Agenda packet — Cypress City Council, May 12, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

CAS000002, O rder No. 2022-0057-DWQ, or any other sub sequent permit. This shall include sub mission of Permit Registration Documents, including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NO I), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification statement, and any other compliancerelated documents required b y the permit, to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Numb er is ob tained for the Project from the SMARTS and provided to the Director of Pub lic Works for the City of Cypress, or designee, to demonstrate that coverage under the Construction General Permit has b een ob tained. Project construction shall comply with all applicab le requirements specified in the Construction General Permit, including b ut not limited to, preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction site b est management practices (BMPs) to address all construction-related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for the project. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in storm water runoff. Upon completion of construction activities and stab iliz ation of the Project site, a Notice of Termination (NO T) shall b e sub mitted via SMARTS.

Prior to
commencement
of construction
activities
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor and City
of Cypress Director
of Pub lic Works, or
designee
6-9

DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5

CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )

CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
If construction of future projects associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil, prior to commencement of construction activities, the Construction Contractor shall provide evidence that project construction would comply with Section 4.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code requires implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion and to retain sediment on site (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs).

Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2
Orange County MS4 Permit/City Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for future projects associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project, the future project Applicant shall prepare and sub mit a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) to specify BMPs that would b e implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff in compliance with the O range County MS4 Permit, O range County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and the City of Cypress Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The WQMP shall also incorporate the results of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses to demonstrate that the detention facilities meet the
hydromodification requirements of the O range County MS4 Permit and Chapter 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal Code. The City Engineer/Pub lic Works Director, or designee, shall ensure that the BMPs specified in the WQMP are incorporated into the final project design of future projects associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project.

Prior to
issuance of a
grading permit
Applicant and/or
Construction
Supervisor and City
of Cypress Director
of Pub lic Works, or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3
Groundwater Discharge Permit. If groundwater dewatering activities are required for future project construction associated with the Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project, at least 45 days prior to dewatering activities, the Construction Contractor shall sub mit an NO I to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ob tain coverage under the General Waste Discharge 45 days prior to
dewatering
activities
Applicant and City
of Cypress City
Engineer, or
designee

CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )

CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA

DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
6 P:\ A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -10 Table 6.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Regulatory Compliance Measures/Standard Conditions/
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters That Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Groundwater Discharge Permit), O rder No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001.

Groundwater dewatering activities shall comply with all applicab le provisions in the Groundwater Discharge Permit, including water sampling, analysis, treatment (if required), and reporting of dewatering-related discharges. Upon completion of groundwater dewatering activities, a NO T shall b e sub mitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB.

4.15: Public Services
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would b e required to coordinate with the O range County Fire Authority (O CFA) to determine the appropriate development impact fees required to offset potential impact to O CFA staffing and service ab ility. Prior to the approval of a future project implemented in accordance with the proposed project, the designated site developer shall enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with O CFA that details the agreedupon development impact fees required for the project.

Prior to project
implementation
O CFA
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2
Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any b uilding permits, the Applicant/Developer of future residential development projects facilitated b y the proposed project shall provide proof to the Director of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or designee, that payment of school fees to the appropriate school districts have b een made in compliance with Section 65995 of the California Government Code.

Prior to
issuance of
b uilding permits
Cypress Community
Development
Director, or
designee
6-11

DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5

CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )

4.16: Recreation
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1
Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to issuance of any b uilding permits, the Applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the applicab le provisions of Chapter 25 (Sub divisions), Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City of Cypress (City) Municipal Code, or other fees as determined b y the City, to the Director of the City Community Development Department, or designee.

Prior to
issuance of any
b uilding permits
Applicant and City
of Cypress
Community
Development
Director, or
designee

4.19: Utilities and Service Systems
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1
Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The construction contractor shall comply with the provisions of the City of Cypress O rdinance No. 1166 and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, which would reduce construction and demolition waste. O rdinance No. 1166 is codified in Article VIII, Materials Questionnaire for Certain Construction and Demolition Projects within the City of Cypress, in the Cypress Municipal Code.

During
construction
activities
Construction
contractor

CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )

CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA

DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY
6 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -12 This page intentionally left blank
7-1

DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5

CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N

P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )

CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AN D PERSON S CON SULTED

7.1 CITY OF CYPRESS
The following individuals from the City of Cypress (City) were involved in the preparation of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND):
• Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
• Christopher Wong, Business Development Manager

7.2 IS/N D PREPARERS
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this IS/ND. The nature of their involvement is summariz ed b elow.

7.2.1 LSA
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this IS/ND:
• Ryan Bensley, AICP, Principal/Project Manager
• Matthew Wiswell, Project Manager
• Chris Jones, AICP, Environmental Planner
• Lynnea Palecki, Environmental Planner
• Jason Thomas, Graphics Technician/GIS Specialist
• Mitchell Alexander, GIS Specialist
• Michael Mello, Technical Editor
• Lauren Johnson, Technical Editor
• Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor

CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N

P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )

CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA

DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
7 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 This page intentionally left blank
8-1

DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5

CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N

P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )

CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA
P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25)

8.0 REFEREN CES
CHAPTER 2.0: PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION
Rob ert Bein, William Frost & Associates. 1990. Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan.

April 17.

Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, BCL Associates, Inc., Novemb er 25, 1985.

Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park Landscape Design Criteria, Development Standards and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Cardoz a-Dilallo Associates, Inc., July 1978.

City of Cypress. 1994. McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan. Adopted O ctob er 1994. Web site:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/9697/637363718993 530000 (accessed O ctob er 7, 2023).

SECTION 4.1: AESTHETICS
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Web site: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/web appviewer/index. html? id= 465 dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aaca (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023).

City of Cypress. 1994. City of Cypress McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan. Adopted O ctob er 1994. Page 50. Web site: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/9697/ 637363718993 530000 (accessed O ctob er 7, 2023).
_ _ _ _ _ . 2020. City of Cypress Municipal Code.

United States Census Bureau. 2010a. Los Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urb aniz ed Area No. 51445. Web site: https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUCRefMap/ua/ ua51445 losangeles--long_ b each--anaheim_ ca/DC10UA51445_ 000.pdf (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023). _ _ _ _ _ . 2010b . Census Urb an Area FAQs. Web site: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ geography/ab out/faq/2010-urb an-area-faq.html (accessed Septemb er 1, 2023).

SECTION 4.2: AGRICULTURE
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Web site:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed August 30, 2023). _ _ _ _ _ . 2018. O range County Important Farmland 2018.

City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Page 7-2. Web site:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpub lisheddocument/666/636123114138270000 (accessed August 30, 2023).

CY PRESS BUSINESS P ARK S MO DERNIZATIO N AND INTEGRATIO N

P RO JECT (SPECIFIC PLAN )

CY PRESS , C ALIFO RNIA

DRAFT INITIAL S TUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATIO N
MARCH 202 5
8 P:\A-E\CCP2201.02\PRO DUCTS\IS\Pub lic\2025\Cypress Business Parks Moderniz ation and Integration Project IS_ ND.docx (03/12/25) -2 SECTION 4.3: AIR Q UALITY
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQ A A ir Q ual ity H andb ook . April 1993, currently b eing revised.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final L ocal iz ed Sig nif icance T hreshol d M ethodol og y . July. Web site: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handb ook/ localiz ed-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf (accessed Septemb er 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. O utdoor Air Quality Data. Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report (accessed May 2023).

SECTION 4.4: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Cypress. 1996. I nv entory of L andm ark T rees. July.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Critical Hab itat for Threatened and Endangered Species. GIS Mapping Web site: https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/web map/ viewer.html? web map= 9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b 8db fb 77 (accessed O ctob er 5, 2023). _ _ _ _ _ . 2022b . National Wetlands Inventory. GIS Mapping. Web site: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs. gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed O ctob er 5, 2023).

SECTION 4.5: CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Cypress. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Effects Found Not To Be Significant.

Page 703 ends

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.

Page 4 ends

_ _ _ _ _ . 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

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

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
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 2.06.050 (COMMERCIAL OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS), 2.07.050 (INDUSTRIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS), 3.14.050 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARKING), AND 6.31.020 (DEFINITIONS OF SPECIALIZED TERMS AND PHRASES) OF APPENDIX I (ZONING) OF THE CYPRESS MUNCIPAL CODE TO UPDATE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO BUSINESS PARK LAND USES
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to integrate and modernize the City’s Business Parks through the adoption of a single, comprehensive Cypress Business Park Specific Plan (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires the following to be approved by the City Council: an ordinance repealing the Lusk-Cypress Industrial Park Specific Plan, Cypress Corporate Center Master Plan, Cypress Corporate Center Amended Specific Plan, McDonnell Center Amended Specific Plan, Cypress View Limited Specific Plan, Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan, and Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan Amendment 19-1 and adopting the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan, which Ordinance is being considered by the Council concurrently herewith; a Resolution amending the Land Use Element and Land Use Policy Map of the City of Cypress General Plan to remove references to repealed Specific Plans and replace them with references to the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan, which Resolution is being considered by the Council concurrently herewith; this Ordinance amending Subsections 2.06.050 (Commercial off-street parking requirements), 2.07.050 (Industrial off-street parking requirements), 3.14.050 (Development standards for parking), and

6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code to update off-street parking requirements and definitions pertaining to business park uses; and adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”) also being considered by the City Council concurrently herewith; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Ordinance to: (1) update off-street parking requirements in order to streamline regulations, reduce potential conflicts and redundancies between the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and centralize parking standards to enhance efficiency, clarity, and simplify future amendments in the planning process; and (2) modernize certain land use definitions for consistency with the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan, ensuring they address current economic conditions and evolving land uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the following General Plan Land Use Element Goals: LU-10, to “carefully regulate future development in the Business Park to ensure the current high quality environment is maintained”; LU-14, to “attract high quality businesses to Commercial and Business Park areas”; LU-15, to “retain and facilitate the expansion of businesses throughout the City”; and, LU-16, to “continue to diversify the Cypress Business Park to maintain its competitiveness”; and the Project furthers these goals by providing a comprehensive and modernized plan for 439 acres of the Cypress Business Park that addresses current and projected economic conditions and land uses, streamlines approval processes, and provides updated development and performance standards that serves to attract new businesses and maintain the high-quality environment of the Business Park; and WHEREAS, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on April 28, 2025, the City Council of the City of Cypress fully considered the IS/ND prior to considering this ordinance, and adopted the IS/ND that was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and considered testimony on the Ordinance.

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

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. Excerpts from Table 2-9 (Commercial Zoning District Parking Requirements) of Subsection 2.06.050 (Commercial off-street parking requirements) of Section 6 (Commercial Zoning Districts) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code being revised by this Ordinance are hereby amended to read as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough), with all other provisions not shown below remaining unmodified and in full force and effect:

TABLE 2-9

COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Vehicle Spaces Required
Public/Semi Public Facility Uses
Public utility, public works, postal,
and support facilities
1 space for each 250 square feet of gross floor
area
Retail Trade Uses
Restaurants, sit-down 1 space for each 100 125 square feet of gross floor area, but no less than 10 spaces
Service Uses
Day care centers (2) 1 space for each employee on the largest shift, plus 1 space for every 10 children for which the facility is licensed
Childcare facilities which exclusively service the
employees of a facility shall require no
additional parking
One loading space shall be provided
Hotels, motels, or inns 0.75 space for each guest room; 2 spaces for each resident manager or owner 1 space for
each guest room, plus 3/4 for each employee on
largest shift, plus additional spaces as required
for accessory uses
Personal services 1 space for each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area
SECTION 3. Table 2-14 (Industrial Zoning District Parking Requirements) of Subsection

2.07.050 (Industrial off-street parking requirements) of Section 7 (Industrial Zoning Districts) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

TABLE 2-14

INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Uses Vehicle Spaces Required
Public/Semi Public Facility Uses
Public utility, public works, postal,
and support facilities
1 space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area
Restaurants, sit-down 1 space for each 100 125 square feet of gross floor area, but no less than 10 spaces
Service Uses
Day care centers (3) 1 space for each employee on the largest shift, plus 1 space for every 10 children for which the facility is
licensed
Childcare facilities which exclusively service the
employees of a facility shall require no additional
parking
One loading space shall be provided
Hotels, motels, or inns 0.75 space for each guest room; 2 spaces for each resident manager or owner 1 space for each guest
room, plus ¾ employee on largest shift. Additional
spaces as required for accessory uses.

Personal services 1 space for each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area SECTION 4. Subsection 3.14.050 (Development standards for parking) of Section 14 (OffStreet Parking and Loading) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

2. Compact parking.
a. Multi-family residential uses. The total number of compact parking spaces provided shall not exceed 20% of the total number of required spaces. b. In the Cypress Business Park Specific Plan area, no more than 40 percent of the required parking spaces in retail commercial areas and no more than 30 percent of the required business park areas, shall be designed for compact cars. c. All other uses. Compact parking spaces shall not be allowed.

SECTION 5. A new definition of “Animal boarding” is hereby added to Subsection

6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code in alphabetical order and shall read as follows:

Animal boarding. Facilities which offer temporary housing, care, and boarding services for small animals, primarily cats and dogs. These establishments are designed to provide short-term care for pets, particularly when owners are unable to tend to them. Boarding services may include feeding, exercise, and general care, ensuring pets are well looked after in their owners' absence.

SECTION 6. A new definition of “Animal hospitals” is hereby added to Subsection

Animal hospitals. Commercial establishments that provide comprehensive veterinary medical care and treatment for small animals such as cats, dogs, and other similar pets. These facilities offer a wide range of veterinary services, including medical examinations, surgeries, vaccinations, and dental care. The focus is on health maintenance and medical treatment for pets.

SECTION 7. A new definition of “Assembly use” is hereby added to Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code in alphabetical order and shall read as follows:

Assembly use. Where a building, or portion of a building is primarily designed for public or private gatherings, where the space accommodates 40 or more individuals as determined by Building and Safety regulations. Examples include clubs, lodges, meeting halls, religious facilities, auditoriums, theaters, and other similar facilities intended for group gatherings. If the assembly area accommodates fewer than 40 individuals, it will be classified according to its primary function.

SECTION 8. A new definition of “Distribution center” is hereby added to Subsection

Distribution center. A building or facility which serves as a central location for the short-term storage, consolidation, and transfer of goods, materials, or merchandise prior to their 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. Some limited assembly and repacking may occur. Although storage of goods does occur, it is a secondary function to their movement.

SECTION 9. The definition of “Health/fitness centers” in Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

Health/fitness centers. Fitness fFacilities which encompass, gymnasiums, health and athletic clubs, and fitness centers typically accommodating over 40 individuals simultaneously. These facilities may offer amenities such as pools, including indoor saunas, and courts for spa, or hot tub facilities; handball and, indoor tennis, racquetball, among and other indoor sports activities. This category excludes boutique gyms, small training facilities, personal training gyms, and sales of gym equipment.

Smaller health and fitness centers are classified under General Personal Services.

SECTION 10. A new definition of “Light manufacturing facility” is hereby added to Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code in alphabetical order and shall read as follows:

Light manufacturing facility. A building or group of buildings where goods are manufactured, often including an ancillary office space. These facilities typically house specialized equipment such as production lines and machinery for creating and/or assembling various products like battery technology, aerospace components, electronic devices, food products, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.

Light manufacturing also encompasses research and development activities. The products produced may be stored, demonstrated, sold, shipped, or tested on-site.

Operations are conducted entirely within an enclosed building and are managed to avoid adverse effects on neighboring properties. External tanks or process equipment may be present as required by fire safety regulations.

SECTION 11. A new definition of “Logistics facility” is hereby added to Subsection

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 highfrequency 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. Logistics facilities are prohibited throughout the City of Cypress including all Specific Plan areas.

SECTION 12. The definition of “Personal services, general” in Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

Personal services, general. A commercial facility or establishment that offer personal care, fitness, tutoring, and grooming services. Examples include hair salons, barbershops, electronics and small appliance repair shops, boutique gyms, tutoring, education based activities, and dance and martial art studios. The Planning Director may designate similar uses under this category. Establishments providing nonmedical services as a primary use, including:
♦ Home electronics and small appliance repair
♦ Laundromats (self-service laundries)
♦ Nail shops
♦ Shoe repair shops
These facilities often feature uses may also include accessory retail sales of products related to the services offeredprovided. Exclusions from this category areThese uses do not include body piercing, psychic readers, tattoo parlors, and other services classified or any of the other uses listed under "Personal services, limited.” SECTION 13. The definition of “Research and development (R&D)” in Subsection

6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

Research and development (R&D). Refers to the purposeful and systematic investigative activities carried out to advance knowledge, develop new concepts or products, or enhance existing technologies. These activities may involve scientific, technological, or experimental tasks such as laboratory research, prototype development, testing, product design, data collection, and simulation. R&D requires specialized knowledge and creativity in fields like science, engineering, medicine, biotechnology, and software development. Facilities dedicated to R&D may include labs, experimental spaces, workshops, or offices focused on research endeavors.

Indoor facilities for scientific research, and the design, development, and testing of electrical, electronic, magnetic, optical, and mechanical components in advance of product manufacturing, that are not associated with a manufacturing facility on the same site. Includes chemical and biotechnology research and development. Does not include computer software companies, soils and other materials testing laboratories, or medical laboratories.

SECTION 14. The definition of “Storage facilities” in Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby deleted and replaced with a definition of “Storage facilities, indoor” that shall read as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

Storage facilities. A structure or group of structures containing generally small, individual, compartmentalized stalls or lockers rented as individual storage spaces and characterized by low parking demand. Also known as "personal or ministorage." Storage facilities, indoor. Refers to commercial or industrial spaces designed for the storage of personal or business items within an enclosed structure. These facilities offer secure, climate-controlled environments for the safekeeping of various goods, excluding hazardous materials. Services may include storage units, lockers, and support for storing furniture, household items, documents, and vehicles, along with ancillary services like packaging, moving assistance, and security features.

SECTION 15. The definition of “Storage facilities (large scale)” in Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):

Storage facilities (large scale). See "Warehouseing, wholesaling, and distribution facilities, primary." Does not include: warehouse, storage, or personal or mini-storage facilities offered for rent or lease to the general public. For these see "Storage facilities, indoor."
SECTION 16. A new definition of “Storage yards (public)” is hereby added to Subsection

Storage yards (public). Facilities open to the public and provide temporary storage and parking for vehicles, equipment, and materials. These yards may store automobiles, RVs, boats, and construction equipment. The facilities can include open-air or enclosed spaces with security measures and are often equipped for ancillary activities such as vehicle maintenance and repairs, which must be in compliance with all City and other local regulations including zoning and environmental standards.

SECTION 17. The definition of “Warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution facilities, incidental” in Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety.

SECTION 18. The definition of “Warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution facilities, primary” in Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety.

SECTION 19. A new definition of “Warehouse” is hereby added to Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code in alphabetical order and shall read as follows:

Warehouse. A facility primarily used for the long-term storage of goods, materials, and equipment. These buildings focus on inventory retention rather than frequent dispatch and receipt of goods. While they may include ancillary office spaces and limited activities like sorting or packaging, the primary function is storage over shipping and receiving. This definition excludes mini-storage facilities that are rented or leased to the public, which fall under "Indoor Storage Facilities." SECTION 20. A new definition of “Wholesaling” is hereby added to Subsection 6.31.020 (Definitions of specialized terms and phrases) of Section 31 (Definitions) of Article 6 (Definitions) of Appendix I (Zoning) of the Cypress City Code in alphabetical order and shall read as follows:

Wholesaling. See “Distribution center.”
SECTION 21. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any other provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 22. Effective date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from its adoption.

SECTION 23. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard.

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 Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of 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:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 8.

FROM: Nick Mangkalakiri, Director of Public Works
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Award a Contract for the Replacement of the Picnic Area Shade Structure at Maple Grove Park South, Project 399

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve Plans and Specifications for the replacement of the picnic area shade structure at Maple Grove Park South, Project 399; and

2. Award a contract to Landmark Associated Builders, Inc. for $79,950, and authorize a contingency of $11,050.

DISCUSSION
The shade structure at Maple Grove South was removed due to damage and deterioration and this project will replace it with fabric shade sails and steel posts that are more durable and resilient to the elements than the previous wooden structure. Similar the shade sails have been installed at Eucalyptus Park and Manzanita Park.

