(State Route [SR-] 22), and Beach Boulevard (SR-39). Local access is provided by Katella Avenue and West Cerritos Avenue (the east-west arterials) and Valley View Street to the north and south. The Cypress Business Park Specific Plan encompasses the land within the existing Business Park planning area, which includes the existing five Specific Plan areas (Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan, Cypress Corporate Center original and Amended Specific Plan, McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan, Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, Cypress Business and the Professional Center Specific Plan). The proposed Specific Plan area is generally bounded by West Cerritos A venue to the north, Kat ell a A venue to the south, Knott A venue to the east, and Lexington Drive to the west, Specific Plan Area, Project Area and Regional Vicinity. The general land uses immediately surrounding the Specific Plan Area include a mix of residential and commercial uses to the north, and residential uses, and public parks to the south. The areas east and west of the Specific Plan are outside of the Cypress City limits. The surrounding areas within the vicinity of the Specific Plan consist of urban development. Farther south of the Specific Plan boundaries, across the Rossmoor Storm Channel, is the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos.
State Route 39, State Route 22, State Route 405 and State Route 605 are all owned and operated by Caltrans. Therefore, Caltrans is a responsible agency on this project, and has the following comments:
l. On page 4-73 of the IS/ND, Caltrans looks forward to City's further discussion about existing transit services for all on local, intercounty and regional bus services including the connectivity to rail services from the nearest train stations provided by Metrolink and/ or Amtrak Pacific Surfliner to the proposed project locations.
2. Please provide discussion about City's multi modal mobility strategies and opportunities to connect and/or expand transit services locally and regionally.
3. Encourage the use of transit among future residents, visitors, and workers of the proposed areas of developments. Increasing multimodal transportation will lead to a reduction to congestion, Vehicle Miles Traveled and improve air quality.
4. During any construc tion, please ensure that appropriate detours and safety measures are in place that prioritize the mobility, access, and safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users.
5. Well-lit loading docks and parking spots improve safety. Delivery areas need to be clearly marked so delivery drivers are easily seen by either on-street traffic or delivery yard employees, other truck drivers, or warehouse operations (such as forklifts).
"Improving lives and communities thro ugh transportation." S-1-1
S-1-2
S-1-3
S-1-4
S-1-5
S-1-6
City of Cypress
April 2, 2025
6. Consider pricing strategies to incentivize and encourage greater use of ZEV trucks can reduce emissions for surrounding communities.
7. Please consider the creation of emergency plans that include emergency routes and paths, can alleviate congestion in the event of an emergency and allow EMS to easily access the site.
8. Consider installing bicycle parking for workers in order to encourage active transportation, especially in areas supported by transit.
9. Please provide electric charging stations for personal vehicle use. l 0. Support dedicated truck routes to decrease truck impacts to the local community.
11. Please consider Incident Response Plans which keep critical entrances open for emergency personnel. Plans should also include alternative local roads and highways, so roadways do not become congested during an emergency.
12. Consider including zero or near zero emissions infrastructure or electric shore power infrastructure for truck drivers and cargo handling equipment can reduce GHG and heat emissions.
13. Please consider leveraging strategic investments to maintain and modernize a multimodal freight transportation system with innovative approaches, including advanced technology to optimize integrated network efficiency, improve travel time reliability, and achieve sustainable congestion reduction.
14. Please note that future projects should not present adverse impacts to the overall transportation system including traffic circulation and the local State.
Highway Systems (SHS). If future developments disrupt or impede traffic circulation or the local State Highway System, Caltrans will request a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of these assets. The TIA will also need to include existing and future average daily traffic volumes, traffic generation including peak hour, traffic distribution, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection analysis along with current and projected capacities of local street, and state highways or freeways including ramps that might be impacted.
15.When analyzing future proposed projects, please note potential short- and longterm traffic impacts with respect to regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT' s), please use the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts.
"Improving lives and communities thro ugh transportation." S-1-12
S-1-13
S-1-14
S-1-15
S-1-16
S-1-7
S-1-10
S-1-8
S-1-9
S-1-11
City of Cypress
April 2, 2025
16. If future impact analysis leads to findings of significance on State facilities, please coordinate with Caltrans District 12 Local Development on development of a Traffic Mitigation Agreement or similar effort.
17.lf any future projects are developed within Caltrans right-of-way (R/W), a required discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans R/W prior to construction. Prior to submitting to Caltrans Permit's branch, applicant should fill out Applicant's Checklist to Determine Applicable Review Process (QMAP List) Form TR-0416 to determine if project oversight/coordination with Caltrans Project Manager is needed. For more information, please visit: Encroachment Permits I Caltrans. And for the Caltrans Encroachment Permits System, please use:
https://ceps.dot .ca.gov
Caltrans' mission is to improve lives and communities through transportation. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Julie Lugaro for
Scott Shelley
Branch Chief,
LOR-Climate Change-Transit Planning
Caltrans, District 12
"Improving lives and communities thro ugh transportation." S-1-17
S-1-18
S-1-19
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -8
2.1.1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (S-1) Letter Code: S-1
Commenter: Scott Shelley, Branch Chief, LDR-Climate Change-Transit Planning, Caltrans, District 12 Date: April 2, 2025
Response to Comment S-1-1
This comment is introductory and provides a brief overview of project-related information contained in the Draft IS/ND.
The City of Cypress acknowledges this comment. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND, no further response is required.
Response to Comment S-1-2
This comment states that Caltrans looks forward to the City’s further discussion about existing transit services, including local, intercounty and regional bus services as well as connectivity to passenger rail services.
As stated in Section 4.17, Transportation, page 4-73, of the Draft IS/ND, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with regulations to promote pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit, and other actions to decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City as detailed in the Circulation Element of the City of Cypress General Plan. Additionally, as described further on page 4-73, new land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would be generally similar to the land uses already allowed under the existing specific plans. As such, any future residential development or redevelopment on these properties would be analyzed on a project-by-project basis as design and layout of the projects are determined. Any trip generation or operational characteristics under the proposed Specific Plan would be similar to what is already allowed under the various existing specific plans. As such, the project would not conflict with transit planning efforts and would not result in any impacts related to transportation. Nevertheless, for purposes of disclosure, the City acknowledges that the proposed Specific Plan is currently served by two bus routes operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA Route 50 provides service to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) station, approximately 9 miles east of the Specific Plan in Anaheim, via Katella Avenue.1 OCTA Route 123 provides service to the Buena Park station, approximately 5 miles northeast of the Specific Plan in Buena Park, via Valley View Street. 2 The Buena Park station provides Metrolink regional commuter rail service, and the ARTIC station provides both Amtrak and Metrolink rail service. Given that the description of the existing bus service in the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan does not affect the analysis or conclusions in the IS/ND, no changes to the IS/ND are warranted. The City remains open to continued coordination with Caltrans to explore strategies that would enhance multimodal connectivity. 1 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2025. System Map. February 9. Website: https://www. octa.net/ebusbook/RoutePdf/SystemMap.pdf?n=202411 (accessed April 10, 2025). 2 Ibid.
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-9 Response to Comment S-1-3
This comment requests a discussion on the City's multimodal mobility strategies and the opportunities to connect and expand transit services both locally and regionally.
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment S-1-2. Additionally, as described in Response to Comment S-1-2, the proposed project would be consistent with the Circulation Element of the City of Cypress General Plan, which provides goals and policies to implement a balanced, functional, and efficient circulation system, and incorporate alternative modes of travel that allow for the safe movement of people and goods.
Response to Comment S-1-4
This comment encourages the use of transit among future residents, visitors, and workers of the proposed areas of developments. This comment also notes that increasing multimodal transportation will reduce traffic congestion and VMT and improve air quality.
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment S-1-2 and Response to Comment S-1-3.
Response to Comment S-1-5
This comment requests that appropriate detours and safety measures are in place that prioritize the mobility, access, and safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users during any construction.
The City acknowledges this comment. As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, pages 4-73 through 4-74, the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in transportation impacts, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to incorporate any detours and/or safety measures, including those that would prioritize the mobility, access, and safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users during any construction, into the IS/ND. No changes have been made to the IS/ND in response to this comment.
Response to Comment S-1-6
This comment states that delivery areas need to be clearly marked so delivery drivers are easily seen by either on-street traffic or delivery yard employees, other truck drivers, or warehouse operations (such as forklifts).
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment S-1-5.
Response to Comment S-1-7
The comment requests that the proposed project consider pricing strategies to incentivize and encourage greater use of zero emission vehicle (ZEV) trucks that can reduce emissions for surrounding communities.
As described in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft IS/ND, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality. Therefore, no mitigation would be required to reduce air quality impacts. No changes have been made to the IS/ND in response to this comment.
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -10 Response to Comment S-1-8
This comment encourages the creation of emergency plans that include emergency routes and paths, which can alleviate congestion in the event of an emergency and allow emergency medical services to easily access the site.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, page 4-43, the proposed project would permit/increase residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area. However, the properties are not located along an emergency evacuation route according to the emergency evacuation route map included in the City’s General Plan Safety Element (2001).
Additionally, all emergency evacuation activities are coordinated by the City’s Police Chief. The Police Chief would issue evacuation orders based on information gathered from emergency experts.
Evacuation operations would be conducted by law enforcement agencies, highway/road/street departments, and public and private transportation providers. As such, future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to conform with the adopted emergency response or evacuation plan set forth by the City. Additionally, as stated in Section 4.17 Transportation, pages 4-73 through 4-74, the City’s Circulation Element would improve emergency access throughout the City for police, fire, and emergency protection services by reducing long-term congestion. No changes have been made to the IS/ND in response to this comment.
Response to Comment S-1-9
This comment requests that the proposed project consider installing bicycle parking for workers in order to encourage active transportation, especially in areas supported by transit.
As stated in Section 4.17, Transportation, page 4-73, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with regulations to promote pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit, and other actions to decrease VMT within the City. Additionally, the proposed project does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. No changes have been made to the IS/ND in response to this comment.
Response to Comment S-1-10
This comment requests that the proposed project provide electric charging stations for personal vehicle use.
As described in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) AQ-5 in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft IS/ND, all future residential development projects within the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) regarding energy conservation and green-building standards.
Non-residential development projects within the proposed Specific Plan would also be required to comply with Title 24, which sets forth requirements pertaining to the provision of charging stations for electric vehicles. Because this information is already described in the IS/ND, no changes to the IS/ND are warranted in response to this comment.
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-11 Response to Comment S-1-11
This comment requests that the proposed project support dedicated truck routes to decrease truck impacts to the local community.
The City acknowledges this comment. The City has established designated truck routes along its major arterials, including Katella Avenue and Valley View Street, in the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan. It is assumed that truck trips associated with the proposed Specific Plan’s uses would utilize the City’s established truck routes. Additionally, future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to policies described in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, as well as other policies that promote reduction of VMT. As such, the proposed project would not create truck-related impacts on the local community. No changes have been made to the IS/ND in response to this comment.
Response to Comment S-1-12
This comment requests that the proposed project consider the inclusion of Incident Response Plans, which keep critical entrances open for emergency personnel. Plans should also include alternative local roads and highways so that roadways do not become congested during an emergency.
Please refer to Response to Comment S-1-8.
Response to Comment S-1-13
This comment requests that the proposed project consider including zero or near zero emissions infrastructure or electric shore power infrastructure for truck drivers and cargo handling equipment to reduce GHG and heat emissions.
As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, page 4-38, future additional development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would be evaluated for its potential to interfere with the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) ability to achieve the region’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035, and whether regional mobile emissions would decrease in line with the goals of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with Title 24 of the CCR established by the CEC regarding energy conservation and green-building standards. No changes have been made to the IS/ND in response to this comment.
Response to Comment S-1-14
This comment requests that the proposed project consider leveraging strategic investments to maintain and modernize a multimodal freight transportation system with innovative approaches, including advanced technology to optimize integrated network efficiency, improve travel time reliability, and achieve sustainable congestion reduction.
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -12 As stated in Section 4.17, Transportation, page 4-73, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the City of Cypress General Plan, which provides goals and policies to implement a balanced, functional, and efficient circulation system. The Specific Plan incorporates alternative modes of travel, including pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit, and other actions to decrease VMT within the City.
The proposed project does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposals at this time and would not, in and of itself, result in transportation impacts. Any future development or redevelopment under the Specific Plan will be subject to policies described in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, as well as other policies that promote the reduction of VMT.
Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would be subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
No changes have been made to the IS/ND in response to this comment.
Response to Comment S-1-15
This comment states that future projects should not present adverse impacts on the overall transportation system including traffic circulation and the State Highway System (SHS). If future developments disrupt or impede traffic circulation or the local State Highway System, Caltrans will request a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of these assets. The TIA will also need to include existing and future average daily traffic volumes, traffic generation including peak hour, traffic distribution, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection analysis along with current and projected capacities of local street, and state highways or freeways including ramps that might be impacted.
Please refer to Response to Comment S-1-5. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, pages 4-73 through 4-74, future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the policies described in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, as well as other policies that promote reduction of VMT. Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would be subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. No changes have been made to the IS/ND in response to this comment.
Response to Comment S-1-16
This comment states that when analyzing future proposed projects, please note potential short- and long-term traffic impacts with respect to regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT's), please use the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts.
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment S-1-5 and Response to Comment S-1-15.
Response to Comment S-1-17
This comment states that if future impact analysis leads to findings of significance on State facilities, please coordinate with Caltrans District 12 Local Development on development of a Traffic Mitigation Agreement or similar effort.
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-13 The City acknowledges this comment. The City will coordinate with Caltrans District 12 Local Development on development of a Traffic Mitigation Agreement if future impact analyses identify potentially significant impacts on State facilities.
Response to Comment S-1-18
This comment states that if any future projects are developed within Caltrans right-of-way (R/W), a required discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans R/W prior to construction. This comment provides the guidelines for submitting to Caltrans Permit's branch and provides a website link.
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment S-1-5.
Response to Comment S-1-19
This comment provides concluding remarks and contact information.
The City acknowledges this comment and looks forward to future communications with Caltrans.
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -14 This page intentionally left blank
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-15
2.2 LOCAL AGENCIES
April 1, 2025
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
City of Cypress, Planning Division
5275 Orange Avenue,
Cypress, CA 90630
SUBJECT: Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for providing the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project. The Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) has reviewed the Negative Declaration and would like to provide clarification regarding Section 4.10.1 – it states that “If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would be required to obtain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Public Works Department.” A discharge permit will also need to be obtained from OC San if dewatered groundwater is being discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
If you have any questions, please contact Kevin Hadden, Principal Staff Analyst, Planning Division, at (714) 593-7462.
Justin Fenton
Engineering Manager
Planning Division
(714) 593-7386
AB:KH:op
https://ocsdgov.sharepoint.com/sites/Planning/CEQA Externally Generated/2025 Comment Letters/City of Cypress Response - Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project - Notice of Intent - 20250401.docx cc: Jason Daniel, OC San
Digitally signed by Justin
Fenton
Date: 2025.04.01
17:35:10-07'00'
L-1-1
L-1-3
L-1-2
L-1
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-17
2.2.1 Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) (L-1)
Letter Code: L-1
Commenter: Justin Fenton, Engineering Manager, Planning Division, OC San Date: April 1, 2025
Response to Comment L-1-1
This comment is introductory and provides contact information.
The City of Cypress acknowledges this comment. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND, no further response is required.
Response to Comment L-1-2
This comment provides input regarding Section 4.10.1, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft IS/ND. The comment notes that a discharge permit would also need to be obtained from OC San if dewatered groundwater would be discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
clarify that a discharge permit from OC San would also be required if dewatered groundwater would be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. Please refer to Section 3.0, Errata, for a description of the revision to the Draft IS/ND. Adding clarification that a discharge permit would be required from OC San if certain circumstances were to occur represents a minor modification to the IS/ND. As such, the revisions made to the IS/ND in connection with this comment would not add significant new information to the document that would trigger the need to recirculate the Draft IS/ND.
Response to Comment L-1-3
This comment provides concluding remarks and contact information.
The City acknowledges this comment and looks forward to future communications with OC SAN.
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -18
2.3 INTERESTED PARTIES
IP-1-1
IP-1
IP-1-2
IP-1-4
Type text h
IP-1-3
IP-1-6
IP-1-5
IP-1-7
IP-1-8
Allyssa J. Holcomb
Direct Dial No.
(714) 384-4313
Email Address
[email protected]
March 27, 2025
(714) 384-4300 www.garrettllp.com
{10884989.6} Address: 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 850, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AZ) VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
City of Cypress, Planning Division
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
Attn: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
Re: Draft Cypress Business Park Specific Plan Amendment and Modernization Effort Dear Ms. Velasco:
As you know, this firm represents Warland Investments Company and affiliated entities (collectively, “Warland”). We are submitting this letter on behalf of Warland in response to the draft Cypress Business Park Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) and Proposed Cypress Zoning Ordinances Definitions (“Definitions”) prepared by the City of Cypress (“City”). The City recently prepared an Initial Study (“Initial Study”) and draft Negative Declaration (“ND” and, collectively with the Initial Study, “IS/ND”) in connection with the proposed Specific Plan, and we understand the Specific Plan will be submitted to City Council for approval following the expiration of the April 2, 2025 comment period for the IS/ND.
Warland appreciates the City providing the draft Specific Plan to Warland for its review and comment.
While Warland has not had the opportunity to review in detail the materials submitted in connection with the IS/ND, this letter outlines some of the high-level issues and questions that Warland has regarding the Specific Plan.
As you are well aware, Warland has two major concerns regarding any change to the current specific plan:
• First, any change that allows ANY type of last-mile or middle-mile delivery of goods from the Cypress Business Park into the surrounding neighborhoods (logistics) will result in a significant increase of traffic and will likely create a backlash from Cypress residents that will undermine the long-term viability of the Business Park.
• Second, any change that strips the City Council of current decision-making powers and vests those decisions in the hands of unelected staff is unacceptable.
With those two concerns in mind, here are the major issues we identified regarding the proposed Specific Plan:
1. There is significant overlap between the proposed definitions of “Distribution” and “Logistics facility” as defined in the Definitions, and a lack of objective criteria to distinguish one from the other.
IP-1-9
IP-1-10
IP-1-11
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
March 27, 2025
{10884989.6}
2. Logistics facilities are not prohibited by the proposed Specific Plan (contrary to what has previously been stated both publicly and privately by City officials).
3. The City Council’s discretion related to administrative determinations and interpretations by the Planning Director related to land use is unclear.
4. The proposed Specific Plan fails to include floor area ratio (FAR) limits for Business Park (Industrial) parcels.
Warland’s concerns regarding the above issues are explained in more detail below, along with questions arising from those concerns.
1. LACK OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROPOSED DEFINITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION AND LOGISTICS.
As an initial matter, there appears to be significant overlap between the proposed definitions of “Distribution” and “Logistics facility” set forth in the Definitions, and there are no clear and unequivocal objective elements distinguishing one from the other:
“Distribution. A building or facility which serves as a central location for the short-term handling and transfer of goods, materials, or merchandise intended for redistribution to retailers, businesses, or consumers. Distribution facilities are characterized by regular incoming and outgoing shipments and typically involve activities such as sorting, consolidation, staging, and packing of goods for dispatch. Although storage of goods does occur, it is a secondary function to their movement.”
“Logistics facility. A specialized site that coordinates storage, order fulfillment, processing, and transportation services for various products and finished consumer goods. These facilities are engineered for high-capacity and high-frequency order fulfillment, catering especially to e-commerce, retail distribution, and supply chain management. They typically incorporate advanced technologies for inventory tracking and automation. Distinct from distribution facilities, logistics centers emphasize not only the movement of goods but also comprehensive management of inventory, returns, and overall supply chain operations.”
As you are aware, concerns about potential “logistics uses” within the Cypress Business Park have been raised during public meetings in recent months, and your attempts to clarify the distinction were not totally effective. It is clear that there is significant overlap between the two. For example, during the November 18, 2024 City Council meeting, (“November 18 Meeting”), you defined third-party logistics as “businesses that provide short-term storage and fulfillment services for finished consumer goods,” which definition actually aligns more closely with Distribution as defined in the Definitions, which describe the “short-term handling and transfer of goods.” During that meeting, you also said that “first party logistics would generally be considered distribution” and “distribution or what you would maybe call first party logistics are the fulfillment of your own orders.” However, the proposed Definitions make no distinction between first-party logistics (1PL) and third-party logistics (3PL).
Ultimately, the definitions of “Distribution” and “Logistics facility” set forth in the Definitions create substantial uncertainty for residents, the City Council, and current and future operators within the City.
IP-1-11
IP-1-12
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
March 27, 2025
{10884989.6}
• As written, the City would have incredibly broad discretion to deem one use “Distribution” and another “Logistics facility” based on the subjective determination of the Planning Department, rather than objective criteria that can be consistently applied.
Please explain how the City derived the proposed defined terms “Distribution” and “Logistics facility” set forth in the Definitions (including any examples of where the same definitions are used in other municipalities or otherwise), as well as what the City was trying to accomplish by creating separate definitions for those uses
2. LOGISTICS FACILITIES NOT PROHIBITED BY SPECIFIC PLAN It is unclear why “Logistics facility” is defined at all since that term is never actually used in the Specific Plan. In fact, the word “logistics” is only used once in an introductory paragraph in Section 1.4. Since the term is never used again, it is impossible to determine why the City defined “Logistics facility” at all – particularly in light of how interchangeable the definition is with Distribution.
Every other defined term in the Definitions is referenced in Table 4.2.2 (Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of the Specific Plan, which sets forth in detail the Permitted Uses (PU), Conditional Uses (CU), Prohibited Uses (PU), and Uses Requiring Planning Director Approval (PD); however, “Logistics facility” is the single definition that is not. This is notwithstanding that the City has repeatedly, both privately and publicly, stated that logistics uses are not permitted in the City. Again during the November 18 Meeting, you said that “third party logistics are not allowed under the [McDonnell Center Amended] Specific Plan or anywhere in the City for that matter.” • In fact, during the November 18 Meeting, you also assured the City Council members that “in the modernization we will be recommending that logistics be identified as a specifically prohibited use and then distribution as a conditional, no change to that.” However, the modernized Specific Plan does not prohibit a logistics use, and is instead completely silent on the matter.
In the absence of a clear and unambiguous definition of a “Logistics facility” or a prohibition on a logistics use, there are two potential workarounds for a potential logistics user to receive approval to operate in the City per the draft Specific Plan:
(a) By claiming the proposed use is “Distribution”, which likely would not be difficult given the similarities between the definitions discussed above; or (b) By the Planning Director approving the proposed use as “similar with the intent of the district as determined by the Planning Director” per the “PD” category set forth in Table 4.2.2. If Distribution is permitted, then as defined in the Definitions, a “Logistics facility” is unquestionably a similar use.
Please clarify if it is the City’s position that the Specific Plan, as written, unambiguously prohibits Logistics facilities of any kind. If so, please explain.
IP-1-13
IP-1-15
IP-1-14
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
March 27, 2025
{10884989.6}
3. CITY COUNCIL DISCRETION RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS BY
PLANNING DIRECTOR IS UNCLEAR
The introductory paragraph for Table 4.2.2 provides that the Planning Director is authorized to make administrative determinations and interpretations regarding land uses, which may be appealed to the City Council.
Please clarify whether the right of City Council (and/or the public) to approve and/or comment on a proposed project will be limited to appeal cases only. If so, please advise if the Planning Director’s discretion to make administrative determinations and interpretations regarding land uses will be subject to any objective standards or public notice requirements.
4. FAILURE TO INCLUDE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR BUSINESS PARK (INDUSTRIAL)
PARCELS
The Specific Plan does not appear to include a floor area ratio (FAR) or lot coverage limits for properties designated as “Business Park”, which is the land use designation with the heaviest permitted industrial use in the Cypress Business Park. Pages 4-4 and 4-5 of the ND prepared in connection with the Specific Plan explicitly state that the Specific Plan will not change the maximum buildable floor area or amend the FAR limit within the area covered by the Specific Plan; however, that is not accurate. The area covered by the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan, for example, provides that the FAR shall not exceed
1.0:1 for any lot. The covered area is located east of Walker Street, but the Specific Plan only retains the FAR limit for properties located west of Walker Street. • The failure to specify FAR limits for all of the parcels located east of Walker Street, which constitute the majority of Cypress Business Park and could be mostly comprised of industrial buildings, could have profound impacts on the City and its residents. Overbuilding on those lots with large warehouses and the associated heavy truck or van usage would have a substantial negative impact on the environmental and overall health of the residents, and would also create the look and feel of an industrial zone.
• Further, any conclusion of no impact or less than significant impact under the ND that relies on the inaccurate assumption that there will be no changes in the maximum buildable floor area or amendments to FAR limits resulting from the Specific Plan must be corrected.
IP-1-16
IP-1-18
IP-1-17
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
March 27, 2025
{10884989.6}
It is unclear what the intended floor area ratio (FAR) or lot coverage limits will be for property located east of Walker Street, if any, which is where all of the parcels designated as “Business Park” (i.e., industrial) are located, so please clarify. If the City intends to remove FAR or lot coverage limits for those parcels, please explain the reasoning behind that decision.
It is incumbent on the City, in choosing to modernize the Cypress Business Park’s existing specific plans, to be transparent and clear with the residents of Cypress and the members of the City Council. We are confident that once these issues have been properly addressed, the Specific Plan will be compatible with the goals of the City and be instrumental to the business park’s continued success.
In an abundance of caution, Warland reserves all rights and remedies. We appreciate your time and consideration on these matters.
Regards,
Allyssa J. Holcomb
cc: City Clerk of the City of Cypress (via email)
Peter Grant, City Manager, City of Cypress (via email)
Mayor David Burke, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Mayor Pro Tem Leo Medrano, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Kyle Chang, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Scott Minikus, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Council Member Bonnie Peat, City Council, City of Cypress (via email) Fred Galante, Esq., City Attorney, City of Cypress (via email) Mr. Carl W. Robertson, Jr., Warland Investments Company (via email) Ms. Hope Warschaw, Warland Investments Company (via email) Mr. Jim Brulte, California Strategies, LLC (via email)
Mr. John Withers, California Strategies, LLC (via email) Mr. Michael Nytzen, Paul Hastings (via email)
Lana H. Sammons, Esq. (via email)
IP-1-19
IP-1-20
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -28
2.3.1 Allyssa J Holcomb on Behalf of Warland Investments Company and Affiliated Entities Letter Code: IP-1
Date: April 2, 2025
Response to Comment IP-1-1
This comment provides introductory remarks and summarizes the proposed project.
