CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT EN VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MARCH 2026
The Phase I ESA also identified an HREC associated with a 2,000-gallon, two-compartment UST used for gasoline and diesel fuel. The UST, located in the former golf course maintenance area near Lexington Drive (now 4511 Katella Avenue; APN 241-221-32), was removed in March 2004. Due to the removal of the UST, regulatory oversight and closure, limited impacts below risk thresholds, and subsequent redevelopment of the site, the former UST is considered an HREC and no longer presents a hazardous environmental condition associated with the Buildout Area.
Additionally, the Phase I ESA identified one potential BER associated with the age of the buildings on site, which may include ACMs or LBP. In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, a comprehensive asbestos survey would be required prior to demolition. All identified ACMs and suspect materials would be removed by a certified asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, through compliance with applicable regulations, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving ACMs, and impacts would be less than significant.
The identified presence of a CREC, an HREC, and a BER in association with the Buildout Area represents a potentially significant impact associated with creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. To address this potentially significant impact, the Phase I ESA recommended preparation and implementation of an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan to safely manage the suspect ACMs and LBP associated with the existing buildings within the Buildout Area and the notification of the OCHCA as required in the case closure summary from 1996 for the CREC. No additional subsurface investigations were recommended. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to implement these recommendations, as detailed in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
Based on the analysis provided above, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulatory requirements, including SCAQMD Rule 1403, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, requiring implementation of the recommendations provided in the Phase I ESA. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, project impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.9.3: Would the project emit hazardous emIssIons or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are five schools located within 0.25 mile of the Buildout Area :
• Grace Christian School, a religious school located at 4545 Myra Avenue; • Del Sol School, a non-public school located at 5400 Myra Avenue; • Little School of the West, a preschool located at 5471 West Cerritos Avenue; • Miracle Land Preschool, a preschool located at 4371 West Cerritos Avenue; and • Sycamore Creek Charter School, located at 4321 West Cerritos Avenue.
4.9-14 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (03/10/26)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MARCH 2026
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 BUILDOUT PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
As described above, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to hazardous materials with compliance with federal, State, and local regulations for the management of hazardous materials. In addition, the proposed residential and nonresidential uses within the Buildout Area would not present a hazard associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment as these uses are not anticipated to use, store, dispose or transport large volumes of hazardous materials. Hazardous substances associated with these uses are typically limited in both amount and use such that they can be contained without impacting the environment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Project impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.4: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Database searches of the Buildout Area, including a GeoTracker search and a search of Superfund sites, determined that the Buildout Area is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, is not included on the Cortese List compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and is not a recorded Superfund site. As part of the Phase I ESA for the Buildout Area, a comprehensive government records database search was conducted to identify potential environmental concerns within a specified radius of the Buildout Area. The regulatory database search results indicated the Buildout Area was listed in multiple databases, including but not limited to: AST, California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Tank, Cleanup Sites, Department of Toxic Substances Control's Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HAZNET), Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Small Quantity Generator (RCRA-SQG).
Although the Phase I ESA identified these listings, none were determined to be RECs or HRECs.
Additionally, while the Phase I ESA concluded that the Buildout Area is not associated with any active RECs, it is associated with one CREC, one HREC, and one BER, which include:
• Four underground storage tanks: two 10,000-gallon USTs, one 2,000-gallon UST, and one 1,000- gallon UST, which were used to store unleaded gasoline and diesel for maintenance vehicles.
These USTs were removed in 1988 under the oversight of the OCHCA. Following their removal, soil and groundwater remediation was conducted between 1989 and 1993 using soil vapor extraction and groundwater treatment systems. The site was granted regulatory case closure in 1996 by OCHCA, which confirmed that contamination levels were reduced below thresholds of concern. The closure requires notification of OCHCA if a change in land use is proposed. The proposed project includes changes to the existing land uses in the Buildout Area, so a copy of this Draft EIR and the NOC will be provided to OCHCA.
• One underground storage tank: a 2,000-gallon, two-compartment UST used for gasoline and diesel fuel. The UST, located in the former golf course maintenance area near Lexington Drive (now 4511 Katella Avenue; APN 241-221-32), was removed in March 2004. Due to the removal P:\A-E\CCP2201.0S LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (03/10/26) 4.9-15 SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 BUI LOO UT PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT EN VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MARCH 2026
of the UST, regulatory oversight and closure, limited impacts below risk thresholds, and subsequent redevelopment of the site, the former UST is considered an HREC and no longer presents a hazardous environmental condition associated with the Buildout Area. • Due to the age of the existing on-site structures, including barns and other buildings, the potential presence of ACMs and LBP represents a BER. No sampling was conducted as part of the Phase I ESA. However, should renovation or demolition of these older structures occur, ACMs and LBP could pose a hazard to workers and occupants if not properly identified and managed. As such, adherence with SCAQMD Rule 1403, which requires that a comprehensive asbestos survey be conducted prior to demolition, would ensure that potential ACMs and LBP would not expose workers or building occupants during construction and demolition activities.
As discussed in Response 4.9.2, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be potentially significant, but would be reduced to less than significant with adherence to existing regulatory requirements, including the notification of OCHCA due to the proposed change in land use and SCAQMD Rule 1403, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, requiring implementation of the recommendations provided in the Phase I ESA. In addition, as the Buildout Area is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.9.5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Buildout Area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Buildout Area is located approximately 0.3 mile north of JFTB Los Alamitos. The facilities at JFTB Los Alamitos include two runways and associated taxiways, ramp space, and hangars. According to the ALUC's 2017 AELUP for JFTB Los Alamitos, the Buildout Area is located in the FAA's Part 77 Notification Area (Exhibit D1) and the AELUP height restriction zone for JFTB Los Alamitos (Exhibit D2).12 Height limitations are imposed on projects within a height restriction zone so that structures or trees (1) do not obstruct the airspace required for takeoff, flight, or landing of aircraft at an airport, or (2) are not otherwise hazardous to the landing or taking off of aircraft. On July 18, 2024, the ALUC found the Specific Plan consistent with the AELUP for JFTB Los Alamitos.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Buildout Area because any future development within the Buildout Area would be required to comply with all appropriate FAA standards and requirements, including Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1, detailed below, which requires that the FAA be notified of any proposed structure(s) that would penetrate the 100 to 1 imaginary surface that surrounds the runway at JFTB Los Alamitos. The FAA would then be responsible for reviewing the height of the 12 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2017. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. Amended August 17, 2017.
4.9-16 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (03/10/26)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MARCH 2026
SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 BUILDOUT PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
proposed structures and determining whether they pose a potential aviation hazard. With adherence to the regulatory standards provided in Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the Buildout Area's proximity to a public airport or public use airport, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. As shown in General Plan Safety Element Exhibit SAF-5, 13 evacuation routes within the City include Ball Road, a west-to-east arterial, and Valley View Street, a north-to-south arterial.
Although the proposed project would include future development within the Buildout Area of up to 1,791 additional residential units and approximately 440,000 square feet of non-residential floor area, the Buildout Area is not located along either of the emergency evacuation routes identified above.
All emergency evacuation activities are coordinated by the City Police Chief. The Police Chief would issue evacuation orders based on information gathered from emergency experts. Evacuation operations would be conducted by law enforcement agencies, highway/road/street departments, and public and private transportation providers. 14 Future development projects within the Buildout Area would be required to conform with the adopted emergency response or evacuation plan established by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.7: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's (CAL FIRE) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for the Orange County region, there are no portions of the City in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). 15 As such, the proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires. Future developments under the proposed project would be required to conform with applicable City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City's General Plan goals and policies as detailed in Section 4.9.4, Regulatory Setting, and the City's Building Code, including general fire safety provisions consistent with the California Fire Code; 16 automatic, on-site fire 13 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan Safety Element. Emergency Evacuation Routes Map (Exhibit SAF-5). Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/11369/638061699910 600000 (accessed August 2025).
14 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Geology and Seismic Hazards.
15 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map30.pdf (accessed May 5, 2025). 16 City of Cypress. Cypress Municipal Code. Chapter 5. Website: https://ecode360.com/43161112 (accessed August 2025).
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (03/10/26) 4.9-17 SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 BUI LOO UT PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT EN VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MARCH 2026
protection systems, such as sprinklers in multi-occupancy buildings; and maintenance of certain vegetation that poses a fire hazard risk. 17 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and no mitigation is required.
4.9.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts related to significant hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be significant prior to mitigation.
4.9.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.9.8.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following regulatory compliance measure includes existing regulations that are applicable to the proposed project and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The City considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they are not mitigation measures.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1 Federal Aviation Regulation Title 14 Part 77. A future project applicant/developer shall notify the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) of any proposed
structure(s) that would penetrate the 100 to 1
imaginary surface that surrounds the runway at Joint
Forces Training Base Los Alamitos at least 45 days prior to beginning construction.
4.9.8.2 Mitigation Measures
Future development facilitated under the proposed project would be required to implement the following mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a future project applicant/developer shall demonstrate the recommendations provided in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared for the Buildout Area have been, or will be, implemented.
Recommendations provided in the Phase I ESA include the following:
• Preparation and implementation of an Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) Program in order to safely manage the suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or leadbased paint (LBP) associated with the existing structures located within the Buildout Area; and
17 City of Cypress. Cypress Municipal Code. Article 1 Building Code. Website: https://ecode360.com/ 43161122?highlight=wildfire&searchld=27276884112912523#43161122 (accessed May 6, 2025).
4.9-18 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (03/10/26) DRAFT EN VI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPO RT SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 BU ILDOUT PROJECT M ARCH 2026 CYPRESS, CALIFO RNIA
• Providing a copy of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Notice of Completion (NOC) to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) in order to notify them of the proposed change in land use facilitated under the proposed project.
4.9.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
4.9.10 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for hazards and hazardous materials.
The cumulative impact area for hazards and hazardous materials is the City.
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the cumulative impact that the proposed project is likely to cause in combination with other projects recently approved or proposed in the City. The Buildout Area and surrounding vicinity are largely urbanized with residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
As the area continues to develop, implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the eight related projects identified in Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, of this Draft EIR could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Some of the related projects identified in Table 4.A have undergone environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which included an analysis of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. According to the EIRs prepared for the Shea Properties Mixed Use Development Project (Related Project 1), Melia Homes -Citrus Square Project (Related Project 2), and the Los Alamitos Medical Center Project (Related Project 7), impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials would either be less than significant or no impact would occur with implementation of the projects.
Further, the EIRs determined that cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. In addition, the Goodman Commerce Center Project (Related Project 3) was analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which determined that all impacts relating to related to hazards and hazardous materials would either be less than significant, or no impact would occur. The Sycamore Creek Charter School Project (Related Project 6) and 4562 Katella Avenue Project (Related Project 8) were determined to be exempt from CEQA review under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines (for infill development) and Notices of Exemptions (NOEs) were prepared. In order for a project to be exempt under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project cannot be located on a hazardous materials site. As such, development of the related projects in combination with the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The LTP Modern Machine Project (Related Project 5) and 8561 Belmont Street Project (Related Project 4) would also be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which would include an analysis of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and the identification of any mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, if necessary.
P:\A-E\CCP2201.0S LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (03/10/26) 4.9-19 SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 BUI LOO UT PROJECT
CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MARCH 2026
For the proposed project, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Each related project is required to address any issues related to hazardous materials or wastes. Federal, state, and local regulations require compliance to protect against contamination from hazardous materials. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials are not considered to be cumulatively considerable.
4.9-20 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (03/10/26)
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-1
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section evaluates the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality conditions from construction and implementation of the Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (proposed project). The analysis in this section is based on the Master Plan of Drainage for Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project, 4961 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA (Drainage Report)
1 (Appendix H-1), the Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan, Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (PWQMP) 2 (Appendix H-2), the Water Supply
Assessment, Specific Plan 2.0 Buildout Project (WSA)3(Appendix N), and the Environmental Impact Report Soils and Geology Issues, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 4961 Katella Avenue and 5100 Cerritos Avenue, Cypress, California (Geotechnical Investigation) 4 (Appendix F) that were prepared
for the proposed project.
4.10.1 Scoping Process
The City of Cypress (City) received six comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). For copies of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). No comment letters included comments related to hydrology and water quality.
4.10.2 Methodology
The evaluation of potential impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with implementation of the project is based on a review of existing site conditions, the local, regional, State, and federal standards and regulatory documents, available hydrological data, land uses and project design changes in pre- and post-project stormwater flows; and proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) for control of surface runoff and reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff. The evaluation also incorporated findings and recommendations from the Drainage Report and PWQMP.
4.10.3 Existing Environmental Setting
4.10.3.1 Watersheds
The Buildout Area is located within the Coyote Creek Subwatershed of the larger San Gabriel River Watershed. The San Gabriel River Watershed covers approximately 689 square miles, primarily in eastern Los Angeles County, with a smaller portion in northwestern Orange County. The Coyote Creek Subwatershed drains approximately 185 square miles to its confluence with the San Gabriel River, 85.5 square miles of which lie in north Orange County, with the remainder in Los Angeles County. The main tributary of the Coyote Creek Watershed is Coyote Creek, which flows from 1 TAIT & Associates, Inc. 2025a. Master Plan of Drainage for Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project, 4961 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA. September 16. (Appendix H-1)
2 TAIT & Associates, Inc. 2025b. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Specific Plan 2.0 Buildout Project. October 29. (Appendix H-2)
3 Stetson Engineers, Inc. 2025. Water Supply Assessment, Specific Plan 2.0 Buildout Project. March 17. (Appendix N)
4 Geotechnologies, Inc. 2024. Environmental Impact Report Soils and Geology Issues, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 4961 Katella Avenue and 5100 Cerritos Avenue, Cypress, California. May 2. (Appendix F) S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -2 Riverside County and empties into the San Gabriel River just above its tidal prism. The San Gabriel River flows into the Pacific Ocean west of Seal Beach.5,6 The Buildout Area is also located within the jurisdictional boundary of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). For planning purposes, the Santa Ana RWQCB uses a watershed classification system that divides surface waters into hydrologic units (HUs), hydrologic areas (HA), and hydrologic subareas (HSA). As designated by the Santa Ana RWQCB, the Buildout Area is located within the Los Angeles-San Gabriel River HU, the Anaheim HA Split, and the Anaheim HSA Split.7
4.10.3.2 Drainage
Under existing conditions, the southern portion of the Buildout Area generally drains south towards the Katella Avenue Storm Drain, the northwestern portion of the Buildout Area drains west towards the Lexington Drive Storm Drain, and a small portion of the Buildout Area in the north drains north towards the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain. The Drainage Report identifies six existing Drainage Areas (A through F) in the Buildout Area, as described below and depicted in Figure 4.10-1: Existing Condition Drainage Areas.
• Drainage Area A is located at the southernmost end of the Buildout Area and includes approximately 5.19 acres of land. Drainage Area A is developed with the race course driveway entrance, surface asphalt parking, and an existing building. Stormwater within Drainage Area A generally drains south along the race course entry driveway towards Katella Avenue. At the intersection of Katella Avenue and Siboney Street, flows drain west via a curb and gutter towards a catch basin located approximately 1,400 feet west of the intersection. Stormwater runoff is conveyed via this catch basin into the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. The Katella Avenue Storm Drain begins as a 33-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Winner’s Circle. From there, the storm drain line flows west and incrementally increases in diameter until eventually leaving the City boundary at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Lexington Drive as a 48-inch RCP.
5 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2018. Water Quality and Watersheds: San Gabriel River Watershed. Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/ regional_program/Water_Quality_and_Watersheds/san_gabriel_river_watershed/summary.shtml (accessed March 2026).
6 John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. 2014. Lower San Gabriel River Watershed Management Program.
Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/ watershed_management/san_gabriel/lower_sangabriel/LowerSGR_WMP1.pdf (accessed March 2026). 7 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1995b. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin, Chapter 1: Introduction, Figure 1-1: Santa Ana Region. January 24. Updated June 2019 to include approved amendments.
LSA LEGEND
0 300 600 'ii.iii:iiiiiN
FEET
SOURCE: TAIT & Associates l:\C\CCP2201.0S0\G\Existing_Draining_Areas .ai.ai (9/24/2024)
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE SUB-AREA BOUNDARY
SUB-AREA FLOW PATH
STORM DRAIN FLOW PATH
EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE
SUBAREA 10
SUBAREA ACREAGE
NOOE ELEVATION
ASSUMED INVERT ELEVATION
OUTFALL /11 DRAINAGE AREA "A"
OUTFALL #2 DRAINAGE AREA •s·
OUTF All #'3 DRAINAGE AREA "C"
OUTFALL f4 DRAINAGE AREA "D"
- OUTFALL #5 DRAINAGE AREA "E" - OUTFALL #5 DRAINAGE AREA "F" FIGURE 4.10-1
Specific Plan 3.0 Bui/dout Area Project
Existing Condition Drainage Areas
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -4 This page intentionally left blank
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-5 • Drainage Area B is located at the southern end of the Buildout Area, northwest of Drainage Area A, and includes approximately 12.55 acres of land. Drainage Area B is developed primarily with surface asphalt parking with a small portion consisting of landscaping and temporary horse stables. Stormwater within Drainage Area B generally drains south towards a series of catch basins located at the southern end of the parking area. A portion of the surface parking is depressed and acts as a detention basin. Flows enter the catch basins where stormwater is conveyed east and then south through an existing storm drain. This storm drain line then connects to an existing 39-inch public storm drain main located in Katella Avenue. • Drainage Area C is located in the southeastern portion of the Buildout Area, east of Drainage Area B, and includes approximately 7.66 acres of land. Drainage Area C is developed with surface asphalt parking. Stormwater within Drainage Area C generally flows south towards a series of catch basins located at the southern end of the parking area. Runoff collected from these inlets is conveyed through the private 18-inch storm drain constructed as part of the commercial development located just east of the race course entry driveway and connects to the 18-inch storm drain within Winner’s Circle. This storm drain line then connects to an existing 33-inch public storm drain main located in Katella Avenue. • Drainage Area D is located in the center of the Buildout Area, spanning from the western Buildout Area boundary to the eastern Buildout Area boundary, and includes approximately
59.44 acres of land. Drainage Area D is developed with surface asphalt parking, the race course grandstand, and horse barn facilities. Stormwater within Drainage Area D generally flows west towards the Lexington Drive storm drain line. A trench drain collects runoff from north of the grandstand and conveys it south before it confluences with an existing 24-inch storm drain line in Lexington Drive which picks up runoff from south of the grandstand. Stormwater then discharges to an open channel that conveys flows west. The open channel receives additional overland flow from the horse stables and discharges to another existing 48-inch storm drain line within Lexington Drive. The storm drain line within Lexington Drive ultimately discharges to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain.
• Drainage Area E is located in the northwestern portion of the Buildout Area, north of Drainage Area D, and includes approximately 22.20 acres of land. Drainage Area E was part of the former Cypress Golf Club, which included two man-made ponds. The golf course area has since been redeveloped, and one of the ponds has been filled in for use as a temporary horse barn area and the other as a water feature in the infield of the expanded race course. The previous golf course ponds had an underdrain system with a pump that discharged flows to the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain. This pump is currently not in use. Stormwater within Drainage Area E generally flows north to the pond located in the center of Drainage Area E, where it enters a storm drain line. The storm drain line then discharges into the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain located north of the Buildout Area. The Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain begins as a 48-inch RCP at Longden Street, and slopes west along Cerritos Avenue until it leaves the City boundary as a 60-inch RCP. • Drainage Area F is located in the northeastern portion of the Buildout Area, north of Drainage Area D and east of Drainage Area E and includes approximately 35.09 acres of land. Drainage Area F consists of the dirt race course and landscaped infield, including two man-made ponds in S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -6 the center of Drainage Area F. Stormwater within Drainage Area F generally sheet flows towards the center of the Drainage Area F where the ponds are located. These ponds act as a natural detention system with no existing connection to the public storm drain system.
Ultimately, all existing stormwater from the Buildout Area discharges to the Los Alamitos Channel. The Los Alamitos Channel is an engineered channel that flows through the Countyoperated Rossmoor Detention Basin and discharges to the San Gabriel River, which ultimately flows into the Pacific Ocean near Seal Beach.
4.10.3.3 Surface Water Quality
According to the PWQMP (Appendix H-2), receiving waters for the Buildout Area include the Cerritos Avenue Storm Channel, the Katella Avenue Storm Channel, the Walker Street Storm Channel, the Los Alamitos Channel, Coyote Creek, the San Gabriel River (Reach 1), the San Gabriel River Estuary, San Pedro Bay (near/off-shore zones), and Alamitos Bay.
According to the most recent United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved 303(d) list (2024), the San Gabriel River (Reach 1) is impaired for pH, oil and grease, and indicator bacteria; the San Gabriel River Estuary is listed as impaired for metals (nickel and copper), dissolved oxygen, indicator bacteria, chlordane, chlorine, and dioxin; San Pedro Bay (near/off-shore zones) is listed as impaired for pesticides (chlordane, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], and total DDT), Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toxicity, copper, and Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE); and Alamitos Bay is impaired for dissolved oxygen, indicator bacteria, copper, pesticides (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane [DDD] and DDT), and PCBs. The most recent USEPA approved 303(d) list (2024) does not list any impairments for the Cerritos Avenue Storm Channel, the Katella Avenue Storm Channel, the Walker Street Storm Channel, the Los Alamitos Channel, or Coyote Creek.
8 Although the Buildout Area is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB, the receiving waters with listed impairments discussed above fall under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Los Angeles RWQCB has adopted Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that would be applicable to the proposed project for pH and indicator bacteria for the San Gabriel River (Reach 1); nickel, copper, indicator bacteria, and dioxin for the San Gabriel River Estuary; all listed impairments for San Pedro Bay (near/off-shore zones); and indicator bacteria, copper, pesticides (DDD and DDT), and PCBs for Alamitos Bay. Additionally, TMDLs for oil and grease for the San Gabriel River (Reach 1); chlordane and chlorine for the San Gabriel River Estuary; and dissolved oxygen for Alamitos Bay are anticipated in 2037 and TMDLs for dissolved oxygen for the San Gabriel River Estuary is anticipated in 2031.9
8 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. 2024 California Integrated Report. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2024-integratedreport.html (accessed April 2025). 9 Ibid.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-7
4.10.3.4 Groundwater
According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Buildout Area overlies the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin,
10 which underlies a coastal alluvial plain in
the northwestern portion of Orange County. The basin is bound on the northwest and the north by the Los Angeles-Orange County line, on the northeast by the Whittier Fault Zone and consolidated rocks of the Puente Hills and Chino Hills, on the east by consolidated rocks of the Santa Ana Mountains, on the south by consolidated rocks of the Laguna Hills and San Joaquin Hills, and on the southwest by the Pacific Ocean. Groundwater recharge to the basin is derived from percolation of Santa Ana River flow, infiltration of precipitation, and injection into wells. 11 The Coastal Plain of the
Orange County Groundwater Basin has a surface area of 350 square miles, a storage capacity of 38,000,000 acre-feet.
12 For management purposes, groundwater basins are designated in the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) as Groundwater Management Zones. The Buildout Area is within the Orange County Groundwater Management Zone in the Lower Santa Ana River Basin. The Orange County Groundwater Management Zone is bounded to the north by the Chino Hills and Santa Ana Mountains, to the east by State Route 55 (SR-55) and the Irvine Groundwater Management Zone, to the south by the Pacific Ocean, and to the west by a low topographic divide approximated by the Orange County/Los Angeles County line.13
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, groundwater within the Buildout Area has a historic groundwater depth of less than 10 feet below ground surface. Exploratory borings conducted as part of the field investigation indicated that groundwater currently ranges from approximately 5 to
12.5 feet below ground surface.
4.10.3.5 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater in the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin is primarily sodiumcalcium bicarbonate based. In general, groundwater total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations range from 232 to 661 milligrams per liter (mg/L), with an average of 475 mg/L. Groundwater impairments include salinity (from seawater intrusion), colored water (from natural organic materials), high nitrates, and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).14 10 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). n.d.-a. Basin Boundaries Data Viewer. Website:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://gis.water.ca.gov/arcgis/rest/services/G eoscientific/i08_B118_CA_GroundwaterBasins/FeatureServer (accessed March 2026). 11 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Coastal Plains of Orange County Groundwater Basin. February 27. 12 Ibid.
13 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1995a. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin. January 24. Updated June 2019 to include approved amendments. 14 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Coastal Plains of Orange County Groundwater Basin. February 27.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -8
4.10.3.6 Flooding
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0116J (December 3, 2009), the Buildout Area is located within Zone X, which corresponds to areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance flooding (500-year flood). This designation indicates a very low likelihood of flooding within the Buildout Area.
The Buildout Area is downstream of several dams, including Prado Dam, located approximately 23 miles northwest of Cypress in Riverside County, and Carbon Canyon Dam, located approximately 14 miles away in the northeastern portion of the City of Brea. According to the City of Anaheim’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,15 which included a modeled dam-failure inundation map for these dams, the Buildout Area is within the Prado Dam inundation zone, but not the Carbon Canyon Dam inundation zone.16 Prado Dam is an earth-filled dam built in 1941 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on the Santa Ana River near the City of Corona in Riverside County. It is the primary flood control facility of the Santa Ana River watershed and its reservoir and related recreation areas include an area of more than 11,500 acres.17 There are no large open bodies of water in the vicinity and the proposed project is therefore not at risk of seiche inundation. The Buildout Area is approximately 5.7 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is outside the tsunami inundation zone. Although the levee inundation zone of Coyote Creek/Carbon Creek is located west of the Buildout Area, the Buildout Area itself is not within this inundation area.18
4.10.3.7 Soil and Erosion Potential
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service online soil survey, the soils mapped within the Buildout Area include urban land-Metz-Pico complex, Bolsa silt loam, San Emigdio fine sandy loam, and water. The Buildout Area is generally underlain by artificial fill, alluvial deposits, and disturbed soils associated with existing development. Soils in the Buildout Area are typically welldrained and moderately susceptible to erosion under existing conditions. Slopes within the site are generally mild, and no steep or highly erodible areas are present. Due to the urbanized nature of the site and the presence of impervious surfaces, existing soil erosion potential is low.
4.10.4 Regulatory Setting
The following section describes the federal, state, regional, and local regulatory framework applicable to analyzing potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality from development of the proposed project.
15 City of Anaheim. 2022. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. May 18. 16 City of Anaheim. 2022. Be Ready Anaheim – Know the Hazards. May 18. Website: https://gis.anaheim. net/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=18a98741d67f49ccb4021813182688be&page=BeReady-Anaheim&views=Dam-Inundation (accessed March 2026). 17 City of Anaheim. 2022. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. May 18. 18 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). n.d.-b. Flood Risk Map Web Viewer. Website:
https://gis.lfpz.water.ca.gov/lfpz/ (accessed March 2026).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-9
4.10.4.1 Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act. In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (now referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) was amended to require that the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States from any point source be effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 1987, the CWA was again amended to require that the USEPA establish regulations for the permitting of stormwater discharges (as a point source) by municipal and industrial facilities and construction activities under the NPDES permit program. The regulations require that Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) discharges to surface waters be regulated by an NPDES permit.
The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for water bodies and have those standards approved by the USEPA. Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses for a particular water body (e.g., wildlife habitat, agricultural supply, fishing), along with water quality criteria necessary to support those uses. Water quality criteria are set concentrations or levels of constituents (e.g., lead, suspended sediment, and fecal coliform bacteria) or narrative statements that represent the quality of water that support a particular use. Because California had not established a complete list of acceptable water quality criteria for toxic pollutants, the USEPA Region 9 (Pacific Southwest) established numeric water quality criteria for toxic constituents in the form of the California Toxics Rule (CTR).
When designated beneficial uses of a particular water body are being compromised by water quality, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires identifying and listing that water body as impaired. Once a water body has been deemed impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed for each impairing water quality constituent. A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards (often with a “factor of safety” included, which limits the total load of pollutants to a level well below that which could cause the standard to be exceeded). Once established, the TMDL is allocated among current and future dischargers into the water body.
Direct discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States are not allowed except in accordance with the NPDES program established in Section 402 of the CWA.
Clean Water Act, Section 303, List of Impaired Water Bodies. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), in compliance with Section 303(d) of the CWA, prepares a list of impaired and threatened waters (e.g., stream/river segments, lakes). States are required to submit their list for USEPA approval every two years. For each water body on the list, the SWRCB identifies the pollutant causing the impairment, when known. In addition, the SWRCB assigns a priority for development of TMDLs based on the severity of the pollution and the sensitivity of the uses for which the waters are being used, among other factors.
In general, once a water body has been added to a state’s list of impaired waters, it remains on the list until the state develops a TMDL and the USEPA approves it. USEPA reporting guidance provides guidelines to keep track of a state’s water bodies, from listing as impaired to meeting water quality standards. This tracking system contains a running account of all of the state’s water bodies and categorizes each based on the attainment status, which was published as the 2024 California S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -10 Integrated Report. The 2024 California Integrated Report was partially approved and partially disapproved by the USEPA on December 13, 2024. The USEPA approved the majority of the 303(d) list but identified 53 water body-pollutant combinations it is considering adding to the 303(d) list.
The 2024 California Integrated Report is the current integrated report except for the 53 water bodypollutant combinations in review by the USEPA.19 Clean Water Act, Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program.
Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the discharge of pollutants through a point source into waters of the United States is prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The NPDES program regulates the discharge of pollutants from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants and sewer collection systems, as well as stormwater discharges from industrial facilities, municipalities, and construction sites. In California, implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program is conducted through the SWRCB and the nine regional water quality control boards. The regional water boards set standard conditions for each permittee in their region, which includes effluent limitations and monitoring programs.
National Flood Insurance Act. Congress acted to reduce the costs of disaster relief by passing the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts was to reduce the need for large, publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief efforts by restricting development in floodplains. FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in a floodplain. FEMA issues FIRMs of communities participating in the NFIP. These maps delineate flood hazard zones in the community. The City of Cypress manages local stormdrain facilities, and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) is responsible for regional flood control planning within Orange County.
4.10.4.2 State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970. The federal CWA places the primary responsibility for the control of water pollution and planning the development and use of water resources with the states, although it does establish certain guidelines for the states to follow in developing their programs.
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs broad powers to protect water quality and is the primary vehicle for the implementation of California’s responsibility under the federal CWA. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and RWQCBs the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface water and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites, and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, oil, or petroleum product.
19 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. 2024 California Integrated Report. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2024-integratedreport.html (accessed April 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-11 Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality plan for its region. The regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that an RWQCB may include in its region a regional plan with water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste. The City, including the Buildout Area, is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8).
California Toxics Rule. As stated previously, because California had not established a complete list of acceptable water quality criteria for toxic pollutants, USEPA Region 9 established numeric water quality criteria for toxic constituents in the form of the CTR. The CTR provides water quality criteria for certain potentially toxic compounds for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, estuaries, and waters designated for human health or aquatic life uses. The CTR is often used by the RWQCBs when establishing water quality objectives and TMDLs. Although the CTR criteria do not apply directly to discharges of stormwater runoff, they are utilized as benchmarks for toxics in urban runoff. The CTR is used as a benchmark to evaluate the potential ecological impacts of stormwater runoff to receiving waters. The CTR establishes acute and chronic surface water quality standards for certain water bodies. Acute criteria provide benchmarks for the highest permissible concentration below which aquatic life can be exposed for short periods of time without deleterious effects. Chronic criteria provide benchmarks for an extended period of time (i.e., 4 days or more) without deleterious effects. The acute CTR criteria have a shorter relevant averaging period (less than 4 days) and provide a more appropriate benchmark for comparison of stormwater flows.
