Cypress City Council
April 28, 2025

636123123792970000 (accessed Septemb er 26, 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . General Plan. Conservation/O pen Space/Recreation Element. Page CO SR-7. Web site:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/686/636123123792970000 (accessed Septemb er 26, 2023).

SECTION 4.6: EN ERGY
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carb on Neutrality.

Web site:https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/certifieddraftfinalpeir_ ada_ noapps.pdf? 171210677 (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2023a. California Energy Consumption Datab ase. Web site: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2023b . Gas Consumption b y County. Web site: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasb ycounty. aspx (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025).
8-3

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) _ _ _ _ _ . 2022. 2022 I nteg rated Energ y Pol icy R eport U pdate. Docket No. 21-IEPR-01.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019a. California Energy Consumption Datab ase. Web site:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ (accessed Feb ruary 21, 2025). _ _ _ _ _ . 2023b . Gas Consumption b y County. Web site: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasb y county.aspx (accessed Septemb er 20, 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2022. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Web site: https://www. energy. ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demandnatural-gas-california (accessed Septemb er 20, 2023).

Southern California Edison (SCE). n.d. Fact Sheets. Web site: https://newsroom.edison.com/factsheets/fs (accessed Septemb er 20, 2023).

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2019. Ab out SoCalGas. Web site: https://www3.socal gas.com/ab out-us/company-profile (accessed Septemb er 20, 2023).

United States Energy Information Administration. 2020. California State Profile and Energy Estimates.

Tab le F3: Motor gasoline consumption, price, and expenditure estimates, 2017. Web site:
eia.gov/state/seds/data.php? incfile= /state/seds/sep_ fuel/html/fuel_ mg.html&sid= CA (accessed Septemb er 2023).

SECTION 4.7: GEOLOGY AN D SOILS
California Building Standards Commission. 2022 Cal if ornia G reen B uil ding Standards Code, T itl e 24 , Part 11 ( CA L G reen). Web site: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1/chapter-5- nonresidential-mandatory-measures (accessed April 3, 2024) City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Safety Element. O ctob er 5. _ _ _ _ _ . 2021. Zoning Map. Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/government/departments/ community-development/z oning-map (accessed Septemb er 11, 2023).

SECTION 4.8: GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSION S
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Novemb er. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carb on Neutrality.

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%2Ffiles%2Ffileattachments%2F03_ scag_ drtp24_ citytier2taz _ 092523.xlsx%3F1695685277%3D%26utm_ sou rce%3Dchatgpt.com&wdO rigin= BRO WSELINK (accessed Feb ruary 21, 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
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) -4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. D raf t G uidance D ocum ent – I nterim CEQ A G reenhouse G as ( G H G ) Sig nif icance T hreshol d. O ctob er. Web site: http://www.aqmd. gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handb ook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significancethresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed Septemb er 2023).

SECTION 4.9: HAZ ARDS AN D HAZ ARDOUS MATERIALS
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).

California Department of Toxic Sub stances Control (DTSC). EnviroStor. Web site: https://www. envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/pub lic/search.asp? PAGE= 2&CMD= search&ocieerp= &b usiness_ name = &main_ street_ numb er= &main_ street_ name= &city= &z ip= &county= &b ranch= &status= ACT %2CBK LG%2CCO M&site_ type= CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_ type= &npl= &funding= &reporttyp e= CO RTESE&reporttitle= HAZARDO US+ WASTE+ AND+ SUBSTANCES+ SITE+ LIST+ %28CO RTESE %29&federal_ superfund= &state_ response= &voluntary_ cleanup= &school_ cleanup= &operat ing= &post_ closure= &non_ operating= &corrective_ action= &tiered_ permit= &evaluation= &sp ec_ prog= &national_ priority_ list= &senate= &congress= &assemb ly= &critical_ pol= &b usiness_ type= &case_ type= &display_ results= &school_ district= &pub = &hwmp= False&permitted= &pc _ permitted= &inspections= &inspectionsother= &complaints= &censustract= &cesdecile= &O R DERBY = city&next= Next+ 50 (accessed Septemb er 15, 2023).

City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Geology and Seismic Haz ards.

_ _ _ _ _ . 2001. City of Cypress General Plan. Safety Element, Emergency Evacuation Routes map (Exhib it SAF-5). Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/714/636123 119830170000 (accessed January 16, 2024).

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. Web site: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/ JFTB-AELUP2016ProposedFINAL.pdf (accessed Septemb er 13, 2023).

SECTION 4.10: HYDROLOGY AN D WATER Q UALITY
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118.

Coastal Plains of O range County Groundwater Basin.

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 on Septemb er 18, 2023).

City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Safety Element. O ctob er 5. 8-5

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) O range County Environmental Agency. 1986. O rang e County H y drol og y M anual . _ _ _ _ _ . 1996. O rang e County H y drol og y M anual A ddendum No. 1. O range County Water District. 2017. Basin 8-1 Alternative – O CWD Management Area. January 1, 2017.

O range County Stormwater Program. 2012. Construction R unof f G uidance M anual f or Contractors, Project O wners, and D ev el opers. Decemb er.

SECTION 4.11: LAN D USE AN D PLAN N IN G
City of Cypress. 2001. PC-3 McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan (O ctob er 1994) Appendix C, Page 7 through Page 80. Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/ 9697/637363718 99353 0000 (accessed Decemb er 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Land Use Element. _ _ _ _ _ . 2020. City of Cypress Municipal Code.

SECTION 4.12: MIN ERAL RESOURCES
California Department of Conservation (DO C). Division of Mines and Geology. 1981. Mineral Land Classification Map. Los Alamitos Quadrangle. Special Report 143, Plate 3.17.

City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Conservation/O pen Space/Recreation Element. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Effects Found Not to Be Significant. Page 7-4. Web site:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/722/636123118731230000 (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023).

SECTION 4.13: N OISE
City of Cypress Municipal Code. 1976.
_ _ _ _ _ . 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Safety Element. O ctob er 5.

O range County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2017. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. August 17.

SECTION 4.15: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Cypress. 2020. Cypress Police Department. Cypress 10-Y ear Calls for Service Trend. Web site:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument? id= 10173 (accessed O ctob er 2023). _ _ _ _ _ . n.d. 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
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) -6 O range County Fire Authority (O CFA). 2020. O perations Division 7. Web site: O CFA - O range County Fire Authority (accessed Septemb er 13, 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2021. Fiscal Y ear 2010–2021 Adopted Budget. Web site: https://ocfa.org/Uploads/ Transparency/O CFA%202020-2021%20Adopted%20Budget.pdf (accessed Septemb er 13, 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . 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). _ _ _ _ _ . n.d. Station Statistics. Web site: https://ocfa.org/Ab outUs/Departments/O perationsDirectory/ Division7.aspx (accessed Septemb er 13, 2023).

SECTION 4.16: RECREATION
_ _ _ _ _ . 2022a. Facility and Park Locations. Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/activities/facilitypark-locations (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023). _ _ _ _ _ . 2022b . Facility & Park Locations: Mackay Park Web page. Web site: https://www.cypressca. org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/66/240 (accessed Septemb er 13, 2023).

SECTION 4.19: UTILITIES AN D SERVICE SYSTEMS
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. Jurisdiction Disposal Tonnage Trend.

City of Cypress. 2021. C&D Recycling Requirement. Web site: C&D Recycling Requirement | City of Cypress (cypressca.org) (accessed Novemb er 29, 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2023. Maintenance. Web site: http://www.cypressca.org/government/departments/pub licworks/maintenance (accessed Novemb er 16, 2023).

Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2021a. 2020 West O rang e U rb an Water M anag em ent Pl an (UWMP). July 15.
_ _ _ _ _ . 2021b . Los Alamitos Customer Service Area. Web site: http://www.gswater.com/los-alamitos/ (accessed Novemb er 2023).

O range County Sanitation District (O CSD). 2022. 2021-2022 A nnual R eport. Web site: https://www. ocsan.gov/home/showpub lisheddocument/33473/638080061619170000 (accessed Novemb er 16, 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2023. Facts and K ey Statistics Web page. Web site: https://www.ocsan.gov/services/regionalsewer-service (accessed Novemb er 2023). 8-7

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) O range County Waste & Recycling (O CWR). 2021. O linda Alpha Landfill. Web site: https://www2. calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2757? siteID= 2093 (accessed Septemb er 26, 2022).
_ _ _ _ _ . Active Landfills. Google Maps; Web site: https://oclandfills.com/landfills/active-landfills (accessed Novemb er 2023).

Southern California Edison (SCE). 2023. Fact Sheets. Web site: https://newsroom.edison.com/factsheets/fs (accessed Novemb er 2023).

SECTION 4.20: WILDFIRE
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
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) -8 This page intentionally left blank

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)

APPEN DIX A

UPDATED PERMITTED USE TABLE

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) This page intentionally left blank
Cypress Business Park Specific Plan (CBPSP)

4.2.2 Land Uses and Permit Requirements
The Permitted Use Table outlines four land use types: Permitted Uses ("P"), Conditional Uses ("C"), Prohibited Uses ("-"), and Uses Requiring Planning Director Approval (“PD”). See Section 31 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance for definitions. The Planning Director is authorized to make administrative determinations and interpretations regarding land uses, which may be appealed to the City Council.