The City of Cypress acknowledges this comment. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-2
This comment claims that the City failed to meet its requirements as a lead agency under CEQA because the IS/ND (a) relied on inaccurate assumptions of objective development standards, which resulted in a fatal contradictory conclusion, and (b) failed to adequately define the "Project". This comment also advises that the City must revise and recirculate the IS/ND to correct these fundamental issues, so that the City Council Members and the public understand the full and actual implications of the proposed Specific Plan.
The Draft IS/ND for the proposed project was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, ensuring a thorough evaluation of the project's potential environmental impacts.
The methodologies used in preparing the Draft IS/ND were prepared using the most current methodologies and are consistent with applicable City and County of Orange guidelines. Additions and corrections made to the Draft IS/ND are presented in the Errata provided in Section 3.0, Errata, of this Final IS/ND. Revising the Draft IS/ND to clarify that the proposed Specific Plan would include a nominal 5-foot increase in the maximum building height within a small portion of the overall area that it would cover represents a minor modification to the IS/ND. As such, the revisions made to the IS/ND in connection with this comment would not add significant new information to the document that would trigger the need to recirculate the Draft IS/ND.
Response to Comment IP-1-3
This comment asserts that the IS/ND inaccurately concludes that the proposed Specific Plan would not change the maximum building heights or floor area within the Specific Plan area. The comment claims that the proposed Specific Plan would increase both the maximum allowable building height and the maximum allowable floor area. Specifically, the comment notes that the height would increase from 50 feet to 55 feet within the Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan area and from 40 feet to 55 feet within the portion of the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan area that adjoins the Stanton Storm Channel.
Additionally, the comment notes that the City’s undated letter to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which was received by the ALUC on January 28, 2025, acknowledges the proposed increase in building height within the Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park (PC-1 zone); however, the commenter claims that the letter fails to mention the proposed height increase in the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan area.
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-29 The City acknowledges this comment. When City staff developed the proposed Specific Plan, the objective was to consolidate five existing Specific Plans into a single, cohesive document that establishes a unified vision for the entire business park. The Specific Plan modernizes development standards while preserving the core intent of the original plans. As part of this effort, staff evaluated the maximum building heights allowed under the existing Specific Plans, which varied from none to 50 feet, 55 feet, and 99 feet. To ensure consistency across the Specific Plan area east of Walker Street, staff proposed a uniform maximum height. Recognizing that increasing the height limit to 99 feet throughout the Business Park could raise concerns with the ALUC, staff determined that setting a 55-foot height limit offered a reasonable compromise. This approach aligns with ALUC’s goals while establishing consistency across the business parks. This change would reduce the maximum building height in the McDonnell Center Specific Plan area by 44 feet; however, it would also increase the height limit in the Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park area by 5 feet. The Draft IS/ND has been revised to clarify that the proposed Specific Plan would include this nominal increase in the building height limit within a small portion of the overall area that it would cover. Given the minimal nature of this 5-foot increase and the robust setback requirements that would apply to the land that is currently within the Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park (a minimum 40-foot setback would be required for properties adjacent to residential uses), it is not expected to result in any negative impacts on adjacent properties. Importantly, the clarification of this height adjustment would not affect the environmental analysis contained in the IS/ND.
Additionally, the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan includes a provision limiting building heights to two stories and a maximum of 40 feet for properties adjacent to the Stanton Storm Channel.
While this standard applied to a limited area within one of the five original Specific Plans, it was not initially carried forward into the proposed Specific Plan as staff focused on establishing uniform development standards across the business park. However, upon further review, staff recognized the value of retaining this standard to maintain compatibility with adjacent uses. The Draft IS/ND has been revised to clarify that this provision would be included in the proposed Specific Plan.
Please refer to Section 3.0, Errata, for a description of the revision to the Draft IS/ND. Adding clarification that the existing building height limits that apply to properties adjacent to the Stanton Storm Channel within the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan would be carried forward into the proposed Specific Plan represents a minor modification to the IS/ND. As such, the revisions made to the IS/ND in connection with this comment would not add significant new information to the document that would trigger the need to recirculate the Draft IS/ND.
Response to Comment IP-1-4
This comment alleges that the proposed Specific Plan would significantly increase the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within the Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan area, raising the maximum FAR from a range of 0.45:1 to 0.82:1 to a new limit of 1.0:1. The comment claims that the proposed Specific Plan fails to establish any maximum FAR for properties designated as "Business Park," particularly in areas east of Walker Street. The comment also mentions that these properties, which could be developed with large industrial facilities, currently have FAR limits ranging from 0.5:1 to 1.0:1. By omitting FAR limits entirely for these areas, the commenter claims that the proposed Specific Plan risks allowing building sizes to be determined solely by height and setback requirements, potentially leading to buildings far exceeding the current FAR limits. The commenter claims that the apparent lack of FAR restrictions could result in
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -30 overdevelopment, especially for logistics and distribution uses, creating an industrial environment that could negatively impact the City’s aesthetics and character, transforming it into an industrial logistics hub instead of a balanced residential community. This could lead to significant impacts on the City and its residents, as seen in other areas of Orange County where overbuilding in key corridors has resulted in unattractive streetscapes.
The comment also states that removing FAR limits would benefit industrial developers only. For residents and long-term investors like Warland, the elimination of a maximum FAR would create an unacceptable risk of compromising quality of life by increasing traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. impairing health and air quality and fundamentally altering the City's character as an attractive resident-friendly place to work and live.
The City acknowledges this comment. The City’s General Plan establishes FAR limits for the entire City. Currently, the maximum FAR for all non-residential uses in each of the five original Specific Plans is 1:1 (1.0). The proposed Specific Plan would retain the maximum FAR at 1:1 without any increase. The City has identified an inconsistency in Table 4.3.2 in the proposed Specific Plan, which provides development standards that would apply to the areas within the proposed Specific Plan west of Walker Street, that lists a maximum FAR; however, Table 4.3.1, which provides development standards that would apply to areas east of Walker Street, does not. To resolve this, a clarifying note has been added to both tables in the proposed Specific Plan explaining that the maximum FAR for nonresidential uses can be found in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan.
As described above, the City’s General Plan establishes a maximum FAR of 1.0. The comment above seems to confuse areas of the City which have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Light Industrial with the land that would be included in the proposed Specific Plan. The City’s Light Industrial Land Use Designation has a maximum FAR of 0.5:1; however, it would not apply to the area within the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed project would include the following land uses as shown in Figure 2-6 of the IS/ND, Cottonwood Church, Mixed-Use Commercial/High Density Residential, Mixed-Use Commercial/Senior Housing, Professional Office/Hotel and Support Commercial Business Park, Commercial, Professional Office, Mixed-Use Business Park, Mixed Use Business Park/General Retail Commercial. Additionally, the land within the proposed Specific Plan area would have a FAR of 1:1, consistent with the General Plan. Under the proposed Specific Plan, all non-residential properties would continue to have a maximum FAR of 1:1. Because the IS/ND already correctly states that the proposed Specific Plan would not remove or otherwise modify existing FAR limits, no changes to the IS/ND are warranted in response to this comment.
Response to Comment IP-1-5
This comment outlines the requirement under CEQA to recirculate a negative declaration. This comment also claims that the IS/ND assumes that the proposed Specific Plan would not change the maximum building heights and FAR limits; however, the commenter asserts that the proposed Specific Plan would increase the maximum building heights and FAR limits. The comment also suggests that the project must be revised to address those effects, as well as any other environmental impacts resulting from the height and FAR increases, and to correct the contradictions between the proposed Specific Plan and IS/ND.
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-31 Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-3 and Response to Comment IP-1-4. As described in Response to Comment IP-1-3, the Draft IS/ND has been revised to clarify that the proposed Specific Plan would result in a modest 5-foot increase in the maximum building height limit that applies within the Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park and that the existing building height limits that apply to properties adjacent to the Stanton Storm Channel within the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan would be carried forward into the proposed Specific Plan. Further, Response to Comment IP-1-4 explains that the IS/ND already correctly states that the proposed Specific Plan would not remove or otherwise modify existing FAR limits. None of the revisions made to the IS/ND in connection with Response to Comment IP-1-3 would add significant new information to the document that would trigger the need to recirculate the Draft IS/ND.
Response to Comment IP-1-6
This comment outlines the definition of a project per CEQA guidelines. The comment claims that the project description in the IS/ND fails to identify the proposed building height and FAR increases and vaguely explains that the proposed Specific Plan "aims to streamline land use regulations, update development standards (e.g., landscaping, signage, and lighting), modernize land use definitions, and improve project approval processes." This comment also claims that the "Project" to be evaluated by the City should have included these significant changes to the development standards in the City, which would have required an analysis of the potential impacts resulting from the additional height and floor area that would be allowed pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan.
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-2, Response to Comment IP-1-3, and Response to Comment IP-1-4. No changes to the IS/ND are warranted in response to this comment.
Response to Comment IP-1-7
This comment asserts that the City Councilmembers, as well as the City's residents, are entitled to clear, accurate and unambiguous information regarding the actual impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, including, without limitation, the changes to the maximum building heights and buildable floor area limits. This comment also recommends that the City revise and recirculate the proposed Specific Plan and IS/ND to comply with its CEQA obligations and to provide the City Council and residents clear and accurate information with which they can make their decisions.
Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-2, Response to Comment IP-1-3, and Response to Comment IP-1-4. As described in Response to Comment IP-1-3, the IS/ND has been revised to clarify that the proposed Specific Plan would include a nominal 5-foot increase in the maximum building height limit that applies within the Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park and that the existing building height limits that apply to properties adjacent to the Stanton Storm Channel within the Cypress Corporate Center Specific Plan would be carried forward into the proposed Specific Plan. Further, the Response to Comment IP-1-4 explains that the IS/ND already correctly states that the proposed Specific Plan would not remove or otherwise modify existing FAR limits. None of the revisions made to the IS/ND in connection with Response to Comment IP-1-3 would add significant new information to the document that would trigger the need to recirculate the Draft IS/ND.
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -32 Response to Comment IP-1-8
This comment provides concluding remarks and contact information.
The City acknowledges this comment and looks forward to future communications with Warland Investments Company and Affiliated Entities.
Response to Comment IP-1-9
This comment provides introductory remarks and summarizes the proposed project.
The City acknowledges this comment. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-10
This comment raises the following concerns regarding any potential changes to the existing specific plans: (1) any change that allows any type of last-mile or middle-mile delivery of goods from the Cypress Business Park into the surrounding neighborhoods (logistics) will result in a significant increase of traffic and will likely create a backlash from Cypress residents that will undermine the long-term viability of the Business Park; and (2) any change that strips the City Council of current decision-making powers and vests those decisions in the hands of unelected staff is unacceptable.
The City acknowledges this comment. The City shares Warland’s concerns about the potential impacts of last-mile and middle-mile delivery operations on nearby properties. The proposed Specific Plan would not allow logistics operations of this nature. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would not remove or diminish the City Council’s existing decision-making authority. The proposed Specific Plan would authorize the Planning Director to make administrative determinations and interpretations regarding land uses, consistent with the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. This authority is typical of zoning ordinances. Any such determination is subject to appeal to the City Council, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Director’s discretion is not unlimited and must be guided by the purpose, intent, and regulatory framework established in the proposed Specific Plan. No changes to the IS/ND are warranted in response to this comment.
Response to Comment IP-1-11
This comment claims that there is significant overlap between the proposed definitions of “Distribution” and “Logistics facility” as defined in the Definitions section of the proposed Specific Plan and a lack of objective criteria to distinguish one from the other. The comment also claims that Logistics facilities are not prohibited by the proposed Specific Plan, which the commenter claims contradicts what has previously been stated both publicly and privately by City officials. The comment argues that the City Council’s discretion related to administrative determinations and interpretations by the Planning Director related to land use is unclear. Lastly, this comment claims that the proposed Specific Plan fails to include FAR limits for Business Park (Industrial) parcels.
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-33 The City acknowledges this comment. The City, in coordination with its land-use experts, reviewed existing definitions of “logistics” and “distribution” uses across many government agencies; however, it should be noted that neither of these terms are currently defined in the Cypress Municipal Code. Providing definitions for land use types makes it easier to understand what is and is not permitted. Since it is impossible to predict every specific type of business (and associated land use) that may seek to locate within an area, it is important for the Municipal Code to provide guidance on what is and is not permitted. These definitions provide that guidance. The definitions were further refined by the Business Park Specific Plan Advisory Committee, which is comprised of industry professionals. The definitions are distinct in that logistics provide fulfillment, processing, and transportation services for various products and finished consumer goods. All proposed distribution facilities would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate within the proposed Specific Plan, which is a permit authorized by the City Council following a duly-noticed public hearing process. The CUP review process would provide a transparent review process in which the public would be able to participate and share any concerns with the City Council prior to its deliberations.
As described in Response to Comment IP-1-4, the IS/ND has been revised to clarify that the proposed Specific Plan would not eliminate any existing FAR limitations within the City. None of the revisions made to the IS/ND would add significant new information to the document that would trigger the need to recirculate the Draft IS/ND.
Response to Comment IP-1-12
This comment highlights concerns regarding potential overlap between the proposed definitions of “Distribution” and “Logistics facility” in the proposed Specific Plan. The comment claims that there are no clear, objective distinctions between the two definitions, as both describe activities related to the handling, transfer, and storage of goods. The “Distribution” definition focuses on short-term handling and transfer of goods, while the “Logistics facility” definition includes storage, order fulfillment, and supply chain management. The comment claims that during a City Council meeting on November 18, 2024, attempts to clarify the distinction between logistics and distribution were ineffective, with definitions provided that more closely align with distribution activities. Additionally, the comment alleges a lack of differentiation between first-party logistics (1PL) and third-party logistics (3PL), which further complicates the distinction between the two terms. Finally, the comment claims that the definitions of “Distribution” and “Logistics facility” set forth in the Definitions section of the proposed Specific Plan create substantial uncertainty for residents, the City Council, and current and future operators within the City.
Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-11, above. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-13
This comment requests an explanation on how the City derived the proposed defined terms “Distribution” and “Logistics facility” set forth in the Definitions (including any examples of where the same definitions are used in other municipalities or otherwise), as well as what the City was trying to accomplish by creating separate definitions for those uses.
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -34 Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-11. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-14
This comment states that every other defined term in the Definitions section of the proposed Specific Plan is referenced in Table 4.2.2 (Land Uses and Permit Requirements) of the proposed Specific Plan, which sets forth in detail the Permitted Uses (PU), Conditional Uses (CU), Prohibited Uses (PU), and Uses Requiring Planning Director Approval (PD); however, “Logistics facility” is the single definition that is not. The comment claims that the City has repeatedly, both privately and publicly, stated that logistics uses are not permitted in the City. The comment notes that, during the November 18 Meeting, the City stated that “third party logistics are not allowed under the [McDonnell Center Amended] Specific Plan or anywhere in the City for that matter.” The comment states that during the November 18 Meeting, the City also assured the City Council members that “in the modernization we will be recommending that logistics be identified as a specifically prohibited use and then distribution as a conditional, no change to that.” However, the commenter claims that the proposed Specific Plan does not appear to prohibit logistics uses.
The definition of “Logistics facility” was included in the proposed Specific Plan to help differentiate higher-intensity, e-commerce-driven operations from more traditional distribution uses. Logistics facilities were intentionally excluded from Table 4.2.2 (Land Use and Permit Requirements) in the proposed Specific Plan to signal that it is a prohibited use. This approach aligns with standard zoning practices, where uses that are defined but not listed in a land use table are typically considered prohibited. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-15
This comment claims that, in the absence of a clear and unambiguous definition of a “Logistics facility” or a prohibition on a logistics use, there are two potential workarounds for a potential logistics user to receive approval to operate in the City per the proposed Specific Plan: (a) by claiming the proposed use is “Distribution”, which likely would not be difficult given the similarities between the definitions discussed above; or (b) by the Planning Director approving the proposed use as “similar with the intent of the district as determined by the Planning Director” per the “PD” category set forth in Table 4.2.2. If Distribution is permitted, then as defined in the Definitions section of the proposed Specific Plan, a “Logistics facility” is unquestionably a similar use. The commenter requests clarification of the City’s position that the proposed Specific Plan, as written, unambiguously prohibits Logistics facilities of any kind.
This comment also claims that, during the November 18, 2024, City Council meeting, the City assured the City Council that logistics uses would be specifically prohibited and distribution uses would be conditional, with no changes to that approach. However, the commenter claims that the proposed Specific Plan does not appear to prohibit logistics facilities.
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 2-35 The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-14, above. Because the comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-16
This comment states that the introductory paragraph for Table 4.2.2 in the proposed Specific Plan provides that the Planning Director is authorized to make administrative determinations and interpretations regarding land uses, which may be appealed to the City Council. The comment requests clarification regarding whether the right of City Council (and/or the public) to approve and/or comment on a proposed project will be limited to appeal cases only. This comment also asks if the Planning Director’s discretion to make administrative determinations and interpretations regarding land uses will be subject to any objective standards or public notice requirements.
The City acknowledges this comment. The proposed Specific Plan would authorize the City’s Planning Director to make administrative determinations and interpretations regarding land uses, consistent with the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. This authority is typical of zoning ordinances. Any such determination is subject to appeal to the City Council, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Director’s discretion is not unlimited and must be guided by the text, purpose, intent, and regulatory framework established in the proposed Specific Plan. This comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/ND; therefore, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-17
This comment states that the proposed Specific Plan does not appear to include FAR or lot coverage limits for properties designated as “Business Park”, which is the land use designation with the heaviest permitted industrial use in the Cypress Business Park. The comment claims that pages 4-4 and 4-5 of the IS/ND explicitly state that the proposed Specific Plan would not change the maximum buildable floor area or amend the FAR limit within the area covered by the proposed Specific Plan; however, the commenter alleges that this information is not accurate. The comment notes that the area covered by the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan, for example, provides that the FAR shall not exceed 1.0:1 for any lot. The commenter further notes that the area within the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan is located east of Walker Street, but the proposed Specific Plan only appears to retain the FAR limit for properties located west of Walker Street.
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-4. Inasmuch as the issues raised in Response to Comment IP-1-4 are similar to those identified in this comment, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-18
This comment claims that the proposed Specific Plan’s apparent failure to specify FAR limits for all of the parcels east of Walker Street, which constitute the majority of Cypress Business Park and could be mostly comprised of industrial buildings, could have profound impacts on the City and its residents. The comment also claims that overbuilding on those lots with large warehouses and the
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -36 associated heavy truck or van usage would have a substantial negative impact on the environmental and overall health of the residents and would also create the look and feel of an industrial zone.
Further, the comment claims that any conclusion of no impact or less than significant impact under the IS/ND that relies on the inaccurate assumption that there would be no changes in the maximum buildable floor area or amendments to FAR limits resulting from the proposed Specific Plan must be corrected.
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-4. Again, the FAR limitation concerns raised in Response to Comment IP-1-4 are similar to those identified in this comment; therefore, no further response is required.
Response to Comment IP-1-19
This comment requests clarification on the proposed Specific Plan’s intended FAR or lot coverage limits for properties located east of Walker Street, where all parcels designated as "Business Park" are located. This comment also requests that the City provide an explanation for its decision, if it plans to remove these limits as part of the proposed Specific Plan.
The City acknowledges this comment. Please refer to Response to Comment IP-1-4 as the City’s intent with respect to FAR limits is addressed in that response. No further response is warranted.
Response to Comment IP-1-20
This comment provides concluding remarks and contact information.
The City acknowledges this comment and looks forward to future communications with Warland Investments Company and Affiliated Entities.
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 3-1
3.0 ERRATA
This section of the Final IS/ND provides changes to the Draft IS/ND that have been made to clarify, correct, or add to the environmental impact analysis for the proposed Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project (Specific Plan). Such changes are a result of comments received by the City during the public review period for the Draft IS/ND. The changes described in this section are generally minor changes that do not constitute significant new information, change the conclusions of the environmental analysis, or require recirculation of the document (State California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15073.5).
Such changes to the Draft IS/ND are indicated in this section under the appropriate Draft IS/ND section.
Deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with underline. 1) Section 4.1, Aesthetics
a. The third paragraph on page 4-3 and the first paragraph on page 4-4 shall be revised as follows:
The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, since it does not entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehabilitation of existing development. The proposed land use and zoning changes would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to scenic vistas and the land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan Area would be generally consistent with other existing and permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area. As result of the proposed project, the existing setbacks would be modified and a nominal 5-foot increase in the maximum building height within the area that is currently subject to the Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan (from 50 to 55 feet) would occur; however, the proposed project would not change the maximum building heights, maximum buildable floor area or amend the established floor-area ratio (FAR) within the Specific Plan Area. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to conform with applicable City standards and criteria including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would be subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A Guidelines, therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas, and no mitigation is required.
b. Page 4-5, second paragraph shall be revised as follows:
The proposed Specific Plan Area is comprised of five of the City’s Specific Plan Areas, including PC-1, PC-2, PC-3, and PC-5 and is currently zoned Planned Business Park (PBP), and Planned Community (PC). The proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts to existing visual character or quality of public views, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. As stated above in Response 4.1.1(a), the proposed Specific Plan would integrate five existing specific plans into a single comprehensive specific plan,
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
3 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -2 incorporating a comprehensive set of performance standards, updated terminology and land use definitions, and clear and uniform entitlement and permitting requirements consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could potentially alter existing development patterns in the City by allowing higher density residential development or redevelopment on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan. As detailed in the Cypress Municipal Code, future development must comply with the City’s residential zoning district requirements, which were promulgated for the purpose of reducing impacts on scenic resources, among other things. As stated above in Response
4.1.1(a), the proposed project would not change the maximum building heights, maximum buildable floor area or amend the FAR within the Specific Plan Area. New land uses allowed within the Specific Plan Area would be generally consistent with other existing and permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area.
This revision has been made to provide clarification regarding the minimal changes to the existing building heights proposed for the portion of the Specific Plan Area that is currently subject to the Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan. 2) Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality
a. The second paragraph on page 4-45 shall be revised as follows:
Future projects that disturb less than 1 acre of soil and that are not a part of a larger common plan, would be required to comply with Section 4.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code requires implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion and to retain sediment on site. The CALGreen Code also requires compliance with Section 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal Code. Chapter 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal Code requires projects that qualify as new development or significant redevelopment as outlined in the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff, Orange County (Orange County MS4 Permit)(Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062) comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City of Cypress Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including the preparation of a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) to specify BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff (RCM HYD-2). Any groundwater dewatering during construction activities would be required to comply with the appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge requirements permit, as detailed in RCM HYD-3, which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release to surface waters. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would be required to obtain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Public Works Department and from the Orange County Sanitation District. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would be subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» 3-3 degradation of water quality, increase in pollutant discharges, or alteration in receiving water quality, and no mitigation is required.
b. The first paragraph on page 4-48 shall be revised as follows:
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, if any future development associated with the proposed project requires groundwater dewatering during construction activities, the project would be required to comply with the appropriate NPDES Groundwater Discharge Permit (RCM HYD-3), which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release to surface waters. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would be required to obtain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Public Works Department and from the Orange County Sanitation District. c. The fourth paragraph on page 4-50 and the first paragraph on page 4-51 shall be revised as follows:
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed Specific Plan would not include physical developments. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing construction and operations impacts to groundwater supplies. Additionally, any groundwater dewatering during future construction activities would be required to comply with the appropriate NPDES waste discharge requirements permit, as detailed in RCM HYD3, which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release to surface waters. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would be required to obtain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Public Works Department and from the Orange County Sanitation District. It is anticipated that the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin will continue to be sustainably managed with implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct the sustainable groundwater management plan adopted for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would be subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to conflicts with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and no mitigation is required.