CTR criteria apply to the receiving water body and are calculated based on the probable hardness values of the receiving waters. At higher hardness values for receiving waters, certain constituents (including copper, lead, and zinc) are more likely to be complexed (bound with) components in the water column. This in turn reduces the bioavailability and resulting in potential toxicity of these metals.
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General Permit),
20 adopted by the SWRCB, regulates construction activity that includes clearing, grading, and excavation resulting in soil disturbance of at least 1 acre of total land area.
To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a future project applicant must electronically file all permit registration documents with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. Permit registration documents must include a:
• Notice of Intent (NOI),
• Risk Assessment,
• Site map,
• SWPPP,
20 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit), Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. Adopted September 8.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -12 • Annual fee, and
• Signed certification statement.
Activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as grubbing or excavation. The permit also covers linear underground and overhead projects, such as pipeline installations. Construction General Permit activities are regulated at a local level by the RWQCB.
The Construction General Permit uses a risk-based permitting approach and mandates certain requirements based on the project risk level (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3). The project risk level is based on the risk of sediment discharge and the receiving water risk. The sediment discharge risk depends on the project location and timing (i.e., wet season versus dry season activities). The receiving water risk depends on whether the project would discharge to a sediment-sensitive receiving water. The determination of the project risk level would be made by the project Applicant when the Notice of Intent is filed (and more details of the timing of the construction activity are known).
The performance standard in the Construction General Permit is that dischargers shall minimize or prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges through the use of controls, structures, and best management practices (BMPs) that achieve Best Available Technology for treatment of toxic and non-conventional pollutants and Best Conventional Technology for treatment of conventional pollutants. A SWPPP must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer that meets the certification requirements in the Construction General Permit. The purpose of the SWPPP is to (1) identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges and (2) describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as nonstormwater discharges resulting from construction activity. Operation of BMPs must be overseen by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner who meets the requirements outlined in the Construction General Permit.
The SWPPP must also include a construction site monitoring program. Depending on the project risk level, the monitoring program may include visual observations of Buildout Area discharges, water quality monitoring of Buildout Area discharges (pH, turbidity, and non-visible pollutants, if applicable), and receiving water monitoring (pH, turbidity, suspended sediment concentration, and bioassessment).
The Construction General Permit allows non-stormwater discharge of groundwater dewatering effluent if the water is properly filtered and treated to remove sediment and pollutants using appropriate technologies (e.g., filtration, settling, coagulant application with no residual coagulant discharge, minor odor or color removal with activated carbon, small-scale peroxide addition, or other minor treatment). Testing of receiving waters would also be required prior to and during the discharge. The discharge of dewatering effluent is authorized under the Construction General Permit if the following conditions are met:
• The discharge does not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-13 • The discharge does not violate any other provision of the Construction General Permit. • The discharge is not prohibited by the applicable Basin Plan. • The discharger has included and implemented specific BMPs required by the Construction General Permit to prevent or reduce the contact of the non-stormwater discharge with construction materials or equipment.
• The discharge does not contain toxic constituents in toxic amounts or (other) significant quantities of pollutants.
• The discharge is monitored and meets the applicable numeric action levels. • The discharger reports the sampling information in the annual report.
If any of the above conditions are not satisfied, the discharge of dewatering effluent is not authorized by the Construction General Permit. If the dewatering activity is determined by the RWQCB not to be covered by the Construction General Permit or other NPDES permit, and discharge of groundwater to the storm drain system is planned, then the discharger would be required to prepare a Report of Waste Discharge, and if approved the RWQCB would issue project site-specific Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under NPDES regulations.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 is a comprehensive three-bill package that Governor Jerry Brown signed into California state law in September 2014. The SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for State intervention if necessary to protect the resource. The plan is intended to ensure a reliable groundwater supply for California for years to come.
The SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdrafts of groundwater basins. The SGMA provides authority for agencies to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP) or alternative plans that demonstrate the basin is being managed sustainably. As previously discussed, the Buildout Area is located within the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and designated as a Medium Priority basin pursuant to the SGMA.21 On January 1, 2017, the OCWD, City of La Habra, and Irvine Ranch Water District submitted the Basin 8-1 Alternative to the California DWR. Elements to be included in GSPs as described in the California Water Code have been incorporated into the Alternative. Prior to the Alternative, OCWD provided five groundwater management plans. The first was published in 1989 and its last was published in 2015. Like its predecessors, the Basin 8-1 Alternative will be updated every five years per SGMA requirements. 21 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). n.d.-c. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Website:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed March 2026).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -14
4.10.4.3 Regional Regulations
Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans). The Santa Ana RWQCB has adopted a Basin Plan for their region of responsibility that delineates water resource area boundaries based on hydrological features. For the purposes of achieving and maintaining water quality protection, specific beneficial uses have been identified for each of the surface waters and groundwater management zones described in the Basin Plan. Once beneficial uses are designated, appropriate water quality objectives can be established, and programs that maintain or enhance water quality can be implemented to ensure the protection of beneficial uses. There are no beneficial uses listed in the Basin Plan for the downstream surface receiving waters for the Buildout Area. Beneficial uses of the Orange Groundwater Management Zone include municipal and domestic supply (MUN), agricultural supply (AGR), industrial service supply (IND), and industrial process supply (PROC).22 Basin Plans also establish implementation programs to achieve water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses and require monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. These objectives must comply with the State antidegradation policy (State Board Resolution No. 68-16), which is designed to maintain high-quality waters while allowing some flexibility if beneficial uses are not unreasonably affected.
Basin Plans have established narrative and numeric water quality objectives for inland surface streams, enclosed bays, estuaries and groundwater. If water quality objectives are exceeded, the RWQCBs can use their regulatory authority to require municipalities to reduce pollutant loads to the affected receiving waters. Relevant surface water quality objectives for all inland surface waters, enclosed bays and estuaries, and groundwater under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB that are applicable to the receiving waters for the Buildout Area are shown in Tables 4.10.A: Surface Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters, 4.10.B: Water Quality Objectives for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, and 4.10.C: Groundwater Quality Objectives for Groundwater Basins, respectively.23
In addition, the site-specific water quality objectives for the Orange Groundwater Management Zone are:
• Total Dissolved Solids: 580 mg/L
• Nitrate as Nitrogen: 3.4 mg/L
There are no site-specific water quality objectives listed in the Basin Plan for the surface receiving waters for the Buildout Area.
22 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1995c. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin, Chapter 3: Beneficial Uses. January 24. Updated June 2019 to include approved amendments.
23 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1995d. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin, Chapter 4: Water Quality Objectives. January 24. Updated June 2019 to include approved amendments.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-15 Table 4.10.A: Surface Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters Constituent Concentration
Algae Waste discharges shall not contribute to excessive algal growth in inland surface receiving waters.
Boron Shall not exceed 0.75 mg/L in inland surface waters of the region as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Chlorine (residual) Chlorine residual in wastewater discharged to inland surface waters shall not exceed 0.1 mg/L.
Color Waste discharges shall not result in coloration of the receiving waters that causes a nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. The natural color of fish, shellfish, or other surface water resources used for human consumption shall not be impaired.
Floatables Waste discharges shall not contain floating materials, including solids, liquids, foam, or scum, that cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Metals Varies based on hardness.
Oil and Grease Waste discharges shall not result in deposition of oil, grease, wax, or other materials in concentrations that result in a visible film or in coating objects in the water or which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Oxygen (dissolved) Waste discharges shall not cause the median dissolved oxygen concentration to fall below 85% of saturation or the 95th percentile concentration or fall below 75% of saturation within a 30- day period.
pH Shall not be raised above 8.5 or depressed below 6.5 as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Solids (suspended and
settleable)
Shall not cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses as a result of water quality factors.
Sulfides Shall not increase as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Surfactants Waste discharges shall not contain concentrations of surfactants that result in foam in the course of flow or use of the receiving water or that adversely affect aquatic life.
Taste and Odor Shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances at concentrations that cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. The natural taste and odor of fish, shellfish, or other regional inland surface water resources used for human consumption shall not be impaired.
Toxic Substances Shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels that are harmful to human health. Concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments, or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Turbidity Where natural turbidity is between 0 and 50 NTU, increases shall not exceed 20%. Where natural turbidity is between 50 NTU and 100 NTU, increases shall not exceed 10 NTU. Where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTU, increases shall not exceed 10%.
Source: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995, updated June 2019). mg/L = milligrams per liter
NTU = nephelometric turbidity units
RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -16 Table 4.10.B: Water Quality Objectives for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Constituent Concentration
Algae Waste discharges shall not contribute to excessive algal growth in receiving waters.
Chlorine, Residual To protect aquatic life, the chlorine residual in wastewater discharged to enclosed bays and estuaries shall not exceed 0.1 mg/L.
Color Waste discharges shall not result in coloration of the receiving waters which causes a nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. The natural color of fish, shellfish or other bay and estuarine water resources used for human consumption shall not be impaired.
Floatables Waste discharges shall not contain floating materials, including solids, liquids, foam or scum, which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Oil and Grease Waste discharges shall not result in deposition of oil, grease, wax or other materials in concentrations which result in a visible film or in coating objects in the water, or which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Oxygen, Dissolved The dissolved oxygen content of enclosed bays and estuaries shall not be depressed to levels that adversely affect beneficial uses as a result of controllable water quality factors. pH The pH of bay or estuary waters shall not be raised above 8.6 or depressed below 7.0 as a result of controllable water quality factors; ambient pH levels shall not be changed more than 0.2 units.
Radioactivity Radioactive materials shall not be present in the bay or estuarine waters of the region in concentrations which are deleterious to human, plant or animal life.
Solids, Suspended and
Settleable
Enclosed bays and estuaries shall not contain suspended or settleable solids in amounts which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Sulfides The dissolved sulfide content of enclosed bays and estuaries shall not be increased as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Surfactants Waste discharges shall not contain concentrations of surfactants which result in foam in the course of flow or the use of the receiving water, or which adversely affect aquatic life.
Taste and Odor The enclosed bays and estuaries of the region shall not contain, as a result of controllable water quality factors, taste- or odor-producing substances at concentrations which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. The natural taste and odor of fish, shellfish or other enclosed bay and estuarine water resources used for human consumption shall not be impaired.
Temperature All bay and estuary waters shall meet the objective specified in the Thermal Plan.
Toxic Substances The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.
Turbidity All enclosed bay and estuaries of the region shall be free of changes in turbidity which adversely affect beneficial uses.
Source: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995, updated June 2019).
AGR = agricultural supply
mg/L = milligrams per liter
mL = milliliter
MUN = municipal supply
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
pH = percentage of hydrogen
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-17 Table 4.10.C: Groundwater Quality Objectives for Groundwater Basins Constituent Concentration
Arsenic Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/L as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Bacteria, Coliform Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Total coliform numbers shall not exceed
2.2 organisms/100 mL median over any 7-day period as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Barium Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed 1.0 mg/L as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Boron Shall not exceed 0.75 mg/L as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Chloride Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed 500 mg/L as a result of controllable factors.
Color Waste discharges shall not result in coloration of the receiving waters that causes a nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses.
Cyanide Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed 0.2 mg/L as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Fluoride Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed 1.0 mg/L as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Hardness Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not be increased as a result of waste discharges to levels that adversely affect beneficial uses.
Metals Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed the following: Cadmium
0.01 mg/L; Chromium 0.05 mg/L; Cobalt 0.2 mg/L; Copper 1.0 mg/L; Iron 0.3 mg/L; Lead
0.05 mg/L; Manganese 0.05 mg/L; Mercury 0.002 mg/L; Selenium 0.01 mg/L; and Silver
0.05 mg/L, as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Methylene BlueActivated Substances Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/L as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Oil and Grease Waste discharges shall not result in deposition of oil, grease, wax, or other materials in concentrations that cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. pH Shall not be raised above 9 or depressed below 6 as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Radioactivity Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, standards of 5 pCi/L for combined radium-226 and radium-228, 15 pCi/L for gross alpha particle activity, 20,000 pCi/L for tritium, 8 pCi/L for strontium-90, 50 pCi/L for gross beta particle activity, and 20 pCi/L for uranium.
Sodium Waters with AGR Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed a sodium absorption rate of 9.
Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed 180 mg/L as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Sulfate Waters with MUN Beneficial Use Designation: Shall not exceed 500 mg/L as a result of controllable water quality factors.
Taste and Odor Shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.
Toxic Substances All waters shall be maintained free of substances in concentrations that are toxic or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
Source: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995, updated June 2019).
AGR = agricultural supply
mg/L = milligrams per liter
mL = milliliter
MUN = municipal supply
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
pH = percentage of hydrogen
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -18 Orange County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The City is a Permittee of the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County, Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062 (Orange County MS4 Permit).
24 The Orange County MS4 Permit regulates
discharges into the MS4 system in the cities and county areas within Orange County that are in the Santa Ana Region. As discussed further below, the Orange County MS4 Permit requires preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and implementation of post-construction BMPs for new development and significant redevelopment projects that qualify as Priority Development Projects.
The proposed project is considered a Priority Development Project because it involves redevelopment and the addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area.
Construction Dewatering Permit. The Santa Ana RWQCB requires a permit for discharging waste to surface waters from activities involving groundwater extraction. The General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001 (Construction Dewatering Permit)25 covers general waste discharge requirements for discharges to surface waters that pose an insignificant (de minimis) threat to water quality within the Santa Ana Region. Under this order, permittees are required to monitor their discharges of groundwater extraction waste from construction to ensure that effluent limitations for constituents are not exceeded.
Orange County Drainage Area Management Program. The Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)26 was created by the County of Orange, the OCFCD, and incorporated cities (permittees), and includes specific water pollutant requirements of the Orange County Stormwater Program. The DAMP is the principal guidance and compliance document for the countywide implementation of the Stormwater Program. It is the foundation for the permittees to implement model programs designed to prevent pollutants from entering receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.
Section 7 of the DAMP discusses issues relating to new developments and significant redevelopments.
24 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County, Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062.
25 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2020. The General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001. June 19. 26 County of Orange. 2003. Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Website: https://ocerws.ocpublic works.com/service-areas/oc-environmental-resources/oc-watersheds/documents/drainage-areamanagement-plan-7 (accessed March 2026).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-19 Model Water Quality Management Plan. The Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP)27 was developed to aid Orange County, the OCFCD, the cities in Orange County (permittees), and developers in Orange County to address post-construction urban runoff and stormwater pollution from new development and significant redevelopment projects that qualify as Priority Development Projects.
As previously discussed, Priority Development Projects are required to develop a WQMP to minimize adverse impacts of development to on-site hydrology, volume and rate of runoff, and pollutants of concern. Project WQMPs include project-specific BMPs to minimize these effects (e.g., LID, site design measures, source control BMPs). The requirements identified in the WQMPs are subject to Section 7 of the DAMP.
Technical Guidance Document. The County of Orange developed the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (Technical Guidance Document)28 in cooperation with the incorporated cities of Orange County to aid agency staff and project proponents with addressing post-construction urban runoff and stormwater pollution from new development and significant redevelopment projects in Orange County. The Technical Guidance Document serves as the technical guidance to complete the project WQMP.
Orange County Construction Runoff Guidance Manual. The Construction Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers29 presents the requirements related to construction from the DAMP. The goal of this Guidance Manual is to control pollutant discharges from construction sites. As such, it helps applicants with building and grading permits to understand the water quality requirements during the construction phase of development projects.
4.10.4.4 Local Regulations
Local Implementation Plan. The City Local Implementation Plan (LIP) is the principal guidance and compliance document specific to the City's jurisdiction for compliance with the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit. The LIP provides the description and details of the City's water quality program implementation activities. The LIP is designed to work in conjunction with the Orange County DAMP. It should be noted that the City’s LIP takes precedence over DAMP requirements.
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0. The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 contains the following provisions related to hydrology and water quality:
• Water Plan: Precise water system requirements will be determined as development projects are proposed within the Specific Plan area as part of the site plan review process and, where applicable, the subdivision map process. Water mains will be dedicated to the water company after construction and acceptance.
27 County of Orange. 2011. Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP), Exhibit 7.II. May 19. 28 County of Orange. 2013. Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/ Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), Exhibit 7.III. December 20. 29 County of Orange. 2012. Construction Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers. December.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -20 • Wastewater Plan: New development that occurs within the Specific Plan area will connect to the existing trunk sewer lines. Precise sewer system requirements will be determined as development projects are proposed within the Specific Plan area as part of the site plan review process and, where applicable, the subdivision map process. New collection lines will be offered for dedication to the City after construction.
• Drainage Plan: Because of the widely diversified land uses proposed in this Specific Plan, a combination of drainage and treatment systems may be appropriate and will be determined during the project development and design stage. The developer must obtain approval from the City Engineer for the method selected in each instance.
City of Cypress General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. The Conservation/ Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan addresses resource protection and preservation issues related to water resources. The following goals and policies would be applicable to the proposed project:
• COSR-1: Conserve groundwater and imported water resources ○ COSR-1.2: Promote the use of native trees in landscaping to conserve water resources. ○ COSR-1.3: Protect ground water resources from depletion and sources of pollution. ○ COSR-1.4: Conserve imported water by utilizing water conservation techniques, water conserving appliances, and drought-resistant landscaping.
City of Cypress Municipal Code. Chapter 13, Article IV, Cypress Water Quality, of the City Municipal Code regulates stormwater and surface runoff water quality. The Municipal Code requires compliance with the DAMP and LIP, including preparation of WQMPs for priority development projects. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit, and/or safety permit for any new development or significant redevelopment, the property owner is required to submit to and obtain the approval of the WQMP by the City.
4.10.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for hydrology and water quality impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist.
30 Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact with respect to hydrology and water quality if it would:
30 Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines allows lead agencies to apply their own thresholds of significance, provided those thresholds are supported by substantial evidence and consistent with CEQA’s requirements. Pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has developed additional thresholds of significance for hydrology and water quality impacts, as provided in the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist is provided on the City’s website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/756.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-21 Threshold 4.10.1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; Threshold 4.10.2: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);
Threshold 4.10.3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Threshold 4.10.4: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Threshold 4.10.5: Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
Threshold 4.10.6: Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; Threshold 4.10.7: Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;
Threshold 4.10.8: Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows;
Threshold 4.10.9: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam;
Threshold 4.10.10: Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; Threshold 4.10.11: Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters; consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygendemanding substances, and trash); Threshold 4.10.12: Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction;
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -22 Threshold 4.10.13: Result in increased erosion downstream; Threshold 4.10.14: Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff; Threshold 4.10.15: Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes;
Threshold 4.10.16: Be tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired;
Threshold 4.10.17: Be tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions;
Threshold 4.10.18: Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters;
Threshold 4.10.19: Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality; Threshold 4.10.20: Cause or contribute to an exceeded applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses; Threshold 4.10.21: Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat; or Threshold 4.10.22: Include new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practices (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors or odors).
4.10.6 Project Impacts
4.10.6.1 Water Quality Impacts
Threshold 4.10.1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Threshold 4.10.6: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Threshold 4.10.11: Would the project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash).
Threshold 4.10.12: Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction?
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-23 Threshold 4.10.18: Would the project have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project consists of the reasonably foreseeable buildout of a portion of the area governed by the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (Specific Plan) that includes approximately 134 acres of land (Buildout Area) in the City. The proposed project would include the development of up to 1,791 additional residential units within the Buildout Area, reflecting the remaining allowable units under the Specific Plan, and approximately 440,000 square feet of non-residential development.
Construction. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project evaluated in this Draft EIR assumes that development of the land uses allowed by the Specific Plan within the Buildout Area would require the demolition and removal of all or a substantial portion of the existing improvements associated with the LARC, including the race track and infield area, grandstand, buildings, barns and structures and three artificial lakes. That phase would be followed by the grading for and construction of specific development projects within discrete portions of the Buildout Area. Development within the Buildout Area would occur on a project-by-project basis and the specific design and sequencing of those projects cannot be determined at this time. However, future development facilitated by the proposed project would generally be required to comply with applicable construction permits and regulations associated with water quality, as detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1.
Construction activities could temporarily increase erosion and sedimentation due to ground and soil disturbance, which exposes soils. In addition, construction activities could potentially introduce pollutants into stormwater runoff if disturbed soil and chemicals associated with construction activities are conveyed into the storm drain system and/or receiving waters. Pollutants of concern during construction of future development under the proposed project include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During soil-disturbing construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions.
In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters. Sediment from increased soil erosion and chemicals from spills and leaks also have the potential to be discharged to downstream receiving waters during storm events, which can affect water quality, contribute to TMDL exceedances and impair beneficial uses.
As construction of future development associated with the proposed project is anticipated to disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, future development would be subject to the requirements of the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General Permit), 31 31 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit), Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. Adopted September 8.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -24 as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1. As required by the Construction General Permit, the Construction Contractor would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. The SWPPP would detail the BMPs to be implemented during construction. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.
If construction of future development associated with the proposed project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil and are not a part of a larger common plan, those projects would be required to comply with Section 4.106 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1. Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code requires implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion and to retain sediment on site.
Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit or Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code, including incorporation of construction BMPs, would ensure that construction impacts related to waste discharge requirements, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, increased pollutant discharge, and alteration of receiving water quality would be less than significant.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, groundwater within the Buildout Area has a historic groundwater depth of less than 10 feet below ground surface. Based on exploratory borings performed as part of the Geotechnical Investigation, groundwater within the Buildout Area is shallow, ranging from approximately 5 to 12.5 feet below ground surface. Because of the presence of shallow groundwater, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during excavation activities associated with buildout of the proposed project. In addition, removal of the three artificial lakes would require dewatering. Groundwater and water from the three artificial lakes may contain high levels of total dissolved solids, nitrate, salinity, or other constituents, or high or low pH levels that could be introduced to surface waters when dewatered water is discharged to receiving waters. Dewatering activities during excavation and removal of the three artificial lakes would be conducted in accordance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality, Order No.
R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001 (Construction Dewatering Permit), 32 as specified in
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2. This permit requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of water encountered during dewatering prior to release to the storm drain system. As a result, dewatering activities would not introduce pollutants to receiving waters at levels that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degrade water quality, increase pollutant discharge, or alter the quality of the receiving water.
The proposed project would be designed and implemented to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, policies, and plans related to water quality, stormwater management, and hydrology. Compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, which requires preparation of a SWPPP, implementation of construction BMPs, and testing and 32 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2020. The General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001. June 19.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-25 treatment of water prior to discharge to surface water, would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. In addition, compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality, result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters, result in significant alteration of receiving water quality, or result in a significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters. Impacts would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Operation. The drainage plan for the proposed project is divided into three Drainage Areas (A through C) for hydrology and drainage design and 18 Drainage Management Areas (DMAs A1, A2, B, C, D1, D2, E1, E2, F, G1, G2, H1, H2, and S1 through S5) that correspond to the anticipated location of future water quality BMPs. The proposed Drainage Areas and DMAs are discussed in detail under Thresholds 4.10.4, 4.10.5, and 4.10.15, below.
Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new uses within the Buildout Area and would increase the amount of impervious surface area within the Buildout Area compared to existing conditions, from approximately 59 percent to approximately 70 percent, due to the construction of the proposed project. Expected pollutants of concern from long-term operation of the proposed project include suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. According to the PWQMP prepared for the proposed project, potential sources of these pollutants include the following:
• Suspended Solids/Sediment: Landscaping
• Nutrients: Landscaping
• Heavy Metals and Toxic Organic Compounds: Parking lots • Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus): Parking lots, food uses, pet waste • Pesticides: Landscaping
• Oil and Grease: Parking lots
• Toxic Organic Compounds: Parking lots and commercial uses • Trash and Debris: Landscaping activities, human activities, food wastes The proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County, Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062 (Orange County MS4 Permit).
33 Compliance with the Orange County MS4 Permit is achieved through adherence to Chapter 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal Code. As required by Chapter 13-23 of the Cypress Municipal Code, and specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3, projects that qualify as new development or significant redevelopment as outlined in the Orange County MS4 Permit must comply with the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit, Orange County 33 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County, Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -26 DAMP, and the City of Cypress Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including the preparation of a project-specific WQMP to specify BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. WQMPs would specify the Source Control, Low Impact Development (LID), and Treatment Control BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Source Control BMPs are preventative measures that are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into stormwater. LID BMPs mimic a project site’s natural hydrology by using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff rather than allowing runoff to flow directly to piped or impervious storm drains. Treatment Control BMPs are structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters.
The PWQMP prepared for the proposed project (Appendix H-2) specifies the Source Control and LID BMPs proposed for the project (no Treatment Control BMPs are proposed). The BMPs specified in the PWQMP would be implemented and maintained, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3. The proposed BMPs are detailed below.
Proposed Non-Structural Source Control BMPs include education for property owners, tenants and occupants; activity restrictions; common area landscape management; BMP maintenance; spill contingency plan, uniform fire code implementation, common area litter control; employee training; housekeeping of loading docks, common area catch basin inspections; and street sweeping public streets and parking lots. Proposed Structural Source Control BMPs include storm drain system stenciling and signage; trash and waste storage areas designed to reduce pollutant introduction; use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; energy dissipation and protection of slopes and channels; vehicle wash areas; hillside landscaping; and wash water control for food preparation areas.
As discussed in the PWQMP, the proposed 18 DMAs all discharge to channels that are not susceptible to hydromodification. Therefore, no hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOCs) are present for these DMAs. Please refer to the PWQMP included in Appendix H-2 for additional details of the proposed Non-Structural Source Control BMPs, and Structural Source Control BMPs.
Proposed LID BMPs include biotreatment BMPs, including either detention basins and/or proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems (depending on the design considerations of the final buildout condition), to capture and treat stormwater runoff before discharging stormwater to the surrounding storm drain system. The proposed DMAs and water quality BMPs are discussed in detail under Thresholds 4.10.4, 4.10.5, and 4.10.15, below.
The proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern from runoff from the Buildout Area in compliance with the Orange County MS4 Permit requirements, Orange County DAMP, and City of Cypress LIP. Compliance with these requirements, including incorporation of operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern (as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3), would ensure that water quality impacts, degradation of water quality, increased pollutant discharge, and alteration of receiving water quality during project operation would be less than significant.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-27 Furthermore, future development projects facilitated by the proposed project would be evaluated for site-specific impacts relating to hydrology and water quality and would include appropriate mitigation (as necessary) to address impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degradation of water quality, increase pollutant discharges, or alter receiving water quality, and no mitigation is required.
4.10.6.2 Groundwater Supply Impacts
Threshold 4.10.2: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Buildout Area is located within the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the OCWD and designated as a Medium Priority basin pursuant to the SGMA.34 On January 1, 2017, the OCWD, City of La Habra, and Irvine Ranch Water District submitted the Basin 8-1 Alternative to the California DWR, which indicated that the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years without experiencing significant and unreasonable (1) lowering of groundwater levels, (2) reduction in storage, (3) water quality degradation, (4) seawater intrusion, (5) inelastic land subsidence, or (6) depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water, and will continue to be sustainably managed pursuant to the management actions within the Basin 8-1 Alternative, as required by the SGMA. 35 Construction. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, groundwater within the Buildout Area has a historic groundwater depth of less than 10 feet below ground surface. Based on exploratory borings performed as part of the Geotechnical Investigation, groundwater within the Buildout Area is shallow, ranging from approximately 5 to 12.5 feet below ground surface. Given these shallow conditions, temporary dewatering could be required during excavation activities. However, groundwater dewatering would be localized, short-term, and minimal, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial when compared to the total amount of groundwater stored in the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which has a surface area of 350 square miles and a storage capacity of 38,000,000 acre-feet.36 In addition, according to the Geotechnical Investigation, the predominate soil type within the Buildout Area is classified as Hydrologic Soil Group C. Group C soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly 34 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). n.d.-c. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Website:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed March 2026). 35 Orange County Water District (OCWD), City of La Habra, and Irvine Ranch Water District. 2027. Basin 8-1 Alternative. January 1.
36 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Coastal Plains of Orange County Groundwater Basin. February 27.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -28 wetted and have a slow rate of water transmission. Therefore, construction activities would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surface coverage within the Buildout Area compared to existing conditions, from approximately 59 percent to approximately 70 percent, due to the construction of the proposed project. This increase in impervious surface area within the Buildout Area would decrease on-site infiltration. However, because underlying soils already exhibit low infiltration capacity, the project is not expected to substantially alter groundwater recharge compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would also not involve direct groundwater extraction.
As discussed above, the Buildout Area is located within the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin. Operation of the proposed project would not involve direct groundwater extraction. The Golden State Water Company (GSWC) West Orange would supply water to the proposed project. According to the WSA prepared for the proposed project, GSWC West Orange’s water supply sources include groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, treated imported water, a small amount of purchased water from the City of Seal Beach through an intertie, and recycled water from the City of Cerritos. GSWC West Orange owns and operates 13 active groundwater wells located within the Orange County Groundwater Basin, with a total capacity of approximately 11,750 gallons per minute (or about 16.9 million gallons per day). Over the past 20 years, GSWC West Orange’s maximum annual total groundwater production was approximately 15,889-acre feet per year during calendar year 2013 (or about 14 million gallons per day).
As discussed in the WSA prepared for the proposed project, GSWC West Orange’s primary sources of supply would provide sufficient water supply for GSWC West Orange’s projected water demand, including the proposed project, under all conditions, over the next 20 years. Increased water use during operation of the proposed project would also not substantially affect groundwater supplies, because the groundwater basin has been sustainably managed by OCWD over the last 10 years and will continue to be sustainably managed. In addition, OCWD and GSWC West Orange coordinate in order to ensure that groundwater extracted for municipal water supplies would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.10.6.3 Drainage Patterns and Erosion Impacts
Threshold 4.10.3: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site? Threshold 4.10.13: Would the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream?
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-29 Less Than Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the southern portion of the Buildout Area generally drains south towards the Katella Avenue Storm Drain, the northwestern portion of the Buildout Area drains west towards Lexington Drive, and a small portion of the Buildout Area in the north drains north towards Cerritos Avenue. The Drainage Report identifies six Drainage Areas (A through F) for the Buildout Area under existing conditions, as described in Section 4.10.3.2 and depicted in Figure 4.10-1. There are no existing streams or rivers in the Buildout Area.
The drainage plan for the proposed project would be divided into three Drainage Areas (A through C) for hydrology and drainage design and 18 Drainage Management Areas (DMAs A1, A2, B, C, D1, D2, E1, E2, F, G1, G2, H1, H2, and S1 through S5) that correspond to the anticipated location of future water quality BMPs.
Construction. During project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions.
Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed above, as construction of future development associated with the proposed project is anticipated to disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1). The SWPPP which would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. However, as the specific design and sequencing of future development projects cannot be determined at this time, future projects may disturb less than 1 acre of soils and the Construction General Permit would not be applicable. If construction of future development associated with the proposed project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil and are not a part of a larger common plan, those projects would be required to comply with Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1). Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code requires implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion and to retain sediment on site.
