land uses, through the LCFS Program, and recommend how to ensure affordability and accessibility for all drivers.
4.4.4.3 Regional Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District. In 2008, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the Basin. The Working Group developed several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD 2008 draft guidance document titled Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans13 that could be applied by lead agencies. On September 28, 2010, SCAQMD Working Group Meeting No. 15 provided further guidance, including a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The SCAQMD has not presented a finalized version of these thresholds to the governing board.
The SCAQMD identifies the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with any State legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. As such, the utilization of a service population represents the rates of emissions needed to achieve a fair share of the State’s mandated emissions reductions. Overall, the SCAQMD identifies a GHG efficiency level that, when applied statewide or to a defined geographic area, would meet the 2020 and post-2020 emissions targets as required by AB 32 and SB 32. If projects are able to achieve targeted rates of emissions per the service population, the State will be able to accommodate expected population growth and achieve economic development objectives, while also abiding by AB 32’s emissions target and future post-2020 targets.
Southern California Association of Governments. On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal—the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020–2045 RTP/SCS) for the SCAG region.
14 In general, the SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce vehicle miles traveled from automobiles and light-duty trucks and thereby reduce GHG emissions from these sources. For the SCAG region, CARB has set GHG reduction targets at 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. The RTP/SCS lays out a strategy for 13 SCAQMD. 2008b. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. 14 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0. pdf?1606001176 (accessed June 2023).
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -14 the region to meet these targets. Overall, the SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. Land use strategies to achieve the region’s targets include planning for new growth around high-quality transit areas and livable corridors, and creating neighborhood mobility areas to integrate land use and transportation and plan for more active lifestyles.15 However, the SCS does not require that local General Plans, Specific Plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS; SCAG is required to consider local land use controls when drafting the SCS.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. In 2008, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the Basin. The Working Group developed several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD 2008 draft guidance document titled Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans16 that could be applied by lead agencies. On September 28, 2010, SCAQMD Working Group Meeting #15 provided further guidance, including a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency.
The SCAQMD has not presented a finalized version of these thresholds to the governing board.
The SCAQMD identifies the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with any State legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. As such, the utilization of a service population represents the rates of emissions needed to achieve a fair share of the State’s mandated emissions reductions. Overall, the SCAQMD identifies a GHG efficiency level that, when applied statewide or to a defined geographic area, would meet the post2020 emissions targets as required by AB 32 and SB 32. If projects are able to achieve targeted rates of emissions per the service population, the State will be able to accommodate expected population growth and achieve economic development objectives, while also abiding by AB 32’s emissions target and future post-2020 targets.
4.4.4.4 Local Regulations
The City of Cypress does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
4.4.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to greenhouse gas emissions if it would:
Threshold 4.4.1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold 4.4.2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
15 Ibid. 16 SCAQMD. 2008b. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-15
4.4.5.1 Regional Emissions Thresholds
To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting held in September 2010 (Meeting No. 15), SCAQMD proposed to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency:
• Tier 1. Exemptions: If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
• Tier 2. Consistency with a locally adopted GHG Reduction Plan: If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e., city or county), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
• Tier 3. Numerical Screening Threshold: If GHG emissions are less than the numerical screeninglevel threshold, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD, under Option 1, is proposing a “bright-line” screening-level threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year (MT CO2e/yr) for all land use types or, under Option 2, the following land-use-specific thresholds:
1,400 MT CO2e for commercial projects, 3,500 MT CO2e for residential projects, or 3,000 MT CO2e for mixed-use projects. This bright-line threshold is based on a review of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright-line thresholds identified above.
Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright-line threshold would have a nominal and therefore less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions. • Tier 4. Performance Standards: If emissions exceed the numerical screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project’s GHG emissions is warranted. SCAQMD has proposed an efficiency target for projects that exceed the bright-line threshold. The current recommended approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percentage emissions reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD proposes a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2e/yr per service population (MT CO2e/yr/SP) for project-level analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e/yr/SP for plan-level projects (e.g., program-level projects such as general plans). In addition, GHG reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be approximately 40 percent.
This 40 percent reduction was applied to the 2020 targets, resulting in an efficiency threshold for plans of 4.1 MT CO2e/yr/SP and an efficiency threshold at the project level of 3.0 MT CO2e/yr/SP. The GHG efficiency metric divides annualized GHG emissions by the service population, which is the sum of residents and employees, per the following equation:
Rate of Emission: GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) ÷ Service Population 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -16 The efficiency evaluation consists of comparing the project’s efficiency metric to efficiency targets. Efficiency targets represent the maximum quantity of emissions each resident and employee in the State of California could emit in various years based on emission levels necessary to achieve the statewide GHG emissions reduction goals. A project that results in a lower rate of emissions would be more efficient than a project with a higher rate of emissions, based on the same service population. The metric considers GHG reduction measures integrated into a project’s design and operation (or through mitigation).
The 3,000 MT CO2e/yr threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology.
Prior to its use by the SCAQMD, the 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in its CEQA & Climate Change white paper.
17 A 90 percent emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90 percent of all GHG-producing projects within a geographic area—the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) in this instance—would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of all GHG-producing projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change, because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1 percent of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050.18 In setting the threshold at 3,000 MT CO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate.19 The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MT CO2e per year.20 The SCAQMD set its significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded 17 SCAQMD. 2008b. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.
December 5. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases- (ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed June 2023). 18 Ibid. 19 SCAQMD. 2009. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13.
August 26. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases- (ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-13/ghg-meeting-13-minutes.pdf?sfvrsn =2 (accessed June 2023). 20 Ibid.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-17 to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MT CO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis.
The City understands that the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold for residential/commercial uses was proposed by SCAQMD a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold21 document and subsequent Working Group meetings (the latest of which took place in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2023.22 Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands, of GHG analyses performed for projects within the Basin.
For the purpose of this analysis, the proposed project will first be compared to the SCAQMD screening-level Tier 3 Numerical Screening Threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr for all land use type projects. If it is determined that the proposed project is estimated to exceed this numerical threshold, it will then be compared to the SCAQMD-recommended 2035 efficiency-based threshold of 4.1 MT CO2e/yr per service population for plan-level projects. In addition, the proposed project is also evaluated for compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan and the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.
4.4.6 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.4.1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. This section describes the potential construction- and operationalrelated GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. SCAQMD has not addressed emission thresholds for construction in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook; however, SCAQMD requires quantification and disclosure. Thus, this section discusses construction emissions.
Construction. It is important to note that the proposed project would not, in and of itself entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development. 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.
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 21 SCAQMD. 2008a. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold.
October. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed June 2023). 22 Ibid. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -18 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.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. Construction would emit GHGs through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles for the duration of the construction period. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, the fueling of heavy equipment emits CH4. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
As indicated above, SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for constructionrelated GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. The SCAQMD then requires the construction GHG emissions to be amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years, added to the operational emissions, and compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier. Since the new housing development allowed under the proposed rezoning actions that are part of the project would be built over a 22-year planning period, the life of the project would likely be longer than 30 years; however, to be conservative, this analysis still assumes a 30-year life.
Information regarding specific development projects is not yet known; however, due to the scale of development activity associated with the proposed project, this analysis assumes that 2,314 housing units would be constructed over the approximately 22-year planning period. Construction emissions were estimated for the project using CalEEMod. This analysis assumes that construction of the proposed project would begin in 2023 and end in 2045, which was included in CalEEMod. Site preparation, grading, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as large excavators, cranes, and other related equipment.
Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 64,871 MT CO2e during construction. When annualized over the 30-year life of the project, annual emissions would be 2,162.4 MT CO2e.
Operation. As previously stated, the proposed project would not, in and of itself, entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development.
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. 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.
Operational activities associated with the additional housing units would result in long-term GHG emissions associated with mobile, area, waste, water, and stationary sources 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
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-19 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. As discussed above, the proposed project includes the proposed rezoning actions that would allow for residential development on the opportunity sites. As identified in Section 4.9, Transportation, the proposed project would generate 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 SCAQMD, GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Table 4.4.C shows the calculated GHG emissions for the proposed project. 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. Appendix E provides additional calculation details.
Table 4.4.C: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Emission Type Operational Emissions
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percentage of Total
Mobile Source 8,491.8 0.3 0.3 8,596.5 67
Area Source 39.8 <0.1 <0.1 39.9 <1
Energy Source 3,410.6 0.2 <0.1 3,422.2 27
Water Source 170.1 2.8 0.1 261.4 2
Waste Source 152.7 15.3 0.0 534.2 4
Total Operational Emissions 12,854.2 100.0
Amortized Construction Emissions 2,162.4 -
Total Annual Emissions 15,016.6 -
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000.0 -
Exceeds Threshold? Yes -
Service Population Emissions 3.3
SCAQMD Plan-Level Service Population Threshold 4.1 -
Exceeds Threshold? No -
Source: LSA (August 2023).
CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O= nitrous oxide
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -20 As discussed above, 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.
As described further in Section 4.7, Population and Housing, according to the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), the average household size in structures that have 50 or more housing units (the highest housing density type evaluated in the AHS) in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area was 1.99 persons. Therefore, 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 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. Impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.4.2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. An evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is provided below. 2022 Scoping Plan. The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions from the Scoping Plan, such as transportation emissions, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other Statewide actions that would affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS and changes in the CAFE standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program). Although measures in the Scoping Plan apply to State agencies and not the proposed project, the project’s GHG emissions would be reduced by compliance with Statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO B-30-15, SB 32, and AB 197.
EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan,23 to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B-30-15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps us on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. 23 CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-21 The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to the CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016.
The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.
The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon-neutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero-carbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan states that in almost all sectors, electrification will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping Plan evaluates clean energy and technology options and the transition away from fossil fuels, including adding four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N-79-20 requires that all new passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero-emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transitioned to zero-emission as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.
Energy measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. As identified above, future projects would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen Code standards regarding water efficiency and energy conservation requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable energy measures.
Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, future projects would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen Code standards, which include a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the future projects would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.
The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Specific regional emissions targets for transportation emissions would not directly apply to the proposed project. However, vehicles traveling to the project site 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 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -22 by 2025. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS was adopted September 3, 2020. SCAG’s RTP/SCS identifies land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The core vision in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is to better manage the existing transportation system by implementing transportation demand management strategies, integrating land use decisions and technological advancements, creating complete streets that are safe to all roadway users, preserving the transportation system, and expanding transit and fostering development in transit oriented communities. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as a development forecast that is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data. The forecast development pattern, when integrated with the financially constrained transportation investments identified in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, would reach the regional target of reducing GHG emissions from automobiles and light-duty trucks by 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels).
The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.
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.
24 It is important to note that the Regional Growth Forecast prepared for the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS was developed prior to the establishment of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 3,936 units for the 2021–2029 planning period.
With respect to determining the proposed project’s consistency with Air Quality Management Plan growth assumptions, the projections in the Air Quality Management Plan for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions in SCAG’s RTP/SCS regarding the City’s population, housing, and growth trends.
Although the 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 an unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 units to meet its estimated housing growth needs identified in the SCAG RHNA allocation of 3,936 units. As such, the proposed project would accommodate the construction of a total of 2,314 housing units on the potential housing sites.
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 24 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed June 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) 4.4-23 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.
4.4.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.
4.4.8 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 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 vehicle measures. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.
4.4.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
GHG emissions associated with the build out under the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr or 4.1 MT CO2e/yr/SP. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.4 AppeP:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (01/16/24) -24
4.4.10 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, or future projects, that when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (1) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs, and (2) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs across the world. Land use projects may contribute to the phenomenon of global climate change in ways that would be experienced worldwide, and with some specific effects felt in California.
However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project impacts and global warming.
The analysis of impacts related to GHG emissions is inherently cumulative. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would have no conflict with applicable statewide and regional climate action measures. In addition, as discussed above, the project’s operationalrelated GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold. GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, and therefore the cumulative impact would also be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-1
4.5 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section describes the existing land uses on the opportunity sites and in their vicinity, and evaluates the compatibility of the proposed 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project) with surrounding land uses and relevant policy and planning documents.
The consistency analysis presented in this section was prepared in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). Information presented in this section is based on information provided in the City of Cypress (City) General Plan, the City Zoning Ordinance, the 2012 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan; last amended in 2012), the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan; last amended in 2018), and the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP; last amended in 2016). In addition, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with other applicable planning documents as they relate to specific topical sections within Chapter 4.0, Existing Environmental Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
4.5.1 Methodology
The impact analysis presented in this Land Use and Planning section evaluates potential physical impacts of the proposed project on land use compatibility and considers whether the proposed project would result in potential inconsistencies with relevant plans or policies contained in applicable planning documents adopted by the City and other agencies. Neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines set forth standards for determining whether or not a project is consistent with an applicable plan; rather, the final determination that a project is consistent or inconsistent with an applicable plan is made by the Lead Agency when it acts on the project. The analysis in this PEIR discusses the findings of policy review and is meant to provide a guide for decision-makers during policy interpretation.
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). This PEIR section determines whether or not the proposed project would conflict with any adopted land use policies or programs and whether mitigation is feasible. Under this approach, a policy or program conflict is not in and of itself considered a significant environmental impact. An inconsistency between the proposed project and an applicable plan is a legal determination that may or may not indicate the likelihood of an environmental impact. In some cases, an inconsistency may be evidence that an underlying physical impact is significant and adverse.
4.5.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.5.2.1 Geographical Setting
The City of Cypress includes approximately 6.6 square miles and is located in the northwestern portion of the County of Orange, California. The City is bordered on the north by the cities of La Palma and Buena Park, on the east by the cities of Anaheim and Stanton, on the south and west by the city of Los Alamitos, and on the west by the cities of Long Beach, Hawaiian Gardens, and Lakewood. Regional vehicular access to the City is provided via State Route 22 (SR-22), Beach 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -2 Boulevard (State Route 39 [SR-39]), State Route 91 (SR-91), and Interstates 405 and 605 (I-405 and I-605, respectively).
4.5.2.2 Existing Land Uses
Incorporated in 1956, the City of Cypress is predominantly developed with residential and commercial land uses as well as community facilities.1 A period of rapid development followed Cypress’ incorporation, which consisted mainly of single-family residential subdivisions. An extensive parks and recreation system and a large employment center in the southern section of the City have since been developed.
Cypress currently has adopted sixteen Specific Plans, which provide development guidelines for “smaller areas that have unique qualities and require focused planning attention.”2 Each Specific Plan is delineated in the City’s General Plan Land Use Map (City of Cypress 2021). The proposed project’s opportunity sites fall within three Specific Plan groupings based on the boundaries presented in the Land Use Map. The opportunity sites fall within the boundaries of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP), the Cypress Town Center and Commons (CTCC) Specific Plan 2.0, and the Cypress Business and Professional Center (CBPC) Specific Plan. Accordingly, the opportunity sites are considered as three separate groupings for the purpose of this analysis. These opportunity site groupings are illustrated in Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites.
The opportunity sites, as identified in Chapter 3.0, are currently developed with a variety of uses, including but not limited to Recreation/Open Space, Commercial/Mixed Use, and Residential Uses.
These uses generally correspond with the character of the Specific Plan in which they are located, which will be discussed further in Sections 4.5.3.4 and 4.5.5.
The proposed zoning and land use designation changes at the opportunity sites are intended to establish consistency between the updated 2021–2029 Housing Element and other General Plan components, including the Land Use Element as well as the three affected Specific Plans, which will be described in detail in the following sections.
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting
4.5.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations applicable to land use and planning.
4.5.3.2 State Regulations
California State Planning and Zoning Law. This law, which is codified in California Government Code sections 65000-66037, delegates most of the State’s local land use and development decisions to cities and counties. The California Government Code establishes specific requirements pertaining to the regulation of land uses by local governments, including general plan requirements, specific 1 City of Cypress. 2001. Introduction to the General Plan. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/ showpublisheddocument/662/636123113549170000 (accessed January 16, 2024). 2 City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Land Use Element. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/ showpublisheddocument/668/636123114412030000c (accessed January 16, 2024).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-3 plans, subdivisions, and zoning. California Government Code Section 65302 requires that all California cities and counties include the following seven elements in their general plan:
• Land Use
• Circulation
• Housing
• Conservation
• Open Space
• Noise
• Safety
Cities and counties in the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District must also address air quality in their general plans. Cities and counties that have identified disadvantaged communities must also address environmental justice in their general plans, including air quality.3 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375). This statute requires California’s regional planning agencies to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTP). Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning. Under the law, California’s regional planning agencies are required to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTP). The SCS provides a plan for meeting the regional emissions reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). If the emissions reduction targets cannot be met through the SCS, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) may be developed that shows how the targets would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures of policies. SB 375 also offers local governments regulatory and other incentives to encourage more compact new development and transportation alternatives.
The requirements of SB 375 are reflected in the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which serves as the regional planning agency in the six-county metropolitan region composed of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is discussed in further detail below in Section 4.5.3.3.
4.5.3.3 Regional Regulations
The City of Cypress is covered by several planning documents and programs that have varying degrees of regulation over use in the City. The following paragraphs explain regional regulations, plans, and policies applicable to the opportunity sites that are analyzed in this section of the PEIR.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). As discussed above, regional planning in Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties is conducted by 3 Senate Bill (SB) 1000, adopted in 2016, requires both cities and counties that have disadvantaged communities to incorporate environmental justice (EJ) policies into their general plans, either in a separate EJ element or by integrating related goals, policies, and objectives throughout the other elements. This update, or revision if the local government already has EJ goals, policies, and objectives, must happen “upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018.”
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -4 SCAG. SCAG is also the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for these six counties. As the designated MPO, SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and prepare plans for transportation, a growth forecast, hazardous waste, and air quality. The growth forecast serves as the foundation of these plans. Of the various plans adopted by SCAG, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS are relevant to the project.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020–2045 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. The 2020–2045 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS is a longrange visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The overall vision for the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is to chart a path toward a more mobile, sustainable and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, planning strategies, and the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians.
The goals of Connect SoCal fall into four core categories: economy, mobility, environment, and healthy/complete communities. The plan explicitly lays out goals related to housing, transportation technologies, equity, and resilience in order to adequately reflect the increasing importance of these topics in the region, and where possible the goals have been developed to link to potential performance measures and targets. The plan’s guiding policies take these goals and focus them, creating a specific direction for plan investments.
The following goals in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS are applicable to the proposed project:
Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities.
Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options.
4.5.3.4 Local Regulations
The City has preeminent decision-making authority regarding allowable land uses on the opportunity sites. As discussed in greater detail below, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code both apply to the project; however, the three relevant Specific Plans largely govern the permitted uses on, and development standards for, the opportunity sites.