These revisions have been made to provide clarification that a discharge permit will also need to be obtained from OC San if dewatered groundwater is being discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
3 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» -4 This page intentionally left blank
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25»
APPENDIX A
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C YPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND I NTEGRATIO N P ROJECT
C YPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
F INAL INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APRIL 2025
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Final IS_ND\Final ISND.docx «04/18/25» This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
IN ITIAL STUDY/
N EGATIVE DECLARATION
CYPRESS BUSIN ESS PARKS MODERN IZ ATION AN D IN TEGRATION PROJ ECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CYPRESS, CALIFORN IA
MARCH 2025
This page intentionally left blank
i
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
TABLE OF CON TEN TS
1.0 IN TRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Contact Person ............................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project O verview .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Location and Exisitng Setting ............................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 2-13
2.4 Authority and Scope ................................................................................................... 2-21
3.0 EN VIRON MEN TAL FACTORS POTEN TIALLY AFFECTED........................................ 3-1
3.1 Determination.............................................................................................................. 3-1
4.0 EVALUATION OF EN VIRON MEN TAL IMPACTS ................................................... 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................................. 4-6
4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................... 4-17
4.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 4-22
4.6 Energy ........................................................................................................................ 4-25
4.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 4-28
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................... 4-35
4.9 Haz ards and Haz ardous Materials............................................................................... 4-39
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................................... 4-44
4.11 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................ 4-52
4.12 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................... 4-55
4.13 Noise.......................................................................................................................... 4-57
4.14 Population and Housing.............................................................................................. 4-61
4.15 Pub lic Services............................................................................................................ 4-63
4.16 Recreation.................................................................................................................. 4-70
4.17 Transportation............................................................................................................ 4-73
4.18 Trib al Cultural Resources............................................................................................ 4-75
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................... 4-77
4.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................... 4-87
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................. 4-89
5.0 RECOMMEN DATION ......................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 MITIGATION MON ITORIN G AN D REPORTIN G PROGRAM .................................. 6-1
6.1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements............................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures................................................................................ 6-2
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AN D PERSON S CON SULTED................................................ 7-1
7.1 City of Cypress.............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 IS/ND Preparers............................................................................................................ 7-1
8.0 REFEREN CES ..................................................................................................... 8-1
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) ii
FIGURES AN D TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Specific Plan Area..........................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2: Project Area and Regional Vicinity.................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use Map ..................................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-4: Existing Zoning Map....................................................................................................2-11 Figure 2-5: Proposed Residential Zoning.......................................................................................2-15 Figure 2-6: Updated Land Use Designations..................................................................................2-19 TABLES
Tab le 2.A: Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning...................................................................2-13 Tab le 2.B: Non-Discretionary Permits/Approvals..........................................................................2-21 Tab le 4.13.A: Exterior Noise Level Standards................................................................................4-57 Tab le 4.13.B: Interior Noise Level Standards.................................................................................4-57 Tab le 4.19.A: O range County Class III Landfills..............................................................................4-83 Tab le 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...............................................................6-3
APPEN DIX
A: UPDATED PERMITTED USE TABLE
iii
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AN D ACRON YMS
AAQS amb ient air quality standards
AB Assemb ly Bill
ACM asb estos-containing materials
ACS American Community Survey
ADT average daily traffic
ADU accessory dwelling unit
AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan
AHS American Housing Survey
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Assessor’s Parcel Numb er
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District
Basin South Coast Air Basin
BMPs Best Management Practices
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CAAQS California amb ient air quality standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) iv CBC California Building Code
CBPC Specific Plan Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
City City of Cypress
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carb on monoxide
CO2 carb on dioxide
CO2e carb on dioxide equivalents
County County of O range
CPD Cypress Police Department
CSD Cypress School District
dB decib el
dBA A-weighted decib el
DO C Department of Conservation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Sub stances Control du/ac dwelling units per acre
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive O rder
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
v
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Floor-area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ fire haz ard severity z ones
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Federal Insurance Rate Maps
FRAP Fire and Resources Assessment Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
gpm gallons per minute
GSWC Golden State Water Company
GWh gigawatt hours
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HCO C hydrologic condition of concern
HDR O verlay High Density Residential O verlay
HFCs hydrofluorocarb ons
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-5 Interstate 5
I-605 Interstate 605
in/sec inches/second
IS/ND Initial Study/Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JFTB Joint Forces Training Base
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
vi P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) kWh kilowatt hours
LBP lead-b ased paint
Leq Average Hourly Noise Level
LRAs Local Responsib ility Areas
LSTs localiz ed significance thresholds
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
McDonnell Specific Plan McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan MRZs Mineral Resource Zones
MS4 North O range County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MT CO2e metric tons of carb on dioxide equivalent
MUC/R Mixed-Use Commercial/ Residential
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWDO C Municipal Water District of O range County
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS national amb ient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP/HCP Natural Community Conservation Plan/Hab itat Conservation Plan NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NO I Notice of Intent
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 oz one
O CFA O range County Fire Authority
vii
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) O CTA O range County Transportation Authority
O CWR O range County Waste & Recycling
O ITC O utdoor-Indoor Sound Transmission Class
O PR Governor’s O ffice of Planning and Research
P.A.C.E. Personnel & Training, Positive Actions thru Character Education Pb lead
PBP Planned Business Park
PC Planned Community
PCE passenger car equivalents
PCH Pacific Coast Highway
PFCs perfluorocarb ons
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in siz e
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in siz e PO /HSC Professional O ffice and Hotel Support Commercial PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Pub lic Resources Code
PRD Permit Registration Documents
proposed project Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project (Specific Plan)
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RMS root-mean-square
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainab le Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
viii P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainab le Groundwater Management Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMARTS Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SPL sound power levels
SR-1 State Route 1
SR-22 State Route 22
SR-55 State Route 55
SR-91 State Route 91
SRAs State Responsib ility Areas
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TAZ transportation analysis z one
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TISG Transportation Impact Study Guide
ix
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) tpd tons per day
TSCA Toxic Sub stances Control Act
USDO T U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urb an Water Management Plan
VdB vib ration velocity decib el
VHFHSZ very high fire haz ard severity z ones
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VO Cs volatile organic compounds
VSPs visib ility reducing particulates
WDID Waste Discharge Identification Numb er
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
x P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) This page intentionally left blank
1-1
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
1.0 IN TRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQ A G uidel ines, this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has b een prepared for the proposed Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project (Specific Plan) in the City of Cypress (City), California.
Consistent with State CEQ A G uidel ines Section 15071, this IS/ND includes a description of the proposed project, an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts, and findings from the environmental analysis.
This IS/ND evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may result from development of the proposed project. The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsib le for adoption of the IS/ND and approval of the project.
1.1 CON TACT PERSON
Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this IS/ND, its assumptions, or its conclusions should b e referred to:
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
City of Cypress, Community Development Department
5275 O range Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Phone: (714) 229-6720
Email: avelasco@ cypressca.org
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
1 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 This page intentionally left blank
2-1
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
2.0 PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION
This section describ es the proposed Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project (Specific Plan) that is evaluated in this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND). A description of the proposed project’s location, characteristics, and required approvals is provided b elow.
2.1 PROJ ECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Specific Plan would estab lish a moderniz ed and comprehensive plan for the use and development of 439 acres within the existing Business Park planning area, excluding the Warland/ Cypress Business Center Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan would integrate five of Cypress’s Business Park Specific Plans (Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan, Cypress Corporate Center O riginal and Amended Specific Plan, McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan (McDonnell Specific Plan), Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan and Amendment 19-1) into a single, specific plan to moderniz e the existing five specific plans b y providing updated development standards, z oning definitions, and land uses which will ensure the ongoing success and utility of the Cypress Business Park.
2.2 PROJ ECT LOCATION AN D EX ISITN G SETTIN G
2.2.1 Regional Location
The land that is proposed to b e included within the Specific Plan is in the southern portion of the City of Cypress within O range County. The City of Cypress is b ordered on the north b y the cities of La Palma and Buena Park, on the east b y the cities of Anaheim and Stanton, on the south and west b y the city of Los Alamitos, and on the west b y the cities of Long Beach, Hawaiian Gardens, and Lakewood.
Regional access to the Specific Plan is provided b y the San Gab riel River Freeway (Interstate 605) and the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405) to the west, and the Garden Grove Freeway (State Route [SR-] 22), Artesia Freeway (SR-91), and Beach Boulevard (SR-39). Local access is provided b y K atella Avenue and West Cerritos Avenue (the east-west arterials) and Valley View Street to the north and south.
The Cypress Business Park Specific Plan encompasses the land within the existing Business Park planning area, which includes the existing five Specific Plan areas(Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan, Cypress Corporate Center O riginal and Amended Specific Plan, McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan, Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan and Amendment 19-1). The proposed Specific Plan area is generally b ounded b y West Cerritos Avenue to the north, K atella Avenue to the south, K nott Avenue to the east, and Lexington Drive to the west, as depicted in Figures 2-1, Specific Plan Area, and 2-2, Project Area and Regional Vicinity.
The general land uses immediately surrounding the Specific Plan Area include a mix of residential and commercial uses to the north, and residential uses, and pub lic parks to the south. The areas east and west of the Specific Plan are outside of the Cypress city limits. The surrounding areas within the vicinity of the Specific Plan consist of urb an development. Farther south of the Specific Plan b oundaries, across the Rossmoor Storm Channel, is the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 This page intentionally left blank
LSA
$
0 1000
FEET
(Jfi2<iiiilJjm
Saratoga Ave
Constitution Ave
Joint Forces
Training Base
Los Alamitos
l=l Specfic Plan Area
2000
SOURCE: Esri (2025)
l:\C\CCP2201.02\GIS\Pro\Cypress Bu siness Park Specific Plan Integration Project\Cypress Business Park Specific Plan Integration Project.aprx (2/25/2025) FIGURE 2-1
Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project Specific Plan Area
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -4 This page intentionally left blank
LSA l=l Specific Plan Area
$ 1000 2000
FEET
SOURCE: Esri (2025)
l:\C\CCP2201.02\GIS\Pro\Cypress Bu siness Park Specific Plan Integration Project\Cypress Bus iness Park Specific Plan Integration Project .aprx (2/25/2025) FIGURE 2-2
Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project Project Area and Regional Vicinity
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -6 This page intentionally left blank
2-7
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
2.2.2 Existing Cypress Business Park
The master-planned Cypress Business Park was developed in the mid-1970s and 1980s, providing employment opportunities for the City's residents as well as residents of neighb oring communities in the region. The proposed Cypress Business Park Specific Plan would integrate five existing specific plans as detailed b elow.
Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan (1978)
The Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan was adopted in March 1978 and was the first Specific Plan within the area that is now referred to as the Cypress Business Park. This specific plan includes approximately 74 acres and estab lished the Planned Community Industrial (PC)/Commercial Zone 1, which allows for a mix of industrial and commercial uses, including limited manufacturing facilities.
Existing land uses within the Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan area include commercial and retail land uses.
Cypress Corporate Center O riginal and Amended Specific Plan (1981/1989) The City adopted the Cypress Corporate Center O riginal Specific Plan on April 29, 1981. This specific plan includes the Planned Community Industrial Zone (PC-2) This specific plan designated 110.43 acres of land for b usiness park uses. The specific plan was amended in Feb ruary 1998 to increase the allowab le b uilding square footage within the specific plan area b y an additional 852,000 square feet.
This specific plan is within the southern portion of the City of Cypress, directly north of the city of Garden Grove. Land within this specific plan is designated for Commercial/office, Warehouse/R&D, and Support Commercial.
McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan (1994)
This specific plan was originally adopted in 1982; and sub sequently amended on O ctob er 11, 1994.
This specific plan estab lished the Planned Community 3 Business Park (PC-3) Zone. This specific plan encompasses a total of 71.23 acres and includes the following land use designations Industrial/Warehouse/O ffice (Planning Area 1), Industrial/Warehouse (Planning Area 2) O ffice (Planning Area 3, 5), Commercial/O ffice (Planning Area 4), and O ffice/Commercial (Planning Area 6).
This specific plan has b een the sub ject of several development/redevelopment projects in recent years. A multi-story parking structure was b uilt adjacent to the office b uilding at 5701 K atella Avenue in 2021. As of the preparation of this IS/ND, 390,268 square feet of light industrial and office space are currently under construction at 5757 Plaz a Drive. This development will replace a 1980s era office b uilding. Additionally, 191,394 square feet of warehouse and office space is proposed to replace the existing 150,626-square-foot five-story office b uilding at 5665 Plaz a Drive.
Cypress View Limited Specific Plan (1985)
The Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, adopted on Novemb er 2, 1985, encompasses an area of
46.91 acres in the southern portion of the City of Cypress, southwest of the intersection of Valley View Street and Cerritos Avenue. This specific plan primarily focuses on a light industrial/office complex, designated as Business Park.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -8 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (2012) This specific plan was originally adopted on April 17, 1990, and sub sequently amended in June 2012 and April 2020. This specific plan permits a range of commercial uses and senior housing and related uses on approximately 183.5 acres on the south side of the City of Cypress. The 2012 amendments to this specific plan clarified that the former Cypress Golf Club property was not retained and included a variety of updated provisions and findings, including the estab lishment of a new planning area (9), which consists of portions of Planning Areas 6, 7, and 8. The 2020 amendment to this specific plan split Planning Area 5 into two sub areas: Planning Area 5A, which remains designated for Professional O ffice uses, and Planning Area 5B, which was designated as Mixed-Use Commercial Residential. The planning area for this specific plan is generally b ounded b y K atella Avenue to the south, and Cerritos Avenue to the north. Walker Street to the east, and Denni Street/Lexington Avenue to the west, excluding those areas which were transferred into the voter-approved Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan in 2018. During the 2018 approval process, it was voted to incorporate the Golf Course (35.7 acres; Planning Area 1) and Race Track (124.7 acres; Planning Area 8) properties into the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan, thereb y removing a total of 160.4 acres from the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan. The existing 2020 amended plan includes 8 planning areas totaling 183 acres. The following land use designations are included within this specific plan along with the planning area in which they are located: Mixed-Use Business Park/General Retail Commercial (2), Mixed Use Business Park (3), Mixed-use Business Park (4), Professional O ffice (5A), Mixed-Use Commercial /Residential (5B), Professional O ffices Hotel and Support Commercial (6), Cottonwood Church (7), and Mixed-Use Commercial/Senior Housing (9).
Recent development within the specific plan includes the O vation at Flora Park senior housing project on the east side of Enterprise Drive, which was completed in 2020. A small commercial center and assisted living facility were b uilt south of O vation in 2022, and the City Center mixed-use project at the northeast corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street is currently under construction.
2.2.3 Land Uses and Z oning
Land uses within the Business Park are designated as Specific Plan Area according to the General Plan Land Use Map, Figure 2-3. The City of Cypress Zoning Map, Figure 2-4, identifies the land within the proposed Business Park Specific Plan as Planned Community Zone and Planned Business Park Zone.
Tab le 2.A shows the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations within the proposed Specific Plan area. Existing land uses within the proposed Specific Plan Area generally consist of commercial, office, and industrial land uses. All of the proposed Specific Plan Area is b uilt out with land uses that are consistent with the land use designations and z oning set forth in the various specific plans as describ ed ab ove.
SOURCE: The City of Cypress 2021
I:\CCP2201.02\G\Existing_Land_Use_Map.ai (2/26/2025)
FIGURE 2-3
Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project Existing Land Use Map
CRESCENT AVE
ti
Cl'.
w
0 ...J
0 I
LINCOLN AVE ___iLc__ LINCOLN AVE
ORANGE AVE
BALL RD
ii ELI-TH ! J----j
~::;: I "'JJE: I t"___j
i
! '
~ t
i .,,._
» • .,. . ~~ ..... 1~ , ,,,~<JO. •
cl BALL RD
I-"' 5
z
~
CERRITOS AVE
! , !l ' I
i r, :tt:t ! =• M"""°"AV ! CAROCIOAC11 CORNEl.l>: elfl ~ CORNEL:::.._ - -- • --- -
® •' E l 000 •• ,.. ~ 11 (~ ~ ;i:=-._
LIJ.iTW1WrurtWLWTWLllWl,t
1 ITTm..LL.Lr1Trnwnmllll1mnlillTTTTUI
1 fl"'l"'miilll""'1I!rummrumm=
i l1tlfflrm.im I
~
:ii-rll'i~iili"ill,;·--!l!iiiii~iiiiPJ :1J UNION PACIFIC ' Ii§ I I I I I ® L---,r-------' ',1' © :-:!.i' , ,• m , I --._ @ .. , "" -~~ /''""" ] I: ® I I ' -00 I , ""·· -- KATELLA AVE ~ ~-----~~---•-~-..,;,', ..... : : ~:_:_:_-:_-!:_-_-_-_-_ _J_ ________ : ____________ : _ ____ / /
UNION PACIFIC
CERRITOS AVE
Specific Plans z
z
w
0 J ,AM," : ~ ... - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,- - - -;- - - - - - - I KATEL~ AVE I t"":.LII '11 -_IT'. • 1S I 1
1 ~-- "'1"•00 l~' @ I -~i i @ l~r :~- ® Lusk Company Industrial Park (PC-1) @ Cypress Corporate Center (PC-2)
© Mc Donnell Center (PC-3)
@
®
®
Warland / Cypress Business Center (PC-4)
Cypress View Limited (PC-5)
Sorrento (PC-25A)
@ Orange Avenue (SP 93-1)
(8) Lincoln Avenue (PC)
CD Grindlay / Orange Avenue (PC-8)
Q) Wicker Drive (PC-9)
®
CD
Centerstone (PC-10)
Cypress Park (PC-11 )
@ Harmony (PC-12)
®
@
Cypress Business & Professional Center (PBP & PS)
MacKay Place (PC-13)
® Cypress Town Center & Commons
Residential:
Low Density (0-5 du/ac)
Medium Density (5.1-15 du/ac)
High Density (15.1-20 du/ac)
Mobile Home Park (0-12 du/ac)
Commercial:
LSA
General Neighborhood (0.5:1 FAR)
Business Park (1.0:1 FAR)
Light Industrial (0.5:1 FAR)
:1:"'-( n
' ~~~~1~ ·
8TA ........... t1
I-"'
~
>
~ ...J
...J
~
., .. 1 .. -, - , i STA MRIWlAAV , -
1 I- ' "' Cl'.
w
0 ...J
0 I
I-"' 5
z
~
+•roo
Community Services and Facilities:
~
-
IIIIIIIIIIIII]
Government
Education Facilities
Public Parks
Golf Course (Privately - Owned)
Race Track (Privately - Owned}
Cemetery (Privately - Owned}
Flood Control Facilities
Rail Road
Specific Plan Area
Specific Plan Boundaries
Parcels Outside the City
City Limits
CITY OF CYPRESS GENERAL PLAN
March, 2021 Land Use Policy Map
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -10 This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE: The City of Cypress 2021
I:\C\CCP2201.02\G\Zoning_Map.ai (2/25/2025)
FIGURE 2-4
Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project Existing Zoning Map
.:?@.3.:9@
6)'/*.'@
1%4@5<4(%7.)9@
@
@
@@
@@
@ @
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54))49.:?@4')4:.=)@$54)@
%73@4.3%2@
=)72%?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54))49.:?@4')4:.=)@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54)%73@4/3%2@
=)71%?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@ .4,2)@%3.2?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@<2:.62)@%3.1?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@<2:.62)@%3.1?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@<2:.62)@%3.1?@$54)%73@4.3%1@
=)72%?@$54)@
)9.()4:.%1@<2:.62)@%3.1?@$54).=.'@)4:)7@53&.4.4,@$54)@ 5&.2)@53)@
%70@$54)@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
+.')@
75*)99.54%2@$54)@
+.')@
75*)99.54%1@ $54).=.'@)4:)7@53&.4.4,@$54)@
533)7'.%2@
).,-&57-55(@$54)@
533)7'.%2@)4)8%2@$54)@
533)7'.%2@)4)8%1@$54).=.'@)4:)7@53&.4.4,@$54)@
533)7'.%2@)%=?@
533)7'.%2@)%=?.4'514@=)4<)@53&.4.4,@$54)@
@
@
<9.4)99@
%70@$54)@
4(<9:7.%2@.,-:@$54)@
@
@
@
@
@
@
2%44)(@ )9.()4:.%1@)=)2563)4:@$54)@
<&1.'@%4(@ )3.6<&1.'@$54)@
<&1.'@%4(@ )3.6<&1.'@ $54).=.'@)4:)7@53&.4.4,@$54)@
2%44)(@<9.4)99@
%70@
2%44)(@533)7'.%1.,-:@4(<9:7.%2@
2%44)(@533<4.;@$54)@
?67)99@!5>4@)4:)7@%4(@533549@
@
<90@536%4?@4(<9:7.%1@
%70@
@
?67)99@57657%:)@)4:)7@
@
'@544)11@)4:)7@
@
#%72%4(@@?67)99@<9.4)99@)4:)7@
@
?68)99@".)>@.3.:)(@
@
577)4:5@
@
7%4,)@=)4<)@
@
@
.4'514@=)4<)@
@
7/4(2%?@@
8%4,)@=)4<)@
@
#.'0)7@7.=)@
@
)4:)89:54)@
@
?67)99@
%70@
@
%7354?@
@
%'0%?@
2%')@
@
DĐŽŶŶĞůůĞŶƚĞƌ
LJƉƌĞƐƐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ
tĂƌůĂŶĚͬLJƉƌĞƐƐ
LJƉƌĞƐƐsŝĞǁ>ŝŵŝƚĞĚ
LJƉƌĞƐƐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĞŶƚĞƌΘ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů
>ƵƐŬͬLJƉƌĞƐƐ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůWĂƌŬ
I I
I I
-
I I
L_J
-- .I
-
L_J
-
-
-
-
-
LSA
-
t=_____:_J
1 CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -12 This page intentionally left blank
2-13
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Table 2.A: Existing Land Use Designations and Z oning
Specific Plan Acreage General Plan
Land Use Specific Plan Land Use Z oning
Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park
Specific Plan (1978) 74.0 Specific Plan Area Mixed-Use Commercial Planned Community Zone PC-1 Cypress Corporate O riginal
and Amended Specific Plan
(1981/1989)
111.0 Specific Plan
Area
Warehouse/Industrial/R&D/Business
Park
Planned Community
Zone PC-2
McDonnell Center
Amended Specific Plan
(1994)
71.23 Specific Plan
Area
Professional O ffice/Commercial,
Industrial/Warehouse
Planned Community
Zone PC-3
Cypress View Limited
Specific Plan (1985) 47.0 Specific Plan Area Business Park/Commercial Planned Community Zone PC-5 Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific
Plan (2012)
137.8 Specific Plan
Area
Mixed-Use Business Park/General Retail
Commercial, Mixed Use Business Park,
Professional O ffice, Mixed-Use
Commercial High-Density Residential,
Professional O ffices Hotel and Support
Commercial, Cottonwood Church,
Mixed-Use Commercial/Senior Housing.
Planned Business
Park PBP
Source: City of Cypress General Plan (2021).
2.3 PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Specific Plan would integrate the five existing specific plans into one comprehensive specific plan for the proposed 439-acre Cypress Business Park Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would update and estab lish land use designations within the new Specific Plan, estab lish a comprehensive set of performance standards where possib le (such as landscaping, signage, and lighting), define and update terminology and land uses, amend the City’s Zoning Code, and develop options to streamline project approval processes and permit flexib ility. New land uses allowed under this Specific Plan Area would b e generally consistent with other existing and permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area.
Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would amend the land use designation on two properties along K atella Avenue within the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Figure 2-5 shows the locations of these properties within the proposed Specific Plan. The first property includes 7.15 acres and is located at the northwest corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street (4955 K atella Avenue).
The primary b uilding on the site is a b ig b ox type structure which accommodates two tenants. O ne half of the b uilding is occupied b y a gym, and the other half of the b uilding is currently vacant (formerly an O ffice Depot). Under the proposed project, the land use designation on this property would b e changed from Professional O ffice and Hotel Support Commercial (PO /HSC) to Mixed-Use Commercial/ Residential (MUC/R) with a High Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), which would allow a residential density of 60 du/ac, and accommodate an estimated 321 residential units. The second property, a 4.10-acre property located at the northeast corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street (adjacent to 4955 K atella Avenue), is currently under construction with a multifamily residential development consisting of an estimated 251 residential units. The land use designation on this
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -14 This page intentionally left blank
FIGURE 2-5
Proposed Residential Zoning
Cypress Business Parks Moderninjation and Integration Project SOURCE: Google Earth 2024
I:ͰCCP2201.02ͰGͰProposedͺDensities.ai (2/26/2025)
FEET
0 250 500
LEGEND
Proposed Residential Zoning (60 units/ac)
Siboney St
Katella Ave
Winners Cir
Bunker Hill Dr
Winners Cir
Tarwa Dr
Ranger Dr
Ticonderoga Dr
Antietam Ave
Kearsarge Ave
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -16 This page intentionally left blank
2-17
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) property would b e changed from Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) to Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) with a High Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), which would increase the permitted residential density allowed on this parcel from 19 du/ac to 60 du/ac, consistent with the net density of the multifamily project b eing constructed on that site. These proposed updates are consistent with the rez oning scenarios identified in the City’s recently adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element.
The 439-acre Business Park Specific Plan Area encompasses the planning areas for each of the five affected specific plans that include a variety of Business Park, Commercial, and Mixed-Use Land Uses.
Although the proposed Specific Plan would update the permitted land uses within the Business Park planning area, these changes would not sub stantially change the existing land use designations or permitted uses within the existing specific plans(refer to Figure 2-6, Updated Land Use Designations).
The main ob jective of the proposed project is to moderniz e the existing specific plans b y providing updated development standards tailored to the current economic climate, ensuring the ongoing success and competitiveness of the Cypress Business Park. The principal discretionary actions required from the City of Cypress to implement the proposed project include the approval of a General Plan Amendment to update land use designations and terminology within the General Plan, repealing and replacing the five existing specific plans with the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan, amendments to the City of Cypress Zoning to Code to add definitions to the Zoning Code, and the adoption of the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan. All future development in the Specific Plan Area would b e required to conform to the proposed Specific Plan.
The proposed specific plan amendments would amend land use designations, update terminology, estab lish new districts, implement performance standards, and streamline approval processes to integrate multiple existing plans into one comprehensive plan for the Cypress Business Park planning area.
2.3.1 Project Background
The proposed project would estab lish a moderniz ed and comprehensive Specific Plan for the use and development of 439 acres within the Cypress Business Park planning area. The proposed Specific Plan would integrate five of Cypress’s existing Business Park Specific Plans, excluding the Warland/Cypress Business Center Specific Plan, into a single Specific Plan. O ne of the primary features of the proposed Specific Plan is to moderniz e five of the existing specific plans within the Cypress Business Park planning area to provide updated development standards that improve the City’s ab ility to regulate land uses within the Business Park. As the first specific plan within the Cypress Business Park planning area was adopted in 1978 (Lusk Specific Plan), and the others were adopted throughout the 1980s and 90s, the majority of the specific plans’ standards, guidelines, and land use regulations are out-ofdate. Examples of these outdated standards include:
• Non-compliance of landscape requirements with the current State and Golden State Water drought restrictions and water conservation laws.
• Municipal Code inconsistencies (specifically within the McDonnell Center Specific Plan). • O utdated and undefined uses, including rub b er stamp manufacturing, lithography, and animal feather processing.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -18 This page intentionally left blank
LEGEND
Specific Plan Area
Cottonwood Church
Mixed-Use Commercial / High Density Residential
Mixed-Use Commercial / Senior Housing
Professional Office / Hotel and Support Commercial Business Park Commercial
Professional Office
Mixed-Use Business Park
Mixed Use Business Park / General Retail Commercial
N OT TO SCALE
FIGURE 2-6
I:ͰCCP2201.02ͰGͰLandͺUse.ai (2/26/2025)
Updated Land Use Designations
Cypress Business Parks Moderninjation and Integration Project Cottonwood
Church
Mixed-Use Commercial /
Senior Housing
Mixed-Use
Business Park
Mixed Use
Business Park /
General Retail
Commercial
Mixed-Use
Business Park
Professional
Office
Commercial
Business
Park
Business
Park
Business
Park
Business
Park Commercial Professional Office /
Hotel and Support Commercial
Business
Park
Business
Park
Commercial
Business
Park
Business
Park
Commercial
Cottonwood
Church
Mixed-Use Commercial /
Senior Housing
Mixed-Use
Business Park
Mixed Use
Business Park /
General Retail
Commercial
Mixed-Use
Business Park
Professional
Professional Office / Office
Hotel and Support Commercial
Mixed-Use Commercial /
High Density Residential
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -20 This page intentionally left blank
2-21
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Although the proposed project would integrate five existing specific plans, none of these plans would fundamentally change. As the plans were created b efore any of the business parks were b uilt, the proposed Cypress Business Park Specific Plan would ensure each of the existing specific plan’s continued utility b y adapting and moderniz ing the plans to respond to the City of Cypress’s evolving local economy. While the proposed project would amend the land use designation on two properties to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, this amendment would reflect the existing land uses within the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan Area. Permitted uses within the existing specific plans would not b e sub stantially changed as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. The Updated Permitted Use Tab le can b e found in Appendix A.