Therefore, compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit or Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code, including incorporation of construction BMPs, would ensure that construction impacts related to on-site, off-site, or downstream erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
Project construction would not alter the course of a stream or river because there are no rivers and streams in the Buildout Area. As such, impacts related to substantial erosion or siltation due to alterations to existing course of stream or rivers would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Changes to the hydrologic characteristics of a stream caused by development, including increased stormwater runoff volume, high peak flows, and altered flow duration and timing, can lead to downstream erosion. According to the WQMP prepared for the proposed project, all 18 DMAs discharge to channels that are not susceptible to hydromodification. Therefore, no HCOCs are present for these DMAs, and construction of the proposed project would not result in hydromodification impacts to downstream receiving waters, including increased erosion downstream. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -30 Operation. According to the PWQMP prepared for the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface area by 11 percent within the Buildout Area from approximately 78.02 acres (59 percent) to approximately 92.39 acres (70 percent). The approximately 92.39 acres of the Buildout Area that would be impervious would not be susceptible to on-site erosion or siltation because no soil would be included in these areas.
The remaining 40.29 acres would consist of pervious surface area, which would contain landscaping that would minimize on-site erosion and siltation by stabilizing the soil. Therefore, on-site erosion and siltation impacts would be minimal.
Increases in stormwater runoff can lead to downstream erosion in receiving waters. The Drainage Report also included off-site hydrology analysis for the drainage facilities that the Buildout Area would discharge to, including the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain, the Katella Avenue Storm Drain, and the Lexington Drive Storm Drain. Under existing conditions, the 25-year storm event peak flow rate for the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain is approximately 202 cubic feet per second (cfs), at the intersection of Bloomfield Avenue and Cerritos Avenue. Analysis of the hydrology results indicated that the proposed project would not have any impacts on the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain, as the proposed project’s discharge would be less than the existing condition, and it would only occur once the 100-year high confidence peak flows have passed at the discharge location. This reduction is due to the proposed detention basin that would collect, detain, and treat stormwater before discharging stormwater to the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain. This detention basin is currently proposed to discharge at a rate of 17 cfs, but only upon the subsidence of flows in the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain.
In addition, under existing conditions, the 25-year storm event peak flowrate for the Katella Avenue Storm Drain is approximately 236 cfs. The hydrology analysis in the Drainage Report found that the proposed project would need to reduce the flows discharged to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. The proposed project would reduce the stormwater discharge to Katella Avenue Storm Drain in the postdevelopment condition by approximately 72 percent when compared to the existing condition. The proposed project is allowed to discharge directly to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain at a rate of approximately 32.84 cfs, which would significantly improve the existing storm drain system hydraulics and reduce current deficiencies within the system. As such, the proposed project would not have any adverse effects on the downstream receiving waters.
Lastly, under existing conditions, the 25-year high confidence storm event peak flow rate for the Lexington Drive Storm Drain is approximately 76.84 cfs. The Drainage Report indicated that the allowed discharge to the Lexington Drive Storm Drain is 11.33 cfs and that, due to the extensive onsite mitigation from proposed detention basins, the proposed project would not cause adverse effects to the hydraulic conditions of this facility or downstream facilities.
Overall, stormwater runoff would be collected, detained, and treated in the proposed detention basins and/or proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems, which would capture and treat stormwater runoff before discharging stormwater to the surrounding storm drain system (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3). The proposed detention basins and proprietary flowbased biofiltration systems would not be susceptible to erosion or siltation and implementation of the proposed detention basins would ensure that the proposed project would not result in increased off-site erosion or siltation. Additionally, according to the PWQMP and as discussed
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-31 above, all 18 DMAs discharge to channels that are not susceptible to hydromodification. Therefore, no HCOCs are present for these DMAs and the proposed project would not result in hydromodification impacts to downstream receiving waters, including increased downstream erosion or siltation impacts.
In addition, operation of the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river because there are no rivers and streams in the Buildout Area. As such, impacts related to substantial erosion or siltation due to alterations to existing course of stream or rivers would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. For these reasons, operational impacts related to substantial on-site, off-site, or downstream erosion or siltation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.10.4: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Threshold 4.10.5: Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Threshold 4.10.15: Would the project create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, under existing conditions, the southern portion of the Buildout Area generally drains south towards the Katella Avenue Storm Drain, the northwestern portion of the Buildout Area drains west towards Lexington Drive, and a small portion of the Buildout Area in the north drains north towards Cerritos Avenue. The Drainage Report identifies six Drainage Areas (A through F) for the Buildout Area under existing conditions, as described above in Section 4.10.3.2, Drainage, and depicted in Figure 4.10-1.
During operation of the proposed project, the Buildout Area would be divided into three Drainage Areas (A through C) for hydrology and drainage design and 18 Drainage Management Areas (DMAs A1, A2, B, C, D1, D2, E1, E2, F, G1, G2, H1, H2, and S1 through S5) that correspond to the anticipated location of future water quality BMPs.
Construction. Drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities; however, construction of the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. As discussed above and specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, project construction would either comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, or Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code, which requires implementation of construction BMPs. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct on-site surface runoff and would include detention facilities, if required, to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site does not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -32 In addition, any groundwater extracted during groundwater dewatering activities that is discharged to surface waters would be tested and treated (if necessary) to ensure that any discharges meet the water quality limits specified in the applicable NPDES permit, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2. Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 are existing NPDES requirements with which the project is required to comply. These measures would prevent substantial additional sources of polluted runoff being discharged to the storm drain system through implementation of construction BMPs that target pollutants of concern in runoff from the Buildout Area as well as testing and treatment (if required) of groundwater prior to its discharge to surface waters.
With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 and implementation of BMPs, construction impacts related to substantially altering the drainage pattern of the Buildout Area in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, exceeding the capacity of the adjacent stormwater drainage systems, or providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant. In addition, with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, construction of the proposed project would not create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. Implementation of the proposed project would require minor modifications to the existing Drainage Areas and would include the installation of Storm Drain Lines A, B, and C, as discussed in more detail below. For example, stormwater would no longer be directed to the existing race track and lakes, which would be removed as part of the proposed project. The Drainage Report identifies three Drainage Areas and 18 DMAs (DMAs A1, A2, B, C, D1, D2, E1, E2, F, G1, G2, H1, H2, and S1 through S5) for the Buildout Area under the proposed condition. The numbering convention of the Drainage Areas does not correspond exactly between the existing and proposed conditions. Table 4.10.D: Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions below is provided for clarification and comparison purposes.
Table 4.10.D: Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions Outfall Location Existing Drainage
Area
Proposed
Drainage Area
Katella Avenue Storm Drain A and B A
Winner’s Circle Storm Drain C -
Lexington Drive Storm Drain D B
Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain E C
Existing Race Track Ponds F -
Source: Master Plan of Drainage for Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project, 4961 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA. September 16 (TAIT & Associates, Inc. 2025a). (Appendix H-1) Drainage Areas A through C and DMAs A1, A2, B, C, D1, D2, E1, E2, F, G1, G2, H1, H2, and S1 through S5 for the Buildout Area under the proposed condition are also described further below and depicted in Figure 4.10-2: Proposed Drainage Areas and Figure 4.10.3: Proposed Drainage Management Areas, respectively.
LSA LEGEND
$ ---SD---
0 300 600 1000
~ .00 FG
1000.00 INV
FEET 1000.00 INV'
SOURCE: TAIT & Associates
l:\C\CCP2201.050\G\Proposed_Draining_Areas.ai (10/15/2025)
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE SUB-AREA BOUNDARY
SUB-AREA FLOW PATH
STORM DRAIN FLOW PATH
EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE
SUBAREA ID
SUBAREA ACREAGE
NODE SURFACE ELEVATION
NOOE ASSUMED INVERT
KATELLAAVE
c=J OUTF All 1 DRAINAGE AREA "A•
OUTF All 2 DRAINAGE AREA "B"
- OUlF ALL 3 DRAINAGE AREA "C"
NOlE: AERIAL IMAGERY DA TED: AUGU~
SHEA DEVELOPMENT
PER SEPARATE PERMIT
FIGURE 4.10-2
Specific Plan 3.0 Bui/dout Project
Proposed Drainage Areas
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -34 This page intentionally left blank
LSA
0 300
FEET
SOURCE: TAIT & Associates
600
LEGEND LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0
BUILDOUT PROJECT
---SD- EXISTING OFFSITE STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED ON-SITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM A
PROPOSED ON-SITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 8
PROPOSED ON-SITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM C
PROPOSED MWS SYSTEM OR APPROVED EQUAL
PROPOSED LOCATION OF PUMP STATION
IMPERVIOUS AREAS
l:\C\CCP2201.050\G\Proposed_Draining_Management.ai (10/15/2025)
PORTION TO DISCHARGE TO
KATEUA AVENUE STORM DRAIN
JJ:c 1-
FIGURE 4.10-3
Specific Plan 3.0 Bui/dout Project
Proposed Drainage Management Areas
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -36 This page intentionally left blank
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-37 • Drainage Area A consists of the east and southeast portions of the Buildout Area, southeast of Drainage Area C, and includes approximately 44.76 acres of land. Proposed development within Drainage Area A would include commercial, medium-density residential, and senior housing uses with residential densities of approximately 29.7 and 17.5 dwelling units per acre, respectively. Additionally, the proposed Moody Street Extension south of the proposed Vessels Circle Extension will drain towards Drainage Area A and be captured by proposed catch basins that will discharge to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. Stormwater within Drainage Area A would generally flow from north to south. Surface flows in this area would be conveyed to new inlet locations which would route the runoff towards a proposed storm drain line in the proposed Moody Street and Vessels Circle extensions (Storm Drain Line A). Storm Drain Line A would begin in Vessels Circle as a 24-inch RCP and would flow east to west towards Moody Street.
Along Moody Street this line would increase in size to a 36-inch storm drain system that would connect to the existing 39-inch Katella Avenue Storm Drain. The Moody Street extension would also include the construction of catch basin inlets that will ensure no surface runoff from the proposed street will spill onto Katella Avenue as it would in the existing condition.
The proposed Drainage Area A consolidated the existing Drainage Area A and Drainage Area B.
In the proposed condition, peak runoff was determined to be less than the existing stormwater runoff, which is due to the implementation of proposed detention basins within the proposed Drainage Area A. Five proposed detention basin, Basins A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5, are proposed in Drainage Area A to reduce the peak runoff from the Buildout Area, utilizing the 0.308 cubic feet per second per acre (cfs/acre) maximum discharge rate as required by the City, before ultimately discharging into the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. As discussed, the peak runoff would be greatly reduced when compared to the existing condition, which would improve the downstream system hydraulic conditions. Discharge to Katella Avenue would not exceed the existing condition discharge for the 10-, 25- and 100-year expected value storm event. ○ DMA-A1 includes approximately 7.33 acres of land, with runoff flows traveling from north to south and discharging to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-A1 is proposed to be approximately 85 percent impervious. Stormwater treatment within DMA-A1 would be provided through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Alternatively, Basin A1 may treat stormwater before discharging into the Katella Avenue Storm Drain if the final site plan design allows.
○ DMA-A2 includes approximately 6.52 acres of land, with runoff flows traveling from north to south and discharging to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-A2 is proposed to be approximately 85 percent impervious. Stormwater treatment within DMA-A2 would be provided through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Alternatively, Basin A2 may treat stormwater before discharging into the Katella Avenue Storm Drain if the final site plan design allows.
○ DMA-B includes approximately 8.86 acres of land, with runoff flows traveling from north to south. Stormwater runoff within DMA-B would discharge to the proposed storm drain line in the proposed Moody Street extension (Storm Drain Line A), which ultimately discharges to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-B is proposed to be approximately 85 percent S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -38 impervious. Stormwater treatment within DMA-B would be provided through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Alternatively, Basin A5 may treat stormwater before discharging into the Katella Avenue Storm Drain if the final site plan design allows. ○ DMA-H1 includes approximately 2.00 acres of land, with runoff flows traveling from west to east and discharging to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-H1 is proposed to be approximately 85 percent impervious. Stormwater runoff within DMA-H1 would either be treated via a proprietary flow-based biofiltration system or Basin A4. ○ DMA-H2 includes approximately 1.75 acres of land, with runoff flows traveling from west to east and discharging to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-H2 is proposed to be approximately 85 percent impervious. Stormwater runoff within DMA-H2 would also either be treated via a proprietary flow-based biofiltration system or Basin A4. ○ DMA-S3 includes approximately 1.06 acres of the proposed Vessels Circle extension and would be approximately 90 percent impervious. Within DMA-S3 runoff flows would converge to a low point near the southwest corner of DMA-C where stormwater would be captured and treated via a proprietary flow-based biofiltration system and discharged to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain.
○ DMA-S5 includes approximately 1.94 acres of the proposed Vessels Circle and Moody Street extensions and would be approximately 90 percent impervious. Within DMA-S5 runoff flows would travel from north to south and would be captured and treated via a proprietary flowbased biofiltration system and discharged to the proposed storm drain line in the proposed Moody Street extension (Storm Drain Line A) and ultimately the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. • Drainage Area B consists of the western portion of the Buildout Area, west of Drainage Area C, and includes approximately 36.78 acres of land. Proposed development within Drainage Area B would include single-family residential, medium-family residential, and senior housing uses.
Stormwater within Drainage Area B would generally flow from northeast to southwest. Surface flows in this area would be conveyed through a proposed storm drain line (Storm Drain Line B) to discharge into the existing 48-inch storm drain line that begins at Enterprise Drive and ultimately connects to the existing 48-inch Lexington Drive Storm Drain. Three detention basins, Basins B1, B2, and B3, are proposed in Drainage Area B to reduce the peak runoff from the Buildout Area, utilizing the 0.308 cfs/acre maximum discharge rate as required by the City. ○ DMA-C includes approximately 23.08 acres of land, with runoff flows traveling northeast to southwest and discharging to the Lexington Drive Storm Drain, which ultimately discharges to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-C is proposed to be approximately 80 percent impervious. Stormwater treatment within DMA-C would be provided through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Alternatively, Basin B1 may treat stormwater before discharging into the Lexington Drive Storm Drain if the final site plan design allows. ○ DMA-D1 includes approximately 6.38 acres of land, with runoff flows traveling from west to east and discharging to the Lexington Drive Storm Drain, which ultimately discharges to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-D1 is proposed to be approximately 80 percent
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-39 impervious. Stormwater treatment within DMA-D1 would be provided through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Alternatively, Basin B3 may treat stormwater before discharging into the Lexington Drive Storm Drain if the final site plan design allows. ○ DMA-E1 includes approximately 7.31 acres of land, with runoff flows traveling from north to south and discharging to the Lexington Drive Storm Drain, which ultimately discharges to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-E1 is proposed to be approximately 80 percent impervious. Stormwater treatment within DMA-E1 would be provided via either Basin B2 or through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems, ultimately discharging into the Lexington Drive Storm Drain, depending on the final site plan design. • Drainage Area C consists of the central portion of the Buildout Area, between Drainage Area A and Drainage Area B, and includes approximately 61.87 acres of land. Proposed development within Drainage Area C would include single-family residential and medium-family residential, with the remaining portion to be developed with park and recreational uses. Drainage Area C is divided by the proposed Moody Street extension, with stormwater runoff generated to the west of the street extension set to flow northeasterly and runoff produced to the east of the street extension to flow northwesterly. All surface runoff from Drainage Area C would be conveyed via a proposed storm drain line (Storm Drain Line C) to the proposed detention basin, Basin C, in the park area. Depending on the final design considerations of the ultimate buildout condition, Basin C would be designed as either an underground detention system and/or a surface detention basin that would collect and store the 100-year high-confidence storm event runoff volume. The stormwater runoff collected in Basin C would be fully retained during the storm event until the flow in the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain system has fully subsided. Then, the runoff volume stored in Basin C would be pumped out to the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain at a rate specified by the maximum conveyance capacity of the line. ○ DMA-D2 includes approximately 12.63 acres of land and is proposed to be approximately 80 percent impervious. Within DMA-D2, stormwater runoff flows would travel west to east and discharge to Basin C in the proposed park area. As discussed above, the stormwater runoff collected in Basin C would be fully retained during the storm event until the flow in the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain system has fully subsided. Then, the runoff volume stored in Basin C will be pumped out to the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain at a rate specified by the maximum conveyance capacity of the line. Stormwater treatment within DMA-D2 would be provided thought the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Alternatively, Basin C may treat stormwater if the final site plan design allows. ○ DMA-E2 includes approximately 19.83 acres of land, with runoff being routed to Basin C within the park area, similar to DMA-D2. DMA-E2 is proposed to be approximately 80 percent impervious. As discussed above, the stormwater runoff collected in Basin C would be fully retained during the storm event until the flow in the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain system has fully subsided. Then, the runoff volume stored in Basin C will be pumped out to the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain at a rate specified by the maximum conveyance capacity of the line. Stormwater treatment within DMA-E2 would be provided through the use of S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -40 proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Alternatively, Basin C may treat stormwater if the final site plan design allows..
○ DMA-F generally consist of the proposed park area and includes approximately 7.37 acres of land. DMA-F would include the proposed Basin C and would be approximately 80 percent impervious. Similar to DMAs-D2 and E2, stormwater runoff flows within DMA-F would discharge to Basin C in the proposed park area and be treated by either Basin C or through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems, depending on the final site plan design.
○ DMA-G1 includes approximately 18.71 acres of land, with runoff flows draining towards the proposed park area and Basin C. DMA-G1 is proposed to be approximately 80 percent impervious. Stormwater treatment within DMA-G1 would be provided via either Basin C in the proposed park area or through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems, depending on the final site plan design.
○ DMA-G2 includes approximately 1.94 acres of land, with runoff flows discharging to Basin A3 and ultimately to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. DMA-G2 is proposed to be approximately 80 percent impervious. Stormwater treatment within DMA-G2 would be provided via either Basin A3 or through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems depending on the final site plan design.
○ DMA-S1 includes approximately 1.74 acres of the proposed Moody Street extension and would be approximately 90 percent impervious. Within DMA-S1 runoff flows would travel from south to north and would be treated through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Once treated, stormwater would be routed to Basin C for detention and subsequent discharge to the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain. ○ DMA-S2 includes approximately 1.60 acres of the proposed Moody Street extension and would be approximately 90 percent impervious. Within DMA-S2 runoff flows would travel from south to north and would be treated through the use of proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems. Once treated, stormwater would be routed to Basin C for detention and subsequent discharge to the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain.
Drainage Area A also includes DMA-S4 and DMA-8. DMA-S4 encompasses approximately 0.23 acre of the proposed Vessels Circle extension and a portion of the land already developed as part of the Melia Homes, Belmont residential project. Within DMA-S4, the existing drainage pattern would be maintained, and runoff flows would be captured and treated via a proprietary flow-based biofiltration system and discharged to the proposed storm drain line in the proposed Vessels Circle extension (Storm Drain Line A) and ultimately the Walker Street Storm Drain.
Approximately 11.57 acres of Drainage Area A is comprised of a portion of the Grace Church property and a portion of the existing race track that will be transferred by LARC to Grace Church as part of the land swap (Lot 8, per separate agreement and as depicted in the Vesting Tentative Tract Map [VTTM]). DMA-8 includes approximately 4.18 acres of Lot 8 that would be owned by Grace Church as part of this land swap deal. This portion of the Grace Church property currently discharges
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-41 to the eastern race course lake, pursuant to a Declaration of Drainage Easement recorded on November 12, 2010, as Instrument No. 2010 in the Official Records of Orange County, California. As permitted by this easement agreement, the redevelopment of the LARC property would require an alteration in the design of the Grace Church drainage system. To preserve the existing drainage pattern of the Grace Church property, a proposed surface-level detention basin would be graded in Lot 8 (Lot 8 Basin) that intercepts the flows of the existing double 24-inch RCP line from Grace Church. Stormwater runoff within DMA-8 would either be treated via a proprietary flow-based biofiltration system or the Lot 8 Basin, depending on the final site design. The construction of the Lot 8 Basin would be done concurrently or as close to concurrently as feasible with the redevelopment of any portion of Lot 7 that would eliminate the use of the eastern race course lake.
Discharge from the Lot 8 Basin will be pumped to Storm Drain Line A within Vessels Circle, at a controlled rate of 0.308 cfs/acre of its tributary area during the 100-year storm event. All improvements to Lot 8 related to the Grace Church drainage system would be completed by the project Applicant per the Drainage Easement.
Ultimately, all stormwater from the entire Buildout Area would be discharged to the Los Alamitos Channel, consistent with existing conditions. The proposed on-site storm drain system would be adequately sized to accommodate project generated stormwater runoff and prevent on-site flooding.
As previously discussed, operation of the proposed project has the potential to introduce pollutants to the adjacent storm drain system from the proposed on-site uses. However, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3, permanent operational BMPs that target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff would be implemented and maintained throughout the life of the proposed project. Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3 is an existing NPDES requirement with which the project is required to comply. Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3 would prevent substantial additional sources of polluted runoff being discharged to the storm drain system through implementation of operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern in runoff from the Buildout Area, as discussed in more detail above under Thresholds 4.10.4, 4.10.5, and 4.10.15.
The Drainage Report (Appendix H-1) prepared for the proposed project evaluated the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of the City-owned drainage facilities, as well as proposed Capital Improvement Projects that improve the existing storm drain system deficiencies. The drainage facilities that the proposed project would discharge to are the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain, the Katella Avenue Storm Drain, and the Lexington Drive Storm Drain, which are tributary to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain. According to the City’s Master Plan of Drainage37 (City MPD), the existing Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain is severely deficient to convey the flows of the regional watershed.
However, the downstream 60-inch Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain line is recommended to be improved to a 6-foot by 4-foot reinforced concrete box (RCB) as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects. The Drainage Report determined that due to its limited capacity, the proposed project would not be discharged to the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain during the 25-year high confidence (100-year expected value) storm event. The proposed Basin C within Drainage Area C would hold the 100-year high confidence storm event volume on site and slowly release stormwater via a pump system once the storm event peak flows have passed, similar to the 37 City of Cypress. 2007. Master Plan of Drainage. May.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -42 historical existing condition. Because the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain line is recommended to be improved as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects, no other improvements are required as part of the proposed project.
The City MPD did not make any recommendations for improvements to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain, and it did not analyze this storm drain system. However, the Drainage Report determined the storm drain system to be severely deficient, lacking the capacity to convey the existing 25-year high confidence flows. Development within the Buildout Area would need to reduce the flows discharged to the Katella Avenue Storm Drain based on the storm drain’s capacity. As discussed above, the proposed basins within Drainage Area A and Drainage Area C would reduce the peak runoff by approximately 72 percent before discharging into the Katella Avenue Storm Drain, which would improve the downstream system hydraulic conditions and reduce current deficiencies within the system. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the downstream receiving systems.
According to the City MPD, the Lexington Drive Storm Drain is considered sufficient under its current conditions. With the proposed basins within Drainage Area B, the proposed project would match or reduce the peak discharge to this storm drain line when compared to the existing condition.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no adverse effects on the downstream receiving systems.
Based on the results of the Drainage Report, the proposed project would not adversely affect the downstream receiving drainage facilities. The hydrology and hydraulics of all adjacent drainage facilities were analyzed under their existing and proposed conditions, and appropriate design strategies and project design features are proposed to maintain and improve the downstream hydraulic capacity of the storm drain facilities.
With implementation of the proposed storm drain systems and detention system, operational impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume that would result in flooding would be less than significant. In addition, operational impacts related to creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Furthermore, all future physical improvements within the Buildout Area would be required to demonstrate that proposed drainage improvements would be sized appropriately to accommodate any potential increase in flow so that on-site flooding would not occur. Future development projects would also be subject to separate environmental reviews on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA.
In addition, future projects facilitated by the proposed project would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to hydrology and water quality and would include appropriate mitigation (as necessary) to address impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality. Furthermore, the Buildout Area is comprised of parcels with existing development or parcels that have been previously graded such that there are no streams or rivers traversing any portion of the Buildout Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-43 would result in a less than significant impact related to substantially altering the drainage pattern of the Buildout Area in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, exceeding the capacity of the adjacent stormwater drainage systems, or providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3. In addition, with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.10.6.4 Flooding Impacts
Threshold 4.10.7: Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Threshold 4.10.8: Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The Buildout Area is not located within a 100-year floodplain. According to FEMA FIRM No. 06059C0116J (December 3, 2009), the Buildout Area is located within Zone X, which comprises areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year flood). As the Buildout Area is not located within a 100-year floodplain, the proposed project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact, during either construction or operation of the proposed project, would occur.
Threshold 4.10.9: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Buildout Area is not located within the inundation zone of a levee; however, it is within the inundation zone of Prado Dam.38 The functionality of Prado Dam, which was originally designed in the 1930s, was enhanced by Seven Oaks Dam, which was completed in 1999 and is approximately 40 miles upstream on the Santa Ana River. During a flood, Seven Oaks Dam stores water destined for Prado Dam for as long as the reservoir pool at Prado Dam is rising.
When the flood threat at Prado Dam has passed, Seven Oaks Dam begins to release its stored flood water at a rate that does not exceed the downstream channel capacity. Working in tandem, the Prado and Seven Oaks Dams provide increased flood protection to Orange County.
Prado Dam is maintained and inspected to ensure its integrity and to ensure that risks are minimized. The USACE Dam Safety Program re-rated the dam to be a high urgency (DSAC Rating II) and was scheduled to undergo modification to the existing spillway in 2021 to address safety concerns.39 In addition, construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project was initiated in 1989, 38 City of Anaheim. 2022. Be Ready Anaheim – Know the Hazards. May 18. Website: https://gis.anaheim. net/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=18a98741d67f49ccb4021813182688be&page=BeReady-Anaheim&views=Dam-Inundation (accessed March 2026). 39 City of Anaheim. 2022. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. May 18.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -44 and is scheduled for completion in 2025.
40 The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project will increase levels of flood protection to more than 3.35 million people in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Improvements to 23 miles of the Lower Santa Ana River channel, from Prado Dam to the Pacific Ocean, are 95 percent complete, with the remaining bank protection improvements in Yorba Linda currently under construction. Improvements to the Santa Ana River channel include construction of new levees and dikes. In addition, the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project includes improvements to Prado Dam that are currently underway and are estimated to be completed in 2025. The Prado Dam embankment has been raised, and the outlet works have been reconstructed to convey additional discharges. Remaining improvements to Prado Dam include acquisition of additional land for the expansion of the Prado Reservoir, construction of protective dikes, and raising of the spillway.41 Another project currently underway behind the dam includes the Alcoa Aluminum Plant Dike, which is anticipated to protect several neighboring properties along Rincon Road in the City of Corona from a 190-year flood event. Generally, there is water impounded behind the dam during most of the year, but the reservoir can be empty during drought events.42 Although the proposed project would facilitate the construction of new structures in a dam inundation zone, the proposed project would not increase the chance of inundation from failure of Prado Dam. Additionally, the potential for dam failure is remote and the City’s emergency evacuation plans would be implemented if the dam were susceptible to rupture during heavy rain or other events. Therefore, proposed project impacts related to the exposure of people and structures to significant risk associated with flooding as a result of dam failure would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.10.10: Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The Buildout Area is relatively flat and not at risk of mudflow. The Buildout Area is also not located in an area mapped by the California Emergency Management Agency as being potentially inundated by a tsunami.43 Seiches are waves that are created in an enclosed body of water such as a bay, lake, or harbor and go up and down or oscillate and do not progress forward like standard ocean waves. There are no enclosed bodies of water within 3 miles of the Buildout Area. Due to the distance from the nearest enclosed body of water to the Buildout Area, the Buildout Area is not in a seiche hazard zone. Therefore, no impact from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur.
4.10.6.5 Impacts from Increased Impervious Surfaces
Threshold 4.10.14: Would the project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff?
40 Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency (SARFPA). 2023. SARFPA Executive Committee Meeting Minutes.
September 28.
41 Ibid.
42 City of Anaheim. 2022. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. May 18. 43 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. Solano County Tsunami Hazard Areas. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/solano (accessed March 2026).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-45 Less Than Significant Impact. According to the PWQMP prepared for the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface area within the Buildout Area by 11 percent, from approximately 78.02 acres (59 percent) to approximately 92.39 acres (70 percent), which would increase stormwater runoff within the Buildout Area. However, as discussed under Thresholds 4.10.4, 4.10.5, and 4.10.15, the proposed project would include an on-site stormwater system and detention facilities in order to control the increase in runoff within the Buildout Area such that no flooding, on- or off-site, would occur and the capacity of the downstream stormwater facilities would not be exceeded. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.10.6.6 Impacts on Impaired Water Bodies
Threshold 4.10.16: Would the project be tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the PWQMP, receiving waters for the Buildout Area include the Cerritos Avenue Storm Channel, the Katella Avenue Storm Channel, the Los Alamitos Channel, the Bolsa Chica Channel, the San Gabriel River (Reach 1), the San Gabriel River Estuary, San Pedro Bay (near/off-shore zones), Huntington Harbor, Anaheim Bay, and Alamitos Bay. According to the most recent USEPA approved 302(d) list (2024), the Bolsa Chica Channel is impaired for ammonia, indicator bacteria, and pH, Huntington Harbor is impaired for chlordane, copper, indicator bacteria, lead, PCBs, and toxicity, and Anaheim Bay is impaired for nickel, PCBs, and toxicity. The most recent USEPA approved 203(d) list (2024) does not list any impairments for San Gabriel River (Reach 1), Alamitos Bay, and San Pedro Bay (near/offshore zones).44 Construction. As discussed above, construction of the proposed project has the potential to introduce pollutants to the storm drain system from erosion, siltation, and accidental spills. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sediment to reach downstream receiving waters, which could result in decreases in dissolved oxygen levels. During construction activities, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked.
Therefore, construction has the potential to contribute to the temperature and pH impairments.
Leaks from grading and earthmoving equipment are sources of chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products if the equipment leaks and could contribute to the metals (nickel and copper) and pH impairments in downstream receiving waters. If concrete-related wastes are spilled or leaked, they could affect the pH of downstream receiving waters. Temporary or portable sanitary facilities provided for construction workers could be a source of sanitary waste and contribute to downstream indicator bacteria impairments. However, sanitary waste generated from temporary or portable sanitary facilities would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable regulations.
Project construction would not involve use of dioxin, which was banned in the United States in 1979.
Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not contribute to the dioxin impairment. 44 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. 2024 California Integrated Report. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2024-integratedreport.html (accessed April 2025).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -46 As discussed under Thresholds 4.10.1, 4.10.6, 4.10.11, 4.10.12, and 4.10.18 and required by Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit as construction of future development facilitated by the proposed project is anticipated to disturb greater than 1 acre of soil. However, as the specific design and sequencing of future development projects cannot be determined at this time, future projects may disturb less than 1 acre of soil and the Construction General Permit would not be applicable. If construction of future development associated with the proposed project would disturb less than 1 acre of soil and is not a part of a larger common plan, those projects would be required to comply with Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code during construction. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, compliance with the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented during project construction to reduce impacts to water quality and compliance with Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code requires implementation of BMPs to prevent flooding and erosion and to retain sediment on site. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on-site, as well as Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. In addition, during construction period groundwater dewatering, Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2 would ensure that pollutants are not introduced to receiving waters and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. Therefore, compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations including Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, potential construction impacts related to an increase in pollutants for which the receiving waterbody is already impaired as listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. During operation, expected pollutants of concern include suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris.
Pets utilizing the landscaped areas would be a potential source of pathogens (e.g., fecal matter) which could contribute to the indicator bacteria and dissolved oxygen impairment. Vehicles operating within the Buildout Area could be a source of heavy metals (nickel and copper) if not properly maintained. Proper maintenance would minimize the potential for leaks or spills of oils, fuels, and other contaminants. Therefore, while there is the potential for operational pollutants to contribute to the indicator bacteria, nickel, copper, pH, and temperature impairments in receiving waters, project operation would not involve the use of dioxin. All activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and the operations would not contribute to the pollutant impairment.