Table 4.2.2 – Permitted Use Table
Permitted Use BP
(1)
CO PO
(2) (3)
PO/HSC
(2) (3)
MUBP
(2) (3)

MUBP/GRC
(2) (3) (4)
MUC/R
(2) (5)
HDR
Overlay
(2) (5)
MUC/SR
(2)
CC
(2)
Professional Office Uses
Medical, Dental,
Veterinary and
Related Health
Services
P P P P P P P P P (2)
Professional and
Administrative
Offices

P P P P P P P P P
Industrial Park Uses
Distribution Center C - - - C - - - - -
Light Manufacturing,
General Assembly,
and Food & Beverage
Facilities

P - - - P P - - - -
Machine Shop and
Machinery
Manufacturing

P - - - P P - - - -
Public Utility, Public
Works, Postal, and
Support Facilities
C P C C C C C C C (2)
Repair and
Maintenance,
Consumer Products

P - - P P P - - - -
Research and
Development (R&D) P - - P P P - - - -
Indoor Storage
Facilities P - - - C C - - - -
Warehouse P - - - C C - - - -
Commercial Uses
Automotive Sales
and Services - - - P (9) C C C C C -
Bars/Liquor
Establishments (OnSite Consumption)- C - C C C C C C - Catering and Related
Services - - - C C C C C C -
Retail Stores, General
Merchandise
(6) P
(7) (8) - P (9) - P (8) P P P -
Gasoline Service
Station - C C C C C C C C -
Health/Fitness
Centers C C - C C C C C C -
Hotels/Motels C C - C - C C C C -
Indoor Amusement,
Entertainment
Facility, and Related
Services
- - - C C C C C C -
Personal Services,
General - P - P (9) - P P P P -
Cypress Business Park Specific Plan (CBPSP)
Permitted Use BP
(1)
CO PO
(2) (3)
PO/HSC
(2) (3)
MUBP
(2) (3)

MUBP/GRC
(2) (3) (4)
MUC/R
(2) (5)
HDR
Overlay
(2) (5)
MUC/SR
(2)
CC
(2)
Restaurant without
Alcohol Sales P P P P P P P P P -
Restaurant with
Alcohol Sales C C C C C C C C C -
Restaurant with
Drive-Thru - C C C C C C C C -
Restaurant with
Outdoor Seating C P P P P P P P P -
Restaurant with
Playland P P P P P P P P P -
Restaurant, Take-Out C P C C P P P P P -
Shopping Center - C - - - C C C C -
Storage Yards (Public) - - - - - - - - - -
Small Animal
Hospitals and Animal
Boarding
- - C C C C P P P -
Public/Institutional Uses
Child Day Care and
Related Services C (10) C C C C C C C C (2)
Conference Facilities,
Theaters,
Auditoriums, and
Other Public
Assembly
- C - P (9) C C C C C (2)
Educational
Institutions, Trade
Schools, Other
Private Schools
C C C C C C C C C (2)
Residential Uses
Accessory Uses
(Pool/spa, fitness
rooms, business
centers, leasing
offices)
- - - - - - P P P -
Accessory Dwelling
Units - - - - - - P P P -
Assisted living
facilities - - - - - - C C P -
Senior Housing - - - - - - P P P (2)
Single-Family
Dwellings - - - - - - P P P -
Condominiums/town
houses - - - - - - P P P -
Multi-family dwelling
units - - - - - - P P P -
Home Occupations - - - - - - P P P -
Caretaker/employee
housing - - - - - - - - P -
Other Uses
Stand Alone Parking
Lots and Parking
Structures

C C C C C C C C C -
Uses similar with the
intent of the district
as determined by the
Planning Director

PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD
Cypress Business Park Specific Plan (CBPSP)
(1) To ensure that the quality of living is maintained in the residential neighborhood south of the Stanton Storm Channel, development adjacent to the channel shall be limited to warehouse/research and development uses, which will serve to minimize light, glare, noise, vehicle emissions, and obstruction of views.
(2) In addition to the permitted uses listed in this column, all permitted land uses within the PS-1A (Public and Semi-Public) zoning district, as identified in Table 2-15 of Subsection 2.08.030 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance, shall also be permitted on property located west of Walker Street, subject to the applicable permit requirements listed therein.
(3) In addition to the permitted uses listed in this column, all conditionally permitted land uses in Table 2-11 of Subsection

2.07.030 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance, shall also be conditionally permitted on property located west of Walker Street.
(4) In addition to the permitted uses listed in this column, all permitted land uses (except for Residential uses) within the CG (Commercial General) zoning district, as identified in Table 2-6 of Subsection 2.06.030 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance, shall also be permitted, subject to the applicable permit requirements listed therein.
(5) In addition to the permitted uses listed in this column, all permitted land uses within the RM-20 (Multiple Family) zoning district, as identified in Table 2-2 of Subsection 2.05.030 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance, shall also be permitted, subject to the applicable permit requirements listed therein.
(6) Only permitted as an accessory use on the same site as a permitted use within the BP land use designation.
(7) Only permitted within shopping centers and strip malls with at least 15,000 square feet.
(8) Stand-alone uses that are not within a shopping center require a Conditional Use Permit.
(9) Use shall be integrated into a hotel facility.
(10) Permitted only as ancillary to office uses.
• All uses shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building, except for temporary uses. Temporary uses shall be permitted throughout the CBPSP pursuant to Subsection 4.19.040 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. • Design Review shall be required for all new buildings, additions, structures, and sign programs that meet all development and design standards.

The Planning Director may refer any Design Review application to the City Council as a Site Plan Review for final determination. • Development projects that do not comply with the development standards and/or design standards, and are not eligible for an Adjustment, require Site Plan Review approval pursuant to Chapter 6.

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) This page intentionally left blank
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.

April 16th, 2025
Cypress City Council:

I am writing to express my strong support for the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan (CBPSP).

As Executive Vice Chairman at Cushman & Wakefield and a member of the Business Park Advisory Committee, I had the opportunity to contribute to the development of this important plan alongside other stakeholders, business owners, and property owners in the Cypress business community.

The CBPSP represents a significant step forward for the City of Cypress. It modernizes outdated regulations, introduces flexible land use policies, and enhances the development standards needed to maintain a competitive edge in today’s commercial real estate market. The plan reflects a thoughtful balance between economic growth, design quality, and the operational needs of business park users.

In my professional opinion, the CBPSP is a future-ready framework that will help attract and retain high-quality tenants, support job creation, and increase property values across the business park. It sends a clear message that Cypress is committed to being a business-friendly city.

I appreciate the City Council’s leadership in advancing this plan and encourage its adoption. Thank you.

Sincerely,
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

Richard L. Ellison
Executive Vice Chairman
18111 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel +1 949 474 4004
Fax +1 949 474 0405
cushmanwakefield.com

+
April 23, 2025
City of Cypress- City Council
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Subject: Support for the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
As a property owner within the Cypress Business Park, we are writing on behalf of Goodman North America to express our support for the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan (CBPSP).

This plan represents a much-needed modernization of the City's criteria for managing development in its commercial areas.

The CBPSP offers a clear framework for land use and development that benefits both current property owners and future tenants. It streamlines the development process, introduces consistent standards, and will preserve the high-quality character of the community.

As an owner/investor in Cypress, we appreciate that the plan was developed with meaningful input from stakeholders who represent the Business Park. The clear standards in the plan will help protect and enhance property values, make it easier to attract and retain tenants, and promote long-term stability and vitality within the Business Park.

We encourage the City Council to adopt the plan and continue to support a pro-business environment that makes Cypress a great place to invest and grow.

Sincerely,
B
6 lair Dahl
VP of Development
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 15.

FROM: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
DATE: 04/28/2025
SUBJECT: Approve a Tentative Tract Map for a 26-Unit Townhome Development at 4872 Lincoln Avenue

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 19359 and finding the project exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a City Attorney-approved Affordable Housing Agreement.

DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant, the Olson Company, is requesting a tentative tract map and density bonus to construct 26 townhomes, three of which are set-aside for moderate-income households.

Project Description and Required Discretionary Actions
The project site is located within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (LASP). Residential projects which meet applicable code requirements are permitted subject to administrative design review. The project includes three affordable units and the applicant is seeking a density bonus, one concession, and one waiver in exchange for the affordable units. To ensure affordability, the Olson Company is required to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement and the affordable units are subject to a 45-year deed restriction.

The recommended project consists of four townhome buildings on a 0.79-acre site, featuring three-story three-bedroom homes ranging from 1,236 to 1,633 square feet. The site is accessible from driveways on Lincoln Ave. and Bishop St. and includes a common open space area with shaded seating and BBQ facilities.

A tentative tract map is required to subdivide the property to facilitate the sale of the individual units.

Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses
The 0.79-acre site was previously occupied by a landscape supply store. The project site is bounded by the following uses:

Direction Land Use Zoning
North Mobile Home Park PC (Lincoln Avenue)
South Surface Parking CH-LC
East Used Car Dealership PC (Lincoln Avenue)
West Townhome Development PC (Lincoln Avenue)
Development Standards
The Project’s compliance with development standards and required concessions are listed below:

Standards Required Proposed
Maximum Density 30 du/ac 32.9 du/ac*
Maximum Height 50 feet 36 feet
Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet East: 10 feet
West: 8 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 9 feet
Minimum Open Space 200 sr/unit 98 sf/unit**
* Density bonus units
** Waiver required
SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW
Building Design and Architecture
The project consists of four three-story townhouse buildings featuring a Mediterranean architectural style with a variety of materials and accents, including stucco, tile roofing, and decorative lighting and shutters. The building design meets all applicable design requirements.

Access and Parking
The site is accessed via Lincoln Ave. and Bishop St. by a 24-foot-wide driveway. There are 55 parking spaces, 16 more than required. Each townhome has a two-car garage with tandem or side-by-side parking. The site includes three guest parking spaces.

Traffic
A traffic evaluation estimated the project will generate 175 daily trips, including 10 morning peak hour trips and 13 evening peak hour trips. City traffic study guidelines consider projects with less than 50 peak hour trips to have insignificant impacts and a full traffic study is not required.

Landscaping and Open Space
The project includes one open space area, featuring a shaded structure with seating and BBQ. Landscaping is provided in the open space area, the front and rear setbacks, and adjacent to walkways and parking areas.