2.4 AUTHORITY AN D SCOPE
This Specific Plan has b een 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 b y the general plan. Pursuant to Section 65451 of the Government Code, a specific plan is designed to identify the proposed distrib ution, location, and extent of land uses and major components of pub lic and private facilities needed to support those land uses, as well as standards and criteria b y which development will proceed and a program of implementation measures necessary to carry out contemplated development.
2.4.1 Discretionary Actions
Tab le 2.B, b elow, outlines the discretionary approvals required for the proposed project.
Table 2.B: N on-Discretionary Permits/Approvals
Discretionary Action Agency Responsible
General Plan Amendment:
Amend text to remove references to all Specific Plans that will b e repealed.
Amend the General Plan Land Use Map to remove references to all Specific Plans that will b e repealed.
Cypress City Council
Specific Plan Amendments:
Repeal the Lusk Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan, the Cypress Corporate Center Master Plan, the Cypress Corporate Center Amended Specific Plan, the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan, the Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, Amended, and the Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan, and the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan Amendment 19-1; and replace with the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan.
Cypress City Council
Zoning O rdinance Text Amendment:
Amendments to parking standards in the Zoning Code to align with the CBPSP.
Add definitions to the Zoning Code.
Minor amendments to other sections of the Zoning Code, as needed.
Cypress City Council
Adoption of the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan Cypress City Council Adoption of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration Cypress City Council Source: Compiled b y LSA (2024).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
2 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -22 The following provides a description of the City’s primary discretionary approvals for the proposed project.
Adoption of the Specific Plan
Adoption of the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan would b e conducted pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code. As part of this review, the City would consider whether the proposed project is in compliance with State law (Section 65580–65589.8 of the Government Code) requirements.
Adoption of Final IS/ND
The City Council would confirm that the Final IS/ND addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and that no mitigation measures are required to address any potentially significant effects.
O ther Pub lic Agencies Whose Approval is Required
O ther Pub lic agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) for the proposed Cypress Business Park Specific Plan include the O range County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The ALUC would need to provide a determination that the proposed project is consistent with the A irport Env irons L and U se Pl an f or J oint Forces T raining B ase – L os A l am itos.
3-1
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 202 5
CYPRESS BUSINESS P ARKS MODERNIZATION AND INTEGRATION
P ROJECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CYPRESS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRODUCTS\IS\Public\2025\Cypress Business Parks Modernization and Integration Project IS_ND.docx (03/12/25)
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist in Chapter 4.0.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.1 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Alicia Velasco
2025.03.13
10:26:28 -07'00'
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
3 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 This page intentionally left blank
4-1
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.0 EVALUATION OF EN VIRON MEN TAL IMPACTS
1) A b rief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported b y the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture z one). A “No Impact” answer should b e explained where it is b ased on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, b ased on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) O nce the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is sub stantial evidence that an effect may b e significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describ e the mitigation measures, and b riefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as describ ed in (5) b elow, may b e cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may b e used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has b een adequately analyz ed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a b rief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are availab le for review. b ) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the ab ove checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyz ed in an earlier document pursuant to applicab le legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b y mitigation measures b ased on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describ e the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, z oning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is sub stantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should b e attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should b e cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b ) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 4-3
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Except as provided in Pub lic Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a sub stantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b ) Sub stantially damage scenic resources, including, b ut not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic b uildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urb aniz ed areas, sub stantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of pub lic views of the site and its surroundings? (Pub lic views are those that are experienced from a pub licly accessib le vantage point.) If the project is in an urb aniz ed area, would the project conflict with
applicab le z oning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of sub stantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
4.1.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? N o Impact. The City of Cypress is in the northwestern area of O range County, b ordered b y the cities of Los Alamitos to the west, Buena Park to the north, and Anaheim to the east. The Specific Plan Area is in a highly urb aniz ed and b uilt-out area in the southern portion of the City of Cypress. No existing properties within the proposed Specific Plan would provide sub stantial views of any waterb odies, mountains, hilltops, or any other significant visual resources. Moreover, the City of Cypress does not specifically designate scenic vistas or scenic resources in the City of Cypress General Plan (2000) or the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2000).
The proposed Specific Plan would integrate and update the City of Cypress’s five existing Specific Plans into a single specific plan. This comprehensive Specific Plan would update and estab lish land use designations within the new Specific Plan, estab lish a comprehensive set of performance standards where possib le (such as landscaping, signage, and lighting), define and update terminology, amend the City’s Zoning Code, and develop options to streamline project approval processes and permit flexib ility. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning code would b e minor administrative changes that are intended to reflect the existing land uses in certain areas of the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan would not include physical development or any specific development or redevelopment.
The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, have a sub stantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, since it does not entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehab ilitation of existing development. The proposed land use and zoning changes would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to scenic vistas and the land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan Area would b e generally consistent with other existing and
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -4 permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area. As result of the proposed project, the existing setb acks would b e modified; however, the proposed project would not change the maximum b uilding heights, maximum b uildab le floor area or amend the floor-area ratio (FAR) within the Specific Plan Area. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines, therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? N o Impact. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program protects the natural scenic b eauty of the State’s highways and corridors through its designated scenic highways throughout the State. Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other pub lic right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. O ther considerations given to a scenic highway designation include how much of the natural landscape a traveler may see and the extent to which visual intrusions degrade the scenic corridor.
The Specific Plan Area is not in the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway or adjacent to an officially designated State Scenic Highway. Further, the proposed Specific Plan would not include any specific development or redevelopment. Accordingly, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts to scenic resources. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to scenic resources, and no mitigation is required.
c) In non-urbaniz ed areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbaniz ed area, would the project conflict with applicable z oning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the United States Census Bureau, the City of Cypress is within the Los Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urb aniz ed Area.1 As describ ed in State CEQ A G uidel ines Section 15387 and defined b y the United States Census Bureau, an “urb aniz ed area” is a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more people, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.2 Because the City is in an urb aniz ed area, the proposed Specific Plan Area is also within an 1 United States Census Bureau. 2010a. Los Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urb aniz ed Area No. 51445.
Web site: https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_ RefMap/ua/ua51445_ los_ angeles--long_ b each--anaheim_ ca/DC10UA51445_ 000.pdf (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023). 2 United States Census Bureau. 2010b . Census Urb an Area FAQs. Web site: https://www.census.gov/ programs-surveys/geography/ab out/faq/2010-urb an-area-faq.html (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023). 4-5
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) urb aniz ed area. Further, surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area are representative of urb an densities.
The proposed Specific Plan Area is comprised of five of the City’s Specific Plan Areas, including PC-1, PC-2, PC-3, and PC-5 and is currently z oned Planned Business Park (PBP), and Planned Community (PC). The proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts to existing visual character or quality of pub lic views, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. As stated ab ove in Response 4.1.1(a), the proposed Specific Plan would integrate five existing specific plans into a single comprehensive specific plan, incorporating a comprehensive set of performance standards, updated terminology and land use definitions, and clear and uniform entitlement and permitting requirements consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could potentially alter existing development patterns in the City b y allowing higher density residential development or redevelopment on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan. As detailed in the Cypress Municipal Code, future development must comply with the City’s residential z oning district requirements, which were promulgated for the purpose of reducing impacts on scenic resources, among other things. As stated ab ove in Response 4.1.1(a), the proposed project would not change the maximum b uilding heights, maximum b uildab le floor area or amend the FAR within the Specific Plan Area. New land uses allowed within the Specific Plan Area would b e generally consistent with other existing and permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area.
Any new development within the proposed Specific Plan Area would b e required to b e in scale with existing development and adjacent uses, which are primarily commercial, and institutional uses. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of pub lic views and impacts would b e less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
N o Impact. As describ ed ab ove, the proposed Specific Plan does not propose physical development or include any specific development or redevelopment proposals. The proposed Specific Plan would estab lish comprehensive performance standards, such as landscaping, signage, and lighting guidelines that are intended to encourage safety and accessib ility within the Specific Plan Area, while minimiz ing light pollution and unwanted glare. The proposed Specific Plan would not in and of itself create sources of sub stantial light or glare that adversely affect views, as it does not include physical development. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform to applicab le City standards, lighting standards, and criteria including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not create new sources of sub stantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views, and no mitigation is required.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -6
4.2 AGRICULTURE AN D FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b ) Conflict with existing z oning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing z oning for, or cause rez oning of, forest land (as defined in Pub lic Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timb erland (as defined b y Pub lic Resources Code Section 4526), or timb erland z oned Timb erland Production (as defined b y Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
4.2.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? N o Impact. No land within the City of Cypress is z oned for agricultural uses or designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Important on maps prepared as part of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program b y the California Department of Conservation (DO C). As of 2018, all land within the City was designated as “Urb an and Built Up Land.”3 The proposed Specific Plan would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. Further, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts to agricultural resources, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. As such, future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to the conversion of farmland, and no mitigation is required. 3 California Department of Conservation (DO C). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Web site:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed August 7, 2023). 4-7
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) b) Would the project conflict with existing z oning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
N o Impact. There is no land within the Specific Plan Area that is z oned for agricultural uses. Further, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts to agricultural resources, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. New land uses permitted within the Specific Plan Area would b e generally consistent with other existing and permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area and would not result in any conflicts with the existing z oning.
The proposed project would not affect Williamson Act contract lands b ecause there is no land under a Williamson Act Contract within the City4
nor would the project convert farmland to a nonagricultural use. As such, any future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to conflicts with existing z oning for agricultural use or conflicts with a Williamson Act contract, and no mitigation is required.
c) Would the project conflict with existing z oning for, or cause rez oning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland z oned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
N o Impact. There is no land z oned as forest land or timb erland within the City, and forest land and timb erland do not exist within the City. Further, the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to forest land or timb erland, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposals. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to conflicts with existing z oning for, or cause rez oning of, forest land, timb erland, or timb erland z oned Timb erland Production, and no mitigation is required. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
N o Impact. As stated ab ove in Response 4.2.1(c), there is no forest land in the City of Cypress, including within the proposed Specific Plan Area. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland for non-forest uses, and no mitigation is required.
4 California Department of Conservation (DO C). 2018. O range County Important Farmland 2018.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -8 e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
N o Impact. The City does not contain any Farmland, nor does it contain any forest land. The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in changes in the existing environment which could result in the conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposals. As such, any future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to the conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural uses or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and no mitigation is required.
4-9
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.3 AIR Q UALITY
Where availab le, the significance criteria estab lished b y the applicab le air quality management district or air pollution control district may b e relied upon to make the following determinations.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or ob struct implementation of the applicab le air quality plan?
b ) Result in a cumulatively considerab le net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicab le federal or state amb ient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to sub stantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a sub stantial numb er of people?
4.3.1 Impact Analysis
The Specific Plan Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the Basin. The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act mandate the control and reduction of specific air pollutants, referred to as “criteria pollutants.” Under these laws, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have estab lished the National Amb ient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Amb ient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), respectively, for specific “criteria” pollutants, designed to protect pub lic health and welfare. NAAQS have b een estab lished for six criteria pollutants, including oz one (O3), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), carb on monoxide (CO ), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. CAAQS have b een estab lished for these same pollutants, as well as sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride, and visib ility reducing particulates (VSP). The NAAQS/CAAQS estab lish thresholds identifying safe levels for each criteria pollutant that avoid specific adverse health and environmental effects.
Areas that meet the NAAQS/CAAQS are designated as b eing in attainment. Areas that do not meet the NAAQS/CAAQS are designated as b eing in nonattainment. Finally, areas that were once in nonattainment of the NAAQS b ut have since achieved attainment are describ ed as b eing in maintenance. Under the federal Clean Air Act, states are required to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPs) (Air Quality Management Plans [AQMPs] are components of SIPs) for areas in nonattainment, demonstrating how attainment will b e achieved. The California Clean Air Act requires air quality management districts to prepare air quality plans for achieving the CAAQS, as well as authoriz ing them to estab lish transportation control measures for reduction of emissions. The Basin is in nonattainment of the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5. In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment of the State standard for PM10. To meet these standards, the SCAQMD has estab lished
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -10 project-level thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VO Cs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) (precursors to O3) and PM2.5.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. An AQMP describ es air pollution control strategies to b e undertaken b y a city or county in a region classified as a nonattainment area to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. The main purpose of an AQMP is to b ring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State amb ient air quality standards (AAQS). The applicab le air quality plan is the SCAQMD’s adopted 2022 AQMP. The AQMP is b ased on regional growth projections developed b y the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Consistency with the 2022 AQMP for the Basin would b e achieved if a project is consistent with the goals, ob jectives, and assumptions in the AQMP that were designed to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Per SCAQMD’s CEQ A A ir Q ual ity H andb ook (April 1993, currently b eing revised), there are two main indicators of a project’s consistency with the applicab le AQMP: (1) whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contrib ute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the 2022 AQMP; and (2) whether the project would exceed the 2022 AQMP’s assumptions for the final year for the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion 1. Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the CAAQS and NAAQS.
CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if localiz ed significance thresholds or regional significance thresholds are exceeded. As evaluated b elow in Response 4.3.1(b ), the proposed Specific Plan would notsub stantially change the range of land uses permitted within the Specific Plan Area. New land uses allowed within the Specific Plan Area would b e generally consistent with other existing and permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in construction or operational impacts, and the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion. O n the b asis of the preceding discussion, the proposed Specific Plan is determined to b e consistent with the first criterion.
Consistency Criterion 2. The SCAQMD’s CEQ A A ir Q ual ity H andb ook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must b e analyz ed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities. The proposed project would not make sub stantial changes to the General Plan land use designations within the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the change in residential density is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units. Since the proposed Specific Plan would not require physical development, the proposed Specific Plan is not defined as significant for the purposes of the AQMP consistency analysis. 4-11
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) The proposed project includes updates to the land use designations within the new Specific Plan, the estab lishment of a comprehensive set of performance standards (such as landscaping, signage, and lighting), definitions and updates of terminology, amendments to the City’s Zoning Code and, options to streamline project approval processes and permit flexib ility. The proposed land use designation changes would allow residential development to occur on the property at the northwest corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street. The land use designation on this property would b e updated from Professional O ffice and Hotel Support Commercial (PO /HSC) to Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) with a High-Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), allowing for a residential density of 60 du/ac. The land use designation on the second property at the northeast corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street would b e updated from Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) to MixedUse Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) with a High-Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), increasing the permitted density from 19 du/ac to 60 du/ac to reflect the existing residential density on the affected parcel.
Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not implementsub stantial changes to the General Plan land use designations within the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units.
According to the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), the average household siz e 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. Because the proposed z oning amendments would allow for higher density housing, 1.99 persons per household was deemed appropriate for use in the analysis contained in this IS/ND. Therefore, the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 321 dwelling units, with a corresponding net increase of approximately 639 persons.
5 The proposed Specific Plan is intended to guide the development of future projects within the City of Cypress and does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Future residential development allowed under the proposed z oning amendment would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainab le Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or the AQMP. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to a conflict or ob struction of implementation of applicab le air quality plans. No mitigation is required. 5 321 households x 1.99 persons per household = 639 persons
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -12 b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Basin is currently designated as b eing in nonattainment of the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5. In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the PM10 State standard. The Basin’s nonattainment status is attrib uted to the region’s development history.
Past, present, and future development projects contrib ute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative b asis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in siz e to, b y itself, result in nonattainment of amb ient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contrib ute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contrib ution to the cumulative impact is considerab le, then the project’s impact on air quality would b e considered significant.
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would b e cumulatively considerab le. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would b e cumulatively considerab le, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to air quality as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development under the Specific Plan may include a variety of grading, construction, and demolition activities, and could thereb y result in the generation of short-term construction emissions. Short-term construction emissions may include the release of particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated b y excavating, paving, and b uilding activities. Short-term construction emissions from construction equipment may also include CO , NOX, VO Cs, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants(TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. The SCAQMD has estab lished Rule 403 for fugitive dust, which would require the Applicant to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter generated during the construction period such as the watering of sites, coverage of all trucks hauling loose materials, and the reduction of traffic speeds on unpaved roads.
Long-term operational emissions are associated with any change in permanent use of a project site b y on-site stationary and off-site mob ile sources that sub stantially increases emissions. Stationarysource emissions include emissions associated with electricity consumption and natural gas usage.
Mob ile-source emissions typically result from vehicle trips associated with a project. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code.
Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with all applicab le air quality and City standards, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to sub stantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
4-13
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not, in and of itself entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehab ilitation of existing development. The proposed project would update the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac and accommodate the development of up to 321 residential dwelling units. Any future developments that would create short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction, such as dust generated b y clearing and grading activities, exhaust emissions from gas- and diesel-powered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of construction workers would b e sub ject to localiz ed significance thresholds determined b y the SCAQMD for central O range County.
Further, the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, expose sensitive receptors to sub stantial pollutant concentrations, as it does not propose any physical development. Any future developments would b e required to conform with all applicab le air quality standards, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines and would require further evaluation at the project level to demonstrate whether emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s Localiz ed Significance Thresholds (LSTs) and require project-specific mitigation. In addition, Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) AQ-1 through RCM AQ-4 would b e required for construction of future projects to ensure compliance with SCAQMD standard conditions, including Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to control fugitive dust and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to control VO C emissions from paint.
Furthermore, any necessary mitigation would b e imposed at the project level once such future projects are proposed. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to sub stantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to air quality. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-1 SCAQ MD Rule 403. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall b e controlled b y regular watering or
other dust preventative measures b y using the following procedures, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during
construction. The applicab le Rule 403 measures are as
follows:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stab iliz ers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -14 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 b e 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
freeb oard (vertical space b etween the top of the
load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section
23114.
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet (30
meters) onto the site from the main road.
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15
miles per hour or less.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-2 State Vehicle Code Section 23114. 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 pub lic streets and roads.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-3 SCAQ MD Rule 1113. Prior to approval of future project plans and specifications, the City of Cypress shall confirm that the construction b id 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 b e utiliz ed have a
volatile organic compound content lower than
required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; and
• To the extent feasib le, construction/b uilding
materials shall b e composed of pre-painted
materials.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-4 SCAQ MD Rule 402. Future projects shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 prohib its the discharge of
air contaminants or other material from any type of
operations, which can cause nuisance or annoyance to
4-15
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) any considerab le numb er of people or to the pub lic or which endangers the comfort or repose of any such
persons, or the pub lic.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-5 Energy Code and Title 24. All future projects shall comply with the latest Energy Code and Title 24 solar
requirements for new residential development.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. During construction of potential development/redevelopment projects within the proposed Specific Plan, diesel-operated machinery likely would b e used in grading and b uilding operations; this would result in short-term exposure of immediately adjacent areas to diesel odors. However, these odors would b e transient and would not b e anticipated to result in a sub stantial nuisance. In addition, the development of high-density residential uses on the properties affected b y the proposed land use designation change would b e required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohib its the discharge of air contaminants or other material which “cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerab le numb er of persons or to the pub lic… ” Examples of odorgenerating projects are wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid-waste transfer stations, fib erglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto b ody shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt b atch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units.
Residential land uses on the properties affected b y the proposed land use designation change could result in generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment. However, unlike the odorgenerating land uses identified ab ove, these are not considered potential generators of odor that could affect a sub stantial numb er of people.
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would b e temporary and intermittent. Additionally, noxious odors would b e confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment and unlikely to affect a sub stantial numb er of people. In addition, b y the time such emissions reached any sensitive receptor sites, they would b e diluted to well b elow any level of air quality concern. Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Any impacts identified from development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e addressed through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402. As such, future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with all applicab le City standards and criteria including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -16 provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to other emissions (such as those leading to odors), and no mitigation is required.
4-17
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a sub stantial adverse effect, either directly or through hab itat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or b y the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b ) Have a sub stantial adverse effect on any riparian hab itat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or b y the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a sub stantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, b ut not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere sub stantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
estab lished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting b iological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Hab itat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state hab itat
conservation plan?
4.4.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan does not include any physical development.
Any future development under this Specific Plan would b e required to conform with all applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.
Future developments contemplated under the proposed Specific Plan would b e situated in a developed setting with no connections to contiguous native hab itats, aquatic resource areas (such as rivers or riparian corridors), or sensitive natural communities. Project proponents shall have a qualified b iologist conduct a preconstruction nesting b ird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities. However, structures and vegetation within and surrounding the Specific Plan Area could provide suitab le nesting hab itat for a variety of native resident and migratory b ird species,
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -18 including raptors such as Cooper’s hawk (A ccipiter cooperii). Nesting b irds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (Title 33, United States Code, Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code.
To ensure compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, preconstruction nesting b ird surveys will b e conducted prior to any vegetation clearing or initial ground disturb ance activities planned to occur during the nesting b ird season (Feb ruary 1 through August 31). Therefore, if future project construction occurs b etween Feb ruary 1 and August 31, a qualified b iologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting b ird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities.
With successful implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) BIO-1, as detailed b elow, impacts to nesting b irds would b e avoided. No other special-status or otherwise protected species would b e impacted.
As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting b iological resources, such as trees, and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to b iological resources. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 N esting Bird Survey and Avoidance. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting b ird season (Feb ruary 1 through August 31), the City of Cypress (City) Community Development Department, or designee, shall confirm
that the future Applicant has retained a qualified
b iologist who shall conduct a preconstruction nesting
b ird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities. The nesting b ird survey shall include the work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as feasib le) that could potentially b e affected b y projectrelated activities such as noise, vib ration, increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s)
identified, the qualified b iologist shall estab lish an appropriate b uffer z one around the active nest(s). The appropriate b uffer shall b e determined b y the qualified b iologist b ased on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall b e avoided within the b uffer z one until the nest is deemed no longer active, as determined b y the qualified b iologist.
4-19
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? N o Impact. The proposed Specific Plan Area is situated in a developed setting with no connections to contiguous native hab itats, aquatic resource areas (such as rivers or riparian corridors), or sensitive natural communities. The Specific Plan Area is currently developed and located in an urb an area.
There are no natural streams or riparian hab itat present within the Specific Plan Area. The closest critical hab itat in proximity to the proposed Specific Plan Area is a minimum of 2.0 miles to the northwest of the proposed planning area. No riparian hab itat or sensitive natural communities, as identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or b y the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), exist within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impact any riparian hab itat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or b y the CDFW or USFWS. No mitigation is required.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
N o Impact. The Specific Plan Area is situated in a developed setting with no connections to contiguous native hab itats, aquatic resource areas (such as rivers or riparian corridors), or sensitive natural communities. The Specific Plan Area is located within an urb aniz ed area and does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined b y Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have no impacts on federally protected wetlands, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan does not include any physical development.
Any future development under this Specific Plan would b e required to conform with all applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
The Specific Plan Area is situated in a developed setting with no connections to contiguous native hab itats, aquatic resource areas (such as rivers or riparian corridors), or sensitive natural communities. The Specific Plan Area is currently developed and located in an urb an area. Due to the surrounding urb an development, the Specific Plan Area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Wildlife movement and hab itat fragmentation would not occur as a result of Specific Plan implementation as the Specific Plan Area is largely developed and surrounded b y existing urb an/ sub urb an development. Species that are found on site either fly onto the site or are ab le to navigate on the ground through long stretches of urb an development. Therefore, the Specific Plan Area does not contain any native resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, or wildlife corridors. In addition, no
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -20 portion of the Specific Plan Area or the immediately surrounding areas contains an open b ody of water that serves as natural hab itat in which fish could exist. The lack of ground cover and suitab le foraging hab itat make the proposed Specific Plan Area undesirab le for many local wildlife species. Impacts would b e less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to protected b iological resources, such as those under a tree preservation policy or ordinance as the proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le local policies and ordinances protecting b iological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, as detailed b elow. Additionally, the project would b e required to conform with all applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
The Landmark Tree O rdinance in the City’s Municipal Code protects designated landmark trees that are specifically identified in the City of Cypress’s Inventory of Landmark Trees (July 1996). As shown in this inventory there are landmark trees located within the Specific Plan Area. Adherence to RCM BIO-2 would ensure that any removal of on-site trees as part of the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Landmark Tree O rdinance.
Per Article IV of the Municipal Code, Street Trees, any tree within the pub lic right-of-way b elongs to the City of Cypress. Any work to street trees conducted as part of the proposed project would b e done in accordance with the City Council’s adopted Parkway Tree Policy. The City has not adopted any other policies or ordinances protecting b iological resources.
Therefore, compliance with RCM BIO-2 would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan would comply with all local policies and ordinances relating to tree protection, and it would not result in any conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting b iological resources. Impacts would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to b iological resources. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-2 Landmark Tree Removal. The Director of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or
designee, shall review and approve the removal of any
trees required b y future development associated with
the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and
4-21
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Integration Project. As specified in City Municipal Code Section 17-19, the property owner of a landmark tree
shall sub mit a written request for review and
consideration of the landmark tree removal and
replacement plan at least 30 days prior to said removal.
Pub lic notice of a proposed landmark tree removal shall b e posted next to or on the sub ject landmark tree, at the local pub lic lib rary, and at the Cypress City Hall during the entire 30-day application-processing period. No trees on the proposed project site shall b e removed prior to the approval of a landmark tree removal permit b y the
Director of the City of Cypress Community Development
Department, or designee.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, N atural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
N o Impact. The City is not currently participating in a Hab itat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other hab itat conservation plan. The O range County Transportation Authority’s (O CTA) 2016 Natural Community Conservation Plan/Hab itat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) includes a Plan Area that covers the entirety of O range County, including Cypress. The City is not a party to the O CTA NCCP/HCP, and development activity within the City is not sub ject to the provisions of the O CTA NCCP/HCP. Furthermore, the Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposals. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with the approved local, regional, or State hab itat conservation plans and all applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code.