On April 9, the City advertised the project and 18 bid packets were distributed to contractors.

On April 23, the City received five bids for the project with Landmark Associated Builders, Inc. as the low bidder. A summary of project award information is attached.

BUDGET IMPACT
Estimated construction costs are $91,000 and sufficient funding is available in the Recreation and Park District's General Fund.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Project Award Information
Project Award Information Checklist
Description of Project:

This project will replace the shade structure at Maple Grove Park South.

Contract Working Days: Ten (10) working days
Advertisement Date: April 9, 2025
Notice Inviting Bids Sent to: CIPList.com
Bid Opening Date: April 23, 2025
No. of Bid Packets Distributed: Eighteen (18)
Bidders Base Bid Amount

1. Landmark Associated Builders, Inc., Downey, CA $ 79,950.00

2. Western State Builders, Inc., Escondido, CA $ 84,921.00

3. Genesis Builders, Inc., Buena Park, CA $ 88,157.00

4. R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc., Orange, CA $ 103,870.00

5. Golden Coast Construction, La Habra, CA $ 105,520.68 Apparent Low Bidder: Landmark Associated Builders, Inc., Downey, CA - $79,950 Qualified to Perform Work: Yes. Staff confirmed bid was responsive.

Contractor’s License: Registration with DIR:

Valid at Time of Award: Yes Contractor: Yes
Valid at Time of Bid: Yes Sub-Contractor: Yes
Experience:

The apparent low bidder has performed this type of work for multiple clients in Southern California.

Kevin Chin

CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID
1 Landmark Associated Builders, Inc. 79,950.00$
2 Western State Builders, Inc. 84,921.00$
3 Genesis Builders, Inc. 88,157.00$
4 R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc. 103,870.00$
5 Golden Coast Construction 105,520.68$
6 7
8 9
10 PRELIMINARY BID RESULTS - FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

BID RESULTS
for

SHADE STRUCTURE AT MAPLE GROVE PARK SOUTH
PROJECT 399
Bid Opening: Wednesday, April 23 at 11:00 AM
Landmark Associated Builders, Inc.

Danielle Bogdanovich
(562) 607-1208
1135724
2000010112
8741 Byers Street, Downey, CA. 90242
76,450 76,450
3,500 3,500
79,950
Seventy-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars

Shade Structure at Maple Grove Park South
Project 399

PROPOSAL BID SHEET
CITY OF CYPRESS PROJECT 399

SCHEDULE OF WORK ITEMS

SHADE STRUCTURE AT MAPLE GROVE PARK SOUTH
Contractor:

Address:

Contact: Contractor’s License No.:

Phone: DIR Number:

BID DUE DATE: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 11 AM
The undersigned principal, after having carefully examined the plans, Specifications and General Provisions for the City of Cypress Public Works Project 399, hereby proposes and agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, transportation, services, sales taxes and other costs necessary to complete the entire project in strict conformity with the specifications, general and special provisions, and all addenda therefore as prepared by the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works of the City of Cypress and to complete all work within the contract time specified in this PROPOSAL, for the following bid:

BASE BID
No. Quantity Unit Items of Work
(Please Print Unit Prices Written in Words)
Unit
Price Total

1. 1 EA
Install 20' x 20' Shade Structure per manufacturer’s plan (includes removal of existing abandoned concrete
foundations, engineering*, structure, dewatering**, new foundations, installation, freight and taxes)
$ $
PER EA

2. 100 SF
Remove and Replace 4” Thick Concrete Pad
$ $
PER SF
NOTE:

Per Public Contracts Code Section 20103.8(a), the lowest bid shall be the lowest bid price on the base contract without consideration of the optional additive bid item.

TOTAL AMOUNT OF BASE BID: $
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID IN WORDS:

Dollars
(Please Print Total Amount of Bid in WORDS)
Genesis Builders, Inc. dba K2 Painting
2007 Raymer Ave Ste S Fullerton, CA 92833
Rick Chung 1004198
714)749-4558 1000411359

52.00 5,200.00
82,957.00 82,957.00
88,157.00
Eighty-eight thousand one hundred fifty-seven
Shade Structure at Maple Grove Park South
Project 399

PROPOSAL BID SHEET
CITY OF CYPRESS PROJECT 399

SCHEDULE OF WORK ITEMS

SHADE STRUCTURE AT MAPLE GROVE PARK SOUTH
Contractor:

Address:

Contact: Contractor’s License No.:

Phone: DIR Number:

BASE BID
No. Quantity Unit Items of Work
(Please Print Unit Prices Written in Words)
Unit
Price Total

2. 100 SF
Remove and Replace 4” Thick Concrete Pad
$ $
PER SF
NOTE:

Per Public Contracts Code Section 20103.8(a), the lowest bid shall be the lowest bid price on the base contract without consideration of the optional additive bid item.

TOTAL AMOUNT OF BASE BID: $
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID IN WORDS:

Dollars
(Please Print Total Amount of Bid in WORDS)
R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc.
1767 North Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92865
Richard Schultz 1007195
714-649-2627 1000033385
98,220.00 98,220.00

56.50 5,650.00
103,870.00
Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Dollars
Fifty Six Dollars and Fifty Cents
One Hundred and Three Thousand Eight Hundred and
Seventy
Shade Structure at Maple Grove Park South
Project 399

PROPOSAL BID SHEET
CITY OF CYPRESS PROJECT 399

SCHEDULE OF WORK ITEMS

SHADE STRUCTURE AT MAPLE GROVE PARK SOUTH

Contractor:

Address:

Contact: Contractor’s License No.:

Phone: DIR Number:

BASE BID
No. Quantity Unit Items of Work
(Please Print Unit Prices Written in Words)
Unit
Price Total

PER EA

2. 100 SF
Remove and Replace 4” Thick Concrete Pad
$ $
PER SF
NOTE:

Per Public Contracts Code Section 20103.8(a), the lowest bid shall be the lowest bid price on the base contract without consideration of the optional additive bid item.

TOTAL AMOUNT OF BASE BID: $
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID IN WORDS:

Dollars
(Please Print Total Amount of Bid in WORDS)
Stephen Nolin 1074709
1001069298
94,968.61
10,552.07
105,520.68
94,968.61
10,552.07
One hundred five thousand five hundred twenty
dollars and sixty-eight cents.

CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 9.

FROM: Nick Mangkalakiri, Director of Public Works
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Approve the City Engineer's Report and Adopt a Resolution Declaring the City Council's Intent to Renew Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 following a June 23, 2025 Public Hearing

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the City Engineer's Report for the Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2025-26; and

2. Adopt the attached Resolution declaring the City Council's intention to order the renewal of Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for maintenance of the landscape and irrigation system and setting the public hearing for June 23, 2025.

DISCUSSION
The City formed a Maintenance District in 1985 covering all properties bounded by Katella Avenue, Knott Street, Valley View Street, and the Stanton Storm Channel. The Maintenance District provides for maintenance of the landscape berm adjacent to the Channel. The City maintains the berm primarily through a contract, which includes trimming plants four times a year and irrigation repairs.

Nineteen parcels owned by four property owners are assessed annually on a per-acre basis (Attachment E and F of the City Engineer's Report). The assessment funds the maintenance and irrigation of the landscape berm. The annual assessment is a routine process established 40 years ago.

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act, the City Engineer prepares an annual report to file with the City Clerk outlining the Maintenance District renewal. The recommended Resolution approves the City Engineer's Report and declares the City Council's intention to renew Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for FY 2025-26 and sets the public hearing for June 23, 2025.

BUDGET IMPACT
Renewal includes a maximum assessment of $105,867 for the parcels adjacent to the berm.

Renewal includes a maximum assessment of $105,867 for the parcels adjacent to the berm.

The assessment is distributed based on each parcel's square footage. The assessment reflects a 3.02% CPI increase from FY 2024-25. Estimated FY 2025-26 maintenance costs and indirect support from the City are $118,034, which exceeds the assessment by $12,167.

The Maintenance District No. 1 Fund has sufficient accumulated balances available from prior year assessments to pay for costs above the recommended FY 2025-26 assessment.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
City Engineer's Report
Resolution

CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
for

CYPRESS CORPORATE CENTER LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 1
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
_____________________________________
Nick Mangkalakiri, P.E.

Director of Public Works / City Engineer
City of Cypress
May 2025

CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT

MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR BERM
This document consists of the following documents:

Attachment A............................................................Landscape Maintenance Specifications Specifications for the improvements are filed with the City Engineer and are available for review at the Public Works counter. Although separately bound, the specifications are a part of this report and are included in it by reference.

Attachment B............................................................................ Landscape Plan and Section Plans showing existing and proposed landscape maintenance improvements.

Attachment C .......................................................................................Master Irrigation Plan Plans showing existing and proposed irrigation improvements Attachment D ............................................................................. Maintenance Cost Estimate An estimate of the cost of improvements, including direct and indirect costs.

Attachment E....................................................... Diagram of Proposed Assessment District A diagram showing all the parcels of real property within this assessment district.

Attachment F............................................................Assessment Distribution Cost Estimate An assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements on each benefited parcel of land within the assessment district as shown in Attachment E.

CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
for

CYPRESS CORPORATE CENTER LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 1
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

ATTACHMENT A

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS
_____________________________________
Nick Mangkalakiri, P.E.

Director of Public Works / City Engineer
City of Cypress
May 2025
A-1
Attachment A

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS
A. SPECIAL PROVISIONS

1. Scope of Work
Contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials and supervision to perform landscape maintenance as described herein including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Weeding and cultivating
b. Fertilizing
c. Trimming, pruning, training
d. Watering
e. Insect, varmint and pest control
f. Plant replacement
g. Clean-up
h. Tree tying and restaking
i. Reports
j. Irrigation repair
k. Other duties related to maintenance of landscape and irrigation system

2. Working Hours
a. Maintenance work shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
b. Special maintenance, if required, shall be by written authorization from the Director of Public Works or his designated representative.

3. Workmanship
The Contractor shall ensure that:
a. Work shall be performed by competent persons, supervised by a competent supervisor, with experience and technical training in landscape maintenance work.
b. Pesticide operations, where required, shall be by a state licensed pest control operator.

4. Quality of Work and Material
A-2
All material and equipment furnished by the Contractor shall be new, high grade, and free from defects and imperfections, unless otherwise hereinafter specified. Workmanship shall be in accordance with the best standard practices. Both materials and workmanship shall be subject to inspection by the City. All materials used shall be approved in advance by the Director of Public Works or his designated representative.

5. Damages
The Contractor will report, without delay, any damage to equipment or property and shall be held responsible for the replacement of any such damage caused by his act hereunder. Repairs to the landscape and irrigation system resulting from damage by other than the Contractor's operations shall be reported promptly to the City. The Contractor shall make repairs immediately and shall be liable for secondary damage caused to landscaped areas. This includes dead plant material caused by lack of water.

Replacement of all plant materials, shrubs, ground cover, mulch and/or other plants, shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall not be liable for damages caused by vandalism. Any repair for vandalism will be included in the section under Extra Work, except as follows: It is estimated that seventy five (75) sprinkler heads per year will have to be repaired or replaced due to vandalism. The cost of repairing or replacing of up to 75 heads, including comparable parts, labor and equipment, will be included in the normal scope of the work. Damaged sprinkler heads, in part or whole, shall be returned to the City representative.

6. Cleaning
The Contractor shall maintain the premises clean of debris and litter at all times. Upon completion of any work project, the Contractor shall remove remaining excess materials, waste, rubbish, debris and his construction and installation equipment from the premises.

7. Statement of Contractor's Work Responsibilities
a. Ground Cover Areas

1. All weeds shall be removed as they appear. A broad spectrum pre-emergent weed control shall be applied per manufacturer's specifications to shrub beds and ground cover beds in the spring and fall, and additional weed control shall be initiated as necessary to maintain a weed-free condition.

2. Morning Glory and grass infestations shall be treated immediately when observed by spot treating. Product shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works or his A-3
designated representative prior to application.

3. Herbicides: Use of Roundup, Kleenup, Accord, Imitator, Eraser, Pronto, Rodeo, or other herbicides containing
Glyphosate is not permitted.

4. Fertilize twice yearly with a rate of application of 2.5 pounds actual Nitrogen per 1,000 square feet with an appropriate fertilizer 5-10-5, or an approved equal, in March and
September.

5. Trim and edge as necessary to restrict growth from encroaching into adjacent areas. Trim around sprinkler heads to maintain an unobstructed and uniform application of water. Growth retardants, if properly applied, may be used. Permission to be obtained from Director of Public Works or his designated representative before applying.

6. Irrigate as required to maintain vigorous growth and healthy appearance.

7. Control pests, including rodents, snails and diseases continuously, to provide a healthy environment for plants. b. Shrubs and Trees

1. Trim, shape and prune to maintain a neat and healthy appearance. Prior to trimming, shaping or pruning, contact the City's representative for the proper shaping of specific varieties.

2. Annually, thin out, shape and head back all trees and shrubs as needed. Contact City's representative before commencing work.

3. Control pests and diseases as needed to provide healthy environment for trees and shrubs.

4. Remove all dead, diseased or damaged branches back to a side branch.

5. Stake, retie and support trees when necessary.

6. All ties shall be checked frequently to avoid girdling.

7. Ground cover shall be cut back from trees and shrubs a minimum of six (6) inches.

A-4

8. Application of an iron chelate fertilizer shall be used as needed throughout the year, to maintain healthy, vigorous growth and foliage.
c. General Landscape Conditions

1. All operations conducted by the Contractor shall be done with concern for maximum safety to the public.

2. Leaves, paper, weeds and other debris shall be removed weekly from landscaped areas and disposed off-site.

3. Contractor shall clean any areas littered or soiled by his maintenance operations to a standard acceptable to the
Director of Public Works or his representative.

4. Notification of all "specialty types" maintenance operations shall be given to the City 48-hours prior to each of these operations by the Contractor. "Specialty Type" maintenance operations are defined as: fertilization, pre-emergence weed control, all pesticide applications except spot treatment, and other types of plant replacements.

5. Contractor is required, as part of this agreement, to furnish all materials to accomplish maintenance in accordance with these specifications. Contractor is further required to adequately stock items that are frequently used.

6. Contractor shall maintain an office with phone service during normal hours. If a telephone answering service is utilized, the answering service shall be capable of contacting Contractor by radio or pager. Contractor is further required to provide City with a 24-hour emergency number for contact outside normal
working hours. The response time to an emergency call-out by the Contractor shall not be more than one (1) hour and shall be considered part of the normal contract work.

7. Contractor shall apply herbicides per State and County Codes and only when approved by the Director of Public Works or his designated representative.

8. Contractor shall replace or replant any ground cover shrubs or trees damaged by any pesticide used in the course of the job.

This shall be at no extra charge to the City.

A-5
d. Reports

1. Sprinkler Irrigation Reports
The Contractor shall furnish monthly sprinkler irrigation reports.

Controllers shall be checked weekly to insure their proper operation and any malfunctions reported to the City's
representative. Non-working heads, broken risers, stations failing to turn on or off as dictated, leaking valves, main line leaks, controllers failing to keep time are all examples of irrigation failures. These failures shall be included in the above reports.

2. Periodic Maintenance Schedules
The Contractor shall furnish monthly maintenance schedules that include planned activities for all persons performing any function of the contract.
e. Maintenance of Fence and Orange County Flood Control District Maintenance Road

1. If it is found that the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) fence south of the berm is damaged or vandalized to permit trespass, or if weed abatement is needed on the OCFCD Maintenance Road, the Contractor shall notify the City
representative promptly and the City will notify the appropriate OCFCD Authorities to correct the deficiency.

B. SPECIFIC METHODS OF PERFORMING IRRIGATION WORK

1. Irrigation shall be done by the use of automatic or manual sprinkler systems where available and operable; however, failure of the existing irrigation system to provide full and proper coverage shall not relieve the Contractor of the responsibility to provide adequate irrigation with full and proper coverage to all areas in the work site.

2. Any damages to public or private property resulting from excessive irrigation water or irrigation water runoff shall be charged against the contract payment unless immediate repairs are made by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

3. The Contractor shall regularly inspect the operation of the system for any malfunction. The Contractor shall maintain all sprinkler systems, at no additional cost to the City, in such a way as to guarantee proper coverage and full working capabilities and make whatever adjustments may be necessary A-6
to prevent excessive runoff into adjacent areas.

4. Care shall be exercised to prevent a waste of water and erosion of slopes.

5. The Contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of all valves, heads, wire, automatic controllers, backflow devices, quick couplers and any other irrigation equipment in the project area.

6. The Contractor is not responsible for the payment of water bills unless negligent or excessive in his use. A heavy increase of water usage indicates negligence on the Contractor's part, in which case, the additional cost will be charged against him.

7. Landscaped slopes shall be irrigated, as required, to maintain horticulturally accepted growth and color and to promote deep rooting.

8. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to make annual Backflow Device reports to be submitted to the County of Orange and Golden State Water Company. Newly planted trees, shrubs, ground cover and turf shall receive special attention until these plants are established. Adequate water shall be applied to promote normal, healthy growth. Collection basins shall be maintained during the establishment period.

C. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

1. Contractor shall perform clearance and trimming on both sides of the berm four (4) times per year.

2. An allowance for irrigation repair and planting on a time and materials basis has been provided to the Contractor.

3. Contractor shall provide for maintenance of backflow devices at least one time per year.

w
z
z
<(
�
0 �
en
(NOTE: Berm section is 17' - 6"
wide from Knott Street
to 1 000' west.)
0 <( )( 0
c:::
w
z
<(
z
w )(
Iz
<(
)(
r-FOR FUTURE
/ CONNECTION
--FENCE GATE
VALVES

GATE VALVE

TEMPORARY

CONNECTION TO

ADJACENT SITE
X
TORO 316-12-02
TORO 308-12-02
X

MAIN LINE

PRIVATE FENCE
X

STORM CHANNEL
FENCE

MASTER IRRIGATION PLAN
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
Attachment C
D-1
Attachment D

MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Maintenance (from 7/1/25-6/30/26) $ 102,638
City’s Indirect Support Costs $ 15,396
Total Maintenance Costs $ 118,034
Assessment * $ 105,867
*3.02% CPI adjustment (All Urban Consumers – March 2024 to March 2025)

Attachment F

ASSESSMENT
NUMBER
NAME DESCRIPTION Acreage %

AMOUNT OF

ASSESSMENT
2025-26
1 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011,
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 1, PM 134-4
A.P. #224-271-05

5.378 3.95% $4,178.98
2 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 1, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-11

1.646 1.21% $1,279.03
3 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 2, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-07

3.238 2.38% $2,516.09
4A Katella Holder Street LLC; PO Box 847, Carlsbad, CA 92018 Par 1, PM 155-23 A.P. #224-271-23

13.966 10.25% $10,852.30
4B Katella Holder Street LLC; PO Box 847, Carlsbad, CA 92018 Par 2, PM 155-23 A.P. #224-271-24 8.324 6.11% $6,468.17
5 Duke Realty Limited Partnership - Prologis L.P.; 1800 Wazee Street, Suite 500, Denver CO 80202
Par 1, PM 167-34
A.P. #224-261-04 22.304 16.37% $17,331.35
6 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 4, PM 247-21
A.P. #224-261-07

6.301 4.62% $4,896.20
7 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 3, PM 247-21
A.P. #224-262-01

15.235 11.18% $11,838.37
8 Warland Investments, Ltd. 1301 Montana Avenue, Suite
A, Santa Monica, CA 90403
Par 1, PM 214-13
A.P. #224-271-21

11.314 8.30% $8,791.56
9 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 2, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-12

1.843 1.35% $1,432.11
10 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 3, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-13

1.100 0.81% $854.76
11 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 4, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-14

1.106 0.81% $859.42
12 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Lot 5, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-17

1.380 1.01% $1,072.33
13 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 6, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-16

0.996 0.73% $773.94
14 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 7, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-15

1.322 0.97% $1,027.26
15 Warland Investments, Ltd. 1301 Montana Avenue, Suite A, Santa Monica, CA 90403
Par 2, PM 214-13
A.P. #224-271-22

17.504 12.85% $13,601.50
16 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 1, PM 238-16
A.P. #224-261-08

7.177 5.27% $5,576.90
17 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 2, PM 247-21
A.P. #224-261-10

9.211 6.76% $7,157.42
18 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 2, PM 247-21
A.P. #224-261-11

6.897 5.06% $5,359.32
Total 136.24 100% $105,867.00
Max Assessment of $105,867
Landscape Maintenance District No.1
2025-26 Assessment Distribution Based on
RESOLUTION NO.