As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3, operational water quality BMPs would be implemented and maintained during operation to target and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the Buildout Area prior to discharge to receiving waters. The Source Control and LID BMPs specified in the PWQMP would target and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the Buildout Area, including those contributing to downstream water quality impairments. Therefore, compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3, potential operational impacts related to an increase in pollutants for which the receiving waterbody is already impaired as listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-47
4.10.6.7 Impacts on Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Threshold 4.10.17: Would the project be tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Orange County MS4 Permit, Environmentally Sensitive Areas are areas such as those designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) or waterbodies listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Buildout Area is not tributary to an ASBS.45 As discussed above, compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, and HYD-3, the proposed project would not result in an increase in pollutants for which the receiving waterbody is already impaired as listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list.
Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions in receiving waters listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.10.21: Would the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, no riparian habitat currently exists within the Buildout Area. However, five potential jurisdictional water resources currently exist within the Buildout Area, including three artificial ponds, one drainage feature, and one detention basin. The three artificial ponds are located within the LARC racetrack area and are manmade. As such, the ponds are hydrologically isolated and not subject to regulation by the USACE. However, these ponds still have the potential to be regulated by the Santa Ana RWQCB under the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code.
In addition, the field survey performed as part of the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) (Appendix C) indicated that the ponds contained hydrophytic vegetation along portions of their shoreline, including species that would be considered wetland indicators. Therefore, these portions of the ponds may be classified as wetlands under the Santa Ana RWQCB’s jurisdiction.
The existing detention basin is located along the southern Buildout Area boundary, at the northwest corner of the existing residential development located south of the Buildout Area, and the existing drainage feature extends east from this detention basin. The drainage feature originates from a culvert beneath the road just northwest of the existing parking lot. This drainage is an ephemeral, earthen bottom drainage created to carry stormwater. Sparse ruderal vegetation was observed within this drainage area. Therefore, the drainage is expected to be regulated by the Santa Ana RWQCB and CDFW; however, the BRA did not determine if it would be regulated by the USACE. The detention basin is a manmade basin entirely lined with polyethylene created to capture flows and appears to divert accumulated water into the adjacent drainage that terminates into an underground drain system. Similar to the drainage feature, the detention basin is expected to be regulated by the Santa Ana RWQCB and CDFW; however, the BRA did not determine if it would be regulated by the USACE.
45 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2017. California’s Areas of Special Biological Significance.
Website: https://www.Waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/asbs_map.shtml (accessed March 2026).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -48 According to the BRA, if impacts to these features are expected, regulatory permits may be required, including those under Section 404 of the CWA as administered by the USACE, the Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the CWA or Waste Discharge Requirements under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act as administered by the Santa Ana RWQCB, or the Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code as administered by CDFW, as detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in Section 4.4. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts on aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
4.10.6.8 Impacts on Groundwater Quality
Threshold 4.10.19: Would the project have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
Threshold 4.10.20: Would the project cause or contribute to an exceeded applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Geotechnical Investigation indicated that groundwater within the Buildout Area has a historic groundwater depth of less than 10 feet below ground surface. Based on exploratory borings performed as part of the Geotechnical Investigation, groundwater within the Buildout Area is shallow, ranging from approximately 5 to 12.5 feet below ground surface. Because of the presence of shallow groundwater, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during excavation activities. Although groundwater dewatering would be required, dewatered groundwater would be discharged to the storm drain system rather than back into groundwater and therefore would not introduce pollutants to groundwater.
Infiltration of stormwater has the potential to affect groundwater quality in areas of shallow groundwater. However, according to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project, the on-site soils are not favorable for infiltration. Specifically, on-site soils are classified as Soil Group C, which have slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and have a slow rate of water transmission. Therefore, minimal infiltration would occur on site during construction and operation.
In addition, dewatering activities during excavation and removal of the three artificial lakes would be conducted in accordance with the Construction Dewatering Permit, which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of water encountered during dewatering prior to release to the storm drain system. As a result, dewatering activities would not introduce pollutants to receiving waters at levels that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge quality, increase pollutant discharge, or alter the quality of the groundwater. Project construction and operation would also not involve groundwater injection. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade groundwater quality or result in the exceedance of water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses, and impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.10.6.9 Impacts from Stormwater Treatment Control BMPs.
Threshold 4.10.22: Would the project include new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practices (e.g., water quality treatment basin,
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-49 constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors or odors)? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would include implementation of operational BMPs to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Stormwater treatment in the Buildout Area would be provided using proprietary flow-based biofiltration systems.
Alternatively, proposed detention basins may treat stormwater before discharging into the City’s surrounding storm drain infrastructure, depending on the final site plan design. These BMPs would not result in additional impacts not already evaluated throughout this Draft EIR. These BMPs would be designed and routinely inspected and maintained to reduce impacts related to vectors and odors.
Therefore, impacts related to BMPs would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Furthermore, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to demonstrate that new or retrofitted stormwater treatment BMPs would not cause significant environmental impacts occur. Future development projects would also be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA.
Additionally, a project-specific WQMP would be required that details operational BMP maintenance and inspection plans which would minimize potential odors and vectors. Therefore, impacts related to BMPs would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.10.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Construction and operational impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3.
4.10.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.10.8.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following regulatory compliance measures are existing federal, state, and local regulations applicable to the proposed project and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Because these requirements are established by federal, state, and local law, they do not constitute CEQA mitigation measures.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 Construction General Permit. If construction of future projects associated with the proposed
project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil,
prior to commencement of construction activities
within the proposed Buildout Area, the
Construction Contractor shall obtain coverage
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities, Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ,
NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General
Permit), or any other subsequent permit. This shall
include submission of Permit Registration
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -50 Documents, including permit application fees, a
Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP), a
signed certification statement, and any other
compliance‐related documents required by the
permit, to the State Water Resources Control Board
via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report
Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities
shall not commence until a Waste Discharge
Identification Number is obtained for the project
from the SMARTS and provided to the Director of
Public Works for the City of Cypress, or designee, to
demonstrate that coverage under the Construction
General Permit has been obtained. Project
construction shall comply with all applicable
requirements specified in the Construction General
Permit, including but not limited to, preparation of
a SWPPP and implementation of construction site
best 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 stabilization of the Buildout Area, a Notice of
Termination (NOT) shall be submitted via SMARTS.
If construction of future projects associated with
the proposed project would disturb less than 1 acre
of soil, prior to commencement of construction
activities within the Buildout Area, the Construction
Contractor shall provide evidence that project
construction would comply with Section 4.106 of
the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code). Section 4.106 of 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).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-51 Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2 Construction Dewatering Permit. If groundwater dewatering is required during excavation activities,
the Applicant/City shall obtain coverage under the
General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an
Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality,
Order No. R8-2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001
(Construction Dewatering Permit). This shall include
submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage
under the permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 45 days
prior to the start of dewatering. Groundwater
dewatering activities shall comply with all
applicable provisions in the permit, including water
sampling, analysis, treatment (if required), and
reporting of dewatering-related discharges. Upon
completion of groundwater dewatering activities, a
Notice of Termination shall be submitted to the
Santa Ana RWQCB.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3 Orange County MS4 Permit/City Municipal Code.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for future
projects associated with the proposed project, the
future project Applicant shall prepare and submit a
final project-specific water quality management
plan (WQMP) to specify BMPs that would be
implemented to capture, treat, and reduce
pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff in
compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements
for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood
Control District and the Incorporated Cities of
Orange County within the Santa Ana Region
Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange
County, Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-
0062 (Orange County MS4 Permit), Orange 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 bioretention facilities meet the
hydromodification requirements of the Orange
County MS4 Permit and Chapter 13-23 of the
Cypress Municipal Code. The City Engineer/Public
Works Director, or designee, shall ensure that the
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -52 BMPs specified in the WQMP are incorporated into
the final project design of future projects associated
with the proposed project.
4.10.8.2 Mitigation Measures
Future development facilitated under the proposed project would be required to implement the following Mitigation Measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Jurisdictional Delineation. (See Section 4.4, Biological Resources)
4.10.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is required.
4.10.10 Cumulative Impacts
For the cumulative analysis related to hydrology and water quality, the cumulative projects being considered include the related projects within the same watershed as the proposed project (i.e., the San Gabriel River Watershed) and/or discharging to the same storm drain systems as the proposed project. Cumulative development in the San Gabriel River Watershed is a continuation of the existing urban pattern of development that has already resulted in extensive modifications to watercourses in the area. The area’s watercourses have been channelized, and drainage systems have been put into place to respond to the past urbanization that has occurred in this area. For the cumulative analysis related to hydrology and water quality, the cumulative projects being considered include the related projects listed in Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects and shown in Figure 4.1: Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting. These related projects are within the same watershed as the proposed project (i.e., the San Gabriel River Watershed) and/or discharge to the same storm drain systems as the proposed project (i.e., the Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain, Katella Avenue Storm Drain, and Lexington Drive Storm Drain).
In addition, projects in the City also require the preparation and approval of a hydrology study would be required to determine the hydrologic control required to minimize increases in runoff from each site, so the projects are consistent with the PWQMP and Drainage Report and do not exceed existing conditions or result in hydromodification impacts. In addition, the City would review all development projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure that sufficient local and regional drainage capacity is available. According to the City’s Master Plan of Drainage46 (City MPD), the existing Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain is severely deficient to convey the flows of the regional watershed.
However, the downstream 60-inch Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain line is recommended to be improved to a 6-foot by 4-foot RCB as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects. In addition, the Drainage Report determined the Katella Avenue Storm Drain system to be severely deficient, lacking the capacity to convey the existing 25-year high confidence flows. 46 City of Cypress. 2007. Master Plan of Drainage. May.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-53 As discussed above and provided in the PWQMP and Drainage Report prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project would include the construction of new stormwater infrastructure to address the stormwater runoff from the Buildout Area with implementation of the proposed project and improve existing deficient conditions. Specifically, the proposed project includes the construction of a proposed storm drain line in the proposed Moody Street and Vessels Circle extensions (Storm Drain Line A), a proposed storm drain line within Drainage Area B (Storm Drain Line B), and a proposed storm drain line within Drainage Area C (Storm Drain Line C). Storm Drain Line A would begin in Vessels Circle as a 24-inch RCP and would flow east to west towards Moody Street. Along Moody Street, Storm Drain Line A would increase in size to a 36-inch storm drain system that would connect to the existing 39-inch Katella Avenue Storm Drain. The Moody Street extension would also include the construction of catch basin inlets that will ensure no surface runoff from the proposed street will spill onto Katella Avenue as it would in the existing condition. In addition, the proposed detention basins would be designed to hold the 100-year high confidence storm event volume on site and slowly release stormwater via a pump system once the storm event peak flows have passed in order to ensure that discharges to the Cerritos Avenue, Katella Avenue, and Lexington Drive Storm Drain systems would not be adversely effected by stormwater from the Buildout Area.
Each related project must also consider impaired receiving waters and TMDLs for receiving waters.
The TMDL program is designed to identify all constituents that adversely affect the beneficial uses of water bodies and then identify appropriate reductions in pollutant loads or concentrations from all sources so that the receiving waters can maintain/attain the beneficial uses in the Basin Plan. Thus, by complying with TMDLs, a project’s contribution to overall water quality improvement in the San Gabriel River Watershed in the context of the regulatory program is designed to account for cumulative impacts.
Regional programs and BMPs such as TMDL programs and the MS4 Permit Program have been designed under an assumption that the San Gabriel River Watershed would continue its pattern of urbanization. The regional control measures contemplate the cumulative effects of proposed development. The proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit or Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code and the Orange County MS4 Permit and implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Compliance with these regional programs and permits constitutes compliance with programs intended to address cumulative water quality impacts. As stated above, each related project would be required to develop a SWPPP, a WQMP, and a hydrology study, and would be evaluated individually to determine appropriate BMPs and treatment measures to reduce impacts to surface water quality and hydrology.
Many City storm drain systems, including the Katella Avenue Storm Drain, Cerritos Avenue Storm Drain, and Walker Street Storm Drain systems, are deficient. Other related projects that would discharge stormwater to the same storm drain systems as the proposed project would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact related to storm drain capacity and flooding. As discussed above, the proposed project includes new stormwater infrastructure that would address the stormwater runoff from the Buildout Area with implementation of the proposed project and improve existing deficient conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would improve stormwater S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -54 infrastructure conditions at the Buildout Area and in the surrounding area. In addition, each individual project would be required to prepare a hydrology study. The hydrology study would be required to demonstrate that the project would reduce stormwater discharge at or below that allowed by the City for the individual project site. The City has established discharge requirements for each property within its jurisdiction. As those properties are developed or redeveloped, the projects are required to reduce stormwater runoff from the property to meet the runoff restriction established by the City. The runoff restriction ensures that as development and redevelopment within the City continues, stormwater discharged to the existing storm drain system will continue to be reduced, lessening the existing storm drain capacity deficit. Because the proposed project includes an on-site detention system that would be adequately sized and designed to reduce flow to the receiving storm drain systems, the project would not contribute to the existing storm drain capacity deficit.
Further, some of the related projects identified in Table 4.A have undergone environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which included an analysis of potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. According to the EIRs prepared for the Shae Properties Mixed Use Development Project (Related Project 1), Melia Homes-Citrus Square Project (Related Project 2), and the Los Alamitos Medical Center Project (Related Project 7), impacts hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of construction and operational BMPs in compliance with local ordinances and plans adopted to comply with requirements of the various NPDES permits. Further, the EIRs determined that cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. In addition, Goodman Commerce Center Project (Related Project 3) was analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which determined that all impacts related to hydrology and water quality would also be less than significant with implementation of construction and operational BMPs and compliance with local ordinances and plans adopted to comply with requirements of the various NPDES permits. The Sycamore Creek Charter School Project (Related Project 6) and 4562 Katella Avenue Project (Related Project 8) were determined to be exempt from CEQA review under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines (for infill development) and Notices of Exemption (NOEs) were prepared. In order for a project to be exempt under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project site must not result in impacts related to hydrology and water quality. As such, development of the related projects in combination with the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
The LTP Modern Machine Project (Related Project 5) and 8561 Belmont Street Project (Related Project 4) would also be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which would include an analysis of potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality and the identification of any mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, if necessary, and compliance with existing regulations, including the NPDES program.
Each related project would be required to include construction and operational BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality and hydrology in compliance with local ordinances and plans adopted to comply with requirements of the various NPDES permits, similar to the proposed projects.
Specifically, projects that disturb 1 acre or more of soil must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and related projects that disturb less than 1 acre of soil and are not a part of a larger common plan would be required to comply with Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code. The preparation and approval of a SWPPP (as required by the Construction General Permit)
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx (03/12/26) 4.10-55 and incorporation of construction BMPs (as detailed in the SWPPP or required by Section 4.106 of the CALGreen Code) would be required for each related project to determine appropriate BMPs to minimize water quality impacts during construction. Related projects that qualify as priority projects as outlined in the Orange County MS4 Permit would be required to comply with the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit, the Orange County DAMP, and the City’s LIP, including the preparation of a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) to specify BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff.
In summary, because the proposed project and other related projects would comply with applicable NPDES requirements and would include BMPs and drainage facilities to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff and pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, the cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed project and the related projects would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.10 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality_final.docx «03/12/26» -56 This page intentionally left blank
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-1
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section analyzes the potential for the Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (proposed project) to result in impacts related to land use and planning. The analysis in this section evaluates whether the proposed project would physically divide an established community and whether the proposed project would conflict with any land use plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This section also evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with other applicable planning documents as they relate to specific topical sections within Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting.
4.11.1 Scoping Process
The City of Cypress (City) received six comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). For copies of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). No comment letters included comments related to land use and planning.
4.11.2 Methodology
The determination of whether the proposed project conflicts with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is based upon a review of plans, policies, and regulations that are applicable to the Buildout Area. As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the analysis assesses inconsistency with applicable plans. A conflict between a project and an applicable plan is not necessarily a significant impact under CEQA unless the inconsistency will result in an adverse physical change to the environmental that is a “significant environmental effect” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382.
This EIR section determines whether or not the proposed project would conflict with any adopted land use policies or programs and whether mitigation is feasible. Under this approach, a conflict is not in and of itself considered a significant environmental impact. An inconsistency between the proposed project and an applicable plan is a legal determination that may or may not indicate the likelihood of an environmental impact. In some cases, an inconsistency may be evidence that an underlying physical impact is significant and adverse.
Neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines set forth formal standards for determining whether or not a project is in conflict with an applicable plan; rather, the final determination that a project is in conflict (or consistent) with an applicable plan is made by the Lead Agency when it acts on the project. The analysis in this Draft EIR discusses the findings of policy review and is meant to provide a guide for decision-makers during policy interpretation.
Under State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65000 et seq.), strict conformity with all aspects of a plan is not required. Generally, plans reflect a range of competing interests and agencies are given great deference to determine consistency with their own plans. A project should be considered consistent with a general plan or elements of a general plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. Office of Planning and Research (OPR), State of California General Plan Guidelines (2017). Given that land use plans reflect a range of competing S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -2 interests, a project should be compatible with a plan’s overall goals and objectives but need not be in perfect conformity with every plan policy. Put differently, a project is considered consistent if it is not in conflict with the overall intent of the plan and would not preclude the attainment of its primary goals.
4.11.3 Existing Environmental Setting
4.11.3.1 Geographical Setting
The Buildout Area is located in the southern portion of the City of Cypress, which is located in the northwestern portion of the County of Orange, California. The City is bordered on the north by the cities of La Palma and Buena Park, on the east by the cities of Anaheim and Stanton, on the south and west by the city of Los Alamitos, and on the west by the cities of Long Beach, Hawaiian Gardens, and Lakewood. Regional vehicular access to the City is provided via State Route 22 (SR-22), Beach Boulevard (State Route 39 [SR-39]), State Route 91 (SR-91), and Interstates 405 and 605 (I-405 and I-605, respectively).
Incorporated in 1956, the City of Cypress is developed predominantly with residential and commercial land uses as well as community facilities.1 A period of rapid development followed Cypress’ incorporation, which consisted mainly of single-family residential subdivisions. An extensive parks and recreation system and a large employment center in the southern section of the City have also been developed.
4.11.3.2 Existing Land Uses
The Buildout Area is surrounded by a variety of commercial, office, business park, commercial and retail, residential, park and religious uses as shown in Figure 3-3: Surrounding Land Uses in the Project Description provided in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. Additionally, the Buildout Area is bounded by W. Cerritos Avenue to the north, several existing commercial and institutional uses along and near Walker Street to the east, Katella Avenue and several existing commercial, retail and residential uses to the south, and Lexington Drive to the west. Immediately northwest of the Buildout Area is Lexington Park, a 9-acre park located at 4600 W. Cerritos Avenue at the southeast corner of the Cerritos Avenue/Lexington Drive intersection. Immediately northeast of the Buildout Area is Grace Church, located at 5100 W. Cerritos Avenue. Southeast of the Buildout Area is the Belmont residential project developed by Melia Homes, which includes only residential uses, and The Square at Cypress developed by Shea Homes, which includes residential, hotel, retail, and service uses, including the Homewood Suites by Hilton located at 5233 Katella Avenue and a Costco Wholesale at 5401 Katella Avenue. Cottonwood Church, located at 4505 Katella Avenue, is located southwest of the Buildout Area, along with the Ovation at Flora Park, a senior housing community, and a commercial center that includes restaurant and commercial services uses, a 24 Hour Fitness, and the Residence Inn Cypress Los Alamitos, at 4931 Katella Avenue. West of Lexington Drive are light industrial, office, and commercial uses. 1 City of Cypress. 2001. Introduction to the General Plan. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/show publisheddocument/662/636123113549170000 (accessed January 22, 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-3 The Specific Plan governs the zoning and land uses allowed within the Buildout Area.2The Specific Plan includes six land use districts that permit the development of residential, commercial, retail, restaurant, entertainment and park and recreational uses. As shown on Figure 2-1 (Land Use Plan) of the Specific Plan, the land use districts include a Residential District (46.2 acres), Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District (23.1 acres), Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District (24.1 acres), Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) (9.5 acres), Medium-Density Residential District (20.7 acres), and Public Park District (20 acres). As shown on Figure 2-2 (Residential Subdistricts) of the Specific Plan, the Residential District has been divided into a Single-Family Detached Subdistrict (19.7 acres) and a Single-Family Attached Subdistrict (27.2 acres); see Figure 3-4: Specific Plan Land Uses and Allowed Dwelling Units per Acre in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR.
The Specific Plan includes development standards for each land use district that quantify the maximum amount of residential and non-residential development that can occur within a land use district and the overall area governed by the Specific Plan. Within the land use districts that permit residential uses (which includes all of the land use districts other than the Public Park District), the maximum residential densities range from 8 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) to 30 du/ac. The Specific Plan also includes various development restrictions and limitations, infrastructure plans and sustainability guidelines.
The proposed project does not include any proposed amendments or modifications to the adopted Specific Plan. This Draft EIR analyzes programmatically the environmental impacts associated with residential and non-residential development within the Buildout Area based on a reasonably foreseeable buildout scenario, as presented in Chapter 3.0.
4.11.4 Regulatory Setting
The following section describes the federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework applicable to analyzing potential impacts related to land use and planning from development of the proposed project.
4.11.4.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations applicable to land use and planning.
4.11.4.2 State Regulations
California State Planning and Zoning Law. This law, which is codified in California Government Code sections 65000-66037, delegates most of the State’s local land use and development decisions to cities and counties. The California Government Code establishes specific requirements pertaining to the regulation of land uses by local governments, including general plan requirements, specific plans, subdivisions, and zoning. California Government Code Section 65302 requires that all California cities and counties include the following seven elements in their general plan:
2 See Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for a description of Buildout Area and the Specific Plan Area.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -4 • Land Use
• Circulation
• Housing
• Conservation
• Open Space
• Noise
• Safety
Cities and counties in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) must also address air quality in their general plans. Cities and counties that have identified disadvantaged communities must also address environmental justice in their general plans, including air quality.3 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375). This statute requires California’s regional planning agencies to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTP). Senate Bill (SB) 375 was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning. Under the law, California’s regional planning agencies are required to include an SCS in their RTP. The SCS provides a plan for meeting the regional emissions reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). If the emissions reduction targets cannot be met through the SCS, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) may be developed that shows how the targets would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures of policies. SB 375 also offers local governments regulatory and other incentives to encourage more compact new development and transportation alternatives.
The requirements of SB 375 are reflected in the 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal)4adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which serves as the regional planning agency in the six-county metropolitan region composed of Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties. Connect SoCal is discussed in further detail below in Section 4.11.4.3.
4.11.4.3 Regional Regulations
The City of Cypress is covered by several planning documents and programs that have varying degrees of regulation over uses in the City. The following paragraphs explain regional regulations, plans, and policies applicable to the Buildout Area that is analyzed in this section of the EIR.
Southern California Association of Governments. As discussed above, regional planning in Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties is conducted by SCAG. SCAG 3 Senate Bill (SB) 1000, adopted in 2016, requires both cities and counties that have disadvantaged communities to incorporate environmental justice (EJ) policies into their general plans, either in a separate EJ element or by integrating related goals, policies, and objectives throughout the other elements. This update, or revision if the local government already has EJ goals, policies, and objectives, must happen “upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018.”
4 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. Connect SoCal 2024: The 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Website: https://scag.ca. gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-connect-socal-2024- final-complete-040424.pdf (accessed October 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-5 is also the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for these six counties. As the designated MPO, SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and prepare plans for transportation, a growth forecast, hazardous waste, and air quality. The growth forecast serves as the foundation of these plans. Of the various plans adopted by SCAG, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Connect SoCal are relevant to the project. 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal). On April 4, 2024, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The overall vision for Connect SoCal is to chart a path toward a more mobile, sustainable and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, planning strategies, and the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians.
The goals of Connect SoCal fall into four core categories: economy, mobility, environment, and healthy/complete communities. The plan explicitly lays out goals related to housing, transportation technologies, equity, and resilience in order to adequately reflect the increasing importance of these topics in the region, and where possible the goals have been developed to link to potential performance measures and targets. The plan’s guiding policies take these goals and focus them, creating a specific direction for plan investments.
The applicable goals of Connect SoCal are outlined in Table 4.11.C (provided later in this section).
4.11.4.4 Local Regulations
The City has preeminent decision-making authority regarding allowable land uses in the Buildout Area. As discussed in greater detail below, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code both apply to the project; however, the Specific Plans largely govern the permitted uses on, and development standards for, the Buildout Area.
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (Specific Plan). As set forth in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, Specific Plans implement General Plan goals and policies by designating land uses, densities, development, and design standards in more specific detail. In June 2018, the City’s voters approved Measure A, which approved the second iteration of the Specific Plan (Specific Plan 2.0). On November 5, 2024, the voters of the City of Cypress approved the Specific Plan pursuant to “Measure S” as part of the Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project (Housing Implementation Project). The Specific Plan superseded and replaced Specific Plan 2.0.
The Specific Plan establishes a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework for the use and development of approximately 151.4 acres of land in the City, which includes the Buildout Area.
The Buildout Area includes the Los Alamitos Race Course (LARC) Property and is generally bounded by Cerritos Avenue to the north, Katella Avenue to the south, and Lexington Drive to the west. The Specific Plan includes development standards for each land use district that quantify the maximum amount of residential and non-residential development that can occur within a land use district and the overall area governed by the Specific Plan.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -6 The Specific Plan’s residential districts are intended to accommodate a range of residential densities.
Residential units adjacent to Cerritos Avenue will generally match the densities of the existing neighborhood north of Cerritos Avenue. Further south, smaller-lot, single-family homes are permitted, as well as single-family attached units, including townhomes and condominiums. The Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential district allows age-restricted housing (with a qualified occupant of 55 or older), as well as multi-family housing, at a variety of densities.
The Specific Plan allows for a variety of non-residential uses aimed at creating a vibrant, mixed-use community hub. Within the Specific Plan area, designated land use districts permit commercial, retail, office, hospitality, and civic or community-serving uses. These non-residential uses are intended to complement residential development by providing services, employment opportunities, and gathering spaces that support daily needs and enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors. The Specific Plan encourages pedestrian-oriented commercial development along key corridors and within central nodes, reinforcing the vision of a connected and active town center. By integrating non-residential uses throughout the planning area, the City of Cypress wants to promote economic vitality, local access to goods and services, and a dynamic public realm consistent with the City’s long-range planning goals.
Trails and greenways are envisioned to connect the neighborhoods and provide pedestrian and bike routes to the public parks and town center.
City of Cypress General Plan. The City of Cypress General Plan contains goals, policies, and plans that are intended to guide land use and development decisions. The City of Cypress General Plan was last comprehensively updated by the City Council in September 2001. The General Plan consists of a Land Use Map and the following eight elements, or chapters, which together fulfill the State requirements for a General Plan:
• Land Use Element
• Housing Element
• Circulation Element
• Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element (satisfies the State’s Conservation and Open Space Element requirements)
• Safety Element
• Noise Element
• Air Quality Element (optional element not required by State law) • Growth Management Element (optional element not required by State law) At the heart of the General Plan is the Land Use Element (2001). This element presents the City’s goals and policies directing the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of the City. The Land Use Element serves as a guide to the allocation of land use in the City and has major impacts on key issues and subject areas examined in the other elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Map, which illustrates land uses within the City, is a primary feature of the Land Use Element. Land
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-7 use designations indicate the type and nature of development that is allowed in a given location.
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element contains the following land use categories:
• Low Density Residential
• Medium Density Residential
• High Density Residential
• Mobile Home Park
• General and Neighborhood Commercial
• Specific Plan
• Light Industrial
• Business Park
• Community Facilities and Services
Each of these categories establishes allowed land uses and corresponding standards of compliant intensity and density. Intensity is typically more concerned with non-residential uses while density, within the context of land use, measures the residential capacity of land in terms of dwelling units per gross acre.
In addition to standards of development within the City, the General Plan Land Use Element also states various goals, along with policies designed to facilitate the achievement of each goal. The goals and policies outlined in Table 4.11.D of the General Plan are relevant to the proposed project.
City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance implements the policies of the Cypress General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City. The City’s Zoning Ordinance has been adopted to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of residents while preserving and enhancing the City’s aesthetic quality.
The City is divided into zoning districts that directly correspond to the land use designations outlined in the Land Use Element of its General Plan. The City’s Zoning Ordinance classifies, regulates, restricts, and separates the use of land and structures, regulates and limits the bulk, height, and type of structures in the various zoning districts, and regulates areas of yards and other open areas abutting and between structures, and regulates the density of population.
4.11.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for land use and planning impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to land use and planning if it would:
Threshold 4.11.1: Physically divide an established community; or Threshold 4.11.2: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -8
4.11.6 Project Impacts
Potential impacts of the proposed project related to land use and planning are discussed below pursuant to the thresholds established in Section 4.11.5, above.
Threshold 4.11.1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. The Buildout Area consists of 134 acres within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. As stated above, the Buildout Area is currently surrounded by a variety of land uses, including commercial, office, business park, retail, park, residential, religious facilities, and mixeduse land uses. The Buildout Area is currently occupied by the Los Alamitos Race Course—a large, single-purpose facility with an expansive footprint, limited access points, and inward-facing operations. The existing operations do not connect the surrounding streets, including Katella Avenue and Cerritos Boulevard as well as Walker Street and Lexington Drive.
This Draft EIR analyzes programmatically the environmental impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable buildout of the Buildout Area, as presented in Table 4.11.A: Specific Plan Land Use Plan Summary below. As described in Table 4.11.A, under the proposed project, up to 1,791 residential units and 440,000 square feet of non-residential uses would be developed under the existing Specific Plan.
Table 4.11.A: Specific Plan Land Use Plan Summary
Land Use District Area
(acres)
Maximum
FAR1
Maximum Residential
Units
Maximum
Development
Capacity (sq ft)
Public Park 18.22 N/A N/A N/A
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/HDR) 24.1 0.6:1 1,926
(aggregate total for
Residential, Senior
Housing/MediumDensity Residential,
Medium-Density
Residential and MixedUse Districts)
629,878
Mixed-Use
(Town Center/MDR) 9.5 0.6:1 248,292
Residential 46.2 N/A N/A
Senior Housing/MediumDensity Residential 23.1 N/A N/A
Medium-Density Residential 20.7 0.6:1 N/A
Roads 9.6 N/A N/A N/A
Total Specific Plan 3.0 151.44 -- 1,9263 879,170
Source: LSA (2025).
1 This development restriction on floor area ratio (FAR) does not apply to residential development or the residential component of a mixed-use development. The maximum FAR allowed on any development parcel is 1.0:1. 2 The minimum amount of public park space within the area governed by the Specific Plan is 20 acres. In addition to the 18.2 acres of public park space within the Public Park District, a 2-acre public park has been designated as a land use overlay within the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District, provided that this additional required public park space may be located (a) in any Land Use District or multiple Land Use Districts, and (b) adjacent to one or both of the Public Park Districts in order to increase the size of the public parks that would be developed there.
3 The aggregate total of 1,926 residential units includes the 135 residential units previously developed on the Melia Property.
Therefore, an additional 1,791 residential units are allowed in these districts within the Buildable Area. 4 In preparing VTTM 19247, the acreages for the Land Use Districts and roads within the area governed by the Specific Plan were more accurately calculated, resulting in a slightly reduced total land area of approximately 150.1 acres.