City of Cypress General Plan. The City of Cypress General Plan contains goals, policies, and plans that are intended to guide land use and development decisions. The General Plan consists of a Land Use Map and the following eight elements, or chapters, which together fulfill the State requirements for a General Plan:
• Land Use Element
• Housing Element
• Circulation Element
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-5 • Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element (satisfies the State’s Conservation and Open Space Element requirements)
• Safety Element
• Noise Element
• Air Quality Element (optional element not required by State law) • Growth Management Element (optional element not required by State law) The City of Cypress General Plan was last comprehensively updated by the City Council in September 2001.
At the heart of the General Plan is the Land Use Element (2001). This element presents the City’s goals and policies directing the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of the City. The Land Use Element serves as a guide to the allocation of land use in the City and has major impacts on key issues and subject areas examined in the other elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Map, which illustrates land uses within the City, is a primary feature of the Land Use Element. Land use designations indicate the type and nature of development that is allowed in a given location.
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element contains the following land use categories:
• Low Density Residential
• Medium Density Residential
• High Density Residential
• Mobile Home Park
• General and Neighborhood Commercial
• Specific Plan
• Light Industrial
• Business Park
• Community Facilities and Services
Each of these categories establishes allowed land uses and corresponding standards of compliant intensity and density. Intensity is typically more concerned with non-residential uses while density, within the context of land use, measures the residential capacity of land in terms of dwelling units per gross acre.
In addition to standards of development within the City, the General Plan Land Use Element also states various goals, along with policies designed to facilitate the achievement of each goal. The following goals and policies included in the General Plan are relevant to the proposed project:
• Land Use Element
○ 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.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -6 ■ Policy LU-1.2: Allow for multi-family infill in designated areas to satisfy regional housing needs.
■ Policy LU-1.3: Encourage mixed use development within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area by providing incentives for senior citizen and multi-family housing. ■ 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. ○ 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 Cypress Golf Club.
■ Policy LU-3.3: Provide incentives to encourage lot consolidation and parcel assemblage to provide expanded opportunities for coordinated development. ○ 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.
■ Policy LU-4.2: Encourage development projects to utilize high quality design for architecture and site planning through the City’s design review process. ■ Policy LU-4.3: Implement the design guidelines of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan to improve the overall appearance of existing buildings, streets, and parking areas consistent with the Lincoln Avenue streetscape.
■ Policy LU-4.4: Preserve Cypress' low density residential neighborhoods through enforcement of land use and property development standards to create a harmonious blending of buildings and landscape.
○ Goal LU-6: Enhance the visual image and economic vitality of the Lincoln Avenue corridor. ■ Policy LU-6.4: Encourage mixed use development on Lincoln Avenue by providing incentives for senior citizens and multi-family housing. ■ Policy LU-6.5: Continue to maintain a “pedestrian scale and orientation” and improve pedestrian circulation and amenities.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-7 • Circulation Element
○ 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).
■ Policy CIR-1.4: Require new development to conform to the standards and criteria of the City of Cypress and other mandated programs. This includes mitigation of traffic impacts to the surrounding street system.
■ Policy CIR-1.5: The City of Cypress will continue involvement in plans and programs related to the Circulation Element. This involvement is anticipated to result in traffic studies to be undertaken by City staff, to identify specific circulation programs and improvements to be implemented, in order to satisfy the various related programs. • Housing Element
○ 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. ○ Goal HOU-4: Provide adequate housing sites through appropriate land use, zoning, and specific plan designations to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs. ■ Policy HOU-4.2: Facilitate development of mixed-use projects within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, including stand-alone residential development (horizontal mixed-use) and housing above ground-floor commercial uses (vertical mixed-use). ■ Policy HOU-4.4: Ensure compatibility of new residential development with existing development to enhance the City’s residential neighborhoods. • Noise Element
○ Goal N-2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. • Air Quality Element
○ Goal AQ-1: Reduce air pollution through proper land use and transportation planning. • Growth Management Element
○ Goal GM-1: Reduce traffic congestion.
■ Policy GM-4.1: To the extent feasible, utilize information on the jobs/housing balance in the City and region as a factor in land use decision-making. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -8 City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance implements the policies of the Cypress General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City. The City’s Zoning Ordinance has been adopted to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of residents while preserving and enhancing the City’s aesthetic quality.
The City is divided into zoning districts that directly correspond to the land use designations outlined in the Land Use Element of its General Plan. The City’s Zoning Ordinance classifies, regulates, restricts, and separates the use of land and structures, regulates and limits the bulk, height, and type of structures in the various zoning districts, and regulates areas of yards and other open areas abutting and between structures, and regulates the density of population.
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, particularly concerning the opportunity sites pursuant to the City’s RHNA allocation. Specifically, potential inconsistencies could arise from proposed changes to zoning designations that would allow for residential development, and in some cases, more dense residential development, within the opportunity sites. Under the proposed project, the density of these sites would range from 8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 60 du/ac.
Cypress Business and Professional Center (CBPC) Specific Plan. As set forth in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, Specific Plans implement General Plan goals and policies by designating land uses, densities, development, and design standards in more specific detail. On April 17, 1990, the Cypress City Council adopted the CBPC Specific Plan, which established comprehensive guidance and regulations for the development of approximately 298 acres of land within the City. In 2012, the CBPC Specific Plan was amended. As shown in Figure 3-6, a large portion of what was previously considered the CBPC Specific Plan area is now subject to the CTCC Specific Plan. As shown in Figure 3-6, the CBPC Specific Plan is divided into nine different planning areas; however, all of Planning Area 1, most of Planning Area 8, and small portions of Planning Areas 6 and 9 are now subject to the CTCC Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan largely governs the permitted uses on, and development standards for, the opportunity sites within the CBPC Specific Plan’s boundaries.
The Professional Office designation is intended to accommodate the development of professional and administrative offices that complement the adjacent hotel center within the CBPC Specific Plan area. Permitted uses within this land use designation include a variety of office, studio, financial institutions, governmental, corporate, employment, and health service uses. Uses permitted subject to a conditional use permit include commercial, trade or vocational schools, restaurant, service stations, post offices, and other similar uses that the Community Development Director finds to be compatible with these uses, subject to review or approval by the City Council.
Other land use designations within the CBPC Specific Plan include Mixed-Use Commercial/Senior Housing, Mixed Use Business Park, Hotel and Support Commercial, and Mixed-Use Business Park/ General Retail Commercial.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-9 The following policies in the CBPC Specific Plan are relevant to the proposed project:
• Development Plan
○ Overall Concept
■ Policy 1: Encourage primarily employment generating business park and other commercial uses in the Specific Plan area, while expanding the diversity of housing by providing multifamily housing in Planning Area 5B, and senior housing and related “continuum of care” facilities in Planning Area 9.
■ Policy 3: Utilize site plan review as a means of authorizing the maximum and best use of each parcel of land allowed by this Specific Plan.
It should be noted that CBPC Specific Plan policies regarding the Los Alamitos Race Course are not considered in the consistency analysis in this section because the Los Alamitos Race Course currently falls within the boundaries of the CTCC Specific Plan.
Cypress Town Center and Commons (CTCC) Specific Plan 2.0. As set forth in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, Specific Plans implement General Plan goals and policies by designating land uses, densities, development, and design standards in more specific detail. In June 2018, the City’s voters approved Measure A, which approved the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan).
The CTCC Specific Plan establishes a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework for the use and development of approximately 154.4 acres of land in the City, which were formerly included in the CBPC Specific Plan area. The CTCC Specific Plan area includes the Los Alamitos Race Course property and is generally bounded by Cerritos Avenue to the north, Katella Avenue to the south, and Lexington Drive to the west.
As shown in Figure 3-4, Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 Planned Land Uses, the CTCC Specific Plan area is divided into six land use districts. One of the primary features of the CTCC Specific Plan is the town center district, which is 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 CTCC Specific Plan’s 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, singlefamily 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/MediumDensity 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. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -10 Unlike the CBPC Specific Plan and the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, the CTCC Specific Plan does not list any unique goals or policies. Instead, it relies upon goals and policies from various City General Plan sections.4
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP). As set forth in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, Specific Plans implement General Plan goals and policies by designating land uses, densities, development, and design standards in more specific detail.
The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP) was approved by the Cypress City Council in 1998. The LASP has subsequently been amended numerous times, including in 2006 to eliminate the maximum front building setback within the Campus Village land use district, in 2009 to create a new Residential R30 District and to provide for transitional housing, supportive housing, and emergency shelters in conjunction with the 2009 Housing Element Update, and in 2016 to create a Commercial Preservation Overlay.
The LASP area is situated in the northern portion of the City and extends east to west approximately
3.1 miles. Lincoln Avenue is the major east-west commercial corridor for the City. There are a wide variety of land uses within this specific plan, including, low intensity commercial, retail-commercial, service oriented, and residential uses.
As shown in Figure 3-4, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Planned Land Uses, the LASP is divided into nine different land use districts, which allow a mix of residential, commercial, mobile home park, public and semi-public, quasi-public, and light industrial uses.
The following goals and policies included in the LASP are relevant to the proposed project:
• Goal 1: Enhance the economic vitality of the Lincoln Avenue Corridor. ○ Policy 1.5: Locate residential uses within close proximity of commercial centers to encourage pedestrian traffic, and to provide a consumer base for commercial uses.
4.5.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for land use and planning impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to land use and planning if it would:
Threshold 4.5.1: Physically divide an established community? Threshold 4.5.2: 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?