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

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE RENEWAL OF CYPRESS CORPORATE CENTER LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26, PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972,

AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore proposed the renewal of Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (the "District") for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code, Sections 22500 et seq.) for the purpose of maintaining a landscaped berm constructed in connection with the development of the Cypress Business Park; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer's report entitled "City Engineer's Report-Maintenance Assessment District for Berm," dated May 2025, (the "City Engineer") was ordered, prepared and presented to the City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code, Sections 22565 et seq.; and

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

SECTION 1. The City of Cypress does hereby declare its intention to order the renewal of Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2025-26, and to collect assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

SECTION 2. The District consists of that certain portion of the City of Cypress bounded on the north by Katella Avenue, on the east by Knott Street, on the south by Stanton Storm Channel, and on the west by Valley View Street.

SECTION 3. The landscaped improvements to be installed and maintained within the boundaries of the District are more particularly described in the City Engineer's Report.

Said improvements have been modified since formation of said District by being extended from Knott Street westerly to 40' east of Valley View Street.

SECTION 4. A full and detailed description of the boundaries of the District and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District are contained in the City Engineer's Report.

SECTION 5. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 23rd day of June, 2025, at the hour of 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber located at City Hall, 5275 Orange Avenue, in the City of Cypress, California, any and all persons having objections to the work or extent of the District, may appear and show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why the District should not be renewed in accordance with the Resolution of Intention.

Although the City Council will consider all oral objections at the hearing, in order for an objection to constitute a protest under Streets and Highways Code, Section 22628, such protest must be in writing and must contain a description of the property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the time set for the hearing and no other protests or objections will be considered for this purpose. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of Orange County as the owner of the property described in the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause this Resolution of Intention to be published at least ten days prior to the date set for the hearing, at least once in a newspaper of general circulation serving the City of Cypress, California, all as provided for in Government Code, Section 6061.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to mail this Resolution of Intention to all property owners, whether resident or nonresident, within the District, at least ten days prior to the date set for the hearing, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code, Section 22627.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of May, 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 12th day of May, 2025 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 10.

FROM: Nick Mangkalakiri, Director of Public Works
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Approve the Second Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement with the County of Orange

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the Second Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and make minor modifications, as necessary.

DISCUSSION
The City disposes of its solid waste at landfills owned and operated by the County of Orange through Orange County Waste and Recycling (OCWR), under a countywide agreement known as the Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA). In January 2022, OCWR notified cities of its intent to revise the WDA to align with evolving legislative requirements, including Senate Bill 1383, which mandates the diversion of organic waste, such as food scraps and landscaping debris, away from landfills.

On November 7, 2024, OCWR introduced a proposed successor to the WDA, called the Waste Infrastructure System Enhancement (WISE) agreement. The WISE agreement initially proposed raising the landfill disposal rate from $42.65 to $82 per ton - a 92.3% increase effective July 1, 2025 - to account for rising operational costs and compliance with new regulations. It also included a capital expenditure allocation for county landfill infrastructure improvements.

In response, Orange County cities formed a committee to negotiate a revised successor agreement and requested an extension of the current WDA to allow time for further review and discussions. OCWR agreed and the terms of the recommended amendment include a 12-month extension through June 30, 2026 with a 2.6% disposal fee increase based on the WDA’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalation formula. The extension allows additional time to complete due diligence on the successor agreement, evaluate long-term costs and infrastructure planning, and conduct Proposition 218 hearings in advance of the implementation of a significantly higher rate effective July 1, 2026.

The Second Amendment is recommended to ensure rate stability and promote regional collaboration among cities and sanitary districts.

BUDGET IMPACT
None. The increased county disposal fee will be factored into refuse rates under the terms of the solid waste franchise.

LEGAL REVIEW
The amendment was approved as to form by the City Attorney.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Proposed Second Amendment WDA

Page 1 of 5 ends

SECOND AMENDMENT TO WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT
Between

THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
and the

CITY OF CYPRESS
June 30, 2025
County Amendment Authorization Date
_________________, 2025
County Notice Address:

Director, OC Waste & Recycling
601 N. Ross Street
5 th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92701
City Amendment Authorization Date
May 12, 2025
City Notice Address:

City Manager, City of Cypress
5275 Orange Ave.

Cypress, CA 90630

Page 2 of 5 ends

SECOND AMENDMENT TO WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT (“Second Amendment”) is made and dated as of the date indicated on the cover page hereof between the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”), and the City (general law, charter or other), Special District or Sanitary District designated on the cover page of this Agreement and party to this Agreement (the “City”).

RECITALS
The County owns, manages, and operates a Waste Infrastructure System to manage municipal and solid waste generated within Orange County, California or imported from outside Orange County, California pursuant to contractual agreements (hereafter used referred to as “Disposal System” or “Waste Infrastructure System”). The Waste Infrastructure System collectively includes active Class III sanitary landfills (“County Landfills”), resource recovery, recycling and organics programs, infrastructure and operations, and regional household hazardous waste collection centers and other waste management related systems as may be deemed necessary by the County.

The County is also responsible for the long-term management of 20 closed landfills as required under Applicable Law.

County Landfills are used for the management of municipal solid waste pursuant to legislation including, but not limited to, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Division 30 of the California Public Resources Code) (the “Act”) and the Short-lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Act (“SB 1383”). County Landfills are also subject to other state and federal regulations designed to ensure that landfill operations minimize the impacts to public health and safety and the environment.

The City, in the exercise of its police power, its powers under the Act, and other Applicable Law, has entered into a franchise or other agreement with or issued permits or licenses to one or more private haulers for the collection, recycling, diversion, and disposal of municipal solid waste generated within the City.

The City and the County have historically provided for the management of municipal solid waste through Waste Disposal Agreements (“WDAs”), wherein the County agreed to provide disposal capacity for waste generated in the City, and the City agreed to deliver or cause the delivery of waste generated in the City to the Disposal System, as more specifically set forth in, and subject to the terms and conditions of the WDAs.

In 2009, the Parties entered into a new WDA (referred to as the “Original WDA”). In 2016, the Original WDA was amended by the Parties (“First Amendment”), whereby the Parties updated certain terms and extended the term through June 30, 2025. (The Original WDA and its corresponding First Amendment are referred to in this Second Amendment as the “Current WDA”.)
In response to passage of several pieces of legislation that require significant reductions in the disposal of organic waste, and in light of the approaching expiration of the Current WDA, the County held two City Manager Summits in November 2024 proposing terms of a new WDA.

The Orange County City Manager Association (“OCCMA”) has established a Committee (“OCCMA Committee”) including representatives of cities and sanitary districts to review the terms of the proposed new WDA. The OCCMA Committee requested a 12-month extension of the Current WDA to allow for additional time to negotiate mutually agreeable terms for a new WDA, and obtain approval from the respective

Page 3 of 5 ends

governing bodies. The County is agreeable to OCCMA’s requested extension to the Current WDA on terms as provided in this Second Amendment.

The City has determined that the execution of this Second Amendment by the City is in the best interest of the City and will serve the public health, safety, and welfare by continuing the waste disposal services historically provided under the Current WDA while the Parties: (1) engage in due diligence related to a new WDA, in order for the City to evaluate the cost/benefit of a new WDA, which is expected to include the City and OCCMA obtaining more comprehensive and detailed information on the County’s plans for infrastructure expansion and improvements, the financial and operational conditions of the existing Waste Infrastructure System, and the components, timing, and procedures for future contract fee increases; and, (2) negotiate the terms and conditions of a new WDA.

The County has determined that the execution by the County of this Second Amendment will serve the public health, safety, and welfare by continuing to provide a stable, predictable, and reliable supply of municipal solid waste and the resulting service payment revenue to the Disposal System, while the Parties exchange information and conduct negotiations with the County goal of ensuring that any negotiated Contract Rate in the new WDA covers the full cost of operations and infrastructure O&M and development needed to ensure indemnification and regulatory compliance..

Official action approving this Second Amendment and determining it to be in the public interest and authorizing its execution and delivery was duly taken by the City on the City authorization date indicated on the cover page hereof.

Official action approving this Second Amendment and determining it to be in the public interest and authorizing its execution and delivery was duly taken by the County on the County authorization date indicated on the cover page hereof.

It is, therefore, agreed as follows:

1. Extended Term.
(a) Section 6.1 (A) of the Current WDA is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“Extended Term. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2026 (the “Extended Term”), unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms, in which event the Extended Term shall be deemed to have expired as of the date of such termination.” (b) Section 6.1 (B) is deleted in its entirety.
(c) Section 6.1 (C) of the Current WDA is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“Contract Rate Negotiations During Extended Term. If the Orange County City Manager Association’s committee tasked with negotiating the terms of a successor to this Agreement with the County and recommending approval of the same to the Parties (the “Committee”) and the County have not reached mutually agreeable terms of a successor to this Agreement including, but not limited to, proposed revisions to the Contract Rate, by September 30, 2025, the County shall, and it is expected that the Committee will provide, updates to all Participating Cities, and their respective governing bodies as may be deemed necessary, regarding the status of negotiations on a monthly basis until mutually agreeable terms are reached or the Extended Term expires.”

Page 4 of 5 ends

In recommending any revisions to the Contract Rate, in addition to the circumstances described in Section 4.2(A), the Committee and County may take into consideration factors including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) actual cost of operations;
(ii) population growth;
(iii) increase or decrease in available tonnage;
(iv) economic and disposal market conditions in the Southern California region; (v) changes in transportation and technology;
(vi) changes in transportation costs;
(vii) closure and expansion of nearby landfills;
(viii) capacity of the Disposal System;
(ix) long-term infrastructure needs; and
(x) available reserves which are in excess of the amount reasonably required as reserves. (d) Appendix 2 of the Current WDA is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

APPENDIX 2
Cumulative County Acceptable Waste Tonnage Target to be Used for Purposes of Section 4.2(B) Fiscal Year County Acceptable Waste Tonnage Cumulative County Acceptable Waste Tonnage FY 2025-26 3,166,659 3,166,659

2. Contract Rate.
(a) The first paragraph of Section 4.2(A) of the Current WDA is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“(A) Establishment of Contract Rate. During the Extended Term, the Contract Rate payable by each Franchise Hauler shall be $43.76 per ton, contingent on the delivery to the Disposal System of an amount of Acceptable Waste at least equal to the Cumulative Tonnage Targets identified in Appendix 2, and subject to adjustment necessary to reflect the circumstances set forth in this Section 4.2, subjections (i) through (z).”
Note: Subsections (i) through (z) found in the Current WDA remain unchanged.

3. Effectiveness of Second Amendment.

The provisions of this Second Amendment shall not become effective unless and until this Second Amendment has been executed by the County and all of the Participating Cities, and shall become effective once that occurs.

Page 5 of 5 ends

4. Representations and Warranties of the Parties.

Each of the parties to this Second Amendment represent and warrant that it is a political subdivision of the State of California validly existing under the Constitution and laws of the State and that it has duly authorized the execution and delivery of this Second Amendment to each other party.

5. Remaining Terms.

All other terms and conditions of the Current WDA not specifically changed by this Second Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have caused this Second Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives as of the day and year first above written.

County of Orange
By _______________________________
Director, OC Waste & Recycling
Date _____________________
Approved as to Form
By _______________________________
County Counsel
Date _____________________
City of Cypress
By _______________________________
David Burke, Mayor
Date _____________________
Approved as to Form
By _______________________________
City Attorney
Date _____________________
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 11.

FROM: Nick Mangkalakiri, Director of Public Works
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Graham Street Underground Utility District No. 1

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the City Engineer's Report for the Graham Street Underground Utility District No. 1; and

2. Adopt the attached Resolution establishing the Graham Street Underground Utility District No. 1.

DISCUSSION
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) established Rule 20A to support communities seeking to improve aesthetics by undergrounding overhead utilities. Rule 20A allocates work credits to cities and counties that are funded from contributions by Southern California Edison (SCE) ratepayers. Cypress has $1.7 million in Rule 20A work credits set to expire in June 2025 if not allocated to a project. Once allocated, credits remain valid through December 31, 2033.

Public Works has been working with SCE to identify a Rule 20A-eligible project and recommends undergrounding seven utility poles and overhead wires along the east side of Graham Street, from Orange Avenue to approximately 1,200 feet south, adjacent to the Community Center and Oak Knoll Park. This is the only Rule 20A project Public Works and SCE identified and it qualifies because it removes a concentration of overhead utilities along a major collector street in a civic and recreational area.

The Municipal Code requires a City Engineer’s Report and notice to affected property owners to establish an underground utility district. The City Engineer’s Report confirms that the project qualifies for Rule 20A funding and SCE will be responsible for funding, designing and constructing the project. No contribution is required from the City nor adjacent property owners.

SCE provided a preliminary cost estimate of $1.6 million ($900 per linear foot), including design, construction, cost escalation of 40%, and coordination with other utilities. A refined estimate will follow when SCE completes construction drawings. SCE's estimated project schedule is 18 months for design/pre-construction and 18 months for construction, with completion at the end of 2028.

BUDGET IMPACT
None. All project costs will be paid for by SCE using Rule 20A work credits allocated for eligible projects in Cypress.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
City Engineer's Report
Resolution

CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
for
GRAHAM STREET UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT No. 1
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
_____________________________________
Nick Mangkalakiri, P.E.

Director of Public Works / City Engineer
City of Cypress
May 2025
I. Introduction
An underground utility district is proposed to be established for a portion of Graham Street, from Orange Avenue to 1,200’ south of Orange Avenue, in the City of Cypress, for the purpose of removing all existing overhead utilities of, but not limited to, Southern California Edison (SCE) and AT&T, and placing them underground. The boundary of the proposed district is shown on the attached Exhibit “A.” Chapter 27 of the Cypress Municipal Code sets forth provisions for establishing such an underground utility district. This Engineer’s Report is required in order to establish an underground utility district.

The project proposes to place all existing overhead utilities underground along the portion of Graham Street within the district as a qualifying California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Rule 20A project. The district will include a majority of overhead utilities paralleling the easterly side of Graham Street, south of Orange Avenue. All facilities are located within the public right-of-way and no work on private property is required as part of this project. The existing facilities consist of SCE power poles, with AT&T overhead cables co-located on those poles.

According to both SCE and AT&T, all overhead poles and lines will be removed and placed underground within the public right-of-way.

II. Phases of the Work
The proposed underground utility district will be completed through the following phases of work:

DESIGN
Upon approval by the City Council of a resolution to establish the underground utility district, construction drawings will be developed by the utility companies.

The drawings will establish the proposed locations for below-ground conduits, handholes, above- or below-ground transformers, streetlights, and any other equipment. The design process involves SCE preparing a civil land survey and developing the construction drawings. These drawings are then distributed to AT&T so they may commence with their designs, typically utilizing a joint trench design with the SCE facilities. If easements are required, the affected property owners will be contacted to coordinate the recording of such easements.

CONSTRUCTION
The construction phase will consist of: (a) construction of underground utilities for, but not limited to, SCE and AT&T.

REMOVALS
The last phase of the project consists of the removal of all existing utility equipment, overhead wires, and utility poles within the district boundaries as shown in Exhibit “A.” The utility companies are responsible for the removal of their respective wires, equipment, and poles, and for restoration of any existing concrete improvements (sidewalk, curb and gutter, etc.).

III. Cost of the Work
Once the district has been established by resolution of the City Council, SCE shall use underground conversion allocations following the requirements of CPUC Rule 20A for the design and construction of the underground facilities. As a qualifying CPUC Rule 20A project, all utilities contribute their proportional share of the cost of constructing the underground conduits. Then each utility is responsible for converting their own facilities to the new underground system. SCE has prepared a rough order of magnitude cost of the project in the amount of $1.6 million, which includes the costs for design, construction, removals, and contingencies for the SCE system which will be funded by the City’s Rule 20A credit balance. Typically, utilities share the same trench for placing their conduits and enjoy a cost savings through their proportional share of these costs. A preliminary cost estimate for the installation of approximately 1,200 feet of conduit is $1.6 million to be funded by the City’s Rule 20A credits. A more refined cost estimate will be prepared by SCE for their facilities, after the construction drawings are developed.

The proposed utility undergrounding project along Graham Street will be performed at no cost to any adjacent property owner(s).

IV. Rule 20A Funding Requirements
The funding for the work will be from CPUC Rule 20A credits for underground conversion. For a project to qualify as a Rule 20A project, it must be determined, after consultation with the electric utility, that such undergrounding is in the general public interest for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities; (b) The street or right-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; (c) The street, road, or right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area, public recreation area, or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public; or (d) The street or right-ofway is considered an arterial street or major collector road, as defined in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines. This project will remove overhead utilities along Graham Street which has been determined to meet all requirements necessary to qualify as a Rule 20A project.

V. Schedule of the Work
The estimated project schedule is:
• Design: 18 months
• Construction: 18 months
• Overhead Facilities Removal: 6 months
• TOTAL: 42 months
With a total project duration of approximately 42 months, it is expected that the proposed undergrounding and removal of overhead utilities and poles will be completed by the end of 2028.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS APPROVING THE FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT No. 1 and

ORDERING THE REMOVAL AND UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD

UTILITY LINES, WIRES, POLES AND RELATED STRUCTURES ON PORTIONS OF GRAHAM STREET (FROM ORANGE AVENUE TO 1,200’ SOUTH OF ORANGE AVENUE) USING CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RULE 20A AND

FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, Chapter 27 of the Cypress Municipal Code provides for the creation of underground utility districts related to the undergrounding of utilities and therefore helps address public safety concerns with utility lines and poles, as well as improves the appearance of development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) has authorized electric and telecommunication utilities to convert overhead utility lines and facilities; and WHEREAS, the CPUC Rules allow participating cities and counties to create underground utility districts within which existing overhead electric distribution and telecommunication distribution and service facilities will be relocated underground; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider whether the public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires the formation of Underground Utility District No. 1 (the “UUD”) for the removal of poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures and equipment for supplying electric, communications, community antenna television, and similar associated services within the easterly portion of the road right-of-way on Graham Street, from Orange Avenue to 1,200’ south of Orange Avenue, as depicted in Exhibit “A” to this resolution; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends the undergrounding project to be undertaken within the UUD using the City’s Rule 20A funds for the removal of existing poles, overhead wires, and facilities for supplying electric, telephone, cable communication, and associated services, and the undergrounding of approximately 1,200 linear feet of overhead utility lines (the “Undergrounding Project”); and
WHEREAS, City staff has consulted with Southern California Edison (“SCE”) on its Rule 20A program and determined that the establishment of the UUD and the Undergrounding Project meets the criteria established by the rules of the CPUC, to wit: [That the road or street right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public, and that the roads or streets, right-of-way is considered a major collector as defined in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines;] and
WHEREAS, prior to holding the public hearing, as provided by Municipal Code Section 27-2, the City Engineer consulted with all affected utilities and submitted a report at the hearing identifying the extent of such utilities’ participation and estimates of the total costs to the City and affected property owners, and estimating the time required to complete the Undergrounding Project; and
WHEREAS, SCE has determined that the establishment of the proposed UUD and the Undergrounding Project would meet their Rule 20A program qualifications; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 27-2, the City Clerk has caused to be published in a newspaper of general circulation serving the City of Cypress, California, a notice of a public hearing on the UUD creation and Undergrounding Project to be held at Cypress City Hall on May 12, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. at the meeting of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 27, all affected property owners were provided notice of the public hearing on the UUD creation and the Undergrounding Project at least 10 days prior to the date thereof and evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in said proposal, from all persons protesting the same and from members of the City staff, and the City Council has reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal.