As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to conflicts with any adopted conservation plans or other approved local, regional, or State hab itat conservation plans, and no mitigation is required.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -22
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a sub stantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b ) Cause a sub stantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
4.5.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
N o Impact. The Cypress General Plan Conservation/O pen Space/Recreation Element addresses the long-range conservation, preservation, and enhancement of Cypress's open space and natural environment. The City of Cypress has no known historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources.
Further, the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to historical resources, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposals. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts to historic resources or cause a sub stantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQ A G uidel ines, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated ab ove in Response 4.5.1(a), the proposed project does not include physical development. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan may have the potential to impact archeological resources; any evidence of cultural resources that might b e unearthed in the process of construction would b ecome immediate grounds for the halting of all construction until the extent and significance of any find is properly catalogued and evaluated b y archaeological and cultural resource authorities recogniz ed as having competence b y the State of California. Future development would likely include demolition, site preparation/grading activities, during which there is the potential to encounter unknown cultural resources. In the event that historical or archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, operations shall cease, and Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) CUL-1 will b e implemented. With the implementation of RCM CUL-1, project impacts to archaeological resources would b e less than significant.
4-23
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to cultural resources. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during
excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified
archaeologist from the O range 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 Pub lic 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 b e 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 ab ove.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated ab ove in Response 4.5.1(a), the proposed project does not include physical development. However, as describ ed previously, there is the potential to encounter unknown cultural resources within the Specific Plan Area during grading and construction operations.
Disturb ing human remains could violate the State’s Health and Safety Code, as well as destroy the resource. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during future construction, the proper authorities would b e notified, and standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains during the earthmoving activities would b e adhered to. Construction contractors are required to adhere to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097, and Section 7050.5 of the State’s Health and Safety Code. To ensure proper treatment of b urials in the event of an unanticipated discovery of a b urial, human b one, or suspected human b one, the law requires that all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find halt immediately, the area of the find b e protected, and the contractor immediately notify the County Coroner of the find.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -24 The contractor, the Applicant, and the County Coroner are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and Section 7050.5 of the State’s Health and Safety Code. Compliance with these provisions (specified in RCM CUL-2), would ensure that any potential impacts to unknown b uried human remains would b e less than significant b y ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains as required b y State law.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to cultural resources. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-2 Human Remains. In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall b e 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 disturb ance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to b e 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 b y the NAHC.
The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American b urials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to b e Native American and an MLD is notified, the City of Cypress shall consult with the MLD as identified b y 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
ab ove.
4-25
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.6 EN ERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? b ) Conflict with or ob struct a state or local plan for renewab le energy or energy efficiency?
4.6.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not, in and of itself, entitle, propose, or otherwise require the construction of new development or rehab ilitation of existing development.
The proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units.
Electrical and natural gas demand associated with project operations would not b e considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with or ob struct a State or local plan for renewab le energy or energy efficiency. All future residential development would b e required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the latest Title 24 standards. Title 24 b uilding energy efficiency standards estab lish minimum efficiency standards related to various b uilding features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, b uilding insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage.
Although the proposed project has the potential to result in an increase in demand for electricity, this increase would not require Southern California Edison (SCE) to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause sub stantial environmental impacts b ecause all of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change are already served b y utilities or directly adjacent to existing urb an development. Similarly, natural gas infrastructure is not anticipated due to cumulative development. Transportation energy use would also increase; however, this transportation energy use would not represent a major amount of energy use when compared to the amount of existing development and to the total numb er of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) throughout O range County and the region. Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) EN-1, provided b elow, which would reduce energy usage during construction through reducing truck idling times. With
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -26 implementation of RCM EN-1, impacts to energy resources under the proposed Specific Plan would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
As stated ab ove, the 4.10-acre property located adjacent to 4955 K atella Avenue at the northeast corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street, which would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change, is currently developed at 60 du/ac. The other 7.15-acre property located at the northwest corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street (4955 K atella Avenue) has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units. As such, the future b uild-out of the 321 residential units on 4944 K atella Avenue that would b e allowed under the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to energy resources.
The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure EN -1 Limit Idling Time. The Applicant and construction contractor would b e required to comply with applicab le idling regulations for on-road vehicles during project
construction and operation, which require truck drivers to turn off their engines within 5 minutes of idling.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated ab ove, the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, conflict with State or local plans for renewab le energy, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. While the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan has the potential to increase the demand for energy through day-to-day operations and fuel consumption associated with construction activities due to the increase in residential densities, the anticipated energy usage would b e temporary in nature and would b e relatively small in comparison to the overall use in O range County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would b e relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County, and the State’s availab le energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would b e negligib le. Additionally, future developments underthe proposed Specific Plan would b e required to ob tain permits and comply with federal, State, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Federal and State energy regulations, such as the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 6), the California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and Senate Bill 743 transportation-related impact analysis requirements would also b e imposed through future development permit review to minimiz e future energy consumption. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and 4-27
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) unnecessary consumption of energy. Any potential impacts related to conflict with or ob struction of a State or local plan for renewab le energy or energy efficiency would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -28
4.7 GEOLOGY AN D SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential sub stantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued b y the State Geologist for the area or b ased on other sub stantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Pub lication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b ) Result in sub stantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstab le, or that would b ecome unstab le as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, sub sidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Tab le 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub stantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapab le of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not availab le for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4.7.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Z oning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
Less Than Significant Impact. As describ ed in the City of Cypress General Plan Safety Element, no active or potentially active faults have b een identified within the City. However, like all of Southern California, the City is within a seismically active region. Haz ards relating to seismic events, including ground shaking and liquefaction, could endanger structures and people within the area. The proposed Specific Plan Area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the California Geological Survey’s EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Haz ards Zone Application (EQ Zapp web -b ased application), the Los Alamitos Fault, the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Puente Hills Thrust Fault System, the Lower Elysian Park Thrust, and the Whittier Fault Zones are within a 15-mile radius of the proposed Specific Plan Area, respectively.
4-29
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) The proposed project would not, in and of itself, result in impacts from the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as it does include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. The proposed Specific Plan would make possib le new residential development that could potentially directly or indirectly cause potential sub stantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. As sub sequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur, potential projectspecific impacts would b e assessed, and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Some of the infill and redevelopment projects may qualify for CEQA exemptions, provided that they meet the requisite conditions set forth in State CEQ A G uidel ines Sections 15300-15332. Future development projects envisioned under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City policies estab lished in the Safety Element and the current b uilding codes. Furthermore, all future projects would b e required to prepare a Final Geotechnical Report that would provide site-specific geotechnical recommendations for proposed residential b uildings, including pad compaction levels, foundation requirements, wall footing design parameters, and myriad other recommendations to ensure all b uildings are constructed to appropriate engineering requirements. Following these requirements would further minimiz e or reduce potential safety risks.
Because of the distance to the nearest fault, the proposed project would neither negate nor supersede the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, nor would the proposed project expose people or structures to potentially sub stantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated ab ove in Response 4.7.1(a)(i), all of Southern California is a seismically active region. There are several faults in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area that are capab le of producing strong ground motion, including the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Norwalk Fault, the Whittier-Elsinore Fault, the Elysian Park Fault, and the San Andreas Fault. During an earthquake along any of these faults or other faults in the region, seismically induced ground shaking would b e expected to occur. The degree of seismic ground shaking would depend on several factors, including the fault location, its distance from the City, and the earthquake magnitude. Regardless of seismic activity anticipated to occur on site, all future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would b e designed in accordance with California Building Code (CBC) requirements that address structural seismic safety.
As such, any future individual projects under the Specific Plan would b e required to b e consistent with City policies estab lished in the Safety Element and would b e required to b e compliant with the current California Building Code Compliance Seismic Standards. Furthermore, the Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Additionally, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) GEO-1, b elow, any new b uildings within the proposed Specific
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -30 Plan Area would b e sub ject to the seismic design criteria of the most current CBC requirements that aim to prevent b uilding collapse and reduce the impacts of seismic ground shaking. Adherence to these requirements would address injury and loss of life and b uilding damage after an earthquake.
Therefore, with the implementation of RCM GEO-1, impacts related to seismic ground shaking would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to geology and soils. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 Compliance with Seismic and Building Standards in the Building Code. Prior to issuance of a b uilding permit, the City of Cypress (City) Engineer, Building O fficial, or their designee, and the project soils engineer shall review the b uilding plans to verify that the structural design
conforms to the requirements of the City’s latest
adopted edition of the California Building Standards
Code. Structures and walls shall b e designed in
accordance with applicab le sections of the City’s Building Code.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced b y earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless and low plastic soils. These soils may thereb y acquire a high degree of mob ility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand b oils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only b elow the water tab le, b ut after liquefaction has developed, the effects can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.
The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain siz e, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and b oth intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptib le to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fine content under low confining pressures and some low plastic silts and clays.
As stated in the General Plan EIR (2001), the City of Cypress is underlain b y soils that contain alluvium that may b ecome unstab le during intense ground shaking resulting in potential liquefaction; further, the Specific Plan Area, according to the California Geological Survey’s EQ Zapp, is in a Liquefaction Haz ards Zone of required investigations. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to b e consistent with City policies estab lished in the Safety Element and existing codes.
Adherence to the recommendations of a project-specific geotechnical report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design per current b uilding codes, would also b e required 4-31
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) for new development projects. Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and no mitigation is required. iv. Landslides?
N o Impact. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element (2001), the City does not contain any significant topographic features. The Specific Plan Area and the surrounding areas are flat with no unusual geographic features. Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to geology and soils, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to adhere to current b uilding codes and regulations for b uilding designs including the applicab le City standards. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Soil erosion occurs when topsoil is carried away b y the physical forces of wind and water and is relocated to an area where it b uilds up over time. Although the proposed project does not involve physical development, during the construction activities of any future project implemented in accordance with the general plan and z oning updates, b are soil could b e exposed, and there could b e an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Any future development associated with the proposed project which disturb s more than 1 acre of soil would b e sub ject to the Construction General Permit which requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If applicab le, a SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to b e implemented during project construction to minimiz e erosion and retain sediment on site. If a future project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would b e sub ject 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 comb ination of erosion control. The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal.
Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit or 2022 California Green Building Standards Code and with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would b e less than significant, and no mitigation would b e required.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -32 c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, deb ris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered b y intense rainfall or seismic shaking. Because the Specific Plan Area islocated in a relatively flat area, landslides or other forms of natural slope instab ility do not represent a significant haz ard to the planning area orthe surrounding area. Moreover, the proposed project does not include any physical improvements that would increase risks associated with landslides on the site. In addition, as discussed in Response 4.7(a)(iv), the proposed Specific Plan Area is not within an area susceptib le to landslides. All excavations required for construction of any future projects implemented in accordance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning code amendments must b e performed in accordance with City and State Building Codes, and the State Division of O ccupational Safety and Health requirements.
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial b locks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a sub surface layer. O nce liquefaction transforms the sub surface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an emb ankment). As discussed in Response 4.7(a)(iii), although the Specific Plan Area is within an area susceptib le to liquefaction, all future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would b e designed in accordance with engineering design standards and recommendations of the future project’s geotechnical reports In order to reduce the risk of liquefaction. Therefore, any future projects that are implemented under the Specific Plan would not b e susceptib le to lateral spreading.
Sub sidence refers to b road-scale changes in the elevation of land. Common causes of land sub sidence are pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting of dry soils (hydrocompaction). Sub sidence is also caused b y heavy loads generated b y large earthmoving equipment. All future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would comply with City and State Building Codes, and geotechnical evaluations would b e prepared to evaluate the potential for sub sidence.
As discussed in Response 4.7(a)(iii), the proposed Specific Plan Area is within an area susceptib le to liquefaction. Any future projects under the Specific Plan would b e sub ject to permits and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimiz ing impacts caused b y unstab le geological units or soils and would require adherence with the recommendations of a project-specific geotechnical report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design. Any proposed construction would b e required to implement appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related 4-33
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) to unstab le soils that could result in landslides, lateral spreading, sub sidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain types of clay minerals that occupy considerab ly more volume when they are wet or hydrated than when they are dry or dehydrated. Volume changes associated with changes in the moisture content of near-surface expansive soils can cause uplift or heave of the ground when they b ecome wet or, less commonly, cause settlement when they dry out.
Soils with an expansion index (EI) of greater than 20 are classified as expansive for b uilding purposes and, therefore, have a potentially significant impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to geology and soils, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal; however, any future developments would b e required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimiz ing impacts caused b y expansive soils and would require adherence with the recommendations of a project specific geotechnical report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design. Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to expansive soils, and no mitigation is required.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
N o Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not have an impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, as the Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future projects under the Specific Plan would b e developed in areas served b y the City’s sanitary sewer system and would therefore not use septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts associated with soils incapab le of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no mitigation is required. e) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not have an impact on any unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features, as the Specific Plan does not propose physical development. Any future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Potential impacts to paleontological resources are location- and projectspecific (e.g., the project may require excavation). As such, determinations regarding the presence of paleontological resources cannot b e assessed in a meaningful way until the specific details of a project are known and a paleontological assessment is prepared. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -34 or unique geologic feature, and no mitigation is necessary. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact on directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and no mitigation is necessary. 4-35
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.8 GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSION S
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b ) Conflict with an applicab le plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
4.8.1 Impact Analysis
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released b y natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contrib utors to human-induced glob al climate change are:
• Carb on dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O )
• Hydrofluorocarb ons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarb ons (PFCs)
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
O ver the last 200 years, humans have caused sub stantial quantities of GHGs to b e released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, b elieved to b e causing glob al warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally occurring GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O , some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere.
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. O thers remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contrib uting to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs ab ove b ecause it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined b y natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
These gases vary considerab ly in terms of Glob al Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ab ility of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas.
The GWP is b ased on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to ab sorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most ab undant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped b y one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped b y one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -36 a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in the emission of GHGs as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development under the Specific Plan has the potential to emit GHGs; however, existing regulations and standards would apply to any future development and would significantly reduce GHG emissions associated with future projects. The proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units. Future construction activities associated with the construction of additional residential units would cause short-term GHG emissions, the primary source of emissions b eing the operation of construction equipment. Similar to new development allowed under the existing specific plans, new development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with all applicab le regulations and standards related to GHG emissions. As such, any future development or redevelopment project requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would a have less than significant impact on the environment and would not conflict with applicab le plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and no mitigation would b e required. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated ab ove in Response 4.8.2(a), the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in the emission of GHGs as it does not include physical development. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform to existing regulations and standards to reduce GHG emissions associated with future projects. In addition, the City has not completed the GHG inventory, b enchmarking, and goal-setting process required to identify a reduction target and to take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the State CEQ A G uidel ines amendments adopted for Senate Bill (SB) 97. Since no other local or regional climate action plan is in place, future projects may b e assessed for their consistency with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) adopted Scoping Plan.6 This would b e achieved with an assessment of a project’s compliance with the elements of the Scoping Plan.
The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainab le Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted April 4, 2024. SCAG’s RTP/SCS identifies land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served b y high quality transit and other opportunity areas would b e consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The core vision in the 2024–2050 6 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carb on Neutrality. Web site:
https://ww2.arb .ca.gov/resources/documents/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025).
4-37
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) RTP/SCS is to b etter manage the existing transportation system b y implementing transportation demand management strategies, integrating land use decisions and technological advancements, creating complete streets that are safe to all roadway users, preserving the transportation system, and expanding transit and fostering development in transit-oriented communities. The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distrib ute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as a development forecast that is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data. The forecasted development pattern, when integrated with the financially constrained transportation investments identified in the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, would reach the regional target of reducing GHG emissions from automob iles and light-duty trucks b y 19 percent b y 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or z oning b e consistent with the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, b ut provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.
According to SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, the City’s population, households, and employment are forecast to increase b y approximately 6,000 residents, 3,900 households, and 2,000 job s, respectively, b etween 2019 and 2050.7
With respect to determining the proposed project’s consistency with Air Quality Management Plan growth assumptions, the projections in the Air Quality Management Plan for achieving air quality goals are b ased on assumptions in SCAG’s RTP/SCS regarding the City’s population, housing, and growth trends.
The proposed project would update land use designations on two properties along K atella Avenue, allowing residential densities of up to 60 du/ac. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units.
Cypress has an unaccommodated housing need of 1,990 units to meet its estimated housing growth needs identified in the SCAG RHNA allocation of 3,936 units. As such, the proposed project would accommodate a total of 321 housing units and would result in an increase of 638 residents.
Future development implemented in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to adhere to the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the SCAG’s RTP/SCS.
Implementing SCAG’s RTP/SCS will greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation, helping to achieve statewide emissions reduction targets. Before development can take place, each 7 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2023. Connect SoCal 2024 - D em og raphics and G rowth Forecast T echnical R eport. Web site:
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx? src= https%3A%2F%2Fscag.ca.gov%2Fsites%2Fmain%2Ffile s%2Ffileattachments%2F03_ scag_ drtp24_ citytier2taz _ 092523.xlsx%3F1695685277%3D%26utm_ source%3Dchatg pt.com&wdO rigin= BRO WSELINK (accessed Feb ruary 2025).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -38 discretionary development project is required to b e analyz ed for conformance with the General Plan, z oning requirements, and other applicab le local and State requirements; to comply with the requirements of CEQA; and to ob tain all necessary clearances and permits. As such, future additional development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e evaluated for its potential to interfere with SCAG’s ab ility to achieve the region’s GHG reduction target of 19 percent b elow 2005 per capita emissions levels b y 2035, and whether regional mob ile emissions would decrease in line with the goals of the RTP/SCS. Based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ab ility to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS.
In addition, future projects would b e required to comply with Title 24 of the CCR estab lished b y the California Energy Commission (CEC) regarding energy conservation and green-b uilding standards. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHG emissions, and impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
4-39
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.9 HAZ ARDS AN D HAZ ARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant haz ard to the pub lic or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of haz ardous materials?
b ) Create a significant haz ard to the pub lic or the environment through reasonab ly foreseeab le upset and accident
conditions involving the release of haz ardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit haz ardous emissions or handle haz ardous or acutely haz ardous materials, sub stances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant haz ard to the pub lic or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not b een adopted, within 2 miles of a pub lic airport or pub lic use airport, would the project result in a safety haz ard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
4.9.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant haz ard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of haz ardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Generally, haz ardous materials are chemicals that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release or mishap, and are defined as b eing toxic, corrosive, flammab le, reactive, and an irritant, or strong sensitiz er. Haz ardous sub stances include all chemicals regulated under the United States Department of Transportation’s “haz ardous materials” regulations and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) “haz ardous waste” regulations.
Haz ardous wastes require special handling and disposal b ecause of their potential to damage pub lic health and the environment. The prob ab le frequency and severity of consequences from the routine transport, use, or disposal of haz ardous materials is affected b y the type of sub stance, the quantity used or managed, and the nature of the activities and operations.
Construction of future development or residential projects associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would potentially temporarily increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of construction-related haz ardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel,
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -40 lub ricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong b asic or acidic chemicals).
These materials are commonly used at construction sites, and the construction activities would b e required to comply with applicab le State and federal regulations for proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of excess haz ardous materials and haz ardous construction waste. During the time that grading permits are issued, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of haz ardous materials during construction would b e less than significant.
The proposed Specific Plan would change the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow increased residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Residential uses typically do not present a haz ard associated with the accidental release of haz ardous sub stances into the environment b ecause residents are not anticipated to use, store, dispose or transport large volumes of haz ardous materials. Haz ardous sub stances associated with residential uses are typically limited in b oth amount and use such that they can b e contained without impacting the environment.
Long-term operations activities typical of residential uses involve the use and storage of small quantities of potentially haz ardous materials in the form of cleaning solvents, fertiliz ers, and pesticides. For example, maintenance activities related to landscaping include the use of fertiliz ers and light equipment (e.g., lawn mowers and edgers) that may require fuel. As stated previously, these types of activities do not involve the use of a large or sub stantial amount of haz ardous materials.
Further, such materials would b e contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicab le federal, State, and local regulations. In addition, operation of future development associated with the proposed project would not store, transport, generate, or dispose of large quantities of haz ardous sub stances. Therefore, potential impacts from the routine transport, use of disposal of haz ardous materials resulting from operation of the proposed project would b e less than significant, and no mitigation would b e required.
The City of Cypress Safety Element (2001) and the O range County Fire Authority’s (O CFA) Haz ardous Material Management Plan8 are the primary documents that address potential haz ards and haz ardous materials within the City. The Haz ardous Material Management Plan would ensure that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is availab le to manage the haz ardous waste generated within the County and address issues related to the disposal, handling, processing, storage, and treatment of local haz ardous materials and waste products.
Similar to new development allowed under the existing specific plans, new development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with all applicab le regulations and standards related to the proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of haz ardous materials and haz ardous waste. Additionally, future developments would b e reviewed b y the O CFA for haz ardous material and would b e required to comply with the waste discharge permit requirements to avoid potential impacts to water quality due to spills or runoff from haz ardous materials used during construction. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related 8 O range County Fire Authority (O CFA). Haz ardous Material Management Plan. Haz ardous Materials Identification. Decemb er 6, 2007.
4-41
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) to the routine transport, use, or disposal of haz ardous materials; would not create a significant haz ard to the pub lic or the environment through reasonab ly foreseeab le upset and accident conditions involving the release of haz ardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project create a significant haz ard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of haz ardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not create a significant haz ard to the pub lic or the environment through reasonab ly foreseeab le upset and accident conditions, as the Specific Plan does not include physical development. As stated ab ove in Response 4.9.1(a), future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with all applicab le regulations and standards related to the proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of haz ardous materials and haz ardous waste. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for the development of residential land uses on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area. As sub sequent future infill and redevelopment residential projects are proposed for either of those properties, they would b e evaluated for site-specific impacts associated with haz ards and haz ardous materials. Any future development would b e required to prepare a project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and sub sequent documentation to determine if future development would create a significant haz ard to the pub lic or the environment through reasonab ly foreseeab le upset and accident conditions involving the release of haz ardous materials into the environment. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the creation of a significant haz ard to the pub lic or the environment through the accidental release associated with haz ardous materials, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project emit haz ardous emissions or handle haz ardous or acutely haz ardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? N o Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not create a significant haz ard to the pub lic or the environment through reasonab ly foreseeab le upset and accident conditions, as the proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to the emission of haz ardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of haz ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant haz ard to the public or the environment?
N o Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. As stated in Response 4.9.1(a), future development allowed under the proposed Specific
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -42 Plan would b e required to comply with all applicab le regulations and standards regarding haz ardous materials. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any impacts related to known haz ardous materials listed on sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and no mitigation is required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety haz ard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos is located adjacent to the southern perimeter of the proposed Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the two properties along K atella Avenue on which the proposed project would permit/increase residential densities of up to 60 du/ac are located approximately 1 mile north of the JFTB Los Alamitos. The A irport Env irons L and U se Pl an f or J oint Forces T raining B ase L os A l am itos (AELUP) (1975, last amended 2017) identifies policies to evaluate the compatib ility of land uses and proposed local actions with the airfield. The facilities at JFTB Los Alamitos include two runways and associated taxiways, apron, and hangars.
According to the AELUP, the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area is located in the JFTB Notification Area (Exhib it D1) and the JFTB Height Restriction Zone (Exhib it D2), reflecting the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 imaginary airspace surfaces for JFTB. 9 Any future development
under the proposed Specific Plan within these areas would b e sub ject to AELUP policies entailing specific height limitations imposed on projects within a height restriction z one to ensure that structures or trees (1) do not ob struct the airspace required for takeoff, flight, or landing of an aircraft at an airport, or (2) are not otherwise haz ardous to the landing or takeoff of aircraft. Further, future development under the proposed Specific Plan may b e required to comply with all applicab le Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards and requirements, including notifying the FAA of any proposed structure(s) that would penetrate the Part 77 imaginary surfaces for JFTB Los Alamitos, to ensure potential aviation haz ards are avoided. In addition, future development may b e sub ject to Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review for consistency with the AELUP. Finally, future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
These actions would ensure proper evaluation of the potential for future development to result in potential aviation-related safety haz ards. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to a site’s proximity to an airport facility or any airport land use plan, and no mitigation is required.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
N o Impact. Although the proposed project would permit/increase residential densities of up to 60 du/ac on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area, the properties are not located along 9 O range County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2016. A irport Env irons L and U se Pl an f or J oint Forces T raining B ase L os A l am itos (AELUP). Web site: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JFTBAELUP2016 ProposedFINAL.pdf (accessed Septemb er 13, 2023). 4-43
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) an emergency evacuation route according to emergency evacuation route maps associated with the City’s General Plan Safety Element (2001).
10 The City’s emergency evacuation routes are shown on
Exhib it SAF-5 in the Safety Element of the General Plan. All emergency evacuation activities are coordinated b y the City Police Chief. The Police Chief would issue evacuation orders b ased on information gathered from emergency experts. Evacuation operations would b e conducted b y law enforcement agencies, highway/road/street departments, and pub lic and private transportation providers.11 The proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with the adopted emergency response or evacuation plan set forth b y the City. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to the interference of an adopted emergency plan.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
N o Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Very High Fire Haz ard Severity Zone Maps for the O range County region, the entire City of Cypress is designated as a non-very high fire haz ard severity z one (VHFHSZ).12 As such, the proposed Specific Plan would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, as the proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. As stated ab ove in Response 4.9.1(a), future developments under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to the exposure of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire, and no mitigation is required. 10 City of Cypress General Plan. 2001. Safety Element, Emergency Evacuation Routes map (Exhib it SAF-5).
Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/714/636123119830170000 (accessed January 16, 2024). 11 City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Geology and Seismic Haz ards. Page 4.6-
7. 12 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2011. Very High Fire Haz ard Severity Zones in LRA. Web site: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhsz l_ map30.pdf (accessed August 30, 2023).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -44
4.10 HYDROLOGY AN D WATER Q UALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise sub stantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b ) Sub stantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere sub stantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainab le groundwater management
of the b asin?
c) Sub stantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in a sub stantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. sub stantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contrib ute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide sub stantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood haz ard, tsunami, or seiche z ones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or ob struct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainab le groundwater management
plan?
4.10.1 Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not have an impact on hydrology or water resources, as the Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future projects under the proposed Specific Plan would generally b e required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit if construction of the project disturb s greater than one acre of soil. Future projects under the proposed Specific Plan would generally b e required to comply with applicab le construction permits and regulations associated with water quality, as detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) HY D-1. If construction of future projects would disturb greater than one acre of soil, those projects would b e required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturb ance Activities (Construction General Permit) (NPDES No. CAS000002, O rder No. 2022-0057-DWQ). Compliance with the Construction General Permit would require 4-45
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), including, b ut not b e limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimiz e erosion and retain sediment on-site and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction deb ris and waste into receiving waters.
Future projects that disturb less than 1 acre of soil and that are not a part of a larger common plan, would b e required to comply with Section 4.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code requires implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion and to retain sediment on site. The CALGreen Code also requires compliance with Section 13- 23 of the Cypress Municipal Code. Chapter 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal Code requires projects that qualify as new development or significant redevelopment as outlined in the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of O range, O range County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of O range County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urb an Storm Water Runoff, O range County (O range County MS4 Permit)(O rder No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030 as amended b y O rder No. R8-2010-0062) comply with the O range County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City of Cypress Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including the preparation of a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) to specify BMPs that would b e implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff (RCM HY D-2). Any groundwater dewatering during construction activities would b e required to comply with the appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge requirements permit, as detailed in RCM HY D-3, which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release to surface waters. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would b e required to ob tain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Pub lic Works Department. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degradation of water quality, increase in pollutant discharges, or alteration in receiving water quality, and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 If construction of future projects associated with the proposed Specific Plan would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, prior to commencement of construction
activities, the Construction Contractor shall ob tain
coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturb ance Activities (Construction General Permit),
NPDES No. CAS000002, O rder No. 2022-0057-DWQ, or
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -46 any other sub sequent permit. This shall include
sub mission of Permit Registration Documents, including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NO I), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification
statement, and any other compliance-related
documents required b y the permit, to the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) via the Stormwater
Multiple Application and Report Tracking System
(SMARTS). Construction activities shall not commence
until a Waste Discharge Identification Numb er is
ob tained for the Project from the SMARTS and provided
to the Director of Pub lic Works for the City of Cypress, or designee, to demonstrate that coverage under the
Construction General Permit has b een ob tained. Project construction shall comply with all applicab le
requirements specified in the Construction General
Permit, including b ut not limited to, preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction site b est
management practices (BMPs) to address all
construction-related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for the project. The
SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good
Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in storm
water runoff. Upon completion of construction activities and stab iliz ation of the Project site, a Notice of
Termination (NO T) shall b e sub mitted via SMARTS.
If construction of future projects associated with the
Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration
Project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, prior to commencement of construction activities, the
Construction Contractor shall provide evidence that
project construction would comply with Section 4.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code requires
implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion
and to retain sediment on site (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs).
4-47
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2 Orange County MS4 Permit/City Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for future projects
associated with the Cypress Business Parks
Moderniz ation and Integration Project, the future
project Applicant shall prepare and sub mit a projectspecific water quality management plan (WQMP) to specify BMPs that would b e implemented to capture,
treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater
runoff in compliance with the O range County MS4
Permit, O range County Drainage Area Management Plan
(DAMP), and the City of Cypress Local Implementation
Plan (LIP). The WQMP shall also incorporate the results of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses to
demonstrate that the detention facilities meet the
hydromodification requirements of the O range County
MS4 Permit and Chapter 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal
Code. The City Engineer/Pub lic Works Director, or
designee, shall ensure that the BMPs specified in the
WQMP are incorporated into the final project design of
future projects associated with the Cypress Business
Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3 Groundwater Discharge Permit. If groundwater dewatering activities are required for future project
construction associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project, at least 45 days prior to dewatering activities, the Construction
Contractor shall sub mit an NO I to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ob tain
coverage under the General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters That
Pose an Insignificant (D e M inim is) Threat to Water
Quality (Groundwater Discharge Permit), O rder No. R8-
2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001. Groundwater
dewatering activities shall comply with all applicab le provisions in the Groundwater Discharge Permit,
including water sampling, analysis, treatment (if
required), and reporting of dewatering-related
discharges. Upon completion of groundwater
dewatering activities, a Notice of Termination (NO T)shall b e sub mitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -48 b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. As describ ed ab ove, if any future development associated with the proposed project requires groundwater dewatering during construction activities, the project would b e required to comply with the appropriate NPDES Groundwater Discharge Permit (RCM HY D-3), which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release to surface waters. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would b e required to ob tain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Pub lic Works Department.
The Specific Plan Area is located within the Coastal Plain of O range County Groundwater Basin (Basin 8-1) which has a surface area of 350 square miles and a storage capacity of 38,000,000 acre-feet.13 The proposed Specific Plan would not have an impact on groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge, as the Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal.
Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimiz ing construction and operations impacts to groundwater supplies. In addition, future projects would b e required to incorporate features that would reduce impervious area, as feasib le, and promote water infiltration. Treatment control and hydromodification management facilities would promote retention and infiltration of stormwater.
Redevelopment of developed sites requires compliance with water quality standards intended to reduce runoff, increase infiltration, and improve water quality. Potab le water would b e ob tained from the O range County Water District (O CWD). Increased water use would not sub stantially affect groundwater supplies b ecause the groundwater b asin has b een sustainab ly managed b y O CWD over the last 10 years, and it is anticipated that the Coastal Plain of the O range County Groundwater Basin will continue to b e sustainab ly managed with implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative. The Basin 8-1 Alternative estab lishes ob jectives and criteria for groundwater management within the Coastal Plain of the O range County Groundwater Basin.14
As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the proposed project would b e evaluated for site-specific impacts to hydrology and water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to surface or groundwater quality or the depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to the depletion of 13 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Coastal Plains of O range County Groundwater Basin. 14 O range County Water District (O CWD). 2017. Basin 8-1 Alternative – O CWD Management Area. January 1, 2017.
4-49
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) groundwater supplies and would not create an adverse impact on groundwater quality, a depletion of groundwater supplies, or interference with groundwater recharge, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not have an impact on existing drainage patterns of a site or area or create or contrib ute runoff water, as the Specific Plan does not include any physical development. Any future development associated with the proposed project which disturb s more than 1 acre of soil would b e sub ject to the Construction General Permit which requires preparation of a SWPPP (RCM HY D-1). If applicab le, a SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to b e implemented during project construction to minimiz e erosion and retain sediment on site. If a project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would b e sub ject to the requirements of Section 5.106 of the 2022 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 comb ination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent pollution of stormwater runoff during construction activities (RCM HY D-1). The proposed Specific Plan Area including the proposed properties are comprised of parcels with existing development in an urb aniz ed environment. Additionally, there are no streams or rivers traversing the Specific Plan Area. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, no natural streams, federally protected wetlands, or riparian hab itat are located within the project area. The proposed project is required to comply with existing NPDES requirements. These measures would prevent sub stantial additional sources of polluted runoff from b eing discharged to the storm drain system through implementation of construction BMPs that target pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site as well as testing and treatment (if required) of groundwater prior to its discharge to surface waters (RCMs HY D-1 and HY D-2). As specified in the City Municipal Code and the Construction General Permit or the 2022 CALGreen Code and with implementation of the construction BMPs, impacts related to increased runoff, on-site, off-site, downstream erosion or siltation, or the capacity of stormwater drainage systems, would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Significant redevelopment projects are sub ject to specific hydromodification15 requirements of the O range County MS4 Permit and must implement measures for site design, source control, runoff reduction, stormwater treatment, and b aseline hydromodification management (RCM HY D-2). 15 Hydromodification is defined as hydrologic changes resulting from increased runoff from increases in impervious surfaces. Hydromodification impacts can include changes in downstream erosion and sedimentation.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -50 Projects may b e deemed exempt from these requirements if they drain into hardened channels, the rate and volume of stormwater runoff does not significantly exceed those of the predevelopment condition for a two-year frequency storm event, or if the site infiltrates at least the runoff from a twoyear storm event. Compliance with RCM HY D-2 would ensure impacts related to hydromodification would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) Would the project, in flood haz ard, tsunami, or seiche z ones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
N o Impact. The proposed Specific Plan Area is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone X , ‘ Area of Minimal Flood Haz ard’ which includes areas of a 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year flood). According to the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the Specific Plan Area is located within the inundation z one of Prado Dam.16 There are no open b odies of water in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area, and the proposed Specific Plan is therefore not located within an inundation z one of a seiche. The Specific Plan Area is located approximately 6.3 miles northeast of the Pacific O cean and is not located within a tsunami inundation z one, according to the O range County Tsunami Inundation Maps.17 The levee inundation z one of Coyote Creek/Carb on Creek is located south of the Specific Plan Area; however, the Specific Plan Area is not located within this inundation area.
The proposed Specific Plan would not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal.
As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to the risk of release of pollutants in flood haz ard, tsunami, or seiche z ones, and no mitigation is required.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed ab ove, the proposed Specific Plan would not include physical developments. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimiz ing construction and operations impacts to groundwater supplies. Additionally, any groundwater dewatering during future construction activities would b e required to comply with the appropriate NPDES waste discharge requirements permit, as detailed in RCM HY D-3, which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release to surface waters. If the dewatered groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer system, the project would b e required to ob tain a discharge permit from the Director of the City of Cypress Pub lic Works Department. It is anticipated that the Coastal Plain of the O range County Groundwater Basin will continue to b e sustainab ly managed with implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with or ob struct the sustainab le groundwater management 16 City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Safety Element. O ctob er 5. 17 California Department of Conservation (DO C). 2019. O range County Tsunami Inundation Maps. Web site:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/orange (accessed April 2024). 4-51
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) plan adopted for the O range County Groundwater Basin. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to conflicts with or ob struction of a water quality control plan or sustainab le groundwater management plan, and no mitigation is required.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -52
4.11 LAN D USE AN D PLAN N IN G
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an estab lished community?
b ) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
4.11.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. As shown in Tab le 2.A, in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, in its existing condition, the Specific Plan Area consists of approximately 439 acres of land currently developed with a variety of uses including, mixed use, commercial use, and office/light industrial use. The Specific Plan Area issituated in the southern portion of the City of Cypress spanning the Cypress Business Park.
The proposed Specific Plan Area encompasses the Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan, the Cypress Corporate Center O riginal and Amended Specific Plan, the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan, the Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, and the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan areas. Surrounding land uses include a mix of residential and commercial to the north, and residential and pub lic parks to the south. The areas east and west of the Specific Plan Area are outside the Cypress city limits.
As part of the proposed Specific Plan, the five existing Specific Plans would b e integrated into a single Specific Plan document to moderniz e the Business Park’s existing specific plans and provide updated development standards that would improve the City’s ab ility to regulate land uses within the Cypress Business Park. The ob jectives of the Specific Plan include updating and estab lishing land use designations within the new Specific Plan, estab lishing a comprehensive set of performance standards where possib le (such as landscaping, signage, and lighting), defining and updating terminology and land uses, amending the City’s Zoning Code, and developing options to streamline project approval processes and permit flexib ility. New land uses allowed under this Specific Plan Area would b e generally consistent with other existing and permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area.
These ob jectives aim to facilitate the orderly development of future development projects within the proposed Specific Plan Area and facilitate economic development opportunities within the City. No features of the proposed Specific Plan would disrupt the existing surrounding land uses from continuing to operate as-is. Additionally, as stated in Section 2.3.1 Project Description, the proposed Specific Plan would amend the land use designation on two properties along K atella Avenue within the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The first property includes 7.15 acres and is located at the northwest corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street (4955 K atella Avenue). Under the proposed project, the land use designation on this property would b e changed from Professional O ffice and Hotel Support Commercial (PO /HSC) to Mixed-Use Commercial/ Residential (MUC/R) with a High-Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), which would allow a residential density of 60 du/ac 4-53
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) and accommodate an estimated 321 residential units. The second property, a 4.10-acre property located at the northeast corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street (adjacent to 4955 K atella Avenue), is currently under construction with a multifamily residential development consisting of an estimated 251 residential units. The land use designation on this property would b e changed from Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) to Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) with a High-Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), which would increase the permitted residential density allowed on this parcel from 19 du/ac to 60 du/ac, consistent with the net density of the multifamily project b eing constructed on that site. These proposed updates are consistent with the rez oning scenarios identified in the City’s recently adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element.
According to the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), the average household siz e 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. Therefore, the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 321 dwelling units, with a corresponding net increase of approximately 639 persons.18
As such, any future residential projects implemented in accordance with the proposed z oning amendments and land use changes would b e required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicab le development regulations. Furthermore, any redevelopment on the two properties identified in this Specific Plan, which would replace existing structures within the b uilt environment and proposed development plans, would b e reviewed for connectivity. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the physical division of an estab lished community, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The primary documents regulating land use within the Specific Plan Area are the City of Cypress General Plan, the Lusk/Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan, the Cypress Corporate Center O riginal and Amended Specific Plan, the McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan, the Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, and the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan.
As stated ab ove in Response 4.11.1(a), the proposed Specific Plan would integrate five of the existing specific plans into one comprehensive Specific Plan. As noted in Section 2.3, Project Description, the proposed Specific Plan would update the permitted land uses within the five existing specific plans to provide clear and updated development standards; however, these changes in permitted land use would not sub stantially change the existing land use designations or permitted uses within the existing specific plans. The proposed Specific Plan’s key ob jective to moderniz e the existing specific plans to provide updated development standards will foster new b usiness and development opportunities within the Business Park planning area. The proposed project would include multiple Specific Plan amendments and adoption of the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan amendments would revise land use designations, update terminology, implement performance standards, and streamline approval processes to integrate multiple existing specific plans into one 18 321 households x 1.99 persons per household = 639 persons
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -54 comprehensive specific plan. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would estab lish an updated list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, as shown in Appendix A.
Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not make sub stantial changes to the General Plan land use designations within the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units.
The proposed Specific Plan is intended to guide the development of future projects within the City of Cypress and does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Additionally, permitted uses within the existing specific plans would not b e sub stantially changed as a result of the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would b e consistent with the City’s General Plan and would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with other land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As such, any future developments or improvements that would require discretionary approvals would b e sub ject to separate environmental review on a project-specific b asis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Specific Plan would b e evaluated for site-specific impacts to land use and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation.
Therefore, impacts related to conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4-55
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.12 MIN ERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availab ility of a known mineral resource that would b e of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b ) Result in the loss of availab ility of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
4.12.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
N o Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) enacted b y California Legislature in 1975 provides guidelines to assist with classification and designation of mineral lands. These areas were designated under the b asis of several geologic factors, b ut do not give regard to existing land uses and ownership. These Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) are divided into the following four categories:
• MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits of which their significance cannot b e properly evaluated.
• MRZ-4: An area where information is not adequate enough to b e ab le to assign to any other MRZ z one.
O f these four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain b y demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated b y the State of California Mining and Geology Board as b eing “regionally significant.” The Specific Plan Area has b een classified b y the California Geological Survey (CGS) as MRZ-4, indicating that it is in an area where information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource z one.19 The City of Cypress is not within the proximity of any MRZ-2 z ones, and is surrounded 19 California Department of Conservation (DO C). 1981. Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification Map. Los Alamitos Quadrangle. Special Report 143, Plate 3.17.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -56 b y an MRZ-1 z one, indicating the ab sence of significant mineral deposits in the area.20 No properties in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area are used for mineral recovery and future development within the proposed Specific Plan is not likely to result in loss of availab ility of a locally important mineral resource. The proposed Specific Plan does not include any physical improvements, and no impacts related to mineral resources would occur with its adoption. Therefore, adoption of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? N o Impact. As stated in Response 4.12.1(a), the Specific Plan Area is clearly shown to not b e a part of a mineral resource z one containing any known valuab le mineral resources, which would suggest any future development within the Specific Plan would have a high unlikelihood of minerals b eing extracted at the project area.
21 Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. 20 California Department of Conservation (DO C). 1981. Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification Map. Los Alamitos Quadrangle. Special Report 143, Plate 3.17. 21 Ib id. 4-57
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.13 N OISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a sub stantial temporary or permanent
increase in amb ient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards estab lished in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicab le standards of other agencies?
b ) Generation of excessive groundb orne vib ration or
groundb orne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not b een adopted, within 2 miles of a pub lic airport or pub lic use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
4.13.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Noise Element (adopted 2001) estab lishes standards and procedures for protecting noise-sensitive uses from stationary and mob ile sources.
Refer to Tab le 4.13.A for the Exterior Noise Level Standards and Tab le 4.13.B for the Interior Noise Level Standards from the City of Cypress Municipal Code Section 13-68 (a) (1976).
Table 4.13.A: Exterior N oise Level Standards
N oise Z one N oise Level (dBA Leq) Time Period
1 55 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
50 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
2 60 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
55 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Source: City of Cypress Municipal Code Section 13-68 (a) (1976). dBA = A-weighted decib els
Leq = Average Hourly Noise Level
Table 4.13.B: Interior N oise Level Standards
N oise Z one N oise Level (dBA Leq) Time Period
1 and 2 55 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
45 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Source: City of Cypress Municipal Code (1976).
dBA = A-weighted decib els
Leq = Average Hourly Noise Level
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -58 The City’s Noise Element describ es the noise environment (including noise sources) in the City, and addresses noise mitigation regulations, strategies, and programs, as well as delineates federal, State, and City jurisdiction relative to rail, automotive, aircraft, and nuisance noise. The City’s noise standards are correlated with land use z oning classifications in order to maintain identified amb ient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the amb ient noise levels within a specified z one. In accordance with Tab le N-3 of the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan, the exterior noise level standard for residential uses, including single-family and multi-family development, is 60 dBA CNEL (A-weighted decib el community noise equivalent level). This standard is limited to the private yards of single-family homes and the private patios or b alconies of multifamily uses that are served b y means of an exit from inside each dwelling; however, private patios or b alconies that are 6 feet deep or less are exempt from this standard. For residential uses, the City’s interior noise level standard is 45 dBA CNEL. The Cypress Municipal Code Chapter 13, Article VII, Sections 13-64 through 13-79, estab lished noise standards and enforcement procedures to enforce the reduction of “ob noxious or offensive” noises. The Municipal Code (Section 13-70, Special Provisions) also requires that construction activities shall not take place b etween the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, b efore 9:00 a.m. and after 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or a federal holiday.
The proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposals.
The proposed Specific Plan would amend the land use designation on two properties along K atella Avenue within the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The first property includes 7.15 acres and is located at the northwest corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street (4955 K atella Avenue). Under the proposed project, the land use designation on this property would b e changed from Professional O ffice and Hotel Support Commercial (PO /HSC) to Mixed-Use Commercial/ Residential (MUC/R) with a High-Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), which would allow a residential density of 60 du/ac, and accommodate an estimated 321 residential units. The second property, a 4.10-acre property located at the northeast corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street (adjacent to 4955 K atella Avenue), is currently under construction with a multifamily residential development consisting of an estimated 251 residential units. The land use designation on this property would b e changed from Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) to Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) with a High-Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), which would increase the permitted residential density allowed on this parcel from 19 du/ac to 60 du/ac, consistent with the net density of the multifamily project b eing constructed on that site. These proposed updates are consistent with the rez oning scenarios identified in the City’s recently adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element.
Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would increase residential densities on two properties along K atella Avenue. These activities could result in the potential demolition of structures, construction, and site grading, as well as the placement of residential uses near stationary noise sources. While all of these activities have the potential to increase amb ient noise and vib ration levels within the City of Cypress and exceed acceptab le noise standards, the properties are adjacent to primary noise sources within the City (major roadways). The provision of additional residential units could result in noisesensitive land uses b eing located within or adjacent to noise contours ab ove 60 CNEL. However, any new construction would need to b e consistent with the General Plan Noise Element. Potential sources 4-59
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) causing a permanent increase in amb ient noise include noise resulting from increased traffic on roadways within the City. It is projected that traffic volumes on some streets within the City would increase, and some would decrease due to the proposed land use changes. It is anticipated that traffic on the properties would decrease when compared to the surrounding commercial uses.
As such, any future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and noise ordinances within the City’s Municipal Code. New land uses allowed within the Specific Plan Area would b e generally similar to land uses allowed under the existing specific plans. Any noise associated with new land uses would b e similar to what already occurs within the Specific Plan Area and would b e allowed under the existing specific plans. Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts related to an increase in noise levels or excessive ground-b orne vib ration or noise, and impacts would b e less than significant. No mitigation would b e required.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed ab ove, the proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units. These proposed updates would not in themselves generate vib ration. In addition, vib ration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would b e highly unusual for on-road vehicles b ecause the rub b er tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vib ration isolation. Therefore, vib ration generated b y projectrelated traffic on the adjacent roadways would b e less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest airport to the Specific Plan Area is the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos, which is generally south of the proposed Specific Plan Area. According to the A irport Env irons L and U se Pl an f or J FT B L os A l am itos22 (AELUP) and Exhib it SAF-823 in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the southwestern portions of the Specific Plan Area are within the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for JFTB Los Alamitos(see Exhib it D3 in Appendix D to the AELUP), which are defined b y the AELUP as Noise Impact Zone 2 (moderate noise impacts) and Noise Impact 22 O range County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2017. A irport Env irons L and U se Pl an f or J oint Forces T raining B ase L os A l am itos (AELUP). August 17. 23 City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Safety Element. O ctob er 5.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -60 Zone 1 (high noise impacts). These areas of the Specific Plan are primarily composed of b usiness park and warehouse facilities, which are land uses considered “Normally Consistent” with AELUP policies, requiring no special noise reduction requirements.
The second closest airport is the Long Beach Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.4 miles northwest of the Specific Plan Area, according to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. The Specific Plan Area is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Long Beach Municipal Airport.
Therefore, aircraft noise generated from the two closest airports would not expose people residing or working within the Specific Plan Area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a pub lic airport.
Although the proposed Specific Plan would amend the land use designation on two properties along K atella Avenue within the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan) area, to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, the proposed properties are located approximately 1 mile north of the JFTB Los Alamitos. According to the AELUP, the proposed properties are outside the 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for JFTB Los Alamitos, wherein residential uses are considered “Normally Consistent” with AELUP policies. Further, as the proposed Specific Plan does not include physical development, it would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Any future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and b e consistent with AELUP policies, including b eing sub ject to Airport Land Use Commission review for consistency with the AELUP. Finally, future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. These actions would ensure proper evaluation of the potential for future development to result in potential aviation-related noise impacts. Therefore, less than significant noise impacts related to airports are anticipated, and no mitigation is required. 4-61
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.14 POPULATION AN D HOUSIN G
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce sub stantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, b y proposing new homes and b usinesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b ) Displace sub stantial numb ers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
4.14.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would integrate the five existing specific plans into one updated Specific Plan to guide future b usiness development within the City of Cypress.
The proposed project would not make sub stantial changes to the General Plan land use designations within the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use changes is currently developed at 60 du/ac and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units.
According to the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), the average household siz e 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. Because the proposed land use designation amendments would allow for higher density housing, 1.99 persons per household was deemed appropriate for use in the analysis contained in this IS/ND. Therefore, the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 321 dwelling units, with a corresponding net increase of approximately 639 persons.24
Additionally, in the 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainab le Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS population projections for the City, the population of Cypress in 2050 is expected to b e 56,200 persons, increasing b y 6,000 persons from the actual 2019 population of 50,200 persons.
Adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in population growth that would exceed the 2019 to 2050 growth forecast for the City. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would 24 321 households x 1.99 persons per household = 639 persons
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -62 not increase the City’s population greater than that estimated in the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS population projections.
As a specific plan, this document would not, in and of itself, result in impacts related to population and housing, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. New land uses allowed within the Specific Plan Area would b e generally similar to land uses already allowed under the existing specific plans. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed updated land use designations would b e required to adhere to the City’s General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicab le development regulations. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
As such, the proposed project would not cause indirect sub stantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads and other infrastructure. Impacts associated with unplanned population growth, directly or indirectly, would b e less than significant, and no mitigation would b e necessary.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
N o Impact. As stated ab ove in Response 4.14.1(a), the proposed Specific Plan does not include physical development and would not in itself contrib ute to impactsrelated to population and housing.
Implementation of the proposed project would not displace any housing or associated populations.
Instead, the proposed project would amend land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element.
O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units. As discussed ab ove in Response 4.14(a), the proposed Specific Plan would add approximately 639 persons residents to the City’s population.25 Therefore, there would b e no impact related to the displacement of sub stantial numb ers of people or housing.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not displace housing or persons, nor require or necessitate the development of replacement housing elsewhere, and no mitigation would b e required.
25 321 households x 1.99 persons per household = 639 persons. 4-63
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in sub stantial 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 acceptab le service ratios, response times or other performance
ob jectives for any of the pub lic services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. O ther pub lic facilities?
4.15.1 Impact Analysis
a) 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 any of the public services?
i. Fire Protection
Less Than Significant Impact. The O range County Fire Authority (O CFA) is a Joint Powers Authority that serves the City of Cypress and is responsib le for reducing the loss of lives and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. The O CFA is a regional fire service agency that provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, haz ardous materials response, wildland firefighting, technical rescue, and airport rescue firefighting services, and a variety of other pub lic services to its service area of 1,891,382 residents that includes 23 cities in O range County (County) and all unincorporated areas in the County. Currently, O CFA has a total of 77 stations located throughout O range County.26
The City of Cypress is located within O perations Division 7, which also serves the cities of Buena Park, La Palma, and Stanton along with portions of several unincorporated communities.27 As a regional fire agency, O CFA engages in service agreements with other local and regional fire agencies. 26 O range County Fire Authority (O CFA). 2023. Fiscal Y ear 2023–2024 Adopted Budget. Page 11. Web site:
C:\Users\STUART~ 1\AppData\Local\Temp\mso34C7.tmp (ocfa.org) (accessed April 25, 2024). 27 O CFA. 2020. O perations Division 7. Web site: O CFA - O range County Fire Authority (accessed Septemb er 13, 2023).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -64 According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element (2001), it is the O CFA’s goal to have the first responding company for a fire call to reach the emergency scene within 8 minutes and paramedics to reach the scene within 5 minutes, at least 90 percent of the time. In Fiscal Y ear 2023–2024, O CFA responded to emergency calls within 6 minutes and 29 seconds 90 percent of the time across all service area calls.28 Future projects allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with all O CFA requirements, the current editions of the California Building Code, California Fire Code, and related codes.