4 City of Cypress. 2017. Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0. Website: https://www. cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9683/637363679477400000 (accessed May 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-11 Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of the Initial Study (Appendix B) prepared for the proposed opportunity sites occur within an urbanized area and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, impacts related to the physical division of an established community would be less than significant, and Threshold 4.5.1 is not further addressed below.
4.5.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.5.2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
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.
As discussed earlier in this section, 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 project’s consistency with relevant land use plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding adverse environmental impact is discussed below. This section includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with the SCAG 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS, the City of Cypress (City) General Plan, the City Zoning Ordinance, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the LASP. Please note that this PEIR does not include a CTCC Specific Plan consistency analysis because the CTCC Specific Plan does not contain any unique goals or policies.
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Table 4.5.A provides a consistency analysis of goals from the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS that are relevant to the proposed project.
In order to eliminate repetitive policies and focus on key issues, goals that are not relevant to the proposed project are not included in Table 4.5.A. As described in Table 4.5.A, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable goals of the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, and no mitigation is required.
Furthermore, the proposed project reinforces goals contained in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS by providing additional housing opportunities within locations near amenities and already used by the public for commercial, recreational, and/or professional uses.
City of Cypress General Plan. The proposed project’s changes to land use designations would allow for residential development within the opportunity sites and provide consistency between the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Code and the updated 2021–2029 City General Plan Housing Element. Table 4.5.B provides a consistency analysis of the goals and policies from the City’s General Plan that are relevant to the proposed project. In order to eliminate repetitive policies and focus on key issues, policies that are not relevant to the proposed project are not included. As highlighted in the analysis presented in Table 4.5.B, the proposed project’s updates to the General Plan would ensure consistency between the project and all applicable General Plan goals and policies. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -12 Table 4.5.A: RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis
Relevant RTP/SCS Goals Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities.
Consistent. The proposed project would support equitable communities by accommodating a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all Cypress residents, creating opportunities for attainably-priced housing for all income groups. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation within the 2021–2029 Housing Element Update specifies various income levels for future residential developments to ensure economic diversity and inclusivity within the City’s communities. The proposed updates to the City’s zoning and specific plans would result in higher density residential areas that would create a greater sense of community and aim to preserve the character of established neighborhoods. The opportunity sites’ proximity to existing community amenities would provide residents with community spaces within walking distance.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 6 in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.
RTP/SCS Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are supported by
multiple transportation options.
Consistent. The proposed project would amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance and specific plans to provide adequate potential housing sites with corresponding density to provide the needed units to meet the City’s RHNA allocation as stated in the 2021–2029 Housing Element. The project would accommodate the appropriate
distribution of new housing throughout the City. The opportunity sites are located within previously developed areas of the City and are accessible by walking, biking, or driving via existing streets.
Additionally, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates bus service in the City along Lincoln Avenue and Katella Avenue, which include many of the opportunity sites.1 Therefore, another transportation option available at the proposed project’s opportunity sites would be public transit. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 9 in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments. 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
1 Orange County Transportation Authority. West/Central County System Map. Website: https://www.octa.net/ebusbook/routePdf/ County.pdf?n=2023 (accessed May 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-13 Table 4.5.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis 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.
Consistent. The opportunity sites were selected because of their potential ability to accommodate the housing needs allocated to the City by the SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) adopted in the City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element update. The proposed project seeks to establish consistency across the City’s land use documents to ensure that planning decisions are informed and balanced. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal LU-1 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-1.2: Allow for multi-family infill in
designated areas to satisfy regional housing needs.
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it provides a framework for future
development within the opportunity site areas. Objective 4 of the proposed project, which can be found in Section 3.5 of Chapter
3.0, Project Description, seeks to “promote land uses that transform now-vacant or under-utilized sites.” Therefore, infill development is a priority consideration for future development within the opportunity sites under the proposed project. The project will provide infill housing opportunities to satisfy the City’s RHNA requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-1.2 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-1.3: Encourage mixed use development
within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area by
providing incentives for senior citizen and multifamily housing.
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it provides a framework for future
development within the opportunity sites. As illustrated by Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites, many of the proposed opportunity sites are within the Lincoln Avenue corridor, and therefore the LASP.
Because the corridor is already developed with various
commercial uses, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of future residential developments would fall under the mixed-use category. While the proposed project does not necessarily contain provisions for senior housing, the land use designations could accommodate senior housing. Further, many of the
opportunity sites along Lincoln Avenue would likely need to be multi-family housing developments in order to accommodate the proposed density of 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-1.3 of the City’s General Plan.
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.
Consistent. Some of the future developments enabled by the proposed project would be located at the opportunity sites along Lincoln Avenue (see Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites). The Lincoln Avenue corridor is already a commercial hub, so the increased residential densities under the proposed project could potentially increase the existing consumer base and improve the walkability of the area. As far as the opportunity sites along Katella Avenue within the CTCC and CBPC Specific Plans, pedestrian access to the commercial and business uses for residents would also allow for a potentially increased consumer base. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-1.4 of the City’s General Plan.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -14 Table 4.5.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis Goal LU-2: Ensure that new development is
compatible with surrounding land uses, the
circulation network, availability of public facilities, and existing development constraints.
Consistent. The opportunity sites are within areas of existing development. Therefore, during site plan review, the City would consider the compatibility of any new residential dwelling units with the site’s surroundings. Additionally, each opportunity site is within an area that is already designated for residential or commercial development.
1 Thus, the opportunity sites would not
mark a substantial departure from existing uses and are not subject to any relevant development constraints. As discussed in Section 4.7, Population and Housing, of this PEIR, the opportunity sites are already served by existing roads and would not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, the development would be compatible with the existing circulation network. The proposed project’s relationship to the availability of public facilities is discussed in Section 4.8, Public Services, of this PEIR. As described in that section, all impacts of the proposed project on public services would be either less than significant prior to mitigation or reduced to a less than significant level by Regulatory Compliance Measures RCM PS-1 and RCM PS-2 in Section 4.8, Public Services, of this PEIR. This would make the proposed project consistent with the availability of public facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with all aspects of Goal LU-2 of the City’s General Plan.
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.
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it would provide a framework for future development within the opportunity sites. Any future
development proposals within these areas would be required to comply with applicable buffering, landscaping, and buffering standards of the City or relevant Specific Plan. Therefore, future residential uses made possible by the proposed project would be designed in a way that ensures a sensitive transition between commercial, business, and residential uses. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with all aspects of Policy LU-2.1 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-2.2: Where residential/commercial
mixed use is permitted, ensure compatible
integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts.
Consistent. All new residential development allowed under the proposed project is planned for areas that are already designated for residential or commercial development. Additional housing units under the proposed project would contribute to this mixed use without adding any inconsistent uses or interfering with either use. Future development proposals would be reviewed by the City for compatibility with surrounding land uses consistent with the City’s Zoning and Specific Plan requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-2.2 of the City’s General Plan.
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.
Consistent. Given that the opportunity sites are within areas of the City that already attract patrons for commercial uses, the increased residential development capacity under the proposed project could reduce vehicle trips by providing residents with the ability to walk between residences and commercial centers. The proximity itself would serve to encourage pedestrian activity and decreased vehicle trips. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-2.7 of the City’s General Plan.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-15 Table 4.5.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis Goal LU-3: Revitalize older commercial and
residential uses and properties.
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it would provide a framework for future development within the opportunity sites. Objective 4 of the proposed project, which can be found in Section 3.5 of Chapter
3.0, Project Description, seeks to “promote land uses that transform now-vacant or under-utilized sites.” Many of the existing buildings at the opportunity sites are currently used for commercial and/or residential purposes. The proposed project would seek to revitalize some of the properties within these Specific Plan boundaries that are older and not necessarily reaching their full use potential. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal LU-3 of the City’s General Plan.
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 Cypress Golf Club.
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it would provide a framework for future development within the opportunity sites. The rezoning that would take place under the proposed project would involve redevelopment within the opportunity sites and encourage residential uses. As shown in Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites, many of the opportunity sites are located on or adjacent to the Los Alamitos Race Course and the Lincoln Avenue corridor.
Therefore, the proposed project would not only encourage, but would directly facilitate the redevelopment of the areas mentioned in this policy. As such, Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-3.1 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-3.3: Provide incentives to encourage lot
consolidation and parcel assemblage to provide
expanded opportunities for coordinated
development.
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it would provide a framework for future development within the opportunity sites. The project does not contain any incentives, financial or otherwise, for the encouragement of any particular coordinated development strategies. However, it does enable coordinated residential development along a series of parcels based on allowable densities under rezoning plans. Within this residential development, lot consolidation and parcel assemblage could potentially occur, dependent upon future proposal plans enabled by the project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-3.3 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-4.2: Encourage development projects to
utilize high quality design for architecture and site
planning through the City’s design review process.
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it would provide a framework for future development within the opportunity sites. Any future residential development proposals would be subject to City or applicable Specific Plan guidelines, which reflect strict standards of architecture and other design aspects. These developments would also be subject to the City’s design review process, as with any development. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-4.2 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-4.3: Implement the design guidelines of
the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan to improve the
overall appearance of existing buildings, streets,
and parking areas consistent with the Lincoln
Avenue streetscape.
Any reasonably foreseeable development proposals within the opportunity sites inside the LASP boundaries would be subject to the LASP design guidelines and standards, which would ensure that such developments would be visually compatible with the existing visual character of the area. Such development could even bring about potential improvements to the visual character 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -16 Table 4.5.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis of the area through new landscaping, lighting, or other design features. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-4.3 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-4.4: Preserve Cypress' low density
residential neighborhoods through enforcement of
land use and property development standards to
create a harmonious blending of buildings and
landscape.