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

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

SECTION 2. The City Council further finds and determines the following:

A. That the establishment of Underground Utility District No. 1 and the Undergrounding Project are consistent with the City of Cypress Municipal Code and General Plan.

B. That the public necessity, health, safety or welfare require formation of an underground utility district for the removal of poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures within the designated area shown on Exhibit “A”.

C. That the underground of utilities with the territory described in Exhibit “A” is in the general public interest.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the creation of Underground Utility District No. 1 in the area depicted in Exhibit “A.” and by this reference incorporated herein.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby orders the removal of those poles, overhead wire and associated overhead structures (including poles) and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, or similar or associated services within Underground Utility District No. 1 designated for immediate undergrounding (“Project”) in Exhibit “A”. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to revise the boundaries of the Underground Utility District if requested by SCE. Each property currently served from electric overhead facilities in the Underground Utility District which will be moved underground shall have installed, in accordance with SCE’s rules for underground services, all electrical facility changes on the premises necessary to receive service from the underground facilities of SCE as soon as available.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby orders that each utility which undertakes underground installation of its facilities shall use the underground conversion allocation, computed pursuant to decisions of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, for the purpose of providing to each property premises in the District currently receiving services from Graham Street, no more than one hundred (100) feet of each customer's underground electric service lateral required by the undergrounding and the conversion of a customer's meter panel to accept underground service required by the undergrounding.

After installation, each property owner in the District shall be responsible for the maintenance of the conduit and termination box located on, under, or within any structure on the premises served.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to give notice of the adoption of this resolution to all affected utilities and all persons owning real property within Underground Utility District No. 1 within 10 days of the date hereof. Such notice shall include that if the affected property owner or any person occupying such property desire to continue to receive electric, communication, or similar associated service, they or the occupant shall provide all necessary facility changes to their premises so as to receive such service from lines of the supplying utilities on file with the Public Utility Commission. Notification by the City Clerk shall be made by mailing a copy of the resolution adopted pursuant to section 27- 4, together with a copy of Chapter 27, to affected property owners as such are shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected utilities.

SECTION 7. Property owners within Underground Utility District No. 1 shall grant each utility the necessary easements or land rights when it is necessary by the utilities to place their facilities on private property to complete the undergrounding.

SECTION 8. The City Council hereby further finds and determine that the proposed Underground Utility District designation and the Undergrounding Project are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and under Section 15302 if the CEQA Guidelines which provides a categorical exemption for the replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question would have a significant effect on the environment, and accordingly, the activity is not subject to CEQA review.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of May, 2025.

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 12.

FROM: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Approve the Expansion of Cypress University's Next Up! Business Growth Program

RECOMMENDATION
Appropriate $80,000 from General Fund reserves set-aside for economic development for Cypress University's Next Up! Business Growth Program.

SUMMARY
Interest in Cypress University's Next Up! Business Growth Program is higher than projected.

The recommended $80,000 appropriation will enable all interested, eligible businesses to participate.

DISCUSSION
The City Council created Cypress University in April 2024 as part of its economic development efforts. $325,000 was appropriated to support two business growth programs:

Level Up! digital marketing training was funded with $64,000, and Next Up!, which focuses on growing a business, was funded with $240,000. The remaining appropriation funds administrative costs at the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) which delivers the training and support to the participating businesses.

Level Up! paired four weeks of digital marketing training with a $2,000 grant, concluded in late 2024 and exceeded expectations. All 32 participating businesses completed the training and received grants. A post-program survey showed that 100% of participants recommended the program and most reported increased customer engagement, greater visibility, and improved social media performance. Many businesses benefited from measurable growth in online traffic and sales. These outcomes demonstrate the program’s value and its role in strengthening the local business community.

Next Up! is a six-session training covering finance, workforce management, advertising, and the development of a tailored business plan to support expansion. Businesses that complete Next Up! earn a $10,000 grant to assist with implementation. To be eligible for Next Up! a business must have been operating for at least one year, have a physical commercial business must have been operating for at least one year, have a physical commercial location and a defined plan for growth.

Reflecting the success of Level Up!, interest in Next Up! far exceeded projections. Initially planned for 24 businesses, 55 businesses applied to Next Up! and 32 met all eligibility criteria. Fortunately, the City Council has sufficient funding ($80,000) to grow the program and accommodate all eligible businesses as part of a $500,000 economic development set-aside that originated from federal pandemic stimulus programs, and SBDC has the capacity to train them.

It is recommended the City Council expand Next Up! to leverage Cypress University's momentum and ensure all qualified businesses benefit from this high-impact opportunity to grow and contribute to the local economy. If the program is not expanded, a lottery will be used to select the 24 businesses for which the City Council has approved funding.

BUDGET IMPACT
Funding for the expansion of the Next Up! business growth program is available from $500,000 of one-time General Fund monies set aside for economic development programs.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CYPRESS FINDING THAT THE PUBLIC PURPOSE

WOULD BE SERVED BY THE DONATION OF FUNDS TO

ASSIST ELIGIBLE CITY OF CYPRESS BUSINESSES AND

APPROVING THE DONATIONS THERETO
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2024, the City Council approved the Cypress University Program, including the Level Up! Digital Marketing Program and the Next Up! Business Growth Program, to support local business development and recovery efforts; and WHEREAS, the Next Up! Business Growth Program provides training and individualized consulting to educate eligible Cypress businesses on how to proactively and strategically expand operations, manage finances, and pursue sustainable growth, and upon successful completion of all mandatory training and documentation, these businesses receive a $10,000 grant; and
WHEREAS, the City received 55 applications for the Next Up! Business Growth Program, of which 32 businesses met all eligibility requirements; and WHEREAS, current program funding supports 24 businesses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified additional economic development funds available in the General Fund reserves, and finds that expanding the program to include all 32 eligible businesses will strengthen the Cypress business community and further the City’s strategic goal of supporting local economic growth; and WHEREAS, allocating an additional $80,000 to fund the remaining eight eligible businesses will ensure access to a high-impact program and maximize the return on the City’s investment in economic development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed one-time donations to Cypress businesses serve an important public purpose by providing direct support to local businesses and their employees, which in turn contributes to economic activity and stability in the City of Cypress;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Cypress, California, resolves, determines and orders as follows:

1. That the City Council finds the above recitals true and correct.

2. That the City Council hereby finds that one-time donations of funds under the expanded Next Up! Business Growth Program benefit the Cypress business community and its employees, and therefore serve a public purpose as identified in the above recitals.

3. That the City Council hereby approves the aforementioned donation of an additional $80,000 to fund the participation of eight additional businesses in the Next Up! Business Growth Program, as further established by the City Manager or designee consistent with the program structure previously approved by the City Council.

4. That the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of May, 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 12th day of May, 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_____________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 13.

FROM: Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Receive and File the Results of the 2025 Community Survey

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the results of the 2025 Community Survey.

DISCUSSION
The City Council's Strategic Plan includes an objective to report the findings of the 2025 community survey to assess resident satisfaction with city services and public engagement.

Earlier this year, the City Council formed an ad hoc subcommittee to work with True North Research, Inc. to develop the questionnaire to conduct a formal, statistically accurate community survey that provides resident feedback on city programs and services. Cypress last conducted this type of survey in 2022, and this update serves as an important performance measurement and benchmarking tool for future decision-making.

The 2025 community survey used a stratified random sampling methodology that produces valid and reliable measures of opinions/interests and data that is representative of all the estimated 38,003 adult residents in Cypress. A comprehensive database of Cypress households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Cypress had an equal probability of being randomly selected for the survey. Once selected at random, residents were recruited to participate in the survey through a combination of email, text, and telephone calls. A unique passcode system was utilized to ensure that only Cypress residents who received an invitation could participate in the survey. A controlled random sample is necessary to reliably estimate the opinions of Cypress residents. Surveys that do not utilize a controlled random sample (e.g. surveys posted online or via social media) cannot provide reliable results representative of the city's population.

True North Research will provide a presentation of the survey results and a copy of the community survey summary report is attached. Highlights include:

The survey was conducted from March18 through March 23 and utilized a mixed methodology to recruit participants (via email, text and phone); data collection was conducted in English, Spanish, and Korean.
675 randomly selected adult residents participated, resulting in a margin of error of 675 randomly selected adult residents participated, resulting in a margin of error of

3.7%.
49% of participants are female; 31% are Caucasian, 37% Asian, 21% Hispanic; 65% own homes; 50% are employed full-time; 18% have lived in Cypress for < 5 years, 52% have lived in Cypress for 15+ years; 35% are seniors, 27% are under age 35. 90% rate Cypress as an excellent/good place to live.
87% rate Cypress as an excellent/good place to raise a family. 87% rate Cypress' quality of life as excellent/good.
79% are very/somewhat satisfied with the City's efforts to provide municipal services.

Maintaining city streets and roads, providing safe routes to school and refurbishing and improving the amenities at existing community parks were identified as the most important priorities for residents.

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
2025 Community Survey Report

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 What do you Like Most About Living in Cypress?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 What Should be Changed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Performance Needs & Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Funding Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Community Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Attendance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Rate Event Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Satisfaction with Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Topics of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Attention Paid to City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table of Contents
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 List of Tables
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Rating Cypress by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 2 Rating Cypress by Years in Cypress, Survey Language & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 3 Rating Cypress by Age & Gender (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 4 Rating Cypress by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . 8 Table 5 Like Most About Cypress by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 6 Changes to Improve Cypress by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 7 Importance of Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 8 Satisfaction With Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 9 Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfaction With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 10 Resident Service Needs & Priorities Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 11 Funding Priorities by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 12 Funding Priorities by Years in Cypress, Survey Language & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 13 Funding Priorities by Age & Gender (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 14 Funding Priorities by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 15 Additional Entertainment Options Desired by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 16 Hsld Member Attended Events in Past Two Years by Years in Cypress, Survey Language & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Yes Attended) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 17 Hsld Member Attended Events in Past Two Years by Age & Gender (Showing % Yes Attended) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 18 Hsld Member Attended Events in Past Two Years by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Yes Attended) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 19 Additional Information Desired From City by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 20 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 List of Figures
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Rating Cypress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 2 Like Most About Cypress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3 Changes to Improve Cypress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Cypress & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 7 Importance of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 8 Satisfaction With Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 9 Resident Service Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 10 Perceived City Safety by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 11 Perceived City Safety by Years in Cypress, Overall Satisfaction & Age . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 12 Perceived City Safety by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 13 Funding Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 14 Additional Entertainment Options Desired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 15 Hsld Member Attended Events in Past Two Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 16 Opinion of Attending Event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 17 Suggestions to Improve Community Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 18 Information Sources by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 19 Information Sources by Overall, Age & Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . 29 Figure 20 Information Sources by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status & Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 21 Newspaper Read Most Often . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 22 Satisfaction With Communication by Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 23 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in Cypress & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 24 Satisfaction With Communication by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 25 Satisfaction With Communication by Overall Satisfaction, Attentiveness to Local Government & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 26 City Communication Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 27 Desire Additional Information by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 28 Desire Additional Information by Years in Cypress, Attentiveness to Local Government & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 29 Desire Additional Information by Age, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 30 Desire Additional Information by Employment Status & Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 31 Additional Information Desired From City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 32 Attentiveness to City Issues by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 33 Attentiveness to City Issues by Years in Cypress & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 34 Attentiveness to City Issues by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 35 Attentiveness to City Issues by Employment Status, Overall Satisfaction & Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 36 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Introduction
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
Encompassing 6.6 square miles in northwest Orange County, the City of Cypress was incorporated in 1956 and is known as the “City of Progress.” Cypress is home to an estimated 49,531 residents1 and the corporate home of several national and international companies, as well as the Los Alamitos Race Course.

To monitor its progress in meeting residents’ needs, the City of Cypress engages residents on a daily basis and receives periodic subjective feedback regarding its performance. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recognize that they do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the community as a whole.

For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias—the City receives feedback only from those residents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be either very pleased or very displeased with the service they have received, their collective opinions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current study was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report provide City Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, policy, planning, and community engagement.

To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to:
• Identify key issues of importance for residents, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in Cypress;
• Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Gather opinions on topics such as public safety, community events, and funding priorities; • Determine satisfaction with (and perceived effectiveness of) the City’s communication with residents; and
• Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding residents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 40). In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 675 adults who reside within the City of Cypress. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text,

1. U.S. Census, American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 5-Year Estimate.

Introduction
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English, Spanish, and Korean between March 18 and March 23, 2025, the average interview lasted 18 minutes.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of Cypress. Similar studies were conducted by True North for the City in 2018 and 2022, and many of the questions included in the 2025 survey were purposely tracked from the prior surveys. Because there is a natural interest in tracking the City’s performance in meeting the evolving needs of its residents, where appropriate the results of the current study are compared with the results of identical questions included in the 2022 survey. In such cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical significance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the prior survey (2022) and the current (2025), as opposed to being due to chance associated with selecting two samples independently and at random. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2025.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer format. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 43), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of Cypress for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Cypress. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

Introduction
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 500 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

Key Findings
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Cypress with a statistically reliable understanding of the opinions, priorities, and concerns of its residents. Operating from the philosophy that you can’t manage what you don’t measure, the City has periodically used the survey as a community needs assessment and performance measurement tool. In short, the study presents an opportunity to profile residents’ needs and priorities, measure how well the City is performing in meeting these needs through existing services and facilities, and gather data on a variety of quality-of-life, issue, and policy-related matters. More than just a profiling exercise, the City uses the information gained from the surveys to adjust and improve its services—all toward the goal of building and sustaining a high level of community satisfaction.

Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer the key questions that motivated the research.

How well is the City performing in meeting the
needs of Cypress residents?
Cypress residents continue to be quite satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, as well as the quality of life in their city.

Nearly eight-in-ten residents (79%) surveyed in 2025 indicated they were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services. This sentiment was also widespread across resident subgroups, with satisfaction ranging between 74% to 92% for all but one identified subgroup (see Overall Satisfaction on page 11).

The high level of satisfaction expressed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s performance in providing most specific services, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide fire protection and emergency medical services (97% very or somewhat satisfied), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (94%), hold special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations (92%), provide police and crime prevention services (91%), and maintain parks and recreation areas (90%). Residents also recognized the City’s efforts to address homelessness, as satisfaction with the City’s performance in this area increased significantly (+6%) over the past three years (see Specific Services on page 12 and Community Events on page 25).

For all but one of the 14 service areas tested, the City is meeting or exceeding the needs and expectations of at least three-quarters of its residents—and for the majority of services the City is meeting the needs of close to nine-in-ten residents (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 17).

The City’s performance in providing municipal services has also contributed to a high quality of life for residents. Nearly nine-in-ten residents surveyed (87%) rated the quality of life in Cypress as excellent or good, with similarly high ratings for Cypress as place to live (90%) and as a Key Findings
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 place to raise a family (87%). Another indicator of a well-managed city is that when offered an open-ended opportunity to suggest one change the City could make to improve the quality of life in Cypress, more than onethird (35%) of respondents could not think of a change they desired or stated flatly that no changes are needed—everything is fine. These were the two most frequently mentioned responses to the question in 2025 (see Quality of Life on page 7).

Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a primary goal of this study is to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust services, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although residents are generally satisfied with the City’s performance, there is always room for improvement. Below we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard.

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what they most want to preserve about Cypress in the future (see What do you Like Most About Living in Cypress? on page 8) and what city government could do to make Cypress a better place to live (see What Should be Changed? on page 9), the list of services and their respective priority status for future attention (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 17), and the manner in which residents prioritize among potential funding areas (see Funding Priorities on page 22), the themes of addressing homelessness, managing growth and development, managing traffic in the city, street maintenance, providing safe routes to schools to encourage more kids to walk or bike to school, and refurbishing/improving the amenities at existing community parks stood out as key areas of opportunity and interest for Cypress residents.

With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it comes to improving satisfaction in service areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better communication and actual service improvements. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware of the City’s ongoing infrastructure improvement efforts, or the limits of what a city can do to address homelessness. Choosing the appropriate balance of actual service improvements and efforts to raise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satisfaction in the short- and long-term.

It is also important to keep in mind that although these areas represent opportunities to improve resident satisfaction, the City should not oversteer. Indeed, the main takeaway from this study is that the City does many things very well, and emphasis should be on continuing to perform at that high level. The vast majority of residents are pleased with the City’s efforts to provide services and programs, and have a favorable Key Findings
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 opinion of the City’s performance in most areas. The top priority for the City should thus be to do what it takes to maintain the high quality of services that it currently provides.

How well is the City communicating with Cypress
residents?
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of Cypress’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Cypress’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, website, various social media accounts, and its Cypress Central app.

Keeping up with the challenge of communicating with residents has been difficult for many public agencies in recent years. As the number of information sources and channels available to the public have dramatically increased, so too has the diversity in where residents regularly turn for their information. Not only have entirely new channels arisen to become mainstream and nearly ubiquitous (e.g., social media), within these channels there exists a proliferation of alternative services. To add to the challenge, residents’ preferences for information sources are also dynamic, subject to change as new services are made available while others may fade in popularity, making thorough, effective communication a moving target for public agencies.

The present survey provides positive news with respect to city-resident communication in Cypress. City-sponsored sources are well-represented among the sources respondents mentioned when asked where they turn to find out about City of Cypress news, information, and programming.

In fact, the City’s Newsletter “The Progress”, its website, street banners, and email notifications from the City were the top four sources—and the percentage indicating they rely on the City’s newsletter and street banners increased significantly over the past three years (see Sources of Information on page 28).

In True North’s experience, a high level of satisfaction with a city’s communication efforts is generally associated with and likely caused by a greater reliance among residents on city-sponsored sources of information such as newsletters, websites, and related publications. This pattern holds true in Cypress, as with the greater reliance on city-sponsored information sources over the past three years has come an increase in satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents (73%), including a statistically significant increase (+6%) in the percentage indicating they were very satisfied with the City’s performance in this respect.

Quality of Life
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about the quality of life in Cypress, what they would most like to preserve about the City, as well as ways to improve the quality of life in Cypress.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the City of Cypress on a number of key dimensions—including overall quality of life, as a place to raise a family, and as a place to work—using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, residents generally shared favorable opinions of Cypress on each aspect tested, with the most positive ratings provided for Cypress as a place to live (90% excellent or good), Cypress as a place to raise a family (87%), and the overall quality of life in the City (87%). Although still positive, residents provided somewhat softer ratings for Cypress as a place to retire (67%) and as a place to work (48%), with these two items also having the highest percentage of unsure responses (12% and 33%, respectively).

Question 2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 RATING CYPRESS
Table 1 displays the percentage of respondents who rated each dimension as excellent or good by study year. Between 2022 and 2025, there was one statistically significant change, with the percentage using excellent or good to describe Cypress as a place to raise a family declining 4%.

For the interested reader, tables 2-4 on the next page show how the ratings for each dimension tested in Question 2 varied according to key demographic traits.

TABLE 1 RATING CYPRESS BY STUDY YEAR

43.3 49.3

36.9 31.3

19.4 46.8

38.1 50.0

35.9 28.6 14.8

14.5 10.2

9.4 8.4 1
1 1

4.4 3
2 1
2 12.4
2 33.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cypress as a place to live
Cypress as a place to raise a family
The overall quality of life in Cypress
Cypress as a place to retire
Cypress as a place to work
Q2a Q2b Q2e Q2c Q2d
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Not sure
2025 2022 2018
Cypress as a place to retire 67.1 68.7 60.7 -1.6
Cypress as a place to live 90.1 92.6 89.6 -2.5
The overall quality of life in Cypress 86.9 89.6 88.7 -2.7 Cypress as a place to work 48.0 51.6 51.0 -3.6
Cypress as a place to raise a family 87.4 91.2 92.3 -3.8† Change in
Excellent + Good
2022 to 2025
Study Year
Quality of Life
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TABLE 2 RATING CYPRESS BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, SURVEY LANGUAGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING %

EXCELLENT)
TABLE 3 RATING CYPRESS BY AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % EXCELLENT) TABLE 4 RATING CYPRESS BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % EXCELLENT) WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN CYPRESS? The next question in this series asked residents to identify what they like most about living in the City of Cypress that the City government should make sure to preserve in the future. Question 3 was posed in an openended manner, thereby allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2 on the next page.