The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or additional facilities needed as a result of reduced pub lic service performance ob jectives as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal.
New land uses allowed within the Specific Plan Area would b e generally similar to land uses already allowed under the existing specific plans. Any future demand for fire protection services would b e similar to the existing demand.
The proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units. The development of up to 321 dwelling units, would generate a net increase of approximately 639 persons. This increase in the City’s population could result in an increase in fire protection calls within the City; however, such calls would b e generally consistent with the types of calls the O FCA responds to at similar residential developments in the City.
As discussed ab ove, the O CFA currently serves more than 1,894,382 residents from its 77 fire stations throughout the County, including Fire Station No. 17 within the City and Fire Station Nos. 2 and 84 nearb y. The addition of 639 residents would increase the population served b y 0.2 percent. This increase in population served b y O FCA is negligib le (less than 1 percent and would not impact O CFA’s ab ility to serve the City).
Any future residential projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e required to adhere to all O CFA requirements, including providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the properties, hydrants spaced to meet the minimums identified in the fire code, and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. Future development projects allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. As detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) PS-1, b elow, during the development and CEQA review process, future projects would b e required to coordinate with O CFA to determine the appropriate development impact fees required for the project to offset potential impact to O CFA staffing and service ab ility. 28 O CFA. 2022. Fiscal Y ear 2021/2022 Adopted Budget. Web site: https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/ Transparency/O CFA%202022-2023%20Adopted%20Budget.pdf (accessed O ctob er 16, 2023). 4-65
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Therefore, impacts on fire protection services would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to pub lic services. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed
project would b e required to coordinate with the O range County Fire Authority (O CFA) to determine the
appropriate development impact fees required to offset
potential impact to O CFA staffing and service ab ility.
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 O CFA that details the agreed-upon
development impact fees required for the project.
ii. Police Protection
Less Than Significant Impact. The Cypress Police Department (CPD) provides police protection services throughout the City. The CPD has one station located within the Cypress Civic Center at 5275 O range Avenue, approximately 1.5 mile north of the Specific Plan Area. Management and supervision of the CPD is provided b y 1 chief, 3 commanders, 1 civilian manager, 10 sergeants, and 1 civilian supervisor. O f 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 b y 23 civilian employees and numerous volunteers.29 The officer-to-resident ratio in 2022was 1.1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents.
The services provided b y CPD include a detective b ureau, canine teams, narcotics team, vice and intelligence, motorcycle officers, Personnel & Training, Positive Actions thru Character Education (P.A.C.E.) program, S.W.A.T. and a Lead Patrol O fficer program. In addition, the CPD has estab lished Community Policing, or Cypress Policing, as the philosophy for providing pub lic safety services.
Police dispatch services for the City of Cypress are provided b y the West Cities Police Communications Center, also known as West-Comm. West-Comm is a consolidated police dispatch center, formed b y a Joint Powers Authority b etween the cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos and Seal Beach. Located at the Seal Beach Police Department, West-Comm serves a comb ined population of approximately 90,000 and handles approximately 100,000 calls for service each year. In 2020, the CPD responded to 24,929 29 City of Cypress. Cypress Police Department O verview. Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/government/ departments/police/inside-cypress-pd/the-community-we-serve# overview (accessed O ctob er 2023).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -66 calls for service, including 12,215 emergency calls and 12,714 officer-initiated calls.30 This volume of calls for 2020 represents an overall 23 percent decrease in calls for service throughout the City compared to 2019.
As discussed ab ove in Response 4.15.1 (i), the proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. The proposed updates would accommodate the development of 321 housing units within the proposed Specific Plan Area, with a corresponding net increase of approximately 639 persons. This increase in the City’s population could result in an increase in calls to law enforcement within the City; however, such calls would b e generally consistent with the types of calls the CPD responds to at similar residential developments in the City.
Additionally, the proposed properties are surrounded b y existing development and are in areas of the City already served b y CPD.
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 639 persons in the City as facilitated b y 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 2022. The net increase of 639 persons may result in an incremental increase in law enforcement calls within the City; however, such calls would b e generally consistent with the types of calls the CPD responds to at similar residential developments in the City. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed z oning and land use changes would b e required to adhere to all applicab le policies and codes related to the provision of police services. As such, future development projects under this Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the provision of police protection, or the construction of new or physically altered facilities, and no mitigation is required. iii. Schools
Less Than Significant Impact. The City is located within the Cypress School District (CSD), which serves the City’s kindergarten through sixth-grade students, and the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD), which serves the City’s junior high and high school students (grades 7 through 12). The California O ffice of Pub lic-School Construction has pub lished 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. According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study performed for the CSD b y Cooperative Strategies and dated April 30, 2020, the elementary student generation rate for 30 City of Cypress. Cypress Police Department. 10-Y ear Calls for Service Trend. 2020. Web site: https://www. cypressca.org/home/showdocument? id= 10173 (August 2023). 4-67
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) multi-family units (high density units) in the CSD is 0.255 student per unit.31 According to the Developer Fee Justification Study performed for the CSD b y Cooperative Strategies and dated Novemb er 9, 2022, the elementary student generation rate for multi-family units (high density units) in the CSD is 0.32 student per unit.32 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 Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which is b ased 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.
Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing b oard of any school district is authoriz ed to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the b oundaries 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 b e 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 RCM PS-2 b elow). With the AUHSD’s projected decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-b y-project b asis, it is expected that AUHSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new middle and high school level students generated with the development of future residential development.
In addition, the Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects allowed under the proposed project would b e required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in RCM PS-2. With the AUHSD’s continued pattern of decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-b y-project b asis, it is expected that AUHSD 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 b uilding permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the required fees, as outlined in RCM PS2, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to pub lic services. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
31 Cooperative Strategies. 2020. R esidential and Com m ercial / I ndustrial D ev el opm ent School Fee J ustif ication Study , Cy press School D istrict, T ab l e 5: A djusted Student G eneration Factors. April 30. 32 Cooperative Strategies. 2022. D ev el oper Fee J ustif ication Study , Central ia El em entary School D istrict.
Novemb er 9.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -68 Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2 Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any b uilding permits, the Applicant/Developer of future residential
development projects facilitated b y 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 b een made in compliance with Section
65995 of the California Government Code.
iv. Parks
Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Section 4.16, Recreation, of this IS/ND, for a detailed discussion related to the proposed project’s potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities. As discussed previously in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project could add up to 639 new residents to the City’s population, which could increase usage of City parks and recreational facilities. As describ ed in Section 4.16, impacts to recreational facilities would remain less than significant b y requiring every sub divider to either dedicate land, pay a park fee, or do b oth, for the purposes of providing park and recreational facilities (see RCM REC-1 in Section 4.16). All future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with the City of Cypress General Plan. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Additionally, new land uses allowed within the Specific Plan Area would b e generally similar to land uses already allowed under the existing specific plans. Therefore, b ecause the proposed project does not require the construction or expansion of pub lic recreation facilities and b ecause in-lieu park fees would b e paid, as describ ed in RCM REC-1, impacts to parks and recreation facilities would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required. v. Other public facilities
Less Than Significant Impact. The Cypress Community Center, which provides regular classes and programming for local residents, is also located at 5700 O range Avenue. The Cypress Senior Center is located at 9031 Grindlay Street. Projects allowed under the proposed Specific Plan could result in an increase in the use of other pub lic facilities such as roadways, b ike lanes, sidewalks, and other urb an paths; however, the increased use of sustainab le transportation infrastructure is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The proposed Specific Plan is intended to guide the development of future projects within the City of Cypress and does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units, with a corresponding net increase of approximately 639 persons. The net increase of 639 4-69
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) persons would incrementally increase demand for use of the pub lic facilities and demand for community services and programs at the Cypress Senior Center and the Cypress Community Center.
However, future development projects under this Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or altered government facilities, and no mitigation is required.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -70
4.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighb orhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that sub stantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or b e accelerated?
b ) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
4.16.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in any specific development or redevelopment proposal. The proposed land changes would allow residential development to occur on the property at the northwest corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street.
The land use designation on this property would b e updated from Professional O ffice and Hotel Support Commercial (PO /HSC) to Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) with a High-Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), allowing for a residential density of 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The land use designation on the second property at the northeast corner of K atella Avenue and Sib oney Street would b e updated from Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) to MixedUse Commercial/Residential (MUC/R) with a High-Density Residential O verlay (HDR O verlay), increasing the permitted density from 19 du/ac to 60 du/ac to reflect the existing residential density on the affected parcel. Although the proposed updates would not directly result in physical development, they would make possib le new residential development that could potentially lead to impacts to existing parks or recreational facilities. Any future projects that are implemented in accordance with the proposed z oning and land use updates would b e required to adhere to the Cypress General Plan, the City of Cypress Municipal Code, and all applicab le development regulations pertaining to the capacity of existing neighb orhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
The proposed project would allow for the development of up to 321 dwelling units, with a corresponding net increase of approximately 639 persons. 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 availab le at K -12 schools through a cooperative arrangement b etween the City, local school districts, and local park and recreation districts. The City currently has 82 acres of parkland availab le for its 50,151 residents, and it currently provides approximately 1.63 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The additional 639 residents would incrementally change this ratio to 1.61 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is a negligib le change.
4-71
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) As specified in the City of Cypress Municipal Code Section 25-43, Relation of land required to population density, the City collects park dedication and in-lieu fees which are applicab le to new residential construction that qualify as dwelling units as defined b y Section 6.31.020(D) of the Cypress Zoning O rdinance and Section 205(D) of the 2001 California Building Code as they currently exist.
Impacts to recreational facilities remain less than significant b y requiring every sub divider to either dedicate land, pay a park fee, or do b oth, for the purposes of providing park and recreational facilities (see Regulatory Compliance Measure [RCM] REC-1 provided b elow). All future residential projects implemented in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with the City of Cypress General Plan. Therefore, impacts would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1 Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees.
Prior to issuance of any b uilding permits for residential projects within the Specific Plan Area, the Applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the applicab le
provisions of Chapter 25 (Sub divisions), Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City of Cypress (City) Municipal Code, or other fees as determined b y the City, to the Director of the City Community Development
Department, or designee.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. There are currently a total of 20 developed pub lic parks within the City of Cypress, which range in siz e from the approximately 0.17-acre Laurel Park to the 22-acre O ak K noll Park.33 According to the Conservation/O pen Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan (2001), the City had a total of approximately 82 acres of parks and recreational facilities.
The proposed Specific Plan is intended to guide the development of future projects within the City of Cypress and does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed Specific Plan would not directly result in physical development. The proposed project would not make sub stantial changes to the General Plan land use designations within the Specific Plan Area.
Additionally, the proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac, and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units.
33 City of Cypress. 2022a. Facility and Park Locations. Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/activities/facilitypark-locations (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -72 As discussed ab ove under Response 4.16(a), the City of Cypress Municipal Code, Section 25-43, estab lishes a standard of 3.0 acres of land per 1,000 residents for park and recreational purposes, and an additional 1.6 acres of land per 1,000 residents for purposes that are made availab le at K–12 schools through a cooperative arrangement b etween the City, local school districts, and local park and recreation districts. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the land use changes would comply with the applicab le provisions in Chapter 25, Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City’s Municipal Code (refer to RCM REC-1), which requires the payment of an in-lieu park fee, the dedication of land for park and recreational purposes, or b oth, b ased on a standard of 3.0 acres of land for park and recreational purposes for each 1,000 residents.
The proposed Specific Plan could allow for the development of additional residential units in Cypress, which could result in the potential addition of approximately 639 residents. This increase in population could incrementally increase usage of City parks and recreational facilities.
For all future residential projects developed in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan, the City will require the Applicant to pay fees and/or dedicate parkland as identified in RCM REC-1. Therefore, with the payment of in-lieu park fees and/or the dedication of parkland, impacts to recreation requirements would b e less than significant.
In addition to providing on-site recreational amenities, the Applicant would pay applicab le park fees as describ ed in RCM REC-1. Therefore, any future projects implemented under the proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Potential impacts would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 4-73
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.17 TRAN SPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, b icycle and pedestrian facilities?
b ) Conflict or b e inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, sub division (b )?
c) Sub stantially increase haz ards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatib le uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
4.17.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? or
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQ A Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
N o Impact. The Circulation Element of the City of Cypress General Plan provides goals and policies to implement a b alanced, functional, and efficient circulation system, and incorporate alternative modes of travel which allow for the safe movement of people and goods. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with regulations to promote pedestrian and b icycle pathways, transit, and other actions to decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City. New land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e generally similar to the land uses already allowed under the existing specific plans. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would amend the land use designation on two properties along K atella Avenue within the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC Specific Plan), to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Any future residential development or redevelopment on these properties would b e analyz ed on a project-b y-project b asis as design and layout of the projects are determined. Any trip generation or operational characteristics under the proposed Specific Plan would b e similar to what is already allowed under the various existing specific plans. The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in transportation impacts, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development under the Specific Plan would b e sub ject to policies describ ed in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, as well as other policies that promote reduction of VMT.
Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have no impacts associated with conflict
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -74 with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, b icycle, and pedestrian facilities or related to State CEQ A G uidel ines Section 15064.3, sub division (b ), and no mitigation is required.
c) Would the project substantially increase haz ards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? or
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? N o Impact. As describ ed ab ove, the proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in transportation impacts, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal.
The proposed project would not make sub stantial changes to the General Plan land use designations within the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, the proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 du/ac, consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. Any future residential development or redevelopment proposals would b e analyz ed during review, and any necessary police or fire emergency access would b e implemented consistent with the City’s Municipal Code.
Furthermore, any future developments or transportation improvements under the Specific Plan would b e required to conform to the City of Cypress roadway design standards, which are b ased upon engineering principles and evolving policies and practices governing the City’s transportation infrastructure. These design standards meet b oth State and nationally acceptab le design criteria. All street improvements within the City would b e sub ject to the approval of the City Engineer; furthermore, these improvements would b e sub ject to the standards of the latest adopted edition of the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) H ig hway D esig n M anual, where applicab le.
Long-term congestion relief resulting from implementation of the Circulation Element would improve emergency access throughout the City for police, fire, and emergency protection services. New land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e generally similar to the land uses already allowed under the existing specific plans. Potential impacts would essentially b e the same as what is already allowed under the existing specific plans. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in dangerous design components or inadequate emergency access, and no mitigation is required.
4-75
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a sub stantial adverse change in the significance of a trib al cultural resource, defined in Pub lic Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the siz e and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or ob ject with cultural value to a California Native American trib e, and that is:
i. Listed or eligib le for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Pub lic Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)? O r
ii. A resource determined b y the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported b y sub stantial evidence, to b e significant pursuant to criteria set forth in sub division (c) of Pub lic Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in sub division (c) of Pub lic Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American trib e.
4.18.1 Impact Analysis
a) 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 siz e and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California N ative American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California N ative American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact. Assemb ly Bill (AB) 52 and CEQA Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1, sub divisions (b ), (d), require a lead agency to consult with any California Native American trib e that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [SB] 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with trib al organiz ations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan, or to designate open space that includes Native American Cultural Places.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -76 The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on Feb ruary 23, 2023, to conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and provide a Native American Contact List for the Specific Plan Area pursuant to SB 18, Government Codes 65352.3 and 65352.4, AB 52, and PRC Sections 21080.1 and 21080.3.1. The NAHC responded on May 2, 2023, stating that an SLF search was completed for the Specific Plan Area with negative results. The NAHC recommended that 19 Native American individuals representing the Diegueñ o, Gab rielino groups, Juaneñ o, Luiseñ o, Cahuilla, Pala Band, and K umeyaay groups b e contacted for information regarding cultural resources that could b e affected b y the proposed project. Nineteen individuals were contacted through letters sent via U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail on April 11, 2023. No responses requesting consultation were received within the time period.
The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to trib al cultural resources, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Future development under the Specific Plan could require excavation and other potentially disturb ing aspects of construction into soils, and there is a potential to uncover undiscovered trib al cultural resources during excavation, including human remains. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of undiscovered sub surface trib al cultural resources within the proposed Specific Plan Area is possib le, and these resources could potentially b e affected b y construction activities.
Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) CUL-1, as detailed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, requires compliance with California PRC Section 21083.2(g) for the treatment of unearthed archaeological resources. Adherence to regulatory standards included in 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 trib al cultural significance are discovered during future construction activities under the proposed Specific Plan.
As also discussed in Section 4.5, 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 RCM CUL2 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 the proposed Specific Plan Area.
Any future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with AB 52, SB 18, and relevant City standards as applicab le. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have less than significant impacts related to trib al cultural resources, and no mitigation is required.
4-77
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.19 UTILITIES AN D SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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?
b ) Have sufficient water supplies availab le to serve the project and reasonab ly foreseeab le future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination b y 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?
d) 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?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
4.19.1 Impact Analysis
a) 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 Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. The proposed project would amend the land use designations on two properties within the proposed Specific Plan Area to allow residential densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the rez oning scenarios included in the City of Cypress’s 2021–2029 Housing Element. O ne of the properties that would b e affected b y the residential land use designation change is currently developed at 60 du/ac and the other property has the potential to accommodate the development of up to 321 dwelling units. The proposed project would not make sub stantial changes to the General Plan land use designations within the Specific Plan Area.
Additionally, new land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e similar to those allowed under the existing specific plans. No increase in demand for these utilities is anticipated b eyond what already exists and what would b e generated b y the uses that are already allowed under the existing specific plans. Future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -78 sub ject to review b y the City Pub lic Works Department and/or utility companiesto determine projectspecific infrastructure needs and requirements. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Water
The West O range County System of the Golden State Water Company (GSWC) Los Alamitos West O range Service Area 2020 Urb an Water Management Plan (UWMP) states that annual water use in its service area is expected to b e 15,759 acre-feet b y 2045. In addition, the 2020 UWMP states that total water supplies availab le for the service area in 2045 would b e 23,645 acre-feet. Some of the 321 residential units that would b e facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urb an uses that currently use water. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicab le development regulations pertaining to water. As a part of the development review process, all future projects would b e required to demonstrate that existing pub lic utilities would b e 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 b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Wastewater
The O range County Sanitation District (O CSD) is responsib le for the provision of wastewater treatment facilities that serve the Specific Plan Area. The O CSD 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 million gallons per day (mgd),34 and is running under capacity at approximately 120 mgd.35 Treatment Plant No. 2 has a primary treatment capacity of 168 mgd and currently receives 59 mgd.36
As stated ab ove, some of the 321 residential units that would b e facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urb an uses that currently generate wastewater and are assumed in O CSD’s wastewater generation projections. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicab le development regulations pertaining to wastewater treatment. As a part of the development review process, all future projects would b e required to demonstrate that existing pub lic utilities would b e sufficient to serve the future projects’ needs. In addition, as requested b y O CSD, future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e 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 34 O CSD. 2019b . B udg et U pdate Fiscal Y ear 2019-2020. Web site: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/Show Document? id= 28411 (accessed May 12, 2023). 35 Ib id. 36 O CSD. Facts and K ey Statistics Web pag e. Web site: https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewerservice (accessed May 12, 2023). 4-79
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) generated b y the future project.37 As such, the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities or infrastructure and impacts would b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
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 applicab le, a SWPPP would also detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to b e implemented during project construction to minimiz e erosion and retain sediment on site. If a future project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, it would b e sub ject 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 comb ination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent pollution of stormwater runoff during construction activities.
Any new development allowed under the proposed project would also comply with the O range County MS4 Permit, which requires the preparation of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and implementation of operational BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff from project sites. Compliance with the O range 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 321 residential units that would b e facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urb an uses that currently contrib ute to stormwater flows and given that existing urb an uses are prob ab ly older structures and not b uilt to current stormwater standards there could b e a net b enefit. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicab le development regulations pertaining to stormwater drainage. As a part of the development review process, all future projects would b e required to demonstrate that existing pub lic utilities would b e 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 b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
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 2022 was 37 Personal communication with L K evin Hadden, Principal Staff Analyst at O CSD on June 30, 2023.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -80 85,870 GWh38 and total electricity consumption in O range County in 2022 was 20,243.7 GWh ((20,243,721,856 kilowatt hours [ kWh]).
39 Additionally, some of the 321 residential units that would b e facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urb an uses that are older structures not b uilt to current Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, all of which consume electricity, thereb y likely decreasing any net gain in electricity consumption. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicab le development regulations pertaining to electric power. As a part of the development review process, all future projects would b e required to demonstrate that existing pub lic utilities would b e 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 b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
N atural 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.40 According to the CEC, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2022 was s 5,026 million therms (1,646 million therms for the industrial sector) 41 and total natural gas consumption in O range County in 2022 was 572 million therms (352 million therms for the residential sector and 221 therms for the non-residential sector).42 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 321 residential units that would b e facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urb an uses that are older structures not b uilt to current Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, several of which consume natural gas, thereb y likely decreasing the net gain in natural gas consumption. Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicab le development regulations pertaining to natural gas. As a part of the development review process, all future projects would b e required to demonstrate that existing pub lic utilities would b e 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 b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Telecommunication Facilities
38 CEC. 2023b . El ectricity Consum ption b y Entity . Web site: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecb yutil.aspx (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025) 39 CEC. 2023a El ectricity Consum ption b y County. Web site: http://www.ecdmsenergy.ca.gov/elecb y county.aspx (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025). 40 SoCalGas. n.d. Company Profile: Ab out SoCalGas Web page. Web site: https://www.socalgas.com/ab outus/company-profile (accessed May 11, 2023) 41 CEC. 2023d. G as Consum ption b y Entity . Web site: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasb yutil.aspx (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025). 42 CEC. 2023c. G as Consum ption b y County. Web site: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasb ycounty.aspx (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025).
4-81
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Telephone, television, and internet services are offered b y a variety of providers in the City. Any future projects that would b e developed in accordance with the proposed project would b e responsib le for constructing adequate tele-communication facility extensions on their respective project sites. The future 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, cab le, 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 b e less than significant. No mitigation is required.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Cypress is served b y the GSWC, a private water service provider. As stated in Response 4.19.1(a), water provided in the West O range County System is a b lend of groundwater from the O range County Groundwater Basin and imported water. According to GSWC’s 2020 UWMP for the West O range County System, the total projected water demand for customers served b y GSWC is approximately 14,137 acre-feet per year in 2025; the projected water demand increases every 5-year period, totaling 15,759 acre-feet per year b y 2045. GSWC’s planned water supplies for 2025 total 21,940 acre-feet per year, increasing to 23,645 acre-feet per year in 2045.43
As indicated ab ove Response 4.19.1(a), the proposed land use changes would accommodate the development of 321 housing units within the proposed Specific Plan; however, some of the 321 residential units that would b e facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urb an uses that currently generate wastewater and are assumed in O CSD’s wastewater generation projections. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would generally allow the same types of uses as those currently existing in the Specific Plan Area and already allowed under the five existing specific plans; therefore, the anticipated water demand associated with the proposed Specific Plan would b e similar to existing uses and the uses that are already allowed under the specific plans. Future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to adhere to all applicab le State laws related to water conservation.
The proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal.
Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ine.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and adequate water supply would b e availab le to accommodate the future residential development on the proposed properties facilitated b y the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed project would increase demand for water supplies; however, the GSWC would have sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the 43 Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2021b . Los Alamitos Customer Service Area. Web site:
http://www.gswater.com/los-alamitos/ (accessed Novemb er 20, 2023).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -82 proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to water supplies. No mitigation is required.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’ s projected demand in addition to the provider’ s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed ab ove in Response 4.19.1 (a), 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 million gallons per day, 44 and
is running under capacity at approximately 120 million gallons per day. 45 Treatment Plant No. 2 has a
primary treatment capacity of 168 million gallons per day 46 and currently receives 59 million gallons per day. 47 The City’s Pub lic Works Department’s Maintenance Division is responsib le for maintaining the City’s sanitary sewer system. The City operates and maintains a sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system that includes a network of gravity sewers, one pump station, and one sewer force main. Wastewater in the City of Cypress is collected, treated, and disposed of b y the O range County Sanitation District (O CSD). The O CSD provides wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling for approximately 2.6 million people living within a 479-square-mile area of central and northwestern O range County and treats approximately 185 million gallons of wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources per day.48
According to the O CSD’s 2020 Sewer System Management Plan, “O C San’s CIP assures that older facilities are upgraded as needed to ensure adequate capacity through the system. O C San works under annual and long-range plans that have proven effective, and O C San is not currently experiencing capacity related prob lems. Indications of possib le capacity prob lems seen b y the Collections Facilities O &M Division are b rought to the attention of the Engineering Department for further evaluation.”49 Therefore, there are no constraints on the availab ility of wastewater disposal or treatment.
