Agenda packet, regular meeting — Cypress City Council, July 8, 2024 (part 6 of 7)

Regional Housing Needs Assessment. State law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.) requires cities and counties to plan for their fair share of projected housing construction needs in their region. Housing unit construction goals are set by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and allocated to cities through regional planning agencies such as SCAG. This is called the RHNA. Future housing need refers to the proportion of the region’s future housing needs allocated to a community. Each jurisdiction’s future housing need is calculated in terms of four factors: (1) the number of units needed to accommodate forecast global household growth; (2) the number of units needed to replace demolition due to attrition in the housing stock (i.e., fire damage, obsolescence, redevelopment, and conversion to non-housing uses); (3) maintenance of an ideal vacancy rate for a well-functioning housing market; and (4) an adjustment to avoid an overconcentration of lower-income households in any one jurisdiction.

The RHNA prepared by SCAG defines the housing unit construction goals for the region. The City’s fair share for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 (the last adopted RHNA period) was established by SCAG at 3,936 units. The RHNA target number was based on projected household growth and the resulting need for construction of additional housing units allocated over the 6th Cycle planning period from 2021–2029. This 3,936-unit target was divided into the following income groups according to median family income as shown in Table 4.7.C, below.

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» 4.7-5 Table 4.7.C: City of Cypress Regional Housing Need Allocation (2021–2029) Income Level Percentage of Area MFI No. of Units
Very Low 0–50% 1,150
Low 51–80% 657
Moderate 81–120% 623
Above Moderate >120% 1,506
TOTAL 3,936
Source: City of Cypress 2021–2029 Housing Element, Table HOU-3. City of Cypress (2022).

MFI = median family income

4.7.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress Housing Element. The Housing Element is required by California State law to be a component of every city’s General Plan because housing needs are recognized as a statewide concern. As such, the Housing Element of a jurisdiction’s General Plan is the only element that is subject to approval by the State. Pursuant to State law, the Housing Element must identify the City’s housing needs, the sites that can accommodate these needs, and the policies and programs to assure that the housing units necessary to meet these needs can be provided. The primary goal of the Housing Element is to provide a range of housing opportunities for all income groups.

The 2021–2029 Housing Element was adopted as a guide for housing within the City of Cypress. The Housing Element provides an indication of the need for housing in the community in terms of housing affordability, availability, adequacy, and accessibility. The Housing Element also provides a strategy to address housing needs and identifies a series of specific housing programs to meet community needs.

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 streamlining, and removing local barriers to housing. It is not possible to predict which project in the City, if any, would 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 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» -6 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.

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.

4.7.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for population and housing 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 population and housing if it would:

Threshold 4.7.1: 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)?
Threshold 4.7.2: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As discussed in Section 4.14 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts regarding the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing (Threshold 4.7.2). Therefore, these topics are not further addressed below.

4.7.5 Project Impacts
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. As discussed above, the City’s housing need allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 is 3,936 units.

The 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies several adequate sites that able to accommodate the development of up to 1,946 new housing units (504 of which have already been entitled), but the City has a large unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 units to meet its RHNA allocation of 3,936 units. The City identified a potential rezoning scenario in the 2021–2029 Housing Element which divides the City’s RHNA between the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan), the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan) area, and the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area.

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» 4.7-7 Under the proposed project, an estimated 676 additional units could be accommodated within the CTCC Specific Plan area. 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, which would accommodate an estimated 321 units. The remaining RHNA sites would be accommodated within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, which would accommodate approximately 1,317 units.

Overall, the proposed project would accommodate an additional 2,314 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 4,260 housing units.

According to the 2017 American Housing Survey, the average household size in structures that have 50 or more housing units (the highest housing density type evaluated in the American Housing Survey) in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area was 1.99 persons. As summarized in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 2,314 additional dwelling units under the 2021–2029 Housing Element with a corresponding net increase of approximately 4,605 persons.1 According to the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS population projections for the City, the population of the City in 2045 is expected to be 51,300 persons, increasing by 1,700 persons from the actual 2016 population of 49,600 persons. Implementation of the proposed project could result in population growth that would exceed the 2020 to 2045 growth forecast for the City. However, as discussed previously, the projected growth in population, household, and employment rates detailed in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS comprise the data relied upon during development of SCAG’s RTP/SCS and the RHNA. The Growth Forecast prepared for the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS was developed prior to the establishment of the City’s RHNA allocation of 3,936 units for the 2021–2029 planning period and the projected population increase in the City was relied upon for development of the City’s RHNA allocation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the City’s population greater than that estimated in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS population projections. Further, implementation of the proposed project would help meet the housing needs of the City as the region’s population increases.

Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed rezoning and updated land use designations would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicable development regulations. Ultimately, as part of the development review process, all future projects would be required to demonstrate during the development review process that service providers would ensure adequate public services and utilities are available. Additionally, each of the opportunity sites is in urbanized settings with a full range of public services and utilities. Located on the Los Alamitos Race Course site, the majority of the CTCC Specific Plan area is currently occupied by the race course and associated surface parking.

In May 2021, the City approved the Cypress Town Center Project, which developed one of the former race course parking lots with a 135-unit multi-family residential community. The CTCC Specific Plan area also contains a 9-acre park, Lexington Park, in the northwest corner of the race 1 2,314 households x 1.99 persons per household = 4,605 persons 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» -8 course property. The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area is also fully developed, consisting of commercial and residential land uses, and the Katella Avenue opportunity site is developed with commercial uses. The primary building on the Katella Avenue site is a big-box type structure that 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). Future residential uses would replace existing land uses and not induce additional growth or require the extension of roads or other infrastructure, because the roads and infrastructure are already in place with adequate capacity to serve the new development on the opportunity sites.

Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of new housing in the City, the new housing would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, as the proposed project is designed to meet the City’s housing need allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 of 3,936 units as determined by the SCAG RHNA. As such, the proposed project is consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City as evaluated in the SCAG RHNA. In addition, the opportunity sites are in urbanized settings with a full range of public services and utilities. 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, and no mitigation would be necessary.

4.7.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing.

4.7.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are required.

4.7.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing.

4.7.9 Cumulative Impacts
The purpose of this section is to evaluate any additional incremental impact that the proposed project is likely to cause above and beyond the combined impacts of recently approved and proposed projects in the City of Cypress. The impact area used to assess potential cumulative population and housing impacts is the City because the proposed project would affect population and housing within the City. As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, the cumulative impacts analysis is based upon the City’s 2045 General Plan build-out assumptions.

The proposed project includes the approval of updates to the General Plan Land Use Element, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance to bring the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances into conformity with the City’s recently adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element, thereby increasing the residential development capacity in

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» 4.7-9 the City to a total of 4,260 housing units. Future development allowed under the proposed project would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA.

LSA developed the General Plan build-out assumptions by reviewing the land use assumptions in the eight Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the City where growth was anticipated due to potential growth as provided in the General Plan and or approved projects in a related planning document. The Orange County Transportation Analysis Model TAZs contained household data for 2016, which were updated to reflect the 2045 anticipated build out. Table 4.A, General Plan Cumulative Growth Assumptions, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, indicates that the City expects build out of approximately 2,687 additional households within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the Race Track Super Block between 2016 and 2045 under the baseline General Plan build-out scenario. As such, implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the build out of the households under the baseline General Plan build-out 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. 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» -10 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\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» 4.8-1

4.8 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section describes the public services providers within whose jurisdiction the 2021-2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project) opportunity sites are located and evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on public services. This section is based on multiple data sources, including written correspondence and coordination with public service providers included as Appendix G of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). This section addresses the following public services (service providers are noted in parentheses):
• Fire Protection—Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
• Police Protection—Cypress Police Department (CPD)
• Parks—City of Cypress Recreation and Community Services Department • Public Libraries—Orange County Public Libraries (OCPL) • Schools—Cypress School District (CSD) and Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD)

4.8.1 Methodology
The CPD and OCFA were sent questionnaires requesting information on current police and fire protection service provided to the opportunity sites and possible constraints or impacts to this service associated with project build out (which is anticipated to occur in 2045). The impact analyses for police and fire protection services are based on responses to the questionnaires, data obtained through websites, and adopted planning documents of the service providers. Correspondence with public service providers is included in Appendix G.

Information on current parks, public library, and school services provided to the opportunity sites and possible constraints or impacts to this service associated with project build out was obtained through websites and adopted planning documents of service providers.

4.8.2 Existing Environmental Setting

4.8.2.1 Fire Protection
The OCFA is a joint powers authority responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. The OCFA is a regional fire service agency that serves 23 cities in Orange County (County) and all unincorporated areas in the County. Based in 77 fire stations throughout the County, OCFA protects more than 1,984,758 residents. In addition, OCFA Reserve Firefighters work 10 stations throughout the County.1 In addition to providing fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response, wildland firefighting, technical rescue, and airport rescue firefighting services, the OCFA provides a variety of public services, including the following:
• Receiving and dispatching emergency calls
1 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2019a. Member Cities. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/ PartnerCities.aspx (accessed May 10, 2023).
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -2 • Providing public education programs to schools, businesses, community associations, childcare providers and other members of the community
• Administering a Reserve Firefighter Program
• Adopting and enforcing codes and ordinances relative to fire and life safety issues associated with commercial, industrial, and residential development • Maintaining a firefighting helicopter used for emergency responses throughout the year • Coordinating the inspection of all commercial buildings, investigating all fires, and enforcing hazardous materials regulations
• Working with developers and jurisdictional planning departments on development projects impacting fire protection services, from conception through planning process approval • Conducting new construction inspections, fire safety inspections, and State Fire Marshalrequired inspections (including high rise, jail, board and care, and day care inspections), and enforcing applicable fire codes and ordinances
• Interacting with developers, architects, and engineers to meet the fire protection requirements for buildings and developments by reviewing all architectural blue prints, development plans, and proposals submitted in OCFA's jurisdiction
• Conducting an inventory program of hazardous materials stored, handled, and used within OCFA's jurisdiction, and maintaining related information on a data base accessible to all emergency response agencies in the event of a major emergency • Conducting California Fire Code inspections, assists in reducing risks associated with the use of hazardous materials in the community, and administering the State-mandated Risk Management and Prevention program
• Investigating fires to determine their cause, preparing arson and hazardous materials cases for the district attorney, and initiating actions to recover costs for negligently caused fires • Developing and maintaining a fire-safe corridor between the wildland and community developments through fuel modifications and inspections The City of Cypress is in Operations Division 7, which serves the cities of Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, and Stanton along with portions of several unincorporated communities.2 2 OCFA. 2019b. Operations Directory. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Departments/Operations Directory/ Division7.aspx (accessed May 10, 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\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» 4.8-3 There is one OCFA fire station in the City, Fire Station No. 17, at 4991 Cerritos Avenue. Fire Station No. 17 is in the southwest area of the City and would be the first to answer calls from the opportunity sites in the event of an emergency and would thus be designated as the “first-in” station. Fire Station No. 17 is staffed daily by 2 captains, 2 engineers, and 4 firefighter/paramedics, and has a total staffing of 6 captains, 6 engineers, and 12 firefighters. The station is also equipped with a fire truck, fire engine, and paramedic engine. Fire Station No. 17 was substantially rebuilt and expanded in 2012 with added capacity to accommodate the existing and future fire protection and paramedic needs in the service area and has the equipment to handle fires in five-story buildings. In 2022, the City generated 3,734 calls for service.3

“Second call” stations are fire stations that support the “first-in” station. Fire Station Nos. 46 and 84 would be designated as the “second call” stations to support Fire Station No. 17. Fire Station No. 46, located at 7871 Pacific Street in Stanton, is 3.1 miles east of the nearest opportunity site and is staffed daily by one captain, one fire apparatus engineer, and two firefighters, and has a total staffing of three captains, three engineers, and six firefighters. Fire Station No. 46 is equipped with a paramedic assessment unit engine and a medic engine. Fire Station No. 84, located at 12191 Valley View Street in Garden Grove, is approximately 2 miles southeast of the nearest opportunity site and is staffed daily by one captain, one fire apparatus engineer, two firefighters, and has a total staffing of three captains, three engineers, and six firefighters. Fire Station No. 84 is equipped with a medic engine and an engine.

Incident information for Fire Station Nos. 17, 46, and 84 from 2022 is provided in Table 4.8.A below.

Table 4.8.A: Incident Information for Fire Station Nos. 17, 46, and 84 (2022) Call Type Fire Station No. 17 Fire Station No. 46 Fire Station No. 84 Fires 26 105 16
EMS 1,617 3,000 1,407
Ruptures 0 6 2
Hazardous Conditions 12 24 12
Service Call 116 173 169
Good Intent 231 423 142
False Alarms 122 73 43
Miscellaneous 0 2 0
TOTAL 2,178 3,806 1,791
Source: Personal communication with OCFA (June 2023).

EMS = emergency medical services
OCFA = Orange County Fire Authority
According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, it is the OCFA’s goal to have the first responding company for a fire call to reach emergency scene within 8 minutes and paramedics to reach the scene within 5 minutes at least 90 percent of the time. Over the last 9 years, the average response time for emergency calls remained relatively constant until Fiscal Year 2020–2021, in which average response time decreased due to reduced traffic from the COVID-19 pandemic. From Fiscal Year 2020–2021 to Fiscal Year 2021–2022, the average response time increased from 5 minutes and 3 OCFA. 2022. OCFA 2022 Statistical Annual Report.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -4 53 seconds to 6 minutes and 29 seconds as normal traffic patterns resumed. However, the average response time for Fiscal Year 2021–2022 has improved compared to Fiscal Year 2019–2020.4 For
Fiscal Year 2021–2022, 80 percent of emergency calls were responded to within 8 minutes and 16 seconds and 90 percent of calls were responded to within 9 minutes and 54 seconds.5 The number of firefighters per 10,000 residents has remained steady over the last three fiscal years, ranging from 5.86 to 5.94 firefighters.
6 4.8.2.2 Police Protection
The CPD would serve the opportunity sites. Management and supervision of the CPD is provided by 1 chief, 2 captains, 2 lieutenants, 10 sergeants, and a civilian supervisor. Of the CPD's 55 sworn personnel, 41 are dedicated to the delivery of patrol services. In addition to the 55 officers, the department is supported by 23 civilian employees and numerous volunteers.7 The officer-toresident ratio in 2022 was 1.1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents.

The services provided by the department include a detective bureau, canine teams, a narcotics team, vice and intelligence, motorcycle officers, Personnel & Training, Positive Actions through Character Education (P.A.C.E.) program, S.W.A.T. and a Lead Patrol Officer program. In addition, the CPD has established Community Policing, or Cypress Policing, as the philosophy for providing public safety services.8
Police dispatch services for the City of Cypress are provided by the West Cities Police Communications Center, also known as West-Comm. West-Comm is a consolidated police dispatch center, formed by a joint powers authority between the cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach. Located at the Seal Beach Police Department, West-Comm serves a combined population of approximately 90,000 and handles approximately 100,000 calls for service each year.9

4.8.2.3 Parks
There are currently a total of 21 developed public parks within the City.10 The City’s Municipal Code states a goal of providing 3.0 acres of land per 1,000 residents for park and recreational purposes, and an additional 1.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for purposes that are made available at K–12 schools through a cooperative arrangement between the City, local school districts, and local park and recreation districts. As of July 2021, the City’s population was 49,926.11 According to the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan (2001), the City currently has 82 acres of parkland available for its 49,926 residents, providing approximately 1.6 acres of 4 OCFA. 2022. OCFA 2022-2023 Adopted Budget. 5
Ibid. 6
Ibid. 7
City of Cypress. 2017. Cypress Police Department Overview. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/ departments/police/the-community-we-serve (accessed May 11, 2023). 8 Ibid. 9
Ibid. 10 City of Cypress. 2023. Recreation and Community Services, Facility and Park Locations. Website:
https://www.cypressca.org/activities/facility-park-locations (accessed May 11, 2023). 11 United States Census Bureau. 2023. QuickFacts: Cypress City, California. Website: https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cypresscitycalifornia/PST045221#PST045221 (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\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» 4.8-5 parkland per 1,000 residents. Since the adoption of the City’s General Plan, the City completed construction of the 2.9-acre Mackay Park at the former Mackay School site12 and added 9 acres of park space at the corner of Lexington Drive and Cerritos Avenue with the development of Lexington Park.13 These recent additions increased park space in the City to 93.9 acres and changed the parkland-to-resident ratio to 1.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

4.8.2.4 Public Libraries
The OCPL system provides library services to the County, including the City. OCPL operates 32 library branches across the County, including an outlet in the Orangewood Children’s Home.14 OCPL’s Mobile Library also provides library services to County residents who are unable to visit libraries due to transportation issues, lack of childcare, disabilities, and language or cultural barriers. In addition, OCPL offers free Books-by-Mail service.15 The Cypress Library is at 5331 Orange Avenue. The Cypress Branch Library consists of a 15,000-square-foot facility with numerous resources and services available to the public including an AWE station16, book clubs, bookstore, internet hotspots, laptop and charger kiosk, children’s play area, computers, wi-fi, wireless printing, volunteer opportunities, world language collections, and special collections of sheet music, local history, and board games. 17 The branch is open Saturday through Thursday and is closed on Fridays.

According to the Public Services and Facilities Element of the Orange County General Plan (2012), the County’s standard for library service is 0.2 square feet of library space per capita. According to that service standard, the Cypress Branch Library has the capacity to accommodate a population of 75,000 persons. The Cypress Branch Library currently exceeds the County’s standards for size since the City’s population estimate as of July 2021 is 49,926. It should also be noted that, according to the Public Services and Facilities Element of the Orange County General Plan, the 0.2 square feet of library space per capita standard has been accepted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors as a planning guide for the purpose of projecting the number and location of new libraries needed.

According to OCPL’s annual report for 2022–2023, OCPL has been working to improve library branches across the County through upgrades to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; roofs; alarm systems; building automation systems; accessibility; electrical and cabling infrastructure updates; and lighting to meet Title 24 requirements. These upgrades would work to increase efficiencies and contribute to a positive patron experience; however, it should be noted that the completed and proposed upgrades do not include the expansion of any library facilities. 12 City of Cypress. 2023. Recreation and Community Services, MacKay Park. Website: https://www.cypress ca.org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/66/240 (accessed July 27, 2023). 13 City of Cypress. 2023. Recreation and Community Services, Lexington Park. Website: https://www.cypress ca.org/activities/lexington-park-rental (accessed May 11, 2023). 14 Orange County Public Libraries (OCPL). 2023. About OCPL. Website: https://www.ocpl.org/services/aboutocpl (accessed July 27, 2023). 15 OCPL. 2023. OC Public Libraries Annual Report 2023. 16 The AWE station provides a computer for children ages 2–8 years that is equipped with a variety of education games in English and Spanish. 17 OCPL. n.d. Cypress Library, Resources and Services. Website: https://www.ocpl.org/libraries/cypress (accessed July 27, 2023).
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -6

4.8.2.5 Public Schools
The City is served by several public school districts. Although the City is within the boundaries of three elementary school districts, which serve kindergarten through sixth grade students (the Cypress, Centralia, and Savanna Elementary School Districts), most of the City is in the Cypress School District. The southeast portion of the City is also in the Garden Grove Unified School District.

The provision of education and school facilities in the City is primarily the responsibility of the CSD, which serves the City’s kindergarten through sixth-grade students, and AUHSD, which serves the City’s junior high and high school districts (grades 7 through 12).

The CSD currently operates six elementary schools; five are in Cypress and one is in La Palma. The CSD’s 2022–2023 enrollment was 3,389. In addition, all of the CSD’s schools offer on-site privately owned and operated childcare and preschool services. The AUHSD encompasses 46 square miles and has schools in Anaheim, Cypress, Buena Park, La Palma, and Stanton. The AUHSD currently operates 8 junior high schools, 9 high schools, Cambridge Virtual Academy, Hope School, and Oxford Academy. The AUHSD’s 2022–2023 enrollment was 27,748.

The majority of the opportunity sites along Lincoln Avenue are within the CSD; however, a few of the opportunity sites east of Valley View Street are within the Centralia Elementary School District (CESD). The CESD is composed of eight elementary schools and the district’s 2022–2023 enrollment was 4,129 students. The Lincoln Avenue opportunity sites within the CESD are within the San Marino Elementary school attendance area, located at 6215 San Rolando Way in Buena Park.

The majority of the opportunity sites are also within the AUHSD, with a small portion of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan) opportunity sites located within the Los Alamitos Unified School District (LAUSD), which serves kindergarten through twelfth-grade students. LAUSD currently operates six elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school, and the 2022–2023 enrollment was 8,934 students.

None of the opportunity sites are within the boundaries of the Savanna Elementary School District or the Garden Grove Unified School District. Figure 4.8-1, School Districts, illustrates the boundaries of the aforementioned school districts and the locations of the opportunity sites.

4.8.3 Regulatory Setting

4.8.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal policies related to public services applicable to the proposed project.

4.8.3.2 State Regulations
Assembly Bills 2926, 1600, and 2751. To assist in providing facilities to serve students generated from new development projects, the State enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986, which allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Development impact fees are also referenced in the 1987 Leroy Greene LeasePurchase Act, which requires school districts to contribute a matching share of the costs for the Service Layer Credits: OpenStreetMap: ©
OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
Centralia
Elementary
School District
Cypress Elementary
School District
Savanna Elementary
School District
Garden Grove
Unified School
District
ABC Unified
School
District
Los Alamitos
Unified School
District
Anaheim Union
High School
District
SOURCE: Esri Basemap (2022)
I:\CCP2201.01\GIS\Pro\Cypress Housing Element Implementation.aprx (11/10/2023) FIGURE 4.8-1
Cypress Housing Element Implementation
School Districts
City Boundary
Proposed Density
8 units/acre
10 units/acre
15 units/acre
18 units/acre
30 units/acre
Public Park
SCGC
School District Boundaries
Anaheim Union High School District
Other Districts
0 1250 2500
FEET
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -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\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» 4.8-9 construction, modernization, or reconstruction of school facilities. Subsequent legislation has modified the fee structure and general guidelines. In 1987, the provisions of AB 2926 have been expanded and revised by AB 1600, which limits the ability of a school district to levy school fees unless (i) there is a need for the school fee revenues generated, and (ii) there is a nexus or relationship between the need for school fee revenues and the type of development project on which the school fee is imposed. (The requirements of AB 1600 were clarified with the passage in 2006 of AB 2751, which codifies the findings of Shapell Industries vs. Milpitas Unified School District.) Senate Bill 50 and California Education Code Section 17620. Senate Bill 50 and California Education Code Section 17620. Senate Bill (SB) 50, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, was signed into law on August 27, 1998. It is a program for funding school facilities largely based on matching funds. The approval of Proposition 1A authorized funds for SB 50 in the amount of $9.2 billion, including grants for construction of new schools and modernization of existing schools. The new construction grant provides funding on a 50/50 State and local match basis. The modernization grant provides funding on a 60/40 State and local match basis. Districts that are unable to provide some or all of the local match requirements and are able to meet financial hardship provisions may be eligible for additional State funding.18 SB 50 (codified as California Education Code Section 17620) allows school districts to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project within its boundaries for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The maximum fee amount that school districts can assess is limited by statutes provided in California Government Code Section 65995. The fees are collected by the AUHSD and shared equally with the appropriate elementary school district. In addition, LAUSD also levies a school facility/developer fee.19
The payment of these fees by a developer serves to mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities that may result from implementation of a project to levels that are less than significant (see California Government Code Section 65996). Stated another way, the provisions of SB 50 provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other State or local laws. The California Department of Education permits local school districts to increase facility fees subject to Department of Education review and with approval of a nexus study from the school district that demonstrates that costs incurred by the school district for the provision of school facilities and services are higher than Level 1 funding provides. In such an instance, a nexus must be demonstrated in the study between the increase proposed by the local school district and the actual cost of provision of school facilities and services.

California Fire Code. The California Fire Code (CFC) includes regulations for emergency planning, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Several fire safety requirements include installation of sprinklers 18 State of California. 2007. Office of Public School Construction, School Facility Program Handbook. State Allocation Board. April. 19 Los Alamitos Unified School District. 2022. School Facility/Developer Fees. Website: https://www.losal. org/departments/business-services/school-facilitydeveloper-fee-handbook#:~: text=Fees%20as%20of%20 November%2021%2C%202022%3A%20Residential%3A%20%244.79,card.%20Checks%20can%20be%20 made%20payable%20to%20%22LAUSD%22 (accessed July 28, 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -10 in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildlife hazard areas.

Office of Emergency Services. The State of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with the Standard Emergency Management System could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.

4.8.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional policies or regulations related to public services applicable to the proposed project.

4.8.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress Municipal Code. The Cypress Municipal Code includes the following requirement that would apply to the proposed project related to the provision of public services:
• Section 5-3 (California Fire Code, adoption, amendments) adopts the 2019 CFC, with some amendments and modifications. Generally, the intent of the CFC is to prescribe regulations for the safeguarding of life and property from the hazard of fire and explosion.

4.8.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for public services 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 public services if it would:

Threshold 4.8.1(i): 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?
Threshold 4.8.1(ii): 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?
Threshold 4.8.1(iii): 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

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\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» 4.8-11 which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Threshold 4.8.1(iv): 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 parks?
Threshold 4.8.1(v): 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 other public facilities?
As discussed in Section 4.15 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (provided in Appendix B), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to park facilities (Threshold 4.8.1(iv)) and other public facilities (Threshold 4.8.1(v)). Therefore, these topics are not further addressed below.

4.8.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.8.1(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. The proposed project includes a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, the 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 Zoning Ordinance to bring the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances into conformity with the City’s recently adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element and would not directly result in physical development. Future housing projects at the opportunity sites would be subject to additional CEQA review related to specific development applications.

The City’s housing needs allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 was established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) at 3,936 units. The City identified a potential rezoning scenario in the 2021–2029 Housing Element which divides the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) between the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan

2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan), the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan) area, and the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP) area. The proposed project would 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -12 accommodate an additional 2,314 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 4,260 housing units.

As discussed above, the OCFA currently serves more than 1,984,758 residents from its 77 fire stations throughout the County, including Fire Station No. 17 within the City and Fire Station Nos. 2 and 84 nearby. The addition of 4,605 residents would increase the population served by 0.2 percent.

This increase in population served by OFCA is negligible (less than 1 percent and would not impact OCFA’s ability to serve the City.

Any future housing projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all OCFA requirements, including providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the opportunity sites, hydrants spaced to meet the 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. As detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) PS-1, below, during the development and CEQA review process, future projects would be required to coordinate with OCFA to determine the appropriate development impact fees required for the project to offset potential impact to OCFA staffing and service ability. Therefore, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.8.1(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. As discussed previously, implementation of the proposed project would facilitate the construction of 2,314 housing units, which is estimated to result in a net increase of 4,605 persons to the City’s population. This increase in the City’s population could result in an increase in calls to law enforcement within the City; however, such calls would be generally consistent with the types of calls the CPD responds to at similar residential developments in the City.

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\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» 4.8-13 Additionally, each of the opportunity sites are surrounded by existing development and are in areas of the City already served by CPD.

CPD currently has 55 sworn personnel and in 2019, had an officer-to-resident ratio of 1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. Since 2019, the officer-to-resident ratio has fluctuated around 1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. In 2021, the City had a population of 49,926, increasing the officer-to-resident ratio to 1.1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. The increase of 4,605 persons in the City as facilitated by the proposed project would result in an officer-to-resident ratio of 1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents, which is consistent with the officer-to-resident ratio of the City since 2019. Although the proposed project would likely result in an increase in calls to law enforcement within the City due to the population increase associated with the construction of 2,314 additional housing units, CPD has confirmed that it anticipates hiring additional officers to adequately serve future population growth in the City, including the population increase associated with the proposed project. In addition, CPD has confirmed that it has adequate facilities to accommodate additional officers.20 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, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.8.1(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. The California Office of Public-School Construction has published general student yield factors for elementary, secondary (middle/high school), and unified school districts in California (May 2009). The student generation rate for elementary schools is 0.5 student per dwelling unit and the student generation rate for middle/high school students is 0.2 student per dwelling unit. These student generation rates were used to estimate the number of students that could be generated within the boundaries of the LAUSD and AUHSD as a result of project implementation. According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study performed for the CSD by Cooperative Strategies and dated April 30, 2020, the elementary student generation rate for multi-family units (high density units) in the CSD is 0.255 student per unit.21 According to the Developer Fee Justification Study performed for the CESD by Cooperative Strategies and dated November 9, 2022, the elementary student generation rate for 20 Personal communication with CPD Captain Chris Revere on July 6, 2023. 21 Cooperative Strategies. 2020. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, Cypress School District, Table 5: Adjusted Student Generation Factors. April 30. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -14 multi-family units (high density units) in the CESD is 0.32 student per unit.22 These student generation rates were used to estimate the number of students that could be generated within the boundaries of the CSD and the CESD as a result of project implementation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in 2,144 units in the CSD, 79 units in the CESD, 91 units in the LAUSD, and 2,144 units in the AUHSD. Based on the above generation factors, it is estimated that the 2,314 additional residential units allowed under the proposed project would result in 547 additional students in the CSD, 25 in the CESD, 64 students in the LAUSD (46 elementary school students and 18 middle/high school students), and 429 students in the AUHSD. (refer to Table 4.8.B).