Cypress residents were most apt to cite the safety/low crime rate (23%) as what they like most about living in the City of Cypress and would like to preserve, followed by parks/recreation areas (18%), the clean, well-maintained appearance of the city/landscaping/trees (14%), it being a quiet, friendly, family-oriented community (11%), and the good schools in the community (8%).

Approximately 13% of residents could not think of anything specific when asked what they like most about Cypress that should be preserved in the future.

Table 5 on the next page provides the top five responses to Question 3 in the 2018, 2022, and 2025 surveys. Although the rank order has changed a bit, four of the top five categories have remained the same since 2018. In 2025, references to Cypress being a quiet, friendly, family-oriented community replaced mention of good schools among the top five responses.

Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more English Spanish Korean Satisfied Dissatisfied Cypress as a place to raise a family 45.6 51.9 40.8 51.9 49.3 60.9 42.4 55.4 23.0 Cypress as a place to live 34.2 52.4 38.2 45.0 44.3 49.1 29.8 49.5 18.1 The overall quality of life in Cypress 30.3 44.1 31.3 38.1 37.4 39.0 30.1 42.9 9.8 Cypress as a place to retire 45.6 51.9 40.8 51.9 49.3 60.9 42.4 55.4 23.0 Cypress as a place to work 14.8 18.6 16.1 21.9 19.0 42.5 8.8 22.4 8.1 Years in Cypress (Q1) Survey Language Overall Satisfaction (Q5) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Cypress as a place to raise a family 49.8 59.0 56.6 40.2 45.4 48.7 49.9 51.7 Cypress as a place to live 38.6 48.8 45.8 40.6 39.3 47.1 44.5 43.5 The overall quality of life in Cypress 30.1 38.6 36.0 37.7 35.2 42.1 36.7 39.7 Cypress as a place to retire 49.8 59.0 56.6 40.2 45.4 48.7 49.9 51.7 Cypress as a place to work 13.0 28.8 19.8 15.6 16.0 22.7 19.1 21.7 Age (QD1) Gender
Af Amer
/Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/White
Latino/
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Cypress as a place to raise a family 43.9 49.7 47.7 53.2 50.3 49.7 49.0 Cypress as a place to live 41.8 41.7 44.9 43.7 48.3 45.2 40.3 The overall quality of life in Cypress 44.1 32.3 40.2 36.9 40.2 38.1 34.5 Cypress as a place to retire 43.9 49.7 47.7 53.2 50.3 49.7 49.0 Cypress as a place to work 13.5 18.4 18.7 24.3 12.9 18.4 20.6 Ethnicity (QD7)
Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Quality of Life
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 What do you like most about Cypress that the city government should make sure to preserve in the future?
FIGURE 2 LIKE MOST ABOUT CYPRESS
TABLE 5 LIKE MOST ABOUT CYPRESS BY STUDY YEAR
WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED? In an open-ended manner similar to that described above for Question 3, all respondents were also asked to indicate the one thing that the City government could change to make Cypress a better place to live. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 4 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3 on the next page.

23.3 18.1

14.3 13.3

11.4 8.1

6.8 5.6

5.3 3.5

3.3 2.0

2.0 1.8

1.7 1.6

1.5 1.5

2.4 4.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Public safety, low crime rate
Parks, recreation areas
Clean, well-maintained, landscaping, trees
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Quiet, friendly town, family oriented
Good schools
Open space areas, nature preserves
Police, fire department
Infrastructure, streets, sidewalks
Small town atmosphere
Community activities, events
Fewer homeless than other communities
Diversity in general
Everything, keep it as it is
Restaurants, shopping opportunities, small business
Minimal traffic congestion
Community, Senior Center
Public library
Location, accessibility
Balance of business vs residential construction
% Respondents
2025 2022 2018
Public safety, low crime
rate
Public safety, low crime
rate
Public safety, low crime
rate
Parks, recreation
areas
Parks, recreation
areas
Parks, recreation
areas
Clean, well-maintained,
landscaping, trees
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Clean, well-maintained,
landscaping, trees
Open space areas,
nature preserves
Quiet, friendly town,
family oriented Good schools Clean, well-maintained,
landscaping, trees
Study Year
Quality of Life
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 More than one-third (35%) of respondents could not think of a desired change (20%) or reported that no changes are needed (15%), both of which are indicative of a respondent who does not perceive any pressing issues or problems in the City. Among the specific changes desired, the most common were addressing homeless issues (7%), limiting growth and development (7%), improving public safety/addressing crime and drugs (6%), improving shopping and dining opportunities (5%), and maintaining/adding park and recreation facilities (5%). Table 6 shows how the top five responses to Question 4 have trended since 2018.

Question 4 If the city government could change one thing to make Cypress a better place to live, what change would you like to see?
FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CYPRESS
TABLE 6 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CYPRESS BY STUDY YEAR

19.8 15.3

7.2 7.0

5.6 4.9

4.5 3.9

3.4 3.2

3.0 2.4

2.3 2.2

1.9 1.9

1.6 1.5

1.5 1.4

1.4 1.2

1.1 1.1

2.6 3.3

1.1 0 5 10 15 20
Not sure / Cannot think of any
No changes needed / Everything is okay
Address homeless issues
Limit growth, development
Improve public safety, crime, drugs
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
Maintain, add park and recreation facilities
Enforce traffic laws
Reduce traffic congestion
Provide more events, entertainment for different ages
Provide more affordable housing
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads, streets
Improve, maintain landscaping
Add, improve safety of bike lanes, sidewalks
Improve Lincoln area, buildings, streets, landscape
Improve, education, provide more schools
Clean, beautify public spaces
Provide more police presence
Improve City government, leadership
Enforce codes, ordinances
Improve city planning, development
Rent control
Reduce cost of living
Improve, add more public transportation
Waste Management issues
Make it more walkable
Address parking issues
% Respondents
2025 2022 2018
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
No changes needed /
Everything is okay
No changes needed /
Everything is okay
Limit growth,
development
Address homeless
issues
Limit growth,
development
No changes needed /
Everything is okay
Limit growth,
development
Address homeless
issues
Improve public safety,
crime, drugs
Improve public safety,
crime, drugs
Maintain, add park and
recreation facilities
Maintain, add park and
recreation facilities
Study Year
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring respondents’ perceptions of the quality of life in Cypress, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City’s performance in providing various municipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Cypress is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 4, nearly eight-in-ten Cypress residents (79%) indicated they were either very (37%) or somewhat (42%) satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approximately 12% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, whereas 9% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. When compared to 2022, there was a statistically significantly decline in the percentage indicating they were somewhat satisfied, coupled with a similarly sized increase in the percentage who reported they were unsure. The percentage who indicated they were dissatisfied also decreased by 1% during this period, although this difference is not statistically significant.

Question 5 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Cypress. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Cypress is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
The next two figures display how residents’ opinions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services varied by length of residence, age, ethnicity, home ownership status, gender, and survey language. The most striking pattern in the figures is that the high levels of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole (see Figure 4 above) were generally echoed across resident subgroups, with satisfaction ranging between 74% to 92% for all but one identified subgroup.

49.9 48.8

10.2 3.0

36.5 34.0 38.6

42.2†

8.9 6.6

2.6 1.5

3.0 8.6† 4.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN CYPRESS & AGE FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & SURVEY LANGUAGE SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 5 addressed the City’s overall performance, the next series of questions asked respondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provide these services. For each service, respondents were first asked whether they thought a service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Respondents were then asked about their level of satisfaction with these same services. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias.

Figure 7 presents the services in rank order of importance according to the proportion of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. In general, Cypress residents rated public safety and public works as the most important service areas. More specifically, providing fire protection and emergency medical services (96% extremely or very important), maintaining city streets and roads (94%), maintaining parks and recreation areas (90%), maintaining the City’s

29.7 42.9 41.2 37.5

23.6 42.5

45.1 32.9 40.3

40.7 54.2

40.3 36.5 30.5

37.6 Very
satisfied

39.6 41.7

43.6 42.2
Smwt
satisfied

42.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Cypress (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents

68.3 34.8 41.7 39.9 35.9 36.9

57.9 18.9

23.6 44.1

39.7 42.2

41.9 42.7

32.7 42.4
Very
satisfied

22.3 30.5

41.7 36.6
Smwt
satisfied

57.2 37.1 46.5

44.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent Male Female English Spanish Korean
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Gender Survey Language
% Respondents
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 financial stability (89%), and providing police and crime prevention services (88%) received the highest importance ratings from residents.

At the other end of the spectrum, providing cultural and performing arts (55%) and holding special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations (58%) were viewed as less important.

Question 6 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

FIGURE 7 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES
Table 7 on the next page displays the percentage of respondents who viewed each service as extremely or very important in 2018, 2022, and 2025, along with the difference between the two most recent studies. When compared with the prior survey, there was a statistically significant increase in the importance assigned to managing traffic congestion in the city (+6%) and a statistically significant decline in the importance assigned to providing police and crime prevention services (-4%) in 2025. All other service areas received importance scores in 2025 that were not significantly different than those recorded in 2022.

71.4 59.3

53.2 57.1

69.0 45.3

47.8 61.1

35.7 37.7

35.7 32.9

22.5 21.9

25.0 34.3

36.7 31.6

19.3 42.4

37.1 23.1

41.1 38.4

39.3 42.0

35.1 32.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection and emergency medical services Maintaining city streets and roads
Maintaining parks and recreation areas
Maintaining the City’s financial stability
Providing police and crime prevention services
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Managing traffic in the city
Addressing homelessness
Providing services to seniors
Managing growth and development
Providing recreation programs for all ages
Promoting economic development for a healthy business community Holding special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations
Providing cultural and performing arts
Q6b Q6e Q6h Q6n Q6a Q6k Q6d Q6m Q6c Q6f Q6g Q6j Q6l Q6i % Respondents
Extremely important Very important
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TABLE 7 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
Turning to the satisfaction component, Figure 8 sorts the same list of services according to the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service. For comparison purposes between the services, only respondents who held an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in the figure. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage of respondents who provided an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) is presented in brackets beside the service label in the figure, while the bars represent the answers of those with an opinion.

Question 7 For the same list of services I just read, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to: ____, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
At the top of the list, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection and emergency medical services (97% very or somewhat satisfied), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (94%), hold special community events like summer concerts in 2025 2022 2018
Managing traffic congestion in the city 84.9 78.9 85.7 +6.0† Providing recreation programs for all ages 75.0 70.9 73.4 +4.1 Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 87.7 84.3 86.7 +3.4 Holding special community events 57.7 55.3 59.6 +2.3
Maintaining city streets and roads 93.6 92.4 92.1 +1.3
Providing fire protection and emergency medical services 96.5 95.2 95.7 +1.3 Providing cultural and performing arts 54.6 53.5 51.5 +1.0 Promoting economic development for a healthy business community 74.9 75.6 76.0 -0.7 Providing services to seniors 76.8 77.5 71.0 -0.7
Maintaining the City’s financial stability 88.7 89.5 N/A -0.9 Maintaining parks and recreation areas 90.0 90.9 92.2 -1.0 Managing growth and development 76.1 78.3 79.5 -2.2
Addressing homelessness 84.2 86.6 82.4 -2.4
Providing police and crime prevention services 88.4 92.2 94.1 -3.8† Change in
Extremely + Very
Important
2022 to 2025
Study Year

61.2 50.5

46.9 52.1

46.7 42.3

36.2 40.6

46.4 30.5

31.1 35.2

31.0 25.1

35.6 43.4

45.3 38.4

43.7 47.6

53.6 47.8

41.4 56.0

54.6 42.7

46.1 41.3

5.0 5.9

6.6 6.5

8.8 8.2

9.3 9.6

11.3 11.0

16.4 15.5

22.6 1
1 2
2 2
3 2

11.0 7.3

5.7 2
3 1
3 3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Provide fire protection and emergency medical services [87%] Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive [92%] Hold special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations [82%]
Provide police and crime prevention services [90%]
Maintain parks and recreation areas [93%]
Provide recreation programs for all ages [79%]
Provide services to seniors [65%]
Maintain the City’s financial stability [70%]
Maintain city streets and roads [97%]
Provide cultural and performing arts [72%]
Promote economic development for a healthy business community [75%] Manage traffic in the city [92%]
Manage growth and development [80%]
Address homelessness [84%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 the park and holiday celebrations (92%), provide police and crime prevention services (91%), and maintain parks and recreation areas (90%).

Although still positive, respondents were somewhat less satisfied with the City’s efforts to address homelessness (66%), manage growth and development (77%), and manage traffic congestion in the city (78%).

Table 8 displays the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each service in 2018, 2022, and 2025, as well as the difference between the two most recent studies. As shown in the far right column, there was a statistically significant increase in satisfaction for the City’s efforts to address homelessness (+6%) between 2022 and 2025, along with a statistically significant decline in satisfaction (-5%) with respect to the City’s efforts to manage traffic congestion. All other services received satisfaction scores in 2025 that were reasonably similar to those recorded in 2022.

TABLE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 9 on the next page displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 7 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 11). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Question 7 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared to their counterparts, those who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the services tested in Question 7. That said, the greatest specific differentiators of opinion between satisfied and dissatisfied residents were found with respect to the City’s efforts to maintain parks and recreation areas, manage growth and development, manage traffic congestion in the city, promote economic development for a healthy business community, and address homelessness. Four of the top five differentiators in 2025 were also among the top five differentiators in 2022.
2025 2022 2018
Address homelessness 66.4 60.6 61.0 +5.7†
Provide cultural and performing arts 86.5 83.7 88.2 2.8 Hold special community events 92.2 89.8 91.8 2.4
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 93.9 92.1 92.5 1.8 Provide recreation programs for all ages 90.0 88.8 89.8 1.2 Provide police and crime prevention services 90.6 89.9 91.5 0.7 Maintain the City’s financial stability 88.4 88.6 N/A -0.2 Maintain parks and recreation areas 90.3 91.2 90.1 -0.8 Promote economic development for a healthy business community 85.7 86.6 82.7 -0.9 Provide fire protection and emergency medical services 96.7 98.0 97.4 -1.2 Manage growth and development 77.1 79.4 73.1 -2.3
Provide services to seniors 89.7 92.1 91.2 -2.4
Maintain city streets and roads 87.8 90.2 92.8 -2.4
Manage traffic congestion in the city 77.9 82.6 77.8 -4.7† Change in
Satisfaction
2022 to 2025
Study Year
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection and emergency medical services, police and crime prevention services, and services to seniors.

TABLE 9 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Maintain parks and recreation areas 95.9 52.2 43.6
Manage growth and development 82.4 40.6 41.8
Manage traffic congestion in the city 83.4 42.6 40.8
Promote economic development for a healthy business community 90.7 50.9 39.8 Address homelessness 71.9 33.3 38.6
Maintain the City’s financial stability 93.5 57.8 35.7
Maintain city streets and roads 91.5 58.8 32.8
Provide cultural and performing arts 90.6 60.9 29.7
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 96.9 72.0 24.9 Provide recreation programs for all ages 93.0 69.1 24.0 Hold special community events 94.7 73.3 21.4
Provide services to seniors 93.3 72.4 20.9
Provide police and crime prevention services 92.4 80.5 11.8 Provide fire protection and emergency medical services 97.1 93.8 3.3 Satisfaction With
City's Overall Performance (Q5) Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each
Service
Performance Needs & Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 P ERFORMANCE N EEDS & P RIORITIES With a measure of the importance of a service to residents as well as a measure of satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide the service, True North is able to examine the relationship between these two dimensions and identify areas where the City has the greatest opportunities to improve resident satisfaction—and identify for which services the City is meeting, and even exceeding, the majority of residents’ needs.

Rather than rely on averages to conduct this analysis, True North has developed an individualized approach to identifying priorities. This approach is built on the recognition that opinions will vary from resident to resident and that understanding this variation is required for assessing how well the City is meeting residents’ needs.
2 Table 10 on the next page presents a grid based
on the importance and satisfaction scales. The horizontal axis corresponds to the four importance options, and the vertical scale corresponds to the four satisfaction options. The 16 cells within the grid are grouped into one of six categories based on how well the City is meeting, or not meeting, a resident’s needs for a particular service. The six groups are as follows:

Exceeding Needs The City is exceeding a respondent’s needs if a respondent is satisfied and the level of expressed satisfaction is higher than the importance that the respondent assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs,
Moderately
The City is moderately meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied and the level of satisfaction is commensurate with the level of importance assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs,
Marginally
The City is marginally meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but their level of satisfaction is lower than the level of importance assigned to the service.

Not Meeting Needs,
Marginally
The City is marginally not meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is somewhat dissatisfied, but the service is also viewed as just somewhat or not at all important.

Not Meeting Needs,
Moderately
The City is moderately not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respondent is very dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service is viewed somewhat or not at all important, or B) a respondent is somewhat dissatisfied and the service is very important.

Not Meeting Needs,
Severely
The City is severely not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respondent is dissatisfied and the service is viewed as extremely important, or B) a respondent is very dissatisfied and the service is viewed as very important.

2. Any tool that relies on the opinions of the average respondent will provide a limited and occasionally distorted picture of how well an agency is performing. The simple fact is that a city is not comprised of average residents—it is comprised of unique individuals who vary substantially in their opinions of the City’s performance in different service areas. Thus, although the arithmetic average of these individuals’ opinions is a useful statistic, it does not capture the variation in opinions that occurs among residents, and it is this variation that is critical for truly assessing how well the City is meeting the needs of its residents.

Performance Needs & Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 TABLE 10 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS & PRIORITIES MATRIX Using this framework, True North categorized respondents individually for each of the 14 services tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that addressing homelessness was somewhat important and they were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service. The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., managing growth and development) if they were somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important.

Figure 9 on the next page presents the 14 services tested, along with the percentage of respondents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpretation, the color-coding in Figure 9 is consistent with that presented in Table 10. Thus, for example, in the service area of addressing homelessness, the City is exceeding the needs of 2% of respondents, moderately meeting the needs of 29% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 35% of respondents, marginally not meeting the needs of 2% of respondents, moderately not meeting the needs of 6% of respondents, and severely not meeting the needs of 26% of respondents.

As shown in the figure, the City is meeting the needs of at least three-quarters of residents for 13 of the 14 services tested. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is currently not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted by order of priority. Thus, addressing homelessness is the top priority, followed by managing growth and development, managing traffic congestion in the City, and promoting economic development for a healthy business community.

Not at all
important
Somewhat
important Very important
Extremely
important
Very satisfied Exceeding needs Exceeding needs Meeting needs, moderately
Meeting needs,
moderately
Somewhat satisfied Exceeding needs Meeting needs,
moderately
Meeting needs,
marginally
Meeting needs,
marginally
Somewhat dissatisfied Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Very dissatisfied
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Not meeting
needs, severely
Importance
Satisfaction
Performance Needs & Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 9 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS 14 14 325322
13 2
6 32
62 51
51 54
49 48
41 43
47 40
39 34
38 29
34 39
27 33
39 36
45 43
39 33
44 37
36 35
3 3
3 53
4 4
65 5
6 6
7 356856
16 13
26 0
13 1122
2 12
03 2
1 2
1 223
6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection and emergency medical services Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Holding special community events
Providing police and crime prevention services
Maintaining parks and recreation areas
Providing recreation programs for all ages
Providing services to seniors
Maintaining the City’s financial stability
Maintaining city streets and roads
Providing cultural and performing arts
Promoting economic development for a healthy business community Managing traffic congestion in the city
Managing growth and development
Addressing homelessness
% Respondents who Provided Opinion
Exceeding needs
Meeting needs
moderately
Meeting needs
marginally
Not meeting
needs marginally
Not meeting
needs moderately
Not meeting
needs severely
Public Safety
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

P UBLIC S AFETY
Ensuring the personal safety of residents is the most basic function of local government. It is important to keep in mind, of course, that public safety is as much a matter of perceptions as it is a matter of reality. Regardless of actual crime statistics, if residents don’t feel safe then they will not enjoy the many cultural, recreational, and shopping opportunities available in the City of Cypress that will enhance their quality of life.