DENSITY BONUS
Under State law, the project is entitled to a density bonus (increase from 30 du/ac to 32.9 du/ac) and one incentive/concession (modifications to the development standards and other code requirements) because it provides affordable units. Density bonus projects may also request waivers from standards that physically preclude construction of the development. The Olson Company has requested:

1. Concession: Waive Park Development Fee for the three moderate-income units

2. Waiver: Reduction in required open space from 200 sf/unit to 98 sf/unit Affordable Housing Agreement/Local Requirements
The Zoning Code requires an Affordable Housing Agreement be recorded against the property. The Agreement specifies:

1. The concessions/waivers granted

2. The location, size, and bedroom count of affordable units

3. The affordability level and term
An affirmative marketing plan to ensure advertising of units to a wide spectrum of residents

4. The Zoning Code requires that the affordable units be distributed throughout the project and have similar finishes and be roughly the same size as the market rate units.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
The application divides the airspace for condominium purposes. As conditioned, it is consistent with all City and Subdivision Map Act requirements.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The project is consistent with the following General Plan goals/policies:

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

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

The project is an appropriate infill use of an underutilized site and fills a housing need by providing townhomes that are often starter homes. Additionally, the three affordable units provide moderate-income households the opportunity to purchase a home. The required affirmative marketing plan will ensure that the units are marketed to a wide spectrum of residents.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as an infill development in an urbanized area. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning designations and is located on a lot smaller than five acres. Further, the project is surrounded by urban uses and will not result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts.
noise, air quality, or water quality impacts.

PUBLIC HEARING / PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS
The applicant held a public meeting on April 7 and sent letters inviting the public to all property owners within 500 feet. No members of the public attended the meeting. Public hearing notices were posted and mailed to the owners of all properties located within 500 feet of the project. All written communication related to the public hearing received prior to publishing the City Council agenda is attached. Written communication submitted by 3:00 p.m. on April 28 will be part of the public hearing administrative record.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
If the City Council identifies issues which should be addressed prior to taking action on this application, the City Council may consider:

Continuing the public hearing and directing staff to work with the applicant to resolve the issues; or

1. Continuing the public hearing, making findings for denial and directing staff to return to City Council with a resolution for denial.

2. BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required. An Affordable Housing Agreement will be prepared by the City Attorney’s office.

APPROVED BY:  Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution
Project Conditions
Project Plans
Vicinity Map
Traffic Evaluation
Notice of Exemption
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19359, FOR A 26-UNIT

TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS, RESTRICTED TO MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, ON A 0.79-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 4872 LINCOLN AVENUE WITHIN THE LINCOLN AVENUE SPECIFIC

PLAN AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress has considered an application submitted by The Olson Company (“Developer”) for a 26-unit townhouse development, including three affordable units, restricted to moderate income households, on a 0.79- acre site located at 4872 Lincoln Avenue within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires a Tentative Tract Map (VTTM No. 19359) to be approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2025 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and accepted testimony in regards to the Project; and
WHEREAS, said tentative map has been reviewed by the City’s Engineer and the Orange County Fire Department with recommended conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance includes provisions for density bonus applications as required by California Government Code Sections 65915- 65918 (“State Density Bonus Law”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested one concession and one waiver in exchange for providing three units affordable to moderate-income households pursuant to Cypress Zoning Ordinance Section 12 and State Density Bonus Law, as laid out in the City Council staff report dated April 28, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15332 - In-fill Development. Section 15332 exempts in-fill projects in urbanized areas on sites less than five acres; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the applicant agrees with the necessity of and accepts all elements, requirements, and conditions of this resolution as being a reasonable manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work, visit or live in this development in particular.

Resolution No.

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

SECTION 1. The proposed map does not warrant rejection based upon the criteria for rejection in the Cypress Subdivision Ordinance, the City’s General Plan, the Cypress Zoning Ordinance, or Sections 66473.5, 66474.6 and 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act:

A. The map is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of PC (Specific Plan – Lincoln Avenue).

B. The 26 dwelling-unit improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.

C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The Project meets all the required development standards, except for minimum open space. The project has requested a waiver for a reduction in open space in exchange for providing three affordable units, pursuant to State Density Bonus law.

D. The site is physically suitable for the density of development. The General Plan land use designation for the site is PC (Specific Plan – Lincoln Avenue). This land use designation allows a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. The Project is entitled to a density bonus for a density of 32.9 dwelling units per acre in exchange for providing three affordable units, pursuant to State Density Bonus law.

E. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15332 - In-fill Development. Section 15332 exempts in-fill projects in urbanized areas on sites less than five acres.

F. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems. Sewer discharge requirements will occur pursuant to Section 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act.

G. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of a public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract map. All existing utility easements will remain intact and there is no foreseeable interference as the main right-of-way (Lincoln Ave.) remains intact.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15332 – In-fill Development. The Project is an infill project in an urbanized area on a site less than five acres. The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan land use and zoning designations, will not have an adverse impact on any natural habitats, and will not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Therefore, the City Council has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. NO NET LOSS LAW. The Project site was identified in the City’s 6th cycle Housing Element sites inventory with a unit capacity of 10 very low-income and seven low-income units. Although the Project provides 23 market rate units and three moderate-income units, the City Council finds that the remaining sites identified in the Resolution No.

Housing Element are adequate to meet the City’s remaining regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for the 6th cycle by income category, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583 (No Net Loss Law). The City’s remaining RHNA and sites inventory capacity are provided in the table below.

Income Level
Very Total
Low Low Moderate AboveModerate
Remaining Capacity (units) 1,290 782 585 1,077 3,734
Remaining RHNA (units) 1,125 651 570 1,008 3,354
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cypress hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 19359, and the requested density bonus and waiver subject to the applicable conditions included in Exhibit “A”. The decision of the City Council is final and conclusive as to all things involved.

Resolution No.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 2025. _______________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
_________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the 28th day of April, 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
EXHIBIT "A"
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19359
RE: 4872 Lincoln Avenue

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Unless and until the project applicant and property owner sign and return a City-provided affidavit accepting these conditions of approval, there shall be no entitlement of the application.

The project applicant and property owner shall have 15 calendar days to return the signed affidavit to the Community Development Department. Failure to do so will render City Council action on the application void. (Planning)

2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City and any agency thereof, or any of its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City or any agency thereof, or any of its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency thereof, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 and Public Resources Code, Division 13, CH. 4 (§ 21000 et seq. - including but not by way of limitation § 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. (City Attorney)

3. This permit is granted for the tentative map dated 12/20/2024 (“the plans”) on file with the Planning Division. The project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions, or unless a minor modification to the plans is approved by the Planning Director. A minor modification may be granted for minimal changes or increases in the extent of use or size of structures or of the design, materials or colors of structures or masonry walls. (Planning)

4. The applicant’s contractor shall provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance on City form, evidencing a comprehensive liability insurance policy with a combined single limit of not less than $500,000 each occurrence in connection with the work performed. Certificate shall include the City, its Council, officers, members of boards or commissions and employees as additional Named Insureds with respect to all claims, actions, damages, liabilities and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under the development executed by the Named Insured and City, including any act or omission of employees, agents, subcontractors, or their employees. Such certificate shall have a 30-day cancellation notice to the City of Cypress. (City Attorney)

5. The Condominium Plan shall indicate the location of the three units affordable to moderateincome households. (Planning)

6. The applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 3.12.090 of the City of Cypress Zoning Code which shall be recorded against the project prior to final map recordation.

7. A detailed landscape and automatic irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Cypress Planning Division for review and approval at least 60 days prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

In addition, a bond shall be posted with Public Works to guarantee against defects in plant materials and workmanship for a period of one year from acceptance of the landscape installation. All required landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly condition. (Planning)

8. Within 48 hours of the approval of this project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department a check payable to the County Clerk-Recorder in the amount of $50.00 County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption pursuant to Fish and Game Code §711.4 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 753.5. If, within such 48-hour period, the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void. (Planning)

9. That all engineering requirements of the City of Cypress, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer, as may be modified by the City Engineer; and, that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, completion guarantee, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Cypress, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City prior to the issuance of a building permit or final map approval, whichever occurs first, to guarantee the installation of the related improvements prior to final building and zoning inspections in accordance with an approved construction phasing plan. In the event the developer’s contractor and/or subcontractor fails to diligently prosecute the work within the public right-of-way, the City reserves the right, in its reasonable discretion, to issue a stop work notice and to provide a substitute contractor and/or subcontractor to complete said work at the sole cost and expense of developer. (Engineering)

10. The applicant shall not grant any easements, other than Southern California Edison, over any property subject to a requirement of dedication or irrevocable offer to the City of Cypress, unless such easements are expressly made subordinate to the easements to be offered for dedication to the City. Prior to granting any of said easements, the subdivider shall furnish a copy of the proposed easement to the City Engineer for review and approval. (Engineering) (Easement Subordination)

11. The developer shall construct new private sewer laterals with cleanouts at a location approved by the City Engineer. (Condition may be deferred to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding at the discretion of the City Engineer)(Engineering)

12. Prior to the recordation of the subdivision map, the applicant shall submit a sewer plan signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer, detailing all the proposed public and/or private sewer lines meeting the requirements of the City Design Standards for Sewer Facilities to be approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

13. All sewer lines (including mains and laterals) up to the point of connection at the City’s mainline shall be private sewer lines and shall be maintained and cleaned by the developer, or successor in interest. The City of Cypress shall have no responsibility for maintenance of the private sewer lines. (Engineering)

14. The applicant shall resurface the full width of Bishop Street (2” grind and overlay asphalt concrete pavement) along the property frontage. Construct all improvements in accordance with Cypress Public Works standards and specifications to satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Condition may be deferred to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding at the discretion of the City Engineer)(Engineering)

15. The applicant shall install a new driveway approach that is compliant with the American Disabilities Act along the property frontage on Lincoln Avenue and Bishop Street. The existing easterly driveway on Lincoln Avenue shall be removed and replaced with sidewalk. The developer shall comply with the following requirements regarding the improvements:
 Construct all improvements in accordance with Cypress Public Works standards and specifications to satisfaction of the City Engineer.
 Prior to construction, obtain and pay for a permit and inspection services. As part of the permit, maintain a schedule on file with the City Engineer for the work.  Adjust utility vaults and boxes to grade in accordance with the corresponding utility’s requirements and standards.
 Relocate any utilities as necessary securing the appropriate approvals from the respective utilities.
 If necessary, grant easements to the City for pedestrian purposes for any sidewalk or driveways for compliance with ADA requirements prior to issuance of a permit for construction.
(Conditions may be deferred to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding at the discretion of the City Engineer) (Engineering)