Table 4.8.B: Projected School Enrollment
Grade Levels Student Generation Factor Projected Enrollment Cypress School District (CSD) 0.255 student/unit 547 students Centralia Elementary School District
(CESD)

0.32 student/unit 25 students
Los Alamitos Unified School District
(LAUSD) (Elementary School)

0.5 student/unit 46 students
Los Alamitos Unified School District
(LAUSD) (Middle/High School)

0.2 student/unit 18 students
Anaheim Union High School District
(AUHSD) (Middle/High School)

0.2 student/unit 429 students
Total -- 1,065 students
Sources: State of California, Office of Public School Construction (2019); Cooperative Strategies (2020, 2022).

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.

As previously discussed, AUHSD’s enrollment was 27,748 students in the 2022–2023 school year. As shown in Table 4.8.B above, development of residential units allowed under the proposed project would generate 429 new middle and high school level students. This represents a 1.5 percent increase to AUHSD’s student enrollment population. According to the AUHSD Facilities Master Plan Update, the AUHSD is experiencing an overall decline in enrollment of approximately 3,200 students through the 2025–2026 school year in the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, and Stanton.23 Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under the proposed project would be required to pay such fees to reduce any 22 Cooperative Strategies. 2022. Developer Fee Justification Study, Centralia Elementary School District.

November 9. 23 Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). 2022. Facilities Master Plan Update, 3.2 Planning Considerations; Enrollment Projections and Demographics. February 16.

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\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» 4.8-15 impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-2 below). With the AUHSD’s projected decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that AUHSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new middle and high school level students generated with implementation of the proposed project.

According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study completed for the CSD by Cooperative Strategies and dated April 30, 2020, the CSD had a facilities capacity of 4,400 students in the 2019–2020 school year. 24 As previously discussed, CSD’s
enrollment was 3,389 students in the 2022–2023 school year. As such, the CSD is operating under capacity and has an additional 1,011 seats available for new students. As shown in Table 4.8.B, above, the additional residential units allowed under the proposed project within the CSD boundary would generate 547 new elementary-level students. This increase in elementary level students can be accommodated by the CSD’s available capacity. In addition, with implementation of RCM PS-1 as described above, it is expected that CSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new elementary level students generated by the additional housing units allowed under the proposed project. The fees would be collected by the AUHSD and shared equally with the CSD.

The CESD had been experiencing a decline in enrollment between the 2016–2017 school year and the 2020–2021 school year; however, since the 2020–2021 school year, the school district has registered a small increase in enrollment.25 As shown in Table 4.8.B, above, the additional residential units allowed under the proposed project within the CESD boundary would generate approximately 25 new elementary level students. The Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under the proposed project would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-2). Although in recent years the CESD has experienced a slight increase in enrollment, because of the district’s historic decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that CESD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate elementary school level students generated with implementation of the proposed project.

The LAUSD has been experiencing a decline in enrollment since the 2016–2017 school year.26 As shown in Table 4.8.B above, the additional residential units allowed under the proposed project within the LAUSD boundary would generate 46 new elementary level students and 18 new middle/high school level students, for a total of 64 new students. This increase in students can be accommodated by the LAUSD. In addition, the Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under the proposed project would be required to pay such fees to 24 Cooperative Strategies. 2020. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, Cypress School District. April 30. 25 California Department of Education. 2023. DataQuest, Enrollment Multi-Year Summary by Grade, Centralia Elementary Report (30-66472). Website: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrd Years.aspx?cds=3066472&agglevel=district&year=2022-23&ro=y (accessed July 28, 2023). 26 California Department of Education. 2023. DataQuest, Enrollment Multi-Year Summary by Grade, Los Alamitos Unified Report (30-73924). Website: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdYears. aspx?cds=3073924&agglevel=district&year=2022-23&ro=y (accessed July 28, 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -16 reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-2). With the LAUSD’s continued pattern of decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that LAUSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new students generated with implementation of the proposed project.

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a project’s impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the required fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.8.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts related to police services, schools, parks, and libraries would be less than significant prior to mitigation. The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to fire protection services, and mitigation is required.

4.8.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures

4.8.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The proposed project would comply with the following standards, the implementation of which is intended to reduce impacts related to public services.

Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1 Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to coordinate
with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) to
determine the appropriate development impact fees
required 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.

Regulatory Compliance Measure 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.

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\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» 4.8-17

4.8.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-1 and RCM PS-2, potentially significant impacts would be reduced below a level of significance.

4.8.9 Cumulative Impacts
The purpose of this section is to evaluate any additional incremental impact that the proposed project is likely to cause above and beyond the combined impacts of recently approved and proposed projects in the City of Cypress. The impact area used to assess potential cumulative population and housing impacts is the City because the proposed project would affect population and housing within the City. 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.

The proposed project would result in a negligible increase in population served by OFCA from the existing conditions, would not propose any new development that would require a substantial increase in police presence, and would also adhere to all applicable policies and codes related to the provision of firefighting and police services including OCFA requirements related to providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the opportunity sites and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. 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, developers of future residential development projects allowed under the proposed project would be required to pay their fair share of school impact fees. Any population growth associated with the project that would lead to potential strains on public services would not be substantial because it would be located within an area capable of supporting it.

LSA developed the General Plan build-out assumptions by reviewing the land use assumptions in the eight Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) where growth was anticipated due to potential growth as provided in the General Plan and or approved projects in a related planning document. The Orange County Transportation Analysis Model TAZ contained household data for 2016, which was updated to reflect 2045 anticipated build out. Table 4.A, General Plan Cumulative Growth Assumptions, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, indicates that the City expects build out of 2,687 additional households within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the Race Track Super Block between 2016 and 2045 under the baseline General Plan buildout scenario. As such, implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the build out 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. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.8 Public Services.docx «01/16/24» -18 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\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) 4.9-1

4.9 TRANSPORTATION
This section analyzes the existing and planned transportation and circulation conditions for the proposed Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project) and the surrounding area, and identifies circulation impacts that may result subsequent to the development of the proposed project. The analysis contained in this section is based on the Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessments for the City of Cypress Housing Element Implementation, Cypress, California (LSA, May 2023), which is provided in Appendix H to this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

4.9.1 Methodology

4.9.1.1 Level of Service
The Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) was used in the development of forecasted traffic volumes for the level of service (LOS) assessment. OCTAM socioeconomic data were consistent with the City’s existing planning and zoning regulations. The City conducted a detailed housing development analysis to identify the potential dwelling unit capacities for each parcel identified as an opportunity site. Detailed parcel level capacities for the proposed project were included in “Appendix A – Sites Inventory” of the City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. Housing development capacities at the parcel level were used to develop and distribute household growth at a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for the OCTAM socioeconomic datasets.

Existing OCTAM assumptions regarding forecasted (2045) household growth in Cypress were reviewed to confirm that they reflect the City’s existing planning and zoning regulations. Given that OCTAM assumed that the entire City would experience a total household growth of 930 units from 2016–2045, which is substantially lower than the City’s 2021–2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal of 3,936 dwelling units. The following steps were used to develop cumulative datasets for the model:
• The City provided detailed data about recent and ongoing housing developments, which were used to refine the forecasted household growth. Entitled dwelling units are those dwelling units that were approved from June 2020 through June 2021. The 2021–2029 Housing Element included information about the number of dwelling units by location, which was used to add the entitled units to OCTAM TAZs.
• Similarly, the City has identified control totals on the number of dwelling units for each of the areas of the City/Specific Plans to meet the RHNA requirements. Parcel-specific housing development capacities were used to proportionally distribute the household growth by area to OCTAM TAZs.
• Given the evaluation was conducted at the City level, no TAZ splits were made. Household characteristics from OCTAM TAZs were applied to the anticipated dwelling unit growth under the proposed project to develop OCTAM inputs.
• No, roadway/transit network modifications were made to the 2045 OCTAM network. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -2 Development of Year 2045 Traffic Volumes. The following details the methodology employed for passenger vehicles to determine the a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turn movements for General Plan Build out (2045) conditions. Volume development sheets are included in Appendix H, Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment, of this Draft Program EIR (PEIR). 1 OCTAM
was used in this process. The base year for the passenger vehicle model is 2016 and the future year is 2045.

1. The difference between the modeled base year 2016 and future year 2045 peak-period directional arterial traffic volumes (for each intersection approach and departure) was identified from loaded network model plots. This difference defines the growth in traffic from 2016 base conditions to future year 2045 conditions.

2. The incremental growth in peak period approach and departure volumes was factored to develop the incremental change in peak-hour volumes. OCTAM uses a 3-hour a.m. peak period and a four-hour p.m. peak period. The Orange County Transportation Authority has established that the a.m. peak hour comprises 35.66 percent of the peak period and that the p.m. peak hour comprises 26.62 percent of the peak period. Therefore, the incremental changes in peak period volumes were multiplied by the appropriate factors to develop incremental changes in peak-hour volumes.

3. The incremental growth in approach and departure volumes between 2016 and 2045 was factored to reflect the forecasted growth between the year of the ground counts (2022) and the analysis year of 2045. For this purpose, linear growth between the 2016 base condition and the 2045 future condition was assumed. Since the increment between 2022 and 2045 is 23 years of the 29-year time span, a factor of 0.79 (i.e., 23/29) was used.

4. The forecasted growth in approach and departure volumes through year 2045 conditions was added to the 2022 ground counts, resulting in “post-processed” forecasted year 2045 link volumes.

5. Forecast year 2045 turn volumes were developed using existing turn volumes and the forecasted growth in approach and departure link volumes.

Study Area Intersection Locations. The following 26 signalized intersections were selected for LOS assessment in consultation with City staff. Figure 4.9-1, Study Area Intersections, depicts the intersections (20 intersections in Cypress and 6 intersections in both Cypress and Los Alamitos).

1. Lincoln Avenue and Bloomfield Street (Cypress)

2. Lincoln Avenue and Lexington Drive-Denni Street (Cypress)

3. Lincoln Avenue and Moody Street (Cypress)

4. Lincoln Avenue and Walker Street (Cypress)

5. Lincoln Avenue and Valley View Street (Cypress)
1 LSA. 2023. Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessments.

LSA
0 1100 2200
FEET
SOURCE: Google Imagery (2020)
LEGEND
� §
0 0
ILi
0 • Study Intersections
P:\CCP2201.0l\ Technical Reports\ Transportation\GIS\Fig3 _ Study lntersections\Fig3 _ Study lntersections.aprx (3/9/2023) FIGURE 4.9-1
2021-2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project Study Area Intersections
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -4 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\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) 4.9-5

6. Orange Avenue and Moody Street (Cypress)

7. Orange Avenue and Walker Street (Cypress)

8. Orange Avenue and Valley View Street (Cypress)

9. Orange Avenue and Holder Street (Cypress)

10. Ball Road and Bloomfield Street (Cypress/Los Alamitos)

11. Ball Road and Moody Street (Cypress)

12. Ball Road and Walker Street (Cypress)

13. Ball Road and Valley View Street (Cypress)

14. Cerritos Avenue and Bloomfield Street (Cypress/Los Alamitos)

15. Cerritos Avenue and Lexington Drive-Denni Street (Cypress/Los Alamitos)

16. Cerritos Avenue and Moody Street (Cypress)

17. Cerritos Avenue and Walker Street (Cypress)

18. Cerritos Avenue and Valley View Street (Cypress)

19. Katella Avenue and Lexington Drive (Cypress/Los Alamitos)

20. Katella Avenue and Siboney Street-Race Course (Cypress/Los Alamitos)

21. Katella Avenue and Walker Street (Cypress/Los Alamitos)

22. Katella Avenue and Valley View Street (Cypress)

23. Katella Avenue and Holder Street (Cypress)

24. Katella Avenue and Knott Avenue (Cypress)

25. Orangewood Avenue and Valley View Street (Cypress)

26. Orangewood Avenue and Knott Avenue (Cypress)
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies. In accordance with the City’s Circulation Element, signalized intersection operation was analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. The ICU methodology compares the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums up these critical conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The ICU calculations assume a per-lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour with a clearance interval of 0.05.

The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS), where LOS A represents free-flow operation and LOS F represents overcapacity operation. The relationship between LOS and the ICU value (i.e., v/c ratio) is shown in Table 4.9.A.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -6 Table 4.9.A: Relationship Between LOS and ICU
Values
Level of Service Volume-to-Capacity
(ICU Methodology)
A <0.60
B >0.60 and <0.70
C >0.70 and <0.80
D >0.80 and <0.90
E >0.90 and <1.00
F >1.00
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
Thresholds of Significance. The City of Cypress considers LOS D as the upper limit of satisfactory operations for intersections, except at intersections along Valley View Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Katella Avenue. The City has adopted LOS E or better as the standard for intersections along these three arterials, as they carry a significant amount of traffic. Also, Valley View Street and Katella Avenue are designated in the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) as CMP facilities, and intersections along these roadways have an operational standard of LOS E or better.

The City of Los Alamitos considers LOS D as the upper limit of satisfactory operations for intersections, except at intersections along Katella Avenue, where LOS E is acceptable.

Based on City of Cypress and City of Los Alamitos standards, an operational deficiency occurs at an intersection if a project causes an intersection operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS, or if an intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS and the project would add 0.01 or more to the peak-hour ICU.

4.9.1.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised CEQA Guidelines for use. Among the changes to the State CEQA Guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and LOS from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on VMT.

The City has yet to adopt the Senate Bill 743 guidelines; therefore, the VMT analysis has been based upon the methodology and significance threshold criteria identified in the Final Draft Guidelines For Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for the County of Orange, dated September 17, 2020 (Guidelines).2
The project is an update to the City’s General Plan and Zoning, which can be considered as a land use plan. The Guidelines recommend use of VMT per service population (population plus employment) as the VMT metric as VMT per service population is based on total VMT, which is 2 County of Orange. 2020. Final Draft Guidelines For Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for the County of Orange, dated September 17, 2020.

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\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) 4.9-7 comprehensive and accounts for all trip purposes. According to the Guidelines, 3 a land use plan
would have a significant impact if the VMT per service population of the land use plan is higher than the regional baseline VMT per service population.

Additionally, a region should be defined based on where the majority of the project trips are contained. Typically, it is the county boundary within which a majority of those trips take place. As such, the Guidelines recommend use of Orange County as the region for VMT analysis of projects and land use plans. Therefore, if the cumulative citywide VMT per service population is higher than Orange County’s baseline VMT per service population, the land use plan would have a significant VMT impact.

The Guidelines provide multiple screening criteria for land use projects. However, the proposed project involves an update to the City’s planning and zoning documents; therefore, none of the screening criteria are applicable to the project, which is a change to a land use plan. A detailed VMT analysis was conducted to evaluate the VMT impacts under the proposed project. The regional travel model, OCTAM, was used for the VMT assessment.

As indicated before, the VMT per service population was used to evaluate the proposed project’s VMT impacts. The proposed project would result in a significant impact if the cumulative VMT metric is greater than the regional baseline VMT metric. Hence, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if the citywide cumulative VMT per service population with the project would be greater than the Orange County baseline VMT per service population (threshold).

4.9.2 Existing Environmental Setting

4.9.2.1 Existing Circulation System
The City’s existing circulation system includes the following key roadways:

Holder Street is a north-south, two-to-four-lane, undivided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element (2001), Holder Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial.

The posted speed limit is 35 to 40 miles per hour (mph). Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street and on-street parking is permitted in select locations.

Valley View Street is a north-south, six-lane, divided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element (2001), Valley View Street is classified as a Major Arterial. Valley View Street is designated in the Orange County CMP as a CMP facility. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street and on-street parking is not permitted.

Walker Street is a north-south, four-to-five-lane, undivided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element (2001), Walker Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial.

The average posted speed limit is 40 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Onstreet parking is not permitted. 3 County of Orange. 2020. Final Draft Guidelines For Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for the County of Orange, dated September 17, 2020.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -8 Moody Street is a north-south, four-lane, divided roadway. According to the City’s General Plan Circulation Element (2001), Moody Street is classified as a Primary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. On-street bicycle lanes (Class II) and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Onstreet parking is generally not permitted.

Denni Street–Lexington Drive is a north-south, undivided roadway. Lexington Drive is a two-lane roadway south of Cerritos Avenue, and Denni Street is a four-lane roadway north of Cerritos Avenue. According to the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element (2001), Denni Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial. The posted speed limit of the segment between Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road is 40 mph and others have the speed limit of 35 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Denni Street and on some parts of Lexington Drive. On-street parking is not permitted.

Bloomfield Street is a north-south, four-lane, divided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan (2001), Bloomfield Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. On-street bicycle lanes (Class II) and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Onstreet parking is permitted in select locations.

Katella Avenue is a six-lane divided roadway. Katella Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial in the City of Cypress General Plan (2001). Katella Avenue is designated in the Orange County CMP as a CMP facility. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street.

On-street parking is permitted in select locations.

Cerritos Avenue is a four-to-five-lane, divided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan (2001), Cerritos Avenue is a Primary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street, and on-street (Class II) bicycle lanes are provided on both sides between Walker Street and Denni Street. On-street parking is permitted in select locations.

Orangewood Avenue is a four-lane, undivided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan (2001), Orangewood Avenue is a Secondary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 35 to 40 mph.

Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is not permitted.

Ball Road is a four-lane, divided roadway and it is classified as a Primary Arterial according to the City of Cypress General Plan (2001). The posted speed limit is 45 mph. On-street (Class II) bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is not permitted.

Orange Avenue is a four-lane, undivided roadway, identified as Secondary Arterial in the City of Cypress General Plan (2001). The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street bicycle lanes and on-street parking are provided in select locations.

Lincoln Avenue is a four-lane, divided roadway. According to the City of Cypress General Plan (2001), Lincoln Avenue is a Major Arterial. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is provided in select locations.

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\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) 4.9-9

4.9.2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS Analysis
Existing traffic volumes at study area intersections were collected in March 2022 and are provided in Appendix H. Additionally, Table 4.9.B summarizes the results of the existing peak-hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections. As shown in Table 4.9.B, all study area intersections currently operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours.

Table 4.9.B Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary Study Area
Intersection
No.

Intersection Jurisdiction
Existing
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

ICU LOS ICU LOS
1 Bloomfield Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.41 A 0.48 A 2 Lexington Drive-Denni Street/
Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.51 A 0.52 A
3 Moody Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.64 B 0.60 A 4 Walker Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.55 A 0.60 A 5 Valley View Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.55 A 0.59 A 6 Moody Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.49 A 0.43 A 7 Walker Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.57 A 0.54 A 8 Valley View Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.61 B 0.62 B 9 Holder Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.35 A 0.32 A 10 Bloomfield Street/Ball Road City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.53 A 0.54 A 11 Moody Street/Ball Road City of Cypress 0.53 A 0.49 A 12 Walker Street/Ball Road City of Cypress 0.58 A 0.61 B 13 Valley View Street/Ball Road City of Cypress 0.63 B 0.63 B 14 Bloomfield Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.65 B 0.55 A 15 Lexington Drive-Denni Street/
Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.42 A 0.45 A 16 Moody Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.42 A 0.46 A 17 Walker Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.50 A 0.56 A 18 Valley View Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.63 B 0.69 B 19 Lexington Drive/Katella Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.44 A 0.49 A 20 Siboney Street-Race Course/
Katella Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.37 A 0.43 A 21 Walker Street/Katella Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.46 A 0.53 A 22 Valley View Street/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.58 A 0.62 B 23 Holder Street/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.30 A 0.36 A 24 Knott Avenue/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.56 A 0.70 B 25 Valley View Street/Orangewood
Avenue City of Cypress 0.57 A 0.59 A
26 Knott Avenue/Orangewood
Avenue City of Cypress 0.42 A 0.49 A
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -10

4.9.3 Regulatory Setting

4.9.3.1 Federal Regulations
No federal policies or regulations pertaining to transportation are applicable to the proposed project.

4.9.3.2 State Regulations
Senate Bill 743. On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law and started a process that changes the methodology of a transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA requirements. SB 743 directed the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new CEQA guidance for jurisdictions that removes the LOS method, which focuses on automobile vehicle delay and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, from CEQA transportation analysis. Rather, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or other measures that promote “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses,” are now be used as the basis for determining significant transportation impacts in the State.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b). In January 2018, the State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) submitted a proposal for comprehensive updates to the State CEQA Guidelines to the California Natural Resources Agency. The submittal included proposed updates related to the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy, transportation impacts pursuant to SB 743, and wildfires, as well as revisions to Section 15126.2(a) in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369. On December 28, 2018, the updated State CEQA Guidelines went into effect.

As part of the update to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3 was added and codifies that project-related transportation impacts are typically best measured by evaluating the project’s VMT.

Specifically, subdivision (b) focuses on specific criteria related to transportation analysis and is divided into four subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3), qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology. Subdivision (b)(1) provides guidance on determining the significance of transportation impacts of land use projects using VMT; projects located within 0.5 mile of high quality transit should be considered to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(2) addresses VMT associated with transportation projects and states that projects that reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) acknowledges that Lead Agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative analysis may be used. Subdivision (b)(4) stipulates that Lead Agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a project’s VMT.

At this time, the City has not adopted a methodology to analyze VMT impacts within its jurisdiction.

In addition, the City does not currently have thresholds or standards in place for assessing potential VMT impacts. Therefore, traffic impacts in this PEIR are based on the City’s LOS thresholds.

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\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) 4.9-11

4.9.3.3 Regional Regulations
Orange County Congestion Management Program. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is a multimodal transportation agency that began in 1991 with the consolidation of seven separate agencies. OCTA serves Orange County residents and travelers by providing the following:
countywide bus and paratransit service; Metrolink rail service; the 91 Express Lanes; freeway, street, and road improvement projects; individual and company commuting solutions; motorist aid services; and regulation of taxi operations. State law requires that a Congestion Management Program (CMP) be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that includes an urbanized area, and requires that it include every city and the county government within that county. As the Congestion Management Agency for Orange County, OCTA is responsible for implementing the Orange County CMP.

OCTA adopted the CMP in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions in Orange County. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city’s eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects.

County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The MPAH defines the arterial system in the Circulation Element of the Orange County General Plan. This system, which is the planned future roadway system in the County, incorporates several specific arterial roadway classifications.

The Circulation Elements of cities within the County are expected to be consistent with the MPAH in order to be eligible for funding improvements on MPAH roadways.

County of Orange Measure M Growth Management Program. Measure M, approved in 1990 by the voters in the County, authorized the collection of a one-half percent sales tax to fund needed transportation improvements in the County. In order to be eligible to receive funds, cities must satisfy a number of requirements, including adopting a Circulation Element that is consistent with the County’s MPAH, adopting a Growth Management Plan, and adopting a seven-year capital improvement program to include transportation projects funded by Measure M.

4.9.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress General Plan. The Cypress General Plan4 is the primary source of long-range planning and policy direction that guides growth and preserves the quality of life within the community. The General Plan contains goals, policies, and plans that are intended to guide land use and development decisions. The General Plan, last comprehensively updated by the City Council in September 2001, includes 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
• Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element (satisfies the State’s Conservation and Open Space Element requirements)
4 City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -12 • Safety Element
• Noise Element
• Air Quality Element (optional element not required by State law) • Growth Management Element (optional element not required by State law)

Circulation Element. The Circulation Element5 is a general guide for the planning, development, and enhancement of the City’s public roadways, based on existing and anticipated land uses. Most transportation-related plans and programs are established with the goal of maintaining acceptable operating LOS on the City’s transportation system. The City of Cypress has adopted LOS D or better as the desired citywide operating standard for most City streets. However, given the influence of regional traffic on Valley View Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Katella Avenue, which are beyond the control of the City of Cypress, LOS E or better has been adopted as the minimum operating Level of Service for street segments and intersections on these arterials. The Circulation Element goals and policies define the City’s vision for a balanced, efficient circulation system which incorporate many modes of travel and which allows for the safe movement of people and goods in and around Cypress. Based on the Circulation Element, the local and regional street network is built out in Cypress. Similarly, the City’s bikeway system is generally built out, with the exception of a planned bike lane on Walker Street south of Cerritos Avenue. This proposed bike lane would connect to the existing bike lane on Walker Street north of Cerritos Avenue.

4.9.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for transportation 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 transportation if it would:

Threshold 4.9.1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Threshold 4.9.2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Threshold 4.9.3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Threshold 4.9.4: Result in inadequate emergency access? It should be noted that according to Section 4.17, Transportation, of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts regarding hazards due to a geometric design feature and inadequate emergency access (Thresholds 4.9.3 and 4.9.4). Therefore, these topics are not further addressed below. 5 City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan 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\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) 4.9-13

4.9.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.9.1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. A detailed LOS analysis was conducted for the proposed project based on the OCTAM model, using the County of Orange as the region. Based on the significance threshold criteria determined by the City of Cypress, no operational deficiencies would occur at any of the studied intersections under the General Plan Buildout (2045) conditions with implementation of the proposed project. Table 4.9.C shows the LOS analysis for the year 2045 with and without implementation of the proposed project. As shown below, in 2045, all intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) and intersections along Valley View Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Katella Avenue would also operate at an acceptable LOS (E or better). Based on the LOS analysis, implementation of the proposed project would not create significant LOS changes under General Plan Build out conditions. See Table 4.9.D.

In addition, a VMT analysis was conducted for the proposed project based on the OCTAM model, using the County of Orange as the region. Based on the significance threshold criteria determined by the County of Orange, the cumulative citywide VMT per service population, under the proposed project rezoning scenario, would be lower than the regional threshold. Table 4.9.E compares the cumulative City and regional VMT per service population. Based on VMT analysis results, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the threshold based on service population.

LOS and VMT analyses showed that the proposed project would not exceed significance thresholds established by the City of Cypress and County of Orange. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation. No mitigation is required.

Additionally, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code will address transportation design and emergency access. The City’s Circulation Element includes numerous policies and implementation measures that are aligned with the objectives and priorities identified in the comment letter from Caltrans District 12. Objectives and policies provided in the Circulation Element include:
• 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.
○ CIR-1.1: Respond to transportation problem areas with efforts to implement both interim and long-term solutions.
○ CIR-1.2: Participate in transportation planning efforts which involve other governmental agencies, mandated programs, and regulations in order to minimize environmental impacts related to transportation and to enhance transportation systems. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -14 Table 4.9.C: Year 2045 Without Project Intersection Level of Service Summary Study Area
Intersection
No.

Intersection Jurisdiction
2045 No Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

ICU LOS ICU LOS
1 Bloomfield Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.64 B 0.58 A 2 Lexington Drive-Denni Street/
Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.72 C 0.63 B
3 Moody Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.85 D 0.82 D 4 Walker Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.79 C 0.78 C 5 Valley View Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.71 C 0.76 C 6 Moody Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.58 A 0.48 A 7 Walker Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.64 B 0.60 A 8 Valley View Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.67 B 0.70 B 9 Holder Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.63 B 0.53 A 10 Bloomfield Street/Ball Road City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.59 A 0.59 A 11 Moody Street/Ball Road City of Cypress 0.59 A 0.54 A 12 Walker Street/Ball Road City of Cypress 0.65 B 0.65 B 13 Valley View Street/Ball Road City of Cypress 0.70 B 0.67 B 14 Bloomfield Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.73 C 0.61 B 15 Lexington Drive-Denni Street/
Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.52 A 0.56 A 16 Moody Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.45 A 0.51 A 17 Walker Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.52 A 0.60 A 18 Valley View Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.76 C 0.76 C 19 Lexington Drive/Katella Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.58 A 0.62 B 20 Siboney Street-Race Course/
Katella Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.48 A 0.56 A 21 Walker Street/Katella Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.52 A 0.67 B 22 Valley View Street/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.71 C 0.77 C 23 Holder Street/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.59 A 0.71 C 24 Knott Avenue/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.69 B 0.86 D 25 Valley View Street/Orangewood
Avenue City of Cypress 0.61 B 0.61 B
26 Knott Avenue/Orangewood
Avenue City of Cypress 0.69 B 0.62 B
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service

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\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) 4.9-15 Table 4.9.D: Year 2045 With Project Intersection Level of Service Summary Study Area
Intersection
No.