Overall, 96% of respondents indicated that they feel Cypress is a safe place to live, with 58% describing it as very safe. Conversely, just 4% of residents reported that the City is either a very or somewhat unsafe place to live. Over the past three years, the perceived safety of Cypress improved, with a statistically significant increase (+8%) in the percentage describing the City as very safe (see Figure 10).

Question 8 Overall, how safe is the City of Cypress as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
FIGURE 10 PERCEIVED CITY SAFETY BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 11 and 12 display perceptions of safety by a host of demographic characteristics. Across nearly every subgroup, at least nine-in-ten residents perceived Cypress to be a safe place to live.

The exceptions to this pattern occurred among those who were generally dissatisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services (84% within this subgroup rated the City as safe) and African-American/Black residents (83%).

44.9 4.0

50.4 58.3†

37.9†

3.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2025 2022
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Very unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Somewhat
safe
Very safe
Public Safety
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 FIGURE 11 PERCEIVED CITY SAFETY BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE FIGURE 12 PERCEIVED CITY SAFETY BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & SURVEY LANGUAGE

64.5 19.8

65.9 67.8 62.4

48.6 47.9

63.2 33.8

64.4 29.7 32.2

34.2 45.0 46.9

34.7 Very
safe

54.7 66.4

52.4 58.5
Smwt
safe

38.8 40.2

37.7 31.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Cypress (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Age (QD1) % Respondents

69.3 56.9 64.2 61.0 58.4 58.2

82.3 43.7

30.7 39.8 31.3 36.4 37.4 38.6

13.1 46.9

69.4 59.4 Very 51.3
safe

40.6 44.1

37.6 29.5
Smwt
safe

42.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent Male Female English Spanish Korean
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership Status
(QD2)
Gender Survey Language
% Respondents
Funding Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

F UNDING P RIORITIES
It is often the case that residents’ desires for public facilities and programs exceed a city’s financial resources. In such cases, a city must prioritize projects and programs based upon a variety of factors, including the preferences and needs of residents.

Question 9 was designed to provide Cypress with a reliable measure of how residents, as a whole, prioritize a variety of services and projects to which the City could allocate resources in the future. The format of the question was straightforward: after informing respondents that the City does not have the financial resources to fund all of the services and projects that may be desired by residents, respondents were asked whether each service or project shown in Figure 13 should be a high, medium, or low priority for future city spending—or if the City should not spend money on the project at all. To encourage a sense of competition, respondents were instructed that not all of the services and projects could be high priorities.

The eight services and projects are sorted in Figure 13 from high to low based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that an item was at least a medium priority for future city spending. Among the services and projects tested, maintaining streets and roads in good condition was assigned the highest priority (94% high or medium priority), followed by providing safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school (84%), refurbishing and improving the amenities at existing community parks (80%), and working with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers (74%). When compared to the other services tested, far fewer respondents considered increasing the availability of electric vehicle charging stations for public use (31%) to be a high or medium priority.

Question 9 The City of Cypress has limited financial resources to provide local services and projects desired by residents. Because it can't fund every service and project, the City must set priorities. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

FIGURE 13 FUNDING PRIORITIES

73.0 53.4

35.6 36.3

33.0 31.2

25.8 11.4

21.2 30.4

44.2 37.7

39.7 35.8

38.0 19.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Maintain streets and roads in good condition
Provide safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school
Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers
Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City Make more resources and City services available online for residents Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults
Increase the availability of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for public use
Q9c Q9g Q9b Q9e Q9d Q9a Q9f Q9h
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
Funding Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 When compared to 2022, there were no statistically significant changes in the priority assigned to the respective items in 2025 (see Table 11). For the interested reader, tables 12-14 show how the percentage who rated each item a high priority varied across Cypress subgroups.

TABLE 11 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY STUDY YEAR
TABLE 12 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, SURVEY LANGUAGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % HIGH

PRIORITY)
TABLE 13 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 14 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) As a follow-up, residents who assigned a high priority rating to attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults were asked to detail specific entertainment options that they would like available in the City. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 10 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 14 on the next page.

Nearly one-third of residents (31%) who rated attracting more entertainment options as a high priority were nevertheless unsure or could not provide specifics when asked to describe the types of entertainment in which they were interested. Among specific mentions, concerts/ events/plays (16%), multi-cultural events/festivals (15%), a large community park for all ages (9%), entertainment fun center (9%), and a downtown area with shops, cafes, and entertainment 2025 2022 2018
Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults 63.8 59.6 62.9 +4.3 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 72.7 71.7 76.8 +1.0 Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks 79.8 79.7 81.8 +0.1 Maintain streets and roads in good condition 94.2 94.3 95.7 -0.1 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers 74.0 75.5 72.3 -1.5 Make more resources and City services available online for residents 67.1 69.9 62.6 -2.9 Provide safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk, bike to school 83.8 N/A N/A N/A Increase availability of electric vehicle charging stations for public use 31.2 N/A N/A N/A Change in
High + Medium
Priority
2022 to 2025
Study Year
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more English Spanish Korean Satisfied Dissatisfied Maintain streets and roads in good condition 65.5 71.5 83.2 73.7 74.3 72.3 60.0 77.2 59.8 Provide safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school 26.5 29.5 30.7 23.5 24.8 37.8 29.3 26.0 31.1 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers 33.0 50.5 39.5 32.0 34.5 62.7 37.8 37.8 38.5 Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks 43.4 33.2 46.5 30.7 35.3 41.4 35.2 38.1 29.7 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 36.6 31.4 38.2 31.4 32.9 46.1 25.8 35.1 32.9 Make more resources and City services available online for residents 41.6 34.1 33.1 26.4 28.9 46.0 45.5 32.7 25.2 Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults 26.5 29.5 30.7 23.5 24.8 37.8 29.3 26.0 31.1 Increase the availability of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for public use 17.0 11.8 11.2 9.5 10.4 4.8 25.4 11.6 11.9 Years in Cypress (Q1) Survey Language Overall Satisfaction (Q5) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Maintain streets and roads in good condition 64.4 70.4 72.4 78.1 72.8 78.5 73.2 72.9 Provide safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school 25.1 32.2 37.0 30.0 13.9 16.3 24.7 27.8 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers 34.8 44.9 31.9 40.8 31.7 34.6 33.6 39.5 Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks 21.2 46.9 46.8 42.8 22.5 29.1 32.8 39.8 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 25.0 35.2 32.5 34.7 33.7 35.1 39.7 28.5 Make more resources and City services available online for residents 38.2 42.1 39.4 26.5 20.7 24.6 30.7 32.3 Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults 25.1 32.2 37.0 30.0 13.9 16.3 24.7 27.8 Increase the availability of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for public use 15.5 8.4 12.2 15.8 8.9 8.8 11.6 10.3 Age (QD1) Gender
Af Amer
/Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/White
Latino/
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Maintain streets and roads in good condition 65.0 72.4 73.4 75.7 66.1 74.7 70.7 Provide safe routes to school to encourage more kids to walk and bike to school 48.8 21.8 22.0 30.1 34.7 24.2 27.6 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers 51.4 36.8 33.2 37.2 35.3 36.2 35.0 Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks 71.4 32.8 34.5 35.2 33.3 35.0 35.8 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 26.8 37.2 28.5 31.9 44.8 34.3 29.0 Make more resources and City services available online for residents 49.1 38.5 18.3 32.2 43.4 27.9 38.1 Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults 48.8 21.8 22.0 30.1 34.7 24.2 27.6 Increase the availability of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for public use 14.3 18.2 7.8 5.6 6.2 10.1 13.6 Ethnicity (QD7)
Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Funding Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 (8%) were the most frequently cited. Table 10 shows the top five responses to Question 10 by study year.

Question 10 You indicated that attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults should be a high priority. Do you have any specific entertainment options that you'd like available in the City of Cypress?
FIGURE 14 ADDITIONAL ENTERTAINMENT OPTIONS DESIRED
TABLE 15 ADDITIONAL ENTERTAINMENT OPTIONS DESIRED BY STUDY YEAR

31.4 16.4

14.8 9.2

9.1 8.2

7.7 6.6

6.3 2.7

2.6 1.2

1.1 1.0

1.0 1.0

4.0 2.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Concerts, events, plays
Multi-cultural events, festivals
Large community park for all ages
Entertainment fun center
Downtown area with shops, cafes, entertainment
Movie theater, cinemas
Community theater
Restaurants, high-end dinning
Public swimming pool, aquatics
Movies at the park
Sports bar
Bowling alley, arcades
Skating areas (roller, ice)
Dog park
Arts, crafts center
Racetrack
Nightlife, clubs
% Respondents Who Feel That Attracting More Entertainment Options to Cypress Should Be a High Priority
2025 2022 2018
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Movie theater,
cinemas
Concerts, events,
plays
Concerts, events,
plays
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Multi-cultural
events, festivals
Movie theater,
cinemas
Concerts, events,
plays
Large community
park for all ages
Downtown area
with shops, cafes,
entertainment
Downtown area
with shops, cafes,
entertainment
Entertainment fun
center
Multi-cultural
events, festivals
Bowling alley,
arcades
Study Year
Community Events
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

C OMMUNITY E VENTS
Throughout the year, the City of Cypress hosts a number of special events designed to bring the community together, including summer concerts, informational events, and holiday celebrations. One of the objectives of the 2025 survey was to profile residents’ participation and experiences as they relate to special community events in Cypress, as well as solicit their ideas for how community events may be improved.

ATTENDANCE The first question in this series presented respondents with each of the community events shown in Figure 15 and simply asked if they or other members of their household had attended the event during the two years preceding the interview. Nearly half of respondents indicated that one or more members of their household had attended Concerts on the Green (47%) and the Cypress Community Festival (46%) during this period, while one quarter (24%) attended the Cypress Run. Approximately one-in-five households reported attending the Holiday Sing (20%), Spring Egg Hunt (19%), and Salute to America (19%), respectively, while one-in-ten reported attending the State of the City (10%) and National Night Out (9%) event. Overall, 6% of respondents indicated that one or more members of their household attended the Women’s Conference in Cypress during the prior two years.

Question 11 Next, I'm going to read a short list of community events in Cypress. For each that I read, please indicate whether you or other members of your household have attended the event in the past two years.

FIGURE 15 HSLD MEMBER ATTENDED EVENTS IN PAST TWO YEARS For the interested reader, tables 16-18 on the next page show event attendance by length of residence, language, overall satisfaction with the City’s performance in providing municipal services, age, gender, ethnicity, and homeownership.

47.0 46.0

23.9 19.8

19.4 18.5

9.6 9.4

6.0 49.4

49.2 72.3

75.6 75.3

74.0 82.4

84.5 88.7

3.4 2.4

2.9 3.9

5.9 6.4

4.9 4.0
1 1
1 2
1 2
1 1
2 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Concerts on the Green
Cypress Community Festival
Cypress Run
Holiday Sing
Spring Egg Hunt
Salute to America
State of the City
National Night Out
Women’s Conference
% Respondents
Yes attended Have not attended Not sure Prefer not to answer Community Events
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 TABLE 16 HSLD MEMBER ATTENDED EVENTS IN PAST TWO YEARS BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, SURVEY LANGUAGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % YES ATTENDED)
TABLE 17 HSLD MEMBER ATTENDED EVENTS IN PAST TWO YEARS BY AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % YES ATTENDED) TABLE 18 HSLD MEMBER ATTENDED EVENTS IN PAST TWO YEARS BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % YES ATTENDED)
RATE EVENT EXPERIENCE For each community event that a respondent’s household had attended in the prior two years, the survey followed-up by asking them to rate their experience on a scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. The distribution of ratings among attendees for each event is shown in Figure 16 on the next page.

Regardless of the event, attendees were generally very positive about their experiences, with more than eight-in-ten attendees rating their experiences as excellent or good for every event tested. That said, Holiday Sing had the highest overall ratings (93% excellent or good), followed closely by the Women’s Conference (92%), Cypress Run (92%), Cypress Community Festival (91%), Concerts on the Green (91%), and Salute to America (91%).

Consistent with the very positive ratings noted above, when asked to suggest ways to improve community events in Cypress (Question 13), most respondents stated flatly that they had no suggestions/the City is doing a good job (50%) or that none came to mind (21%). Approximately 8% suggested additional advertising and promotion of existing events, while 5% suggested a greater variety of events and/or performers (see Figure 17).

Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more English Spanish Korean Satisfied Dissatisfied Concerts on the Green 29.3 43.1 48.3 54.8 48.7 67.5 17.1 50.1 48.7 Cypress Community Festival 32.2 39.7 41.1 54.7 45.5 79.2 29.5 49.7 43.4 Cypress Run 11.4 24.8 19.5 29.4 22.9 51.6 16.8 25.1 27.4 Holiday Sing 19.5 20.3 16.6 20.9 19.0 48.0 10.8 21.1 20.5 Spring Egg Hunt 16.5 24.5 21.4 17.8 18.4 42.7 14.8 20.4 20.4 Salute to America 12.6 18.6 15.3 21.3 18.0 27.1 18.1 19.9 19.6 State of the City 8.1 10.1 6.9 10.9 9.3 14.7 10.2 10.7 7.7 National Night Out 11.0 6.3 10.4 9.7 9.7 4.8 8.6 10.0 12.2 Women’s Conference 5.6 1.2 6.5 7.7 5.5 11.9 7.5 6.3 6.1 Years in Cypress (Q1) Survey Language Overall Satisfaction (Q5) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Concerts on the Green 40.0 35.6 52.0 46.3 52.0 54.5 43.2 52.4 Cypress Community Festival 21.1 40.3 51.2 54.2 49.6 50.2 42.5 51.6 Cypress Run 29.2 29.1 16.6 26.6 27.0 17.9 24.8 24.6
Holiday Sing 14.0 22.0 27.4 21.9 16.3 15.7 13.4 27.7
Spring Egg Hunt 18.1 15.6 35.4 21.9 13.5 11.2 19.0 20.6 Salute to America 4.9 6.5 30.9 19.0 25.6 17.9 19.3 18.4 State of the City 1.6 5.2 14.3 6.4 11.5 16.2 9.9 9.8
National Night Out 5.9 5.5 13.3 12.3 8.3 8.8 10.0 8.9
Women’s Conference 9.7 10.1 4.7 2.5 4.4 7.2 3.0 9.1
Age (QD1) Gender
Af Amer
/Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/White
Latino/
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Concerts on the Green 32.7 37.1 59.4 52.3 34.1 51.1 41.5 Cypress Community Festival 51.5 38.5 50.9 53.3 32.8 50.1 37.7 Cypress Run 34.5 21.4 23.7 30.5 7.7 26.1 18.6
Holiday Sing 9.0 16.1 20.2 26.3 25.3 18.5 23.1
Spring Egg Hunt 32.8 16.8 18.1 26.6 7.6 19.3 19.5
Salute to America 0.0 15.3 19.5 25.6 16.6 20.8 14.8
State of the City 0.0 9.7 11.1 9.9 9.9 11.2 6.6
National Night Out 9.0 11.9 7.1 6.9 19.1 8.4 11.5
Women’s Conference 0.0 5.2 8.3 7.2 0.0 5.4 7.2
Ethnicity (QD7)
Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Community Events
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 12 How would you rate your experience attending the _____? Would you say it was excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
FIGURE 16 OPINION OF ATTENDING EVENT
Question 13 Do you have any suggestions for how to improve community events in Cypress? FIGURE 17 SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY EVENTS

55.3 51.5

45.8 45.3

51.8 59.5

43.1 50.8

50.9 37.7

40.9 46.1

46.0 39.2

31.1 46.0

37.0 33.2

7.0 7.7

7.4 6.9

8.0 8.5

10.9 9.9

14.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Holiday Sing
Women’s Conference
Cypress Run
Cypress Community Festival
Concerts on the Green
Salute to America
Spring Egg Hunt
State of the City
National Night Out
% Respondents Who Attended Event & Provided Opinion
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor

50.4 20.8

7.7 5.4

1.8 1.4

1.1 1.0

0.7 0.6

0.6 0.6

0.6 0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
No suggestions / City doing a good job
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Provide more advertising, promotions
Provide more variety, diversity of events, performers
Focus on other community priorities
Provide more variety of vendors
Community, business involvement
Provide more parking in general, disabled parking
Keep politics out of events
Provide more events for seniors
Provide shuttles for events
Lower prices, fees, give incentives
Provide more events, concert dates
Improve public safety
% Respondents
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

C OMMUNICATION
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be over-stated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of Cypress’ efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Cypress’ many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, and its website. In this section, we present the results of several communication-related questions.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION To help the City identify the most effective means of communicating with residents, it is helpful to understand what information sources they currently rely on for this type of information. Question 14 asked respondents to identify the information sources they primarily use to find out about City of Cypress news, information, and programming. Because respondents were allowed to provide up to four sources, the percentages shown in Figure 18 represent the percentage of residents who mentioned a particular source and thus sum to more than 100. The most frequently cited source for city information was the City’s Newsletter “The Progress” (45%), followed by the City’s website (32%), street banners (25%), and email notifications from the City (22%).

Question 14 What information sources do you primarily use to find out about City of Cypress news, information and programming?
FIGURE 18 INFORMATION SOURCES BY STUDY YEAR

32.3 21.5

16.0 15.2

6.7 4.9

4.6 3.6

3.2 3.1

1.4 1.4

1.1 0.5

39.0 32.3

16.5 18.9

8.8 19.5

17.5 19.3

18.7 12.3

5.8 6.7

12.6 4.1

4.6 4.2

1.5 2.3

4.8 1.0

2.2 1.2

1.1 1.9 0.2†

1.7†

9.6†

44.5†

13.0†

14.3†

19.0†

25.2†

9.6 5.6†
0 10 20 30 40 50
City Newsletter / The Progress
City’s website
Street banners
Email notification from City
Letters or postcards from the City mailed to home
Social Media (not a City source)
Friends/Family / Associates
City’s Facebook
Flyers or brochures (displayed at public facilities)
Internet / websites (not City’s site)
City’s Instagram
Cypress Central smart phone app
Local newspapers (print or online)
Do Not Receive Information about City
Senior Newsletter / Along the Way
City Council Meetings
Not sure
Other source
Community events
Minute with the Mayor videos
Television (general)
City’s X / Twitter
Radio
Cable Channel 36
% Respondents
2025
2022
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 When compared to 2022, the percentage identifying the City’s newsletter (+6%), street banners (+9%), direct mail from the City (+10%), and the City’s Instagram account (+4%) as a primary source of Cypress news and information increased significantly, whereas mentions of the City’s Facebook account (-5%), flyers or brochures at public facilities (-6%), local newspapers(-7%), community events (-3%), and Cable Channel 36 (-2%) decreased significantly.

Figures 19 and 20 present the information source categories by a number of key demographic traits. For ease of interpretation, the bars representing city-sponsored sources are displayed in shades of green, and non-city sources in shades of orange.