16. The applicant shall remove the existing concrete planters along the frontage of Lincoln Avenue and construct new sidewalk in its place. The applicant shall also install new sidewalk along the property frontage on Bishop Street. New sidewalk shall be compliant with the American Disabilities Act and constructed in accordance with Cypress Public Works standards and specifications to satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Condition may be deferred to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding at the discretion of the City Engineer)(Engineering)

17. Remove and replace any damaged street, pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter, or any other public improvements as a result of work associated with this project and appropriately clean the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.(Condition may be deferred to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding at the discretion of the City Engineer)(Engineering)

18. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit street design plans for approval by the City Engineer for all proposed City streets or any work within existing public right of way. Street name signs and traffic signs shall be installed per City Standards. (Engineering)

19. The applicant shall remove and replace any existing public improvements at the development site which have existing damage, are damaged due to construction, or otherwise below current standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Condition may be deferred to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding at the discretion of the City Engineer)(Engineering)

20. This permit is granted subject to the City’s approval of a tentative map and final map and recordation of the final map. Before occupying any structures or initiating any use approved by this permit, the applicant shall comply with all conditions of the tentative and final map. (Engineering)

21. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation, to the satisfaction of the easement holder and the City Engineer, demonstrating that the rights to any conflicting easement have been formally relinquished in a manner acceptable to the easement holder and the City Engineer. No buildings or permanent structure shall be constructed within the easement area until such documentation is provided. (Engineering)

22. Prior to final map recordation, the quantity, location, width, and type of public driveways shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Both project driveways are to be signed, to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer, with stop controls facing traffic exiting the project. The project driveway on Lincoln Avenue is to be signed, to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer, as right-turn only facing traffic exiting the project. Prior to construction of any driveway approach upon public street right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain a public works permit.

23. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall provide adequate sight distance per Engineering Standard Plan 204 and 205 at all street intersections, driveways, and parkways, in a manner meeting the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall make all necessary revisions to the plan to meet the sight distance requirement such as removing trees, signs, utilities, landscape, hardscape, slopes or any other encroachments from the limited use area in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) (Sight Distance)

24. The applicant shall install all new utility services underground. (Condition may be deferred to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding at the discretion of the City Engineer) (Engineering)

25. Arterials shall be crossed by boring only. Public streets with any trench cuts or asphalt patching as a result of this project shall be resurfaced with either a slurry seal or 2-inch grind and overlay. The method and limits of resurfacing shall be determined by and completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Lateral open cuts spaced within 20 feet of each other shall be covered with a two-inch continuous asphalt concrete cap. (Condition may be deferred to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with the execution of a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding at the discretion of the City Engineer) (Engineering)

26. Prior to issuance of grading permits or recordation of the subdivision map, whichever comes first, at the direction of the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit a grading plan for approval signed and stamped by a registered California civil engineer and using actual grades from an Orange County Surveyor's Benchmark. (Engineering)

27. The applicant shall ensure the following requirements are met:

1. Drainage is solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official.

2. The Grading Plan is consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan, Site Plan and any Improvement Plan for proposed public storm drains.

3. Submittal of a Preliminary Grading Plan if deemed necessary by the City Engineer.

4. The topography of the area surrounding this development shall be made to establish existing drainage flow patterns.

5. The minimum slope standards are met for 1% for landscape areas, AC parking areas

1.5%, Concrete .2%.

6. All surface runoff and subsurface drainage directed to the nearest acceptable drainage facility, as determined by the City Engineer.

7. Drainage facilities discharging onto adjacent property shall be designed to imitate the manner in which runoff is currently produced from the site or alternatively, the applicant may obtain a drainage acceptance and maintenance agreement, suitable for recordation, from the owner of said adjacent property.

8. All drainage facilities must be consistent with the County of Orange Grading Ordinance as supplemented by the Engineering Division and Local Drainage Manual.

28. Development must be undertaken in accordance with conditions and requirements of the Santa Ana Region National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R8-2009-0030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062.

29. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP must include best management practices for source control, pollution prevention, site design, and low impact development as well as structural treatment controls among many factors. Site design for controlling urban runoff must first evaluate infiltration, then harvest and water re-use, then evapotranspiration and only bio-treatment if the other three are not feasible. The WQMP must identify the routine structural and non-structural measures specified in the current Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and utilize the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (OC TGD) as well as the Model WQMP.

30. Applicable WQMP projects must also:
i. Utilize the City’s current WQMP template;
ii. Utilize the City’s online WQMP application system for submittal; iii. Address site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing connected impervious areas, creating reduced or zero discharge areas, and conserving natural areas;
iv. Incorporate Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP; v. Include post-construction Treatment Control BMP(s) as defined in the DAMP; vi. Include and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that (1) describes the longterm operation and maintenance requirements for pos-construction Treatment Control BMP(s); (2) identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the referenced Treatment Control BMP(s); (3) describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the references Treatment Control BMP(s); (4) includes the Water Quality Implementation Covenant and Agreement.

31. Prior to issuance of and grading or building permits, the applicant must submit a certified copy of the approved Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) along with the final approved Grading Plan and all other supporting documentation on a USB flash drive in a single digital file (pdf) format acceptable to the City Engineer. The Final WQMP Submittal and subsequent approval of the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan does not guarantee approval of the Final Water Quality Management Plan. Should the final calculations and submittals not meet the required thresholds necessary to meet the obligations of the City under the NPDES Permit for development and its incorporated documents such as the DAMP and OC TGD. alterations to the site and the site plan may be required as prescribed by the City Engineer to the WQMP. Any significant alteration to the site plan due to the Final WQMP may require approval of the Council for the revision.

Additionally, the WQMP must identify a responsible party and implement funding sources for maintaining post construction BMPs as required as part of the development and must ensure that appropriate easements and ownerships are properly recorded in public records and access is made available for inspection of said devices.

32. The owner is responsible for providing a Water Quality Implementation Covenant and Agreement and an Operations and Maintenance plan that outlines the funding and maintenance of water quality BMPs, consent to inspect, and indemnification on the forms provided by the City for all post-construction stormwater mitigation and treatment devices, as required by the Santa Ana Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R8-2009-0030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010- 0062. The agreement will be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.

Before final acceptance of project improvements, the owner or his/her designated representative must certify that the treatment device was constructed and installed in accordance with the approved plans. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the City's NPDES Implementation Program in a manner meeting the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Water Quality Manager, including:
i. Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the BMP Exhibit from the project's approved WQMP and Maintenance Covenant and Agreement have been implemented, constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications
ii. Demonstrate that the applicant has complied with all non-structural BMPs described in the project's WQMP
iii. Demonstrate that copies of the project's approved WQMP and Covenant and Agreement (with attached O&M Plan) are available for each of the initial occupants iv. Agree to provide pay a compliance deposit to pay for any required inspections and any additional non-compliance inspections as the City deems necessary v. Submit certified record drawings as well as the project engineer’s post-construction certification as well as the owner’s post construction certification on a template provided by the City
vi. Agree to pay for an inspection (special investigation) from the City for a date 12 months after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project to verify compliance with the approved WQMP, Maintenance Covenant and Agreement and O&M Plan.
vii. Demonstrate that the applicant has RECORDED one of the following:
 The CC&R's (that must include the approved WQMP, Maintenance Covenant and Agreement and O&M Plan) for the project's Homeowner’s Association;  A Water Quality Implementation Covenant and Agreement that has the approved WQMP and O&M Plan attached; or
 The final approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. (Engineering, Water Quality) (NPDES/WQMP Compliance Measures)

33. All onsite storm drain inlets, whether newly constructed or existing, must be labeled “No Dumping Drains to Ocean” before occupancy in accordance with city requirements.

34. All exterior metal building surfaces, including roofs, must be coated with rust-inhibitive paint to prevent corrosion and release of metal contaminants into the storm drain system prior to occupancy.

35. If trash enclosures and/or recycling areas are required: Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) must include a structure to cover the enclosure with a solid roof design below to direct stormwater away from entering the enclosure. All litter/waste material must be kept in leak-proof containers. Area(s) must be paved with impermeable material. No other area may drain onto these areas. The trash enclosure and/or recycling area(s) may not drain to the storm drain system and all cleanups must be performed using dry cleanup methods.

Additionally, there must be a posted sign on the trash enclosure informing users that hazardous materials are not to be disposed therein. Additionally, trash enclosures may be required to be modified to meet the current solid waste requirements.

36. Provide a pet waste collection systems or dispensers, which hold bags for pet owners to use to pick up waste, must be installed. Regular refuse collection and resupply of pickup bags must be conducted by property owner or homeowner’s or business owner’s association.

37. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant must submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in a manner meeting approval of the City Engineer and the Building Official and in accordance with requirements of the Santa Ana Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R8-2009- 0030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062. The ESCP must be developed and implemented to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES Implementation Program and State water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP must identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. must be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into local drainage ways or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion. The ESCP must also describe how the applicant will ensure that all BMPs will be maintained during construction of any future public right-of-way. The ESCP must be updated as needed to address the changing circumstances of the project site. A copy of the current ESCP must be kept at the project site and be available for City review on request.

38. The applicant must clean all on site storm drain systems, catch basins, filters, storm drain lines, inlet boxes, etc. prior to final inspections. Additionally, upon direction of the City Engineer, the applicant must clean any public storm drain systems, catch basins, filters, lines, inlet boxes that the City Engineer has determined have been impacted by the applicant's construction. If clean-up is not performed, the City may make arrangements to clean the system at developer’s expense.

39. The owner is responsible for maintaining and operating all on-site private improvements.

40. All property areas must be maintained free of litter/debris.

41. All onsite storm drains including post-construction best management practices (BMPs) must be cleaned at least once a year immediately before October 1st (the beginning of the rainy season)and inspected at least once a year in May (the end of the rainy season). All trash and debris shall be removed from all onsite storm drains and BMPs, if deemed necessary postinspection. Additional cleaning may be required by the City Engineer.

42. There must be no pressure washing of parking areas, and waste storage areas, or building site, unless the City approves a collection system to keep water from entering the storm drain.

43. Landscaping must be properly maintained with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to urban runoff pollution.