HDR= High-Density Residential
MDR= Medium-Density Residential
N/A = not applicable
SFR= Single-Family Residential
sq ft = square feet
VTTM = Vesting Tentative Tract Map
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-9 As shown in Figure 3-5: Vesting Tentative Map No. 19247 (in Chapter 3.0), the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 19247 divides the Buildout Area and other land currently owned by Grace Church into 14 numbered lots and four lettered lots, lettered A through D. The numbered lots would accommodate the development of residential, non-residential and park and recreational uses. The lettered lots include existing Siboney Street (Lot A), land that would be used to expand a portion of Lexington Drive adjacent to Lot 1 and Lexington Park (Lot B), the further extension of Vessels Circle between Lots 7 and 12 (Lot C) and the extension of Moody Street to connect to Siboney Street (Lot D), with Siboney Street becoming part of Moody Street.
In accordance with the approved Specific Plan, the proposed project evaluated in this Draft EIR includes residential development on Lots 2 through 4, 7 and 10 through 14, non-residential development on Lots 10 through 14, and the development of park and recreational improvements on Lots 1, 5 and 6 (as well as two additional acres within the Specific Plan that will be specified in the future).
Development on Lots 1, 5 and 6 is limited to park and recreational uses. The Public Park District includes 18.2 of specifically identified land, which includes the 9 acres of land that the City has previously developed as Lexington Park following its approval as the Cypress Sports Park Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2019089093).
The proposed project does not include any development on Lots 8 and 9. Grace Church owns Lot 9 where its existing church facilities are located. It is anticipated that Grace Church would acquire Lot 8 from LARC in exchange for transferring ownership of Lots 5 and 8 to LARC. Following this anticipated land swap, Grace Church would own Lots 8 and 9, which collectively include approximately 17.55 acres of land that are not located within the Buildout Area. Lots 8 and 9 have been included in VTTM 19247 solely in connection with the contemplated land swap and no development is presently contemplated on those lots by Grace Church.
Additionally, the maximum residential buildout and reasonably foreseeable non-residential buildout of the Buildout Area pursuant to the Specific Plan is shown in Table 4.11.B: Maximum/Reasonably Foreseeable Project Buildout below. Table 4.11.B reflects the land swap described above and therefore includes Lots 5 and 10 and excludes Lots 8 and 9.
In addition, consistent with the approved Specific Plan, the proposed project evaluated in this Draft EIR assumes the extension of Moody Street from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue, as well as the extension of Vessels Circle from its current western terminus to intersect with the Moody Street extension. The Moody Street extension would traverse the Buildout Area, passing adjacent to Lots 4, 3, 13, and 14 in VTTM 19247, and create a new central north-south corridor, while the extension of Vessels Circle within Lot C would, among other things, provide access to Lots 10 and 11 in VTTM 19247. The proposed project also includes widening of Lexington Drive within Lot B in VTTM 19247, which is consistent with the Specific Plan. Future development within the Buildout Area may require the construction of private driveways, accessways and/or streets that connect to the Moody Street and Vessels Circle extensions and existing public streets adjacent to the Buildout Area. The precise location and size of these internal roadways would be determined during the design process.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -10 Table 4.11.B: Maximum/Reasonably Foreseeable Project Buildout Lot
Number Specific Plan Land Use District Lot Size (ac)
Maximum Number
of Dwelling Units /
Reasonably
Foreseeable NonResidential Floor
Area
Maximum
Residential
Density
(du/ac)
Maximum
Effective
Residential
Density
(du/ac)
2 Senior Housing/MDR 23.08 404 du 15-20 17.51
3 Residential 27.15 269 du 10 9.9
4 Residential 19.00 141 du 8 7.4
7 Medium-Density Residential 20.66 309 du 15 14.9
10 Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) 2.00 29 du 15 14.5
11 Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) 1.75 51 du 30 29.1
12 Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) 8.86 265 du 30 29.9
13 Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) 6.52 195 du 30 29.9
14 Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) 7.33 128 du 15-20 17.5*
10-14 Non-Residential 26.6 440,000 sq ft
Non-Residential N/A N/A
Total
1,791
additional
dwelling units
440,000 square
feet of nonresidential floor
area
Source: LSA (2025).
1 This number of dwelling units per acre is a midpoint between the maximum density for medium-density residential (15 du/ac) and the maximum density for senior housing (20 du/ac) allowed on this lot pursuant to the Specific Plan. ac = acres
Specific Plan = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 du = dwelling units
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
HDR = High-Density Residential
MDR = Medium-Density Residential
N/A = not applicable
sq ft = square feet
These roadway extensions would significantly improve internal circulation and enhance connectivity between surrounding neighborhoods, commercial areas, and community amenities, helping to integrate the site into the broader urban fabric.
Given the nature of the proposed project, the future buildout of the Buildout Area would improve existing connectivity in the area with the extension of Moody Street and Vessels Circle and would not divide or separate any existing land uses or neighborhoods. The neighboring residential communities would not be separated by the proposed road extensions or proposed buildout of the project. Project implementation would implement the vision of the Specific Plan. The proposed project would not introduce an inconsistency with the existing uses in the surrounding area and would be consistent with all General Plan and zoning designations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the physical division of an established community, and no mitigation is required.
In addition, future development applications contemplated within the Buildout Area would also be required to comply with all applicable regulations and standards related to land use and planning.
Any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would also be
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-11 subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Threshold 4.11.2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. A project’s inconsistency with a plan or policy is considered significant only if the conflict would result in a significant physical environmental impact (per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). As such, the consistency analysis in this Draft EIR focuses on the relevant land use plans, policies and regulations that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding adverse environmental impact. This section includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with Connect SoCal, the City’s General Plan, and the City Zoning Ordinance. Please note that this Draft EIR does not include Specific Plan consistency as the proposed project would facilitate the implementation of the Specific Plan.
Connect SoCal. Table 4.11.C: Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis provides a consistency analysis of goals from Connect SoCal that are relevant to the proposed project. To eliminate repetitive policies and focus on key issues, goals that are not relevant to the proposed project are not included in Table 4.11.C. As described in Table 4.11.C, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable Connect SoCal goals, and no mitigation is required. Furthermore, the proposed project reinforces the stated goals of Connect SoCal, including Connect SoCal’s goals to develop, connect and sustain communities that are livable and thriving and to create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow, by providing additional housing opportunities within locations near amenities and already used by the public for commercial, recreational, and/or professional uses. In addition, the proposed project would support the development, connection, and sustainability of communities that are living and thriving by providing necessary housing. The proposed project would deliver a range of residential uses, from single-family to high-density housing. This diversity of housing types would offer options to accommodate varying household needs within the community. Buildout of the proposed project would include commercial uses, would improve circulation from the adjacent roadways and surrounding areas to the north and south, and would provide access to parks.
City of Cypress General Plan. The General Plan is a comprehensive plan intended to guide the physical development of the City and it serves as a blueprint for future growth and development. As a blueprint for the future, the plan contains policies and programs designed to provide decisionmakers with a solid basis for decisions related to land use and development.
Although the City’s General Plan Land Use Element has not been formally amended to reflect the recent approval of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0, the Buildout Area is designated as Specific Plan in the General Plan Land Use Map. In addition, the City (through Measure S) determined that the Specific Plan is consistent with all eight elements of the General Plan, as required by Government Code Section 65450. Section 6.2 of the Specific Plan provides a comprehensive consistency analysis with the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation, Noise, Housing, Safety, Growth Management and Air Quality.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -12 Table 4.11.C: Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
Mobility
03: Pursue the development of Complete Streets
that comprise a safe, multimodal network with
flexible use of public rights-of-way for people of all
ages and abilities using a variety of modes (e.g.,
people walking, biking, rolling, driving, taking
transit).
04: Ensure the implementation of Complete Streets
that are sensitive to urban, suburban or rural
contexts and improve transportation safety for all,
but especially for vulnerable road users (e.g.,
people, especially older adults and children,
walking and biking)
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, transit service in the vicinity of the Buildout Area is provided by the OCTA along Katella Avenue and Valley View Street. OCTA Route 50, which runs along Katella Avenue, currently has existing bus stops near Lexington Drive, Siboney Street, Winners Circle, and Walker Avenue in the vicinity of the Buildout Area.
Existing sidewalks are provided along Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Walker Street, portions of Lexington Drive between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue, and along the south side of Vessels Circle in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. These facilities provide for pedestrian circulation between the Buildout Area and the surrounding areas. In addition, Katella Avenue and Valley View Street currently accommodate off-street bike paths and on-street (Class II) bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of Cerritos Avenue (between Walker Street and Denni Street) and Bloomfield Street.
There is also a Class I bicycle lane on the south side of Cerritos Avenue between Walker Street and Denni Street, and on-street bicycle lanes (Class II) and sidewalks are provided on both sides of Moody Street.
In addition, implementation of the proposed project would provide pedestrian sidewalks and pathways throughout the Buildout Area and provide connections to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the surrounding area. Specifically, the proposed project is assumed to include the addition of approximately 1 mile of bicycle facilities, connecting to the existing bicycle network. In addition, pedestrian access via sidewalks to the Buildout Area would be from Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Lexington Drive, and Vessels Circle, as extended. Further pedestrian circulation improvements would include sidewalk along the extension of Moody Street south of Cerritos Avenue. These pathways, together with the existing pedestrian infrastructure on the surrounding streets, would ensure seamless integration with the broader pedestrian network, effectively linking the Buildout Area with nearby amenities and transit options. All improvements facilitated by the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan policies. As such, improvements associated with the proposed project would provide a safe, multimodal network with flexible use of public rights-of-way for people of all ages and abilities using a variety of modes. No conflict with these goals would occur.
07: Encourage and support the implementation of
projects, both physical and digital, that facilitate
multimodal connectivity, prioritize transit and
shared mobility, and result in improved mobility,
accessibility and safety.
No Conflict. As discussed above, the proposed project would connect to existing transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the Buildout Area, resulting in improved mobility, accessibility and safety. No conflict with this goal would occur.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-13 Table 4.11.C: Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
Communities
35: Encourage housing development in areas with
access to important resources and amenities
(economic, educational, health, social and similar)
to further fair housing access and equity across the
region.
No Conflict. The proposed project would result in the development of new residential and non-residential uses within the Buildout Area. Proposed non-residential uses may include retail and other service-oriented uses, as well as a limited amount of other types of commercial space, that enhance access to essential goods and services while supporting local employment opportunities. As such, the proposed project would develop new housing in areas with access to important resources and amenities (economic,
educational, health, social and similar) to further fair housing access and equity across the region. No conflict with this goal would occur.
42: Promote 15-minute communities as places with
a mix of complementary land uses and accessible
mobility options that align with and support the
diversity of places (or communities) across the
region. These are communities where residents can
either access their most basic, day-to-day needs
within a 15-minute walk, bike ride or roll from their
home or as places that result in fewer and shorter
trips because of the proximity of complementary
land uses.
No Conflict. As discussed above, the proposed project would develop new residential and non-residential uses within the Buildout Area, which would provide a mix of complementary land uses and accessible mobility options that align with and support the diversity of places (or communities) across the region. The Specific Plan also includes a Circulation Plan that provides additional connections to the surrounding circulation network. For example, Moody Street and Vessels Circle will be extended. The proposed project also includes pedestrian connections between
contemplated residential and commercial/retail components. These project features facilitate better connections to nearby transit and pedestrian and bicycle networks). No conflict with this goal would occur.
Environment
48: Promote sustainable development and best
practices that enhance resource conservation,
reduce resource consumption and promote
resilience.
No Conflict. As discussed throughout this Draft EIR, the proposed project would implement sustainable development and best practices to the extent feasible in order to enhance resource conservation and reduce resource consumption. Please refer to Sections 4.3 Air Quality; 4.4 Biological Resources; 4.5 Cultural Resources; 4.6 Energy; 4., Geology and Soils; 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality; and 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources for a discussion of specific measures related to resource conservation and consumption. No conflict with this goal would occur.
51: Reduce hazardous air pollutants and
greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality
throughout the region through planning and
implementation efforts.
No Conflict. As discussed in Sections 4.3 Air Quality; 4.6 Energy; and
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would comply with existing regulations, including the energy efficiency standards included in Title 24, in order to reduce hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality throughout the region. No conflict with this goal would occur.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments. 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -14 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis provides a consistency analysis of the goals and policies from the City’s General Plan that are relevant to the proposed project. To eliminate repetitive policies and focus on key issues, policies that are not relevant to the proposed project are not included. As highlighted in the analysis presented in Table 4.11.D, the proposed project’s updates to the General Plan would ensure consistency between the project and all applicable General Plan goals and policies.
Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: Create a well balanced land use pattern
that accommodates existing and future needs for
housing, commercial, industrial and open space/
recreation uses, while providing adequate
community services to City residents.
No Conflict. The proposed project is the reasonably foreseeable buildout under the Specific Plan, which includes a balanced mix of residential, non-residential, and recreational uses. The Buildout Area is located in an area of the City developed with residential, commercial, retail, business park, and light industrial uses. The new development will be compatible with the existing and approved uses in the surrounding area. For example, the mix of retail, entertainment, commercial and residential uses permitted in the Mixed-Use District is consistent with the existing and approved commercial and retail uses on both sides of Katella Avenue. Further, the proposed project would address the City’s housing needs by including 1,791 residential units.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Goal LU-1 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-1.2: Allow for multi-family infill in
designated areas to satisfy regional housing needs.
No Conflict. The proposed project would be an infill
development as it contemplates redeveloping the existing race course property into a range of multi-family uses. The Buildout Area is currently surrounded by residential and non-residential development. Buildout of the proposed project would include areas for both medium density and higher-density residential uses. The project will provide infill housing development consistent with the City’s regional housing needs. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-1.2 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-1.4: Locate residential uses within close
proximity of commercial centers to encourage
pedestrian access, and to provide a consumer base
for commercial uses.
No Conflict. Buildout of the proposed project would locate local-serving non-residential uses (including commercial) adjacent to new residential uses. In addition, existing commercial hubs are located near the Buildout Area. Therefore, the proposed project would locate residential uses within close proximity of new and existing commercial centers. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-1.4 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-1.7: Where feasible, increase the
amount and network of public and private open
space and recreational facilities for active or
passive recreation as well as for visual relief.
No Conflict. The proposed project would facilitate development of private and public open space as outlined in the Specific Plan, which includes park uses and additional open space and
recreational facilities in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, the Single-Family Attached Subdistrict and potentially in the Single-Family Detached Subdistrict, the Medium-Density Residential District, the Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR) District and the Mixed-Use (Town Center/HDR) District. Further, trails and greenways will connect the residential subdistricts and Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District and provide convenient pedestrian and bike
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-15 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
access to the public parks and town center areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-1.7 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal LU-2: Ensure that new development is
compatible with surrounding land uses, the
circulation network, availability of public facilities, and existing development constraints.
No Conflict. The proposed project is the reasonably foreseeable buildout under the Specific Plan, which includes a mix of residential, non-residential, and recreational uses within an existing developed area designated for residential or
commercial use. As such, the proposed project would not significantly depart from existing nearby land uses. The proposed project also includes road extensions—Moody Street and Vessels Circle— that would provide additional circulation and connectivity in the Buildout Area and surrounding areas. As discussed in Section 4.8, impacts to public services would be less than significant or mitigated to that level, ensuring consistency with existing infrastructure. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with Goal LU-2 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-2.1: Ensure a sensitive transition
between commercial or business park uses and
residential uses by implementing precise
development standards with such techniques as
buffering, landscaping, and setbacks.
No Conflict. The proposed project would facilitate the
development of residential and non-residential uses as
approved by voters in the Specific Plan. Future residential uses would be designed in a way that ensures a sensitive transition between commercial, business, and residential uses, as
contemplated in the Specific Plan. Specifically, the development standards, regulations and guidelines in the Specific Plan would also ensure sensitive transitions between the various retail, commercial, residential and open-space uses within the
Buildout Area, and between those uses and the surrounding residential, commercial, retail and business park uses. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-2.1 of the General Plan to create a sensitive transition between residential and non-residential uses.
Policy LU-2.2: Where residential/commercial
mixed use is permitted, ensure compatible
integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts.
No Conflict. All new residential development under the
proposed project would occur in areas already designated for residential or commercial use, given that the voters in November 2024 already approved the underlying zoning and land use designations in the Buildout Area through the Specific Plan. These additional residential uses would support mixed-use development without introducing incompatible land uses. The development standards, regulations and guidelines in the Specific Plan will ensure compatible transitions between the various retail, commercial, residential and open-space uses within the Buildout Area, and between those uses and the surrounding residential, commercial, retail and business park uses. As required by the Specific Plan, certain future
development projects in the Buildout Area would require site plan review, which would allow the City to ensure consistency with zoning and specific plan requirements once additional details regarding the future projects are known. Given the above, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU2.2 of the City’s General Plan.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -16 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
Policy LU-2.7: Encourage the provision of
pedestrian linkages between adjacent commercial
uses and commercial and residential uses to
encourage pedestrian activity and reduce vehicle
trips.
No Conflict. Trails and greenways in the Buildout Area would connect the residential subdistricts and Senior Housing/ Medium-Density Residential District and provide convenient pedestrian and bike access to the public parks and town center areas. In addition, the Moody Street extension would traverse the Buildout Area and create a new central north-south corridor for pedestrians. The extension of Vessels Circle within Lot C would also provide access to Lots 10 and 11 in VTTM 19247.
Future development within the Buildout Area may require the construction of private driveways, accessways and/or streets that connect to the Moody Street and Vessels Circle extensions and existing public streets adjacent to the Buildout Area. These private driveways, accessways and/or streets may facilitate additional sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activities. As required by the Specific Plan, certain future development projects would require site plan review. This would ensure that future developments would include pedestrian linkages
between the proposed commercial and residential components, as contemplated in the Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-2.7 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal LU-3: Revitalize older commercial and
residential uses and properties.
No Conflict. The proposed project would implement the goals of the Specific Plan to revitalize the LARC area, by introducing new mixed uses compatible with surrounding development patterns.
This goal applies generally to all projects in the City. The City does not (and cannot) require private property owners to adaptively reuse or revitalize every existing commercial or residential uses. While the proposed project would not
revitalize any older commercial or residential uses in the Buildout Area, the proposed project would not conflict with the broader implementation of this goal on a citywide basis. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with Goal LU-3 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-3.1: Encourage and continue the use of
redevelopment activities in the Civic Center
Buildout Area, on Lincoln Avenue, and on the Los
Alamitos Race Track and Cypress Golf Club.
No Conflict. The proposed project is the reasonably foreseeable buildout of the Specific Plan in the Buildout Area. As such, the proposed project would encourage and continue
redevelopment of the Los Alamitos Race Track and Cypress Golf Club. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-3.1 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal LU-4: Improve urban design in Cypress to
ensure that development is both architecturally
and functionally compatible and to create
identifiable neighborhoods, commercial, and
business park districts.
No Conflict. The proposed project would support improved urban design in Cypress by guiding development to areas already designated for residential and commercial uses, where cohesive community form can be reinforced. The Specific Plan provides development standards that apply to future projects.
Certain future projects would be subject to the site plan review process in the Specific Plan, which would ensure architectural and functional compatibility with surrounding development.
This process would help establish visually and functionally distinct neighborhoods, commercial areas, and business park districts, consistent with the City’s urban design goals.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be functionally compatible with the surrounding areas and would
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-17 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
contribute to creating an identifiable community in the Cypress area. The proposed project would not conflict with Goal LU-4 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-4.2: Encourage development projects to
utilize high quality design for architecture and site
planning through the City’s design review process.
No Conflict. The proposed project is the reasonably foreseeable buildout of the Specific Plan in the Buildout Area. Any future residential development proposals would be subject to City or applicable Specific Plan guidelines, which reflect strict standards of architecture and other design aspects. Certain developments would also be subject to the site plan review process, as with any development. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-4.2 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-4.5: Improve the quality of Cypress'
multi-family neighborhoods through a) improved
buffers between multi-family residences, and
commercial, and business park uses; b) provision
of usable private and common open space in
multi-family projects; c) increased code
enforcement; and d) improved site, building, and
landscape design.
No Conflict. The proposed project would include residential and commercial mixed uses that would help create an identifiable neighborhood in the Buildout Area that is compatible with surrounding land uses. Any future residential development proposals would be subject to City or applicable Specific Plan guidelines, which would include development standards.
Certain developments would also be subject to the site plan review process, as with any development. Therefore, the proposed projects would not conflict with Policy LU-4.5 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal LU-7: Ensure the compatibility of new multifamily residential infill with existing residential uses.
No Conflict. The proposed project would include both medium and high-density residential uses. The area surrounding the Buildout Area boundary includes existing multi-family housing as well as single-family residential uses. Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with surrounding uses, ensuring compatibility with the surrounding areas and existing residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-7 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-7.1: Require new multi-family
development to provide adequate buffers (such as
decorative walls and landscaped setbacks) along
boundaries with single-family residential uses to
prevent impacts on residences due to noise,
traffic, parking, light and glare, and differences in
scale; to ensure privacy; and to provide visual
compatibility.
No Conflict. Buildout of the proposed project would include both multi-family and single-family land uses Any future residential development proposals would be subject to City or applicable Specific Plan guidelines, which reflect standards of landscaping, setbacks, and aesthetics. Certain developments would also be subject to the site plan review process, as with any development. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy LU-7.1 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy LU-7.2: Allow small lot single-family
development as infill projects and provide
adequate development standards to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
No Conflict. As previously mentioned, buildout of the proposed project would include single-family residential uses. Future development of single-family residential areas would be subject to environmental review and the City’s existing development standards. The surrounding area is characterized by singlefamily residential uses and multi-family residential uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with existing residential uses and would not conflict with Policy LU7.2 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal LU-15: Retain and facilitate the expansion of
businesses throughout the City.
No Conflict. As previously mentioned, buildout of the proposed project would include both residential and mixed-use uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would provide opportunities for businesses to expand throughout the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Goal LU-15 of the City’s General Plan.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -18 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
Circulation Element
Goal CIR-1: Maintain a safe, efficient, economical,
and aesthetically pleasing transportation system
providing for the movement of people, goods, and
services to serve the existing and future needs of
the City of Cypress.
No Conflict. Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743 and Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the determination of significance for transportation impacts under CEQA is based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than roadway level of service (LOS). Accordingly, congestion or delay at intersections, including those on the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) network, is no longer considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. Although LOS is no longer used for CEQA significance determinations, the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and the Orange County CMP continue to identify LOS standards for local policy and regional consistency purposes.
Improvements at intersections with non-CEQA project-related effects include Intersections #12 (Cerritos Avenue at Los Alamitos Boulevard), #16 (Cerritos Avenue at Walker Street), #17 (Cerritos Avenue at Valley View Street), and #18 (Vessels Circle at Walker Street). Proposed feasible improvements are recommended for those four intersections to reduce the nonCEQA project effects, notwithstanding that three of them currently operate at acceptable levels of service pursuant to the Cypress and Los Alamitos Circulation Elements. Intersection #17 (Cerritos Avenue at Valley View Street) in the PM peak hour would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) with the proposed feasible improvements.
In addition, using the Buildout Year 2038 with Project
conditions, future Intersection #31 (Vessels Circle at Moody Street) would satisfy the signal warrants in the morning and the evening peak hours and a traffic signal is recommended to be installed at this future intersection. Based on a left-turn phasing analysis, left-turn phasing in the north-south direction is also recommended. Proposed improvements at Intersection #18
(Vessels Circle at Walker Street) are anticipated to
accommodate the added vehicle queues due to the proposed project. In addition, the project features previously identified for Intersection #15 (Cerritos Avenue at Moody Street) are anticipated to accommodate the projected left-turn vehicle queues and prevent an exceedance. However, no feasible
improvements can be implemented for the other five
intersections to prevent an exceedance. Further, in the Existing Condition with Moody Street and Vessels extensions, Existing with Project, and Buildout Year 2038 with and without the proposed project, all three intersections would operate at LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours, which is
acceptable per CMP guidelines. As such, the proposed project includes project features and roadway/intersection
improvements in order to maintain a safe, efficient, economical, and aesthetically pleasing transportation system and no conflict with this policy would occur.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-19 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
Policy CIR-1.3: Encourage development which
contributes to a balanced land use, which in turn
serves to reduce overall trip lengths (i.e.,
jobs/housing balance, locate retail in closer
proximity to resident/patrons).
No Conflict. Because the proposed project would enable
particular areas of higher density residential development within close proximity to existing retail locations, it can be reasonably assumed that overall trip lengths may be shortened.
This development would also potentially provide residents with employment opportunities within walking distance. In addition, the proposed project includes 440,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area which enhances access to essential goods and services while supporting local employment opportunities.
This non-residential floor area is considered local-serving retail under the “Guidelines for Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for the County of Orange, dated September 17, 2020” (County Guidelines), because no single retail
establishment within the 440,000 square feet of non-residential space will exceed 50,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy CIR-1.3 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy CIR-1.4: Require new development to
conform to the standards and criteria of the City of
Cypress and other mandated programs. This
includes mitigation of traffic impacts to the
surrounding street system.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, and above, the proposed project includes project features and roadway/intersection improvements to ensure that the
proposed project conforms to the standards and criteria of the City of Cypress and other mandated programs. Therefore, no conflict with this policy would occur.
Policy CIR-1.6: Encourage the development of
aesthetic streetscapes to promote a positive City
image and provide visual relief.
No Conflict. Proposed street improvements and frontage
improvements would include landscaping in order to provide aesthetic streetscapes. Therefore, no conflict with this policy would occur.
Policy CIR 2-1: Encourage development and
improvements which incorporate innovative
methods of accommodating transportation
demands.
No Conflict. Implementation of the proposed project would provide sidewalks along the project frontages. In addition, pedestrian sidewalks and pathways would be provided
throughout the Buildout Area and provide connections to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the surrounding area.
Specifically, the proposed project is assumed to include the addition of approximately 1 mile of bicycle facilities, connecting to the existing bicycle network. Additionally, as discussed further in Threshold 4.17.2 and detailed in Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the proposed project would be required to implement feasible TDM strategies to mitigate the proposed project’s VMT impact, which include constructing or improving bicycle facilities that would connect the proposed project to the existing regional bicycle network and improving the pedestrian network, including the construction of off-site sidewalks to improve sidewalk coverage and pedestrian access to the surrounding area. The proposed project would include the extension of Moody Street from Cerritos Avenue to the northern terminus of Siboney Street, as well as the extension of Vessels Circle from its current western terminus to intersect with the Moody Street extension, consistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed project also includes, consistent with the Specific Plan, the widening of Lexington Drive within Lot B in proposed VTTM 19247 and seven access driveways, including one at Lexington Drive and two each at Cerritos Avenue, Moody Street, and S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -20 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
Vessels Circle. Therefore, the proposed project would
accommodate all types of transportation demand and no
conflict with this policy would occur.
Policy CIR 2-3: Ensure that effective
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures and programs are being implemented.
No Conflict. As discussed further in Threshold 4.17.2 and detailed in Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the proposed project would be required to implement feasible TDM strategies to mitigate the proposed project’s VMT impact, which include constructing or improving bicycle facilities that would connect the proposed project to the existing regional bicycle network and improving the pedestrian network, including the
construction of off-site sidewalks to improve sidewalk coverage and pedestrian access to the surrounding area. Therefore, no conflict with this policy would occur.
Policy CIR 2-5: Implement adequate sidewalks to
meet the required uses and needs, which serves to
encourage alternative modes of transportation.
Bicycle routes which utilize sidewalks require
establishment of a City ordinance, per the Vehicle
Code.
No Conflict. Implementation of the proposed project would provide sidewalks along the project frontages. In addition, pedestrian sidewalks and pathways would be provided
throughout the Buildout Area and provide connections to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the surrounding area.
Therefore, no conflict with this policy would occur.
Policy CIR-2.8: Enhance the sidewalk environment
to encourage pedestrian activities through
streetscape and transit enhancement programs.
No Conflict. Trails and greenways in the Buildout Area will connect the residential subdistricts and Senior Housing/ Medium-Density Residential District, and provide convenient pedestrian and bike access to the public parks and town center areas. In addition, the Moody Street extension would traverse the Buildout Area and create a new central north-south corridor for pedestrians. The extension of Vessels Circle within Lot C would also provide access to Lots 10 and 11 in VTTM 19247.
Future development within the Buildout Area may require the construction of private driveways, accessways and/or streets that connect to the Moody Street and Vessels Circle extensions and existing public streets adjacent to the Buildout Area. These private driveways, accessways and/or streets may facilitate additional sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activities.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Circulation Element Policy CIR-2.8.
Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element
Goal COSR-3: Conserve energy resources through
the use of available technology and conservation
practices.
No Conflict. As described in Section 4.6, Energy, the proposed project would comply with the energy efficiency standards included in Title 24, which would reduce energy usage
associated with the proposed project such that the proposed project would not result in excessive or wasteful use of energy.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Goal
COSR-3.
Goal COSR-5: Preserve Cypress' archaeologic and
palaeontologic resources.
No Conflict. As described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, no known archaeological resources, including human remains, exist within the Buildout Area, as determined by the record search performed for the Cypress City Center Project, which included the Buildout Area. Nevertheless, the proposed project would be required to comply with Regulatory Compliance Measures
CUL-1 and CUL-2, which would ensure that any impacts to unknown archaeological resources and human remains that
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-21 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
may be present within the Buildout Area would be less than significant.
In addition, as described in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, there are no known paleontological resources in the City and the paleontology collection record search at the National History Museum of Los Angeles County did not identify any existing fossil localities within the Buildout Area. However, the Buildout Area is underlain by Quaternary alluvial deposits, which are often paleontologically sensitive. Therefore, project
construction activities that have the potential to disturb native alluvium at a depth below 10 feet would have the potential to have a potentially significant impact on paleontological resources and Mitigation Measures GEO-2 and GEO-3, which make provisions for unknown paleontological resources
discovery stop work procedures and worker training
procedures, would be required. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures GEO-2 and GEO-3, impacts on
paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Goal COSR5.
Policy COSR-5.2: Prior to development in
previously undeveloped areas, require strict
adherence to the CEQA guidelines for
environmental documentation and mitigation
measures where development will affect
archaeological or paleontological resources.
No Conflict. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. The proposed project has the potential to affect unknown archaeological resources. The proposed project would adhere to the State CEQA Guidelines for environmental documentation and
mitigation measures where development could affect these resources. Regulatory Compliance Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would ensure project compliance with CEQA, the California Code of Regulations, the State Health and Safety Code, and the California Public Resources Code as they relate to archaeological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation
Element Policy COSR-5.2.
Policy COSR-6.1: Continue to require new
developments to provide recreational
opportunities for their residents in accordance
with the City's park standard, three acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.16, Recreation, the proposed project’s new residents would generate an
incremental increase in demand for park facilities; however, this increased demand would be offset by the payment of park fees required by Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. In addition, the proposed project would include public and private open space/recreational amenities. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Conservation/Open Space/ Recreation Element Policy COSR-6.1.
Housing Element
Goal HOU-3: Encourage the provision of a wide
range of housing by location, type of unit, and
price to meet the existing and future needs of
Cypress residents. Establish a balanced approach
to meeting housing needs of both renter and
owner households.