Intersection Jurisdiction
2045 W/Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak
Hour

ICU LOS ICU LOS
1 Bloomfield Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.64 B 0.60 A 2 Lexington Drive-Denni Street/Lincoln
Avenue City of Cypress 0.72 C 0.64 B
3 Moody Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.86 D 0.83 D 4 Walker Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.82 D 0.81 D 5 Valley View Street/Lincoln Avenue City of Cypress 0.74 C 0.78 C 6 Moody Street /Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.59 A 0.49 A 7 Walker Street /Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.64 B 0.60 A 8 Valley View Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.68 B 0.71 C 9 Holder Street/Orange Avenue City of Cypress 0.64 B 0.53 A 10 Bloomfield Street/Ball Road City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.58 A 0.58 A 11 Moody Street/Ball Road City of Cypress 0.59 A 0.54 A 12 Walker Street /Ball Road City of Cypress 0.66 B 0.66 B 13 Valley View Street/Ball Road City of Cypress 0.70 B 0.68 B 14 Bloomfield Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.74 C 0.61 B 15 Lexington Drive-Denni Street/Cerritos
Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.52 A 0.57 A
16 Moody Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.44 A 0.50 A 17 Walker Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.54 A 0.60 A 18 Valley View Street/Cerritos Avenue City of Cypress 0.77 C 0.78 C 19 Lexington Drive/Katella Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.57 A 0.63 B 20 Siboney Street-Race Course/Katella
Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.51 A 0.58 A
21 Walker Street /Katella Avenue City of Cypress/Los Alamitos 0.54 A 0.68 B 22 Valley View Street/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.71 C 0.77 C 23 Holder Street/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.61 B 0.70 B 24 Knott Avenue/Katella Avenue City of Cypress 0.69 B 0.86 D 25 Valley View Street/Orangewood
Avenue City of Cypress 0.61 B 0.62 B
26 Knott Avenue/Orangewood Avenue City of Cypress 0.68 B 0.63 B Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
Table 4.9.E: Cumulative City of Cypress and Regional VMT per Service Population Comparison
Scenario
City of Cypress VMT per
Service Population
(with Plan)
Orange County
Threshold1 Difference % Difference Significant Impact?
2045 Proposed Project 27.4 30.3 -2.8 -9.4% No
Source: Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (2023). 1 Orange County threshold was estimated using an LSA baseline no plan model run.

VMT = vehicle miles traveled
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -16 ○ 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).
○ 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.
○ 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. ○ CIR-1.6: Encourage the development of aesthetic streetscapes to promote a positive City image and provide visual relief.
○ CIR-1.7: Maintain consistency between the City Circulation Element and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
• CIR-2: To facilitate alternative modes of transportation, including public transportation, bicycles, ridesharing, and pedestrians, to support the land use plans and related transportation needs. ○ CIR-2.1: Encourage development and improvements which incorporate innovative methods of accommodating transportation demands.
○ CIR-2.2: Give high priority to the establishment of a high-quality public transit system that minimizes dependency on the automobile.
○ CIR-2.3: Ensure that effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and programs are being implemented.
○ CIR-2.4: Encourage development and site design which facilitate implementation of high quality, desirable bicycle routes which meet or exceed established standards. ○ CIR-2.5: Implement adequate sidewalks to meet the required uses and needs, which serves to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Bicycle routes which utilize sidewalks require establishment of a City ordinance, per the Vehicle Code. ○ CIR-2.6: Respond to increases in demand for additional bus service through interaction with OCTA and other available resources.
○ CIR-2.7: Implement plan to install handicap access ramps to improve disabled access to transportation facilities.
○ CIR-2.8: Enhance the sidewalk environment to encourage pedestrian activities through streetscape and transit enhancement programs.

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\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) 4.9-17 ○ CIR-2.9: Enhance transit environment by improving passenger loading sites by providing bus benches, safety lighting and other projects to enhance bus stops.

Threshold 4.9.2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), project‐related transportation impacts are generally best measured by evaluating the project’s VMT, which refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The proposed project would result in a significant impact related to VMT if the cumulative citywide VMT per service population is higher than Orange County’s baseline VMT per service population. As shown in Table 4.9.E, under general build-out conditions in the year 2045, the VMT under the proposed project scenario would not exceed Orange County’s threshold. See Threshold 4.9.1 above for a discussion of the proposed project’s VMT impacts. The project would have a less than significant transportation impact. No mitigation is required.

4.9.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to transportation.

Through compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, the existing circulation network would not be adversely impacted or substantially degraded by the project’s population, VMT thresholds would not be exceeded, and the project’s impacts would be less than significant.

4.9.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project pertaining to transportation.

4.9.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to transportation, and mitigation measures are not required.

4.9.9 Cumulative Impacts
The purpose of this section is to evaluate any additional incremental impact that the proposed project is likely to cause over and above the combined impacts of recently approved and proposed projects in Cypress. The impact area used to assess potential cumulative recreational impacts is Cypress because the proposed project would affect transportation facilities within Cypress.

Detailed LOS and VMT analyses were conducted for the proposed project based on the OCTAM model, using the County of Orange as the region. Based on the significance threshold criteria determined by the City of Cypress, no operational deficiencies would occur at any of the studied intersections under the General Plan Build-out (2045) conditions with implementation of the proposed project. Based on the significance threshold criteria determined by the County of Orange, the cumulative citywide VMT per service population would be lower than the regional threshold.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant transportation impact. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.9 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.9 Transportation.docx (01/16/24) -18 Additionally, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code will address transportation design and emergency access. Impacts from the proposed project would not be considered 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\4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (01/16/24) 4.10-1

4.10 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section provides a discussion of the existing tribal cultural resource environment and an analysis of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources from the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project). According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532, Statutes 2014 (i.e., Assembly Bill 52), “tribal cultural resources” are defined as the following:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either: (A) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (B) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1

2. 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 Section 5024.1 This section summarizes information obtained from Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American consultation efforts completed in support of the proposed project. The record of these consultation efforts is contained in Appendix I of this Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).

4.10.1 Methodology

4.10.1.1 Senate Bill 18
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a General or Specific Plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (2005)1 , “The
intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.”
The NAHC was contacted to conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and to provide a list of Native American contacts for the project pursuant to SB 18. The NAHC responded on September 6, 2022, stating than an SLF search was completed for the opportunity sites with negative results. The NAHC recommended that 19 Native American individuals representing the Diegueno, Gabrielino, Juaneño, Cupeño Luiseño, and Cahuilla Luiseño groups be contacted for information regarding tribal cultural resources that could potentially be affected by the project. These 19 individuals were contacted via letter by certified mail on November 8, 2022. The letters, which concurrently fulfilled both SB 18 and AB 52 requirements, provided each tribe with an opportunity to request consultation with the City 1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines. Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22491/files/tribal_consultation_ guidelines_vol-4.pdf (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

4.10 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (01/16/24) -2 regarding the proposed project. In compliance with SB 18, the tribes had 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation on the proposed project. A response was received from Chairman Andrew Salas on behalf of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. This response did not request consultation on the project but did request consultation on future projects within the area.

4.10.1.2 Assembly Bill 52
Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21074). AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource falling outside the definition stated above nonetheless qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” Also, per AB 52 (specifically PRC Section 21080.3.1), as Lead Agency, the City of Cypress (City) must consult California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site and have previously requested that the Lead Agency provide the tribe with notice of such projects. Letters were sent to three individuals who had previously requested to be notified of projects during AB 52 consultation, representing the Juaneño, Gabrielino, and Luiseño groups. These individuals were contacted via letter by certified mail on November 8, 2022, with the exception of Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, who was contacted on September 15, 2022. Apart from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, no responses were received.

Letters have also been sent to Native American tribal contacts provided by the NAHC, as previously described. The letters, simultaneously compliant with both SB 18 and AB 52 guidelines, provided each tribe with an opportunity to request consultation with the City regarding the proposed project.

In compliance with AB 52, tribes had 30 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation on the proposed project. No requests for consultation on the project were received in response to the transmitted SB 18-AB 52 combination letters.

4.10.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The area that is now the City of Cypress was prehistorically occupied by several different Native American tribes with unique oral histories, societal structures, and ways of life. This area is within the traditional boundaries of the Gabrielino. To date, no federally recognized tribes claim to have occupied the land that is now considered the City of Cypress.

4.10.3 Regulatory Setting

4.10.3.1 Federal Regulations
Archaeological Resources Protection Act. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act was enacted in 1979 with the purpose of securing the protection of archaeological resources and sites on public lands and Native American lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information

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\4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (01/16/24) 4.10-3 between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990 with the purpose of outlining a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items (e.g., human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony) to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. NAGPRA also establishes procedures for the inadvertent discovery or planned excavation of Native American cultural items on federal or tribal lands. While these provisions do not apply to discovery or excavations on private or State lands, the collection portions of NAGPRA may apply to cultural items if they are under the control of an institution that receives federal funding. NAGPRA also makes it a criminal offense to traffic in Native American human remains without right of possession or in cultural items obtained in violation of NAGPRA.

4.10.3.2 State Regulations
Native American Heritage Commission. In 1976, the California State Government passed AB 4239, creating the NAHC. The NAHC is responsible for identifying and categorizing Native American cultural resources as well as preventing damage to designated sacred sites and associated artifacts and remains. Legislation passed in 1982 authorized the NAHC to identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) when Native American remains are found outside the boundaries of a designated cemetery.

An MLD has the authority to make recommendations in regard to the treatment and disposition of the discovered remains.

California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9–5097.991. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5097.9–5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources (including sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious sites, or sacred shrines) and sacred sites, and gives the NAHC enforcement authority.

Specifically, California PRC Section 5097.98 outlines procedures that must be followed in the event that human remains are discovered. The County Coroner shall make a determination within 2 working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or designee, notifies the County Coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the County Coroner identifies the remains to be of Native American origin or has reason to believe that the remains are those of Native American origin, the County Coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC representative will then alert a Native American MLD to conduct an inspection of the site and to determine the following course of treatment and action. Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 sets forth a procedure if human remains are found on land outside of federal jurisdiction.

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code protects Native American burials, remains, and associated grave artifacts in the event they are discovered in any location other than a designated cemetery. The Health and Safety Code mandates the immediate stop of excavation on the site as well as any adjacent or overlying area where the remains or associated items are found and provides for the sensitive disposition of those remains.

Should remains be discovered, the County Coroner must determine that the remains are not subject 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.10 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (01/16/24) -4 to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or designee, in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98.

Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Tribal Consultation. California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a General or Specific Plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (2005)1
, “the intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.”
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) Tribal Consultation. California PRC Section 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532, Statutes 2014 (i.e., AB 52), require that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The bill requires a lead agency to begin consultation with each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report is required for a project. The bill specifies examples of mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a Notice of Preparation or a notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. By requiring the lead agency to consider these effects relative to tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with California Native American tribes, this bill imposes a State-mandated local program.

4.10.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that are applicable to tribal cultural resources relevant to the proposed project.

4.10.3.4 Local Regulations
There are no local regulations that are applicable to tribal cultural resources relevant to the proposed project.

4.10.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for tribal cultural resources impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to tribal cultural resources if it would:

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\4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (01/16/24) 4.10-5 Threshold 4.10.1: 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).

Threshold 4.10.2: 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.

4.10.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.10.1: 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. In January 2020, a cultural resource record search was completed as part of the environmental review process for the proposed mixed-use Cypress City Center project, located directly across Katella Avenue to the south of the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan) opportunity site. A record search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Fullerton. It included a review of all prehistoric and historic archaeological sites within a 0.25-mile radius of the Cypress City Center site, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports in that area. The California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Historical Landmarks (SHL), California Points of Historical Interest (SPHI), and various local historical registers were examined. The SCCIC record search included the project site and the areas within

0.25 mile of the Cypress City Center site. No tribal archaeological resources had been previously recorded within the Cypress City Center site, and none were discovered as a result of the record 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.10 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (01/16/24) -6 search1. Because the Cypress City Center site is located within the CBPC Specific Plan Area, this record search can be reasonably applied to the proposed project’s opportunity sites within the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan) and CBPC Specific Plan.

Numerous previous searches have concluded that the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP) Area contains no archaeological sites with the potential to yield tribal cultural resources. An IS/MND prepared for the City’s 2009 Housing Element Update, which included an amendment to the LASP, found that no historic and/or cultural resources were located on or adjacent to the LASP area.2 This has been upheld by other reports in the following years. As a result of the conditions discussed above, a new tribal cultural resource records search under the proposed project was determined to be unnecessary by the City.

Native American consultations were conducted in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52. As part of these consultations, the City asked the NAHC to conduct a record search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) to identify known tribal cultural resources, which yielded negative results. However, it is important to note that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. The City also asked the NAHC to provide a list of recommended tribal contacts applicable to the project, which were contacted on November 8, 2022, and formally invited to consult with the City on the proposed project, as well as to provide information on known tribal cultural resources not contained within NAHC or CHRIS records.

At the time of this document’s preparation, one response has been received. Chairman Andrew Salas responded on behalf of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation that consultation regarding the project was not necessary. Chairman Salas stated that the tribal government would like consultation for all future projects within the project’s location. Therefore, no further action or consultation with the above NAHC-listed tribes is required at this time; however, consultation is requested by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for future City projects on a caseby-case basis.

No information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the opportunity sites was provided by the tribe. Therefore, no tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or in a local register exist within the opportunity sites, and there are no known tribal cultural resources on the opportunity sites. The proposed project would have less than significant impacts pertaining to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined as a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), and no mitigation is required.
1 City of Cypress. 2020. Cypress City Center Project Environmental Report, Draft, SCH #2019110458. Section

4.16-4. Website: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/257330-3/attachment/pPtqudn4yD91UlsUP_CKNqJ72 MJ0kYlHFzJsGzBHYFnlgWkhiTD33EKMOE--4IQOdoGX3ne3ABNyI6Km0 (accessed May 2023). 2 City of Cypress. 2016. City of Cypress Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum, 2016 Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Amendment.

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\4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (01/16/24) 4.10-7 Threshold 4.10.2: 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. Throughout the process, the City received one response from Chairman Andrew Salas on behalf of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. This response did not request to initiate the formal consultation process and no other requests for consultation on the project were received during SB 18 and AB 52 outreach.

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 PRC 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 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. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of undiscovered subsurface tribal cultural resources within the project site is possible, and these resources could potentially be affected by construction activities.

Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) CUL-1, as detailed in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, requires compliance with California PRC Section 21083.2(g) for the treatment of unearthed archaeological resources. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM CUL-1 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on unknown unique archaeological resources to less than significant, in the event that previously unknown deposits with tribal cultural significance are discovered during construction activities within any of the opportunity sites.

As also discussed in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM CUL-2 requires compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains.

Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM CUL-2 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains to less than significant, in the event that previously unknown remains are discovered during construction activities within any of the opportunity sites.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.10 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (01/16/24) -8 Based on the discussion above, the proposed project’s potential impacts to known and unknown tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

4.10.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts to known or unknown tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.10.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures

4.10.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 in Section 4.2, Cultural Resources.

4.10.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.10.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts to known and unknown tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.10.9 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.

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 PRC Section 5020.1(k), or otherwise determined by the lead agency to be significant. Further, each individual development proposal received by the City that requires discretionary approval is required to undergo individual environmental review pursuant to CEQA. AB 52 outreach would be required for those discretionary projects for which a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact is prepared.

Furthermore, impacts of other projects on tribal cultural resources are generally site-specific 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. Thus, there is no potential for the project to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact associated with the significance of a tribal cultural resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5.

Additionally, when resources can be assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources are less than significant. As such, adherence to the regulatory standards in Regulatory Compliance Measures RCMs 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.

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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-1

4.11 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section describes the utility providers within whose jurisdiction the project site is located and evaluates the potential impacts of the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project) on utilities and service systems. This section is based on multiple data sources, including written correspondence and coordination with utility providers, attached in Appendix G of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) outputs generated for the proposed project (Appendix C). This section addresses the following utilities and service systems (service providers are noted in parentheses). • Electricity—Southern California Edison (SCE)
• Natural Gas—Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) • Solid Waste—Valley Vista Services; Orange County Waste and Recycling (OCWR) • Wastewater—Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)
• Potable Domestic Water—Golden State Water Company (GSWC) • Storm Drainage—Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD)

4.11.1 Methodology
For information on current water and wastewater service provided to the opportunity sites and possible constraints or impacts to this service associated with project build out (which is anticipated to occur in 2029), the OCSD and GSWC were sent a questionnaire. The impact analyses for water demand and wastewater generation are based on information obtained through subsequent conversations with utility provider representatives, data obtained through websites, and adopted planning documents of the service and utility providers. This analysis also includes CalEEMod outputs generated for the proposed project, which are included in Appendix C of this EIR.

Correspondence with utility providers is included in Appendix G.

Information on current electricity, natural gas, solid waste, and storm drainage service provided to the opportunity sites and possible constraints or impacts to this service associated with project build out was obtained through websites, adopted planning documents of service and utility providers, and CalEEMod outputs generated for the proposed project, which are included in Appendix C of this PEIR).

4.11.2 Existing Environmental Setting

4.11.2.1 Electricity
In 2021, California’s electricity was generated primarily by natural gas (37.9 percent), coal (3.0 percent), large hydroelectric (9.2 percent), nuclear (9.3 percent), and renewable sources (33.6 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -2 percent). Total electric generation in California in 2021 was 277,764 gigawatt-hours (GWh), up

1.9 percent from the 2020 total generation of 272,576 GWh.1 The City is within the service territory of Southern California Edison (SCE), which provides services through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities. 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 81,129 GWh3 and total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 18,932 GWh (7,272 GWh for the residential sector and 11,660 GWh for the non-residential sector).4

4.11.2.2 Natural Gas
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 upon out-of-state imports for nearly 90 percent of its natural gas supply.5 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the service provider for the City, serves approximately

21.1 million customers in a 24,000 sq mi service territory.6 SoCalGas has four storage fields—Aliso Canyon, Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and Playa del Rey—and has a combined storage capacity of 74 billion cubic feet.7
According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2021 was 5,101 million therms (2,261 million therms for the residential sector and 937 million therms for the commercial sector)8 and total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 580 million therms (362 million therms for the residential sector and 218 million therms for the non-residential sector).9
1 California Energy Commission. 2021 Total System Electric Generation. Website: https://www.energy. ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation (accessed May 11, 2023). 2
Southern California Edison (SCE). About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are (accessed May 11, 2023). 3
CEC. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed May 11, 2023). 4
CEC. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdmsenergy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed May 11, 2023). 5
CEC. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/ energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california (accessed May 11, 2023). 6
SoCalGas. Company Profile: About SoCalGas. Website: https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/companyprofile (accessed May 11, 2023). 7 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2019. Today in Energy Webpage. Website: https://www. eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36416 (accessed May 11, 2023). 8 CEC. Gas Consumption by Entity. Website: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed May 11, 2023). 9
CEC. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-3

4.11.2.3 Solid Waste
The City currently contracts with Valley Vista Services of Orange County, a private solid waste hauler, to collect and dispose of the solid waste/refuse generated in the City. Solid waste/refuse collected in the City by Valley Vista is transported to one of the Class III landfills operated and maintained by Orange County Waste and Recycling (OCWR). Class III landfills only accept nonhazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous or liquid waste is accepted. County residents are able to dispose of their household hazardous waste items at any of OCWR’s four household hazardous waste collection centers. Currently, OCWR maintains and operates three Class III sanitary landfills, identified below in Table 4.11.A.

Table 4.11.A: Orange County Class III Landfills
Landfill Location Service
Frank R. Bowerman 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road
Irvine, CA 92602
Commercial dumping
No public dumping
Olinda Alpha 1942 North Valencia Avenue
Brea, CA 92823
Commercial dumping
Public dumping allowed
Prima Deshecha 32250 La Pata Avenue
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Commercial dumping
Public dumping allowed
Source: Orange County Waste and Recycling.

The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is projected to serve residents and businesses until approximately 2053. The landfill is currently permitted by the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) to receive a maximum of 11,500 tons per day (tpd) of waste, with a currently annual average of 8,500 tpd.10 Therefore, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill currently operates at approximately 73.0 percent of its daily capacity. As of February 2008, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill had an estimated remaining disposal capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards.11 The Olinda Alpha Landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2030, at which time it will be landscaped to become a County Regional Park.12 The Olinda Alpha Landfill is currently permitted by CalRecycle to receive a maximum of 8,000 tpd of waste, but currently receives an average of approximately 7,000 tpd.13 Therefore, the Olinda Alpha Landfill currently operates at approximately

87.5 percent of its daily capacity. As of October 2020, the Olinda Alpha Landfill had an estimated remaining disposal capacity of 17,500,000 cubic yards.14 10 Orange County Waste & Recycling. Landfill Information. Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/landfill (accessed May 11, 2023). 11 California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility Detail, Frank R.

Bowerman Sanitary LF (30-AB-0360). Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/ Details/2767?siteID=2103 (accessed May 11, 2023). 12 Orange County Waste & Recycling. Landfill Information. Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/landfill (accessed May 11, 2023). 13 Ibid. 14 CalRecycle. SWIS Facility Detail, Olinda Alpha Landfill (30-AB-0035). Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca. gov/swfacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035 (accessed May 11, 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -4 The Prima Deshecha Landfill is projected to serve residents and business until approximately 2102 and features several environmental protection measures, including odor control systems, 5.7 acres of wetland, 175 acres of coastal sage scrub, and 11 acres of riparian mitigation.15 The landfill is currently permitted by CalRecycle to receive 4,000 tpd and as of November 2018, had a remaining capacity of 134,300,000 cubic yards.16

4.11.2.4 Wastewater
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for safely collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater in central and northwest Orange County, including in the City of Cypress.

The OCSD provides wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling for approximately 2.6 million people living within its 479 square-mile service area.
17 The OCSD’s facilities include 396 miles of
sewer pipes and 15 pump stations located throughout the county. The OCSD treats approximately 188 million gallons of wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources per day that is sent to two treatment plants: Reclamation Plant No. 1, located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley on an approximately 109-acre site owned by the Sanitation District, and Treatment Plant No. 2, located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach on an approximately 111-acre site owned by the Sanitation District.18
The OCSD is responsible for the provision of wastewater treatment facilities that serve the City.

Sewage from the City of Cypress is diverted to either Reclamation Plant No. 1 or Treatment Plant No. 2. Excess wastewater from any of six trunk sewers tributary to Reclamation Plant No. 1 is diverted to Treatment Plant No. 2 to not overload the capacity of Reclamation Plant No. 1 and to provide for maintenance or construction activities.19 Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a primary treatment capacity of 208 million gallons per day (mgd),20 and is running under capacity at approximately 120 mgd.21 Treatment Plant No. 2 has a primary treatment capacity of 16822 mgd and currently receives 59 mgd.23 Additionally, through its Capital Improvement Program, the OCSD strives to continue maintaining its facilities at optimal levels by planning, designing, and preparing 15 Orange County Waste & Recycling. Landfill Information. Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/landfill (accessed May 11, 2023). 16 CalRecycle. SWIS Facility Detail, Prima Deshecha Landfill (30-AB-0019). Website: https://www2.cal recycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2750?siteID=2085 (accessed May 11, 2023). 17 Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). About Us, General Information, Service Area. Website:
https://www.ocsan.gov/about-us/general-information/service-area (accessed May 12, 2023). 18 Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Draft 2020 Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2017 Facilities Master Plan, SCH# 2019070998. September 2020. 19 OCSD. 2019a. 2018–2019 Annual Report Resource Protection Division Pretreatment Program. Website:
https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=29255 (accessed May 12, 2023). 20 OCSD. 2019b. Budget Update Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/Show Document?id=28411 (accessed May 12, 2023). 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 OCSD. Facts and Key Statistics Webpage. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewerservice (accessed May 12, 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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-5 for future demand by developing Facilities and Biosolids Master Plans that address 20-year planning horizons.24

4.11.2.5 Potable Domestic Water Service
Domestic water service to the City is provided by Golden State Water Company (GSWC). The City is within the Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area. GSWC’s Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area includes Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Stanton; additionally, small portions of Buena Park, Garden Grove, La Palma, Seal Beach, and the unincorporated community of Rossmoor are included. There are approximately 27,200 customers within GSWC’s Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area.25 The Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) demonstrates that GSWC has adequate domestic water supply for future water demands in normal, single dry years, and five consecutive dry year conditions through 2045. The entire GSWC West Orange system is considered potable and is supplied from two primary sources: local groundwater and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). A small portion of water is also supplied by recycled water from the City of Cerritos and through a contract with the City of Seal Beach. GSWC owns and operates 14 active wells with a combined capacity of 11,850 gallons per minute, which pump local groundwater from the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin. The UWMP includes a water supply and demand assessment that demonstrates that adequate water supply, including both imported groundwater and groundwater from GSWC-owned wells, will be available to GSWC through 2045.26 The projected water demands for customers served by GSWC in the Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area is shown in Table 4.11.B.

Table 4.11.B: Projected Water Demands by Use Through 2045 (AFY) Category Water Demand
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family 6,493 6,671 6,855 7,044 7,237
Multi Family 2,667 2,740 2,816 2,893 2,973
Commercial/Institutional 3,283 3,374 3,467 3,562 3,660
Industrial 59 61 62 64 66
Landscape 810 833 856 879 903
Water Loss 825 848 871 895 920
Total 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759
Source: West Orange Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 4-5: Projected Water Demands (GSWC, July 15, 2021).

AFY = acre-feet per year
GSWC = Golden State Water Company
24 OCSD. 2019d. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2021–22. Website: https://online.fliphtml5.com/ zecoq/ajho/ (accessed May 12, 2023). 25 Golden State Water Company (GSWC). Los Alamitos West Orange County. Website: https://www.gswater. com/los-alamitos (accessed May 12, 2023). 26 GSWC. 2020. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, West Orange. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -6 The total water supply available to the GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area is shown in Table 4.11.C.

Table 4.11.C: Total Water Supplies Available to GSWC West Orange Through 2045 (AFY)
Water Supply 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 19,800 20,210 20,630 21,062 21,505
MWD of Orange County 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100
City of Seal Beach
Contract 40 40 40 40 40
Recycled Water 250 250 250 250 250
Total 21,940 22,350 22,770 23,202 23,645
Source: West Orange Service Area 2020 Urban Water management Plan, Chapter 3 – Water Supply. (GSWC, July 15, 2021).

AFY = acre-feet per year
MWD = Metropolitan Water District
GSWC = Golden State Water Company
The GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area only accesses enough water to meet its need in any given year. Accordingly, although some of the supplies available to GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area are shared among three GSWC service areas, GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area would not acquire the additional supplies unless they are needed as part of GSWC’s regional water management among the three service areas. As such, the GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area would acquire the total projected supplies as shown in Table 4.11.A, above.

4.11.2.6 Storm Drain
Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) owns and operates the stormwater control systems in the City. OCFCD has mapped out the City’s as well as the rest of the County’s stormwater facilities.

The stormwater facilities carry runoff away from impermeable surfaces in the City to designated drainage areas.

4.11.2.7 Telecommunications Facilities
Telephone, television, and internet services are offered by a variety of providers in the City of Cypress, including AT&T, Frontier Communications, Spectrum, HughesNet, and ViaSat. Non-satellite providers include Frontier, DirectTV, Spectrum Cable, and DishTV. Satellite internet providers include ViaSat. These services are privately operated and offered to each location in the City for a fee defined by the provider.

4.11.3 Regulatory Setting

4.11.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal policies or regulation applicable to the 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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-7

4.11.3.2 State Regulations
Water Supply Assessment. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21151.9 requires that any proposed “project,” as defined in Section 10912 of the Water Code, prepare a Water Supply Assessment in compliance with Water Code Section 10910, et seq. Water Code Section 10910 et seq. outlines the necessary information and analysis that must be included in an EIR to ensure that a proposed land development has a sufficient water supply to meet existing and planned water demand over a 20-year horizon.