Consistent. The zoning and land use designation changes proposed by the project reflect a shift from commercial/lower density zoning in favor of medium to high residential zoning, in some cases up to 60 du/ac. The higher density is intended to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of dwelling units. Future projects would be reviewed for buffering and design
considerations when higher density development is located adjacent to lower density land uses. The CTCC and CBPC Specific Plans are located in areas characterized by office and commercial uses and medium density housing. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-4.4 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal LU-6: Enhance the visual image and economic
vitality of the Lincoln Avenue corridor.
Consistent. The proposed project would allow higher density residential areas along Lincoln Avenue, which could improve the economic vitality of the Lincoln Avenue corridor by increasing the existing consumer base with new residents in close proximity.
Given the proximity of the proposed Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites to existing retail locations, residents would be able to walk to many businesses. Additionally, as they fall within the boundaries of the LASP, any future developments within the Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites would be subject to the LASP design guidelines and standards, which would function to maintain the visual image of the area. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal LU-6 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-6.4: Encourage mixed use development
on Lincoln Avenue by providing incentives for
senior citizens and multi-family housing.
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it would provide a framework for future development within the opportunity sites. As illustrated by Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites, many of the opportunity sites are located within the Lincoln Avenue corridor. Because the corridor is already developed with various commercial uses, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of future residential developments would fall under the mixed-use category. While the proposed project does not necessarily contain provisions for senior housing, future projects could incorporate or provide senior housing when actual plans are proposed. Further, many
opportunity sites along Lincoln Avenue would likely need to be multi-family housing developments in order to provide housing types at the densities over 15 du/ac. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-6.4 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-6.5: Continue to maintain a “pedestrian
scale and orientation” and improve pedestrian
circulation and amenities.
Consistent. Design specifications of future residential developments would be made available at the time such
development is proposed. However, it is reasonable to assume that future development made possible by the proposed project would continue to maintain a pedestrian scale and orientation for the sake of consistency with the General Plan. Under the proposed project’s opportunity sites along Lincoln Avenue, residential areas of up to 30 du/ac would be located directly
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-17 Table 4.5.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis adjacent to commercial uses. Similarly, the opportunity sites within the CTCC and CBPC Specific Plans would locate residential uses of varying densities adjacent to commercial, professional, and mixed-use developments. These proximities would
encourage pedestrian circulation between residential and commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-6.5 of the City’s General Plan.
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.
Consistent. As part of this PEIR’s impact analysis on
transportation, a Level of Service (LOS) analysis was completed for 26 signalized intersections with the potential to be affected by the proposed project. The analysis compared the proposed project and found that it would not be expected to create significant LOS impacts under General Plan Build out conditions.
Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the maintenance of the City’s transportation system and would be consistent with Goal CIR-1 of the City’s General Plan.
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).
Consistent. Because the proposed project would enable
particular areas of higher density residential development within close proximity to existing retail locations, it can be reasonably assumed that overall trip lengths may be shortened. Objective 3 of the proposed project, which can be found in Section 3.5 of Chapter 3.0, Project Description, seeks to 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. This development would also potentially provide residents with employment opportunities within walking distance.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy CIR-1.3 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy CIR-1.4: Require new development to
conform to the standards and criteria of the City of
Cypress and other mandated programs. This
includes mitigation of traffic impacts to the
surrounding street system.
Consistent. As part of the environmental review process for the proposed project, a Level of Service (LOS) analysis pertaining to the project was conducted in May 2023. The analysis evaluated the potential circulation changes resulting from the
implementation of the proposed project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The assessment found that the proposed project would not result in any significant changes to LOS under General Plan build-out conditions. Had any impacts to LOS been discovered in this assessment, CEQA would have required the mitigation of these impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy CIR-1.4 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy CIR-1.5: The City of Cypress will continue
involvement in plans and programs related to the
Circulation Element. This involvement is
anticipated to result in traffic studies to be
undertaken by City staff, to identify specific
circulation programs and improvements to be
implemented, in order to satisfy the various
related programs.
Consistent. As part of the environmental review process for the proposed project, a Level of Service analysis pertaining to the project was conducted in May 2023 (Appendix H of this PEIR). The analysis evaluated the potential circulation changes resulting from the implementation of the proposed project as required by CEQA. Future traffic studies may be performed as part of the environmental review process of future residential development proposals made possible by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy CIR-1.5 of the City’s General Plan.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -18 Table 4.5.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis 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.
Consistent. The proposed project seeks to update various City planning documents in order to establish consistency with its 2021–2029 Housing Element Update, which addresses the City’s RHNA allocation for the 6th Housing Element Cycle. The project’s opportunity sites have been specifically selected for their ability to accommodate this magnitude of new housing so that the community’s housing needs can be met. Objective 5 of the proposed project, which can be found in Section 3.5 of Chapter
3.0, Project Description, of this PEIR, seeks to provide high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the City’s diverse population. Therefore, the range of housing opportunities that would be allowed under the proposed
project’s rezoning is intended to be diverse. Furthermore, the RHNA housing allocation accounts for income level, with different unit amounts based upon affordability. Under the proposed project, the proposed residential densities on the opportunity sites would range from 8 du/ac to 60 du/ac (see Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites). Therefore, the proposed project would provide the City with a range of housing types. The proposed project would also provide for new housing options in several different areas of the City. More specifically, the Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites are located in the northern part of the City, while the opportunity sites along Katella Avenue are in the City’s southwest corner (see Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites). Each opportunity site is located within a Specific Plan, which each has its own sense of character. As such, the housing opportunities under the proposed project would provide a range of location options. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal HOU-3 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal HOU-4: Provide adequate housing sites
through appropriate land use, zoning, and specific
plan designations to accommodate the City’s share
of regional housing needs.
Consistent. In order to meet the need for additional housing in accordance with the City’s RHNA allocation, the proposed project would rezone/redesignate several opportunity sites to allow for low to high density residential development. The opportunity sites within the CTCC Specific Plan would be rezoned to allow for a density of up to 30 du/ac. The opportunity site within the CBPC Specific Plan would be rezoned from a Senior Housing/
Professional Office/Hotel and Support Commercial zone to a High Density Residential area of up to 60 du/ac. The LASP opportunity sites would be rezoned to allow for up to 30 du/ac in districts in which this density had previously not been allowed. All aforementioned updates are designed with the intent to meet the City’s RHNA allocation; Objective 2 of the proposed project, which can be found in Section 3.5 of Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of this PEIR, seeks to meet the City’s housing needs as identified in the RHNA. Furthermore, the project would increase the number of housing choices for residents that are lower income as per RHNA allocations. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal HOU-4 of the City’s General Plan.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-19 Table 4.5.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis Policy HOU-4.2: Facilitate development of mixeduse projects within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, including stand-alone residential
development (horizontal mixed-use) and housing
above ground-floor commercial uses (vertical
mixed-use)
Consistent. Though the proposed project does not involve development itself, it would provide a framework for future development within the opportunity site. As illustrated by Figure 3-3, Opportunity Sites, many of the opportunity sites are located along the Lincoln Avenue corridor, and therefore within the LASP area. Because the corridor is already developed with various commercial uses, it is reasonable to assume that a portion of future residential developments would feature mixed-use development. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Policy HOU-4.2 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy HOU-4.4: Ensure compatibility of new
residential development with existing
development to enhance the City’s residential
neighborhoods.
Consistent. New residential development made possible by rezoning and changes to land use designations under the proposed project is unlikely to be incompatible with existing uses, as all new development is planned for areas already designated for residential or commercial development.
1 Additionally,
Objective 4 of the proposed project, which can be found in Section 3.5 of Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of this PEIR, seeks to promote land uses that transform vacant or underutilized spaces. Therefore, the project aims to focus new residential development in infill projects that are adjacent to existing development. Future development on each of the opportunity sites would be subject to the architectural and design standards that are applicable to that part of the City, which would ensure aesthetic compatibility. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy HOU-4.4 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal N-2: Incorporate noise considerations into
land use planning decisions.
Consistent. Consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, Section 4.6, Noise, of this PEIR, evaluates the potential short-term and long-term noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The proposed project was found to have less than significant environmental impacts, which may factor into planning decisions pertaining to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal N-2 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal AQ-1: Reduce air pollution through proper
land use and transportation planning.
Consistent. Objective 3 of the proposed project, which can be found in Section 3.5 of this PEIR, aims to 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. The planning of potential residential sites directly adjacent to business and retail sites would eliminate the need for automobile travel in some cases. The walkable nature of many of the opportunity sites would contribute to the reduction of air pollution from automobile travel and would therefore make the project consistent with Goal AQ-1 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal GM-1: Reduce traffic congestion. Consistent. As part of the environmental review process for the proposed project, a Level of Service (LOS) assessment pertaining to the project was conducted in May 2023. This assessment evaluated the potential circulation changes resulting from the implementation of the proposed project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The assessment found that the proposed project would not result in any 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -20 Table 4.5.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis significant changes to LOS under General Plan build-out conditions. This, combined with the increased pedestrian accessibility that would result from the opportunity sites’ proximity to existing land uses, could potentially function to reduce traffic congestion. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal GM-1 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy GM-4.1: To the extent feasible, utilize
information on the jobs/housing balance in the
City and region as a factor in land use decisionmaking.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.7, Population and Housing, of this PEIR, SCAG’s RHNA was developed using various data, including the City’s projected population, household, and employment growth. Thus, the balance of jobs and housing is a built-in factor of the RHNA housing unit allocation provided by SCAG. Because the proposed project has been designed to accommodate the amount of housing units allocated to the City under its RHNA, the implementation of this update is inherently utilizing information on the jobs/housing balance in the City.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy GM-4.1 of the City’s General Plan.