44. Any CUP applicant or its successor shall be responsible for the cost of any water quality inspections by the City that are mandated by the State of California or by the U.S.

Environmental Protections Agency (USEPA) presently or in the future.

45. The Improvement Bond must incorporate all post-construction stormwater devices from the approved WQMP. These costs will be provided in the WQMP for review and inclusion in the Improvement Bond and shall cover device defects as well as malfunctions and possible replacement in the event the device is damaged or not operating per the manufacturer’s specification or intended design.

46. The applicant will be subject to all requirements of Section 13-29 of the Cypress Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution prevention including, but not limited to, an Operations and Maintenance Verification Certification – WQMP Post Construction through the City’s online application and permitting system, prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.

47. No person or person(s) shall make any modifications to drainage approved in the grading plan or WQMP without prior written approval from the City Engineer.

48. Certified full trash capture devices must be installed to address the Statewide Trash Amendments adopted April 7, 2015. Existing storm drain inlets located within this project must be retrofitted to address the above trash policies. Additionally, proposed postconstruction BMPs must be devices that are State certified for full-trash capture.

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CYPRESS, CA # 20240305 March 26, 2025 LINCOLN & COBBLESTONE The Olson Co 3020 Old Ranch Pkwy #100 Seal Beach, Ca 90740 Architecture | Branding Interiors | Planning 17911 Von Karman Ave, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com 4872 E. Lincoln Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 A0.0 COVER SHEET OWNER/APPLICANT: THE OLSON CO 3010 OLD RANCH PARKWAY, SUITE 100 SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 562-370-2290 ARCHITECT: THE KTGY GROUP, INC. 17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA 92614 949-851-2133 CIVIL: ADVANCED CIVIL GROUP 30251 GOLDEN LANTERN, SUITE E, PMB 251 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 866-338-5778 LANDSCAPE STUDIO PAD, INC 23195 LA CADENA DR., SUITE 103 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 949-770-8530 CYPRESS-LINCOLN & COBBLESTONE CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CYPRESS, CA # 20240305 April 23, 2025 LINCOLN & COBBLESTONE The Olson Co 3020 Old Ranch Pkwy #100 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Architecture | Branding Interiors | Planning 17911 Von Karman Ave, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com 4872 E. Lincoln Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 A1.1 PERSPECTIVE VIEW

B I S H O P S T

9.0'

11.8' 10'
53' L I N C O L N A V E
10' D T R T T R R T T R R T T R R T T R R T T R R T T R R T T R T R T R T R T R TRG R T G W/H
W/H

NOT A FIRE LANE
8' B-2 C-101 6-PLEX T R T R T R T R TRG R T G
W/H
W/H B-1 C-100 6-PLEX Existing Commercial Existing Attached Residential FD Ladder Pads Common Open Refer to Landscape Plans SALES OFF. ALT.

11.1' 28'

11.6' 24' 8' 10'

11.1' 10' 10' 10' 8'

13.9'

10.1' PROJECT ENTRY BIOFILTER STORM DRAIN PUMP FIRE HYDRANT B-3 C-200 6-PLEX B-4 C-300 8-PLEX EXISTING POWER POLE FIRE HYDRANT 1 2 3 132' 260.0' 132.0'
260' AU AUAU CONCEPTUAL DESIGN GLENDORA, CA # 20240305 January 9, 2025 LINCOLN & COBBLESTONE AlphaX RE Capital 97 Boston Ave. San Jose, CA 95128 Architecture | Branding Interiors | Planning 17911 Von Karman Ave, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com 4872 E. Lincoln Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 A1.0 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SITE INFORMATION Address: 4872 E. Lincoln Avenue City: Cypress, CA 90630 APNs: 244-051-09 County: Orange County Zoning: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan - Commercial Mixed Use Area: ±0.79 AC (34,320 sf Gross) Fire Department: OCFA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Min. Lot Size: 10,000 sqft Min. Lot Frontage: 150 ft Max. Dwelling Units per acre: 30 D.U Min. Dwelling Units per acre: 20 D.U Max. Building Height: 30 ft (To Provide Waiver) Frontage Setback: 10' Interior Side Setback: 5' Rear Setback: 5' Min. Distance Between Buildings on Same Parcel: 10' FAR: 1.0:1.0 AFFORDABLE UNIT TABLE BUILDING DATA Units: 26 DU Density: 32.9 DU/AC FAR: 0.88:1.0 Type Construct: V-A Occupancy Type: R2 Fire Sprinkler Type: NFPA 13 Building Height: 36'0" # Unit Type Area(G.S.F) Bdrms 2 - Plan 1 1236 sf 3bd/3ba, 2-car tandem (423 sf) 2 - Plan 2 1263 sf 3bd/3ba, 2-car tandem (466 sf) 11 - Plan 3 1451 sf 3bd/3ba, 2-car tandem (469 sf) 11 - Plan 4 1633 sf 3bd/3.5ba, 2-car sxs (450 sf) 26 Totals: 38,922 sf (Avg. 1,497 sf) (11,887 sf) (Total Building Area: 51,183 sf, includes garages) PARKING DATA: State Density Bonus Parking Requirements: 2 Bd: 1.5 sp/unit - - 3 Bd: 1.5 sp/unit - 39 Spaces 4 Bd: 2.5 sp/unit - - Totals: 39 Spaces Parking Provided: GARAGE 52 GUEST 3 Totals: 55 Spaces OPEN SPACE (Common + Private): Common Open Space Provided: Refer to Landscape Plan Private Open Space Required: N/A in CM District Private Open Space Provided: 2ND STORY DECK 36 SF / DU AU = Accessible Unit 0 10 20 40 Total No. of Units 26 Total No. of Affordable Units 3 Total No. of Density Bonus Units 3

DSSDWRWOHE SDFWSMUE DWSSRW SD SD FW FW GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS

GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS N89° 30' 04"W 2680.08'
N89° 17' 16"W 2680.23'
N89° 30' 04"W 722.90'

DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW DW T SD SD N00° 19' 10"E 260.00'
S89° 30' 04"E 132.04' S00° 19' 22"W 260.00'
N89° 30' 04"W 132.02'
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD
SD
SD SD
SD DW

DW DW DW DW DW

FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW

FW FW FW FW FW FW FW
FW

FW SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD
SD
// // // // // // // // A1A1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BENCHMARK: BASIS OF BEARING: C1C1 D1D1 B1B1 Rear Elevation
28'-7"
(30' Max. to Eave) Right Elevation Left Elevation PLAN 2R PLAN 3 36'-6"
8'-1" T.O.P. F.FL.9'-1" F.FL. T.O.P. 8'-1" F.FL. T.O.P. 36'-6" PLAN 4 PLAN 3 PLAN 4 Front Elevation - Enhanced (ALONG LINCOLN AVE.) PLAN 1R PLAN 2R 8 3 1 5 2 6 7 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 +0" -4" +27.5" +2" +2" +3.5" +0" +0" +12" +12" +27.5" +0" +4" +0" +8.5" -30" -30" LEGEND Stucco Low Profile Concrete "S" Roof Tile Gable End Half Faux Vent Exposed Truss Tails Stucco o/ Foam Eave Stucco Faux Chimney/Finial Stucco Sill Trim Bay Window w/ Faux Wood Trim Vinyl Window Stucco o/ Foam Corbel Stucco Arched Soffit Metal Juliet Railing Canvas Awning w/ Metal Spear Brackets (W.O) Fiberglass Entry Door Decorative Exterior Lights & Address Sign Metal Sectional Garage Door 564321 7 13 12118 14 910 1516 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CYPRESS, CA # 20240305 March 26, 2025 LINCOLN & COBBLESTONE The Olson Co 3020 Old Ranch Pkwy #100 Seal Beach, Ca 90740 Architecture | Branding Interiors | Planning 17911 Von Karman Ave, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com 4872 E. Lincoln Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 0 4 8 16 A2.0 C-100 (B-1) BUILDING ELEVATIONS FACING LINCOLN AVE.

PLAN 3R PLAN 2
36'-6"
8'-1" T.O.P. F.FL.9'-1" F.FL. T.O.P. 8'-1" F.FL. T.O.P. 36'-6" PLAN 4R PLAN 3R PLAN 4R 8 4 7 6 2 5 1 3 15 14 11 10 9 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 +0" -4" +2" +27.5" +2" +3.5" +0" +0" +12" +12"+27.5" Front Elevation Rear Elevation - Standard (ALONG BISHOP ST.) 28'-7"
(30' Max. to Eave) 16 12 +0" +4" +0" +8.5" -30" -30" Left Elevation Right Elevation LEGEND Stucco Low Profile Concrete "S" Roof Tile Gable End Half Faux Vent Exposed Truss Tails Stucco o/ Foam Eave Stucco Faux Chimney/Finial Stucco Sill Trim Bay Window w/ Faux Wood Trim Vinyl Window Stucco o/ Foam Corbel Stucco Arched Soffit Metal Juliet Railing Canvas Awning w/ Metal Spear Brackets (W.O) Fiberglass Entry Door Decorative Exterior Lights & Address Sign Metal Sectional Garage Door 564321 7 13 12118 14 910 1516 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CYPRESS, CA # 20240305 March 26, 2025 LINCOLN & COBBLESTONE The Olson Co 3020 Old Ranch Pkwy #100 Seal Beach, Ca 90740 Architecture | Branding Interiors | Planning 17911 Von Karman Ave, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com 4872 E. Lincoln Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 0 4 8 16 A2.0.1 C-101 (B-2) BUILDING ELEVATIONS FACING BISHOP ST.

Tentative Tract Map No. 19359
Project Site
4872 Lincoln Avenue N

VICINITY MAP
MAT Engineering, Inc.
www.matengineering.com
17192 Murphy Avenue #14902
Irvine, CA 92623
Ph: 949.344.1828
MAT Engineering, Inc. ￭17192 Murphy Avenue #14902 , Irvine, CA 92623 ￭ 949.344.1828 ￭ www.matengineeing.com Transportation Planning ￭ Traffic & VMT Studies ￭ Parking Studies ￭ Traffic Engineering ￭Traffic Signal Design/Modification ￭ Signing & Striping Plans ￭ Traffic Control Plans Noise, Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Studies
February 13, 2025
Ms. Alicia Velasco
Planning Director

CITY OF CYPRESS
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Subject: 4872 Lincoln Avenue Residential Project Traffic Evaluation, City of Cypress, California
Dear Alicia,
MAT Engineering, Inc. is pleased to submit this traffic evaluation and VMT screening for the proposed 4872 Lincoln Avenue residential project in the City of Cypress.