According to Water Supply Assessment requirements, a “project” is defined as any of the following:
• A residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet (sf) of floor space;
• A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 sf of floor space;
• A hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • An industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 sf of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above; and • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling-unit project.

If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, a “project” means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections.

Although the proposed project would facilitate future residential development of more than 500 dwelling units, the proposed project itself does not involve any development. The proposed project is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP), Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CCTC Specific Plan), Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), and Zoning Ordinance that would not directly result in physical development. As such, the proposed project does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to Water Code Section 10912, and a Water Supply Assessment is not required for the proposed project.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -8 Assembly Bill 341. Assembly Bill (AB) 341 extends the waste diversion requirements established under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to the year 2020. In 1989, the California Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is administered by CalRecycle (formerly known as the California Integrated Waste Management Board) and requires each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan. Each adopted source reduction and recycling element was required to demonstrate the diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January 1, 2000. Annual progress reports were required to be filed with the State Legislature that included specified information regarding the act. AB 341 further establishes the policy goal of the State that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. AB 341 requires CalRecycle, by January 1, 2014, to provide a report to the Legislature that provides strategies to achieve that policy goal and also includes other specified information and recommendations in addition to the annual progress report.

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. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards became effective 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.

4.11.3.3 Regional Regulations
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MWD) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) lists and describes the various uses, demand, supplies, target reductions, and compliance measures for 26 member agencies. These include 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and one county water authority serving approximately 5,2000 square miles including portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. The 2020 Regional UWMP found that under the current supply demands for a multiple-dry-year scenario (i.e., drought conditions), MWD would have sufficient supply to meet the projected growing demand for water from 2025 to 2045. MWD is currently working to develop programs to increase its water supply and create a large surplus during multiple-dry-year scenarios to ensure that water demands will still be addressed during emergency drought situations.

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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-9 Municipal Water District of Orange County 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The region served by the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is located in Orange County, California, and includes 28 cities (including the City of Cypress) and water districts, referred to as MWDOC member agencies. MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP documents information on all sources of water supplies for the region—imported water, groundwater, surface water, recycled water, and wastewater—as a summary of information for regional planning. The plan concludes that the MWDOC service area will have sufficient existing and planned supplies to meet full service demands under every water-year hydrologic scenario from 2020 through 2025. The plan also evaluates each source of water in the region. The resource mix for meeting total demand includes local groundwater, recycled water, surface water, and imported water from MWD. The plan documents MWDOC’s cooperative efforts with its member agencies in developing local supplies and finds that in the region the percentage of its supply from each source will remain approximately the same for the next 25 years, with 30 percent of its supplies from imported water and 70 percent of its supplies from local sources in 2040, even with projected growth occurring.

4.11.3.4 Local Regulations
Golden State Water Company 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (West Orange). GSWC published its 2020 UWMP for the GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area, which outlines how GSWC will provide customers with a reliable supply of drinking water for the next 30 years. The 2020 UWMP provides the California Department of Water Resources with information regarding present and future water resources and demands and provides an assessment of GSWC’s water resource needs. The 2020 UWMP utilizes factors that were evaluated in ensuring supply reliability in the MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP and the MWD’s 2020 UWMP.

The UWMP conducts a supply assessment to meet the projected growing demand in its Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area. The UWMP analyzes water supply during multiple-dry-year scenarios to ensure that water demands will still be addressed during emergency drought situations. The UWMP includes these multiple-dry-year scenarios in its analysis of future water demand.

City of Cypress Municipal Code. The Cypress Municipal Code includes the following requirements that would apply to the proposed project related to the provision of utilities:
• Section 12-31 (Required Diversion Rates) of the City’s Municipal Code requires that the applicant for a covered project shall divert, at a minimum, the percentage of construction and demolition debris as specified by the California Green Building Standards. • Section 5-1 (California Building Codes—Adopted) adopts the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 Edition (Title 24). Generally, the intent of Title 24 is to provide efficiency standards for new construction and the rehabilitation of both residential and nonresidential buildings, including building energy consumption, water conservation, and operational efficiencies. Title 24 regulates building energy consumption for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting with regard to both electricity and natural gas, while also regulating water consumption through the installation of efficient plumbing fixtures. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -10

4.11.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for utilities and service system impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. In determining whether the proposed project may have a significant impact with respect to utilities and service systems, it is necessary to consider whether it would:

Threshold 4.11.1: 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?
Threshold 4.11.2: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Threshold 4.11.3: 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? Threshold 4.11.4: 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?
Threshold 4.11.5: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As discussed in Section 4.19 of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts regarding compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste (Threshold 4.11.5). Therefore, this topic is not further addressed below.

4.11.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.11.1: 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. The proposed project includes a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, the LASP, CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance to bring the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance into conformity with the City’s recently adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element and would not directly result in physical development.

The City’s housing needs allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 was established by SCAG at 3,936 housing units. The City identified a potential rezoning scenario in the 2021–2029 Housing Element which divides the City’s RHNA between the CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan area and LASP area. The proposed project would accommodate an additional 2,314 housing units at

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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-11 the opportunity sites. In addition to the 1,946 housing units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, the proposed project would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 4,260 housing units. 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 (MSA) was 1.99 persons. As such, the construction of the 2,314 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 4,605 persons.

4.11.5.1 Water
The GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area 2020 UWMP states that annual water use in its service area is expected to be 15,759 acre-feet by 2045. In addition, the 2020 UWMP states that total water supplies available for the service area in 2045 would be 23,645 acre-feet. According to CalEEMod projections, future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would result in approximately 86,834,354 gallons per year (gpy) or 267 acre-feet per year (afy) of indoor water use. The proposed project’s anticipated water usage accounts for 1.7 percent of the 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 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project 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. No mitigation is required.

4.11.5.2 Wastewater
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for the provision of wastewater treatment facilities that serve the opportunity sites. As indicated above, the OCSD has a capacity to treat 188 million gallons of wastewater per day from residential, commercial, and industrial sources at two plants: Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a primary treatment capacity of 208 mgd,27 and is running under capacity at approximately 120 mgd.28 Treatment Plant No. 2 has a primary treatment capacity of 168 mgd and currently receives 59 mgd.29 The future residential development facilitated by the 27 OCSD. 2019b. Budget Update Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/Show Document?id=28411 (accessed May 12, 2023). 28 Ibid. 29 OCSD. Facts and Key Statistics Webpage. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewerservice (accessed May 12, 2023). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -12 proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 240 acre-feet of wastewater annually, or 214,116 gallons of wastewater per day.30 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 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urban uses that currently generate wastewater and are assumed in OCSD’s wastewater generation 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.31
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. No mitigation is required.

4.11.5.3 Stormwater/Drainage
Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project which disturb more than 1 acre of soil would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and would include the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The SWPPP would include construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control and direct onsite surface runoff and would include detention facilities, if required, to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site would not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems. If applicable, a SWPPP would also detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. If a future project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would be subject to the requirements of Section 5.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code requires projects that disturb less than 1 acre of soil and that are not part of a larger common plan to comply with the local municipal code and/or implement a combination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent pollution of stormwater runoff during construction activities.

The new development allowed under the proposed project would also comply with the Orange County MS4 Permit, which requires the preparation of a Final Water Quality Management Plan 30 In the absence of an official wastewater generate rate, wastewater can be reasonably assumed to be 90 percent of the water use. 31 Personal communication with L Kevin Hadden, Principal Staff Analyst at OCSD on June 30, 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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-13 (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 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project 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. No mitigation is required.

4.11.5.4 Electric Power
The City is within the service territory of Southern California Edison (SCE), which provides services through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities. As discussed previously, according to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the SCE service area in 2021 was 81,129 GWh32 and total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 18,932 GWh (7,272 GWh for the residential sector and 11,660 GWh for the non-residential sector).33 Based on the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed project, the estimated electricity demand associated with the operation of the new residential development allowed under the proposed project is approximately 8,482,740 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Therefore, operation of the future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would increase annual electricity consumption in the SEC service area and Orange County by approximately 0.01 and 0.04 percent, respectively. Consequently, anticipated electricity consumption by the proposed project is negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the total consumption of the SCE service area and Orange County.

Additionally, some of the 2,314 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project 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 32 CEC. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed May 11, 2023) 33 CEC. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdmsenergy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed May 11, 2023).
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -14 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. No mitigation is required.

4.11.5.5 Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the service provider for the City, serves approximately

21.1 million customers in a 24,000 sq mi service territory.34 According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2021 was 5,101 million therms (2,261 million therms for the residential sector and 937 million therms for the commercial sector)35 and total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 580 million therms (362 million therms for the residential sector and 218 therms for the non-residential sector).36 CalEEMod was used to calculate the approximate annual natural gas associated with future housing development under the proposed project. Based on the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed project, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand at the opportunity sites is anticipated to be approximately 25,701,324 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year, or approximately 257,075 therms per year. Therefore, operation of the new residential development allowed under the proposed project would increase annual consumption in the SoCalGas service area and Orange County by approximately 0.005 and 0.04 percent, respectively. Consequently, the anticipated natural gas consumption by the proposed project would be negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the total consumption of the SoCalGas service area and Orange County. The proposed project would not require the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of natural gas service that would result in significant environmental impact.

Additionally, some of the 2,314 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project 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. No mitigation is required.
34 SoCalGas. Company Profile: About SoCalGas Webpage. Website: https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/ company-profile (accessed May 11, 2023) 35 CEC. Gas Consumption by Entity. Website: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed May 11, 2023). 36 CEC. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-15

4.11.5.6 Telecommunication Facilities
Telephone, television, and internet services are offered by a variety of providers in the City. Any future projects that would be developed in accordance with the proposed project would be responsible for constructing adequate 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. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.11.2: 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. As indicated above, the proposed project consists of a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, 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 and would not directly result in physical development. The City’s housing needs allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 was established by SCAG at 3,936 housing units. The City identified a potential rezoning scenario in the 2021–2029 Housing Element which divides the City’s RHNA between the CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan area and Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area. The proposed project would accommodate an additional 2,314 housing units at the opportunity sites. In addition to the 1,946 housing units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, the proposed project would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 4,260 housing units.

According to water demand factors included in the CalEEMod emissions model, future development allowed under the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 86,834,354 gallons per year (gpy) or 267 afy of indoor water use. Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand associated with the new development proposed as part of the project would represent approximately 1.7 percent of the GSWC’s anticipated water demand in 2045. Additionally, some of the 2,314 housing units that would be accommodated with implementation of the proposed project would replace existing uses that currently are assumed in the water use projections. The projectgenerated increase in water demand would be considered less than significant and would fall within existing capacity and available supply.

According to the 2020 UWMP, GSWC’s available water supply would meet the future projected demand for normal year demands from 2025 through 2045. GSWC’s Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area has a diverse water supply portfolio that allows GSWC to conjunctively use surface and groundwater assets. Water supply reliability is a result of the projected reliability of MWDOC, a member agency of MWD, which expects to provide reliable imported water supplies, OCWD management of the Orange County Groundwater Bain to ensure reliability, and conservation 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -16 derived supply. Groundwater imported water from MWDOC, and the small amount of recycled water delivered within the service area by the City of Cerritos and the City of Seal Beach are all resilient during dry conditions and GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area is therefore not faced with shortages during normal or dry years. In addition, as previously discussed, the residential units facilitated by the proposed project are anticipated to use 1.1 percent of the total available water supplies in the service area for 2045. This represents a minimal increase in water demand within the GSWC Los Alamitos West Orange Service Area.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in insufficient water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and adequate water supply would be available to accommodate the future residential development on the opportunity sites facilitated by the proposed project. The proposed project would increase demand for water supplies; however, the GSWC would have sufficient water supplies to the serve the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to water supplies. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.11.3: 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. As discussed above, sewage from the City is diverted to either Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley or Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach.

Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a primary treatment capacity of 208 mgd,37 and is running under capacity at approximately 120 mgd.38 Treatment Plant No. 2 has a primary treatment capacity of 16839 mgd and currently receives 59 mgd. 40 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.41 Through these long-range planning activities, the OCSD would be able to accommodate the growth in demand for wastewater treatment generated by the proposed project and other projects in its service area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant contribution to demands on the treatment capacity of Reclamation Plant No. 1 or Treatment Plant No. 2. Additionally, fees required by the OCSD would sufficiently offset potential impacts generated by the proposed project. Furthermore, 37 OCSD. 2019b. Budget Update Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/Show Document?id=28411 (accessed May 12, 2023). 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 OCSD. Facts and Key Statistics Webpage. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewerservice (accessed May 12, 2023). 41 OCSD. 2019d. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2017/2018. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/ Home/ShowDocument?id=26170 (accessed January 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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-17 some of the 2,314 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urban uses that currently generate wastewater.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment capacity and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.11.4: 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. Solid waste from future residential development allowed under the proposed project would be required to comply with State and local solid waste reduction, diversion, and recycling policies and regulations. According to CalEEMod calculations, the future residential development facilitated by the proposed project would generate approximately 1,711 tons of solid waste per year. Currently, OCWR maintains and operates three Class III sanitary landfills including the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Prima Deshecha Landfill. The Frank R.

Bowerman Landfill is currently permitted by the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) to receive a maximum of 11,500 tons per day (tpd) of waste, with a currently annual average of 8,500 tpd. The Olinda Alpha Landfill is currently permitted by the CalRecycle to receive a maximum of 8,000 tpd of waste, but currently receives an average of approximately 7,000 tpd. The Prima Deshecha Landfill is currently permitted by CalRecycle to receive 4,000 tpd. The additional solid waste generation of 1,711 tons of solid waste per year, or 4.69 tpd, facilitated by the proposed project represents 0.04 percent, 0.06 percent, and 0.1 percent of the daily permitted tonnage of the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Prima Deshecha Landfill, respectively. Consequently, anticipated solid waste generation by the proposed project is negligible (substantially less than 1 percent) compared to the total amount of solid waste received by the three landfills. The proposed project would not require the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of solid waste disposal that would result in significant environmental impacts and the OCWR solid waste disposal system would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Furthermore, some of the 2,314 housing units that would be facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urban uses, most of which currently generate solid waste. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generation from any future projects developed in accordance with the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.11.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.

4.11.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures

4.11.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are required. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

4.11 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) -18

4.11.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project.

4.11.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to utilities or service systems. No mitigation is required.

4.11.9 Cumulative Impacts
The purpose of this section is to evaluate any additional incremental impact that the proposed project is likely to cause over and above the combined impacts of recently approved and proposed projects in the City. The impact area used to assess potential cumulative utilities and service systems impacts is the City of Cypress because the proposed project would affect utilities and service systems within the City. 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.

As stated above, the proposed project includes a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, 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 and would not directly result in physical development. 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, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Additionally, adequate water supply is available to accommodate the additional housing units allowed under the proposed project. Solid waste and wastewater generated by the new housing development allowed under the proposed project could be accommodated with existing infrastructure and would not lead to a significant increase that would alter the capacity of the existing solid waste and wastewater infrastructure set in place. Any future projects would be required to comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, and federal law.

LSA developed the General Plan build-out assumptions by reviewing the land use assumptions in the eight Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) where growth was anticipated to occur due to potential growth as provided in the General Plan and or approved projects in a related planning document.

The Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) TAZs contained household data for 2016. The eight TAZs were updated to reflect the City’s 2045 anticipated build out. Table 4.A, General Plan Cumulative Growth Assumptions, indicates that the City expects build-out of approximately 2,687 additional households (or housing units) within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the Los Alamitos Race Course Super Block between 2016 and 2045 under the baseline General Plan build-out scenario. As such, implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the build out of the additional households could result in a 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

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\4.11 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (01/16/24) 4.11-19 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.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project), evaluates the potential impacts of each alternative, and compares the potential impacts of each alternative against the proposed project’s impacts, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[b] through [f]) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR:
• The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly (15126.6[b]).
• The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact (15126.6[e][1]). The ‘no project’ analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (15126.6[e][2]).
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent) (15126.6[f]). • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (15126.6[f][2][A]). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-2 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» • If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location (15126.6[f][2][B]). • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (15126.6[f][3]).

Pursuant to the guidelines stated above, a range of alternatives to the proposed project is considered and evaluated in this Draft Program EIR (PEIR). These alternatives were developed in the course of project planning and environmental review. The discussion in this section provides:

1. A description and analysis of impacts for each of the alternatives considered;

2. Comparative analysis of each alternative that focuses on the potentially significant unavoidable environmental impacts of the proposed project (the purpose of this analysis is to determine whether alternatives are capable of eliminating or reducing the significant environmental impacts of the project to a less than significant level); and

3. Conclusions regarding the alternative’s: (1) ability to avoid or substantially lessen the significant unavoidable impacts of the project; (2) ability to attain the project objectives (as stated below); and (3) merits compared to the merits of the proposed project.

5.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

5.2.1 Project Characteristics
The proposed project is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, the 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 to be internally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans, the proposed project would rezone the opportunity 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 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (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 2021–2029 Housing Element, one of which was selected as the preferred scenario and has been identified as the proposed project in this Draft PEIR. The second rezoning scenario included in the 2021–2029 Housing Element will be evaluated as Alternative 2, below.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-3 The proposed project divides the City’s RHNA between the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan area, and the 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.1 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.2 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. 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 LASP area, increasing development potential by approximately 1,317 units. With these amendments, the LASP could accommodate a total of approximately 1, 644 units.

Table 5.A, below, provides a summary of the proposed increases in residential development capacities on the opportunity sites under the proposed project.

Table 5.A: Proposed Project Summary
Specific Plan Proposed Increase In Housing Unit
Capacity
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP) 1,317
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan) 676 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan) 321 Total 2,314
Source: City of Cypress Planning Department (2023).
1 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. 2 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
5-4 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» Overall, the proposed project would accommodate an additional 2,314 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 4,260 housing units.

5.2.2 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 LASP, 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 housing 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.

6. Fulfill the intent of the voter approved Measure A, which approved the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan)
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.

5.2.3 Significant Adverse Unavoidable Impacts of the Proposed Project

5.2.3.1 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, of this Draft PEIR), and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Indicator 1 refers to 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 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-5 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 on the opportunity sites may still exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (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 abundance of caution, the proposed project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable.

5.3 ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER

CONSIDERATION
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines suggests that EIRs identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the Lead Agency’s determination. In evaluating an appropriate range of alternatives to the proposed project, a No Project Alternative was considered and rejected by the City of Cypress (City).

The following is a discussion of the No Project Alternative considered during the environmental review process and the reasons it was not selected for detailed analysis in this Draft PEIR.

5.3.1 No Project Alternative
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, 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. The No Project Alternative would not provide accommodation for the City’s RHNA allocation, and the population would generally remain at existing levels due to the City’s relatively built out nature. Other than future build out consistent with the existing General Plan, no alterations to the City would occur.

None of the impacts of the proposed project, adverse or beneficial, would occur. Most notably, the City would not be able to meet its housing obligations as defined by the State RHNA allocations. The No Project Alternative would be the same as existing conditions, which were described in the environmental setting section for each environmental topic.

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. Housing unit construction goals are set by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and allocated to cities through regional planning agencies such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This is called the RHNA. Future housing need refers to the proportion of the 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» region’s future housing needs allocated to a community. Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the State). General plans serve as the local government’s “blueprint” for how the city and/or county will grow and develop. In order to create a housing plan (aka Housing Element) showing that it could meet the local housing needs, a jurisdiction must first know how much housing for which it must plan. This is determined by a process called the RHNA.

The RHNA prepared by SCAG defines the housing unit goals for the region. The City’s fair share for the planning period between 2021, and 2029, (the current adopted RHNA period) was established by SCAG at 3,936 units. The RHNA target number was based on projected household growth and the resulting need for construction of additional housing units allocated over an 8-year planning period (2021–2029). Housing Element law mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law recognizes that in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for housing production. California’s housing element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs to meet its “fair share” of existing and future housing needs. If the City fails to implement its housing element or adopts one that is inadequate, a court can order the City to halt all development until an adequate element is adopted or order approval of specific affordable housing developments. Therefore, this alternative may result in the State taking over control of the City’s Housing Element and implementing minimum zoning requirements to accommodate housing for a diversity of housing to meet the needs of multiple income categories. RHNA compliance by each jurisdiction has received significant oversight by the State Department of Housing and Community Development due to the ongoing housing crisis facing California. Therefore, a No Project Alternative is not possible.

5.4 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines 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. Based on the criteria listed above, 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:
• Reduced Intensity Alternative. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the CTCC Specific Plan would remain unchanged, and no additional units would be proposed in the CTCC Specific Plan area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative divides the proposed housing units between the CBPC Specific Plan area and LASP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative proposes to accommodate 321 units in the CBPC Specific Plan area and 1,317 units in the LASP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative also includes an Opportunity Site located on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-7 and Grindlay Street, which would accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate-income units. In total, the Reduced Intensity Alternative proposes to accommodate an increase of 1,668 units at the opportunity sites (approximately 646 units less than the proposed project). In addition to the 1,946 units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 3,614 housing units.
• Alternative 2: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Mixed Density. Under Alternative 2, the Cypress Town Center and Commons (CTCC) Specific Plan 2.0 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 moderateincome units). The Katella Avenue opportunity site in the PBP zone would be included in Alternative 2 as described under the proposed project. Alternative 2 also includes the opportunity site located on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street, which would accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate-income units. Overall, Alternative 2 would accommodate an additional 2,403 housing units at the opportunity sites. In addition to the 1,946 units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, 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 Cypress Town Center and Commons (CTCC) Specific Plan 2.0 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.

For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all of the alternatives would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances. The alternatives are further described below, and their potential impacts compared to those of the proposed project. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24»

5.5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

5.5.1 Reduced Intensity Alternative

5.5.1.1 Description
As described previously, under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the 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 CBPC Specific Plan area and LASP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative proposes to accommodate 321 units in the CBPC Specific Plan area and 1,317 units in the LASP area. The Reduced Intensity Alternative also includes an opportunity site located on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street, which would accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate-income units. In total, the Reduced Intensity Alternative proposes to accommodate 1,668 units and would result in a 646-unit reduction in housing units as compared to the proposed project.

5.5.1.2 Environmental Analysis
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would facilitate the development of 1,668 housing units under the 2021–2029 Housing Element at opportunity sites identified within the CBPC Specific Plan area, LASP area, and at Orange Avenue/Grindlay Street. 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 (MSA) was 1.99 persons. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would facilitate the development of 1,668 housing units with a corresponding net increase of approximately 3,319 persons. As previously discussed, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a 646-unit reduction in housing units as compared to the proposed project.

The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to 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. The proposed project would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality as described above.

Because the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the accommodation of fewer residential units as compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in environmental impacts on energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, and utilities and service systems that would be less than the proposed project. As the proposed project’s impacts on these resource areas are less than significant, the Reduced Intensity Alternative’s impacts on these resource areas would also be less than significant. In addition, impacts associated with land use and planning and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project.

Impacts associated with air quality, noise, and transportation would also be less than the proposed project due to the accommodation of fewer residential units with the Reduced Intensity Alternative.

However, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality, similar to the proposed project, due to the unavailability of information to quantify emissions of specific project development that may occur under the alternative.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-9 Because the Reduced Intensity Alternative does not include the rezoning of the CTCC Specific Plan to facilitate residential development, no substantial adverse change in the significance of the Los Alamitos Race Course through demolition would occur. Implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still allow the development of residential uses within the LASP area, which would result in less than significant impacts on historic age structures located along the Lincoln Avenue corridor with implementation of in-depth historical analysis when future development is proposed at specific sites with potentially historical resources. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, LASP, CBPC Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance and would not directly result in physical development. Consequently, the specific location and configuration of future development along Lincoln Avenue has not yet been determined and is not under consideration as part the programmatic update. Overall, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant and slightly less than the proposed project.

As such, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in overall impacts that would be less than or similar to the proposed project.

5.5.1.3 Attainment of Project Objectives
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would either not meet project objectives or be inferior to the proposed project in meeting project objectives. The attainment of project objectives is discussed further below.

1. Provide consistency between the 2021–2029 Housing Element, the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would not provide consistency between the 2021–2029 Housing Element, the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance as the alternative would not implement either of the alternatives identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element to the full extent. In addition, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet the RHNA requirement to accommodate the development of up to 3,936 new housing units. As such, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet Project Objective 1.

2. Meet the City’s housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement (3,936 new housing units).

As discussed above, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet the City’s housing needs as identified in the RHNA requirement (3,936 new housing units) as the alternative would facilitate the development of only 1,688 housing units. 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. This would be 349 units less than the RHNA requirement of 3,936 new housing units. As such, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet Project Objective 2.

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-10 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» The Reduced Intensity Alternative would facilitate compact new development and walkable neighborhoods in the City; however, at a reduced scale compared to the proposed project. The reduction in housing units would decrease the extent of the compact new developments and walkable neighborhoods. As such, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be inferior to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 3.

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.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would facilitate changes in land use and development that reflect changes in the regional economy and promote land uses that transform now vacant or under-utilized sites; however, at a reduced scale compared to the proposed project. The reduction in housing units would decrease the extent of the land use changes. As such, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be inferior to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 4.

5. Provide high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the diverse population of the City.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would facilitate the provision of high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the diverse population of the City; however, at a reduced scale compared to the proposed project. The reduction in housing units would decrease the accommodation of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all City residents. As such, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be inferior to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 5.

6. Fulfill the intent of the voter approved Measure A, which approved the Cypress Town Center and Comments Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan)
Measure A, which approved the CTCC Specific Plan in June 2018, allowed for development of a town center, single-family, senior and multi-family housing, and public park space of portions of the Los Alamitos Race Course, the former Cypress Golf Club, and an adjacent property. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the existing CTCC Specific Plan would remain unchanged, and no additional units would be proposed in the CTCC Specific Plan area. By avoiding any amendments to the CTCC Specific Plan, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet Project Objective 6.

5.5.2 Alternative 2: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Mixed Density

5.5.2.1 Description
As described previously, under Alternative 2, the CTCC would remain unchanged and would be able to accommodate a total of 1,115 units.

Rather than applying a density of 30 du/ac to the majority of the LASP area, Alternative 2 proposes to vary densities within the Specific Plan area between 30 du/ac and 60 du/ac. The highest density areas would be located on the east end of the Lincoln Avenue corridor, closest to Cypress College.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-11 With these changes, the LASP could accommodate the development of approximately 2,052 new units.

The Katella Avenue opportunity site in the CPPC Specific Plan area would also be included in Alternative 2 as described under the proposed project. Alternative 2 also includes an opportunity site located on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street. This 2.06-acre site currently includes an older office building and would be rezoned to RM-20 to accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate-income 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. Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the City’s residential development capacity by up to approximately 4,348 housing units.

Table 5.B, below, provides a summary of the proposed opportunity sites under Alternative 2 and Figure 5-1, below, illustrates the location and proposed residential density of the opportunity sites.

Table 5.B: Alternative 2 Project Summary
Specific Plan Proposed Increase In Housing Unit
Capacity
Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP) 2,052
RM-20 (southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street) 30 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan) 321 Total 2,403
Source: City of Cypress Planning Department (2023).

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.

Alternative 2 would update the current General Plan Land Use Element, LASP, 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.

5.5.2.2 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of up to 2,403 housing units on the opportunity sites within the CTCC Specific Plan and LASP areas and at Katella Avenue and Orange Avenue/Grindlay Street. Similar to the proposed project, construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 that could occur with implementation of the project would occur through the horizon year 2045, which would cause short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants, primarily through the operation of construction equipment. Similar to the proposed project, with compliance 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-12 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» This page intentionally left blank
Service Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap
(and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
SOURCE: Esri Basemap (2022)
I:\CCP2201.01\GIS\MXD\Alt_2.mxd (1/25/2024)
FIGURE 5-1
Cypress Housing Element Implementation
Alternative 2
LEGEND
City Boundary
Proposed Density
8 units/acre
10 units/acre
15 units/acre
20 units/acre
18 units/acre
30 units/acre
45 units/acre
50 units/acre
60 units/acre 0 1250 2500
FEET
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-14 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-15 with regulatory requirements (as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measures 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 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Please refer to Appendix C of this PEIR for the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.14 output sheets prepared for the proposed project and Alternative 2 to quantify the criteria pollutant emissions for construction and operational emissions of each project scenario.