Source: City of Cypress General Plan (2000). 1 City of Cypress. 2017. 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration, Draft, SCH # 2021070352. July 2021. 2 LSA. 2023. Traffic Impact Analysis: City of Cypress Housing Element Implementation.
CBPC Specific Plan = Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan City = City of Cypress
CTCC Specific Plan = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan du/ac = dwelling units per acre
LOS = Level of Service
PEIR = Program Environmental Impact Report
RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Assessment
SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments
City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project includes amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance that would allow for residential development, or in some cases denser residential development than was previously allowed, at the opportunity sites. The City’s approval and implementation of amendments to the Zoning Code would ensure that the project would be consistent with the adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element. These updates would be codified in the City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Future projects implemented in accordance with the updated zoning would be reviewed against provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as in accordance with the CEQA guidelines, as part of the future development review process. Based on the foregoing, the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City of Cypress’ Zoning Ordinance.
Cypress Business and Professional Center (CBPC) Specific Plan. The proposed project divides the City’s RHNA between the LASP area, the CTCC Specific Plan area, and the CBPC Specific Plan area.
The CBPC Specific Plan area currently restricts residential uses to Senior Housing. Under the proposed project, the Professional Office/Hotel and Support Commercial designation would be amended to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, which would accommodate an estimated 321 units.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-21 Table 4.5.C provides a consistency analysis of the policy from the CBPC Specific Plan that is relevant to the proposed project.
Table 4.5.C: CBPC Specific Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant Specific Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
Development Plan
Overall Concept Policy 1: Encourage primarily
employment generating business park and other
commercial uses in the Specific Plan area, while
expanding the diversity of housing by providing
multifamily housing in Planning Area 5B, and
senior housing and related “continuum of care”
facilities in Planning Area 9.
Consistent. While the proposed project encourages residential development rather than business park or commercial uses, the provision of additional housing at a variety of income levels could encourage the development of business and commercial uses by locating potential workforce and consumer base concentrations near commercial centers. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Overall Concept Policy 1 of the CBPC Specific Plan.
Source: Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (City of Cypress 2012).
CBPC Specific Plan = Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan Table 4.5.D provides a consistency analysis of the policies from the LASP that are relevant to the proposed project.
Table 4.5.D: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Consistency Analysis Relevant Specific Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
Development Plan
Goal 1: Enhance the economic vitality of the Lincoln
Avenue Corridor.
Consistent. By amending the LASP to allow higher density residential uses along Lincoln Avenue, the proposed project could potentially improve the economic vitality of the
Lincoln Avenue Corridor by increasing the existing consumer base with new residents in close proximity. Given the
proximity of the proposed Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites to existing retail locations, residents would be able to walk to many businesses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the LASP.
Policy 1.5: Locate residential uses within close proximity of commercial centers to encourage pedestrian traffic,
and to provide a consumer base for commercial uses.
Consistent. Under the proposed project, residential areas of up to 30 du/ac would be located directly adjacent to
commercial uses. This proximity would encourage pedestrian traffic between residential and commercial uses.
Additionally, the new residential developments would
potentially provide a new consumer base with convenient access to commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 1.5 of the LASP.
Source: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (City of Cypress 1998).
CBPC Specific Plan = Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan CTCC Specific Plan = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Cypress Town Center and Commons (CTCC) Specific Plan. The allowable density within the CTCC Specific Plan opportunity sites would be rezoned to allow for the development of up to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which would allow the accommodation of a maximum of 676 units.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -22 Additionally, the unit cap would also 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. With these proposed changes, an estimated 1,791 units could be accommodated within the CTCC Specific Plan area.
The City would be required to hold an election to implement changes to the CTCC Specific Plan.
Because no specific goals or policies are laid out in the CTCC Specific Plan, this section does not contain a consistency table for the CTCC Specific Plan.
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP). The current LASP allows for residential development at 30 du/ac within its R-30 and Residential Mixed Use districts. Under the proposed project, this maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac would be expanded beyond these districts to the majority of the LASP area. This change would increase development potential by approximately 1,317 units, allowing the LASP area to accommodate a total of approximately 1,644 units.
Summary. As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, 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, as described in Tables 4.5.A through 4.5.D, 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 Housing Element Update and the necessary conforming changes to land use designations, zoning, and Specific Plans, the 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, and no mitigation is required.
4.5.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning.
4.5.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project pertaining to land use and planning.
4.5.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
No mitigation is required. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) 4.5-23
4.5.9 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the cumulative impact area for land use and planning. The geographic scope of the cumulative land use and planning analysis is the City of Cypress because the proposed project would affect land use and planning throughout the City. This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development within the City.
As discussed under Threshold 4.5.1, the project would not physically divide an established community because land use changes proposed within the City are intended to tie into the existing uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Development would occur within existing areas of development, which is not expected to divide an established community. Therefore, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact with respect to the physical division of an established community.
As discussed under Threshold 4.5.2, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact with respect to consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Specific Plans because the project would include necessary document amendments to ensure consistency. These changes would not have cumulative impacts because they are administrative actions to properly reflect existing uses. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed zoning changes and updated land use designations would be required to adhere to all applicable development policies and guidelines.
As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, the list of projects considered for cumulative impacts is based upon the City’s General Plan 2045 build-out assumptions. Because this build out is already anticipated and accounted for in the City’s General Plan, no land use and planning conflicts would occur. As such, implementation of the City of Cypress Housing Element Update would not contribute to a cumulative effect due to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Consequently, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\4.5 Land Use and Planning.docx (01/29/24) -24 This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2019 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx «01/16/24» 4.6-1
4.6 NOISE
This section evaluates the potential short-term and long-term noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project). This section is based in part on information provided in the Noise Element of the City of Cypress’ (City) General Plan. The assumptions used in the noise analysis and the noise modeling results are provided in Appendix F of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
4.6.1 Methodology
4.6.1.1 Characteristics of Sound
Noise is usually defined as “unwanted sound.” Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health.
To the human ear, sound has two important characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a wave resulting in the tone’s range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity is the average rate of sound energy transmitted through a unit area perpendicular to the direction in which the sound waves are traveling. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. In analyzing the potential noise impacts of a proposed project, the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project site is identified and the potential noise effects of the project are evaluated in terms of sound intensity and the effect on adjacent sensitive land uses.
4.6.1.2 Measurement of Sound
Sound intensity is measured through the A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies.
Decibels (dB), unlike the linear scale (e.g., inches or pounds), is a scale based on powers of 10.
Each interval of 10 dB indicates a sound energy 10 times greater than before. For example, 10 dB is 10 times more intense than 0 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more intense than 0 dB, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense than 0 dB. Thirty (30 dB) dB represents 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 0 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx «01/16/24» -2 the source. This drop-off rate is applicable to noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source (which approximates the effect of several point sources), such as highway traffic or railroad operations, the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source sound levels decrease 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation.
There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also account for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels. CNEL is the time-weighted average noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the relaxation. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable.
Other noise rating scales used when assessing the annoyance factor of noise include the maximum noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. Short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. For enforcement purposes, it is often used with another noise scale (or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels) in noise ordinances. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level. The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period.
4.6.1.3 Vibration
According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) FTA’s 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual1
, vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object.
The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise.
Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or anthropogenic causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration is often described in units of velocity (inches per second) and discussed in decibel units in order to compress the range of numbers required to 1 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Website: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_
0.pdf (accessed July 24, 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2019 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx «01/16/24» 4.6-3 describe vibration. Vibration impacts are generally associated with activities such as train operations, construction, and heavy truck movements.
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 vibration velocity decibels (VdB). Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The relevant range of vibration for the purposes of this analysis is from approximately 50 VdB, the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, the general threshold where minor damage can occur in buildings.
4.6.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.6.2.1 Overview of the Existing Noise Environment
The City of Cypress is located in the northwestern portion of the County of Orange, California. The City is bordered on the north by the cities of La Palma and Buena Park, on the east by the cities of Anaheim and Stanton, on the south and west by the city of Los Alamitos, and on the west by the cities of Long Beach, Hawaiian Gardens, and Lakewood. The City is predominantly developed with residential and commercial uses and community facilities and has little opportunity for additional development.
The existing noise environment can be characterized by major and minor arterial roadways, aircraft overflights (from the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos), and industrial and commercial centers. Traffic noise on surface streets is a significant source of noise within the community. The major roadways in the City include Crescent Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Orange Avenue, Ball Road, Cerritos Avenue, Katella Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, Bloomfield Street, Denni Street, Moody Street, Walker Street, Valley View Street, Holder Street, and Knott Street. JFTB Los Alamitos is situated along the southern boundary of the City and is the only airport in the vicinity of Cypress.
Commercial and industrial land uses located near residential areas currently generate occasional noise impacts. The primary noise sources associated with these facilities is caused by delivery trucks, air compressors, generators, outdoor loudspeakers, and gas venting. Other significant stationary noise sources in the City include noise from construction activity, street sweepers, and gas powered leaf blowers.
4.6.2.2 Existing Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses include residential areas, places of worship, educational facilities, childcare facilities, and recreational facilities. These land uses occur throughout various locations in the City and, in many cases, adjacent to the major roadways which comprise the primary circulation network.