This study and its methodology is consistent with other traffic analyses recently prepared by MAT Engineering, Inc. for other similar projects in the area which have been reviewed and approved by the City.

A. Project Description & Location
The project site is located at 4872 Lincoln Avenue in the City of Cypress.

The proposed project consists of demolition of the existing uses on the project site and construction and operation of twenty-six (26) dwelling units of multi-family residential use.

Access for the proposed project is planned to be provided via one unsignalized driveway on Bishop Street and one emergency only access (EVA) on Lincon Avenue.

Exhibit A shows the project location. Exhibit B shows the proposed site plan. 4872 Lincoln Avenue Residential Project Traffic Evaluation, City of Cypress, California 0012-2025-05 / February 13, 2025

MAT Engineering, Inc. ￭17192 Murphy Avenue #14902, Irvine, CA 92623 ￭ 949.344.1828 ￭ www.matengineeing.com B. Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of trips attracted and produced by a land use. The trip generation for the existing use and the proposed project is based upon the specific land uses that have been planned for this project and has been determined utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates which is an industry standard for calculating trips associated with land uses.

Table 1 shows the trip ITE trip generation rates for the proposed project based on the ITE.

Table 1
ITE Trip Generation Rates
Land Use ITE
Code Units
Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Multi-Family Residential (Low Rise) 220 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74 Notes:

Source: 2021 ITE 11th Edition Trip Generation Manual;
DU = Dwelling Units;
Utilizing the ITE trip generation rates from Table 1, Table 2 shows a summary of the trip generation for the proposed project.

Table 2
Project Trip Generation
Land Use
Quantity
Units ITE
Code
Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
In Out Total In Out Total
Multi-Family Residential (Low Rise) 26 DU 220 3 7 10 8 5 13 175 Source:

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2021 Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) Source: 2021 ITE 11th Edition Trip Generation Manual; As shown in Table 2, based on the ITE trip generation rates, without taking any trip credit for the existing uses which will be displaced, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 175 daily trips which include approximately 10 AM peak hour trip and approximately 13 PM peak hour trip.
4872 Lincoln Avenue Residential Project Traffic Evaluation, City of Cypress, California 0012-2025-05 / February 13, 2025

MAT Engineering, Inc. ￭17192 Murphy Avenue #14902, Irvine, CA 92623 ￭ 949.344.1828 ￭ www.matengineeing.com C. Local Transportation/Traffic Operations Evaluation
As previously shown in Table 2, based on the ITE trip generation rates, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 175 daily trips which include approximately 10 AM peak hour trip and approximately 13 PM peak hour trip. This is equivalent to one (1) vehicle trip every four (4) minutes during the peak hours (both inbound and outbound trips), which can be considered insignificant. Once these trips are further distributed and disbursed onto the surrounding circulation system, the added number of project trips to the roadway network and any individual intersection is even less.

Based on the City of Cypress Transportation Operational Assessment (Level of Service Traffic Study) Guidelines (April 2023), since the proposed project is expected to generate a low number of trips (less than 50 peak hour trips), a full traffic study is not required for the proposed project and the effect of the project-added traffic to the surrounding roadway network system can be considered insignificant, not resulting in adverse traffic operations.

D. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
In response to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 which now identify Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project's transportation impact under CEQA (§ 15064.3).

The City of Cypress does not have adopted guidelines for VMT evaluation. Hence, the County of Orange guidelines are utilized for the project VMT evaluation.

In accordance with the Orange County Transportation Implementation Manual (County of Orange Public Works, September 2021), certain activities and projects may be assumed to result in a less than significant impact to transportation and circulation and may be screened out of a VMT analysis.

One type of screening adopted by the County of Orange are “small projects”. These are projects that are forecast to generate 500 or fewer average daily trips (ADT). The rationale for utilizing the 500 trip threshold is based on qualitative evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions contained and documented in the County’s transportation analysis guidelines.

As previously noted, the proposed project can be expected to generate approximately 175 vehicle trips per day. Hence, it can be concluded that the project screens out for significant VMT impacts and is found to have a less than significant VMT effect on the circulation system and roadway network.
4872 Lincoln Avenue Residential Project Traffic Evaluation, City of Cypress, California 0012-2025-05 / February 13, 2025

MAT Engineering, Inc. ￭17192 Murphy Avenue #14902, Irvine, CA 92623 ￭ 949.344.1828 ￭ www.matengineeing.com MAT Engineering Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide this technical memorandum and evaluation. If you have any questions, concerns, or comments, please contact us at 949-344-1828 or [email protected].

Respectfully submitted,
MAT ENGINEERING, INC.

Alex Tabrizi, PE, TE
President
4872 Lincoln Avenue Residential Project Traffic Evaluation, City of Cypress, California 0012-2025-05 / February 12, 2025
MAT Engineering, Inc. ￭17192 Murphy Avenue #14902, Irvine, CA 92623 ￭ 949.344.1828 ￭ www.matengineeing.com Attachment A
Exhibits
Exhibit A
Project Location
Not to Scale
4872 Lincoln Avenue Residential Project, City of Cypress, California / 0012-2024-05 FEB/2025 Legend:

Site Location

MOODY ST

LINCOLN AVE

BISHOP ST
Exhibit B
Site Plan
Not to Scale
4872 Lincoln Avenue Residential Project, City of Cypress, California / 0012-2024-05 FEB/2025 PL-5 Rev. 2011

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: X Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Cypress 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 5275 Orange Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95814 Cypress, CA 90630
X County Clerk-Recorder
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Project Title
Tentative Tract Map No. 19359
Project Location - Specific
4872 Lincoln Avenue
Project Location - City
Cypress
Project Location - County
Orange
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project A request to construct 26 condominium units on a 0.79-acre property and create a tentative tract map for condominium ownership. The beneficiary is the developer, The Olson Company.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project
City of Cypress
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project (Applicant’s Name and Address) Mr. Brian Cunningham, The Olson Company, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100, Seal Beach, CA 90740
Exempt Status: (Check One)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1);15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3);15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
X Categorical Exemption, Class 32 & 15 (Sec. 15332(a-e)) and 15315 Reasons why project is exempt:

The project consists of in-fill development on a site that: (a) is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations, (b) is less than five acres in size within an urbanized area, (c) has no habitat for endangered species, (d) does not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (e) is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Further, the subdivision map has less than four parcels.

Lead Agency Contact Person
Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
Area Code
(714)
Telephone Number
229-6720
If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes X No ________
_________________________________ Alicia Velasco
Signature Date Planning Director
PL-5 Rev. 2011
Signed by Lead Agency
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 16.

FROM: Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
DATE: 04/28/2025
SUBJECT: Approve an Increase to the General Liability Coverage Self-Insured Retention

RECOMMENDATION
Increase the General Liability coverage self-insured retention from $150,000 to $300,000 effective July 1, 2025.

DISCUSSION
The city has been a member of the California Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA) since CIPA was founded in 1978. CIPA is a joint powers authority and provides pooled general liability insurance, workers' compensation insurance and other insurance programs (e.g. property, cyber, and bond/crime). CIPA serves 14 member cities in Southern California, including Brea, Buena Park, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Orange, Tustin, and Yorba Linda.

CIPA provides the city with $3 million of pooled general liability insurance coverage and $40 million of excess liability coverage. Excess liability coverage provides an extra layer of financial protection above the primary pooled general liability coverage. The city's self-insured retention (SIR), effectively its deductible, is $150,000, meaning that covered claims over $150,000 are paid by the insurance pool. The city's $150,000 SIR has not increased since it was established in 1986. Cypress' SIR is the lowest in CIPA, and is only allowed because Cypress was a CIPA member before the current minimum SIR of $300,000 was set. If the city's SIR had grown with inflation since 1986, it would be approximately $433,000 in 2025.

Although not the case in Cypress, over the past several years liability losses in California's public agencies have significantly increased due to high jury verdicts, large settlements, and the rising cost of legal defense. As a result, a number of insurance carriers have withdrawn from the state, which has reduced competition and insurance capacity and caused premiums to increase while coverage limits shrink.

CIPA projects its general liability premiums will increase by 25% in FY 2025-26. For Cypress, a 25% premium increase represents an annual ongoing cost increase of approximately $141,000. To reduce the impact of rising insurance premiums, CIPA recommends members review, and consider increasing, their SIR. The Finance department and City Clerk's office, which is responsible for insurance and risk management, worked with CIPA to evaluate Cypress' SIR, potential savings from increasing the SIR and city's 10-year loss history.

CIPA Members' Self-Insured Retentions
CIPA members' SIRs range from $150,000 to $1 million (attached). Cypress has the lowest SIR and has not modified the SIR in nearly 40 years. Yorba Linda ($250,000) is the only other member with a SIR below the current $300,000 minimum. The majority of members maintain a SIR between $350,000 and $500,000. Irvine is increasing its SIR from $300,000 to $500,000 in FY 2025-26.

Cypress' 10-Year Loss History
Although loss history does not necessarily predict future losses, over the last 10 years Cypress has only had three liability claims exceed the $150,000 SIR.

Cost Over $150,000 SIR
Over recommended
$300,000 SIR
Claim 1 (FY 2016-17) $180,012 $30,012 $0
Claim 2 (FY 2017-18) $363,733 $213,733 $63,733
Claim 3 (FY 2019-20) $155,864 $5,864 $0
Total  $699,609  $249,609  $63,733
Had the city operated with a $300,000 SIR, it would have incurred additional liability costs of $185,876 (the amount paid by CIPA over $150,000 SIR, less the amount paid by CIPA over $300,000 SIR) over the past 10 years. Of course, the city's annual premium would have been lower and the liability cost would have been offset (many times over) the claim payment.