Similar to the proposed project, operational activities associated with the additional housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 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). While Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 would significantly reduce criteria air pollutant emissions generated during operational activities associated with the proposed project and Alternative 2, there is currently not enough information to quantify emissions of specific project development that may occur under the proposed project or Alternative 2. 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, similar to the proposed project, operation of Alternative 2 would result in a significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Further, implementation of Alternative 2 would have the potential to conflict or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans under Indicator 13 , similar to the
proposed project, because Alternative 2 would result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational pollutant emissions.

Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of 2,403 housing units under the 2021–2029 Housing Element, 89 more units as compared to the proposed project. As such, the operational air quality impacts associated with implementation of Alternative 2 are anticipated to be greater than the proposed project. As such, impacts associated with air quality would be significant and unavoidable, and greater than the proposed project.

Cultural Resources. Alternative 2 would allocate residential units between the LASP area, the CBPC Specific Plan area, the CTCC Specific Plan area, and the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance and would not directly result in physical development. Consequently, the specific location and configuration of future development along Lincoln Avenue has not yet been determined and is not under consideration as part the programmatic update.

Similar to the proposed project, future development within the CTCC opportunity sites and along Lincoln Avenue would evaluate each development’s treatment of the historically significant 3 Indicator 1 refers to 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. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-16 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» resources and ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts associated with cultural resources would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Energy. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of up to 2,403 housing units on the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC and LASP areas and at Katella Avenue and Orange Avenue/Grindlay Street. Similar to the proposed project, construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 would cause fuel consumption associated with construction activities, primarily through 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).

Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of 89 more housing units as compared to the proposed project. As such, the construction of Alternative 2 would require more fuel use as compared to the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project 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. Although Alternative 2 would result in the facilitation of 89 more housing units as compared to the project, because the proposed project would result in a negligible increase in fuel consumption during construction (less than 1 percent), it is reasonable to assume that construction of Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts on fuel use in the County.

Please refer to Appendix E for the energy calculations utilized to determine the construction and operational energy impacts of both the proposed project and Alternative 2. Similar to the proposed project, operational activities associated with the additional housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 would result in energy demand associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of 89 more units as compared to the proposed project. As such, operational activities associated with the housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 would be greater than the proposed project. Operation of the proposed project would increase both the annual electricity and natural gas consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.1 percent. Although Alternative 2 would result in the facilitation of 89 more housing units as compared to the project, because the proposed project would result in a negligible increase in electricity and natural gas consumption during operation (less than 1 percent), it is reasonable to assume that construction of Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts on electricity and natural gas consumption in the County. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Overall, impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, and slightly greater than the proposed project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of up to 2,403 housing units on the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC Specific Plan and LASP areas and at Katella

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-17 Avenue and Orange Avenue/Grindlay Street. Similar to the proposed project, construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 would cause short-term GHG emissions, primarily through the operation of construction equipment.

Similar to the proposed project, operational activities associated with the additional housing units would result in long-term GHG emissions associated with mobile (project generated vehicle trips), area, waste, water, and stationary sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Although Alternative 2 would result in the facilitation of 89 more housing units as compared to the project, because the proposed project would result in per service population emissions of 2.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year per service population (MT CO2e/yr/SP) (which would be below the SCAQMD’s plan-level screening threshold of

4.1 MT CO2e/yr/SP), it is reasonable to assume that construction of Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts on operational greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with all project attributes in the 2022 Scoping Plan, including residential and mixed-use project attributes related to EV charging requirements, parking minimization requirements, and building electrification, and would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1. Overall, impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant, and slightly greater than the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of Alternative 2 would not physically divide an established community. Implementation of Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of residential units in the City, creating neighborhoods and establishing connections between residential areas. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts associated with the division of an established community.

As described previously, under Alternative 2, the CTCC Specific Plan would remain unchanged and would be able to accommodate a total of 1,115 units affordable to moderate and above moderateincome households. Rather than applying a density of 30 du/ac to the majority of the LASP area, Alternative 2 proposes to vary densities within the Specific Plan area between 30 du/ac and 60 du/ac. With these changes, the LASP could accommodate the development of approximately 2,052 new units. The Katella Avenue opportunity site in the CBPC Specific Plan area would also be included in Alternative 2 as described under the proposed project. Alternative 2 also includes an opportunity site located on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street. This

2.06-acre site currently includes an older office building and would be rezoned to RM-20 to accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate-income units. If the City proceeds with Alternative 2, 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-18 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» amendments to the LASP and the City’s Zoning Ordinance would be undertaken through the normal public hearing process.

With the necessary amendments to the LASP and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the LASP, and the CTCC Specific Plan. In addition, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, similar to the proposed project.

Overall, impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project.

Noise. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of up to 2,403 housing units under the 2021– 2029 Housing Element at opportunity sites identified within the CTCC and LASP areas and at Katella Avenue and Orange Avenue/Grindlay Street. Implementation of Alternative 2 would alter existing development patterns and increase residential density. Similar to the proposed project, 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.

Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of 89 more units as compared to the proposed project. As such, the construction of Alternative 2 would result in greater short-term and long-term noise impacts as compared to the proposed project. Although Alternative 2 would result in the facilitation of 89 more housing units as compared to the project, because the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to noise during construction and operation, it is reasonable to assume that construction of Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts on ambient noise levels in the City. In addition, similar to the proposed project, implementation of Alternative 2 would not generate excessive vibration as vibration levels generated from associated traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on‐road vehicles due to the rubber tires and suspension systems of on‐road vehicles which provide vibration isolation.

Please refer to Appendix F to compare the Year 2045 Noise Volume Summaries prepared for both the proposed project and Alternative 2.

Similar to the proposed project, according to the Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 2017), the opportunity sites are 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, impacts related to noise would be less than significant.

Overall, impacts associated with noise would be less than significant, and slightly greater than the 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-19 the opportunity sites with a corresponding net increase of approximately 4,782 persons. Due to the additional 89 units proposed under Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed project, this increase in population would be approximately 177 persons greater than the anticipated population increase of 4,605 persons with implementation of the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, although Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of new homes in the City, the proposed new homes would not induce substantial unplanned population growth as the alternative is designed to meet the City’s housing need allocation of 3,936 units as determined by the SCAG RHNA. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City as evaluated in the SCAG RHNA.

In addition, similar to the proposed project, the opportunity sites proposed under Alternative 2 are located in urbanized settings with a full range of public services and utilities. As such, Alternative 2 would not cause indirect substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads and other infrastructure. Impacts associated with unplanned population growth, would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. No mitigation would be necessary.

Public Services. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of up to 2,403 housing units at opportunity sites identified within the CTCC and LASP areas and at Katella Avenue and Orange Avenue/Grindlay Street. Alternative 2 would result in a net increase of approximately 4,782 persons.

Due to the additional 89 units proposed under Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed project, this increase in population would be approximately 177 persons greater than the anticipated population increase of 4,605 with implementation of the proposed project. As described further below, impacts to public services with implementation of Alternative 2 would be less than significant, and slightly greater than or similar to the proposed project.

Fire Protection Services. Each of the opportunity sites are surrounded by existing development and are located in areas of the City already served by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA).

The OCFA currently serves over 1,984,758 residents from its 77 fire stations located throughout the County, including Fire Station No. 17 located within the City and Fire Station Nos. 2, 63, and 84 located nearby. The addition of 4,782 residents would increase the population served by 0.2 percent, similar to the proposed project. This increase in population served by OFCA would be negligible and would not impact OCFA’s ability to serve the City.

Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to all OCFA requirements, including providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the future development sites and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. In addition, 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, similar to the proposed project, all future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 would be subject to additional CEQA review related to specific development applications. Alternative 2 would also be required to comply with Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-1, which requires coordination with OCFA during the development and CEQA review process to determine the appropriate development impact fees required in order to offset potential impact to OCFA staffing and service ability. However, implementation of 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-20 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of more homes compared to the proposed project, resulting in a greater increase in population served by OFCA. Therefore, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Police Protection Services. The Cypress Police Department (CPD) currently has 55 sworn personnel and in 2019, had an officer-to-resident ratio of 1.0 CPD officer per 1,000 residents.

Since 2019, the officer-to-resident ratio has fluctuated around 1.0 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. In 2021, the City had a population of 49,926, increasing the officer-to-resident ratio to

1.1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. The increase of 4,782 persons in the City as facilitated by Alternative 2 would result in an officer-to-resident ratio of 1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents, which is consistent with the officer-to-resident ratio of the City since 2019 and the proposed project. Although Alternative 2 would likely result in a greater increase in the number of calls to law enforcement within the City as compared to the proposed project due to the additional population increase associated with the construction of 89 more 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 implementation of the housing element. In addition, CPD has confirmed that it has adequate facilities to accommodate additional officers.

Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to all applicable policies and codes related to the provision of police services. In addition, 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. Further, the officer-to-resident ratio of the City with implementation of Alternative 2 would be the same as with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts on police protection services would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Schools. The California Office of Public-School Construction has published general student yield factors for elementary, secondary (middle/high school), and unified school districts in California (May 2009). The student generation rate for elementary schools is 0.5 student per dwelling unit and the student generation rate for middle/high school students is 0.2 student per dwelling unit.

These student generation rates were used to estimate the number of students that could be generated within the boundaries of the Los Alamitos Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) as a result of project implementation. According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study performed for the Cypress School District (CSD) by Cooperative Strategies and dated April 30, 2020, the elementary student generation rate for multi-family units (high density units) in the CSD is 0.255 student per unit. According to the Developer Fee Justification Study performed for the Centralia Elementary School District (CESD) by Cooperative Strategies and dated November 9, 2022, the elementary student generation rate for multi-family units (high density units) in the CESD is 0.32 student per unit. These student generation rates were used to estimate the number of students that could be generated within the boundaries of the CSD and CESD as a

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-21 result of project implementation. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in approximately 2,142 units in the CSD, 170 units in the CESD, 91 units in the LAUSD, and 2,142 units in the AUHSD.

Based on these generation factors, it is estimated that Alternative 2’s 2,403 residential units could generate approximately 613 elementary school students and 481 middle/high school students (refer to Table 5.C), resulting in an additional 41 students as compared to the proposed project.

Table 5.C: Projected School Enrollment for Alternative 2 Grade Levels Student Generation Factor Projected Enrollment Cypress School District (CSD) 0.255 student/unit 546 students Centralia Elementary School
District (CESD)

0.32 student/unit 54 students
Los Alamitos Unified School
District (LAUSD) (Elementary
School)

0.5 student/unit 46 students
Los Alamitos Unified School
District (LAUSD) (Middle/High
School)

0.2 student/unit 18 students
Anaheim Union High School
District (AUHSD) (Middle/High
School)

0.2 student/unit 428 students
Total -- 1,065 students
Source: State of California, Office of Public School Construction (2019). School Facility Program Handbook. January. Website:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Services/Guides-and-Resources/SFP_Hdbk_ADA.ashx?la=en&hash= 14D0F03EABD3AF437F3F4E2FDE1A602AFDFEE6C2 (accessed May 23, 2023).

Cooperative Strategies. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, Cypress School District Table 5: Adjusted Student Generation Factors. April 30, 2020.

Cooperative Strategies. Developer Fee Justification Study, Centralia Elementary School District. November 9, 2022.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of more residential units compared to the proposed project, resulting in a greater increase in the population of schoolaged children. Implementation of Alternative 2 is expected to generate approximately the same number of students within the boundaries of the CSD, LAUSD, and AUHSD as the proposed project. However, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in approximately 29 more students within the boundary of the CESD as compared to the proposed project due to the higher proposed density of the opportunity sites east of Valley View Street.

Similar to the proposed project, the increase in students projected as a result of project implementation would increase the demand for school facilities. However, future development allowed under Alternative 2 would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA, which is based on populations estimates for the City, including school-aged children. Therefore, although implementation of Alternative 2 would facilitate an increase in demand for school facilities, this increase in demand is consistent with the increase in the City’s population.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-22 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» In addition, according to the AUHSD Facilities Master Plan Update, the AUHSD is experiencing an overall decline in enrollment of approximately 3,200 students through the 2025–2026 school year in the Cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, and Stanton.4 Further, pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Similar to the proposed project, Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-1 requiring the Applicant/Developer to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code would be applicable to Alternative 2. With the AUHSD’s projected decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that AUHSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new middle and high school level students generated with implementation of Alternative 2.

According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study performed for the CSD by Cooperative Strategies and dated April 30, 2020, the CSD is operating under capacity and has an additional 1,011 seats available for new students. The increase of 546 elementary level students can be accommodated by the CSD’s available capacity. In addition, with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) PS-1 as described above, it is expected that CSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new elementary level students generated with implementation of Alternative 2. The fees would be collected by the AUHSD and shared equally with the CSD.

The CESD had been experiencing a decline in enrollment between the 2016–2017 school year and the 2020–2021 school year; however, since the 2020–2021 school year, the school district has been experiencing a small increase in enrollment. The additional residential units allowed under Alternative 2 within the CESD boundary would generate approximately 54 new elementary level students. The Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under Alternative 2 would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-1). Although in recent years the CESD has experience as slight increase in enrollment, because of the district’s historic decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that CESD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate elementary school level students generated with implementation of Alternative 2.

The LAUSD has also been experiencing a decline in enrollment since the 2016–2017 school year.

The additional residential units allowed under Alternative 2 within the LAUSD boundary would generate approximately 46 new elementary level students and approximately 18 new middle/high school level students, for a total of 64 new students. This increase in students can be accommodated by the LAUSD. In addition, the Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under Alternative 2 would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of 4 Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). Facilities Master Plan Update, 3.2 Planning Considerations; Enrollment Projections and Demographics. 2022.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-23 the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1). With the LAUSD’s continued pattern of decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that LAUSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new students generated with implementation of Alternative 2.

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 RCM PS-1, potential impacts to schools would be less than significant and slightly greater than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Transportation. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of up to 2,403 housing units on opportunity sites identified within the CTCC and LASP areas and at Katella Avenue and Orange Avenue/Grindlay Street. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of Alternative 2 would increase trips to and from the opportunity sites, potentially impacting the surrounding circulation system. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of 89 more units as compared to the proposed project. As such, the construction of Alternative 2 would result in greater transportation impacts as compared to the proposed project. Level of service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analyses performed for the proposed project indicated that the proposed project would not exceed significance thresholds established by the City of Cypress and County of Orange. Although Alternative 2 would result in the facilitation of 89 more housing units as compared to the project, because the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to transportation, it is reasonable to assume that construction of Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts on transportation in the City. In addition, similar to the proposed project, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would address transportation design and emergency access associated with Alternative 2. In addition, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not alter the existing circulation system in the City as any improvements needed to accommodate future residential units would be analyzed during site plan review and any circulation improvements such as driveway access and intersection controls would be implemented consistent with the City’s Municipal Code.

Overall, impacts associated with transportation would be less than significant, and slightly greater than the proposed project.

Tribal Cultural Resources. Alternative 2 would allocate residential units between the LASP area, the CBPC Specific Plan area, the CTCC Specific Plan area, and the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street. During the CEQA environmental review process, Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 for the proposed project. Because the tribal outreach process for the proposed project yielded no knowledge of significant tribal resources, it can reasonably be assumed that the proposed project, as well as Alternative 2, would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Similar to the proposed project, because future development of Alternative 2’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 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-24 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» remains. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of undiscovered subsurface tribal cultural resources is possible, and these resources could potentially be affected by construction activities. As a result, similar to the proposed project, impacts to tribal cultural resources with implementation of Alternative 2 are potentially significant without mitigation. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with Regulatory Compliance Measures RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 in order to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains.

With the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measures RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2, potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources with implementation of Alternative 2 would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Utilities and Service Systems. Alternative 2 would facilitate the development of up to 2,403 housing units on the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC and LASP areas and at Katella Avenue and Orange Avenue/Grindlay Street. Alternative 2 would result in a net increase of approximately 4,782 persons. Due to the additional 89 units proposed under Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed project, this increase in population would be approximately 177 persons greater than the anticipated population increase of 4,605 with implementation of the proposed project.

Water. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 would result in an increase in water demand at the opportunity sites. The Golden State Water Company (GSWC) West Orange Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) states that in 2045, annual water use in its service area is expected to be 15,759 acrefeet and total water supplies available would be 23,645 acre-feet. According to CalEEMod projections, Alternative 2 would result in approximately 90,174,137 gallons per year (gpy) or 277 acre-feet per year (afy) of indoor water use, and account for 1.8 percent of the estimated water demand and 1.2 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. The construction of additional or expanded water infrastructure would not be necessary. According to CalEEMod projections, the proposed project would result in approximately 86,834,354 gallons per year (gpy) or 267 afy of indoor water use and account 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.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the 2,403 units facilitated by Alternative 2 would replace existing urban uses that currently use water, and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. Although the increase in water demand with implementation of Alternative 2 would be minimal, the water demand would be slightly greater than that of the proposed project. As such, impacts would be less than significant and slightly greater than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Wastewater. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 would result in an increase in wastewater generation at the opportunity sites.

The OCSD, which is responsible for the provision of wastewater treatment facilities at the opportunity sites, has a capacity of treating 180 million gallons of wastewater per day from

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-25 residential, commercial, and industrial sources at two plants: Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a primary treatment capacity of 208 mgd, and is running under capacity at approximately 120 mgd Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a primary treatment capacity of 168 mgd and currently receives 59 mgd. Alternative 2 is anticipated to generate approximately 249 af of wastewater annually, or 222,146 gallons of wastewater per day.5 This accounts for 0.12 percent of OCSD’s daily capacity, 0.11 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 Alternative 2 would be negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the available capacities of OCSD, Reclamation Plant No. 1, and Reclamation Plant No. 2. The construction of additional or expanded wastewater facilities or infrastructure would not be necessary. By comparison, 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.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the 2,403 housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 would replace existing urban uses that currently generate wastewater and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. Although the increase in wastewater generation with implementation of Alternative 2 would be negligible, the amount of wastewater generated would be slightly greater than that of the proposed project. As such, impacts would be less than significant and slightly greater than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Stormwater/Drainage. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 which disturb more than 1 acre of soil would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and would include the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control and direct on-site surface runoff and would include detention facilities, if required, to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site would not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems. If applicable, a SWPPP would also detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. If a project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would be subject to the requirements of Section

5.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), which requires projects that disturb less than 1 acre of soil and that are not part of a larger common plan to comply with the local municipal code and/or implement a combination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent pollution of stormwater runoff during construction activities.

Similar to the proposed project, the new development allowed under Alternative 2 would also comply with the Orange County MS4 Permit, which requires the preparation of a Final WQMP 5 In the absence of an official wastewater generate rate, wastewater can be reasonably assumed to be 90 percent of the water use.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-26 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» 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 2,403 housing units would replace existing urban uses that currently contribute to stormwater flows, similar to the proposed project. Any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 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 also be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs. As such, Alternative 2 would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities or infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Electric Power. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 would result in an increase in electricity use at the opportunity sites. The City is within the service territory of Southern California Edison (SCE), which provides services through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the SCE service area in 2021 was 81,129 gigawatt-hours (GWh). Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 18,932 GWh (7,272 GWh for the residential sector and 11,660 GWh for the non-residential sector). Based on the CalEEMod outputs for Alternative 2, the estimated electricity demand associated with the residential development allowed under Alternative 2 is approximately 8,808,999 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would increase annual electricity consumption in the SCE service area and Orange County by approximately 0.01 and 0.05 percent, respectively. Consequently, anticipated electricity consumption by Alternative 2 would be negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the total consumption of the SCE service area and Orange County. No additional or expanded electricity facilities or infrastructure would be required. Based on the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed project, the estimated electricity demand associated with the operation of the new residential development allowed under the proposed project would be approximately 8,482,740 kWh per year, and approximately 0.01 and 0.04 percent of the annual electricity consumption in the SEC service area and Orange County, respectively.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the 2,403 housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 would replace existing urban uses that currently use electricity, and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. Although the increase in electricity use with implementation of Alternative 2 would be negligible, the electricity demand would be slightly greater than that of the proposed project. As such, impacts would be less than significant and slightly greater than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-27 Natural Gas. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 would result in an increase in natural gas use at the opportunity sites. The City is within the service territory of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2021 was 5,101 million therms (2,261 million therms for the residential sector and 937 million therms for the commercial sector) and total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 580 million therms (362 million therms for the residential sector and 218 therms for the non-residential sector). Based on the CalEEMod outputs for Alternative 2, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand at the opportunity sites is anticipated to be approximately 26,689,743 thousand British thermal units (kBtu) per year, or approximately 266,961 therms per year.

Therefore, the development of new residential development allowed under the Alternative 2 would increase annual natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area and Orange County by approximately 0.005 and 0.05 percent, respectively. Consequently, anticipated natural gas consumption facilitated by Alternative 2 would be negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the total consumption of the SoCalGas service area and Orange County. Alternative 2 would not require the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of natural gas service that would result in significant environmental impact. Based on the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed project, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand at the opportunity sites is anticipated to be approximately 25,701,324 kBTU per year, approximately 257,075 therms per year, and approximately 0.005 and 0.04 percent of the annual natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area and Orange County, respectively.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the 2,403 housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 would replace existing urban uses that currently use natural gas, and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. Although the increase in natural gas usage with implementation of Alternative 2 would be negligible, the natural gas demand would be slightly greater than that of the proposed project. As such, impacts would be less than significant and slightly greater than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Telecommunication Facilities. Telephone, television, and internet services are offered by a variety of providers in the City. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects that would be developed in accordance with Alternative 2 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 impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities and impacts would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. 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
5-28 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» Solid Waste. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with Alternative 2 would result in an increase in solid waste generation at the opportunity sites.

Currently, OC Waste & Recycling (OCWR), which provides solid waste disposal at the opportunity sites, maintains and operates three Class III sanitary landfills including the Frank R.

Bowerman Landfill, the Olinda Alpha Landfill, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill. According to CalEEMod calculations, the future residential development facilitated by Alternative 2 would generate approximately 1,777 tons of solid waste per year. The additional solid waste generation of 1,777 tons of solid waste per year, or 4.87 tons per day (tpd), facilitated by Alternative 2 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 facilitated by Alternative 2 would be negligible (less than 1 percent) compared to the total amount of solid waste received by the three landfills. Alternative 2 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 residential developments facilitated by Alternative 2. According to CalEEMod calculations, the future residential developments facilitated by the proposed project would generate approximately 1,711 tons of solid waste per year and represents 0.04 percent, 0.06 percent, and

0.1 percent of the daily permitted tonnage of the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, the Olinda Alpha Landfill, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill, respectively.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the 2,403 housing units facilitated by Alternative 2 would replace existing urban uses that currently generate solid waste, and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. The increase in solid waste generation with implementation of Alternative 2 would be negligible and similar to the proposed project. As such, impacts would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

5.5.2.3 Overview of Potential Impact/Comparison to Proposed Project Alternative 2 would result in the accommodation of an additional 89 housing units as compared to the proposed project. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of Alternative 2 on air quality, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems would be similar to or slightly greater than the proposed project. In addition, the significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality would still occur.

5.5.2.4 Attainment of Project Objectives
Alternative 2 would meet all of the project objectives. The attainment of project objectives is discussed further below.

1. Provide consistency between the 2021–2029 Housing Element, the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-29 Alternative 2 would provide consistency between the 2021–2029 Housing Element, the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance as the alternative would implement one of the two alternatives identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element to the full extent. As such, Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 1.

2. Meet the City’s housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement (3,936 new housing units).

Alternative 2 would meet the City’s housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement (3,936 new housing units) as the alternative would facilitate the development of up to 2,403 residential units. In addition to the 1,946 units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 4,349 residential units. As such, Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 2.

Alternative 2 would facilitate compact new development and walkable neighborhoods in the City; however, at a similar scale compared to the proposed project. As such, Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 3.

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.

Alternative 2 would facilitate changes in land use and development that reflect changes in the regional economy and promote land uses that transform now vacant or under-utilized sites at a similar scale compared to the proposed project. As such, the Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 4.

5. Provide high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the diverse population of the City.

Alternative 2 would facilitate the provision of high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the diverse population of the City at an increased scale compared to the proposed project due to the additional 89 housing units that are proposed. The increase in proposed housing units would increase the accommodation of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all City residents. As such, Alternative 2 would be superior to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 5.

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-30 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» the Los Alamitos Race Course, the former Cypress Golf Club, and an adjacent property. Under Alternative 2, the CTCC Specific Plan would remain unchanged and would be able to accommodate a total of 1,115 units, which is less than the total number of units that could be accommodated within the CTCC Specific Plan area with implementation of the proposed project.

As such, the CTCC Specific Plan area would be developed with a town center and housing pursuant to Measure A. As such, Alternative 2 would be superior to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 6.

5.5.3 Race Course Avoidance Alternative

5.5.3.1 Description
Under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative, opportunity sites within the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (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 be included in the Race Course Avoidance Alternative as described under the proposed project.

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 by approximately 560 units. Figure 5-2, below, illustrates the location and density of the opportunity sites within the CTCC Specific Plan area.

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 under the 2021–2029 Housing Element, approximately 560 units less than the proposed project. 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 3,700 housing units.

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative 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.

5.5.3.2 Environmental Analysis
Air Quality. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units on the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan, and LASP areas while avoiding key elements of the historic Los Alamitos Race Course within the CTCC Specific Plan area. Similar to the proposed project, construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative that could occur with implementation of the project would occur through the horizon year 2045, which would cause short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants, primarily thought the operation of construction equipment. Similar to the proposed project, with compliance with regulatory requirements (as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measures RCM AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4), City of
Cypress
241-081-02
241-221-33
241-221-32
241-091-37
241-221-24
241-232-20
241-221-31
CTCC Specific Plan
CTCC Specific Plan Parcels
City Boundaries
Race Course Avoidance (56.46 acres)
Parcel Acreage in Race Course Avoidance
241-081-02 (41.55 acres)
241-221-19 (0.05 acres)
241-221-24 (14.80 acres)
Proposed Density
8 units/acre (13.69 acres in Race Course Avoidance)
10 units/acre (11.85 acres in Race Course Avoidance)
15 units/acre (21.03 acres in Race Course Avoidance)
18 units/acre
30 units/acre (0.54 acres in Race Course Avoidance)
Public Park (6.04 acres in Race Course Avoidance)
SCGC (3.30 acres in Race Course Avoidance) SOURCE: Google (2022), City of Cypress (2021) I:\CCP2201.01\GIS\Pro\Cypress Housing Element Implementation.aprx (1/25/2024) FIGURE 5-2
Cypress Housing Element Implementation
Race Course Avoidance within Cypress Town Center
and Commons (CTCC) Opportunity Sites
0 150 300
FEET
241-221-19
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-32 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-33 operation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in a significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Further, implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would have the potential to conflict or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans under Indicator 1, similar to the proposed project, because the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational pollutant emissions.

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units on the opportunity sites, 560 fewer housing units as compared to the proposed project. As such, the operational air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative are anticipated to be less than the proposed project. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts associated with air quality would be significant and unavoidable, and less than the proposed project.

Cultural Resources. Under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative, opportunity sites within the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (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 and LASP area, and the Katella Avenue opportunity site, would be included in the Race Course Avoidance Alternative as described under the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative is a programmatic update to the City’s General Plan, LASP, CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance and would not directly result in physical development. Consequently, the specific location and configuration of future development along Lincoln Avenue has not yet been determined and is not under consideration as part of the programmatic update. Similar to the proposed project, future development at the opportunity sites within the CTCC Specific Plan and along Lincoln Avenue would evaluate each development’s treatment of the historically significant resources and ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Further, because the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would avoid key historic elements of the Los Alamitos Race Course, implementation of the alternative is not anticipated to impact any key historical resources within the CTCC Specific Plan area. Therefore, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts associated with cultural resources would be less than significant, and less than the proposed project.

Energy. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units on the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC Specific Plan, CBPC Specific Plan, and LASP areas while avoiding key elements of the historic Los Alamitos Race Course within the CTCC Specific Plan area. Similar to the proposed project, construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would cause fuel consumption associated with construction activities, primarily through 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). 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-34 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units on the opportunity sites, 560 fewer units than the proposed project. As such, the construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would require less fuel use as compared to the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project 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. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in the facilitation of 560 fewer housing units than the proposed project and the proposed project would result in a negligible increase in fuel consumption during construction (less than 1 percent), it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on fuel use in the County.