Future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with all State laws related to water conservation. Additionally, future projects would b e required to adhere to the City’s Sewer Improvement Standards, which stipulate that all required sewer improvements shall b e designed and constructed to City of Cypress (City) and O range County Sanitation District (O C SAN) standards and shall b e approved b y the City Engineer prior to development. The proposed Specific Plan would generally allow the same types of commercial and industrial uses as those 44 O CSD. 2019b . B udg et U pdate Fiscal Y ear 2019-2020. Web site: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/Show Document? id= 28411 (accessed May 12, 2023). 45 Ib id. 46 Ib id. 47 O CSD. Facts and K ey Statistics Web pag e. Web site: https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewer-service (accessed May 12, 2023). 48 O range County Sanitation District (O C SAN). 2022. 2021-2022 A nnual R eport. Web site: https://www.oc san.gov/home/showpub lisheddocument/33473/638080061619170000 (accessed Novemb er 16, 2023). 49 O CSD. 2020. System Management Plan for O range County Sanitation District. Web site: https://www.ocsd. com/Home/ShowDocument? id= 29880 (accessed Novemb er 15, 2023). 4-83
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) currently existing in the Specific Plan Area and already allowed under the five existing specific plans; therefore, the anticipated wastewater generation associated with the proposed Specific Plan would b e similar to existing uses and the uses that are already allowed. Additionally, some of the 321 residential units that would b e facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urb an uses that currently generate wastewater. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment capacity, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City currently contracts with Valley Vista Waste and Recycling Services, a private solid waste hauler, to collect and dispose of the solid waste generated throughout the City. Solid waste collected in the City b y Valley Vista would b e transported to one of the Class III landfills operated and maintained b y O CWR. O CWR owns and operates three active landfills (i.e., the O linda Alpha Landfill in Brea, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano). All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills, which only accept nonhaz ardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no haz ardous or liquid waste is accepted. County residents are ab le to dispose of their household haz ardous waste items at any of O CWR’s four household haz ardous waste collection centers, located in the cities of Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano.50 Tab le 4.19.A identifies the Class III sanitary landfills operated b y O CWR.
Table 4.19.A: Orange County Class III Landfills
Landfill Location
Approximate
Distance from
Specific Plan Area
(miles)
Service
Frank R. Bowerman 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road
Irvine, CA 92602
20 (southeast) Commercial dumping;
no pub lic dumping
O linda Alpha 1942 North Valencia Avenue
Brea, CA 92823
14 (northeast) Commercial dumping;
pub lic dumping allowed
Prima Deshecha 32250 La Pata Avenue
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
33 (southeast) Commercial dumping;
pub lic dumping allowed
Sources: O range County Waste & Recycling. Active Landfills. Google Maps; Web site: https://oclandfills.com/landfills/active-landfills (accessed Decemb er 2022).
O f the three Class III landfills currently operated b y O CWR, the closest active landfill to the Specific Plan Area is the O linda Alpha Landfill. The O linda Alpha Landfill, which is currently permitted b y the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) to receive a maximum of 50 O C Waste & Recycling (O CWR). Household Haz ardous Waste. Web site: http://www.oclandfills.com/ haz ardous (accessed Novemb er 26, 2023).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -84 8,000 tons per day (tpd) of waste, currently receives an average of approximately 7,000 tpd.51 Therefore, the O linda Alpha Landfill is currently operating at approximately 87.5 percent of its daily capacity. As of O ctob er 2020, the O linda Alpha Landfill has an estimated remaining disposal capacity of 17,500,000 cub ic yards.52 If the State-permitted daily tonnage limit is reached at any County landfill, waste haulers are sub ject to diversion to local transfer stations located throughout the County. The O linda Alpha Landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2030, at which time it would b e landscaped to b ecome a County regional park.53
Solid waste from future residential development allowed under the proposed project would b e required to comply with State and local solid waste reduction, diversion, and recycling policies and regulations. 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 O CWR solid waste disposal system would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Furthermore, some of the 321 residential units that would b e facilitated under the proposed project would replace existing urb an uses, most of which currently generate solid waste.
As the proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal, it would not generate solid waste. Future development projects allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria related to solid waste.
The proposed Specific Plan would generally allow the same types of commercial and industrial uses as those currently existing in the Specific Plan Area and already allowed under the five existing specific plans; therefore, the anticipated solid waste generation associated with the proposed Specific Plan would b e similar to existing uses and the uses that are already allowed. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would have less than significant impacts on planned solid waste capacity, and no mitigation is required.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated in Response 4.19.1(d) ab ove solid waste disposal practices in California are governed b y multiple federal, State, and local agencies that enforce legislation and regulations ensuring that landfill operations minimiz e impacts to pub lic health and safety and the environment. The proposed Specific Plan would accommodate the development of 321 housing units within the proposed Specific Plan, in an area with existing urb an uses, the demolition of which would generate solid waste. The California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assemb ly Bill [AB] 939) changed the focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies (e.g., source reduction, recycling, and composting). The purpose of the diversion strategies is to reduce 51 O CWR. 2021. O linda Alpha Landfill. Web site: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/ Details/2757? siteID= 2093 (accessed Septemb er 26, 2023). 52 O CWR. 2021. O linda Alpha Landfill. Web site: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/ Details/2757? siteID= 2093 (accessed Septemb er 26, 2023). 53 City of Cypress. 2021. C&D Recycling Requirement. Web site: C&D Recycling Requirement | City of Cypress (cypressca.org) (accessed Novemb er 2023).
4-85
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) dependence on landfills for solid waste disposal. AB 939 estab lished mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent b y 1995, 50 percent b y 2000, and 75 percent b y 2020. The City of Cypress provides curb side recycling for b oth residential and commercial uses, as well as curb side residential green waste, which b oth count toward the City’s solid waste diversion rate. CalRecycle tracks and monitors solid waste disposal on a per capita b asis.
The proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal.
Future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated b y City, State, and federal law. As stated ab ove in Response 4.19.1(d), the proposed Specific Plan would generally allow the same types of commercial and industrial uses as those currently existing in the Specific Plan Area. The anticipated solid waste generation associated with the proposed Specific Plan would b e similar to existing uses and the uses that are already allowed. Additionally, future developments would b e required to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition O rdinance (City O rdinance No. 1166), and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. As stipulated b y City O rdinance No. 11 66 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards, project applicants would b e required to sub mit a Materials Questionnaire should the contractor haul away its own demolition waste. Future projects would also b e required to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition deb ris in order to ob tain b uilding permits.54 Valley Vista Services certifies 75 percent diversion for all construction and demolition material,55 which would contrib ute to an increased waste diversion rate within the City.
Although implementation of the proposed project does not involve any physical development, there is a potential for demolition of existing structures in the City and potential construction of 321 residential units. Demolition and construction activities would generate typical construction deb ris, including wood, paper, glass, metals, cardb oard, and green wastes. The proposed project would comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition O rdinance (Regulatory Compliance Measure [RCM] UTIL-1). The applicants for future development would also b e required to sub mit a Materials Questionnaire should the contractor haul away its own demolition waste. As stipulated b y City O rdinance No. 1166 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards, the proposed project would b e required to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition deb ris in order to ob tain b uilding permits.56 Additionally, Valley Vista Services certifies 75 percent diversion for all construction and demolition material, which would contrib ute to an increased waste diversion rate within the City. 57
The proposed project would comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated b y City, State, and federal law. Therefore, the proposed project would 54 City of Cypress. Construction and Demolition Recycling Requirement. Web site: http://www.cypressca.org/ work/b uilding-division/c-d-recycling-requirement (accessed Septemb er 15, 2023). 55 Ib id. 56 City of Cypress. 2021. C&D Recycling Requirement. Web site: C&D Recycling Requirement, City of Cypress (cypressca.org) (accessed January 9, 2024). 57 Ib id.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -86 not result in an impact related to federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes, and no mitigation is required.
Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following regulatory compliance measure is an existing regulation that is applicab le to the proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to utilities and service systems. The City of Cypress considers this requirement to b e mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1 Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The construction contractor shall comply with the provisions of the City of Cypress O rdinance No. 1166 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, which would
reduce construction and demolition waste. O rdinance
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.
4-87
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
If located in or near state responsib ility areas or lands classified as very high fire haz ard severity z ones, would the project:
a) Sub stantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b ) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerb ate wildfire risks, and thereb y expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel b reaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerb ate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instab ility, or drainage changes?
4.20.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
or
b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
or
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? or
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
N o Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant fire haz ards in the State through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas of California into different fire haz ard severity z ones (FHSZ), b ased on a haz ard scoring system using sub jective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing densities, and
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -88 occurrence of severe fire weather where urb an conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. As part of this mapping system, CAL FIRE is responsib le for wildland fire protection for land areas that are generally unincorporated, and they are classified as State Responsib ility Areas (SRAs). In areas where local fire protection agencies (e.g., O range County Fire Authority [O CFA]) are responsib le for wildfire protection, the lands are classified as Local Responsib ility Areas (LRAs). CAL FIRE currently identifies the Specific Plan Area as an LRA. In addition to estab lishing local or State responsib ility for wildfire protection in a specific area, CAL FIRE designates areas as very high fire haz ard severity z ones (VHFHSZ) or non-VHFHSZ.
According to the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Haz ard Severity Zone Maps for the O range County region, the entire City of Cypress is designated as a non-VHFHSZ,58 and the City does not include an SRA. The nearest VHFHSZ to the Specific Plan Area is approximately 12 miles to the northeast in Coyote Hills on the western side of Fullerton.59 The nearest SRA is in Puente Hills, approximately 14 miles northeast of the Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not, in and of itself, result in impacts related to wildfires, as it does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal.
Similar to new development allowed under the existing specific plans, new development under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to comply with all applicab le regulations and standards related to wildfire. Additionally, new development would b e required to adhere to the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan for the City of Cypress. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines.
Therefore, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to wildfire, and no mitigation is required.
58 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2011. Very High Fire Haz ard Severity Zones in LRA. Web site: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhsz l_ map30.pdf (accessed August 30, 2023). 59 Ib id. 4-89
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
4.21 MAN DATORY FIN DIN GS OF SIGN IFICAN CE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to sub stantially degrade the quality of the environment, sub stantially reduce the hab itat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop b elow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, sub stantially reduce the numb er or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b ) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, b ut cumulatively considerab le? (“Cumulatively
considerab le” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerab le when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of prob ab le future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause sub stantial adverse effects on human b eings, either directly or indirectly?
4.21.1 Impact Analysis
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the discussion in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts related to hab itat, wildlife species, and/or plant and animal communities. The proposed Specific Plan would not eliminate a plant or animal community, nor would it sub stantially reduce the numb er or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
The proposed project would avoid impacts on nesting resident and/or migratory b irds either b y avoiding vegetation removal during the avian nesting season (Feb ruary 1 through August 31) or b y implementing Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) BIO -1. This measure would address any impacts to nesting resident and/or migratory b irds should it b e necessary to conduct vegetation removal during the nesting season and nests are present.
As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Response 4.5(a), the project area does not contain any b uildings or structures that meet any of the California Register of Historical Resources criteria or qualify as “historical resources” as defined b y CEQA. Further, according to the City of Cypress General Plan, there are no known archaeological resources located in Cypress. Therefore, implementation the proposed Specific Plan would not cause a sub stantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -90 resource. In addition, RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 have b een incorporated to address the discovery of archaeological and paleontological resources should any b e unearthed during construction. With RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2, potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological or paleontological resources would b e reduced to less than significant.
As discussed in Section 4.18, Trib al Cultural Resources, the City requested a search of the Sacred Lands File b y the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the project area. According to NAHC correspondence dated Septemb er May 2, 2023, no resources were noted in the datab ase. Nineteen native American individuals were contacted through letters sent via U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail on April 11, 2023. No responses requesting consultation were received within the time period.
Therefore, no trib al cultural resources listed or eligib le for listing in the California Register or in a local register exist within the project area, and there are no known trib al cultural resources within the project area. Although the project area is not likely to contain any human remains, adherence to regulatory standards included in RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on unique archaeological resources and human remains to less than significant and addresses trib al concerns regarding the treatment of human remains. In the unlikely event that future grounddisturb ing construction activities uncover a yet-to-b e-discovered trib al cultural resource, adherence to RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered trib al cultural resources to a less than significant level.
For the reasons stated ab ove, the proposed Specific Plan does not have the potential to sub stantially degrade the quality of the environment, sub stantially reduce the hab itat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop b elow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, sub stantially reduce the numb er or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“ Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? N o Impact. The proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. Additionally, the proposed project would not sub stantially change land uses within the proposed Specific Plan Area as new land uses allowed within the Specific Plan Area would b e generally consistent with other existing and permitted land uses in the immediately surrounding area. Future development or residential projects under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Adherence to the regulations describ ed in the regulatory compliance measures related to air quality (RCMs AQ-1 through AQ-5), b iological resources (RCM BIO-1), cultural resources (RCMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 ), geology (RCM GEO-1), hydrology and water quality (RCMs HY D-1 through HY D-3), pub lic services (RCMs PS-1 and PS-2), and utilities (RCM UTIL-1) would also ensure that impacts to those resource areas would b e less than significant. There is no indication that the proposed project would have environmental impacts that could cause other facilities or projects to b e adversely affected.
4-91
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) As describ ed throughout this analysis, the proposed Specific Plan does not include any specific development or redevelopment proposal. The allowed land uses under the proposed Specific Plan would b e similar to the existing land uses already allowed under the five existing specific plans. Future development projects allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would b e required to conform with applicab le City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would b e sub ject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQ A G uidel ines. The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerab le impacts with implementation of project regulatory compliance measures. Implementation of the regulatory compliance measures at the project-level would reduce the potential for the incremental effects of the proposed Specific Plan to b e considerab le when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, or prob ab le future projects for all environmental parameters. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
N o Impact. Previous sections of this IS/ND reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts and regulatory compliance measures related to air quality (RCMs AQ-1 through AQ-5), energy (RCM EN-1), geology (RCM GEO-1), hydrology and water quality (RCMs HY D-1 through HY D-3), pub lic services (RCMs PS-1 and PS-2), and utilities (RCM UTIL-1). As concluded in the previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with adherence to these regulatory compliance measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause sub stantial adverse effects on human b eings.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
4 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -92 This page intentionally left blank
5-1
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
5.0 RECOMMEN DATION
Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, we recommend that the City of Cypress prepare a Negative Declaration for the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project. We find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect. We recommend that the second category b e selected for the City of Cypress’s determination (see Section 3.1, Determination, in Chapter 3.0, Environmental Factors Potentially Affected).
Date: March 3, 2025
Ryan Bensley, AICP
Principal / Project Manager
LSA
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
5 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 This page intentionally left blank
6-1
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY NEGATIVE D ECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
6.0 MITIGATION MON ITORIN G AN D REPORTIN G PROGRAM
6.1 MITIGATION MON ITORIN G REQ UIREMEN TS
California Pub lic 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 pub lic 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 b e designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes that have b een required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsib le agency or a pub lic agency having jurisdiction b y law over natural resources affected b y the project, that agency shall, if so, requested b y the lead agency or a responsib le agency, prepare and sub mit 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 b ased. • The lead agency shall provide measures to mitigate or avoid potentially significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceab le through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may b e 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, b y incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
• Prior to the close of the pub lic review period for a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND), a responsib le agency, or a pub lic agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected b y the project, shall either (1) sub mit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance ob jectives for mitigation measures that would address the significant effects on the environment identified b y the responsib le agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected b y the project, or (2) refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily availab le guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures sub mitted to a lead agency b y a responsib le agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected b y the project shall b e limited to measures that mitigate impacts to resources that are sub ject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicab le to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance with that requirement b y a responsib le agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected b y a project shall not limit the authority of the responsib le agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected b y a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided b y this division or any other provision of law.
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2
6.2 MITIGATION MON ITORIN G PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project (Specific Plan) has b een prepared in compliance with Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. It describ es the requirements and procedures to b e followed b y the City of Cypress, as the Lead Agency, to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed project will b e carried out as describ ed in this IS/ND.
Tab le 6.A sets forth the proposed mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this IS/ND and identifies the party or parties responsib le for implementation and monitoring of each measure.
6-3
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.3: Air Q uality
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-1
Emission Reduction Measures. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall b e controlled b y regular watering or other dust preventative measures b y using the following procedures, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during construction.
The applicab le Rule 403 measures are as follows:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stab iliz ers 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 b e 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 freeb oard (vertical space b etween 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.
During
construction
activities
Project Applicant
Regulatory Compliance Measure 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 pub lic streets and roads.
Construction Painting. Prior to approval of future project plans and specifications, the City of Cypress shall confirm that the construction b id packages specify:
Prior to
approval of
future project
plans
Project Applicant
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
6 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -4 Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Contractors shall use high-volume low-pressure paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent; Coatings and solvents that will b e utiliz ed have a volatile organic compound content lower than required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; and
To the extent feasib le, construction/b uilding materials shall b e composed of pre-painted materials.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-3
Construction Painting. Prior to approval of future project plans and specifications, the City of Cypress shall confirm that the construction b id 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 b e utiliz ed have a volatile organic compound content lower than required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; and
To the extent feasib le, construction/b uilding materials shall b e composed of pre-painted materials.
Prior to
approval of
future project
plans
Project Applicant
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-4
Air Contaminant Discharge. Future projects shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 prohib its the discharge of air contaminants or other material from any type of operations, which can cause nuisance or annoyance to any considerab le numb er of people or to the pub lic or which endangers the comfort or repose of any such persons, or the pub lic.
Future project
proposal
Project Applicant
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-5
All future projects shall comply with the latest Energy Code and Title 24 solar requirements for new residential development.
Future project
proposal
Project Applicant
6-5
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.4: Biological Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1
N esting Bird Survey and Avoidance. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting b ird season (Feb ruary 1 through August 31), the City of Cypress, or designee, shall confirm that the Applicant has retained a qualified b iologist who shall conduct a preconstruction nesting b ird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities. The nesting b ird survey shall include the work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as feasib le) that could potentially b e affected b y projectrelated activities such as noise, vib ration, increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified b iologist shall estab lish an appropriate b uffer z one around the active nest(s). The appropriate b uffer shall b e determined b y the qualified b iologist b ased on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall b e avoided within the b uffer z one until the nest is deemed no longer active, as determined b y the qualified b iologist.
No more than
three days
prior to
commencement
of grading
activities
Applicant and City
of Cypress
Community
Development
Director, or
designee, Project
Applicant
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-2
Landmark Tree Removal. The Director of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or designee, shall review and approve the removal of any trees required b y future development associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project. As specified in the City Municipal Code Section 17- 19, the property owner of a landmark tree shall sub mit a written request for review and consideration of the landmark tree removal and replacement plan at least 30 days prior to said removal. Pub lic notice of a proposed landmark tree removal shall b e posted next to or on the sub ject landmark tree, at the local pub lic lib rary, and at the Cypress City Hall during the entire 30-day application-processing period. No trees on the proposed project site shall b e removed prior to the approval of a landmark tree removal permit b y the Director of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or designee.
Future project
proposal
Cypress Community
Development
Director, or
designee, Project
Applicant
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
6 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -6 Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.5: Cultural Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1
Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the O range 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 Pub lic 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 b e 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 ab ove.
During
construction
activities
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
Department, or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-2
Human Remains. In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall b e 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 disturb ance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to b e 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 b y the NAHC. The MLD During
construction
activities
Construction
Supervisor/
Applicant
6-7
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
may recommend scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American b urials.
Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to b e Native American and an MLD is notified, the City of Cypress shall consult with the MLD as identified b y 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 ab ove.
4.6: Energy
Regulatory Compliance Measure EN-1
Limit Idling Time. The Applicant and construction contractor would b e required to comply with applicab le idling regulations for on-road vehicles during project construction and operation, which require truck drivers to turn off their engines within 5 minutes of idling.
Prior to
issuance of a
b uilding permit
Applicant and City
of Cypress
Community
Development
Director, or
designee
4.7: Geology and Soils
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1
Compliance with Seismic and Building Standards in the Building Code.
Prior to issuance of the first b uilding permit for the proposed b uildings, the City of Cypress (City) Engineer, Building O fficial, or their designee, and the project soils engineer shall review the b uilding plans to verify that the structural design conforms to the requirements of the City’s latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code.
Structures and walls shall b e designed in accordance with applicab le sections of the City’s Building Code.
Prior to
issuance of
b uilding permits
Applicant and City
of Cypress
Engineer, Building
official, or designee
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
6 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -8 Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.10: Hydrology and Water Q uality
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1
Construction General Permit. If construction of future projects associated with the proposed Specific Plan would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, prior to commencement of construction activities, the Construction Contractor shall ob tain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturb ance Activities (Construction General Permit), NPDES No.
CAS000002, O rder No. 2022-0057-DWQ, or any other sub sequent permit. This shall include sub mission of Permit Registration Documents, including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NO I), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification statement, and any other compliancerelated documents required b y the permit, to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Numb er is ob tained for the Project from the SMARTS and provided to the Director of Pub lic Works for the City of Cypress, or designee, to demonstrate that coverage under the Construction General Permit has b een ob tained. Project construction shall comply with all applicab le requirements specified in the Construction General Permit, including b ut not limited to, preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction site b est management practices (BMPs) to address all construction-related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for the project. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in storm water runoff. Upon completion of construction activities and stab iliz ation of the Project site, a Notice of Termination (NO T) shall b e sub mitted via SMARTS.
Prior to
commencement
of construction
activities
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor and City
of Cypress Director
of Pub lic Works, or
designee
6-9
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
If construction of future projects associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, prior to commencement of construction activities, the Construction Contractor shall provide evidence that project construction would comply with Section 4.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code requires implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion and to retain sediment on site (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs).
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2
Orange County MS4 Permit/City Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for future projects associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project, the future project Applicant shall prepare and sub mit a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) to specify BMPs that would b e implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff in compliance with the O range County MS4 Permit, O range County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and the City of Cypress Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The WQMP shall also incorporate the results of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses to demonstrate that the detention facilities meet the
hydromodification requirements of the O range County MS4 Permit and Chapter 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal Code. The City Engineer/Pub lic Works Director, or designee, shall ensure that the BMPs specified in the WQMP are incorporated into the final project design of future projects associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project.
Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor and City
of Cypress Director
of Pub lic Works, or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3
Groundwater Discharge Permit. If groundwater dewatering activities are required for future project construction associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project, at least 45 days prior to dewatering activities, the Construction Contractor shall sub mit an NO I to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ob tain coverage under the General Waste Discharge 45 days prior to
dewatering
activities
Applicant and City
of Cypress City
Engineer, or
designee
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
6 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -10 Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters That Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Groundwater Discharge Permit), O rder No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001.
Groundwater dewatering activities shall comply with all applicab le provisions in the Groundwater Discharge Permit, including water sampling, analysis, treatment (if required), and reporting of dewatering-related discharges. Upon completion of groundwater dewatering activities, a NO T shall b e sub mitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB.
4.15: Public Services
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e required to coordinate with the O range County Fire Authority (O CFA) to determine the appropriate development impact fees required to offset potential impact to O CFA staffing and service ab ility. 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 O CFA that details the agreedupon development impact fees required for the project.
Prior to project
implementation
O CFA
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2
Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any b uilding permits, the Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects facilitated b y 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 b een made in compliance with Section 65995 of the California Government Code.
Prior to
issuance of
b uilding permits
Cypress Community
Development
Director, or
designee
6-11
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.16: Recreation
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1
Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to issuance of any b uilding permits, the Applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the applicab le provisions of Chapter 25 (Sub divisions), Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City of Cypress (City) Municipal Code, or other fees as determined b y the City, to the Director of the City Community Development Department, or designee.
Prior to
issuance of any
b uilding permits
Applicant and City
of Cypress
Community
Development
Director, or
designee
4.19: Utilities and Service Systems
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1
Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The construction contractor shall comply with the provisions of the City of Cypress O rdinance No. 1166 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, which would reduce construction and demolition waste. O rdinance 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.
During
construction
activities
Construction
contractor
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY
6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -12 This page intentionally left blank
7-1
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AN D PERSON S CON SULTED
7.1 CITY OF CYPRESS
The following individuals from the City of Cypress (City) were involved in the preparation of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND):
• Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
• Christopher Wong, Business Development Manager
7.2 IS/N D PREPARERS
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this IS/ND. The nature of their involvement is summariz ed b elow.
7.2.1 LSA
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this IS/ND:
• Ryan Bensley, AICP, Principal/Project Manager
• Matthew Wiswell, Project Manager
• Chris Jones, AICP, Environmental Planner
• Lynnea Palecki, Environmental Planner
• Jason Thomas, Graphics Technician/GIS Specialist
• Mitchell Alexander, GIS Specialist
• Michael Mello, Technical Editor
• Lauren Johnson, Technical Editor
• Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 This page intentionally left blank
8-1
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)
8.0 REFEREN CES
CHAPTER 2.0: PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION
Rob ert Bein, William Frost & Associates. 1990. Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan.
April 17.
Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, BCL Associates, Inc., Novemb er 25, 1985.
Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park Landscape Design Criteria, Development Standards and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Cardoz a-Dilallo Associates, Inc., July 1978.
City of Cypress. 1994. McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan. Adopted O ctob er 1994. Web site:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/9697/637363718993 530000 (accessed O ctob er 7, 2023).
SECTION 4.1: AESTHETICS
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Web site: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/web appviewer/index. html? id= 465 dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aaca (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023).
City of Cypress. 1994. City of Cypress McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan. Adopted O ctob er 1994. Page 50. Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/9697/ 637363718993 530000 (accessed O ctob er 7, 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2020. City of Cypress Municipal Code.
United States Census Bureau. 2010a. Los Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urb aniz ed Area No. 51445. Web site: https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUCRefMap/ua/ ua51445 losangeles--long_ b each--anaheim_ ca/DC10UA51445_ 000.pdf (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023). _ _ _ _ _ . 2010b . Census Urb an Area FAQs. Web site: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ geography/ab out/faq/2010-urb an-area-faq.html (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023).
SECTION 4.2: AGRICULTURE
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Web site:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed August 30, 2023). _ _ _ _ _ . 2018. O range County Important Farmland 2018.
City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Page 7-2. Web site:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/666/636123114138270000 (accessed August 30, 2023).
CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N
P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )
CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 SECTION 4.3: AIR Q UALITY
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQ A A ir Q ual ity H andb ook . April 1993, currently b eing revised.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final L ocal iz ed Sig nif icance T hreshol d M ethodol og y . July. Web site: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handb ook/ localiz ed-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf (accessed Septemb er 2023).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. O utdoor Air Quality Data. Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report (accessed May 2023).
SECTION 4.4: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Cypress. 1996. I nv entory of L andm ark T rees. July.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Critical Hab itat for Threatened and Endangered Species. GIS Mapping Web site: https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/web map/ viewer.html? web map= 9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b 8db fb 77 (accessed O ctob er 5, 2023). _ _ _ _ _ . 2022b . National Wetlands Inventory. GIS Mapping. Web site: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs. gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed O ctob er 5, 2023).
SECTION 4.5: CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Cypress. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Effects Found Not To Be Significant.