Potential Premium Cost Savings
CIPA estimates the city's general liability premium with a $150,000 SIR in FY 2025-26 will be $656,639 - a 17% increase from FY 2024-25 and a 37% increase from FY 2023-24. The recommended $300,000 SIR is estimated to result in a FY 2025-26 general liability premium of $484,724 - which is a reduction of $78,373 (14%) from FY 2024-25 and avoids $171,915 of costs in FY 2025-26.

General Liability Premium
with $150,000 SIR
General Liability Premium
with $300,000 SIR
2023-24 $477,631 n/a
2024-25 $563,097 n/a
2025-26 $656,639 $484,724
Given the rising general liability insurance costs, the city's low SIR, and the cost savings, it is recommended the City Council increase the SIR for general liability coverage from $150,000 to $300,000 effective July 1, 2025. It is important to repeat that while a $300,000 SIR significantly reduces annual ongoing insurance premium costs, the increase carries the risk of higher insurance payments if the city incurs historically uncharacteristic liability claims between $150,000 and $300,000.

BUDGET IMPACT
Increasing the SIR for general liability insurance to $300,000 will result in an estimated cost savings of $171,915 in FY 2025-26 and significantly lower costs in future years, which may be offset by higher claim payments if the city incurs historically uncharacteristic liability claims between $150,000 and $300,000.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY:  Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
CIPA Members Self-Insured Retentions

CALIFORNIA INSURANCE POOL AUTHORITY (CIPA)

MEMBER AGENCIES
City General Liability
Self-Insured
Retention
General Fund
FY 2024-25
Population In-House Police
(Yes/No)
Arcadia $500,000 $87,457,100 54,157 Yes
Brea $350,000 $69,047,627 48,479 Yes
Buena Park $500,000 $89,692,110 81,958 Yes
Carlsbad $1,000,000 $238,468,445 113,495 Yes
Cypress $150,000 $39,933,372 48,782 Yes
Irvine $500,000* $263,133,648 314,621 Yes
Laguna Beach $400,000 $94,617,900 22,332 Yes
La Habra $500,000 $62,123,965 60,991 Yes
Montclair $500,000 $37,693,425 37,545 Yes
Newport Beach $500,000 $311,258,638 82,637 Yes
Orange $350,000 $156,200,731 138,337 Yes
Tustin $350,000 $98,428,502 77,704 Yes
Whittier $500,000 $103,949,026 84,143 Yes
Yorba Linda $250,000 $47,764,204 66,147 No
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 17.

FROM: Jeff Draper, Director of Recreation and Community Services DATE: 04/28/2025
SUBJECT: Approve Fiscal Years 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Non-Profit Grant Awards

RECOMMENDATION
Approve $1,499,839 in Non-Profit Grant Awards for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27.

SUMMARY
The City Council's Non-Profit Contribution Program provides non-profits the opportunity to request support (in-kind, staff, and financial) from the District and City that advances recreational, educational, and life-affirming services. The biennial grants deliver valuable public benefits and provide the District and its non-profit partners the opportunity to engage in multi-year financial planning. For FY 2025-27, 19 organizations requested more than $1.6 million in support from the District. In the FY 2023-25 grant cycle, the District and City provided $1.467 million to 18 non-profits. While grants are traditionally fixed throughout the two-year funding cycle, extraordinary circumstances (for example, potential recommendations from the City Council's Community Festival ad hoc subcommittee) may prompt recommendations to adjust a grant.

DISCUSSION
Non-Profit Contribution Program
At its March 24 workshop, the City Council reviewed FY 2025-27 grant applications and the Non-Profit Contribution Policy, which establishes criteria and procedures for the grants:
55% of the non-profit organization’s membership and executive board must live in Cypress to be considered as highest priority. National organizations focusing on Cypress may use a member’s Cypress business address to meet the 55% requirement.

1. Fee waivers may be awarded for a maximum of 15 room rentals (based on availability) for meetings and functions, and may include two ballroom rentals. Approved Senior Clubs may be exempt from this limit based on the programs provided.

2. Support may be suspended at any time due to financial constraints or major changes in operations, finances, direction, and/or administration of the non-profit.

3. Direct funding may be apportioned on a scheduled basis and requires an invoice after completion of the program or service.

4. The program awards three types of grants:

Direct funding, which is a direct payment to the non-profit.

City/District staff expenditures represent the value of staff support from the Recreation and Community Services, Public Works and Police departments.

Fee waivers represent the in-kind value of waiving permit fees, or free use of equipment and facilities.

The requested and recommended support for FY 2025-27 are:

Requested Recommended
Direct Funding $109,000 $14,000
City Staff
Expenditures $395,573 $395,573
Fee Waivers $1,124,104 $1,086,266
Unanticipated
Funding N/A $4,000
Total Funding $1,628,677 $1,499,839
A summary of the applications is attached.

Criteria Used to Support Funding Recommendations
In addition to evaluating applications against the Policy, each application is evaluated for the applicant's record of service and benefit to the community, fiscal condition, and District/City opportunity costs.

Direct Funding Summary
Requests for direct funding exceed the recommendation by $95,000. Three of the applications for direct funding are recommended for approval, and one is recommended for a smaller direct funding grant than requested. That application, from the Cypress Community Festival Association, requested $35,000 of direct funding and is recommended for $10,000.

This grant is consistent with previous cycles and is the District's contribution toward the cost of the Cypress Community Festival Association's liability insurance.

Staff Expenditures
Eight non-profits requested nearly $400,000 of District/City staff support. All eight requests are recommended for approval.

Fee Waivers
Requests for fee waivers exceed the recommendation by $37,838. Five non-profit organizations are recommended for less funding than requested because:

The facility use requests are unnecessary as they are provided through separate agreements.

The facility use request exceeds what the Policy permits.

The facility use requests are for non-reservable facilities.

Banner temporary use permit requests exceed permitted amounts.

The grant application was incomplete.

Cypress Pony Colt Baseball, Cypress Youth Baseball, Rotary Club of Cypress, and St.

Irenaeus Church do not meet the 55% residency and/or executive board membership Irenaeus Church do not meet the 55% residency and/or executive board membership requirements to be considered the highest priority. St. Irenaeus Church falls below the 55% residency requirement, but its membership includes more than 4,120 Cypress residents.

Constraints Impacting Recommendations For Facility Use and Athletic Field Use Given the high demand for facility rentals and athletic fields, non-profit use of facilities and fields must be balanced with District/City events, holiday and maintenance closures, school district uses, and rentals. The opportunity cost of facility rental and athletic field fee waivers in the FY 2025-27 cycle is nearly $1.1 million - monies that would otherwise be available to support District operations, programming, and maintenance.

Unanticipated Grants
Historically, the City Council gives the City Manager discretion to provide up to a total $2,000 (annually) beyond awards approved as part of this recommendation. This enables the District/City to efficiently support organizations/programs that are consistent with the Policy, but were not known when applications were due. Four unanticipated grants totaling $4,215 have been provided since 2017.

BUDGET IMPACT
The recommended FY 2025-27 Non-Profit Grant cycle funding is $1,499,839. The direct funding ($14,000) will be appropriated in the District's FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Budgets.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY:  Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Contribution Policy for Non-Profit Organizations
Non-Profit Grant Request Summary
CITY OF CYPRESS CP-7
CITY COUNCIL POLICY Page 1 of 3
Updated Sept. 2012

SUBJECT: CONTRIBUTION POLICY FOR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS _______________
JOHN B. BAHORSKI

CITY MANAGER

ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2012
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Cypress Recreation & Community Services

PURPOSE
Many of the City’s non-profit organizations provide a volunteer resource that is critical to the support and ongoing success of various City programs and Recreation services. In support of this resource, the City of Cypress has created guidelines to establish a formal and fair method for considering direct and indirect support to community non-profit organizations.

The criteria that serves as the base for this policy regarding contributions to non-profit organizations shall be:

A. Utilization of this Grant Request Program, through the budget process, must be made when requesting direct funds or in-direct services of the City B. Non-profit organizations must provide Special Event or General Liability Insurance coverage of at least $1 million and list the City of Cypress/Cypress Recreation & Park District as additionally insured.

C. Organization’s Bylaws shall not call for the office of a Commissioner or City Council Member to be represented on the group’s Board of Directors or general membership.

D. Organization’s Bylaws shall not be in conflict with any state or federal statutes.

E. The non-profit organization must have at least 55% of their membership and 55% of their Executive Board members living in Cypress to be considered as highest priority. National organizations that focus on Cypress projects and services may use a member’s Cypress business address in lieu of a residential address to meet the 55% threshold.

PROCEDURE
Grant Request Program
Organizations will be required to meet all criteria and complete an application form by a stipulated due date. Incomplete applications and those received after the deadline date will not be considered for funding by City Council. Completed applications received by the due date will be reviewed by staff and recommendations will be made for approval to the City Council. The grant approvals will be effective July 1 to June 30 of each year to coincide with the City’s Fiscal Year budget.

CITY OF CYPRESS CP-7
CITY COUNCIL POLICY Page 2 of 3
Updated Sept. 2012

SUBJECT: CONTRIBUTION POLICY FOR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS _______________
JOHN B. BAHORSKI

CITY MANAGER

This policy provides non-profit organizations the opportunity to request direct funding and indirect (in-kind) services for specific programming needs. Indirect services may include services such as staff support, waiver of fees for use of meetings rooms, use of showmobile, and graphic design and printing of advertising material.

Facility Rentals
Non-profit organizations approved under this program may request utilization of designated Community Center and Senior Center meeting rooms, based on availability outlined in the District’s Facility Use Policy, during weekdays (“non-prime time” hours) from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at little to no cost.
a) Non-profit organizations approved under this program may utilize up to fifteen (15) uses per group of designated Community Center and Senior Center meeting rooms, based on availability outlined in the District’s Facility Use Policy, during weekdays (“prime time” hours) after 5:00 p.m. at little to no cost. (Senior Clubs exempted for Senior Center uses).
b) Of the above fifteen (15) facility uses, non-profit organizations are limited to no more than two (2) uses up to a maximum of six hours each per group of the Community Center Grand Ballroom and/or the Senior Center Multi-Purpose Room, anytime on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, at no cost, based on availability outlined in the District’s Facility Use Policy. (Senior Clubs exempted for Senior Center uses).