Similar to the proposed project, operational activities associated with the additional housing units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in energy demand associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the proposed project.

As such, operational activities associated with the housing units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be less than the proposed project. Operation of the proposed project would increase both the annual electricity and natural gas consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.1 percent. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in the facilitation of 560 fewer housing units than the project and the proposed project would result in a negligible increase (less than 1 percent) in electricity and natural gas consumption during operation as compared to the total consumption of Orange County, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on electricity and natural gas consumption in the County. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Overall, impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, and slightly less than the proposed project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units at the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC Specific Plan and CBPC Specific Plan areas and the LASP areas while avoiding key elements of the historic Los Alamitos Race Course within the CTCC Specific Plan area. Similar to the proposed project, construction activities associated with the construction of additional housing units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would cause short-term GHG emissions, primarily through the operation of construction equipment.

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units as compared to the proposed project. As such, the construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in less short-term GHG emissions as compared to the proposed project. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the project and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-35 greenhouse gas emissions during construction, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on fuel use in the County.

Similar to the proposed project, operational activities associated with the additional housing units would result in long-term GHG emissions associated with mobile (project generated vehicle trips), area, waste, water, and stationary sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the project and because the proposed project would result in per service population emissions of 2.8 MT CO2e/yr/SP (which would be below the SCAQMD’s plan-level screening threshold of 4.1 MT CO2e/yr/SP), it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on operational greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, similar to the proposed project, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be consistent with all project attributes in the 2022 Scoping Plan, including residential and mixed-use project attributes related to EV charging requirements, parking minimization requirements, and building electrification, and would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1. Overall, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant, and slightly less than the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not physically divide an established community. Implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of residential units in the City, creating neighborhoods and establishing connections between residential areas. Similar to the proposed project, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in less than significant impacts associated with the division of an established community.

As described previously, under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative, opportunity sites within the CTCC Specific Plan area 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. 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 560 units. 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 be included in the Race Course Avoidance Alternative as described under the proposed project.

With the necessary amendments to the LASP and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the LASP, and the CTCC Specific Plan. In addition, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be consistent with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, similar to the proposed project.

Overall, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-36 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» Noise. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units at the opportunity sites within the CTCC Specific Plan and CBPC Specific Plan areas and the LASP area while avoiding key elements of the historic Los Alamitos Race Course within the CTCC Specific Plan area. Implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would alter existing development patterns and increase residential density. Similar to the proposed project, 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.

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the proposed project. As such, the construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in less short-term and long-term noise impacts as compared to the proposed project.

As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate 560 fewer housing units than the proposed project and because the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to noise during construction and operation, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on ambient noise levels in the City. In addition, similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not generate excessive vibration as elevated vibration levels generated from associated traffic on the adjacent roadways would be unusual for on‐road vehicles due to the rubber tires and suspension systems of on‐road vehicles which provide vibration isolation.

Similar to the proposed project, according to the Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (JFTB Los Alamitos) (Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 2017), the opportunity sites are 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, impacts related to noise would be less than significant.

Overall, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts associated with noise would be less than significant, and slightly less than the proposed project.

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 (MSA) was 1.99 persons. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units with a corresponding net increase of approximately 3,490 persons. Due to the decrease in the total number of housing units proposed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative as compared to the proposed project (the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units), the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would increase the City’s population by approximately 1,115 fewer persons than the anticipated population increase of 4,605 persons with implementation of the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, although the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of new housing units in the City, this new residential development would not induce substantial unplanned population growth as the alternative is designed to meet the City’s housing

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-37 need allocation 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, similar to the proposed project, the opportunity sites proposed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative are located in urbanized settings with a full range of public services and utilities. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not cause indirect substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads and other infrastructure. Therefore, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts associated with unplanned population growth would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. No mitigation would be necessary.

Public Services. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units at the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC and CBPC Specific Plan areas and the LASP area while avoiding key elements of the historic Los Alamitos Race Course within the CTCC Specific Plan area. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in a net increase of approximately 3,490 persons. Due to the decrease in the total number of housing units proposed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative as compared to the proposed project (the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units), the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would increase the City’s population by approximately 1,115 fewer persons than the anticipated population increase of 4,605 with implementation of the proposed project. As described further below, impacts to public services with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be less than significant, and slightly less than or similar to the proposed project.

Fire Protection Services. Each of the opportunity sites are surrounded by existing development and are located in areas of the City already served by OCFA. As discussed above, the OCFA currently serves over 1,984,758 residents from its 77 fire stations located throughout the County, including Fire Station No. 17 located within the City and Fire Station Nos. 2, 63, and 84 located nearby. The addition of 3,490 residents would increase the population served by

0.2 percent, similar to the proposed project. This increase in population served by OFCA is negligible and would not impact OCFA’s ability to serve the City.

Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be required to adhere to all OCFA requirements, including providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the future development sites and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. In addition, 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, similar to the proposed project, all future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be subject to additional CEQA review related to specific development applications. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also be required to comply with Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-1, which requires coordination with OCFA during the developmental and CEQA review process to determine the appropriate development impact fees required in order to offset potential impact to OCFA staffing and service ability. However, implementation of the Race 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-38 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of fewer homes compared to the proposed project, resulting in a smaller increase in population served by OFCA. Therefore, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant and less than the proposed project.

Police Protection Services. CPD currently has 55 sworn personnel and in 2019, had an officer-toresident ratio of 1.0 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. Since 2019, the officer-to-resident ratio has fluctuated around 1.0 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. In 2021, the City had a population of 49,926, increasing the officer-to-resident ratio to 1.1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. The increase of 3,490 persons in the City as facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in an officer-to-resident ratio of 1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents, which is consistent with the City’s officer-to-resident ratio since 2019 and the proposed project. In addition, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would likely result in a smaller increase in the number of calls to law enforcement within the City as compared to the proposed project due to the construction of 560 fewer housing units and 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 implementation of the housing element. Further, CPD has confirmed that it has adequate facilities to accommodate additional officers.

Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be required to adhere to all applicable policies and codes related to the provision of police services. In addition, 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. Further, the City’s officer-to-resident ratio with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be the same as with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts on police protection services would be less than significant and less than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Schools. As discussed in Section 4.8, Public Services, the following student generation rates were used to evaluate potential impact on school capacity with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative:
• LAUSD and AUHSD
○ Elementary Schools: 0.5 elementary student per dwelling unit ○ Middle/High Schools: 0.2 student per dwelling unit
• CSD
○ 0.255 student per dwelling unit
• CESD
○ 0.32 student per dwelling unit

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-39 Implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in approximately 1,582 units in the CSD, 170 units in the CESD, 91 units in the LAUSD, and 1,582 units in the AUHSD. As compared to the proposed project, the number of housing units and corresponding increase in school aged children would remain the same within the CESD and LAUSD, while the number of housing units within the CSD and AUHSD would decrease by approximately 560 units.

Based on these generation factors, it is estimated that implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative could generate approximately 474 elementary school students and 334 middle/high school students (refer to Table 5.D, Projected School Enrollment for the Race Course Avoidance Alternative), resulting in approximately 257 fewer students as compared to the proposed project.

Table 5.D: Projected School Enrollment for the Race Course Avoidance Alternative Grade Levels Student Generation Factor Projected Enrollment Cypress School District (CSD) 0.255 student/unit 403 students Centralia Elementary School District
(CESD)

0.32 student/unit 25 students
Los Alamitos Unified School District
(LAUSD) (Elementary School)

0.5 student/unit 46 students
Los Alamitos Unified School District
(LAUSD) (Middle/High School)

0.2 student/unit 18 students
Anaheim Union High School District
(AUHSD) (Middle/High School)

0.2 student/unit 316 students
Total -- 808 students
Source: State of California, Office of Public School Construction. 2019. School Facility Program Handbook. January. Website:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Services/Guides-and-Resources/SFP_Hdbk_ADA.ashx?la=en&hash=14D0F03EABD3A F437F3F4E2FDE1A602AFDFEE6C2 (Accessed May 23, 2023).

Cooperative Strategies. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, Cypress School District Table 5: Adjusted Student Generation Factors. April 30, 2020.

Cooperative Strategies. Developer Fee Justification Study, Centralia Elementary School District. November 9, 2022.

Implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of fewer residential units compared to the proposed project, resulting in a smaller increase in the population of school-aged children. Implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative is expected to generate approximately the same number of students within the boundaries of the CESD and LAUSD as the proposed project. However, implementation of Race Course Avoidance Alternative would generate approximately 257 fewer students within the boundary of the CESD and AUHSD as compared to the proposed project due to the reduction of approximately 560 housing units within the CTCC Specific Plan area.

Similar to the proposed project, the increase in students projected as a result of project implementation would increase the demand for school facilities. However, future development allowed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA, which is based on populations estimates for the City, including school-aged children. Therefore, although implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate an increase in demand for school facilities, this increase in demand is consistent with the increase in population of the City. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-40 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» In addition, according to the AUHSD Facilities Master Plan Update, the AUHSD is experiencing an overall decline in enrollment of approximately 3,200 students through the 2025-2026 school year in the Cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, and Stanton.6 Further, pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Similar to the proposed project, Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1 requiring the Applicant/Developer to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code would be applicable to the Race Course Avoidance Alternative. With the AUHSD’s projected decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that AUHSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new middle and high school level students generated with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative.

According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study performed for the CSD by Cooperative Strategies and dated April 30, 2020, the CSD is operating under capacity and has an additional 1,011 seats available for new students. The increase of 474 elementary level students under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative can be accommodated by the CSD’s available capacity. In addition, with implementation of RCM PS-1 as described above, it is expected that CSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new elementary level students generated with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative. The fees would be collected by the AUHSD and shared equally with the CSD.

The CESD had been experiencing a decline in enrollment between the 2016–2017 school year and the 2020–2021 school year; however, since the 2020–2021 school year, the school district has been experiencing a small increase in enrollment. The number of residential units allowed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative within the CESD boundary would be the same as under the proposed project. The Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-1). Although in recent years the CESD has experience as slight increase in enrollment, because of the district’s historic decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that CESD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate elementary school level students generated with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative, similar to the proposed project.

The LAUSD has also been experiencing a decline in enrollment since the 2016–2017 school year.

The residential units allowed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative within the LAUSD boundary would generate approximately 46 new elementary level students and approximately 18 new middle/high school level students, for a total of 64 new students, the same as the proposed project. This increase in students can be accommodated by the LAUSD. In addition, 6 Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). Facilities Master Plan Update, 3.2 Planning Considerations; Enrollment Projections and Demographics. 2022.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-41 the Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM PS-1). With the LAUSD’s continued pattern of decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that LAUSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new students generated with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative.

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a project’s impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the required fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1, potential impacts to schools would be less than significant and slightly less than the proposed project.

Transportation. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units at the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC Specific Plan and CBPC Specific Plan areas and the LASP area while avoiding key elements of the historic Los Alamitos Race Course within the CTCC Specific Plan area. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would increase the number of vehicle trips to and from the opportunity sites, potentially impacting the surrounding circulation system. Given that the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the proposed project, the construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in less transportation impacts than the proposed project. LOS and VMT analyses performed for the proposed project indicated that the proposed project would not exceed significance thresholds established by the City of Cypress and County of Orange. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the project and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to transportation, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on transportation in the City. In addition, similar to the proposed project, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would address transportation design and emergency access associated with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative. In addition, similar to the proposed project, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not alter the existing circulation system in the City as any improvements needed to accommodate future residential units would be analyzed during site plan review and any circulation improvements such as driveway access and intersection controls would be implemented consistent with the City’s Municipal Code.

Overall, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts associated with transportation would be less than significant, and slightly less than the proposed project.

Tribal Cultural Resources. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units at the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC Specific Plan and CBPC Specific Plan areas and the LASP area while avoiding key elements of the historic Los Alamitos Race Course within the CTCC Specific Plan area. During the CEQA environmental review process, Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52 for the proposed project. Because the Tribal outreach process for the proposed project yielded no knowledge of 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-42 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» significant Tribal resources, it can reasonably be assumed that the proposed project, as well as the Race Course Avoidance Alternative, would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Similar to the proposed project, because future development of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’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. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of undiscovered subsurface tribal cultural resources is possible, and these resources could potentially be affected by construction activities. As a result, similar to the proposed project, impacts to tribal cultural resources with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative are potentially significant without mitigation. Similar to the proposed project, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be required to comply with Regulatory Compliance Measures RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 in order to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains.

With the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measures RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2, potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Utilities and Service Systems. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of up to 1,754 housing units at the opportunity sites identified within the CTCC and CBPC Specific Plan areas and the LASP area while avoiding key elements of the historic Los Alamitos Race Course within the CTCC Specific Plan area. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in a net increase of approximately 3,490 persons. Due to the decrease in the total number of housing units proposed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative as compared to the proposed project (the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units), the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would increase the City’s population by approximately 1,115 fewer persons than the anticipated population increase of 4,605 with implementation of the proposed project.

Water. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in an increase in water demand at the opportunity sites. The GSWC West Orange Service Area 2020 UWMP states that in 2045, annual water use in its service area is expected to be 15,759 acre-feet and total water supplies available would be 23,645 acre-feet. According to CalEEMod projections, the proposed project would result in approximately 86,834,354 gallons per year (gpy) or 267 afy of indoor water use and account 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. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the project and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to water usage, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on water usage in the City.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would replace existing urban uses that currently use water, and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-43 serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts would be less than significant and slightly less than the proposed project.

Wastewater. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in an increase in wastewater generation at the opportunity sites. The OCSD, which is responsible for the provision of wastewater treatment facilities at the opportunity sites, has a capacity of treating 180 million gallons of wastewater per day from residential, commercial, and industrial sources at two plants: Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a primary treatment capacity of 208 mgd, and is running under capacity at approximately 120 mgd Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a primary treatment capacity of 168 mgd and currently receives 59 mgd. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 240 acre-feet of wastewater annually, or 214,116 gallons of wastewater per day. This accounts for 0.11 percent of 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. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the project and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to wastewater generation, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on wastewater collection in the City.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would replace existing urban uses that currently generate wastewater and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. As such, impacts would be less than significant and slightly less than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Stormwater/Drainage. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative which would disturb more than 1 acre of soil would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and would include the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct on-site surface runoff and would include detention facilities, if required, to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site would not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems. If applicable, a SWPPP would also detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. If a project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would be subject to the requirements of Section

5.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) requires projects that disturb less than 1 acre of soil and that are not part of a larger common plan to comply with the local municipal code and/or implement a combination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent pollution of stormwater runoff during construction activities.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-44 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» Similar to the proposed project, the new development allowed under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative 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 units would replace existing urban uses that currently contribute to stormwater flows, similar to the proposed project. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative 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 also be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities or infrastructure. The Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Electric Power. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in an increase in electricity use at the opportunity sites. The City is within the service territory of Southern California Edison (SCE), which provides services through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the SCE service area in 2021 was 81,129 GWh. Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 18,932 GWh (7,272 GWh for the residential sector and 11,660 GWh for the non-residential sector). Based on the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed project, the estimated electricity demand associated with the operation of the new residential development allowed under the proposed project is approximately 8,482,740 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, and approximately 0.01 and

0.04 percent of the annual electricity consumption in the SEC service area and Orange County, respectively. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in the facilitation of 560 less housing units as compared to the project and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to electricity consumption, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on electricity consumption in the City.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the housing units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would replace existing urban uses that currently use electricity, and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts would be less than significant and slightly less than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Natural Gas. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in an increase in natural gas use at the opportunity sites. The City is within the service territory of Southern California Gas Company

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-45 (SoCalGas). According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2021 was 5,101 million therms (2,261 million therms for the residential sector and 937 million therms for the commercial sector) and total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2021 was 580 million therms (362 million therms for the residential sector and 218 therms for the non-residential sector). Based on the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed project, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand at the opportunity sites is anticipated to be approximately 25,701,324 kBTU per year, approximately 257,075 therms per year, and approximately 0.005 and 0.04 percent of the annual natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area and Orange County, respectively. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the project and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to natural gas consumption, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on natural gas consumption in the City.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the housing units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would replace existing urban uses that currently use natural gas, and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts would be less than significant and slightly less than the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Telecommunication Facilities. Telephone, television, and internet services are offered by a variety of providers in the City. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects that would be developed in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative 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 Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities and impacts would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

Solid Waste. Similar to the proposed project, any future projects implemented in accordance with the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would result in an increase in solid waste generation at the opportunity sites. Currently, OCWR, which provides solid waste disposal at the opportunity sites, maintains and operates three Class III sanitary landfills including the Frank R.

Bowerman Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Prima Deshecha Landfill. According to CalEEMod calculations, the future residential developments facilitated by the proposed project would generate approximately 1,711 tons of solid waste per year and 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. As the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the development of 560 fewer housing units than the project and 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-46 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24» the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to solid waste generation, it is reasonable to assume that construction of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would also result in less than significant impacts on solid waste collection in the City.

Additionally, similar to the proposed project, some of the housing units facilitated by the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would replace existing urban uses that currently generate solid waste, and all future projects would be required to demonstrate that existing public utilities would be sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs as part of their specific environmental review process. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative’s impacts would be less than significant and less than the proposed project.

5.5.3.3 Overview of Potential Impact/Comparison to Proposed Project The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would accommodate up to 1,754 housing units, 560 less than the proposed project. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative on air quality, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems would be similar or slightly less than the proposed project. In addition, the significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality would still occur.

5.5.3.4 Attainment of Project Objectives
The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would either not meet project objectives or be inferior to the proposed project in meeting the project objectives. The attainment of project objectives is discussed further below.

1. Provide consistency between the 2021–2029 Housing Element, the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not provide consistency between the 2021–2029 Housing Element, the City’s General Plan, the LASP, the CTCC Specific Plan, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance as the alternative would not implement either of the alternatives identified in the 2021–2029 Housing Element to the full extent. In addition, implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not meet the City’s RHNA requirement of 3,936 housing units. As such, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet Project Objective 1.

2. Meet the City’s housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement (3,936 new housing units).

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not meet the City’s housing needs as identified in the RHNA requirement (3,936 new housing units) as the alternative would only facilitate the development of up to 1,754 residential units at the opportunity sites. In addition to the 1,946 units already accommodated under existing zoning within the City, implementation of the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would increase the residential development capacity in the City to a total of 3,700 housing units. This would be 236 units less than the RHNA requirement of 3,936 housing units. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not meet Project Objective 2.

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-47

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate compact new development and walkable neighborhoods in the City; however, it would do so at a reduced scale compared to the proposed project. The reduction in housing units would decrease the extent of the compact new developments and walkable neighborhoods. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be inferior to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 3.

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.

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate changes in land use and development that reflect changes in the regional economy and promote land uses that transform now vacant or under-utilized sites; however, it would do so at a reduced scale compared to the proposed project because some of the opportunity sites would not be redeveloped. The reduction in housing units would decrease the extent of the land use changes. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be inferior to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 4.

5. Provide high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the diverse population of the City.

The Race Course Avoidance Alternative would facilitate the provision of high-quality housing in a variety of forms, sizes, and densities to serve the diverse population of the City; however, it would do so at a reduced scale compared to the proposed project. The reduction in housing units would decrease the accommodation of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all City residents. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would be inferior to the proposed project in meeting Project Objective 5.

6. Fulfill the intent of the voter approved Measure A, which approved the Cypress Town Center and Comments Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC Specific Plan)
Measure A, which approved the CTCC Specific Plan in June 2018, allowed for development of a town center, single-family, senior and multi-family housing, and public park space of portions of the Los Alamitos Race Course, the former Cypress Golf Club, and an adjacent property. Under the Race Course Avoidance Alternative, opportunity sites within the Cypress Town Center and Commons (CTCC) Specific Plan 2.0 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. 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 are by approximately 560 units. As such, although the CTCC Specific Plan area would be developed with a town center and housing pursuant to Measure A, it would be at a reduced scale as compared to the proposed project. As such, the Race Course Avoidance Alternative would not meet Project Objective 6 because the CTCC Specific Plan as approved by the voters would not be implemented. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5-48 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx «01/29/24»

5.6 IDENTIFICATION OF 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. Table 5.E provides, in summary format, a comparison of the level of impacts of each alternative to 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.

As shown in Table 5.E, below, 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 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 housing units as required by State law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.).

In addition, as shown in Table 5.E, below, 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.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024

CYPRESS CITY CENTER P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) 5-49 Table 5.E: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives Impact Area Proposed Project Impact with
Mitigation (if any) Reduced Intensity Alternative
Alternative 2:

Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan
Mixed Density
Race Course Avoidance
Alternative
Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Less2 Similar2 Less2 Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Less Similar Less Energy Less Than Significant Less Greater Less
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant1 Less1 Greater1 Less1 Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Similar Similar Similar Noise Less Than Significant Less Greater Less
Population and Housing Less than Significant Less Greater Less Public Services Less than Significant Less Similar/Greater Less Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant Similar Similar Similar Transportation Less Than Significant Less Greater Less
Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Less Similar/Greater Less Source: LSA (2024).
1 Mitigation identified. 2 Impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable, however overall impacts would be less than the proposed project. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
5 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\5.0 Alternatives.docx (01/29/24) -50 Further, implementation of the proposed project would meet all of the identified project objectives, including meeting the City’s RHNA requirement of 3,936 housing units 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.

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\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (01/16/24) 6-1

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided in all phases of a project, including:
planning, acquisition, development, and operation. This chapter discusses these CEQA considerations associated with the implementation of the proposed 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project). Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states that an EIR shall:
“Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.”
According to Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include the following as part of its analysis, as addressed in this chapter:

1. Significant short- and long-term environmental effects associated with project implementation (Section 6.1, Short-and Long-Term Implications);

2. Significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources (Section 6.2, Energy Impacts);

3. Significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (Section 6.3, Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts);

4. Significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed project (Section 6.4, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes); and

5. Growth-inducing impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project (Section 6.5, Growth-Inducing Impacts).

6.1 SHORT-AND LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS
Section 15126.2(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. Specifically, Section 15126.2(a) states that an EIR shall:

Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. The EIR shall also analyze any 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (01/16/24) -2 significant environmental effects the project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected.

The proposed project involves the approval of updates to the City of Cypress’ (City) General Plan Land Use Element, the 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. The updates to each document would function to ensure consistency with the 2021–2029 City of Cypress General Plan Housing Element Update and establish the necessary zoning and land use designations in order to accommodate all 3,936 housing units allocated by the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to the City for its 6th Cycle Planning Period.

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.

The proposed project would not include any physical changes or alterations to ecological systems.

The proposed project would induce changes in population distribution, population concentration, and the human use of land due to the residential zoning overlays that would allow for denser housing on the opportunity sites. However, the proposed project itself would not result in any new or expanded development. Although the proposed project would indirectly bring potential development or population into the City, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts because future development allowed under the proposed zoning and land use changes would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA. The proposed project would not include or facilitate any new physical improvements or development.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create potential short-term or longterm direct or indirect significant effects.

6.2 ENERGY IMPACTS
According to Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use.”
As described in Section 4.3, Energy, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to energy use.

The proposed project would not, in and of itself entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development. Construction activities associated with the development of additional housing units could occur through the horizon year 2045, which would cause short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. Transportation energy represents the largest energy use during construction and would occur 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). Project construction would have a

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\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (01/16/24) 6-3 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. In addition, compliance with State regulations would reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

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. Operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.1 percent. Further, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange County by 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. 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.

The text changes in the General Plan Land Use Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in energy impacts. The text changes to the Zoning Ordinance would ensure compliance with new state laws and resolve potential inconsistencies resulting from adoption of the 2021–2029 Housing Element. The text changes to the three relevant Specific Plans (the LASP, the CBPC Specific Plan, and the CTCC Specific Plan) also represent a planning action intended to ensure consistency with the changes to other relevant City planning documents. The aforementioned changes would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in energy impacts. Therefore, impacts to energy would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

6.3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Executive Summary of this document (Chapter 1.0) contains a detailed summary that identifies the proposed project’s environmental impacts as compared to existing conditions, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of any impacts after mitigation. The following is a summary of impacts 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.

6.3.1 Conflict with Applicable Air Quality Plan
Given that the proposed project would result in long-term operational pollutant emissions that would violate Indicator 1 of consistency with the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact by conflicting with or obstructing implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Mitigation is proposed to require the implementation of all feasible measures to reduce operational impacts associated with the proposed project, but there is no feasible mitigation to reduce operational pollutant emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (01/16/24) -4

6.3.2 Criteria Pollutant Net Increase in Nonattainment Region Given that the proposed project would enable future development projects that may exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact by causing a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant or which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Mitigation is proposed to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions generated during operational activities associated with the proposed project. However, 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, and project impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2 (d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider and discuss significant irreversible changes that would be caused by implementation of the proposed project.

Specifically, Section 15126.2 (d) states:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.”
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the proposed consumption of resources is not justified, if the project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources, or if the project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.

The proposed Specific Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance amendments are considered planning/policy actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development.

The commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources required for construction and operation of future development would limit the availability of these resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project. However, the proposed project would not result in an irreversible commitment of these resources, as the proposed project would not, in itself, result in any direct physical improvements or development. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, and thus, would not result in significant irreversible changes.

6.5 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR analyze growthinducing impacts and discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or

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\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (01/16/24) 6-5 population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. This section examines ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) also requires a discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To address these issues, potential growth-inducing effects were examined through analysis of the following questions:
• Would the project remove obstacles to, or otherwise foster, population growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? • Would the project foster economic growth?
• Would approval of the project involve some characteristic that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(e)). This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the proposed project could contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of developing the proposed land uses as described in earlier sections of this Draft Program EIR (PEIR).

6.5.1 Removal of Obstacles to, or Otherwise Foster, Population Growth Approval of the amendments to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, relevant Specific Plans, and Zoning Ordinance/Zoning Map are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. The proposed zoning changes would allow for the development of residential uses on the opportunity sites. Future development that would be built in accordance with these amendments would be designed to meet the City’s housing need allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 of 3,936 housing units as determined by the SCAG RHNA. As such, the proposed project is consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City. Future residential uses would replace existing land uses and not would not induce additional growth or require the extension of roads or other infrastructure because the roads and infrastructure are already in place with adequate capacity to serve the opportunity sites. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause indirect substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads and other infrastructure. Impacts associated with unplanned population growth, directly or indirectly, would be less than significant and no mitigation would be necessary.

6.5.2 Foster Economic Growth
The proposed project seeks to establish consistency between the City’s 2021–2029 General Plan Housing Element Update and other applicable land use documents. Under this new Housing Element, the City identifies opportunity sites with the potential to accommodate the City’s unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 housing units in order to meet its RHNA allocation of 3,936 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
6 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (01/16/24) -6 housing units. As discussed in Section 4.7.3.3, Regional Regulations, in Section 4.7, Population and Housing, of this Draft PEIR, the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), from which the RHNA is derived, takes into account demographic and economic changes that have occurred since the adoption of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS. As a result, at least some degree of economic growth has already been accounted for by the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and RHNA.

Therefore, the land use changes included under the proposed project would represent a response to the City’s economic growth rather than a source of it.

Modest economic growth could be expected from the proposed project’s updated high-density residential zoning along the Lincoln Avenue Corridor because it would allow for residential occupation within walking distance of existing commercial retail establishments. As discussed in Table 4.5.D, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, this close proximity would encourage walkability within the area and could therefore provide the retail establishments with an expanded consumer base and potentially increase commercial activity along the corridor. However, this increased commercial activity would not be substantial enough to warrant a significant change in economic growth. As a result, the proposed project is not considered to foster economic growth, and therefore, the proposed project would not result in any economic growth-inducing impacts.

6.5.3 Other Characteristics
Approval of the proposed project would not involve any characteristics that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.

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\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) 7-1

7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

7.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6, which is part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute, mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs:
• The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes that have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
• The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. • The lead agency shall provide measures to mitigate or avoid potentially significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents that address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
• Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either (1) submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures that would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or (2) refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures that mitigate impacts to resources that are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance with that requirement by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) -2

7.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (proposed project) has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Cypress (City), as the Lead Agency, to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed project will be carried out as described in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).