FIGURE 19 INFORMATION SOURCES BY OVERALL, AGE & SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION FIGURE 20 INFORMATION SOURCES BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OVERALL SATISFACTION As a follow-up question, respondents who identified a local newspaper (print or online) as one of their primary information sources were asked which local newspaper they read most often. The Orange County Register (37%) was the most frequently cited among this subgroup, followed by the Event-News Enterprise (19%) and Voice of OC (7%). Twenty-four percent (24%) of respondents were unsure, indicated that it depends, or stated they read multiple papers (Figure 21). 56 19 50 5961 69 6463 38 34 31 44 32 14 40 28 39 34 3133 29 232326 3134 15 10 2525 20212023 19 16 21 2023 172121 171721 4 15
29 10
28 22
6 5
4 3
10 10
7 10
55 6
8 11
7 6
7 2
6 4
8 7
11 8
44 5
4 1
55 2
4 3
0 00000
1 0
1 8
9 5
8 7
4 16
5 12
19 39
32 37
27 35
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Satisfied Dissatisfied Overall Age (QD1) Satisfaction With
Communication (Q16)
% Respondents
City Newsletter, mail
City website
Street banners, flyers
City Social Media
Friends, family, other
sources
Non-City Social Media
Non-City Internet
Newspapers, radio, TV
City smart phone app
City Council Meetings
City TV, Channel 36
Not sure / No sources
44 50
61 63
56 64
41 58
43 22
34 39
44 30
32 30
44 31
31 33
25 20
18 28
25 31
23 24
25 22
35 19
18 18
23 19
21 20
20 33
14 20
12 21
14 21
15 30
11 12
10 5
17 7
16 10
11 2
7 9
6 2
8 6
7 7
12 8
7 7
0 9
3 8
7 0
4 5
3 0
5 1
4 4
00 1
000
00 0
8 11
5 8
10 7
9 7
12 7
40 34
22 38
36 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership Status
(QD2)
Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
% Respondents
City Newsletter, mail
City website
Street banners, flyers
City Social Media
Friends, family, other
sources
Non-City Social Media
Non-City Internet
Newspapers, radio, TV
City smart phone app
City Council Meetings
City TV, Channel 36
Not sure / No sources
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 15 Which local newspaper do you read most often? FIGURE 21 NEWSPAPER READ MOST OFTEN
SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION Question 16 asked Cypress residents to report their satisfaction with city-resident communication. Overall, 73% of respondents in 2025 indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, local media, and other means (see Figure 22), including a statistically significant increase (+6%) in the percentage reporting they were very satisfied with the City’s performance in this respect. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s communication efforts (18%), unsure of their opinion (9%), or unwilling to answer the question (1%).

Question 16 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, local media, and other means? FIGURE 22 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY

36.9 24.0

19.3 7.3

2.1 0 10 20 30 40
The Orange County Register
Not sure, depends, read multiple
Event-News Enterprise
Voice of OC
LA Times
% Respondents Who Cited Local Newspapers
as a Source For News, Info, Programming

46.6 50.4

16.2 7.8

29.0 22.2 27.8†

45.2 11.4

13.6 3.9

3.8 6.2

5.0 8.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The next three figures display how satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents varied by a number of demographics. In most subgroups, at least two-thirds of respondents reporting being satisfied with city-resident communication. Notable exceptions included young residents (under 25), those of mixed/other ethnicities, individuals who completed the survey in Korean, those who reported being dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, and homemakers.

FIGURE 23 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN CYPRESS & AGE FIGURE 24 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE

15.3 40.9

30.5 23.7 26.3 27.0

39.0 37.0

46.1 51.9 44.8 48.8
Very
satisfied

30.5 23.5 29.4 27.6
Smwt
satisfied

40.8 45.9

51.1 45.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Cypress (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents

22.0 26.5 32.9 26.2 32.2 27.5

49.6 17.2

30.0 51.9 32.4 47.5 42.4 46.7

36.2 35.6

34.9 Very 26.9 28.1
satisfied

16.1 42.8 47.0

46.4 Smwt
satisfied

56.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent Male Female English Spanish Korean
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Gender Survey Language
% Respondents
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 FIGURE 25 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, ATTENTIVENESS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT & EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Respondents were next asked, in an open-ended manner, if they had any suggestions for how the City could improve the way it communicated with them. Overall, more than three-quarters of residents did not have any suggestions (68%) or declined to state (8%). Among those who provided input, more emails from the City was cited most often (5%), followed by more social media posts (4%), and more frequent newsletters (4%).

Question 17 Do you have any suggestions for how the City could improve the way it communicates with you? FIGURE 26 CITY COMMUNICATION IMPROVEMENTS

19.4 29.8

39.6 25.7

13.5 46.4

23.2 47.3

46.8 33.2

46.3 44.6

37.2 49.1

33.9 38.1

6.3 Very
satisfied

32.2 33.9

42.7 45.6
Smwt
satisfied

47.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Somewhat Slightly,
not at all
Full time Part time Self
employed
HomemakerStudent Retired
Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Attentiveness to Local Government (Q20)
Employment Status (QD3)
% Respondents

68.1 8.0

5.4 4.2

3.5 3.0

2.4 2.3

1.8 1.6

1.5 1.1

0.8 0.4

1.6 1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
No suggestions
Prefer not to answer
More emails
More social media
More newsletters, deliver weekly, bi-weekly
Increase frequency, details of outreach in general
More street banners
More postal mail
Send text message alerts
Improve City's mobile app
More flyers, brochures
Not aware of City’s communication efforts, sources
Improve City's website
Utilize newspapers
More Town Hall meetings, open door meetings
More community events
% Respondents
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 TOPICS OF INTEREST Respondents were next asked if there was a particular topic or issue that they would like to receive more information about from the City. Just over one-quarter of residents (26%) in 2025 answered Question 15 in the affirmative and would like more information (see Figure 27). For the interested reader, figures 28 through 30 display the percentage of residents who desired additional information from the City by a variety of demographics.

Question 18 Is there a particular topic or issue that you'd like to receive more information about from the City?
FIGURE 27 DESIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 28 DESIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, ATTENTIVENESS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT & GENDER

63.4 63.0

5.8 26.0 30.8 31.5

63.8 10.1† 5.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Do not
desire
additional
info
Yes, desire
additional
info

32.3 26.5

23.1 26.7 26.6 25.2 24.9

32.9 24.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Very Somewhat Slightly, not at all
Male Female
Years in Cypress (Q1) Attentiveness to Local Government (Q20) Gender % Respondents That Desire
Additional Info From City
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 FIGURE 29 DESIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE FIGURE 30 DESIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & ETHNICITY Residents who expressed interest in receiving additional information from the City were subsequently asked to describe their topic of interest. Question 19 was posed in an open-ended manner, meaning that respondents were at liberty to mention any topic that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of topics. The verbatim responses were later reviewed by True North and grouped into the categories shown in Figure 31 on the next page.

Respondents were allowed to mention more than one topic, so the percentage results shown in the figure indicate the percentage of respondents who mentioned each topic.

As shown in the figure, information about future plans, developments, and zoning (25%), safety/ crime activity, reports, and solutions (17%), roadwork, construction, and traffic control (14%), and community events and activities (8%) were the most commonly mentioned topics of interest.

24.8 31.0

28.1 22.3

25.4 27.3

32.0 40.4

17.5 23.2

25.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Own Rent English Spanish Korean
Age (QD1) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Survey Language
% Respondents That Desire
Additional Info From City

8.1 29.2

26.7 28.7

25.7 22.0

30.6 39.0

24.1 21.4

23.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 Full time Part time Self
employed
HomemakerStudent Retired Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Employment Status (QD3) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents That Desire
Additional Info From City
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Question 19 Please briefly describe the topic.

FIGURE 31 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DESIRED FROM CITY
Table 19 compares the top five topics of interest in 2018, 2022, and 2025 and shows that three of the top five categories have remained consistent over time (among residents who expressed interest in receiving additional information from the City). New to the 2025 top five is information about roadwork, construction, and traffic control.

TABLE 19 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DESIRED FROM CITY BY STUDY YEAR ATTENTION PAID TO CITY GOVERNMENT The final question in this section asked respondents to rate how attentive they are to the issues, decisions, and activities of city government using a scale of very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive.

Overall, 16% of respondents claimed to be very attentive to matters of city government, 39% somewhat attentive, and 29% slightly attentive. Another 11% of respondents confided they do

24.6 17.0

13.9 8.2

6.4 5.8

5.7 5.4

5.3 2.8

2.8 2.6

2.5 1.7

1.2 0.7

0.6 0.5

4.6 2.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Future planning, developments, zoning
Safety, crime activity, reports, solutions
Roadwork, construction, traffic control
Community events, activities
City Council agenda, minutes
Housing, residential development
Trash, recycling, waste management
City budgeting, allocation of funds
Senior programs, activities, resources
School information, issues
Street cleaning, recycling, landscaping, city maintenance Homeless issues in general
City ordinances, codes, enforcement
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Voting information, outcomes
Environmental issues, concerns
Employment opportunities
Emergency preparedness
Animal, pest control
Property, short-term rental guide, resources
% Respondents Who Desire Additional Info
2025 2022 2018
Future planning,
developments,
zoning
Future planning,
developments,
zoning
Future planning,
developments,
zoning
Safety, crime
activity, reports,
solutions
Community events,
activities
Safety, crime
activity, reports,
solutions
Roadwork,
construction, traffic
control
City Council
agenda, minutes
Community events,
activities
Community events,
activities
Safety, crime
activity, reports,
solutions
Homeless issues in
general
City Council
agenda, minutes
Trash, recycling,
waste management
Information about
road work, traffic
control
Study Year
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 not pay any attention to the activities of their city government and 5% were unsure or declined to state (Figure 32). When compared to 2022, the percentage of respondents who were unsure or indicated they are not at all attentive to the issues, decisions, and activities of city government exhibited statistically significant increases.

Question 20 How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of your city government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
FIGURE 32 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY ISSUES BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 33-35 display how reported attentiveness to city government differed across subgroups of Cypress residents. Notably, attention paid to city government shared a positive relationship with length of residence and age, with those who have lived in the City at least 10 years and individuals 55 years of age or older being the most attentive. At the other end of the spectrum, young residents (under 25), those of mixed/other ethnicities, individuals who completed the survey in Korean, and homemakers were the least likely to describe themselves as being very or somewhat attentive to the issues, decisions, and activities of city government.

43.6 43.5

29.4 0.9 1.3

15.9 17.6 16.5

39.1 28.6

29.3 11.2† 8.8 7.9 2.3†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Not at all
attentive
Slightly
attentive
Somewhat
attentive
Very
attentive
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FIGURE 33 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY ISSUES BY YEARS IN CYPRESS & AGE FIGURE 34 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY ISSUES BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE

12.6 18.4 13.7 19.2 18.1

12.1 31.9

37.2 47.6

49.1 46.1
Very
attentive

9.8 10.6

24.0 17.9 12.7
Smwt
attentive

39.5 42.6 34.0

32.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Cypress (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents

19.5 9.2

15.8 22.4

12.4 18.7

42.4 33.0

40.1 48.0

22.7 16.6 21.5

13.0 14.5
Very
attentive

10.9 36.5

43.5 42.7
Smwt
attentive

37.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent English Spanish Korean
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership Status
(QD2)
Survey Language
% Respondents
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 FIGURE 35 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY ISSUES BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS, OVERALL SATISFACTION & SATISFACTION WITH

COMMUNICATION

18.4 15.5

28.7 17.6 14.8

34.0 44.0

40.2 39.2

42.5 33.5

32.4 9.4

16.8 20.4 Very
attentive

13.9 33.0 45.5

14.0 Smwt
attentive

41.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Full time Part time Self
employed
HomemakerStudent Retired Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Employment Status (QD3) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Satisfaction With Communication (Q16)
% Respondents
Background & Demographics
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS TABLE 20 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE Table 20 presents the key demographic
information collected during the survey
by study year. Because of the probabilitybased sampling methodology used in this study, the results shown in the table
are representative of adult residents in
the City of Cypress. The primary motivation for collecting the background and demographic information was to provide
a better insight into how the results of
the substantive questions of the survey
vary by demographic characteristics, and
ensure that the resulting sample
matched the profile of Cypress’ adult
population on key characteristics (see
Appendix A for more details).
2025 2022 2018
Total Respondents 675 707 748
Years in Cypress (Q1)
Less than 5 18.3 21.0 17.4
5 to 9 16.5 16.9 14.2
10 to 14 12.8 10.4 12.0
15 or more 51.6 51.3 56.0
Prefer not to answer 0.8 0.5 0.4
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 10.9 10.1 12.9
25 to 34 16.5 13.9 14.0
35 to 44 17.8 18.6 16.9
45 to 54 19.4 19.3 21.9
55 to 64 17.3 16.2 16.5
65 or older 17.3 17.7 16.9
Prefer not to answer 0.7 4.1 0.9
Home Ownership Status (QD2)
Own 64.9 65.3 66.2
Rent 31.6 29.1 28.5
Prefer not to answer 3.4 5.5 5.2
Employment Status (QD3)
Full time 50.0 49.5 56.3
Part time 5.9 7.0 6.3
Self employed 9.0 8.8 0.0
Home- maker 7.6 5.9 2.9
Student 3.5 2.5 7.9
Retired 18.4 22.1 18.6
Between jobs 1.8 0.0 2.9
Prefer not to answer 3.9 4.2 5.1
Work Commute Status (QD4)
Working from home 10.2 11.8 N/A
Commuting outside home 35.6 34.4 N/A
Mixture of both 16.9 18.4 N/A
Do not work / Prefer not to answer 37.3 35.4 N/A
Gender (QD6)
Male 46.0 46.7 49.3
Female 48.5 51.3 47.2
Prefer not to answer 5.6 2.0 3.5
Ethnicity (QD7)
Af Amer / Black 5.0 4.3 2.7
Asian American 36.5 33.9 26.4
Caucasian / White 31.0 38.3 37.6
Latino / Hispanic 21.5 18.5 18.6
Mixed or other 4.4 3.4 7.1
Prefer not to answer 1.7 1.6 7.6
Survey Language
English 86.4 90.4 87.3
Spanish 5.3 3.6 7.2
Korean 8.3 5.9 5.6
Study Year
Methodology
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Cypress to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided the many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who indicated there is a topic or issue they’d like to receive more information about from the City (Question 18) were subsequently asked to describe their topic of interest (Question 19). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 43) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. The final questionnaire was also professionally translated into Spanish and Korean to allow for data collection in English, Spanish, and Korean.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of Cypress households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Cypress had the opportunity to be randomly selected for the survey. Once selected at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone numbers for adult residents.

Individuals were subsequently recruited to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Cypress residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passcode. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data collection, True North began placing telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampled residents that had yet to participate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.

Methodology
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Telephone interviews averaged 18 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 675 completed surveys (583 English, 36 Spanish, and 56 Korean) were gathered online and by telephone between March 18 and March 23, 2025.

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to estimate the opinions of all adult residents of the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 675 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 38,003 adult residents3 had been interviewed.

Figure 36 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.7% for questions answered by all 675 respondents.

FIGURE 36 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demographic characteristics such as length of residence and age of the respondent. Figure 36 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

3. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2023 5-Year Estimate. 675 Respondents
± 3.7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Methodology
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by age and ethnicity according to Census estimates.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES Copyright © 2025 True North Research, Inc. Page 1 City of Cypress Community Opinion Survey Final Toplines (n= 675) March 2025 Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____? Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Cypress. Were conducting a survey about important issues in Cypress and we would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 14 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If needed: Your responses to the survey will be confidential.

Section 2: Quality of Life
To begin, Id like to ask you a few questions about what it is like to live in Cypress.

Q1 How long have you lived in the City of Cypress?
1 Less than 1 year 3%
2 1 to 4 years 15%
3 5 to 9 years 17%
4 10 to 14 years 13%
5 15 years or longer 52%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Randomize A-D, always ask E last
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Cypress as a place to live 43% 47% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0%
B Cypress as a place to raise a family 49% 38% 9% 1% 0% 2% 1% C Cypress as a place to retire 31% 36% 14% 4% 2% 12% 1% D Cypress as a place to work 19% 29% 15% 3% 1% 30% 3%
E The overall quality of life in Cypress 37% 50% 10% 1% 0% 2% 0% Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 2
Q3
What do you like most about Cypress that the city government should make sure to preserve in the future? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Public safety, low crime rate 23%
Parks, recreation areas 18%
Clean, well-maintained, landscaping, trees 14%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 13%
Quiet, friendly town, family oriented 11%
Good schools 8%
Open space areas, nature preserves 7%
Police, fire department 6%
Infrastructure, streets, sidewalks 5%
Small town atmosphere 4%
Community activities, events 3%
Fewer homeless than other communities 3%
Public library 2%
Minimal traffic congestion 2%
Everything, keep it as it is 2%
Community, Senior Center 2%
Restaurants, shopping opportunities, small
business 2%
Location, accessibility 2%
Balance of business vs residential
construction 2%
Diversity in general 2%
Q4
If the city government could change one thing to make Cypress a better place to live, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Not sure / Cannot think of any 20%
No changes needed / Everything is okay 15%
Limit growth, development 7%
Address homeless issues 7%
Improve public safety, crime, drugs 6%
Improve shopping, dining opportunities 5%
Enforce traffic laws 4%
Maintain, add park and recreation facilities 4%
Provide more affordable housing 3%
Reduce traffic congestion 3%
Improve, maintain landscaping 3%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 3
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads,
streets 3%
Provide more events, entertainment for
different ages 3%
Add, improve safety of bike lanes,
sidewalks 2%
Clean, beautify public spaces 2%
Improve Lincoln area, buildings, streets,
landscape 2%
Improve, education, provide more schools 2%
Provide more police presence 2%
Improve City government, leadership 2%
Address parking issues 1%
Section 3: City Services
Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Cypress.

Q5
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Cypress is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 37%
2 Somewhat satisfied 42%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 9%
4 Very dissatisfied 3%
98 Not sure 9%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q6 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

Randomize.

Extremely important
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Providing police and crime prevention
services 69% 19% 8% 3% 1% 0%
B Providing fire protection and emergency
medical services 71% 25% 2% 0% 1% 0%
C Providing services to seniors 36% 41% 18% 3% 2% 0%
D Managing traffic in the city 48% 37% 12% 3% 0% 0%
E Maintaining city streets and roads 59% 34% 5% 0% 1% 0% F Managing growth and development 38% 38% 18% 4% 2% 1%
G Providing recreation programs for all ages 36% 39% 20% 3% 1% 1% H Maintaining parks and recreation areas 53% 37% 8% 1% 1% 0% Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 4
I Providing cultural and performing arts 22% 33% 30% 12% 3% 1% J Promoting economic development for a
healthy business community 33% 42% 20% 2% 2% 1%
K Keeping public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 45% 42% 11% 1% 1% 0%
L
Holding special community events like
summer concerts in the park and holiday
celebrations
23% 35% 29% 11% 1% 1%
M Addressing homelessness 61% 23% 11% 3% 1% 0%
N Maintaining the Citys financial stability 57% 32% 9% 0% 1% 0% Q7
For the same list of services I just read, Id like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Citys efforts to: ____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If satisfied or dissatisfied, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Provide police and crime prevention
services 47% 35% 6% 3% 8% 1%
B Provide fire protection and emergency
medical services 53% 31% 2% 1% 13% 1%
C Provide services to seniors 24% 35% 5% 1% 32% 3%
D Manage traffic in the city 33% 39% 15% 5% 6% 2%
E Maintain city streets and roads 45% 40% 9% 3% 2% 1%
F Manage growth and development 25% 37% 12% 6% 18% 2%
G Provide recreation programs for all ages 33% 38% 7% 1% 19% 2% H Maintain parks and recreation areas 43% 41% 6% 3% 5% 1% I Provide cultural and performing arts 22% 41% 8% 2% 25% 2% J Promote economic development for a
healthy business community 23% 41% 8% 2% 22% 2%
K Keep public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 46% 40% 5% 1% 8% 1%
L
Hold special community events like summer
concerts in the park and holiday
celebrations
39% 37% 5% 2% 16% 2%
M Address homelessness 21% 35% 19% 9% 15% 1%
N Maintain the Citys financial stability 28% 34% 7% 2% 27% 3% Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 5
Q8 Overall, how
safe is the City of Cypress as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
1 Very safe 58%
2 Somewhat safe 38%
3 Somewhat unsafe 3%
4 Very unsafe 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Section 4: Priorities
The City of Cypress has limited financial resources to provide local services and projects desired by residents. Because it cant fund every service and project, the City must set priorities.