No Conflict. This is a citywide policy that applies to the City generally, and thus is not a project-specific policy. Nonetheless, the proposed project does not conflict with this goal because it delivers range of residential uses, from single-family to highdensity housing. This diversity of housing types would offer options to accommodate varying household needs within the community. As such, the project supports the provision of S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -22 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
varied housing opportunities and would not conflict with Goal HOU-3 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy HOU-3.3: Support the provision of
affordable housing to accommodate large families.
No Conflict. This is a citywide policy that applies to the City generally, and thus is not a project-specific policy. Nonetheless, the proposed project does not conflict with this goal because it delivers a range of residential uses, from single-family to highdensity housing. This diversity of housing types would offer options to accommodate varying household needs within the community. As such, the project supports the provision of varied housing opportunities and would not conflict with Goal HOU-3 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy HOU-3.4: Facilitate the development of
senior housing with supportive services
No Conflict. Buildout of the proposed project would include two land use districts that allow senior housing uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy HOU-3.4 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy HOU-3.6: Encourage use of sustainable and
green building design in new and existing housing.
No Conflict. Any future development that would take place in the Buildout Area would be required to comply with the latest edition of the California Green Building Standards Code, which includes requirements for sustainability features. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy HOU-3.6 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal HOU-4: Provide adequate housing sites
through appropriate land use, zoning, and specific
plan designations to accommodate the City’s share
of regional housing needs.
No Conflict. This is a citywide policy that applies to the City generally, and thus is not a project-specific policy. Nonetheless, the proposed project does not conflict with this goal because it delivers a range of residential uses and unit types, from singlefamily to high-density housing for a total unit count of 1,791 residential units. The proposed project is also part of the City’s Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Goal HOU-4 of the City’s General Plan.
Policy HOU-4.4: Ensure compatibility of new
residential development with existing
development to enhance the City’s residential
neighborhoods.
No Conflict. The proposed project would include a mix of uses congruent with existing development patterns in the project area. Future development may be subject to the architectural and design standards that are applicable to that part of the City, which would ensure aesthetic compatibility. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy HOU-4.4 of the City’s General Plan.
Safety Element
Goal SAF-1: Protect residents, workers, and
visitors from flood hazards, including dam
inundation.
No Conflict. As described in further detail in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to flooding. Additionally, the proposed on-site storm drain system would be adequately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff so that on-site flooding would not occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Safety Element Goal SAF-1.
Goal SAF-2: Protect life and property in Cypress
from seismic events and resulting hazards.
No Conflict. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires compliance with the
recommendations in the project Geotechnical Investigation, all impacts related to geological hazards would be less than significant. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Safety Element Goal SAF-2.
Goal SAF-5: Protect life and property in Cypress No Conflict. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.15, Public
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-23 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
from urban fires. Maintain the Orange County Fire
Authority’s high level of service to community
businesses and residents.
Services, the proposed project requires the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1, which requires the
Applicant/Developer to enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority. The Secured Fire Protection Agreement would ensure adequate service to the project site. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Safety Element Goal SAF-5.
Goal SAF-6: Maintain the police department's high
quality of service to the City.
No Conflict. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.15, Public Services, the proposed project is expected to be adequately served by existing police facilities. Additionally, the Cypress Police Department would review the site plan during the project approval phase and would impose standard conditions of
approval. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Safety Element Goal SAF-6.
Goal SAF-8: Protect Cypress residents from air
operation accidents.
No Conflict. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people in the project area because the proposed project would comply with all
appropriate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards and requirements, including compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations [FAR] Part 77 requirements as required by
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1. In addition, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has reviewed and approved the Specific Plan, indicating that implementation of the Specific Plan would not expose residents to air operation accidents. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Safety Element Goal SAF-8.
Noise Element
Goal N-2: Incorporate noise considerations into
land use planning decisions.
No Conflict. Section 4.13, Noise, of this Draft EIR evaluates the potential short-term and long-term noise impacts from
implementation of the proposed project and identifies
measures in order to ensure all noise impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Noise Element Goal N-2.
Goal N-3: Minimize noise spillover from
commercial uses into nearby residential
neighborhoods.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise, implementation of the proposed project would generate various on-site
stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and commercial uses activities such as loading and unloading and parking lot activities. However, once final architectural plans and mechanical equipment
specifications are available for each future project, preparation of a project-specific acoustical analysis would be required to confirm compliance with the City’s exterior and interior noise standards related to land use compatibility, as established in City of Cypress Municipal Code Chapter 8 (Noise), Sections 8-1-4 and 8-1-5, which set forth allowable noise limits by noise zone and authorize the City to require noise measurements or acoustical studies to verify compliance with applicable standards prior to or following project occupancy. Because the proposed project would meet the City’s noise standards, the proposed project would minimize noise spillover from
commercial uses into nearby residential neighborhoods. As S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -24 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
such, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Noise Element Goal N-3.
Air Quality Element
Goal AQ-1: Reduce air pollution through proper
land use and transportation planning.
No Conflict. Objective 3 of the proposed project, which can be found in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, aims to implement sustainable planning and development practices by creating compact new developments and walkable
neighborhoods to minimize the City’s contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and energy usage. The
planning of potential residential sites directly adjacent to business and retail sites would eliminate the need for
automobile travel in some cases. The walkable nature of the Buildout Area would contribute to the reduction of air pollution from automobile travel and would not conflict with Goal AQ-1 of the City’s General Plan.
Goal AQ-2: Improve air quality by reducing the
amount of vehicular emissions in Cypress.
No Conflict. The proposed project would facilitate transit use by providing a new dense mixed-use development on an
underutilized property near a major arterial street (Katella Avenue), which is already served by existing transit service. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Air Quality Element Goal AQ-2.
Growth Management Element
Goal GM-1: Reduce traffic congestion. No Conflict. Pursuant to SB 743 and Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the determination of significance for transportation impacts under CEQA is based on VMT rather than roadway LOS. Accordingly, congestion or delay at
intersections, including those on the Orange County CMP network, is no longer considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. Although LOS is no longer used for CEQA significance determinations, the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and the Orange County CMP continue to identify LOS standards for local policy and regional consistency purposes.
Improvements at the intersections with non-CEQA projectrelated effects further improvements include Intersections #12 (Cerritos Avenue at Los Alamitos Boulevard), #16 (Cerritos Avenue at Walker Street), #17 (Cerritos Avenue at Valley View Street), and #18 (Vessels Circle at Walker Street). Proposed feasible improvements are recommended for those four
intersections to reduce the non-CEQA project effects,
notwithstanding that three of them currently operate at acceptable levels of service pursuant to the Cypress and Los Alamitos Circulation Elements. Intersection #17 (Cerritos Avenue at Valley View Street) in the PM peak hour would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS with the proposed feasible improvements. In addition, using the Buildout Year 2038 with Project conditions, future Intersection #31 (Vessels Circle at Moody Street) would satisfy the signal warrants in the morning and the evening peak hours and a traffic signal is recommended to be installed at this future intersection. Based on a left-turn phasing analysis, left-turn phasing in the northsouth direction is also recommended. Proposed improvements
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-25 Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Objective/Policy Would the Project Conflict?
at Intersection #18 (Vessels Circle at Walker Street) are anticipated to accommodate the added vehicle queues due to the proposed project. In addition, the project features previously identified for Intersection #15 (Cerritos Avenue at Moody Street) are anticipated to accommodate the projected left-turn vehicle queues and prevent an exceedance. However, no feasible improvements can be implemented for the other five intersections to prevent an exceedance. Further, in the Existing Condition with Moody Street and Vessels Circle extensions, Existing with Project, and Buildout Year 2038 with and without the proposed project, all three intersections would operate at LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours, which is acceptable per CMP guidelines. As such, the proposed project includes project features and roadway/intersection improvements in order to maintain a safe, efficient, economical, and aesthetically pleasing transportation system and no conflict with this policy would occur.
Policy GM-4.1: To the extent feasible, utilize
information on the jobs/housing balance in the
City and region as a factor in land use decisionmaking.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) was developed using various data, including the City’s projected population, household, and employment growth. Thus, the balance of jobs and housing is a built-in factor of the RHNA housing unit allocation provided by SCAG. The buildout of the proposed project includes 1,791 residential units, which would not conflict with the City’s RHNA allocation.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with Policy GM-4.1 of the City’s General Plan.
Source: City of Cypress General Plan (2001).
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0: The Specific Plan is the regulatory plan that constitutes the Land Use for the Buildout Area. The project does not propose any amendments to the Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan. In addition, as provided above, the City (through Measure S) determined that the Specific Plan is consistent with all eight elements of the General Plan, as required by Government Code Section 65450.
City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan is the regulatory plan that constitutes the zoning for the Buildout Area. The project does not propose any amendments to the Specific Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Summary. The proposed project does not include any proposed amendments or modifications to the adopted Specific Plan. The proposed project is the reasonably foreseeable buildout of the Specific Plan in the Buildout Area. As such, the proposed project would not introduce inconsistencies in the applicable City land use and planning policies. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, and no mitigation is required.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -26
4.11.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning.
4.11.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project pertaining to land use and planning.
4.11.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
No mitigation is required. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning.
4.11.10 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are impacts created as a result of the combination of an individual project together with other past, current, and probable future projects causing related impacts. An EIR must discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The cumulative impact area for land use and planning is the City of Cypress and this cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development within the City. Please refer to Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects and Figure 4.1, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, for the descriptions and locations of these related projects.
The City of Cypress is an urbanized area with a wide variety of established land uses. The Buildout Area is surrounded by a variety of commercial, office, business park, commercial and retail, residential, park and religious uses. As previously discussed, the Specific Plan would govern the Land Uses within the Buildout Area. Moreover, the Buildout Area would include land uses that would be compatible with the existing and planned neighborhoods and commercial areas surrounding the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a pattern of development that adversely impacts adjacent land uses or conflicts with existing on site or surrounding land uses.
As discussed under Threshold 4.11.1, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community because development would occur within existing areas of development.
Therefore, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact with respect to the physical division of an established community. As discussed under Threshold 4.11.2, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact with respect to consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Specific Plan because future buildout of the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable goals, policies, designations, and regulations.
There are no incompatibilities between the proposed project and planned future projects in the City, which primarily include mixed-use and residential developments. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not divide an established community; conflict with Connect SoCal or any City-adopted plans or policies. Future development applications contemplated within the Buildout Area would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and standards related to land use and planning. As such, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) 4.11-27 actions would be subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
In addition, all identified City-related projects, including the related projects identified in Table 4.A, would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the City. For this reason, the related projects are anticipated to be consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning requirements, or would be subject to allowable exceptions; further, they would be subject to CEQA, mitigation requirements, and design review. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative land use compatibility impact in the study area, and no mitigation is required.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.11 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.11 Land Use and Planning.docx (03/11/26) -28 This page intentionally left blank
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.12 Mineral Resources.docx (03/11/26)
4.12-1
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (proposed project) to result in impacts to mineral resources. This section also describes the existing setting of mineral resources within and near the Buildout Area and sets forth the relevant regulatory requirements that apply to the project’s potential impact on mineral resources. This section is based in part on information provided in the County of Orange General Plan Chapter VI, Resources Element; the City of Cypress General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element; 1 California
Geological Survey (CGS) data;
2 and the Environmental Impact Report, Soils and Geology Issues, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 4961 Katella Avenue and 5100 Cerritos Avenue, Cypress, California (Geotechnical Investigation)
3 (Appendix F) prepared for the proposed project.
4.12.1 Scoping Process
The City of Cypress (City) received six comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). For a copy of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). No comment letters included comments related to mineral resources.
4.12.2 Methodology
Impacts to mineral resources are assessed based on the potential for the proposed project to result in the loss of or reduced availability of known or potential mineral resources or sites. Information on mineral resources was compiled from published literature, maps, and aerial photographs. Geologic units and structural features were obtained from maps published by the CGS. Mineral resource impacts that could result from project-related activities were evaluated qualitatively based on existing conditions in the Buildout Area;
4 expected construction practices; and materials, locations, and duration of construction and operational activities.
Based on guidelines adopted by the CGS, areas known as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) are classified according to the presence or absence of significant deposits, as defined below. The following MRZ categories are used by the California State Geologist in classifying the State’s lands:
• MRZ-1: Areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. This zone is applied where well-developed lines of reasoning, based on economic-geologic principles and adequate data, indicate that the likelihood for occurrence of significant mineral deposits is nil or slight.
1 City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Conservation, Open Space/Recreation Element.
Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/686/636123123792970000 (accessed August 2024).
2 California Department of Conservation (DOC), California Geological Survey. n.d. Minerals. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals (accessed January 23, 2025). 3 Geotechnologies, Inc. 2024. Environmental Impact Report, Soils and Geology Issues, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 4961 Katella Avenue and 5100 Cerritos Avenue, Cypress, California. May 2. (Appendix F) 4 As described in Chapter 3.0 of this Draft EIR, the baseline condition generally consists of the existing conditions in and in the vicinity of the Buildout Area at the time the NOP was published (April 4, 2025).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.12 Mineral Resources.docx (03/11/26)
4.12-2
• MRZ-2a: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data show that significant measured or indicated resources are present. Areas classified as MRZ-2a contain discovered mineral deposits that are either measured or indicated reserves as determined by such evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface exposure, and mine information. Land included in the MRZ-2a category is of prime importance because it contains known economic mineral deposits.
• MRZ-2b: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic information indicates that significant inferred resources are present. Areas classified as MRZ-2b contain discovered deposits that are either inferred reserves or deposits that are presently subeconomic as determined by limited sample analysis, exposure, and past mining history. • MRZ-3a: Areas containing known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources.
MRZ-3a areas are considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of economic mineral deposits.
• MRZ-3b: Areas containing inferred mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources. Land classified as MRZ-3b represents areas in geologic settings that appear to be favorable environments for the occurrence of specific mineral deposits. • MRZ-4: Areas where geologic information does not rule out either the presence or absence of mineral resources. The MRZ-4 classification does not imply that there is little likelihood for the presence of mineral resources; rather, there is a lack of knowledge regarding mineral occurrence.
After an area has been classified into an MRZ, the California State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) determines if the classified MRZ deposit warrants either a “regional” (multi-community) or “statewide economic significance” designation. In contrast to classification, which inventories mineral deposits without regard to existing land use, the purpose of designation is to identify those areas that are of prime importance in meeting the future needs of the study region and that remain available from a land use perspective.5
4.12.3 Existing Environmental Setting
The Buildout Area is located in an urbanized area that is currently developed and there are no known mineral resources within its boundaries.
4.12.3.1 Orange County
The primary mineral resource in Orange County is construction aggregate consisting of sand and gravel. Significant sand and gravel resources within Orange County are located in portions of the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, San Juan Creek, Arroyo Trabuco, and other areas. The CGS also 5 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2000. SMARA Mineral Land Classification. Division of Mines and Geology. January. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/Class Desig.pdf (accessed January 23, 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.12 Mineral Resources.docx (03/11/26)
4.12-3
identifies fire clay and industrial sand as having historically been produced in large quantities within Orange County.
6 4.12.3.2 City of Cypress
According to the California Department of Conservation, the entire City of Cypress is located within MRZ-4.7In addition, the City is not within the proximity of any MRZ-2 areas, and is surrounded by an MRZ-1 area, indicating the absence of significant mineral deposits in the area.8Furthermore, according to the City’s General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, there are no mineral resources as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG; now known as the California Geological Survey or CGS) within the City.9
4.12.3.3 Buildout Area
According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project (Appendix F), the Buildout Area contains fill materials that are underlain by native alluvial soils consisting of interlayered mixtures of sandy to silty clay, sandy to clayey silt, silty to clayey sand, and sand.
Subsurface excavations within the Buildout Area did not encounter any mineral resources of State or local importance within the Buildout Area.
4.12.4 Regulatory Setting
The following section describes the federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework applicable to analyzing potential impacts related to mineral resources from development of the proposed project.
4.12.4.1 Federal Regulations
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to mineral resources are applicable to the Buildout Area because the Buildout Area does not include any federal lands or require federal approvals related to mineral resources.
4.12.4.2 State Regulations
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. The State of California recognized that mineral resources are essential to the needs of society and the economic well-being of the State. In 1975, the State Legislature passed the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2710, et seq. The intent of SMARA is to promote production and conservation of 6 County of Orange. 2013. County of Orange General Plan Resources Element. Website: https://ocds.oc publicworks.com/ sites/ocpwocds/files/import/data/files/40235.pdf (accessed January 23, 2025). 7 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1994. Generalized Mineral Land Classification of Orange County, California. Division of Mines and Geology.
8 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2000. SMARA Mineral Land Classification. Division of Mines and Geology. January. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/Class Desig.pdf (accessed January 23, 2025).
9 City of Cypress. 2001. City of Cypress General Plan Conservation, Open Space/Recreation Element.
Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/686/636123123792970000 (accessed January 23, 2025).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.12 Mineral Resources.docx (03/11/26)
4.12-4
mineral resources, minimize the environmental effects of mining, and ensure mined lands are reclaimed to conditions suitable for alternative uses. Reclaiming land for other uses once mining operations are completed is important for the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Under SMARA, permits are required for all mining activities commencing operation on or after January 1, 1976.
Under current SMARA statutes (PRC Section 2763), prior to permitting a use that would threaten the potential to extract minerals in an area designated by the SMGB as having mineral resources of regional or statewide significance, the City must prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting the proposed use. In it, the City must consider its Mineral Resource Management Policies, balance the mineral values against alternative land uses, and consider the importance of the minerals to their market region as a whole and not just their importance to the City area. This process is designed to ensure that decision-makers weigh the economic and environmental value of non-renewable mineral resources when determining whether or not to protect existing mineral resources.
4.12.4.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that apply to the proposed project with respect to mineral resources.
4.12.4.4 Local Regulations
The City of Cypress General Plan and Municipal Code do not contain any applicable goals, policies, or regulations related to mineral resources. The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (Specific Plan) also does not contain any applicable goals, policies, or regulations related to mineral resources.
4.12.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for mineral resources used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact with respect to mineral resources if it would:
Threshold 4.12.1: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state; or
Threshold 4.12.2: Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
4.12.6 Project Impacts
Potential impacts of the proposed project related to mineral resources are discussed below pursuant to the thresholds established in Section 4.12.5, above.
Threshold 4.12.1: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.12 Mineral Resources.docx (03/11/26)
4.12-5
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources in or in the vicinity of the Buildout Area, and there are no other known mineral deposits or resources within the City that are of significant value to the region or the State. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and residents of the State.
Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.12.2: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The Buildout Area does not contain a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. As noted above, there are no other known mineral deposits or resources within the City that are of significant value to the region or of local importance according to the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur, and no mitigation is required.
4.12.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
4.12.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.12.8.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
No mitigation measures or regulatory compliance measures are applicable to the proposed project pertaining to mineral resources.
4.12.8.2 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
4.12.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would result in no impacts related to mineral resources.
4.12.10 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for mineral resources. The cumulative study area for the proposed project is the City of Cypress and as described in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, certain past, current, and future projects. The cumulative project list and map locations are also provided in Chapter 4.0, Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects and Figure 4-1: Cumulative Projects.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.12 Mineral Resources.docx (03/11/26)
4.12-6
Cumulative impacts are addressed only for those thresholds that would result in a project-related impact, whether it be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. If the project would result in no impact with respect to a particular threshold, by definition, it would not contribute to a cumulative impact. Therefore, no analysis would be required.
As detailed in this section, the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources.
Furthermore, there are no known or designated mineral resources within the City’s boundaries.
Because the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources, it would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively significant impact on mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-1
4.13 NOISE
This section evaluates the potential short-term and long-term noise impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (proposed project). This section is based in part on information provided in the Noise Element of the City of Cypress’ (City) General Plan, the Specific Plan, the City’s Noise Ordinance, as well as the applicable noise requirements in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. The assumptions used in the noise analysis and the noise modeling results are provided in Appendix I.
4.13.1 Scoping Process
The City of Cypress (City) received six comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). For a copy of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). None of the comment letters included comments related to Noise.
4.13.2 Methodology
Evaluation of noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed project includes the following:
• Determination of the short-term construction noise and vibration impacts. • Determination of the long-term off-site and on-site traffic noise impacts. • Determination of the long-term stationary noise and vibration impacts from project operations. • Determination of the required mitigation measures to reduce short-term construction–related noise and vibration impacts and long-term stationary and mobile source noise impacts.
The evaluation of noise and vibration impacts was prepared in conformance with appropriate standards, utilizing procedures and methodologies in the City of Cypress Noise Element and Municipal Code and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria.
4.13.2.1 Proposed Project Methodology
Establish Noise Baseline: In order to assess the existing noise conditions in the area, long-term (24-hour) noise-level measurements were conducted between March 25 and 26, 2025, using six (6) Larson Davis Spark 706RC Dosimeters at six locations surrounding the project site, representative of the existing ambient noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Figure 4.13-1, Noise Monitoring Locations, shows the long-term noise monitoring locations.
The six monitoring sites were selected to: (1) capture noise exposure patterns in all principal directions toward adjacent sensitive receptors; (2) represent the closest residential interfaces and other sensitive uses; (3) capture both direct and partially attenuated noise propagation paths from the Los Alamitos Race Course; and (4) reflect varying proximities to roadway traffic corridors that influence ambient noise levels. Collectively, the selected locations provide a representative characterization of existing off-site ambient noise conditions that sensitive receptors experience under typical operational circumstances.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -2 This page intentionally left blank
LSA I= I Project Location
.A. Noise Monitoring Location
0 350 700
FEET
SOURCE: Vantor (4/16/2024)
l:\C\CCP2201.050\GIS\Pro\Los Alamitos Race Course Development Project\Los Alamitos Race Course Development Project.aprx (Fig 4-13 - Noise Monitoring Locations) 11/12/2025 2:34 PM
FIGURE 4.13-1
Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project
Noise Monitoring Locations
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -4 This page intentionally left blank
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-5 Noise measurements were conducted during periods when simulcast racing activities were occurring at the Los Alamitos Race Course, as simulcast wagering represents a typical operational condition when the facility is open to patrons. Simulcast racing, in which races from other tracks are broadcast and wagered on at the Los Alamitos Race Course grandstand and outdoor areas, is offered daily with gates opening in the morning for simulcast viewing and wagering activities. Measurements collected during active simulcast operations are representative of routine daytime use of the race course and were used to characterize existing ambient and activity-related noise conditions for the operational noise analysis.1
Construction Methodology: Consistent with the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement2and FTA3 construction noise assessment guidance, construction noise impacts were evaluated using a conservative, worst-case modeling approach. This scenario assumes that grading activities would occur concurrently on five lots—Lots 2, 4, 7, 12, and 13—with full grading of Lots 4, 12, and 13, as well as partial grading of the southern 8 acres of Lot 2 and the northern 11 acres of Lot 7. The purpose of this model run is to capture the potential for overlapping construction schedules and to model the potential worst-case scenario for grading activities. As such, this modeling run focuses solely on grading to represent the most intensive construction activities that would generate peak construction emissions.
The modeled scenario reflects the maximum reasonable construction intensity, assuming the greatest number of noise-generating equipment operating concurrently, and the closest potential proximity of equipment to nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Equipment sound levels and usage assumptions were based on FTA reference construction noise levels, with noise levels calculated as hourly average equivalent sound levels (Leq) at representative receptor locations.
This conservative methodology is consistent with Caltrans and FTA guidance, which recommends evaluating the loudest anticipated construction phase under peak equipment operation conditions to ensure that predicted noise levels reasonably represent worst-case conditions. As such, the results of this analysis provide a robust and protective assessment of potential construction noise impacts associated with the proposed project.
Operational Noise Evaluation Methodology: Potential operational noise impacts associated with the proposed project were evaluated using available project information, including the site plan, proposed land uses, anticipated operational characteristics, and typical noise sources associated with similar commercial and mixed-use developments. The analysis considered to the extent possible onsite stationary noise sources such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, as well as intermittent operational activities including parking lot circulation, loading and unloading, refuse collection, and maintenance activities. In the absence of project-specific equipment 1 Los Alamitos Race Course. 2025. Simulcast Racing Information, Los Alamitos, CA. Website:
https://losalamitos.com (accessed December 15, 2025).
2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) Sacramento, CA.
3 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Report No. FTA-0123. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -6 specifications at this stage of design, the evaluation relied on standard noise levels for typical equipment and activities and professional judgment to assess compliance with applicable City of Cypress Municipal Code noise standards at nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
4.13.2.2 Characteristics of Sound
Noise is usually defined as “unwanted sound.” Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health.
To the human ear, sound has two important characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a wave resulting in the tone’s range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity is the average rate of sound energy transmitted through a unit area perpendicular to the direction in which the sound waves are traveling. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. In analyzing the potential noise impacts of a proposed project, the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project site is identified and the potential noise effects of the project are evaluated in terms of sound intensity and the effect on adjacent sensitive land uses.
4.13.2.3 Measurement of Sound
Sound intensity is measured through the A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies. Decibels (dB), unlike the linear scale (e.g., inches or pounds), is a scale based on powers of 10.
Each interval of 10 dB indicates a sound energy 10 times greater than before. For example, 20 dB is 10 times more intense than 10 dB, 30 dB is 100 times more intense than 10 dB, and 40 dB is 1,000 times more intense than 10 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear.
A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source.
This drop-off rate is applicable to noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source (which approximates the effect of several point sources), such as highway traffic or railroad operations, the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source sound levels decrease 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation.
There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also account for the annoying effects of sound. The Leq is the total sound
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-7 energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for communities in the State of California are the Leq and CNEL or the Ldn based on A-weighted decibels.
CNEL is the time-weighted average noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the relaxation. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable.
Other noise rating scales used when assessing the annoyance factor of noise include the maximum noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. Short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise.
For enforcement purposes, it is often used with another noise scale (or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels) in noise ordinances. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level.
The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period.
4.13.2.4 Vibration
According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) FTA’s 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or anthropogenic causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration is often described in units of velocity (inches per second) and discussed in decibel units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts are generally associated with activities such as train operations, construction, and heavy truck movements.
Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile-driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with both ground-borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet of the vibration source, although there are examples of ground-borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 feet as detailed in the 2018 FTA Manual. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground-borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, construction of the project could result in ground-borne vibration that may be perceptible and annoying.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -8 Ground-borne vibration has the potential to disturb people and damage buildings. Although it is very rare for train-induced ground-borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile-driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings.4 Ground-borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). The RMS is best for characterizing human response to building vibration, and PPV is used to characterize the potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as Lv = 20 log10 [V/Vref]
where “Lv” is the vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), “V” is the vibration amplitude, and “Vref” is the reference velocity amplitude, or 1 x 10-6inches per second (in/sec) used in the United States.
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting
The following section describes the federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework applicable to analyzing potential impacts related to noise from development of the proposed project.
4.13.3.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Transit Administration. The USDOT Federal Transit Administration (FTA) identifies guidelines for the maximum acceptable vibration levels for different types of land uses. These guidelines are based on the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building and the potential for building damage. According to the FTA, ground vibrations from construction activities generally do not reach levels that can damage structures, but they can achieve the audible and feelable ranges in buildings very close to the construction site. Exceptions include non-engineered timber and masonry buildings such as residential buildings and old or fragile buildings, where special care must be taken to avoid damage. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment, such as air compressors, light trucks, and hydraulic loaders, generates little or no ground vibration.
United States Noise Control Act. In 1972, Congress enacted the United States Noise Control Act. This act authorized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to publish descriptive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” These levels are separated into health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels). For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to 70 dBA during a 24-hour period of time. At 55 dBA Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 feet, with no community reaction. However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent 4 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Report No. FTA0123. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-9 may indicate annoyance. The USEPA cautions that these identified levels are guidelines, not standards.
4.13.3.2 State Regulations
Noise Control Act (Health & Saf. Code §§ 46000-46080). The California Noise Control Act states that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that it is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians that is free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. The goal is to minimize the number of people that would be exposed to excessive noise but not create an environment completely free from any noise.
State of California General Plan Guidelines. The State of California regulates vehicular and freeway noise affecting classrooms, sets standards for sound transmission and occupational noise control, and identifies noise insulation standards and airport noise/land-use compatibility criteria. The State of California OPR’s 2017 General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2017), also provide guidance for the acceptability of projects within specific Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)/day-night average noise level (Ldn) contours. The General Plan Guidelines present adjustment factors that may be used in order to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.
State of California Code of Regulations (CCR Title 24, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4). Interior noise levels for residential habitable rooms are regulated by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) California Noise Insulation Standards. Title 24, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, of the 2019 California Building Code requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 CNEL/Ldn in any habitable room. A habitable room is a room used for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. Bathrooms, closets, hallways, utility spaces, and similar areas are not considered habitable rooms for this regulation.
4.13.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations related to noise that are applicable to the proposed project.
4.13.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress General Plan. The development of effective strategies to reduce impacts of excessive noise is an essential part of the land use planning process. Since 1971, the Noise Element has been one of the seven mandatory elements of a General Plan. The Noise Element requires that noise sources be considered in establishing land use patterns so as to minimize exposure of residents to excessive noise. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan5 works to achieve and maintain environmental noise levels compatible with land use by establishing goals, policies, and programs to ensure that Cypress residents will be protected from excessive noise. The City’s Noise Element serves as a guideline for compliance with the State’s noise insulation standards. Applicable Noise Element objectives and policies include the following:
5 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan Noise Element. Website: https://www.cypressca. org/home/ showpublisheddocument/718/636123119313270000 (accessed June 3, 2023).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -10 • N-1 Reduce noise impacts from transportation noise sources. • N-2 Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. • N-3 Minimize noise spillover from commercial uses into nearby residential neighborhoods. • N-4 Minimize the noise impacts associated with the development of residential units above ground floor commercial uses in mixed use developments. • N-5 Develop measures to control non-transportation noise impacts.
Additionally, the City’s General Plan Noise Element has established interior and exterior noise standards for various land use categories shown in Table 4.13.A: City of Cypress Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. As shown in Table 4.13.A, the City’s exterior and interior noise standards are 50–60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) CNEL and 45–55 dBA CNEL, respectively, for single- and multifamily residences. It should be noted that the City’s exterior noise standard only applies to private yards of single-family residences, private patios, or balconies of multifamily residences which are served by a means of exit from inside the dwelling, mobile home parks, park picnic areas, and school playgrounds.
Multifamily residences with balconies that are 6 feet deep or less are exempt from the City’s exterior noise standard. Although the City’s interior noise standard is 45–55 dBA CNEL, the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL was used for a conservative noise analysis.
Table 4.13.A: City of Cypress Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Categories dBA CNEL
Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2
Residential Single Family Duplex, Multiple Family 453–55 50–60 Mobile Home 45 654
Commercial
Industrial
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45 --
Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant 55 --
Office Building, Research and Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building 50 --
Amphitheater, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall 45 -- Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 --
Sports Club 55 --
Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities 65 --
Movie Theaters 45 --
Institutional Hospital, Schools’ Classrooms 45 65
Church, Library 45 --
Open Space Parks -- 65
Source: City of Cypress General Plan Noise Element, Table N-3. 1 Indoor environmental including: bedrooms, living areas, bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2 Outdoor environments limited to: private yards of single-family residences, private patios, or balconies of multifamily residences which are served by a means of exit from inside the dwelling (balconies 6 ft deep or less are exempt), mobile home parks, park picnic areas, and school playgrounds.
3 Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. 4 Exterior noise levels should be such that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-11 Although the City has not adopted exterior noise standards for hotels, movie theaters, and commercial uses, the City has established an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for hotels and movie theaters and an interior noise standard of 55 dBA CNEL for commercial retail and restaurant uses.