Table 7.A sets forth the proposed mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this Draft EIR and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.

7.3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROCEDURES
Table 7.B lists all regulatory compliance measures associated with the proposed project as specified in the Initial Study (provided in Appendix B of this Draft PEIR) and describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City to ensure that all standard conditions will be carried out as described in this Draft PEIR.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) 7-3 Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Milestone Responsible Party Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.1: Air Quality
MM AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Cypress shall identify project design details and specifications, where feasible, to document implementation and compliance with the following emission reduction measures. Implementation of the following measures, where applicable, are considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing criteria pollutant emissions generated by the project:
• All Project Applicants shall incorporate design features (e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers,
landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures) at the proposed residential uses to minimize the potential impacts of air pollution on sensitive receptors.
• All Project Applicants shall incorporate fuel-efficient heating equipment and other appliances, such as water heaters,
swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, boiler units, and low or zero-emitting architectural coatings. Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances.
• All Project Applicants shall utilize energy-efficient design features, including appropriate site orientation, use of lighter color roofing and building materials, and use of deciduous shade trees and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling.
• All Project Applicants shall provide Class I and Class II bicycle parking/storage facilities on site. Bicycle parking facilities should be near destination points and easy to find. At least one bicycle parking space for every 20 vehicle parking spaces should be provided.
• All Project Applicants shall provide building access and paths which are physically separated from street parking lot traffic and that eliminate physical barriers such as walls, berms, landscaping and slopes that impede the use of pedestrians, bicycle facilities, or public transportation vehicles.

City of Cypress /
Project Applicant
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) -4 Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Milestone Responsible Party Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
• 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.

4.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM GHG-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Cypress for residential development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts to the City of Cypress for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology. If project-related GHG emissions exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds of
Project Applicant

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\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) 7-5 Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Milestone Responsible Party Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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.
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) -6 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.1: Air Quality
RCM AQ-1 Emission Reduction Measures. During clearing,
grading, earth moving, or excavation operations,
excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled
by regular watering or other dust preventative
measures by using the following procedures, in
compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during
construction. The applicable Rule 403 measures are
as follows:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers
according to manufacturers’ specifications to all
inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for 10 days or more).
• Water active sites at least twice daily (locations
where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly
watered prior to earthmoving).
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other
loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6
meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the
top of the load and the top of the trailer) in
accordance with the requirements of California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet
(30 meters) onto the site from the main road.
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15
miles per hour or less.

Project Applicant
RCM AQ-2 Material Hauling. All trucks that are to haul
excavated or graded material shall comply with State
Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to
Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended,
regarding the prevention of such material spilling
onto public streets and roads.

Project Applicant

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\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) 7-7 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
RCM AQ-3 Construction Painting. Prior to approval of future project plans and specifications, the City of Cypress
shall confirm that the construction bid packages
specify:
• Contractors shall use high-volume low-pressure
paint applicators with a minimum transfer
efficiency of at least 50 percent;
• Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a
volatile organic compound content lower than
required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; and
• To the extent feasible, construction/building
materials shall be composed of pre-painted
materials.

Project Applicant
RCM AQ-4 Air Contaminant Discharge. Future projects shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 prohibits
the discharge of air contaminants or other material
from any type of operations, which can cause
nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number
of people or to the public or which endangers the
comfort or repose of any such persons, or the public.

Project Applicant
RCM AQ-5 All future projects shall comply with the latest Energy Code and Title 24 solar requirements for new
residential development.

Project Applicant

4.4: Biological Resources
RCM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are
planned to occur within the active nesting bird
season (February 1 through August 31), the City of
Cypress, or designee, shall confirm that the future
Applicant has retained a qualified biologist who shall
conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no
more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities.

The nesting bird survey shall include the work area
and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as
Project Applicant
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) -8 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
feasible) that could potentially be affected by
project-related activities such as noise, vibration,
increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any
active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone around the
active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be
determined by the qualified biologist based on
species, location, and the nature of the proposed
activities. Project activities shall be avoided within
the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer
active, as determined by the qualified biologist.

RCM BIO-2 Landmark Tree Removal. The Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Department, or
designee, shall review and approve the removal of any
trees required by future development associated with
the Draft Housing Element implementation and
rezoning program. As specified in the City Municipal
Code Section 17-19, the property owner of a landmark
tree shall submit a written request for review and
consideration of the landmark tree removal and
replacement plan at least 30 days prior to said removal.

Public notice of a proposed landmark tree removal shall be posted next to or on the subject landmark tree, at
the local public library, and at the Cypress City Hall
during the entire 30-day application-processing period.

No trees on the proposed project site shall be removed
prior to the approval of a landmark tree removal permit by the Director of the City of Cypress Community
Development Department, or designee.

Project Applicant

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) 7-9 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.5: Cultural Resources
RCM CUL-1 Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during
excavation, grading, or construction activities, work
shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of
Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in
accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines
to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique
archaeological resource,” as defined in Section
21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code
(PRC). The Applicant and its construction contractor
shall not collect or move any archaeological materials
and associated materials. Construction activity may
continue unimpeded on other portions of the project
site. Any found deposits shall be treated in
accordance with federal, State and local guidelines,
including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2.

Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
Director of the City of Cypress (City) Community
Development Department, or designee, shall verify
that all project grading and construction plans
include specific requirements regarding California
PRC (Section 21083.2[g]) and the treatment of
archaeological resources as specified above.

Project Applicant
RCM CUL-2 Human Remains. In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50
feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the
County Coroner notified immediately consistent with
the requirements of California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are
Project Applicant
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) -10 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
determined to be Native American, the County
Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and
notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the
permission of the property owner, the MLD may
inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall
complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend
scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native
American burials. Consistent with CCR Section
15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be
Native American and an MLD is notified, the City of
Cypress shall consult with the MLD as identified by
the NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment
and disposition of the remains. Prior to the issuance
of grading permits, the Director of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or designee,
shall verify that all grading plans specify the
requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section
5097.98, as stated above.

4.6: Energy
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to energy.

4.7: Geology and Soils
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to geology and soils.

4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to greenhouse gas emissions.

4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to hazards and hazardous materials.

4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to hydrology and water quality.

4.11: Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to land use and planning.

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\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) 7-11 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.12: Mineral Resources
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to mineral resources.

4.13: Noise
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to noise.

4.14: Population and Housing
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to population and housing.

4.15: Public Services
RCM PS-1 Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to
coordinate with OCFA to determine the appropriate
development impact fees required in order to offset
potential impact to OCFA staffing and service ability.

Prior to the approval of a future project
implemented in accordance with the proposed
project, the designated site developer shall enter
into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with OCFA
that details the agreed-upon development impact
fees required for the project.

Project Applicant
RCM PS-2 Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/Developer of future
residential development projects facilitated by the
proposed project shall provide proof to the Director
of the City of Cypress Community Development
Department, or designee, that payment of school
fees to the appropriate school districts have been
made in compliance with Section 65995 of the
California Government Code.

Project Applicant
2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
7 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\7.0 MMRP.docx (01/29/24) -12 Table 7.B: Regulatory Compliance Measures as Specified in the Initial Study Regulatory Compliance Measures Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

4.16: Recreation
RCM REC-1 Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the
Applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the
applicable provisions of Chapter 25 (Subdivisions),
Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City of Cypress (City) Municipal Code, or other fees as
determined by the City, to the Director of the City
Community Development Department, or designee.

Project Applicant

4.17: Transportation
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to transportation.

4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed project would not require regulatory compliance measures unique to tribal cultural resources. Please see RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 for relevant measures in Section 4.5 above.

4.19: Utilities and Service Systems
RCM UTIL-1 Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The
construction contractor shall comply with the
provisions of City of Cypress Ordinance No. 1166 and
the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code,
which would reduce construction and demolition
waste. Ordinance No. 1166 is codified in Article VIII,
Materials Questionnaire for Certain Construction and
Demolition Projects within the City of Cypress in the
Cypress Municipal Code.

Project Applicant

4.20: Wildfire
The proposed project would not require any regulatory compliance measures related to wildfire.

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\8.0 Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx (01/29/24) 8-1

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

8.1 CITY OF CYPRESS
The following individuals from the City of Cypress (City) were involved in the preparation of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR):
• Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
• Laura Vander Neut, Contract Planner

8.2 DRAFT PEIR PREPARERS
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this Draft PEIR. The nature of their involvement is summarized below.

8.2.1 LSA Associates, Inc.

The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this Draft PEIR:
• Ryan Bensley, AICP, Principal in Charge
• Steve Letterly, Senior Environmental Planner/Project Manager • Matthew Wiswell, Senior Environmental Planner
• Lauren Peachey, Assistant Environmental Planner
• Olivia Mattair, Assistant Environmental Planner
• Pam Reading, Principal Environmental Planner
• JT Stephens, Principal
• Mohammed Abushanab, Mechanical Noise Engineer
• Giana Gurrera, Assistant Environmental Planner (formerly LSA) • Jason Thomas, Graphics and GIS Specialist
• Amy Fischer, President/COO
• Cara Cunningham, Associate/Senior Air Quality Specialist • Bianca Martinez, Air Quality Specialist
• Lauren Johnson, Technical Editor
• Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor

8.3 TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARERS
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the technical reports in support of this Draft PEIR. The nature of their involvement is summarized below.

The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Historic Resources Assessment (November 2023) and Historic Resources Sensitivity Study (August 9, 2023):
• Casey Tibbet, Cultural Resources Associate
• Eugene Heck, Architectural Historian/Cultural Resources Manager 2021–2029 C YPRESS HOUSING E LEMENT I MPLEMENTATION P ROJECT

CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 2024
8 P:\CCP2201.01\Admin Draft EIR\City Comments Jan 24\8.0 Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx (01/29/24) -2 The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessments (May 2023):
• Ken Wilhelm, Principal
• Ambarish Mukherjee, Principal
• Ravikumar Palakurthy, Senior Transportation Engineer
• Kenneth Tan, Senior Transportation Engineer
• Debmalya Sinha, Senior Transportation Planner
• Shuqi Hao, Transportation Engineer

8.4 PERSONS CONSULTED
The following individuals were consulted during the preparation of this Draft PEIR:
• Cypress Police Department (CPD)
○ Chris Revere, Captain, Support Services Division
• Orange County Sanitation District (OCSAN)
○ Kevin Hadden, Principal Staff Analyst
• Golden State Water Company (GSWC)
○ __[To be included later]_
• Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
○ Tamera Rivers, Management Analyst

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER

AND COMMONS
SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
December 2017

3.0 July 2024
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 Table of Contents i
1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

2.2 Circulation Plan ................................................................................................................... 2-6

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

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

2.5 Drainage Plan .................................................................................................................... 2-13

2.6 Solid Waste ......................................................................................................................... 2-13

2.7 Natural Gas and Electricity .............................................................................................. 2-13 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.7 Public Park District Development Standards .................................................................. 3-20

3.8 Public Park Overlay ........................................................................................................... 3-21

3.9 Tree Replacement ............................................................................................................ 3-22

3.10 Building Height Notification/Restriction .......................................................................... 3-22 4 SUSTAINABLE GUIDELINES

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

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

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

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

4.5 Indoor Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 4-2

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

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

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

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

4.10 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning ....................................................................... 4-3 5 IMPLEMENTATION

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

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

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

5.4 Relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan .................................................... 5-2

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

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

5.7 Administration ...................................................................................................................... 5-3

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

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

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

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

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

6.2 General Plan Conformance Analysis ................................................................................ 6-1 CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 List of Figures ii
1 INTRODUCTION
1-1 Regional Map ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................... 1-3 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2-1 Land Use Plan ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 2-2 Residential Subdistricts ........................................................................................................ 2-5 2-3 Circulation Plan ................................................................................................................... 2-7 2-4 Water Plan ......................................................................................................................... 2-11 2-5 Wastewater Plan ............................................................................................................... 2-12 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(No Figures)
4 SUSTAINABLE GUIDELINES
(No Figures)
5 IMPLEMENTATION
5-1 Conceptual Phasing Plan .................................................................................................. 5-8 6 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS
(No Figures)
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 List of Tables 1 INTRODUCTION
(No Tables)
2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2-1 Land Use Plan Summary Table........................................................................................... 2-2 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
3-1 Residential Development Standards ................................................................................ 3-5 4 SUSTAINABLE GUIDELINES
(No Tables)
5 IMPLEMENTATION
(No Tables)
6 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS
(No Tables)
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 1. Introduction 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview and Vision
The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (Specific Plan) establishes a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework for the use and development of approximately 1514.4 acres of land in the City of Cypress (City), California (Specific Plan Area).

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

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

Another critical component of this Specific Plan is 20 acres of public park space that will be spread throughout the Specific Plan Area. Two public parks, one 10.29 acres and the other 8 acres, will be located within the public park district, adjacent to Cerritos Avenue. An additional threetwo acres of public park space will be provided within the mixed-use (town center/HDR) district and/or one of the other districts and may be integrated with one or both of the other public parks or be a separate public park. This brings the total amount of public park space to a minimum of 20 acres, which will provide substantial recreational opportunities for both existing and future residents of Cypress. These public parks will provide ample space for recreation and gatherings and could potentially include some combination of playing fields, sports courts, walking trails, picnic areas and restroom facilities.

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

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

Two mixed-use districts are proposed within the Specific Plan Area. West of the town center district is a mixed-use district that permits an expansion of the town center, as well as mediumdensity residential and senior housing. A second mixed-use district is located north of the town center district and permits an expansion of the town center, as well as single-family and medium-density residential uses.

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

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Regional Map
Figure 1-1
kjProject
Site

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS
SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
0 3000 6000 December 2017
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Regional Map
Figure 1-1
Specific Plan
Area

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
0 3000 6000 May 2024
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Vicinity Map
Figure 1-2
Project Site

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS
SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
0 650 1300 December 2017
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Vicinity Map
Figure 1-2
Specific Plan
Area

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
0 650 1300 May 2024
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 1. Introduction 1-4

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

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

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

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

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

On June 5, 2012, the voters of the City of Cypress approved "Measure L", a ballot initiative that, among other things, amended and restated in its entirety the Original Specific Plan, as previously amended. This Amended and Restated Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan (Existing2012 Specific Plan) established a new Planning Area 9, which consisted of portions of Planning Areas 6, 7 and 8 from the Original Specific Plan, and permitted a range of senior housing, retail and commercial uses. It also confirmed the intent to redevelop the Golf Course.

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 1. Introduction 1-5
Thatis proposed Specific Plan is awas thereafter modified version of the 2016 Specific Plan and has been revised to respond to concerns raised by residents in 2016. Set forth below is a description of those concerns and how they have beenwere addressed in this modified Specific Plan, which is titled Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (2018 Specific Plan):
 In the 2016 Specific Plan, the entire public park was located on Race Course property, which meant that the public park could not be developed for use by Cypress residents until after closure of the Race Course, which would not occur for several years. – The public park space has been divided into multiple parcels, one of which include 9 acres of the public park district that is located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lexington Drive. This parcel is located on a portion of the former Golf Course and can be developed with a public park prior to the closure of the Race Course. The total acreage of the public parks remains 20 acres.  The 2016 Specific Plan allowed the Director of Community Development to approve uses in each district that were "similar" to the listed permitted and conditionally permitted uses. – That provision has been removed with respect to all districts, except for the town center district and the town center uses in each of the mixed-use districts.  The land use plan in the 2016 Specific Plan included a mixed-use (town center/mediumdensity residential) district adjacent to Cerritos Avenue that allowed a maximum height of 99 feet for town center structures.
– The districts established in this Specific Plan that border Cerritos Avenue do not allow town center uses and the maximum height of structures in those districts is 35 feet.
 The 2016 Specific Plan permitted a maximum structure height of 99 feet in the town center district.
– The maximum height of structures in the town center district and town center structures in each of the mixed-use districts has been reduced to 75 feet.  The 2016 Specific Plan included an adjustment procedure pursuant to which the Director of Community Development could increase the height of structures by not more than 10% of the otherwise maximum height.
– That provision has been removed with respect to structures within the residential and town center districts and town center structures in each of the mixed-use districts.
 The 2016 Specific Plan allowed "government enterprises (local, State or federal)" in the residential district.
– That use has been eliminated in the residential district and is not allowed in the new senior housing/medium-density residential district.  The 2016 Specific Plan only permitted a maximum of 1.7 acres of senior housing. – This Specific Plan allows up to 39.1 acres of senior housing.

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 1. Introduction 1-6
In May 2018, the owner of the land on which the former Golf Course was located donated to the City nine acres of land within the 2018 Specific Plan Area located within and adjacent to the designated Public Park District at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lexington Drive. The City subsequently developed Lexington Park on that site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most recently, in October 2015, following the voter approval of the 2012Existing Specific Plan, the Cypress City Council certified a final environmental impact report and approved the entitlements for the Barton Place project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park), pursuant to which a mixed-use project consisting of senior housing and a commercial/retail center will bewas developed within Planning Area 9 and a portion of Planning Area 6 in the Existing2012 Specific Plan area.

The Specific Plan Area is adjacent to the City of Los Alamitos boundary on the west and south.

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 1. Introduction 1-7
The area surrounding the Specific Plan Area includes a variety of land uses. Land uses south of Katella Avenue are located in the City of Los Alamitos and include commercial, office, and single-family residential uses. Land uses west of Lexington Drive are located in the City of Los Alamitos and include business park. Land uses north of Cerritos Avenue, which are located in the City of Cypress, are primarily residential with some retail commercial. Adjacent to the Specific Plan Area within the original 300-acre Race Course property are Cottonwood and Seacoast Grace Churches, business parks, retail commercial uses, a hotel, the former City Parcel and the recently approved Barton Place project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park), a senior housing and related uses. The Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos, is located approximately one-quarter mile south of the Specific Plan Area.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-1
2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Section establishes and describes the land use districts within the Specific Plan Area and provides a blueprint for the infrastructure necessary for the implementation of this Specific Plan.

2.1 Land Use Plan and Districts
This Specific Plan establishes six Land Use Districts within the 154.4151.4-acre Specific Plan Area, as shown on Figure 2-1, Land Use Plan, below. The centerpiece of the land use plan is a is the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) and Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) Districts located in the eastern and southern portions of the Specific Plan Area andthat will allow a vibrant mix of retail, entertainment, restaurant, hotel, residential and other urban uses that will serve as a gathering place and “main street” for the community. The two districts are located in the eastern and southern portions of the Specific Plan Area. The Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District permits higher-density residential use with a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/gross acre, while the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District permits medium-density residential use with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units/gross acre, as well as age-restricted housing (with a qualified occupant of 55 or older) in a portion of that district.

The land use plan also includes a Public Park District that sets aside 18.217 acres of land exclusively for two public parks, which will be large enough to provide a variety of passive and active recreational uses. The park amenities will be easily accessible to Cypress residents and future visitors and residents of the Specific Plan Area. As discussed below, an additional 32 acres of public park will be, or have been, provided in one or more of the other Land Use Districts, for a total of approximately 20 acres of public parks.

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

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

In addition, the Land Use Plan includes two Mixed-Use Districts. West of the Town Center District is a Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District, which has a flexible land use designation that can accommodate either an expansion of the town center (if demand for additional town center uses exists in the future) and/or the development of a medium-density residential and/or senior housing neighborhood. North of the Town Center District is the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District, which permits future expansion of the town center and/or the development of single-family detached, single-family attached and/or medium-density residential uses.

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-2
Table 2-1
Land Use Plan Summary Table
Land Use District Area
(Acres) FAR(1) Residential Units
Potential
Development
Capacity (sq. ft.)
Public Park 18.2(2) N/A N/A N/A
Town CenterMixed-Use (Town
Center/HDR)

17.524.1 0.6:1 250 457,380629,878
Public Park 17.0(2) N/A N/A N/A
Mixed-Use (Town
Center/MDR)

9.5 0.6:1
1,000 1,926
(aggregate total for
Residential, Senior
Housing/MediumDensity Residential,
Medium-Density
Residential and
Mixed-Use Districts)
248,292
Residential 73.646.2 N/A N/A
Senior Housing/MediumDensity Residential 24.123.1 N/A N/A Mixed-Use (Town
Center/MDR)

15.0 0.6:1 392,040
Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/
MDR)Medium-Density
Residential

4.220.7 0.6:1 109,771
Roads 3.09.6 N/A N/A N/A
Total: 154.4151.4 1,2501,926(3) 959,191879,170
Note:
(1) This development restriction on floor area ratio (FAR) does not apply to residential development or the residential component of a mixed-use development. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed on any development parcel is 1.0:1. (2) The minimum amount of public park space within the Specific Plan Area shall be 20 acres. In addition to the 18.217 acres of public park space within the Public Park District, a 23-acre public park has been designated as a land use overlay within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, provided that this additional required public park space may be located (a) in any Land Use District or multiple Land Use Districts and (b) adjacent to one or both of the Public Park Districts in order to increase the size of the public parks that will be developed there.
(3) The aggregate total of 1,926 residential units includes the 135 residential units previously developed as the Melia Project. Therefore, an additional 1,791 residential units are allowed in these districts that permit residential uses.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Land Use Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
Figure 2-1
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
0 300 600 December 2017
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
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Land Use Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 2-1
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
0 300 600 May 2024
Winners Circle
Residential
District

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay *
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
See Table 2-1, Land Use Plan
Summary Table, for explanation
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-4

2.1.1 Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District
The Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District is a flexible land use district that includes approximately 17.524.1 acres of land and permits a mixture of retail and entertainment uses, as well as hotel, multi-family residential uses and commercial uses, to create a "main street" and gathering place for the community and provide additional housing for the community with a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/acre. Specific uses envisioned for the town center portion of the district include restaurants, movie theaters and boutique stores designed within a pedestrian-friendly environment. It is anticipated that development of the town center could proceed while the Race Course remains in operation.

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

2.1.22.1.3 Public Park District
The Public Park District includes approximately 187 acres of land located in two parcels in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area. As described in Chapter 3, the only uses permitted in the Public Park District are public parks and related and supporting improvements, facilities and roadways.

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

The western Public Park District includes approximately 910 acres of land and is located at the southeastern corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lexington Drive, adjacent to the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District. It is anticipated to behas recently been developed as Lexington Parkwith a public park in the first phase of development and prior to the closure of the Race Course (other than approximately 1.12 acres in the southwestern corner of the western Public Park District on which a maintenance yard for the Race Course is currently operated). The central Public Park District is approximately 8 acres in size and is located at the Cerritos Avenue/Moody Street intersection, adjacent to the Residential District, a convenient location for existing residents north of Cerritos Avenue and future residents of the Residential District.

The Specific Plan Area will include a minimum of 20 acres of public park space. In addition to two Public Park District parcels, which include 18.217 acres of land, a 23-acre public park overlay has beenwas designated within a portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, provided that this additional public park space may be located in any Land Use District(s) and may be located adjacent to one or both of the Public Park Districts in order to increase the size of the public parks that will be developed there. The precise location(s) of these 23 additional acres of public park will be determined based on the development projects proposed in the Specific Plan Area. Parks will be a permitted land use in all of the Land Use Districts.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-5

2.1.32.1.4 Residential District
The Residential District includes approximately 46.273.6 acres of land and is intended to accommodate a variety of single-family residential opportunities. In addition to the residential units, trails and greenways are envisioned to connect the neighborhoods and provide pedestrian and bike routes to the central public park and town center. The Residential District is divided into two subdistricts, which are depicted on Figure 2-2, Residential Subdistricts.

1. Single-Family Detached Subdistrict
The Single-Family Detached Subdistrict is approximately 19.045.3 acres in size and allows the development of single-family homes in the area located just south of Cerritos Avenue. A mixture of lot sizes is permitted to respond to a variety of residential needs.

The residential lots located within 100 feet of Cerritos Avenue will have a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet.

2. Single-Family Attached Subdistrict
The Single-Family Attached Subdistrict is an approximate 27.228.3-acre parcel and permits the development of attached residential housing to accommodate a variety of lifestyles, as well as related recreational and open space amenities. The types of permitted residential units include townhomes, compact residential lots and other attached homes.

2.1.42.1.5 Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District The Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District is approximately 24.123.1 acres in size and is located adjacent to the western Public Park District. This District provides an opportunity to extend the senior housing use that was approved as part of the Barton Place project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park), which has been developedwill be located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Enterprise Drive. If developed as senior housing, residential uses could include single-family detached and/or attached units, as well as condominiums, and for-sale and rental multi-family units. The District also permits medium-density residential uses, including attached homes, condominiums, and for-sale and rental multi-family units.

2.1.52.1.6 Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR)Medium-Density Residential District The Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR)Medium-Density Residential District is a flexible land use district of approximately 15.020.7 acres in size that allows the potential expansion of the uses allowed in the Town Center District and/or medium-density residential and/or senior housing uses. It is anticipated that no development will occur within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District until the Race Course ceases operation, after which time an appropriate mix of uses will be determined.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Residential Subdistricts SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
Figure 2-2
0 300 600 December 2017
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Single-Family Detached
Subdistrict

19.7 Acres
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
!
Single-Family Detached
Subdistrict

25.6 Acres
Single-Family Attached
Subdistrict

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

19.0 Acres
Single-Family Attached
Subdistrict

27.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-7

2.1.6 Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR)
The Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District is approximately 4.2 acres in size and is a flexible land use district that allows the potential expansion of the uses allowed in the Town Center District and/or the development of single-family detached, single-family attached or mediumdensity residential uses. It is anticipated that no development will occur within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District until the Race Course ceases operation, after which time an appropriate mix of uses will be determined.

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

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

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

2.2.1 General Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Circulation Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
Figure 2-3
0 300 600 December 2017
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Lexington
Drive
Widening
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
!
Legend
Backbone Circulation
!
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Circulation Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 2-3
0 300 600 May 2024
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Lexington
Drive
Widening
Legend
Backbone Circulation
Residential
District

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac. Public
Park Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
Vessels Circle
Moody Street
Extension Vessels Circle
Extension
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-9

2.2.2 Parking
Off-street parking will be required as set forth in Article 2, Sections 5 (Residential Zoning Districts)

2.05.050, 2.06.050, 2.08.070 and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), as applicable, except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in, and as more specifically set forth in Chapter 3 (Development Standards) of, this Specific Plan and this Section 2.2.3, and also subject to the following general requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-10

2.2.6 Land Use District Access

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District
Access to the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District will be from the extension of Siboney Street (from Katella Avenue) and the extension of Vessels Circle (from Walker Street).

6. Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District
Access to the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District will be from the extension of Vessels Circle (from Walker Street).

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

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-11

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

New development that occurs within the Specific Plan Area will connect to the existing trunk sewer lines. Precise sewer system requirements will be determined as development projects are proposed within the Specific Plan Area as part of the site plan review process and, where applicable, the subdivision map process. New collection lines will be offered for dedication to the City after construction.