Housing is the most predominant and noise-sensitive land use in Cypress. This land use is considered especially noise-sensitive because (1) considerable time is spent by individuals at home, (2) significant activities occur outdoors, and (3) sleep disturbance is most likely to occur in a residential area. Mixed use developments which include residential uses along major arterials are particularly 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx «01/16/24» -4 sensitive uses since they are located in areas where higher noise levels are generated. Additionally, the City of Cypress has a number of educational facilities, churches, a library, senior housing, and park and recreation facilities that are considered noise-sensitive.
4.6.2.3 Existing Noise Levels
The major noise sources in the City of Cypress include freeways, major and minor arterial roadways, and noise-generating stationary sources. The most significant and common source of noise in urban areas is transportation related. Motor vehicle noise is of concern because of the traffic volume and roadway proximity to noise sensitive areas. Existing traffic noise levels were modeled at 50 feet from the centerline of the nearest lane. The lowest existing noise level recorded was 61 dBA on Holder Street between Orange Avenue and Katella Avenue and the highest was 70.3 dBA on Valley View Street between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue.
4.6.3 Regulatory Setting
4.6.3.1 Federal Regulations
United States Noise Control Act. In 1972, Congress enacted the United States Noise Control Act.
This act authorized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to publish descriptive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” These levels are separated into health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels). For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to 70 dBA during a 24-hour period of time. At 55 dBA Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 feet (ft), with no community reaction. However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent may indicate annoyance. The USEPA cautions that these identified levels are guidelines, not standards.
4.6.3.2 State Regulations
Noise Insulation Standard. The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
California Health and Safety Code, Division 28, Noise Control Act. The California Noise Control Act states that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that it is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians that is free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. The goal is to minimize the number of people that would be exposed to excessive noise but not create an environment completely free from any noise.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2019 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx «01/16/24» 4.6-5 State of California General Plan Guidelines. The State of California regulates vehicular and freeway noise affecting classrooms, sets standards for sound transmission and occupational noise control, and identifies noise insulation standards and airport noise/land-use compatibility criteria. The State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2017 General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2017), also provide guidance for the acceptability of projects within specific CNEL/Ldn contours. The General Plan Guidelines present adjustment factors that may be used in order to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.
4.6.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations related to noise that are applicable to the proposed project.
4.6.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress General Plan. The development of effective strategies to reduce impacts of excessive noise is an essential part of the land use planning process. Since 1971, the Noise Element has been one of the seven mandatory elements of a General Plan. The Noise Element requires that noise sources be considered in establishing land use patterns so as to minimize exposure of residents to excessive noise. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan2 works to achieve and maintain environmental noise levels compatible with land use by establishing goals, policies, and programs to ensure that Cypress residents will be protected from excessive noise. The City’s Noise Element serves as a guideline for compliance with the State’s noise insulation standards. Applicable Noise Element objectives and policies include the following:
• N-1: Reduce noise impacts from transportation sources. • N-2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. • N-3: Minimize noise spillover from commercial uses into nearby residential neighborhoods. • N-4: Minimize the noise impacts associated with the development of residential units above ground floor commercial uses in mixed use developments.
Additionally, the City’s General Plan Noise Element has established interior and exterior noise standards for various land use categories shown in Table 4.6.A. As shown in Table 4.6.A, the City’s exterior and interior noise standards are 50–60 dBA CNEL and 45–55 dBA CNEL, respectively, for single- and multifamily residences. It should be noted that the City’s exterior noise standard only applies to private yards of single-family residences, private patios, or balconies of multifamily residences which are served by a means of exit from inside the dwelling, mobile home parks, park picnic areas, and school playgrounds. Multifamily residences with balconies that are 6 feet deep or less are exempt from the City’s exterior noise standard. Although the City’s interior noise standard is 45–55 dBA CNEL, the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL was used for a conservative noise analysis. 2 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan, Noise Element. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/ showpublisheddocument/718/636123119313270000 (accessed June 3, 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx «01/16/24» -6 Table 4.6.A: City of Cypress Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Categories dBA CNEL
Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2
Residential Single Family Duplex, Multiple Family 453–55 50–60 Mobile Home 45 654
Commercial
Industrial
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 --
Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant 55 --
Office Building, Research and Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building 50 --
Amphitheater, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall 45 -- Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 --
Sports Club 55 --
Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities 65 --
Movie Theaters 45 --
Institutional Hospital, Schools’ Classrooms 45 65
Church, Library 45 --
Open Space Parks -- 65
Source: City of Cypress General Plan Noise Element, Table N-3. 1 Indoor environmental including: bedrooms, living areas, bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2 Outdoor environments limited to: private yards of single-family residences, private patios, or balconies of multifamily residences which are served by a means of exit from inside the dwelling (balconies 6 ft deep or less are exempt), mobile home parks, park picnic areas, and school playgrounds. 3
Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. 4 Exterior noise levels should be such that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
Although the City has not adopted exterior noise standards for hotels, movie theaters, and commercial uses, the City has established an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for hotels and movie theaters and an interior noise standard of 55 dBA CNEL for commercial retail and restaurant uses.
4.6.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for noise impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to noise if it would:
Threshold 4.6.1: 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.
Threshold 4.6.2: Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
Threshold 4.6.3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or on airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2019 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx «01/16/24» 4.6-7 Section 4.13, Noise, of the Initial Study (Appendix B) prepared for the proposed project concluded that the project site is not within the 60 A-weighted decibel community noise equivalent level (dBA CNEL) or 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for JFTB Los Alamitos and therefore would result in less than significant impact related to airport and airstrip operational noise levels. Therefore, Threshold 4.6.3 is not further addressed below.
4.6.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.6.1: 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.
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.
Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts. Future year average daily trips (ADT) were calculated by LSA for future year 2045 with and without the project for roadways within the City that were identified as major noise sources in Section 4.6.2.1. The potential change in ADT with and without the project ranged from a decrease of 530 ADT to an increase of 1,000 ADT. The largest increases (1,000 ADT) are predicted on Lincoln Avenue between Moody Street and Walker Street. Table 4.6.B provides a comparison of the future year 2045 ADT with and without the project and the resultant noise level change.
A 3 dBA increase is considered to be perceptible by the human ear in an outdoor environment.
Therefore, 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 existing without the project.
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. 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. It is assumed that the vehicle mix would remain the same. As shown in Tables 4.6.B, the anticipated change in traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would result in traffic noise increases 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
4.6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx (01/16/24) -8 Table 4.6.B: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project Roadway Segment
Existing Future Year (2045)
Without Project Future Year (2045) With Project
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase
from
Existing
Conditions
Lincoln Avenue
Bloomfield Street to Denni Street 18,660 66.2 26,480 67.7 26,920 67.7 0.0 Denni Street to Moody Street 16,890 65.7 25,400 67.5 25,960 67.6 0.1 Moody Street to Walker Street 16,240 65.5 25,180 67.5 26,180 67.6 0.1 Walker Street to Valley View Street 18,310 66.1 26,370 67.7 27,300 67.8 0.1 Valley View Street to Knott Avenue 17,310 65.8 25,660 67.5 26,310 67.6 0.1 Orange Avenue
Bloomfield Street to Moody Street 7,480 62.5 8,570 63.1 8,790 63.2 0.1 Moody Street to Walker Street 10,500 63.9 11,420 64.3 11,810 64.5 0.2 Walker Street to Valley View Street 11,880 64.5 13,350 65.0 13,750 65.1 0.1 Valley View Street to Holder Street 11,920 64.5 12,910 64.8 13,060 64.9 0.1 Holder Street to Knott Avenue 8,680 63.1 10,360 63.9 10,390 63.9 0.0 Ball Road
Bloomfield Street to Moody Street 17,300 66.8 19,330 67.3 19,380 67.3 0.0 Moody Street to Walker Street 17,010 66.8 18,620 67.2 18,730 67.2 0.0 Walker Street to Valley View Street 19,130 67.3 20,930 67.7 21,300 67.7 0.0 Valley View Street to Knott Avenue 17,000 66.8 18,390 67.1 18,690 67.2 0.1 Cerritos Avenue
Bloomfield Street to Denni Street 19,640 66.1 21,760 66.6 21,660 66.5 -0.1 Denni Street to Moody Street 20,170 66.2 21,970 66.6 21,960 66.6 0.0 Moody Street to Walker Street 22,250 66.7 23,620 66.9 23,770 66.9 0.0 Walker Street to Valley View Street 21,060 66.4 22,660 66.7 22,760 66.8 0.1 Valley View Street to Knott Avenue 15,640 65.1 16,350 65.3 16,480 65.3 0.0 Katella Avenue
Bloomfield Street to Valley View Street 35,510 68.4 43,410 69.3 44,180 69.4 0.1 Valley View Street to Knott Avenue 25,180 66.9 33,760 68.2 33,810 68.2 0.0 Orangewood
Avenue Valley View Street to Knott Avenue 7,930 62.7 8,440 63.0 8,470 63.0 0.0
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx (01/16/24) 4.6-9 Table 4.6.B: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project Roadway Segment
Existing Future Year (2045)
Without Project Future Year (2045) With Project
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase
from
Existing
Conditions
Bloomfield Street
Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road 18,880 66.5 20,790 66.9 20,650 66.9 0.0 Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue 17,210 66.1 18,480 66.4 18,530 66.4 0.0 Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue 10,790 64.1 11,740 64.4 11,670 64.4 0.0 Denni Street Lincoln Avenue to Cerritos Avenue 5,520 61.1 7,030 62.2 7,080 62.2 0.0 Moody Street
Lincoln Avenue to Orange Avenue 15,170 65.5 17,520 66.2 17,960 66.3 0.1 Orange Avenue to Ball Road 12,290 64.6 13,840 65.1 14,060 65.2 0.1 Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue 9,470 63.5 10,660 64.0 10,130 63.8 -0.2 Walker Street
Lincoln Avenue to Orange Avenue 15,690 67.0 16,610 67.2 16,630 67.2 0.0 Orange Avenue to Ball Road 17,000 67.3 18,110 67.6 18,340 67.6 0.0 Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue 15,090 66.8 15,900 67.0 16,290 67.1 0.1 Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue 17,210 67.4 18,230 67.6 18,560 67.7 0.1 Valley View Street
Lincoln Avenue to Orange Avenue 33,520 69.2 35,270 69.5 35,510 69.5 0.0 Orange Avenue to Ball Road 34,220 69.3 36,320 69.6 36,610 69.6 0.0 Ball Road to Cerritos Avenue 34,780 69.4 37,120 69.7 37,210 69.7 0.0 Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue 35,270 69.5 38,970 69.9 39,230 69.9 0.0 Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 42,870 70.3 44,570 70.5 44,810 70.5 0.0 Holder Street
Lincoln Avenue to Orange Avenue 6,030 62.2 10,430 64.6 10,550 64.6 0.0 Orange Avenue to Katella Avenue 4,570 61.0 12,170 65.2 12,370 65.3 0.1 Knott Avenue
Lincoln Avenue to Katella Avenue 20,840 66.6 23,590 67.2 23,700 67.2 0.0 Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 22,290 66.9 22,990 67.1 23,060 67.1 0.0 Source: Compiled by LSA (June 2023).
Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL= Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.6 Noise.docx (01/16/24) -10 of up to 0.2 dBA, which is considered less than the threshold of perceptibility for humans (i.e., 3 dBA). Therefore, traffic noise regulated under the proposed project would not be readily perceptible in a suburban outdoor environment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not allow the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of applicable standards, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.
Threshold 4.6.2: Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would allow for the development of 1,946 additional housing units (504 of which have already been entitled) 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. No mitigation measures are required.
4.6.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to noise. The proposed project would not directly result in physical development, and through compliance with the City’s General Plan, noise impacts related to future residential dwelling units would be less than significant.
4.6.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project pertaining to noise.
4.6.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to noise, and mitigation measures are not required.
4.6.9 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the cumulative impact area for noise. The impact area used to assess potential cumulative impacts is Cypress because the proposed project would affect sensitive receptors within Cypress.
The proposed project would not directly result in physical development. Additionally, the updates to these plans are proposed to accurately reflect existing uses and not generate additional traffic nor additional noise. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed rezoning and updated land use designations would be required to adhere to the General Plan Noise Element and comply with applicable development regulations. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project are not considered to be cumulatively considerable
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.7 Population and Housing.docx «01/16/24» 4.7-1
4.7 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section describes the existing population and housing characteristics in both the City of Cypress (City) and Orange County (County) and evaluates the potential impacts of the Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project) on population and housing growth. This section is based on sources of demographic information provided by various agencies, including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Cypress General Plan’s Housing Element (2021–2029), the California Department of Finance, and the United States Census Bureau.
4.7.1 Methodology
City and County demographic information was used to describe the existing population and housing characteristics in the City and County. SCAG projections for these topics were identified for the existing conditions and project build-out. City goals and policies regarding population and housing were used to evaluate potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project.
4.7.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.7.2.1 Population and Housing Trends in the City and County The City of Cypress is characterized by urban areas, including single-family and multi-family residential uses and concentrations of retail, office, and industrial uses.
SCAG, the regional planning agency for the six-county Southern California region that includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial Counties, is responsible for preparing a regional growth forecast in conjunction with its efforts to prepare a Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for its regional planning area. In September 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal). This update included population projections for the cities and counties within the planning area. As such, the Demographics and Growth Forecast from Connect SoCal1 was used to understand the population growth expected for the City of Cypress and Orange County. The Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast was meant to provide a common foundation for regional and local planning, policymaking, and infrastructure provision within the SCAG region. These projections are used as a reference point for discussing population and housing growth throughout this section.
The growth forecast for the City and County in the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast is provided below in Table 4.7.A.
4.7.2.2 Population
As shown in Table 4.7.A, according to the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, the City’s population is estimated to grow by 3.4 percent between 2016 and 2045. The County was estimated to experience a higher population growth rate, increasing 11.2 percent between 2016 and 2045.
1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. SCAG Connect SoCal Current Context, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. September 3. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.7 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.7 Population and Housing.docx «01/16/24» -2 Table 4.7.A: Connect SoCal Population and Housing Forecasts (2016–2045) 2016
(Actual)
2045
(Estimate) 2016–2045 Increase % Change 2016–2045
Total Population
City of Cypress 49,600 51,300 1,700 3.4%
Orange County 3,180,000 3,535,000 355,000 11.2%
Total Households
City of Cypress 15,800 16,600 800 5.1%
Orange County 1,025,000 1,154,000 129,000 12.6%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (2020).
The total number of households in the City is anticipated to increase by 5.1 percent between 2016 and 2045, while the total number of households in the County is expected to grow by 12.6 percent between 2016 and 2045.
4.7.2.3 Age Characteristics
A city’s age distribution often shapes its housing demand, because different age groups prefer different types of housing. Table 4.7.B, below provides a comparison of the City’s and County’s populations by age group using data from the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate. According to the ACS data, the City’s median age is 41.2 years, which is slightly higher than the County’s median age (38.5 years) based on the same data set. 1 Table 4.7.B: City of Cypress and Orange County Age Characteristics (2021) Age Group City of Cypress Orange County
Persons Percentage Persons Percentage
Under 18 Years 12,161 24.2% 699,691 22.0%
18 to 24 Years 3,879 7.7% 286,042 9.0%
25 to 44 Years 11,984 23.8% 870,620 27.4%
45 to 64 Years 14,699 29.2% 854,155 26.8%
65 and Over 7,565 15.0% 472,415 14.8%
TOTAL 50,297 100% 3,182,923 100%
Median Age 41.2 38.5
Source: American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimate Table S0101. United States Census Bureau (n.d.) As shown in Table 4.7.B, the City has a higher percentage of residents under the age of 18 (24.2 percent, compared to 22.0 percent for the County), and a lower percentage of residents between 18 and 24 years (7.7 percent, compared to 9.0 percent for the County), than the County.
The City also has a lower percentage of residents between 25 and 44 years (23.8 percent, compared to 27.4 percent for the County), and a higher percentage of residents between 45 and 64 years 1 United States Census Bureau. 2023. American Community Survey 2012-2017 5-Year Estimate Table S0101.
Website: https://data.census.gov/table?t=Age+and+Sex&g=160XX00US0617750&tid=ACSST5Y2021.S0101 (accessed May 11, 2023).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.7 Population and Housing.docx «01/16/24» 4.7-3 (29.2 percent, compared to 26.8 percent for the County), than the County. The City and County have similar proportions of residents over the age of 65 (15.0 percent and 14.8 percent, respectively).
Households. As shown in Table 4.7.A, the total number of households in the City is anticipated to increase by 5.1 percent between 2016 and 2045, while the total number of households in the County is expected to grow by approximately 12.6 percent between 2016 and 2045. By forecasting a greater percentage of household growth than population growth, the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast1 projects a decrease in the average household size in both the City and the County in coming years.
4.7.3 Regulatory Setting
4.7.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations related to population and housing that are applicable to the proposed project.
4.7.3.2 State Regulations
There are no State regulations related to population and housing that are applicable to the proposed project.
4.7.3.3 Regional Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments. As the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO)2 for the six-county subregion that includes Orange County, SCAG prepares several plans to address regional growth, including the RTP/SCS. The regional growth forecasts undertaken by SCAG are developed for three planning horizons: 2030, 2035, and 2045. SCAG is mandated by federal and State law to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and a regional growth forecast that form the foundation for these plans and regional air quality plans developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAG prepares several plans to address regional growth, including the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the RTP, the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and the annual State of the Region reports to measure progress toward achieving regional planning goals and policies.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. In September 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS takes into account demographic and economic changes that have occurred since the adoption of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, including a declining birth rate, an aging population, and domestic outmigration. The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can 1 The Southern California Association of Governments forecasts “households” rather than housing units. As defined by the United States Census Bureau, “households” are equivalent to occupied housing units. 2 An MPO is a federally mandated and federally funded transportation policymaking organization that is made up of representatives from local government and governmental transportation authorities. In 1962, the United States Congress passed legislation that required the formation of an MPO for any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
4.7 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.7 Population and Housing.docx «01/16/24» -4 grow smartly and sustainably. The long-term vision will address regional transportation and land use challenges and opportunities.
The RTP/SCS includes:
• Visions, policies, and performance measures;
• Initiatives at the intersection of land use, transportation, and technology to close the gap and reach greenhouse gas reduction goals;
• A financial plan including available funding;
• Economic impact of the plan; and
• Benefits of the plan.
Regional Growth Forecast. The regional growth forecasts undertaken by SCAG are developed to project growth in employment, population, and households at the regional, county, jurisdictional, and sub-jurisdictional levels. SCAG adopted the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecasts in conjunction with its efforts to prepare and adopt the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. The projected growth in population, household, and employment is the data relied upon during development of SCAG’s RTP, SCS, and the RHNA. Consistency with the growth forecast at the subregional level is one criterion that SCAG uses in exercising its federal mandate to review “regionally significant” development projects for conformity with regional plans.