City of Cypress Municipal Code.
Construction Noise Standards. Section 13-70(e) of the City’s Municipal Code states that “noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or a federal holiday.” Operational Noise Standards. Sections 13-68 and 13-69 of the City’s Municipal Code has established exterior and interior noise standards for residential uses from stationary noise sources. The exterior and interior stationary source noise standards are shown in Table 4.13.B: Exterior Noise Level Standards and Table 4.13.C: Interior Noise Level Standards, respectively. Based on the City’s Municipal Code, residential land uses adjacent to the project site in the City of Cypress are designated as Noise Zone 2 because they are zoned as Planned Business Park.
Table 4.13.B: Exterior Noise Level Standards
Noise Zone Noise Level (dBA Leq) Time Period
1 55 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
50 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
2 60 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
55 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Source: City of Cypress Municipal Code Section 13-68 (a) (2025). dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = Average Hourly Noise Level
Table 4.13.C: Interior Noise Level Standards
Noise Zone
Noise Level
(dBA Leq) Time Period
1 and 2 55 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
45 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Source: City of Cypress Municipal Code (2025).
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = Average Hourly Noise Level
Section 13-69(a), as shown in Table 4.13.C, presents the interior noise level standards for all residential zones.
Vibration Standards. The City does not have vibration standards in the City’s General Plan or Municipal Code, so the vibration standards included in the 2018 FTA Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance and building damage. The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration are based on the maximum levels for a single S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -12 event. Table 4.13.D: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis provides the criteria for assessing the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building.
Table 4.13.D: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis Land Use Max Lv
(VdB)1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.
Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.
Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and lowpower optical microscopes (up to 20×).
Residential Night and
Operating Rooms 72
Vibration is not felt, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100×) and other equipment of low sensitivity.
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 As measured in 1/3-Octave bands of frequency over the frequency range 8 to 80 Hertz.
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
LV = velocity in decibels
Max = maximum
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Table 4.13.E: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria lists the potential vibration damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the FTA Manual. The FTA Manual guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.5 inch per second (in/sec) in peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a nonengineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV.
Table 4.13.E: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category
PPV
(in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 12-3 (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second.
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity in decibels
4.13.4 Existing Environmental Setting
4.13.4.1 Overview of the Existing Noise Environment
The primary existing noise sources in the vicinity of the Buildout Area comes from surrounding roadways. Traffic on Katella Avenue, Lexington Drive, and West Cerritos Avenue are a steady source of ambient noise. Other sources of noise in the vicinity of the Buildout Area include aircraft noise from JFTB Los Alamitos, commercial activity, and day to day residential activity.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-13 Additionally, within the Buildout Area sources of ambient noise include the existing commercial activity and event noise at the Los Alamitos Race Course. Noise generated from commercial activity includes parking lot activities, rooftop heating ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, trash pick-up, and truck delivery and truck unloading activities. Noise generated from events held at the Los Alamitos Race Course includes parking lot activities, crowd noise, and the public announcement system.
The Los Alamitos Race Course conducts year-round live Quarter Horse racing on Fridays through Sundays, with post times beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Fridays, 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 5:00 p.m. on Sundays, and concluding by approximately 11:00 p.m. In addition, the facility hosts up to three Thoroughbred racing events each year. Outside of live racing events, the race course operates daily simulcast racing, during which races from other tracks are broadcast for on-site viewing and wagering during daytime hours. Simulcast operations represent a typical operational condition when the facility is open to patrons and contribute to routine daytime activity levels at the site.
4.13.4.2 Existing Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Noise-sensitive land uses include residences, hospitals, school classrooms, churches, libraries, and parks. The closest noise-sensitive uses are the Melia Homes located south of Lot 11 and east of Lot 12 and the residential uses located south of Lot 3 and west of Lot 13. Other sensitive uses, including receptors located across Cerritos Avenue, are situated at a far enough distance from the project site and therefore would not experience noise levels associated with project construction or operation. Table 4.13.F: Off-Site Sensitive Receptors lists the sensitive receptors surrounding the Buildout Area.
Table 4.13.F: Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Direction Distance (ft)
Single-family Residential uses opposite Cerritos Avenue North of Lot 4 100 SeaCoast Grace Church Northeast of Lot 7 500
Single-family Residential uses East of Lot 12 10
Single-family Residential uses South of Lot 3 and West of Lot 13 10 Los Alamitos Seventh-day Adventist Church South of Lot 13 50 Source: LSA (2025).
ft = foot/feet
4.13.4.3 Existing Noise Levels
Table 4.13.G: Existing Noise Level Measurements provides a summary of the measured hourly noise levels and calculated CNEL level from the long-term noise level measurements as well as a brief description of the locations where the measurements were collected. As shown the calculated CNEL levels range from 53.7 dBA CNEL to 59.7 dBA CNEL. Hourly noise levels at surrounding noise-sensitive uses are as low as 39.9 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) during nighttime hours and 48.2 dBA Leq during daytime hours.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -14 Table 4.13.G: Existing Noise Level Measurements
Location Description
Daytime
Noise
Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Evening
Noise
Levels2(dBA
Leq)
Nighttime
Noise
Levels3
(dBA Leq)
Daily
Noise
Level
(dBA
CNEL)
LT-1
At the south end of Ethel Circle, on a light pole,
approximately 135 feet north of the Cerritos
Avenue centerline.
50.9-59.8 48.6-57.9 39.9-50.8 56.0
LT-2
Cottonwood Church, 4505 Katella Avenue, Los
Alamitos. In the parking lot on the north side of
the property, approximately 55 feet north of
the building and 1,170 feet north of the Katella
centerline.
50.9-57.0 47.8-50.1 42.1-51.8 55.3
LT-3
Residence Inn, 4931 Katella Avenue, Los
Alamitos. In a tree on the northeast corner of
the property. Approximately 500 feet north of
the Katella Avenue centerline.
49.0-53.6 49.6-52.7 41.9-48.2 53.7
LT-4
Acadia Apartments, 5155 Katella Avenue,
Cypress. Near the northwest corner of the
building, on a tree. Approximately 735 feet
north of the Katella Avenue centerline.
53.5-58.3 51.7-55.3 41.9-52.9 58.0
LT-5
Near 10331 Triple Crown Lane, Cypress. Above
the gate on the west edge of the property line.
Approximately 1,050 feet north of the Katella
Avenue centerline.
48.2-58.9 50.2-52.3 41.1-46.5 54.5
LT-6
SeaCoast Grace Church, 5100 West Cerritos
Avenue. On a light pole in the parking lot.
Approximately 435 feet south of the Cerritos
Avenue centerline.
49.0-62.7 58.6-62.4 39.9-47.1 59.7
Source: LSA (2025).
Note: Noise measurements were conducted from March 25 to March 26, 2025, starting at 12:00 p.m. 1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2 Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibel
ft = foot/feet
Leq = the average noise level during a specific hour
LT = long-term measurement
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-15 It should be noted that these measured levels include existing walls and shielding from existing structures.6 Based on the modeled traffic noise levels (see Table 4.13.G), the existing noise levels along Cerritos Avenue Between Lexington Drive and Walker Street is 69.1 dBA CNEL at 50 ft from the center of nearest lane.
4.13.4.4 Existing Aircraft Noise Levels
JFTB Los Alamitos is located approximately 0.6 mile south of the Buildout Area. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for JFTB Los Alamitos and Exhibit SAF-8 in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the Buildout Area is within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, but outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JFTB Los Alamitos. Although the Buildout Area is located within Noise Impact Zone 2 (moderate noise impact), it is outside of Noise Impact Zone 1 (high noise impact) defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.
The second closest airport is the Long Beach Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.3 miles west of the Buildout Area. According to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, the Buildout Area is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for Long Beach Municipal Airport. Therefore, aircraft noise generated from the two closest airports does not currently expose people residing or working on the Buildout Area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport.
4.13.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for noise impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact with respect to noise if it would:
Threshold 4.13.1: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
Threshold 4.13.2: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or
Threshold 4.13.3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 6 LT-1 was taken at the cul-de-sac on Ethel Circle. The existing residences and 6-foot wall along Cerritos Avenue reduced the noise level, as shown in Table 4.13.G.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -16 For Threshold 4.13.1, the following noise level increases were used to determine whether the project would result in a significant noise impact:
• For off-site transportation noise—used to assess operational impacts—an increase of more than 3 dBA CNEL compared to the without-project condition would constitute a potentially significant impact.
• For non-transportation-related stationary sources (e.g., HVAC equipment), which are evaluated as part of operational noise impacts, noise levels should not exceed 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) or 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). • For construction-related impacts compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and exceedance of the FTA standards listed above and in Table 4.13.D. Specifically, to provide a comprehensive and conservative analysis, the operational noise level limits were used to evaluate noise generated from project construction. The anytime maximum daytime exterior noise level of 80 dBA Lmax for residential uses in the City of Cypress was used as the acceptable threshold for determining impacts at noise-sensitive land uses from project construction. This threshold is considered a reasonable threshold of significance for potential construction noise impacts because the City of Cypress has established maximum exterior noise standards to control operational noise levels.
This is a conservative threshold because Section 13-70(e) of the City’s Municipal Code states that “noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or a federal holiday.”
4.13.6 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.13.1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction Noise Impacts. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition of the existing structures, excavation, grading, and construction of the proposed buildings. Construction noise associated with the proposed project would be temporary and would vary depending on the nature of the construction activities. Construction of individual improvements within the Buildout Area would occur in phases over time as specific development components are implemented and as tenants move in. Accordingly, construction-related noise would not occur simultaneously across the entire site, but rather intermittently and in localized areas corresponding to active work zones.
Because construction activities are temporary, mobile, and phased, impact evaluations focus on peak construction scenarios representing the loudest equipment mix and closest receptor distance during each anticipated phase of development.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-17 However, to provide a conservative assessment, the scenario used to calculate potential construction noise assumed concurrent grading on five lots—Lots 2, 4, 7, 12, and 13—with full grading of Lots 4, 12, and 13, as well as partial grading of the southern 8 acres of Lot 2 and the northern 11 acres of Lot
7. The purpose of this model run is to capture the potential for overlapping construction schedules and to model the potential worst-case scenario for grading activities. As such, this modeling run would represent the most intensive construction activities that would generate peak construction emissions.
Noise generated would primarily be associated with the operation of off-road equipment for on-site construction activities as well as construction vehicle traffic on surrounding roadways. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Other primary sources of acoustic disturbance would be random incidents, such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts. During construction, exterior noise levels could negatively affect residences and the church in the vicinity of the construction site. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Buildout Area at the present time but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed project is completed.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction within the Buildout Area: (1) construction traffic, and (2) construction equipment.
Construction Traffic. Construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the Buildout Area would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Construction would occur in phases over time, rather than as a single, continuous operation, such that construction-related vehicle trips would be distributed temporally and would not occur at peak intensity across the entire Buildout Area at once.
However, certain construction activities—such as concrete foundation pours or utility installation— typically require concentrated truck activity over a short duration. During a concrete pour, ready-mix trucks may arrive at regular intervals over several hours to maintain proper curing and placement of the material. These deliveries are temporary and episodic, generally occurring over one or several days for a given building pad. Similarly, hauling activities associated with site preparation, export of soil, or delivery of structural materials may result in periods of elevated heavy-truck traffic during discrete phases of construction. These construction-related trucks would utilize established arterial and collector roadways that currently accommodate commercial and industrial traffic associated with the surrounding land uses and the Los Alamitos Race Course. Heavy vehicles would access the site from designated truck routes and regional transportation corridors, and would depart along the same roadway network toward material suppliers, batch plants, disposal facilities, or regional freeways. As such, construction vehicle traffic would be dispersed along the existing roadway system rather than concentrated on local residential streets.
While individual heavy trucks can generate intermittent, short-duration single-event noise levels that are perceptible to nearby receptors, these events would not substantially affect longer-term (hourly or daily) ambient traffic noise levels because: (1) construction truck volumes represent a small fraction of total daily traffic on primary access routes; (2) the loudest vehicle usage are brief in duration; and (3) construction-related traffic would be temporary and phased rather than continuous over the life of the project. Accordingly, although short-term increases in heavy-truck activity may be noticeable S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -18 during specific activities such as concrete pours or material hauling, these increases would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in roadway noise levels.
Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along primary access routes are relatively high, with approximately 21,860 vehicles per day on Cerritos Avenue and 36,120 vehicles per day on Katella Avenue.7 As a general rule, traffic volumes on a roadway would typically need to double in order to result in an increase in traffic noise levels of approximately 3 dBA, which is the minimum change generally considered perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Construction-related vehicle trips, including worker commutes and equipment delivery trips, would be substantially lower than existing traffic volumes and would not approach a doubling of traffic on these roadways.
Because construction-related vehicle trips would not approach existing daily traffic volumes on nearby roads, any increase in traffic noise would be less than 3 dBA and therefore would not be perceptible.
It should also be noted that removal of the existing improvements associated with the Los Alamitos Race Course would result in cessation of race track operations during demolition and subsequent construction activities. With the track no longer operating, the existing traffic generated by patrons, employees, vendors, and event-related activities would be substantially reduced or eliminated. As such, construction-related vehicle trips would, in part, replace rather than add to existing operational traffic volumes, thereby offsetting potential roadway noise increases. Accordingly, short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with worker commutes and equipment transport to the Buildout Area would be less than significant.
Construction Equipment. The second category of short-term noise impacts relates to noise generated by construction activities. As development within the Buildout Area would occur on a project-byproject basis and the specific design and sequencing of those projects cannot be determined at this time, LSA evaluated a conservative construction noise scenario. This scenario represents the maximum potential noise exposure that could reasonably occur during project implementation and therefore provides a robust basis for impact assessment.
For purposes of noise modeling, the analysis assumes the simultaneous construction of five selected lots (Lots 2, 4, 5, 12, and 13), including demolition and removal of the existing improvements associated with Los Alamitos Race Course and the simultaneous construction of five projects in the Buildout Area. This condition represents the greatest potential disturbance as it involves the highest concentration of construction activity, the greatest number of pieces of heavy equipment operating at the same time and overlapping demolition and earthwork activities that generate the loudest construction noise levels.
The modeled peak condition reflects the construction phase expected to generate the highest noise levels at adjacent off-site sensitive receptors, including the nearby residential uses located east of Lot
12. By assuming overlap of multiple development projects and associated construction activities and equipment usage, the analysis applies a conservative approach. While the simultaneous construction of five projects is not anticipated, it provides a worst-case analysis of actual construction noise levels, ensuring analysis of the reasonable worst-case impacts. 7 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. Cypress Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project. July.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-19 In addition to the reference maximum noise level8, the usage factor provided in Table 4.13.H:
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax) is utilized to calculate the hourly noise level impact for each piece of equipment based on the following equation:
where: Leq(equip) = Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of equipment over a specified time period
E.L. (Emission Level) = noise emission level of the particular piece of equipment at a reference distance of 50 feet
U.F. (Usage Factor) = usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified period of time (Usage Factor)
D (Distance) = distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment Table 4.13.H: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax) Type of Equipment
Acoustical Usage
Factor
Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA
Lmax at 50 ft)
Air Compressor 40 80
Backhoe 40 80
Cement Mixer 50 80
Concrete/Industrial Saw 20 90
Crane 16 85
Excavator 40 85
Forklift 40 85
Generator 50 82
Grader 40 85
Loader 40 80
Pile Driver 20 101
Paver 50 85
Roller 20 85
Rubber Tire Dozer 40 85
Scraper 40 85
Tractor 40 84
Truck 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Federal Highway Administration. Highway Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA 2006). dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)
ft = foot/feet
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
8 The reference maximum noise level represents the loudest single momentary noise event recorded during a measurement period.
+= −
50 ..)( 10 .log( .) 20log D
eq FULEequipL
+= −
50 ..)( 10 .log( .) 20log D
eq FULEequipL
+= −
50 ..)( 10 .log( .) 20log D
eq FULEequipL
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -20 Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Utilizing the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple sources of noise operate simultaneously:
𝐿𝑒𝑞 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒) = 10 ∗ log10 (∑ 10
𝐿𝑛
10 𝑛
1 )
Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation:
𝐿𝑒𝑞 (𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑋) = 𝐿𝑒𝑞 (𝑎𝑡 50 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡) − 20 ∗ lo g10 (
𝑋
50) 𝐿𝑒𝑞 (𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑋)
= 𝐿𝑒𝑞 (𝑎𝑡 50 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡) − 20 ∗ lo g10 (
𝑋
50)
In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA, while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA.
Using the equations from the methodology above, the reference information in Table 4.13.H, and the construction equipment list provided, the composite noise level was calculated. Based on the construction scenarios analyzed the following conclusions can be drawn:
• Project construction composite noise levels at a distance of 50 feet would be up to 90 dBA Leq, with the highest noise levels occurring during the demolition and grading phases; • At the nearest sensitive receptor at a distance of 165 feet, which represents the distance from the center of construction activity to the nearest noise-sensitive residential uses south of Lot 11 and east of Lot 12, the combined noise level during construction would reach up to 79 dBA Leq ; • At a distance of 410 feet, which represents the distance from the center of construction activity to the nearest noise-sensitive residential usesto the south of Lot 3 and west of Lot 13 construction noise levels would reach up to 72 dBA Leq.
As shown in Table 4.13.G, the calculated CNEL levels range from 53.7 dBA CNEL to 59.7 dBA CNEL.
Hourly noise levels at surrounding noise-sensitive uses are as low as 39.9 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) during nighttime hours and 48.2 dBA Leq during daytime hours. The predicted noise levels assume all construction equipment is operating simultaneously during demolition followed by grading; therefore, the noise levels are conservative in nature.
Construction activities would comply with the City of Cypress Noise Ordinance, which expressly permits construction during specified daytime hours. Construction would occur outside of the nighttime hours and only occur during the permitted construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction would not be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays. The City’s construction-hour restrictions were established to minimize disruption to nearby sensitive receptors by prohibiting construction activities during nighttime and other low-ambient-noise periods when residents are more likely to be sleeping or otherwise sensitive to noise. Compliance with these established time limitations would ensure that La
(
1i )
l.,eq (com postte) = 10 * log10 4 1010 .•
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-21 construction noise occurs only during periods deemed acceptable by the City to avoid substantial disturbance to surrounding residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. There is potential that during certain construction activities, like mat foundation pours or utility installation, work may need to occur on a 24-hour rotation. In those situations, a temporary use permit may be obtained from the City’s Community Development Director. The application would have to detail why compliance with standard construction hours cannot be achieved and the duration of the scheduled event. The City requires at least 10 days to process a request for a temporary use permit.
Construction activities within the Buildout Area would generate temporary increases in noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors, including residential uses and other noise-sensitive land uses. Shortterm exposure to elevated construction noise may result in temporary annoyance, speech interference, or sleep disturbance if occurring during early morning or nighttime hours. However, health guidance indicates that long-term adverse health effects—such as cardiovascular outcomes, chronic stress responses, or hearing impairment—are generally associated with prolonged, chronic exposure at elevated noise levels, rather than intermittent and temporary construction noise. The World Health Organization has concluded that adverse health effects are primarily linked to sustained environmental noise exposure over extended periods, particularly nighttime exposure affecting sleep.9Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifies much higher continuous exposure levels (e.g., long-term average levels approaching or exceeding 85 dBA) as associated with measurable health risks.10 Because construction activities would be temporary, phased, and restricted to daytime hours in accordance with City standards, and because receptors would not be exposed to sustained high noise levels over long durations, the potential for long-term adverse health impacts would be minimal.
Although construction noise levels would temporarily exceed existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Buildout Area, such increases would be short term and limited to the duration of active construction. Project construction would be conducted in accordance with the City of Cypress Noise Ordinance, including compliance with permitted construction hours and operational requirements designed to protect nearby sensitive receptors. Because construction activities would comply with the City’s established regulatory framework, construction-related noise impacts would be temporary and would not result in a substantial adverse effect. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Traffic Noise Impacts. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24- hour periods to determine the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) values. 9 World Health Organization (WHO). 2018. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region.
Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
10 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -22 The existing and existing plus project traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Buildout Area were obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed project (Kimley Horn 2025). Table 4.13.I: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project lists the existing, existing plus project, buildout Year 2038, and buildout year 2038 plus project traffic noise levels adjacent to roadway segments in the Buildout Area vicinity. These noise levels represent worst-case scenarios, which assume that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn.
The results indicate that the increase in noise associated with project-related traffic, comparing existing without project traffic volumes to existing plus project traffic volumes, would be up to 0.3 dBA CNEL along the analyzed road segments. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Because project-related traffic would not result in a perceptible increase (i.e., 3 dBA or greater) in ambient roadway noise levels, off-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operational Stationary Noise Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would generate various on-site stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and commercial uses activities such as loading and unloading and parking lot activities. Emergency generators would operate only during periodic testing and maintenance events or in the event of a power outage, and therefore would not represent continuous operational noise sources.
The Cypress Municipal Code limits non-construction noise experienced at surrounding noise-sensitive uses to 55 dBA or less per the hourly daytime noise level standards for Noise Zone 1. Once final architectural plans and mechanical equipment specifications are available for each future project, preparation of a project-specific acoustical analysis would be required to confirm compliance with the City’s exterior and interior noise standards related to land use compatibility, as established in City of Cypress Municipal Code Article VII (Noise Control), Sections 13-68, which set forth allowable noise limits by noise zone and authorize the City to require noise measurements or acoustical studies to verify compliance with applicable standards prior to or following project occupancy. As the proposed project would meet the City’s noise standards, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.13.2: Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), rail activity, and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general, ground-borne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of vibration-sensitive uses such as residential uses, hospitals, historical buildings, and non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Ground-borne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construction site. With the exception of older buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.
DR A F T E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-23 Table 4.13.I: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project Roadway Segment
Existing Without
Project Existing With Project
Buildout Year 2038
Without Project Buildout Year 2038 With Project
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet
from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet
from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane
Increase
from
Existing
Conditions ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet
from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet
from
Centerline
of Nearest
Lane
Increase
from
Buildout
Conditions
Without
Project
Cerritos Avenue West of
Lexington Drive 21,040 68.9 22,480 69.2 0.3 25,440 69.8 27,550 70.1 0.3 Cerritos Avenue Between
Lexington Drive and Walker
Street
21,860 69.1 23,140 69.3 0.2 25,540 69.8 28,070 70.2 0.4 Cerritos Avenue East of Walker
Street 24,860 69.7 26,500 69.9 0.2 27,140 70.0 30,350 70.5 0.5 Lexington Drive North of
Cerritos Avenue 6,520 58.6 6,920 58.8 0.2 7,730 59.3 7,970 59.4 0.1 Lexington Drive between
Cerritos Avenue and Katella
Avenue
5,140 57.5 2,980 55.2 -2.3 2,930 55.1 3,590 56.0 0.9
Walker Street North of Cerritos
Avenue 14,560 64.6 9,950 63.0 -1.6 10,360 63.2 11,670 63.7 0.5 Walker Street between Cerritos
Avenue and Katella Avenue 17,690 65.5 14,560 64.6 -0.9 13,440 64.3 16,620 65.2 0.9 Katella Avenue West of
Lexington Drive 33,850 70.4 34,540 70.4 0.0 38,660 70.9 40,600 71.1 0.2 Katella Avenue between
Lexington Drive and Walker
Street
36,120 70.6 36,460 70.7 0.1 41,220 71.2 43,040 71.4 0.2 Katella Avenue East of Walker
Street 38,250 70.9 39,720 71.1 0.2 43,790 71.5 46,570 71.7 0.2 Source: Compiled by LSA (November 2025).
Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
Shaded cells indicate roadway segments adjacent to the Buildout Area.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL= Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -24 Operational Vibration Impacts. Given the anticipated uses in the Buildout Area, project-related traffic would be the only source of potential vibration impacts to surrounding uses during operation. With respect to potential ground-borne vibration from existing roadway conditions, the roadways surrounding the Buildout Area, including Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, and the existing site driveways, are paved and maintained in generally smooth condition and are therefore unlikely to generate substantial vibration. Typical on-road vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, and buses, operate on rubber tires and utilize suspension systems that dampen roadway irregularities, making it uncommon for standard vehicular traffic on paved roadways to result in perceptible ground-borne vibration or vibration-related noise at off-site receptors. Accordingly, existing traffic conditions on surrounding roadways are not anticipated to generate significant vibration levels, and a detailed vibration impact analysis for on-road vehicle operations is not warranted Construction Vibration Impacts. Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of ground-borne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the potential for building damage using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage. The 2018 FTA Manual guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 0.5 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non-engineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV.
Table 4.13.J: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment shows the PPV values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source. As shown in this table, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the 2018 FTA Manual.
The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the foundation preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels.
Table 4.13.J: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft
Deep Dynamic Compaction (10 ton, 60 ft Drop) 0.9701
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Sources: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018), Measured DDC data from G3SoilWorks Inc. 1 PPV vibration data for deep dynamic compaction activities is at a reference distance of 50 ft. ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-25 The distance to the nearest buildings for the vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the boundary of a particular construction site (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the boundary of the construction site) because vibration impacts occur normally within buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below.
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
During the foundation preparation phase, the equipment with the highest vibration generation potential is the large bulldozer, which would generate 0.089 PPV in/sec at 25 feet. The closest surrounding buildings to the Buildout Area construction boundary include existing residential buildings located approximately 10 feet west of the edge of Lot 13 and south of Lot 3. Assuming heavy construction equipment would not operate within 5 feet of existing property line walls,11 at a distance of approximately 15 feet from typical construction activities, vibration levels would approach 0.191 in/sec PPV and would be below the FTA criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV, that applies to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings and therefore impacts would be less than significant, including at the closest surrounding buildings which would be at least 15 feet from construction activities. No mitigation is required.
In addition to potential building damage considerations, construction-generated ground-borne vibration may result in human annoyance at nearby vibration-sensitive receptors. The FTA Manual establishes impact criteria based on the maximum vibration level (Lv) for a single event, expressed in vibration velocity decibels (VdB), measured in one-third octave bands over the frequency range of 8 to 80 Hertz. Table 4.13.D summarizes the FTA criteria for assessing potential interference or annoyance from vibration within buildings. For residential land uses, the applicable impact criteria are 78 VdB during daytime hours and 72 VdB during nighttime hours, representing vibration levels that are barely perceptible (daytime) or not perceptible but potentially associated with audible groundborne noise (nighttime).
During the foundation preparation phase for future development within the Buildout Area, the large bulldozer represents the equipment with the highest12 vibration generation potential. At a distance of 165 feet from the center of construction activities to the nearest sensitive receptor, vibration levels are expected to approach 62 VdB and would not exceed the annoyance thresholds. Because the FTA criteria are based on the root mean square vibration level (Lv), expressed in VdB, vibration levels would need to exceed the applicable residential thresholds to result in a potentially significant impact related to human annoyance. As discussed above, the maximum predicted vibration level of 62 VdB is well below the applicable daytime and nighttime thresholds; therefore, no significant vibration impact related to human annoyance would occur.
11 This assumption is consistent with typical construction techniques where heavy construction equipment (e.g. bulldozers, etc.) is not typically used within 5 feet of existing walls and other structures due to the physical constraints of operating safely within close quarters. 12 The center of expected construction activities is appropriate for determining potential annoyance to surrounding uses due to the applicable standard being a root-mean-square or average criteria.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -26 Threshold 4.13.3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest airport to the Buildout Area is JFTB Los Alamitos, located approximately 0.6 mile south of the Buildout Area. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for JFTB Los Alamitos and Exhibit SAF-8 in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the Buildout Area is within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, but outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JFTB Los Alamitos. Although the Buildout Area is located within Noise Impact Zone 2 (moderate noise impact), it is outside of Noise Impact Zone 1 (high noise impact) defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.
The second closest airport is the Long Beach Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.4 miles west of the Buildout Area. According to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, the Buildout Area is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for Long Beach Municipal Airport. Therefore, aircraft noise generated from the two closest airports would not expose people residing or working on the Buildout Area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport.
Given that the proposed project does not contain outdoor sensitive receptors and the City defined levels between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL as conditionally acceptable with the incorporation of an HVAC system allowing a windows- closed condition and standard building construction, the noise impacts related to airport noise would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.13.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Construction and operational impacts related to noise and vibration would be less than significant with adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.
4.13.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.13.8.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following regulatory compliance measures are applicable to the proposed project.
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1 The construction contractor shall limit all constructionrelated activities to between the hours 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction
shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or a federal holiday with the exception of certain
construction activities that are time sensitive and require a 24-hour rotation. In those situations, a temporary use permit can be obtained from the City of Cypress’
Community Development Director.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx (03/11/26) 4.13-27 Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-2 Mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units in residential and non-residential zoning districts, shall be enclosed within a structure or completely screened from view from surrounding properties by the use of a fence or wall consistent with Section 3.11.100(b) of the City of Cypress Municipal Code. Additionally, prior to the
issuance of building permits, a future applicant/developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Director of Community Development, or designee, that on-site
stationary noise sources, such as air conditioners, shall not exceed City noise standards as stated within the City’s Municipal Code Sections 13-68 and 13-69.
4.13.8.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project pertaining to noise and vibration.
4.13.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
No mitigation is required. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to noise and vibration.
4.13.10 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. A cumulative noise or vibration impact would occur if multiple sources of noise and vibration combine to create impacts in close proximity to a sensitive receptor.
Therefore, the cumulative area for noise and vibration impacts is the Buildout Area and any sensitive receptors in the immediately surrounding area.
For the cumulative analysis related to noise, the cumulative projects being considered include the related projects listed in Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects and shown in Figure 4.1: Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting that are within the immediate vicinity of the Buildout Area, including the Shea Properties Mixed Use Development Project (Related Project 1), LTP Modern Machine Project (Related Project 5), Sycamore Creek Charter School Project (Related Project 6), and the 4562 Katella Avenue Project (Related Project 8).
Construction Noise. Construction activities associated with the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable development projects in the vicinity could occur during overlapping time periods. However, construction schedules are independently controlled and are unlikely to be fully concurrent across all phases of development. While limited temporal overlap between projects may occur, it would not necessarily involve the most vibration- or noise-intensive phases (e.g., grading, foundation preparation, or heavy equipment operation) occurring simultaneously at locations closest to the same sensitive receptors. Construction activities are inherently phased and localized, and the loudest equipment is typically used for short durations within discrete portions of a site. Therefore, although some degree of overlapping construction noise could occur in the surrounding area, the S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.13 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.13 Noise_final.docx «03/11/26» -28 potential for multiple projects to generate peak construction noise at the same time and at the same receptor location would be limited and temporary. In addition, construction noise for the proposed project was determined to be less than significant. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the Buildout Area site could result in elevated construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the area surrounding the Buildout Area. However, each project would be required to comply with the applicable city’s Municipal Code limitations on construction.
Moreover, the related projects in the vicinity of the Buildout Area that could contribute to a cumulative construction noise impact, have undergone environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which included an analysis of potential construction noise impacts. It was found, that similar to the project, these projects would result in less than significant impacts as they relate to construction noise.
Development of the related projects in the immediate vicinity of the Buildout Area, in combination with the proposed project, would not result in significant impacts related to construction noise.
Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Traffic Source Noise Impacts. According to the USEPA, cumulative noise impacts represent the combined and incremental effects of human activities that accumulate over time. While the incremental impacts may be insignificant by themselves, the combined effect may result in a significant impact. Conversely, although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a substantial portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project.