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

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

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

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

Because of the widely diversified land uses proposed in this Specific Plan, a combination of drainage and treatment systems may be appropriate and will be determined during the project development and design stage. The developer must obtain approval from the City Engineer for the method selected in each instance.
!
12"
10"
8" 8"
12"
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Water Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
Figure 2-4
0 300 600 December 2017
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Legend
Existing Water
Residential
District

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
!
12"
10"
8" 8"
12"
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Water Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
Figure 2-4
0 300 600 May 2024
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Legend
Existing Water
Residential
District

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
!
21" 18"
30"
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Wastewater Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
Figure 2-5
0 300 600 December 2017
Legend
Existing Sewer
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Residential
District

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

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 23.0 2. Development Plan 2-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.1 Permitted Uses

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

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

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

3.2.2 Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit

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

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

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

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

3.2.3 Development Standards
See Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Single-Family Detached -
– Lots within 100 Feet of
Cerritos Avenue Right of
Way
Single-Family Detached –
Lots More than 100 Feet
from Cerritos Avenue
Right of Way
Single-Family Attached
Minimum Parcel Size 6,000 square feet 3,600 square feet 5,000 square feet Maximum Allowable
Density
5 dwelling units/gross
acre(8)
8 dwelling
units/gross acre(8)
10 dwelling units/gross
acre
Minimum Parcel Width 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet
Minimum Parcel Depth 90 feet 40 feet 60 feet
Maximum Structure
Height(1)
35 feet and
2 stories
35 feet and
2 stories
35 feet and 32 stories
Setbacks(2)
Minimum Front Setback,
Single-Story(3)
20 feet 10 feet 10 feet from edge of
private driveway
Minimum Front Setback,
Second-Story
25 feet 10 feet 10 feet from edge of
private driveway
Minimum Interior Side
Setback, Single-Story
5 feet(4) No minimum 0 feet on one side, shall
maintain compliance
with minimum distance
between structures
Minimum Interior Side
Setback, Second-Story
10 feet(4) 5 feet 0 feet on one side, shall
maintain compliance
with minimum distance
between structures
Minimum Street Side
Setback, Single-Story
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum Street Side
Setback, Second-Story
15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum Rear Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage,
Single-Story Structure
60% 60%, excluding common
private drives
60%, excluding common
private drives
Maximum Lot Coverage,
Two-Story Structure
40% 40%, excluding common
private drives
50%, excluding common
private drives
Minimum Dwelling Unit
Size
1,100 square feet 1,100 square feet 1,000 square feet
Minimum distance
between structures on the
same parcel, where
neither structure exceeds
15 feet in height
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-5
Single-Family Detached -
– Lots within 100 Feet of
Cerritos Avenue Right of
Way
Single-Family Detached –
Lots More than 100 Feet
from Cerritos Avenue
Right of Way
Single-Family Attached
Minimum distance
between structures on the
same parcel where one or
more structures exceeds
15 feet in height
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum separation
between opposing
second-story bedroom
windows
5 feet(5) N/A N/A
Minimum Driveway Widths 1620 feet – 2-vehicle
garages
2430 feet – 3 vehicle
garages(6)
1620 feet – 2-vehicle
garages
2430 feet – 3 vehicle
garages(6)
1620 feet – 2-vehicle
garages
2430 feet – 3 vehicle
garages(6)
Minimum interior garage
dimension
20-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
2-vehicle garages
20-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
2-vehicle garages
20-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
2-vehicle garages
30-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
3-vehicle garages(7)
30-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
3-vehicle garages(7)
30-feet by 20-feet, clear
with no obstructions, with
3-vehicle garages(7)
Minimum Landscaped
Open Space

N/A N/A N/A

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

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

3.2.4 Maximum Number of Residential Units
The Residential Development Standards in Table 3-1 include the maximum residential densities in each of the subdistricts that comprise the Residential District. The development standards set forth in Section 3.3.4, below, include the maximum residential density for higher-density residential housing in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District. The development standards set forth in Section 3.4.7, below, include the maximum residential density for medium-density residential housing in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, as well as the maximum residential density for medium-density residential housing in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR)Medium-Density Residential District (collectively, the Mixed-UseMDR Districts). The development standards set forth in Section 3.4.6, below, include the maximum residential density for senior housing in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District. Based on these densities, more than 1,0001,926 residential units could be developed within the Residential District, the Senior Housing/MediumDensity Residential District and the Mixed-Use MDR Districts, (which includes the senior housing density allowed in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District) and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District. While these densities effectively limit the number of residential units in those districts Residential District, the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District and the Mixed-Use Districts, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the Senior Housing/Medium-Density ResidentialMDR Districts and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) Districts shall not exceed 1,0001,926 units.

3.2.5 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

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

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

3.2.6 Parking
Off-street parking for the Residential District shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Sections 5 (Residential Zoning Districts)Sections 2.05.050 and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-7
respect to the uses described in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, above, except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b)provided in this Specific Plan.

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

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

3.3.1 Permitted Uses

1. Accessory retail uses

2. Appliance stores (large appliance sales and service)

3. Automated teller machines (ATMs)

4. Banks and financial institutions

5. Barber or beauty shops

6. Business support services

7. Bicycle and pedestrian trails

8. Bowling alleys

9. Catering services

10. Commercial, trade or vocational schools

11. Condominiums/townhouses

12. Department stores

13. Dry cleaning service, drop-off only

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

15. Financial services

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

17. Florist shops

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

19. Garden centers or plant nurseries

20. Hardware stores

21. Hotels or motels, including conference facilities

22. Interior decorating or drapery shops

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

24. Medical/dental offices, clinics or services

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

26. Motor vehicle parts and supplies

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

28. Office equipment/supply stores

29. Offices, administrative or executive
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-8

30. Offices, professional or government

31. Outdoor retail sales and activities

32. Parks, outdoor activity areas and open space

33. Personal services, general

34. Pet shops

35. Photocopy/desktop facilities

36. Photography studios/supply shops

37. Pharmacies/drug stores

38. Playland, associated with a restaurant

39. Public utility service offices

40. Retail stores, general merchandise

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

42. Shopping centers

43. Sporting goods stores, no firearms

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

45. Tanning studios

46. Temporary uses/activities

47. Theaters, auditoriums, and meeting halls

48. Theaters, movie

49. Travel agencies

50. Veterinarian services and small animal hospitals

51. Wireless communication facilities

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

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

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

1. Alternative fuels and recharging facilities

2. Bars/liquor establishments (onsite consumption only)

3. Catering services

4. Churches

5. Clubs or lodges

6. Day care centers

7. Educational institutions, private or public

8. Health/fitness centers

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

10. Libraries

11. Live entertainment and dancing

12. Liquor stores (offsite consumption only)

13. Medical services, laboratories
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-9

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

15. Museums
165. Nightclubs, with or without food service, bar
167. Outdoor amusement/entertainment/recreation centers 187. Pool halls/billiard centers
1819. Post offices
1920. Public utilities, including, but not limited to substations, reservoirs and pumping stations 210. Restaurants, fast food, with or without drive-through service, or with outdoor seating 221. Restaurants with alcohol sales
232. Raising of horses (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)
243. Horse race tracks (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course)
254. Riding academies or stables (this use shall no longer be permitted following the complete, voluntary and permanent closure of Los Alamitos Race Course) 265. Any other use that the Director of Community Development finds is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Section, and similar to the listed conditionally permitted uses and compatible with these uses, subject to appeal to the City Council.

3.3.3 Prohibited Uses

1. Warehousing, wholesaling and distribution facilities.

3.3.4 Development Standards

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

2. Minimum Parcel Depth: No minimum.

3. Minimum Parcel Width: 50 feet.

4. Maximum Parcel Coverage by Structures: No maximum.

5. Maximum Residential Density: Overall 30 dwelling units/gross acre. Maximum Residential Density: Overall 30 dwelling units/gross acre. number of multi-family dwelling units in Town Center District, including live/work units: 250 units.

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

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

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

89. Minimum driveway width for 2-way traffic: 24 feet.
910. Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical equipment placed on any roof, including, but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, ventilation and exhaust equipment, shall be screened in a material consistent with the building and screened from view from any abutting street or CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-10
highway and any abutting residential area. All such mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integral part of the building, and shall be maintained in a clean and proper condition to prevent a collection of litter and filth and to avoid the emission of unnecessary noise, dust or fumes.

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

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

3.3.63.3.7 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

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

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

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

3.3.73.3.8 Live/Work Units

1. Applicability
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-11
This Section provides standards for live/work and artists’ lofts/studios to accommodate live/work opportunities. Live/work quarters are especially intended for residential uses in conjunction with office or retail uses, either on the same floor, or on separate floors.

2. Floor Area Requirements
a. A live/work unit shall have a minimum floor area of at least 1,250 square feet. b. The maximum size of the residential portion of the live/work unit shall be 50 percent of the unit.
c. A ground-level live/work unit with street frontage shall devote the initial 25 feet of floor area depth to commercial activity.

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

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

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

3.3.83.3.9 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Sections 2.06.050 6 (Commercial Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.3.1 and

3.3.2, above, except that off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Section 5 (Residential Zoning Districts) Sections 2.05.050 and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to multi-family and other residential dwelling units, in each case except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding sentence, the minimum parking requirement for multi-family residential dwelling units shall be a total of 1 garage space for each dwelling unit and 1/4 unassigned open space for every dwelling unit, except as otherwise required or permitted by State law.

Parking spaces may be located in the following manner: (a) on the same lot or development parcel as the use the parking is intended to serve; or (b) on an offsite lot or development parcel, provided that (i) such offsite parking is approved as part of the site plan review process for a development project and (ii) a parking covenant is recorded to require the CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-12
maintenance of such offsite parking spaces. The City shall release such parking covenant at such time as such offsite spaces are not, or are no longer, required to satisfy any parking requirement under this Specific Plan or replacement parking is provided at another onsite or offsite location.

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

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

1. Senior housing

2. Condominiums/townhouses (senior housing only)

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

4. Assisted living and memory care facilities

5. Convalescent/rest homes

6. Accessory structures

7. Home occupations

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

9. Private yard/garage sales

10. Second-story balcony

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

12. Caretaker/employee housing

13. Swimming pools

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

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

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

1. Churches

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

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

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

3.4.3 Permitted Medium-Density Residential Uses

1. Condominiums/townhouses
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-13

2. Multi-family dwelling units

3. Single-family dwelling units

4. Accessory structures

5. Duplexes

6. Home occupations

7. Model home/subdivision sales offices

8. Second-story decks and balconies

9. Senior housing

10. Temporary uses/activities

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

12. Community care, small

13. Day care homes, large

14. Day care homes, small

15. Group homes

16. Residential care homes, small

17. Schools-K–12, public

18. Swimming pools

19. Nature preserves

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

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

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

1. Accessory structures over 15 feet in height

2. Detached cCondominiums, townhouses, or condominium conversions

3. Density bonuses

3. Dormitories

4. Assisted living and memory care facilities

5. Churches

6. Community care, large

7. Convalescent/rest homes

8. Day care centers

9. Residential care homes, large

10. Schools-K–12, private

11. Tennis courts, private

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

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

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

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

3.4.5 Prohibited Uses

1. Warehousing, wholesaling and distribution facilities.

3.4.6 Senior Housing Development Standards

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

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

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

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

5. Maximum structure height: 35 feet.

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

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

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

9. Minimum landscaped open space: 25 percent.

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

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

3.4.7 Medium-Density Residential Development Standards

1. Minimum parcel size: 10,000 square feetNo minimum.

2. Minimum parcel depth: 100 feetNo minimum.

3. Minimum parcel width: 100 feetNo minimum.

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

5. Maximum structure height: 35 feet and 32 stories, provided that a roof deck shall not be considered a story.

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

6. Minimum dwelling unit size:
a. Bachelor: 450 square feet.
b. One bedroom: 600 square feet.
c. Two bedrooms: 750 square feet.
d. Three (+) bedrooms: 900 square feet.

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

7. Driveway widths:
a. 1 to 2 units: Minimum of 12 feet.
b. 3 or more units: Minimum of 1624 feet.

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.9 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-16
The uses described in Sections 3.4.1and 3.4.2, above, shall have the meanings, if any, set forth for them in the Zoning Ordinance as of the effective date of this Specific Plan.

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

3.4.10 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Sections 2.05.050 5 (Residential Zoning Districts and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.4.1 and

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5.3 Prohibited Uses

1. Warehousing, wholesaling and distribution facilities.

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

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

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

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

3.5.7 Maximum Number of Residential Units
As set forth in Section 3.2.4, above, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the Senior Housing/Medium-Density ResidentialMDR Districts and the two Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) Districts shall not exceed 1,0001,926 units.

3.5.8 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

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

2. Medium-Density Residential Development
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-18
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to medium-density residential and related uses allowed within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District in accordance with this Section 3.5 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RM-15 or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RM-15 zoning district shall apply.

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

3.5.9 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Sections 2.06.050 6 (Commercial Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.5.1, above, and the applicable requirements in Article 2, Sections 2.05.050 5 (Residential Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section 14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Section 3.5.2, above, in each case except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding sentence, the minimum parking requirement for multi-family residential dwelling units shall be a total of 1 garage space for each dwelling unit and 1/4 unassigned open space for every dwelling unit, except as otherwise required or permitted by State law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in in this Specific Plan, offstreet parking may be provided on all or any portion of the land within Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District that is currently owned by Seacoast Grace Church with respect to any land use on the Seacoast Grace Church property, including the portion of the Seacoast Grace Church property that is located outside of the Specific Plan Area.

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

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-19
The uses described in Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, below, shall be permitted or conditionally permitted, as applicable, in the Medium-Density ResidentialMixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District.

3.6.1 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Town Center Uses All of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Town Center District, as set forth in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, above.

3.6.23.6.1 Permitted and Conditionally Permitted SFR/MDR Medium-Density Residential Uses All of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Residential District, as set forth in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, above, and all of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses relating to medium-residential development in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, as set forth in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, above.

3.6.3 Prohibited Uses

1. Warehousing, wholesaling and distribution facilities.

3.6.4 Town Center Development Standards
The development standards for the Town Center District set forth in Section 3.3.4, above, shall govern the development of town center uses in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District.

3.6.53.6.2 Single-Family Residential and Medium-Density Residential Development Standards The development standards for the Single-Family Detached and Single-Family Attached Subdistricts set forth in Section 3.2.3, above, shall govern the development of single-family residential uses in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District, provided that either singlefamily detached units or single-family attached units shall be allowed anywhere in the MixedUse (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District and the development of single-family detached units shall be subject to the development standards for the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict and the development of single-family attached units shall be subject to the development standards for the Single-Family Attached Subdistrict. The development standards for medium-density residential uses set forth in Section 3.4.7, above, shall govern the development of mediumdensity residential uses in the Medium-Density Residential Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District.

3.6.6 Maximum Floor Area Ratio
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District shall not exceed 0.6:1; provided, however, that (a) the FAR for any development parcel in the MixedUse (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District may have a maximum FAR of 1.0:1, (b) the gross floor area of any single-family or medium-density residential housing constructed in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District shall be excluded in calculating the FAR for the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District and (c) the floor area devoted to parking within a building shall not be considered in calculating the FAR in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District.

3.6.73.6.3 Maximum Number of Residential Units
As set forth in Section 3.2.4, above, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential MDR Districts and the two Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) Districts shall not exceed 1,0001,926 units.

3.6.83.6.4 Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance

1. Town Center Development
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-20
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to non-residential development allowed within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District in accordance with this Section 3.6 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the CG (Commercial General) or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the CG (Commercial General) zoning district shall apply.

2. Single-Family Detached Subdistrict
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to single-family detached residential and related uses allowed within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District in accordance with this Section 3.6 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RS-6000 or other zoning district pursuant to the Cypress Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RS-6000 zoning district shall apply.

3. Single-Family Attached Subdistrict
Wherever this Specific Plan contains provisions that establish requirements (including, without limitation, such standards as density, height, uses, parking requirements, sign requirements, landscaping and tree removal) with respect to single-family attached residential and related uses allowed within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District in accordance with this Section 3.6 that are different from what would otherwise be allowed on property within the RS-5000 or other zoning district pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this Specific Plan shall prevail over and supersede those applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Where no such conflict exists, the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the RS-5000 zoning district shall apply.

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

3.6.93.6.5 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Sections 2.06.050 (Residential Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section14 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.6.1, above, and the applicable requirements in Sections 2.05.050 and 14 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Section 3.6.2, above, in each case except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding sentence, the minimum parking requirement for multi-family residential dwelling units shall be a total of 1 garage space for each dwelling unit and 1/4 unassigned open space for every dwelling unit, except as otherwise required or CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-21
permitted by State law.off-street parking may be provided on all or any portion of the land within Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District that is currently owned by Seacoast Grace Church with respect to any land use on the Seacoast Grace Church property, including the portion of the Seacoast Grace Church property that is located outside of the Specific Plan Area.

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

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

3.7.1 Permitted Uses

1. Recreation facilities

2. Access and service roads

3. Community garden/farmers market

4. Dog parks

5. Gazebos and other shade structures

6. Hiking and biking trails

7. Lakes, pools and ponds

8. Outdoor event area/lawn

9. Parking lots

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

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

12. Refreshment/concessions stands

13. Restroom facilities

14. Flood control facilities

15. Utility easements and rights of way

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

3.7.2 Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit

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

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

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

3.7.3 Development Standards

1. Minimum Parcel Area No minimum.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 3. Development Standards 3-22

2. Minimum Parcel Depth: No minimum.

3. Minimum Parcel Width: No minimum.

4. Building Site Coverage: No maximum.

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

3.7.4 Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the applicable requirements in Article 2, Sections 2.08.070 8 (Special Purpose Zoning Districts) and Article 3, Section14 (OffStreet Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the uses described in Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2, above, except as otherwise (a) required or permitted by State law or (b) provided in this Specific Plan.

3.8 Public Park Overlay
A 32-acre public park, as shown on Figure 2-1(Land Use Plan), has been designated as a land use overlay (Public Park Overlay) within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, provided that this additional required public park space may be located (a) in any Land Use District or multiple Land Use Districts and (b) adjacent to one or both of the Public Park Districts in order to increase the size of the public parks that will be developed there. The precise location(s) of these 32 additional acres of public park space will be determined based on the development projects proposed in the Specific Plan Area. Parks are a permitted land use in all of the Land Use Districts.

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

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

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

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

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

4.2 Storm Water Management

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

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

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

4.3 Landscaping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4 Building Materials

1. Encourage the use of locally sourced building materials.

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

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

4.5 Indoor Air Quality

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

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

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

4.6 Lighting

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

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

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

4.7 Building Envelope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.8 Water Conservation

1. Install sensor-operated faucets in public restrooms.

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

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

4.9 Energy Conservation

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

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

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

4. Insulate domestic hot water pipes where feasible.

5. Insulate attics.

6. Use dual pane and tinted windows where appropriate.

4.10 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2 Purpose of the Specific Plan
This Specific Plan serves a planning and regulating function to provide for the orderly growth and development of the Specific Plan Area. It is the intent of this Specific Plan to establish development standards, regulations and guidelines that will ensure quality development within the Specific Plan Area that (a) contributes to the City's employment and revenue base, (b) permits the development of a vibrant town center that will become a destination and gathering place for the community, (c) designates a land use district for two public parks on approximately 187 acres of land and a public park overlay for an additional 23 acres of public park space, for a total of approximately 20 acres of public park space, (d) provides a variety of housing opportunities, (e) is generally consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, and (f) is compatible with surrounding land uses. The development standards, regulations and guidelines, and the related public and private facility plans, establish a comprehensive development program for the Specific Plan Area.

5.3 Relationship of this Specific Plan to the Existing Specific Plan This Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 23.0 supersedes and replaces the Existing2018 Specific Plan with respect to all of the real property within the Specific Plan Area, and the Existing2018 Specific Plan has been repealed with respect to all of the real property within the Specific Plan Area and has no further force or effect with respect to any of the real property within the Specific Plan Area. The remainder of the real property that is subject to, and governed by, the Existing Specific Plan shall continue to be subject to, and governed by, the provisions of the Existing Specific Plan.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-2

5.4 Relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan Pursuant to Section 65454 of the Government Code, a specific plan shall be consistent with the local jurisdiction’s general plan. The development standards, regulations and guidelines in this Specific Plan are generally consistent with the applicable goals and policies in the Cypress General Plan, as discussed in Chapter 6.

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

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

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

5.6 Amendments and Adjustments

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-3

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

The adjustments allowed shall be limited to the following:

1. Changes in the boundaries of any Land Use District or Subdistrict that result in less than a 10% change in the original acreage within any Land Use District Areas, provided that (a) in no event shall the Public Park District include less than 187 acres of land and (b) in no event shall the size of the Public Park Overlay be less than 23 acres.

2. The transfer of up to 5% of the number of residential units allowed or required in a Residential Subdistrict, the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, the MixedUse (Town Center/MFR) District or, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MHDR) District or the Medium-Density Residential District to the other Residential Subdistrict and/or such other Land Use District(s), provided that the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MFR) District and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District shall not exceed 1,0001,926 units.

3. The following modifications in development standards:
a. To reduce a lot, yard or setback, or building area requirement by not more than 20% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
b. To increase the floor area for non-residential uses within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, or the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District or the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
c. To increase the height of structures by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan, but only with respect to non-town center structures located in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District, non-town center structures located in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MHDR) District and structures located in the Public Park District or the Public Park Overlay.
d. To decrease the landscape area requirements by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
e. To increase the maximum allowable parcel coverage by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-4
f. To increase the allowed projection of eaves, fireplaces, landings, masonry chimneys, overhangs, stairways, and steps into any required front, side, or rear setback or width between structures by not more than 10% of that otherwise specified in this Specific Plan.
g. To decrease the required interior side setback for uses within the Residential District to a minimum of three feet for the purpose of constructing a room addition to the primary dwelling unit. The room addition shall maintain the same or greater setback distance from the interior side parcel line as the primary dwelling. Garages and other accessory structures shall not be used to justify a reduced interior side setback.

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

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

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

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

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-5
The site plan review procedure is necessary for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.8.4 Site Plan Requirements
A site plan shall consist of plans, drawings, illustrations, designs, and any other detailed information as required to determine compliance with the provisions of the Specific Plan when CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-6
development projects are proposed on portions of the Specific Plan Area. The following list of plans and information is required:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.10 Phasing
This section of this Specific Plan sets forth the potential timing and sequence of development within the Specific Plan Area. There are many factors that contribute to the eventual pattern of development, including adequate level of infrastructure, market considerations, financing and the present operation of Los Alamitos Race Course.

It is the primary intention of this conceptual phasing plan to identify areas that can be developed while the Race Course remains in operation. However, this phasing plan is conceptual and a guideline and does not mandate any particular order of development or dictate any required phasing of infrastructure improvements. The actual phasing of development may be different from the conceptual phasing plan and will be dictated by numerous factors such as market conditions, financing considerations and the timing of the closure of the Race Course that are not predictable at this time. Without limiting the CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 5. Implementation 5-8
generality of the foregoing, the development of the approximate 4.2 acres of land currently owned by Seacoast Grace Church may not proceed according to the sequence shown on the Conceptual Phasing Plan.

Figure 5-1 depicts the Conceptual Phasing Plan. Phase 1 is the development of a portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and the western Public Park District (other than approximately 1.21 acres in the southwestern corner of the western Public Park District on which a maintenance yard for the Race Course is currently operated), which is anticipated to occur while the Race Course remains in operation (it is anticipated that the maintenance yard will be improved and added to Lexington Parkas a portion of the western public park following the closure of the Race Course). Phase 2 includes the development of the northern portion of the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District and the northwest portion of the Residential District. Phase 3 consists of the development of the remainder of the Residential District and the Medium-Density Residential District, the central Public Park District, and additional portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and a portion of the entire Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District. Phase 4 is the development of the remainder of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District and the remainder of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) District.

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

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

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

1. Water and sewer facilities

2. Roadways, including landscaping, lighting and signs

3. Storm drains, drainage channels, and retention basins

4. Telephone, gas, electric and cable television facilities

5. Parks, open space and recreational improvements.

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS Conceptual Phasing Plan SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
Figure 5-1
0 300 600 December 2017
Katella Avenue
Cerritos Avenue
Le
xin
gto
n
Driv
e
W
alk
er Stre
et
D
enni Stre
et
M
o
o
d
y Stre
et
Sib
one
y Stre
et
Vessels Circle
Enterprise
Driv
e
Winners Circle
Legend
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Residential
District
Public Park
District
Public Park
District
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential
District
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR)
District
Town Center
District
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/

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

46.2 Acres
(Area to Moody
Centerline)
Public Park
District

10.2 Acres
Senior Housing/
Medium-Density
Residential District

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 Acres
Medium-Density
Residential District

20.7 Acres

2.0 Ac.

Public Park
Overlay
Public Park
District

8.0 Acres
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

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

6.1 Relationship of Specific Plan to General Plan

6.26.1 Prior to voter approval of this Specific Plan, the land use designations in the Land Use Element of the Cypress General Plan (General Plan) for the approximately 154.4 acres of land within the Specific Plan Area was (a) "Community Services and Facilities (Race Track (Privately-Owned))" with respect to approximately 107.3 acres of land on which the Race Course currently operates (Race Course Property) and approximately 4.2 acres of adjacent land currently owned by Seacoast Grace Church (Grace Property), (b) “Community Services and Facilities (Golf Course (Privately-Owned))” with respect to approximately 35.7 acres of land on which the northern portion of the former Golf Course was located (Golf Course Property) and (c) “Specific Plan” with respect to approximately 7.2 acres of land on the Race Course Property.

In accordance with Measure D, tThis Specific Plan was approved by the voters on NovemberJune 5, 202418 as part of a ballot initiative titled “Measure ___” and known as the “Cypress Town Center and Commons Initiative 32.0." That ballot initiative also included amendments to the General Plan that (1) changed the land use designation in the Land Use Element for the Race Course Property and the Grace Property, which includes the Town Center, Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR), and Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) Districts, and portions of the Public Park, Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential and Residential Districts, from "Community Services and Facilities (Rack Track (Privately-Owned))" to "Specific Plan" (except for approximately 7.2 acres of the Race Course Property that already has a land use designation of “Specific Plan”) and (2) changed the land use designation in the Land Use Element for the Golf Course Property, which includes portions of the Public Park, Senior Housing/Medium-Density, and Residential Districts from "Community Services and Facilities (Golf Course (Privately-Owned))" to "Specific Plan".

The newpreviously established "Specific Plan" land use designation for the Specific Plan Area will allow the eventual development of at least 20 acres of public parks in the City, permit the development of a new town center that is intended to be a gathering place for the entire community, increase the City's tax base and provide significant revenue for the City, establish new employment centers and encourage single-family, multi-family and senior housing and related facilities. The permitted land uses are compatible with the existing adjacent residential, senior housing, church, commercial and retail uses previously developed within and near the Specific Plan Area. This Specific Plan provides specific development standards, regulations and guidelines that will assure quality development and minimize potential land use conflicts with surrounding uses.

The previously established zoning designation of "PC (Planned Community)" for the Specific Plan Area is In order to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of "Specific Plan" for the Specific Plan Area, "Measure ___" also included zoning amendments that changed the zoning designation for all of the Specific Plan Area from "PS-1A (Public and SemiPublic)" and "PBP-25A (Planned Business Park)" to "PC (Planned Community)".

The City's 2021-2029 Housing Element includes a State-mandated sites inventory that assigns zoning to facilitate the addition of 3,936 housing units in Cypress (Cypress’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment). Voter approval of this Specific Plan was required to modify the permitted uses and development standards for portions of the Specific Plan Area set forth in the 2018 Specific Plan to allow 676 of the additional 3,936 units assigned in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. These modifications include (1) modifying the names of some of the Land Use Districts, (2) changing the permitted residential use in the Medium-Density Residential District (previously a portion of the Residential District and Single-Family Detached Subdistrict in the CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-2
2018 Specific Plan) from single-family to multi-family use), (3) increasing the maximum residential density in the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District (which was previously the Town Center District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFD/MDR) District and a portion of the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District in the 2018 Specific Plan) to 30 dwelling units/gross acre and (4) increasing the aggregate maximum number of residential units in the Specific Plan Area to 1,926 units (including the 135 residential units previously developed as the Melia Project).

With the amendments to the General Plan described above, and bBased on the consistency analysis below, this Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-3
Goal LU-3: Revitalize older commercial and residential uses and properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-4
Future development within the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District and the Single-Family Detached and Single-Family Attached Subdistricts will provide a variety of housing in close proximity to the commercial and open space uses in the Town Center, Public Parks, and Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR), and Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) Districts. In addition, both Mixed-Use Districts permit the development of residential housing integrated withadjacent to the neighborhood commercial and retail services of the Town Center District.

Trails and greenways will connect the residential Subdistricts and Senior Housing/MediumDensity Residential District, and provide convenient pedestrian and bike access to the public parks and town center areas. The Town CenterMixed-Use Districts isare located adjacent to existing retail and commercial developments and encourages growth of retail commercial uses. Retail and commercial development within the Town CenterMixed-Use Districts will create a desirable and sustainable commercial center for future residents within the Specific Plan Area as well as the surrounding communities.

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

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

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

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

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

Development pursuant to this Specific Plan will be consistent with the height and noise limitations and notification requirements in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos (JFTB), as described in the Safety Element of the CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0

6. General Plan
Conformance Analysis
6-5
General Plan (where it is identified by its former name, the Joint Forces Training Center), and therefore will not constitute an aviation hazard. No portion of the Specific Plan Area where residential uses are permitted is located in an area of noise incompatibility for residential uses (i.e., within the 65 CNEL contour in the AELUP). All future development within the Specific Plan Area will be consistent with the applicable height and noise limitations associated with the JFTB.

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

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

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

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

Cypress City CouncilJuly 8, 2024

Cypress City Council
July 8, 2024