Biennial Program
The Grant Request Program will be for a two-year request for funds. The first biennial cycle of grants will cover the period of July 1, 2009, through June 30 of 2011, with subsequent two-year cycles following thereafter. A biennial cycle of grants allows organizations to better plan for future events while providing the City/District to better plan and allocate such funds. The grant process will coincide with the City’s budgeting process for the coming fiscal year.

Applications will be reviewed and approved by the City Council and any financial support for the two-year cycle of awards will take effect after July 1 of each fiscal year.

CITY OF CYPRESS CP-7
CITY COUNCIL POLICY Page 3 of 3
Updated Sept. 2012

SUBJECT: CONTRIBUTION POLICY FOR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS _______________
JOHN B. BAHORSKI

CITY MANAGER

While non-profit groups submit information for a projected two-year period, the City has the right to request updated information of a group at anytime.

In the case that a non-profit organization wishes to amend funding for the second-year of the award cycle due to unforeseen circumstances, such requests may be considered by City Council on an emergency basis only.

Provisions of Support
Non-profit groups that have been approved for direct funding must provide an invoice to the City after the service or program has been rendered in order to receive payment. In the case of direct funding awarded in the amount of $1,000 and over given for annual support of the group’s operations with no ties to a specific program, the City shall issue the financial support on a quarterly basis in the months of September, December, April, and June; and for direct funding awarded in the amount less than $1,000 under like circumstances, the City shall issue the financial support on a semi-annual basis in the months of December and June.

The City/District reserves the right to immediately suspend financial and in-kind support to non-profit organizations in the unlikely event the City/District incurs financial constraints, or if the City/District determines the non-profit organization has undergone a significant change in terms of operation, finances, direction and/or administration.

Special Event Liability Insurance
For each event held on City/District property, or as otherwise requested, the organization must provide Special Event or General Liability Insurance of at least $1 million and list the City of Cypress/Cypress Recreation & Park District as additionally insured. Failure to maintain appropriate insurance coverage will result in the suspension of financial and in-kind support.

Director’s and Officer’s Insurance
In addition to the Special Event or General Liability Insurance, although not required, the City recommends that the organization purchase Director’s and Officer’s Insurance to protect their officers and directors from personal or individual liability. Organizations obtain such coverage through outside insurance agencies, which can include utilization of the City’s current broker, Alliant Services.
2025-2026 and 2026-2027
Non-Profit Grant Requests
Summary of Direct Funding, City Staff Expenditures, and Fee Waivers Non-Profit Organizations Residency Rate
Executive Board Residency Rate
Number of Members /
Participants Served Per Year Cost Per Member /
Participant Served Per Year Direct Funding Granted for Cur ent Two Year Cycle (2023-2024 and 2024-2025)
Direct Funding Requested for Next Two
Year Cycle (2025-2026 and 2026-2027)
Direct Funding Recommended for Next Two
Year Cycle (2025-2026 and 2026-2027)
City Staf Expenditures Granted for Cur ent Two
Year Cycle (2023-2024 and 2024-2025)
City Staf Expenditures Requested for Next Two
Year Cycle (2025-2026 and 2026-2027)
City Staf Expenditures Recommended for Next Two
Year Cycle (2025-2026 and 2026-2027)
Fee Waivers Granted for Cur ent Two
Year Cycle (2023-2024 and 2024-2025)
Fee Waivers Requested for Next Two
Year Cycle (2025-2026 and 2026-2027)
Fee Waivers Recommended for Next Two
Year Cycle (2025-2026 and 2026-2027)
Total Sup
ort Granted for Cur ent Two Year Cycle
(2023-2024 and 2024-2025)
Total Sup
ort Requested for Next Two Year Cycle
(2025-2026 and 2026-2027)
Total Sup
ort Recommended for Next Two Year Cycle
(2025-2026 and 2026-2027)
This Request Provides…

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Autism Peer 1 on 1 75% 67% 20 $102 $2,000 $6,217 $2,041 $8,217 $2,041 -Facility use for annual peer celebration event.
-Temporary use permits for program information banners
2 AYSO - Cypress 154 59% 55% 1,178 $171 $152,476 $104,470 $104,470 $69,171 $96,433 $96,433 $221,647 $200,903 $200,903 - Priority scheduling in accordance with the Athletic Facility Allocation, Usage and Scheduling policy. - Athletic field and facility use for games, practices, board meetings, parent meetings, and picture picnic day. - Temporary use permits for registration signage.
3 Boys & Girls Clubs
of Central OC 88% 100% 614 $8 $350 $380 $380 $4,562 $4,734 $4,734 $4,912 $5,114 $5,114 - Facility uses for a State of the Club Breakfast event and a Holiday Party. - Temporary use permits for quarterly event banners at Cedar Glen Park. 4 Cypress Art League 55% 56% 150 $219 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $7,465 $12,214 $12,214 $18,455 $19,123 $19,123 $27,420 $32,837 $32,837 - $750 to promote art in the community each year.
- Facility use for board meetings, general meetings, workshops, open shows, and receptions. - Recreation support for three art shows.
5 Cypress Chamber
of Commerce 62% 86% 151 $6 $40,000 $860 $4,723 $948 $860 $44,723 $948 - Support for the Chambers' Festival Mixer and Chamber Business Expo at the Community Festival. - Student Mentoring Breakfast is supported through Joint Use agreements. 6 Cypress Community
Festival Association 80% 100% 15 $10,628 $10,000 $35,000 $10,000 $100,320 $108,790 $108,790 $37,900 $40,637 $40,637 $148,220 $184,427 $159,427 - $5,000 annually to defray costs for a Special Liability Insurance Policy. - Facility use for board meetings and festival related events. - Use of showmobile, equipment, and staff support for the festival. - Temporary use permits for the event and up to 8 banners at park sites. 7 Cypress Girls Softball 58% 60% 312 $1,436 $74,213 $104,288 $104,288 $292,753 $351,739 $343,639 $366,966 $456,027 $447,927 - Priority scheduling in accordance with the Athletic Facility Allocation, Usage and Scheduling policy. - Athletic field and facility use for games, practices, board meetings, opening day, and snackbar. - Temporary use permits for registration signage.
8 Cypress Pony/Colt Baseball 18% 50% 187 $40 $26,857 $1,356 $1,356 $101,413 $6,130 $6,130 $128,270 $7,486 $7,486 - Athletic field and facility use for champion games.
- Equipment storage at Oak Knoll Park.
9 Cypress Senior Citizens Club 60% 71% 136 $1,196 $156,623 $162,665 $162,665 $156,623 $162,665 $162,665 - Facility use for club meetings, dances, special events, and board meetings. - Use of storage closets and display cases.
10 Cypress Sunshine Club 56% 89% 153 $502 $20,000 $73,910 $76,758 $76,758 $73,910 $96,758 $76,758 - Facility use for club meetings, special events, and board meetings. - Use of storage closets and display cases.
11 Cypress Youth Baseball 51% 0% 488 $695 $49,614 $61,419 $61,419 $187,003 $277,663 $277,663 $236,616 $339,082 $339,082 - Priority scheduling in accordance with the Athletic Facility Allocation, Usage and Scheduling policy. - Athletic field and Facility use for games, practices, board meetings, opening day, and snackbar. - Temporary use permits for registration signage.
12 Friends of Cypress Library 93% 100% 40 $724 $2,500 $2,500 $2,656 $2,656 $23,786 $23,786 $28,941 $28,941 - $2,500 in matching funds for the Library of Things.
- Facility use for annual author program.
- Use of showmobile for summer family reading.
- Recreation and Public Works support for use of showmobile. 13 ID8 Entrepreneurship 100% 100% 5 $803 $3,000 $23,831 $4,016 $26,831 $4,016 - Facility use for workshops.
14 Kiwanis Club of Cypress 84% 70% 19 $186 $3,031 $3,525 $3,525 $3,031 $3,525 $3,525 - Facility use for a fundraising event and youth education. - Picnic shelter use for club meetings.
15 Rotary Club of Cypress 33% 18% 45 $39 $1,709 $1,771 $1,771 $1,709 $1,771 $1,771 - Facility use for a spaghetti dinner fundraiser.
16 Scouting America (BSA)
Troop 295 73% 100% 30 $0 $1,972 $1,972
- Applicant did not submit a completed application.
- No funding recommended.
17 Soroptimists International
of Cypress 63% 60% 8 $569 $4,397 $4,555 $4,555 $4,397 $4,555 $4,555 - Facility use for monthly meeting and one fundraiser each year. 18 St. Irenaeus Church 36% 83% 11,325 $1 $7,586 $7,666 $7,666 $7,586 $7,666 $7,666 - Facility use for a Christmas Eve Service and Prayer Breakfast. - Temporary use permits for banners promoting the Trunk or Treat and Fall Fiesta. - Temporary use permits for community events including Oktoberfest, Trunk or Treat, and the Fall Fiesta. 19 Woman's Club of Cypress 73% 91% 109 $93 $5,000 $9,764 $10,174 $10,174 $9,764 $15,174 $10,174 - Facility use for club meetings, board meetings, member picnics, and fundraisers. - Use of two picnic shelters each year.

Totals 14,985 $100 $11,500 $109,000 $14,000 $411,295 $395,573 $395,573 $969,135 $1,124,104 $1,086,266 $1,391,930 $1,628,677 $1,495,839 CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 18.

FROM: Bonnie Peat, Council Member
DATE: 04/28/2025
SUBJECT: Recognize City Manager Peter Grant for his Accomplishments and Service to the Cypress Community

RECOMMENDATION
Recognize City Manager Peter Grant for his accomplishments and service to the Cypress community.

DISCUSSION
At the March 10 City Council meeting, Council Member Peat requested the City Council recognize City Manager Peter Grant for his outstanding service to the Cypress community, his term as president of the Orange County City Managers' Association, and to commemorate his receiving an award for 25 years of service from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
N/A
APPROVED BY:  Peter Grant, City Manager