Q9
As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so.

Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

Here is the (first/next) one:_____. Should this item be a high, medium or low priority for the City or should the City not spend any money on this item? Randomize
High priority
Medium
priority
Low priority
Should not
spend money
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Make more resources and City services
available online for residents 31% 36% 24% 4% 4% 1%
B Refurbish and improve the amenities at
existing community parks 36% 44% 17% 2% 1% 1%
C Maintain streets and roads in good
condition 73% 21% 4% 0% 1% 0%
D Provide incentives to attract new employers
and jobs to the City 33% 40% 17% 5% 5% 1%
E Work with property owners to revitalize
older, outdated commercial centers 36% 38% 19% 4% 2% 1% F Attract more entertainment options to
Cypress for families, kids, and adults 26% 38% 25% 6% 4% 1% G Provide safe routes to school to encourage
more kids to walk and bike to school 53% 30% 10% 3% 3% 1% H Increase the availability of electric vehicle
(EV) charging stations for public use 11% 20% 38% 25% 6% 0% Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 6
If Q9F=1, ask Q10.

Q10
You indicated that attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults should be a high priority. Do you have any specific entertainment options that youd like available in the City of Cypress? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe them to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 31%
Concerts, events, plays 16%
Multi-cultural events, festivals 15%
Large community park for all ages 9%
Entertainment fun center 9%
Movie theater, cinemas 8%
Downtown area with shops, cafes,
entertainment 8%
Community theater 7%
Restaurants, high-end dinning 6%
Public swimming pool, aquatics 4%
Bowling alley, arcades 3%
Sports bar 3%
Movies at the park 3%
Arts, crafts center 1%
Skating areas (roller, ice) 1%
Nightlife, clubs 1%
Dog park 1%
Racetrack 1%
Section 5: Community Events
Q11
Next, Im going to read a short list of community events in Cypress. For each that I read, please indicate whether you or other members of your household have attended the event in the past two years.

Randomize
Yes
No
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Spring Egg Hunt 19% 75% 4% 1%
B Concerts on the Green 47% 49% 2% 1%
C Salute to America 18% 74% 6% 2%
D National Night Out 9% 84% 5% 1%
E Cypress Community Festival 46% 49% 3% 1%
F Cypress Run 24% 72% 2% 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 7
G State of the City 10% 82% 6% 2%
H Womens Conference 6% 89% 4% 1%
I Holiday Sing 20% 76% 3% 2%
Only ask items in Q12 where Q11=1.

Q12 How would you rate your experience attending the _____? Would you say it was excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
Read in Order
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Spring Egg Hunt 41% 44% 10% 0% 0% 2% 4%
B Concerts on the Green 51% 39% 8% 0% 1% 0% 1%
C Salute to America 55% 29% 8% 1% 0% 5% 3%
D National Night Out 47% 31% 13% 0% 2% 2% 5%
E Cypress Community Festival 44% 44% 7% 1% 1% 2% 2%
F Cypress Run 44% 44% 7% 0% 1% 2% 2%
G State of the City 47% 35% 9% 2% 0% 2% 5%
H Womens Conference 47% 38% 7% 0% 0% 0% 8%
I Holiday Sing 52% 36% 7% 0% 0% 4% 1%
Q13
Do you have any suggestions for how to improve community events in Cypress? If yes, ask: Please describe your suggested improvement. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No suggestions / City is doing a good job 50%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 21%
Provide more advertising, promotions 8%
Provide more variety, diversity of events,
performers 5%
Focus on other community priorities 2%
Community, business involvement 1%
Provide more events, concert dates 1%
Provide more parking in general, including
disabled parking 1%
Keep politics out of events 1%
Improve public safety 1%
Provide more variety of vendors 1%
Provide more events for seniors 1%
Provide shuttles for events 1%
Lower prices, fees, give incentives 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 8
Section 6: Communication
Q14
What information sources do you primarily use to find out about City of Cypress news, information and programming? Dont read list. Record up to first 4 responses.

If mentions social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., ask: Would that be the Citys social media, non-city sources, or both? If both, check appropriate sources in City Sources and Other Sources.

City Sources
1 City Newsletter/The Progress 44%
2 Senior Newsletter/Along the Way 5%
3 Cypress Central smart phone app 7%
4 Citys website 32%
5 Email notification from City 21%
6 Minute with the Mayor videos 1%
7 Letters or postcards from the City
mailed to home 19%
8 Flyers or brochures (displayed at
public facilities) 13%
9 Street banners 25%
10 City Council Meetings 4%
11 Citys Facebook 14%
12 Citys Instagram 10%
13 Citys X/Twitter 1%
14 Cable Channel 36 0%
Other Sources
15 Social Media (not a City source) 16%
16 Internet/websites (not Citys site) 10%
17 Local newspapers (print or online) 6%
18 Radio 1%
19 Television (general) 1%
20 Community events 2%
21 Friends/Family/Associates 15%
22 Other 3%
23 Do Not Receive Information about City 5%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 9
If Q14=17, ask Q15. Otherwise skip to Q16.

Q15 Which local newspaper do you read most often? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

The Orange County Register 37%
Not sure, depends, read multiple 24%
Event-News Enterprise 19%
Prefer not to answer 18%
Voice of OC 7%
LA Times 2%
Q16
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Citys efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, local media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 28%
2 Somewhat satisfied 45%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 14%
4 Very dissatisfied 4%
98 Not sure 9%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q17
Do you have any suggestions for how the City could improve the way it communicates with you? If yes, ask: Please describe your suggested improvement. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No suggestions 68%
More emails 5%
More newsletters, deliver to everyone
weekly, bi-weekly 4%
More social media 4%
Increase frequency, details of outreach in
general 3%
More flyers, brochures 2%
More postal mail 2%
Improving City's mobile app 2%
Send text message alerts 2%
More street banners 2%
Not aware of Citys communication efforts,
sources 2%
More Town Hall meetings, open door
meetings 1%
Improve Citys website 1%
Newspaper 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 10
Q18 Is there a particular topic or issue that youd like to receive more information about from the City?
1 Yes 26% Ask Q19
2 No 64% Skip to Q20
99 Prefer not to answer 10% Skip to Q20
Q19 Please briefly describe the topic. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Future planning, developments, zoning 25%
Safety, crime activity, reports, solutions 17%
Roadwork, construction, traffic control 14%
Community events, activities 8%
City Council agenda, minutes 6%
Housing, residential development 6%
Trash, recycling, waste management 6%
City budgeting, allocation of funds 5%
School information, issues 5%
Senior programs, activities, resources 5%
Homeless issues in general 3%
City ordinances, codes, enforcement 3%
Street cleaning, recycling, landscaping, city
maintenance 3%
Voting information, outcomes 3%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 3%
Environmental issues, concerns 2%
Property, short-term rental guide, resources 1%
Emergency preparedness 1%
Animal, pest control 1%
Employment opportunities 1%
Q20
How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of your city government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
1 Very attentive 16%
2 Somewhat attentive 39%
3 Slightly attentive 29%
4 Not at all attentive 11%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 11
Section 7: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 In what year were you born? Year coded into age categories shown below. 18 to 24 11%
25 to 34 16%
35 to 44 18%
45 to 54 19%
55 to 64 17%
65 or older 17%
D2 Do you own or rent your residence in Cypress?
1 Own 65%
2 Rent 32%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
D3
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, self-employed, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now?
1 Employed full-time 50% Ask D4
2 Employed part-time 6% Ask D4
3 Self-employed 9% Ask D4
4 Student 8% Skip to D6
5 Homemaker 3% Skip to D6
6 Retired 18% Skip to D6
7 In-between jobs 2% Skip to D6
99 Prefer not to answer 4% Skip to D6
D4 Are you currently working from home, commuting to a workplace outside of your home, or a mixture of both?
1 Working from home 16%
2 Commuting to a workplace outside
home 55%
3 Mixture of both 26%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
D5 When you commute to a workplace outside of your home, approximately how many miles is your commute, one-way?
Less than 5 14%
5 to 9 9%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 City of Cypress Community Survey March 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 12
10 to 14 18%
15 to 19 20%
20 to 29 18%
30 to 39 9%
40 or more 4%
Prefer not to answer 9%
D6 What is your gender?
1 Male 46%
2 Female 48%
3 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D7 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 African-American/Black 5%
2 American Indian or Alaskan Native <1%
3 Asian -- Korean, Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Indian, Filipino or other
Asian
36%
4 Caucasian/White 31%
5 Latino/Hispanic 21%
6 Middle Eastern 3%
7 Pacific Islander <1%
8 Mixed Heritage 1%
98 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Cypress.

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Survey Language
English 86%
Spanish 5%
Korean 8%
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 14.

FROM: Peter Grant, City Manager
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Adopt the Strategic Plan and Six Month Objectives

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Strategic Plan and six month objectives.

DISCUSSION
The City Council establishes major City goals and objectives through its strategic planning process and the Strategic Plan is the primary tool by which the City Council improves services and preserves Cypress' high quality of life. It guides budget development and is the foundation by which the City manages program objectives, implementation and accountability.

The City Council met on April 16 to review the Strategic Plan, develop new six-month objectives, and discuss the City's strengths and accomplishments during the past six months. The Strategic Plan and six-month objectives are attached.

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Six-month Objectives
Strategic Plan and Accomplishments - April 2025

CITY OF CYPRESS

SIX-MONTH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
April 2025 – October 2025
Updated: May 7, 2025 A
THREE-YEAR GOAL: MAINTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES

WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS
DONE
ON

TARGET REVISED

1. June 9, 2025 Public Works
Director
Recommend options for streamlining capital
improvement projects to increase efficiency and contain costs

2. August 25, 2025 Public Works
Director
Recommend an agreement for an organizational and
best practices review of the Public Works department

3. Sept. 8, 2025 Public Works
Director
Provide an update and options to phase/adjust the Myra
Avenue pump station No. 1 project scope

4. Ongoing Public Works
Director &
Finance Director
Pursue outside funding to offset the cost of upgrading
Myra Avenue pump station No. 1

5. FUTURE Public Works
Director
Recommend an agreement to update the Sewer System
Master Plan

CITY OF CYPRESS

SIX-MONTH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
April 2025 – October 2025
Updated: May 7, 2025 B

MAINTAIN FINANCIAL STABILITY AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS
DONE
ON

TARGET REVISED

1. June 9, 2025 Finance Director Recommend an agreement with a new firm to perform the City’s annual financial statement audits

2. Sept 22, 2025 Planning Director Recommend an economic development plan that includes advanced location analytics and commercial
real estate information platforms

3. Sept. 30, 2025 Finance Director Recruit an over-hire Finance Manager as part of the department’s succession plan

CITY OF CYPRESS

SIX-MONTH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
April 2025 – October 2025
Updated: May 7, 2025 C
THREE-YEAR GOAL: ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC SAFETY

WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS
DONE
ON

TARGET REVISED

1. June 30, 2024 Police Chief &
RCS Director
Launch the S.A.I.L.S. senior citizen crime prevention
and safety program

2. June 30, 2025 Police Chief Conduct a team building workshop for Police department managers and supervisors

3. August 6, 2025 Police Chief
working with
Anaheim Union
HS District
Establish an ongoing e-bike safety program with
Lexington Junior High School

4. By Sept. 30, 2025 Police Chief Provide Emergency Operations Center training to City staff

5. On-going Police Chief
working with
Cypress School
District
Explore a campus safety partnership with Cypress
School District

CITY OF CYPRESS

SIX-MONTH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
April 2025 – October 2025
Updated: May 7, 2025 D
THREE-YEAR GOAL: ENHANCE RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS
DONE
ON

TARGET REVISED

1. July 10, 2025 Ad hoc subcommittee
working with the City
Manager
Report progress/recommendations on park amenities to
the City Council

2. August 25, 2025 Ad hoc subcommittee
working with the City
Manager
Report progress/recommendations regarding Cypress
Community Festival to the City Council

3. Sept. 8, 2025 RCS Director Recommend updates to the Non-Profit Grant Program policy

4. Sept. 22, 2025 RCS Director working
with RCS
Commission
Recommend a scope of work for a firm to lead public
engagement and develop conceptual design options for
the expansion of Baraldi Sycamore Park

5. Sept. 30, 2025 RCS Director Establish Arnold Cypress Park utilization and staffing plan

CITY OF CYPRESS

SIX-MONTH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
April 2025 – October 2025
Updated: May 7, 2025 E
THREE-YEAR GOAL: MAINTAIN HIGH QUALITY AND HIGH VALUE SERVICES FOR THE COMMUNITY

WHEN WHO WHAT STATUS COMMENTS
DONE
ON

TARGET REVISED

1. May 12, 2025 City Clerk Report 2025 Community Survey findings to the City Council

2. July 14, 2025 Public Works
Director
Recommend a scope of work for a third-party review of
the solid waste franchise

3. July 14, 2025 City Attorney Recommend updates to the Municipal Code to reflect state smoking restrictions and present options for
additional regulations

4. August 25, 2025 City Manager & City
Clerk
Recommend a communication policy to the City Council

5. August 29, 2025 City Manager & City
Clerk working with
Communications
LAB
Complete internal brand/logo development and present
an update and community engagement plan to the City
Council

6. August 29, 2025 Public Works
Director & Finance
Director
Implement an online procurement platform to improve
the bidding process and vendor outreach

7. Sept. 30, 2025 Planning Director &
RCS Director
Recommend adjustments to align City/RCS District
boundaries through the Local Agency Formation
Commission
City of Cypress
Strategic Planning Retreat
April 16, 2025

CITY OF CYPRESS VISION STATEMENT
Cypress is a safe and welcoming community delivering excellent services for our residents, neighborhoods, and businesses

CITY OF CYPRESS MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Cypress, guided by our core values, will utilize our resources in concert with community partners to provide an exceptional city to live, work, and play

CORE VALUES
The City of Cypress Core Values
● Integrity
● Accountability
● Transparency/Fiscal Prudence
● Teamwork
● Responsiveness to the Community
THREE-YEAR GOALS 2023-2026 (not in priority order)
● Maintain infrastructure and facilities
● Maintain financial stability and promote economic activity ● Enhance and maintain public safety
● Maintain high quality and high value services for the community ● Enhance recreation facilities and programs
Accomplishments/Achievements in the last six months:
• Met all Housing Element and zoning requirements with the state • First phase of Cypress University Level Up
• Homewood Suites was named #1 in the country
• City’s Stormwater Program had a successful audit
• City Council team building workshop
• Received GFOA award for budget
• New Public Works Director
• Hired seven new full-time staff
• Financial stability
• Celebrate Cypress events
• More engagement with the Commissions
• Non-profit grant workshop
• Successful first district election
• Reduced lawsuits
• Halloween contest was a success
• Passage of Measure S
• Launched community-wide survey
• Replaced data center
• Crime rates down 27% this year
• Added $1.5 million to the pension trust
• Completed Council Member onboarding
• Arnold Cypress Park nearing completion
• City Council workshop recordings are now online
• The Square received award nomination
• Police department promoted five new supervisors
• Completed Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
• Launched closed captioning on City Council broadcast
• Technology in the Police department has been updated and increased: bodyworn cameras, dash cameras, license plate readers, etc. • The Square won OC Innovating Housing Award
• Smoother City Council meetings with less descension and distraction • Police department increased partnerships with the school districts CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 15.

FROM: Fred Galante, City Attorney
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Consider an Ordinance Updating Municipal Code Sections 2.2-11 and 2-2.20 Relating to Voting Procedures in City Council Meetings Governing Abstentions and Reconsideration

RECOMMENDATION
Consider approving the First Reading of an Ordinance, by title only, updating Municipal Code sections 2.2-11 and 2-2.20 relating to voting procedures in City Council meetings governing abstentions and reconsideration.

DISCUSSION
At the March 24 City Council meeting, City Council held a discussion regarding how abstentions from City Council votes are counted and directed the City Attorney to return with an Ordinance for consideration.

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney drafted the attached Ordinance.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Ordinance
01004.0001 2003523.2
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2-2.11 AND 2-2.20 OF THE CYPRESS

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VOTING PROCEDURES IN CITY COUNCIL

MEETINGS GOVERNING ABSTENTIONS AND RECONSIDERATION
WHEREAS, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Cypress (the “City”) is authorized to establish rules of conduct for its proceedings pursuant to Government Code section 36813; and
WHEREAS, the conduct of City Council meetings is governed by Section 2 of the City’s Municipal Code and Robert’s Rules of Order; and
WHEREAS, Cypress Municipal Code Section 2.2-11 subsection (e) currently requires a council member to be on the prevailing side if he/she wants to make a motion to reconsider their previous vote; and
WHEREAS, Cypress Municipal Code Section 2-2.20 currently counts abstentions as a vote in favor of a particular motion; and
WHEREAS, the City intends for abstentions to be handled in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order per Cypress Municipal Code Section 2-2.11(f); and WHEREAS, by adoption of this Ordinance, the City Council wishes to amend Cypress Municipal Code Sections 2-2.11 and 2-2.20 to modify their voting procedures regarding abstentions and motions to reconsider.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the above Recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. Subsection 2-2.11(e) of the Cypress Municipal Code is hereby revised as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):
““§ 2-2.11 Council meetings-Rules of debate.
. . .
(e) Motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the council may be made only on the day such action was taken. It may be made either immediately during the same session or at a recessed or adjourned session thereof. Such motion must be made by one on the prevailing side or a member who abstained from the vote, but may be seconded by any council member and may be made at any time and have precedence over all other motions or, while a council member has the floor, it shall be debatable.” SECTION 3. Section 2-2.20 of the Cypress Municipal Code is hereby revised as follows (additions in bold underline; deletions in bold strikethrough):
“§ 2-2.20 Same-Same-Disqualification and abstention.
01004.0001 2003523.2
No city council member shall be permitted to disqualify him/herself if such disqualification results in a tied vote unless such disqualification shall have been approved by the city attorney or by vote of the remainder of the council. Unexcused disqualification and abstentions shall be counted by the city clerk as a vote in favor of the particular motion.”
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any other provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from its adoption.

SECTION 6. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of _________, 2025. _______________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
01004.0001 2003523.2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the _____ day of ___________, 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 16.

FROM: Scott Minikus, Council Member
DATE: 05/12/2025
SUBJECT: Consider a Proclamation Recognizing May as Jewish American Heritage Month

RECOMMENDATION
Consider a proclamation recognizing May as Jewish American Heritage Month.

DISCUSSION
At the April 28 City Council meeting, Council Member Minikus requested the City Council consider a proclamation recognizing the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month.

A proclamation has been prepared and is attached for consideration.

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Proclamation

JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
MAY 2025
WHEREAS, Jewish American Heritage Month is celebrated every May to honor the significant contributions and rich history of Jewish Americans to the fabric of our nation; and
WHEREAS, Jewish Americans have played a vital role in shaping the cultural, economic, scientific, and social landscape of the United States, contributing to the advancement of arts, education, business, medicine, and public service; and WHEREAS, the Jewish community in Cypress has been an integral part of our city’s diverse and vibrant cultural mosaic, bringing with them a deep commitment to family, faith, and community; and
WHEREAS, Jewish Americans continue to foster mutual understanding, tolerance, and respect, promoting the values of equality, justice, and liberty; and WHEREAS, it is important to recognize the experiences, resilience, and strength of Jewish Americans, as well as their ongoing contributions to our society; and WHEREAS, the celebration of Jewish American Heritage month provides an opportunity to reflect on the historical struggles and achievements of Jewish Americans and to celebrate the enduring spirit of the Jewish community in Cypress and beyond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Cypress City Council does hereby proclaim the month of May 2025, as JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH in Cypress, to celebrate the history, culture and contributions that Jewish Americans have made to American society and the City of Cypress.
__________________________________
David Burke

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
Dated: May 12, 2025

Cypress City CouncilMay 12, 2025

Cypress City Council
May 12, 2025