As previously shown in Table 4.13.G above, project-related traffic for the Buildout Year With Project 2038, as compared to 2038 without project traffic conditions, would result in noise level increases up to 0.9 dBA CNEL along roadway segments in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. These levels are below the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise. Therefore, none of the roadway segments in the vicinity of the Buildout Area would experience a substantial noise level increase greater than the applicable noise thresholds, and the proposed project would not have a cumulatively significant traffic noise impact.
Operational Stationary Source Noise. Long-term stationary noise sources associated with the development within the Buildout Area, combined with other cumulative projects, could cause local noise level increases. Noise levels associated with the proposed project and related projects together could result in higher noise levels than considered separately. As previously described, on-site noise sources associated with the proposed project would not exceed any applicable noise standards. Once final architectural plans and mechanical equipment specifications are available for each future project, preparation of a project-specific acoustical analysis would be required to confirm compliance with the City’s exterior and interior noise standards related to land use compatibility, as established in City of Cypress Municipal Code Article VII (Noise Control), Section 13-68, which sets forth allowable noise limits by noise zone and authorize the City to require noise measurements or acoustical studies to verify compliance with applicable standards prior to or following project occupancy. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» 4.14-1
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section describes the existing population and housing characteristics in both the City of Cypress (City) and Orange County (County) and evaluates the potential impacts of the Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout (proposed project) on population and housing growth. This section is based in part on sources of demographic information provided by various agencies, including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Cypress General Plan Housing Element (2021–2029), the California Department of Finance, and the United States Census Bureau.
4.14.1 Scoping Process
The City of Cypress received six comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). For copies of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). One of the comment letters, from SCAG, included comments related to population and housing.
SCAG recommended that the Draft EIR evaluate the proposed project’s consistency with the Connect SoCal 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal), which outlines goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve regional air quality, and support an integrated multimodal transportation network. In addition, the comment letter emphasizes the use of SCAG’s growth forecasts for population, housing, and employment in assessing potential impacts of the proposed project and planning infrastructure accordingly. These comments are addressed in this section.
4.14.2 Methodology
City and County demographic information was used to describe the existing population and housing characteristics in the City and County. SCAG projections for these topics were identified for the existing conditions and project buildout. City goals and policies regarding population and housing were used to evaluate potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project.
4.14.3 Existing Environmental Setting
4.14.3.1 Population and Housing Trends in the City and County SCAG is a federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)1 encompassing six counties (i.e., Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties) and 197 local jurisdictions. In 2024, the SCAG Regional Council adopted the Connect SoCal Growth Forecast Technical Report2to predict the most likely growth scenario for the Southern California 1 An MPO is a federally mandated and federally funded transportation policymaking organization that is made up of representatives from local government and governmental transportation authorities. In 1962, the United States Congress passed legislation that required the formation of an MPO for any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000.
2 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024a. 2024–2050 RTP/SCS Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23- 2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf?1712261839 (accessed May 6, 2025).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.14 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» -2 region in the future. The Connect SoCal growth forecast is meant to provide a common foundation for regional and local planning, policymaking, and infrastructure provisions within the SCAG region.
The growth forecast for Orange County and City of Cypress in the Connect SoCal Growth Forecast Technical Report is provided in Table 4.14.A: Connect SoCal Population and Housing Forecasts (2019–2050). These projections are used as a reference point for discussing population and housing growth throughout this section.
Table 4.14.A: Connect SoCal Population and Housing Forecasts (2019–2050) 2019
(Actual)
2035
(Estimate)
2050
(Estimate)
2019 to 2050
Increase Percent Change
Total Population
City of Cypress 50,200 51,400 56,200 6,000 12%
Orange County 3,191,000 3,299,000 3,439,000 248,000 7.8% Total Households
City of Cypress 16,400 18,400 20,300 3,900 23.7%
Orange County 1,069,000 1,196,000 1,253,000 184,000 17.2% Total Employment
City of Cypress 26,100 27,700 28,100 2,000 7.2%
Orange County 1,805,000 1,942,000 2,019,000 214,000 11.9% Source: 2024–2050 RTP/SCS Draft Connect SoCal 2024 Growth Projections (SCAG 2024).
RTP/SCS = Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments
4.14.3.2 Population
As shown in Table 4.14.A, according to the Connect SoCal Growth Forecast Technical Report,3 Cypress’s population is anticipated to grow by approximately 12 percent between 2019 and 2050 from approximately 50,200 people to 56,200 people. Orange County’s population is expected to grow by 7.8 percent between 2019 and 2050 from 3,191,000 people to 3,439,000 people.4 3 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024b. 2024–2050 RTP/SCS Draft Connect SoCal 2024 Growth Projections. Website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2F scag.ca.gov%2Fsites%2Fmain%2Ffiles%2Ffile-attachments%2F03_scag_drtp24_citytier2taz_092523. xlsx%3F1695685277&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed February 6, 2025). 4 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024a. 2024–2050 RTP/SCS Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23- 2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf?1712261839 (accessed January 23, 2025).
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» 4.14-3
4.14.3.3 Age Characteristics. A city’s age distribution often shapes its housing demand, because different age groups prefer different types of housing. Table 4.14.B: City of Cypress and Orange County Age Characteristics (2022) below, provides a comparison of the populations by age group in the City and County using data from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate.
According to the ACS data,
Table 4.14.B: City of Cypress and Orange County Age Characteristics (2022) Age Group Cypress Orange County
Persons Percentage Persons Percentage
Under 18 Years 11,604 23.2% 680,041 21.4%
18 to 24 Years 4,068 8.1% 297,509 9.4%
25 to 44 Years 11,845 23.7% 864,977 27.2%
45 to 64 Years 14,392 28.8% 844,341 26.6%
65 and Over 8,046 16.1% 488,359 15.4%
Total 49,955 100.0% 3,175,227 100.0%
Median Age 41.5 38.7
Source: American 2024 2022 5-Year Estimate, Table S0101 (United States Census Bureau 2022). the City’s median age is 41.2 years, which is slightly higher than the County’s median age (38.5 years) based on the same data set.
5 As shown in Table 4.14.B, the City has a higher percentage of residents under the age of 18 (23.2 percent, compared to 21.4 percent for the County), and a lower percentage of residents between 18 and 24 years (8.1 percent, compared to 9.4 percent for the County), than the County.
The City also has a lower percentage of residents between 25 and 44 years (23.7 percent, compared to 27.2 percent for the County), and a higher percentage of residents between 45 and 64 years (16.1 percent, compared to 15.4 percent for the County), than the County. The City and County have similar proportions of residents over the age of 65 (16.1 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively).
HouseholdsAs shown in Table 4.14.A, the total number of households in the City is anticipated to increase by 23.7 percent between 2019 and 2050, while the total number of households in the County is expected to grow by approximately 17.2 percent between 2019 and 2050. By forecasting a greater percentage of household growth than population growth, the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast6 projects a decrease in the average household size in both the City and the County in coming years.
Employment. As shown in Table 4.14.A, according to the Connect SoCal Growth Forecast Technical Report, employment in Cypress is anticipated to grow by approximately 7.2 percent between 2019 and 2050. Employment in Orange County is expected to grow by 11.9 percent between 2019 and 5 United States Census Bureau. 2022. American Community Survey 2022 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101 Website: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2022.S0101?q=cypress,%20california%20%20and%20 orange%20county,%20california%20population%20by%20age%20group&g=160XX00US0617750 (accessed February 6, 2025).
6 The Southern California Association of Governments forecasts “households” rather than housing units. As defined by the United States Census Bureau, “households” are equivalent to occupied housing units.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.14 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» -4 2050. These growth projections suggest that employment is expected to grow steadily from 2019 to 2050 in both Cypress and Orange County.
According to the Employment Development Department (EDD), as of December 2024, Cypress had a labor force of 24,800 and Orange County had a labor force of 1,587,700, with approximately 1,000 and 60,000 people unemployed, respectively.7The December 2024 unemployment rate was
3.9 percent for Cypress and 3.8 percent for Orange County.
Jobs/Housing Balance. Jobs/housing balance is a regional concept that encourages the designation and zoning of sufficient vacant land for residential uses with appropriate standards to ensure that adequate housing is available to serve the needs derived from the local employment base. The jobsto-housing ratio can be used as the general measure of balance between a community’s employment opportunities and the housing needs of its residents. Theoretically, a city’s jobs/ employment ratio (jobs to employed residents) would be 1:1 if the number of jobs in the city equaled the number of employed residents. However, assuming a simple ratio of one job to one household is inappropriate in modern economies that have many households with more than one person in the workforce. According to SCAG’s The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California,
8 a balance between jobs and housing in a metropolitan region can more appropriately be defined as a provision of an adequate supply of housing to house workers employed in a defined area (i.e., subregion or community).
SCAG applies the jobs-to-housing ratio at the regional and subregional level as a tool for analyzing the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. The American Planning Association (APA) is an authoritative resource for community-planning best practices, including recommendations for assessing jobs-to-housing ratios. The APA recognizes that an ideal jobs-to-housing ratio will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In general, the recommended target for an appropriate jobs-tohousing ratio is 1.5, with a recommended range of 1.3 to 1.7.9 Cypress is currently within the jobs-to-housing ratio range recommended by the APA. According to the Connect SoCal Growth Forecast Technical Report, Cypress had a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.6 in 2019 and is projected to have a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.4 in 2050. The decrease in the jobs-tohousing ratio suggests that the job growth expected in the region will be less than the expected growth in housing.
7 California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2024. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, Orange County, April. Website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view. aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Flabormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov%2Ffile%2Flfmonth%2Foransub.xls&wdOrigin= BROWSELINK (aaccessed January 28, 2025).
8 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2001. The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/old/file-attachments/new economyjobshousingbalance.pdf (accessed May 6, 2025).
9 Weitz, Jerry. 2003. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 516: Jobs-Housing Balance. American Planning Association.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» 4.14-5
4.14.4 Regulatory Setting
4.14.4.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations related to population and housing that are applicable to the proposed project.
4.14.4.2 State Regulations
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330). SB 330 restricts California cities and counties from implementing new development policies, standards or conditions that may restrict housing developments, including any initiatives or referenda voted into law by the general populace. Under this law, among other things, cities and counties are restricted from implementing any new development policies, standards, or conditions that have any of the following effects:
• A change to the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning that results in a less intensive use. Less intensive use means, for example: (i) reductions in height, density, or floor area ratio, (ii) new or increased open space or lot size requirements, (iii) new or increased setback requirements, minimum footage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, and (iv) anything that would lessen the intensity of housing. • A reduction of the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning below what was allowed under the applicable land use designation and zoning ordinance in effect as of January 1, 2018.
California Housing Element Requirements (Government Code §§ 65580 to 65589). State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Local governments are required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the development of the jurisdiction, including a Housing Element meeting the existing and projected housing needs.
To that end, California Government Code requires that housing elements achieve legislative goals to:
• Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including for persons with disabilities.
• Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities.
• Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households.
• Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.14 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» -6 • Preserve for lower income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in each community.
State of California housing element laws (California Government Code §§ 65580 to 65589) require that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community, commensurate with local housing needs. The Housing Elements of each city or county are required to be updated every eight years.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. State law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.) requires cities and counties to plan for their fair share of projected housing construction needs in their region as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the general plan. Regional housing goals are set by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and allocated to cities throughout regional planning agencies such as SCAG. This is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Future housing need refers to the proportion of the region’s future housing needs allocated to a community during the specific planning period. Each jurisdiction’s future housing need is calculated in terms of four factors: (1) the number of units needed to accommodate forecasted household growth; (2) the number of units needed to replace attrition in the housing stock (i.e., fire damage, obsolescence, redevelopment, and conversion to non-housing uses); (3) maintenance of an ideal vacancy rate for a well-functioning housing market; and (4) an adjustment to avoid an overconcentration of lower-income households in any one jurisdiction.
The RHNA prepared by SCAG defines the housing unit construction goals for the region. The City’s fair share for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 (the last adopted RHNA period) was established by SCAG at 3,936 units. The RHNA target number was based on projected household growth and the resulting need for construction of additional housing units allocated over the 6th Cycle planning period from 2021–2029.
4.14.4.3 Regional Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments. As the designated MPO for the six-county subregion that includes Orange County, SCAG prepares several plans to address regional growth, including Connect SoCal. SCAG is mandated by federal and State law to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and a regional growth forecast that is the foundation for these plans and regional air quality plans developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAG prepares several plans to address regional growth, including the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and the annual State of the Region reports to measure progress toward achieving regional planning goals and policies.
4.14.4.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress Housing Element. The Housing Element is required by California State law to be a component of every city’s General Plan because housing needs are recognized as a statewide
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» 4.14-7 concern. As such, the Housing Element of a jurisdiction’s General Plan is the only element that is subject to approval by the State. Pursuant to State law, the Housing Element must identify the City’s housing needs, the sites that can accommodate these needs, and the policies and programs to assure that the housing units necessary to meet these needs can be provided. The primary goal of the Housing Element is to provide a range of housing opportunities for all income groups.
The 2021–2029 Housing Element was adopted in June 2022 as a guide for housing within the City of Cypress. The Housing Element provides an indication of the need for housing in the community in terms of housing affordability, availability, adequacy, and accessibility. The Housing Element also provides a strategy to address housing needs and identifies a series of specific housing programs to meet community needs.10
The Housing Element calls for the continuation of existing policies and programs to enable the City to meet future housing demands for all economic segments of the community that address housing quality and quantity, housing affordability and access, equal housing opportunities and natural resources, and energy efficiency and conservation, and identifies new programs in conformance with recent housing legislation for implementation during the 2021–2029 Housing Element cycle.
The goals of the Housing Element are to promote housing that helps to create safe, livable, and sustainable neighborhoods, facilitate the construction and provision of quality housing to meet the City’s diverse needs, create opportunities for affordable housing, particularly in vulnerable areas and in areas of opportunity, and promote equitable and accessible housing options and resources.
The City of Cypress's 2021–2029 Housing Element outlines plans to accommodate 3,936 new housing units over the 8-year planning period, as mandated by the SCAG RHNA. To ensure compliance and provide a buffer for potential development challenges, the City included in the Housing Element an additional 323 housing units, bringing the total planned units to 4,259. These housing units are distributed across various areas of the City, with a significant number permitted within the area subject to the Specific Plan. Specifically, the Buildout Area is planned to accommodate 1,791 housing units, which includes 676 additional housing units approved through Measure S in 2024.
4.14.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for population and housing impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to population and housing if it would:
Threshold 4.14.1: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); or Threshold 4.14.2: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
10 City of Cypress. 2022. Cypress General Plan 2021–2029 Housing Element Update. Website: https://www. cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/12491/638507649724670000 (accessed May 6, 2025).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.14 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» -8
4.14.6 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.14.1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the reasonably foreseeable buildout of a portion of the area governed by the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (Specific Plan) and would include the development of up to 1,791 residential units. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average number of people per household from 2019–2023 in Cypress was approximately 3.08 people.11 Assuming a ratio of 3.08 people per household, the proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 5,516 persons at full buildout.12 As outlined in the SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, the City’s housing need allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 is 3,936 units.13 In addition, the Housing Element and Specific Plan 3.0 allowed for a maximum of 1,926 residential units within the Specific Plan Area. This total includes the 135 residential units developed by Melia Homes as part of the Belmont residential project on the 7-acre Melia Property. The remaining capacity under the Specific Plan allows for the development of up to 1,791 additional residential units within the Buildout Area. As such, the proposed project would not result in unplanned growth.
According to the Connect SoCal population projections for the City, the population of the City in 2050 is expected to be 56,200 persons, up from 48,782 in 2023. 14 After reaching a peak population
of 50,266 in 2020, Cypress has seen a slight decline over the last few years, with a decrease of approximately 1,484 residents (about 2.95 percent). Considering the expected population increase of the City is 7,418 people, the proposed project population increase is within the planned growth for the region as it also encompasses a large planned growth area.
The proposed project includes the construction of roads, water and wastewater infrastructure, power lines and other utilities, as envisioned in the Specific Plan. The Buildout Area is in an urbanized setting with a full range of public services and would utilize existing public utilities infrastructure. The proposed project would include the extension of Moody Street from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue, as well as the extension of Vessels Circle from its current western terminus to intersect with the Moody Street extension, consistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed project also includes, consistent with the Specific Plan, the widening of Lexington Drive within Lot B in Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 19247 and seven access driveways, including 11 United States Census Bureau. 2024. Cypress City, California QuickFacts. Website: https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cypresscitycalifornia/PST045224 (accessed January 28, 2025). 12 1,791 households x 3.08 persons per household = 5,516 persons 13 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan.
Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_07 0121.pdf?1646938785 (accessed January 28, 2025).
14 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024b. 2024–2050 RTP/SCS Draft Connect SoCal 2024 Growth Projections. Website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2 Fscag.ca.gov%2Fsites%2Fmain%2Ffiles%2Ffile-attachments%2F03_scag_drtp24_citytier2taz_092523.xlsx %3F1695685277&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed May 6, 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» 4.14-9 one at Lexington Drive and two each at Cerritos Avenue, Moody Street, and Vessels Circle. These proposed extensions would provide access to the proposed development within the Buildout Area and surroundings.
Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of new housing in the City, the new housing would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, as the City has already planned for the reasonably foreseeable development of housing within the Buildout Area as a way of meeting the City’s RHNA obligations. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with planned regional housing growth and planned population growth of the City as evaluated in the SCAG RHNA and Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause indirect substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads and other infrastructure. Impacts associated with unplanned population growth, directly or indirectly, would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Threshold 4.14.2: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project consists of the future development of up to 1,791 residential units and 440,000 square feet of non-residential space within the Buildout Area. There are no residential uses currently located in the Buildout Area that would be subject to demolition or require the removal or relocation of existing residents. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the housing allocation needs specified by the SCAG RHNA and Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact related to the displacement of people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no mitigation is required.
4.14.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing.
4.14.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to the proposed project pertaining to population and housing and no mitigation measures are required.
4.14.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing.
4.14.10 Cumulative Impacts
The purpose of this section is to evaluate any additional incremental impact that the proposed project is likely to cause above and beyond the combined impacts of recently approved and proposed projects in the City of Cypress. The impact area used to assess potential cumulative population and housing impacts is the City because the proposed project would affect population and housing within the City.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.14 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.14 Population and Housing.docx «03/11/26» -10 As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project includes the reasonably foreseeable buildout of approximately 134 acres governed by the Specific Plan, as adopted by the City Council and approved by voters under Measure S in November 2024. The proposed project would accommodate up to 1,791 residential units within the Buildout Area, supporting the City's efforts to meet regional housing needs outlined in the Housing Element and RHNA. The RHNA process identified that the City is in need of 3,936 units, and the proposed project could, at a maximum, accommodate 1,791 of those units. Utilizing the average number of people per household as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau (3.08), the proposed project would include population growth by an additional 5,516 people. Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of new housing in the city, the new housing would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, as the proposed project is designed to meet the City’s housing need allocation for the planning period between 2021 and 2029 of 3,936 units as determined by the SCAG RHNA.
Additionally, Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, of this Draft EIR indicates that the City expects build out of approximately 357 units from the previously approved Melia Homes – Citrus Square Project (Related Project 2) (98 units), 8561 Belmont Street Project (Related Project 4) (8 units), and the Shea Properties Mixed Use Development Project (Related Project 1) (251 units). After reaching a peak population of 50,266 in 2020, the City has seen a decline over the past few years, with a decrease of approximately 1,484 residents (about
2.95 percent), with a current population of 48,782. As such, implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the build out of the households under the baseline build-out scenario could result in cumulatively significant population increases. However, future development allowed under the proposed project has been accounted for and planned in the City’s Housing Element and regional housing growth included in the SCAG RHNA. In addition, future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project, as well as the remaining development associated with the build-out assumptions, would be required to adhere to the General Plan, provide required development impact fees, and comply with applicable development regulations. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project are not considered to be cumulatively considerable.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-1
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section identifies the existing public services providers within the jurisdiction of the Buildout Area and evaluates the potential impacts of the Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (proposed project) on those public services. This section addresses the following public services (service providers are noted in parentheses):
• Fire Protection—Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
• Police Protection—Cypress Police Department (CPD)
• Parks—City of Cypress Recreation and Community Services Department • Public Libraries—Orange County Public Libraries (OCPL) • Schools—Cypress School District (CSD), Los Alamitos Unified School District (LAUSD), and Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD)
4.15.1 Scoping
The City of Cypress (City) received six comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). For copies of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). No comment letters included comments related to public services.
4.15.2 Methodology
This section evaluates impacts to public facilities to the extent project demand for police and fire protection, school services, parks, and other public facilities would require new or expanded facilities to support the project, the construction of which would result in an adverse physical impact to the environment. Information regarding public services was obtained from a variety of sources, agency websites, the City of Cypress 2001 General Plan,1the California Department of Education, and the City of Cypress Parks and Recreation Department.
In addition, during preparation of the EIR for the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element Implementation Project, OCFA and CPD were sent questionnaires requesting information on current fire and police protection service provided to the opportunity sites and possible constraints or impacts to this service associated with build out envisioned by the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element (which is anticipated to occur in 2045). Because the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element assumed development of residential uses within the Buildout Area in order to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the possible constraints or impacts to fire and police protection service associated with build out of the 2021–2029 Cypress Housing Element would be applicable to implementation of the proposed project. As such, the responses to the questionnaires sent to OCFA and CPD have been incorporated into this section. Correspondence with public service providers is included in Appendix J. 1 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -2
4.15.3 Existing Environmental Setting
4.15.3.1 Fire Protection
The OCFA is a Joint Powers Authority that serves the City and is responsible for reducing loss of lives and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. OCFA provides fire protection, emergency medical and rescue services, hazardous materials inspection and response, and public education activities to its service area of approximately 1,984,758 residents throughout 23 cities and unincorporated Orange County. As of 2026, OCFA had a total of 78 stations, including one station in the City. OCFA Reserve Firefighters work 10 stations throughout Orange County.2 OCFA is divided into six primary departments: Business Services, Communications and Public Affairs, Community Risk Reduction, Human Resources, Operations, and Support Services. The Operations Department comprises seven divisions and eleven battalions that provide regional emergency response to all fires, rescues, hazardous materials incidents, wildland fires, aircraft fire and rescue services to John Wayne Airport, and other miscellaneous emergencies.3In addition to being the main provider of fire suppression efforts including wildland firefighting, technical rescue, and airport firefighting services, the OCFA provides a variety of public services including, but not limited to, the following:
• Receiving and dispatching emergency calls;
• Providing public education programs to schools, businesses, community associations, childcare providers and other members of the community;
• Adopting and enforcing codes and ordinances relative to fire and life safety issues associated with commercial, industrial, and residential development; • Coordinating the inspection of commercial buildings, investigating all fires, and enforcing fire code hazardous materials regulations;
• Working with developers and jurisdictional planning departments on development projects impacting fire protection services, from conception through planning process approval; • Conducting California Fire Code Inspections and assisting with reducing risks associated with the use of hazardous materials in the community; and
• Interacting with developers, architects, and engineers to meet the fire protection requirements for buildings and developments by reviewing architectural blue prints, development plans, and proposals submitted in OCFA’s jurisdiction.
2 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). n.d.-d. Member Cities, OCFA Coverage. Website: https://www.ocfa. org/about-us/member-cities/ (accessed February 2026).
3 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2020. Operations. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/AboutUs/ Departments/Operations.aspx (accessed May 7, 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-3 The City is in Operations Division 7, which serves the cities of Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, and Stanton along with portions of several unincorporated communities.4 The nearest station to the Buildout Area is OCFA Fire Station No. 17, located at 4991 Cerritos Avenue in Cypress, which is immediately north of the Buildout Area (approximately 75 feet) and would be designated as the “first-in” station that would be the first to serve the project in the event of an emergency. Fire Station No. 17 is staffed daily by two fire captains, two fire apparatus engineers, with a total of 24 staffed firefighters and is equipped with a medic engine, truck engine, and paramedic engine. Fire Station No. 17 was substantially rebuilt and expanded in 2011 with added capacity to accommodate the existing and future fire protection and paramedic needs in the service area. In 2023, the city generated a total of 3,761 incident calls.5 “Second call” stations are fire stations that support the “first-in” station. Fire Station Nos. 2 and 84 would be designated as the “second call” stations to support Fire Station No. 17. Fire Station No. 2, located at 3642 Green Avenue in Los Alamitos, is approximately 1 mile southwest of the Buildout Area and is staffed daily by one fire captain, one fire apparatus engineer, and two firefighters, and has a total staffing of twelve firefighters.
6 Fire Station No. 84, located at 12191 Valley Street in Garden Grove, is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Buildout Area and is staffed daily by one captain, one fire apparatus engineer, and two firefighters, and has a total staffing of twelve firefighters. Fire Station No. 2 is also equipped with a medic engine and engine. Fire Station No. 84 is equipped with a medic engine and an engine.7
Incident information for Fire Station Nos. 17, 46, and 84 from 2022 is provided in Table 4.15.A:
Incident Information for Fire Station Nos. 17, 46, and 84 (2022), below.
Table 4.15.A: Incident Information for Fire Station Nos. 17, 46, and 84 (2022) Call Type Fire Station No. 17 Fire Station No. 46 Fire Station No. 84 Fires 26 105 16
EMS 1,617 3,000 1,407
Ruptures 0 6 2
Hazardous Conditions 12 24 12
Service Call 116 173 169
Good Intent 231 423 142
False Alarms 122 73 43
Miscellaneous 0 2 0
TOTAL 2,178 3,806 1,791
Source: Personal communication with OCFA during preparation of the Housing Element EIR (June 2023).
EMS = emergency medical services
OCFA = Orange County Fire Authority
4 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2019. Operations. Website: https://ocfa.org/AboutUs/ Departments/Operations.aspx (accessed January 22, 2025). 5 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2023. OCFA 2023 Statistical Annual Report. Website: https://ocfa. org/Uploads/Transparency/OCFA%20Annual%20Report%202023.pdf (accessed January 30, 2025). 6 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). n.d.-b. Fire Station 2. Website: https://ocfa.org/AboutUs/ Departments/OperationsDirectory/Division1.aspx (accessed May 12, 2025). 7 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). n.d.-c. Fire Station 84. Website: https://ocfa.org/AboutUs/ Departments/OperationsDirectory/Division1.aspx (accessed May 12, 2025).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -4 According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, it is the OCFA’s goal to have the first responding company for a fire call to reach emergency scene within 8 minutes and paramedics to reach the scene within 5 minutes at least 90 percent of the time. Over the last 9 years, the average response time for emergency calls remained relatively constant until Fiscal Year 2020–2021, in which average response time decreased due to reduced traffic from the COVID-19 pandemic. For Fiscal Year 2025/2026, OCFA has budgeted for 1,642 uniformed and civilian personnel.8In the previous decade, OCFA’s average response time9for emergency calls remained relatively constant at less than 7 minutes per call. The ratio of firefighters to residents has remained steady over the last 3 years, ranging from 5.86 to 5.94 per 10,000 residents. According to OCFA, there are currently no plans for expanded services or facilities near the Buildout Area.
4.15.3.2 Police Protection
The City operates its own police department (CPD) for police protection services. The CPD would serve the Buildout Area. Management and supervision of the CPD is provided by 1 chief, 2 captains, 2 lieutenants, 10 sergeants, and a civilian supervisor. Of the CPD's 55 sworn personnel, 41 are dedicated to the delivery of patrol services. In addition to the 55 officers, the department is supported by 23 civilian employees and numerous volunteers.10 The officer-to-resident ratio in 2023 was 1.1 CPD officer per 1,000 residents. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, it is the CPD’s goal to maintain a response time of three minutes to emergency calls and six minutes for nonemergency calls.
The services provided by the department include a detective bureau, canine teams, a narcotics team, vice and intelligence, motorcycle officers, Personnel & Training, Positive Actions through Character Education (P.A.C.E.) program, S.W.A.T. and a Lead Patrol Officer program. In addition, the CPD has established Community Policing, or Cypress Policing, as the philosophy for providing public safety services.11
Police dispatch services for the City are provided by the West Cities Police Communications Center, also known as West-Comm. West-Comm is a consolidated police dispatch center, formed by a joint powers authority between the cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach. Located at the Seal 8 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2025. Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Adopted Budget. Website:
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/08/OCFA-2025-2026-AdoptedBudget.pdf (accessed February 13, 2026). 9 OCFA defines response time as the time interval between Dispatch Notification and Arrival on Scene. It includes Dispatch time, Turnout time, and Travel time. Response time goals are established through OCFA policy. Response time performance is generally measured for the first unit on scene (Distribution) and for an Effective Response Force (Concentration). Incident response times are impacted by many variables, including availability of first due units, travel distance, traffic, geography, weather, and street networks. 10 City of Cypress. 2017. Cypress Police Department Overview. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/ departments/police/the-community-we-serve (accessed April 30, 2025). 11 Ibid.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-5 Beach Police Department, West-Comm serves a combined population of approximately 90,000 and handles approximately 100,000 calls for service each year.12
4.15.3.3 Parks
There are currently a total of 20 developed public parks within the city, 13 the closest being Lexington
Park adjacent to the northwest of the Buildout Area. The City’s Municipal Code states a goal of providing 4.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for park and recreational purposes, including
1.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for purposes that are made available at K–12 schools through a cooperative arrangement between the City, local school districts, and local park and recreation districts. According to the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan (2001), the City had 82 acres of parkland available for its residents. Since the adoption of the City’s General Plan, the City completed construction of the 2.9-acre Mackay Park at the former Mackay School site14 and added 9 acres of park space at the corner of Lexington Drive and Cerritos Avenue with the development of Lexington Park.15 Therefore, the City currently has 93.9 acres of park space.
As of July 2024, the City’s population was 48,782,
16 resulting in a parkland-to-resident ratio to
1.92 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
4.15.3.4 Public Libraries
The OCPL system provides library services to the County, including the City. OCPL operates 32 library branches across the County, including an outlet in the Orangewood Children’s Home.17 OCPL’s Mobile Library also provides library services to County residents who are unable to visit libraries due to transportation issues, lack of childcare, disabilities, and language or cultural barriers. In addition, OCPL offers free Books-by-Mail service.18 The closest library to the proposed project is the Cypress Library at 5331 Orange Avenue, approximately 1 mile north of the Buildout Area. The Cypress Library consists of a 15,000-square-foot facility with numerous resources and services available to the public including an Advanced Workstation in Education (AWE) station, 19 book clubs, bookstore,
internet hotspots, laptop and charger kiosk, children’s play area, computers, wi-fi, wireless printing, 12 City of Cypress. 2017. Cypress Police Department Overview. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/ departments/police/the-community-we-serve (accessed April 30, 2025). 13 City of Cypress. 2024. Recreation and Community Services, Facility and Park Locations. Website:
https://www.cypressca.org/activities/facility-park-locations (accessed January 30, 2025). 14 City of Cypress. 2023b. Recreation and Community Services, MacKay Park. Website: https://www.cypress ca.org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/66/240 (accessed January 30, 2025). 15 City of Cypress. 2023a. Recreation and Community Services, Lexington Park. Website: https://www. cypressca.org/activities/lexington-park-rental (accessed January 30, 2025). 16 United States Census Bureau. 2023. Cypress City, California QuickFacts. Website: https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cypresscitycalifornia,US/PST045223 (accessed January 2025). 17 Orange County Public Libraries (OCPL). 2023a. About OCPL. Website: https://www.ocpl.org/services/ about-ocpl (accessed February 6, 2025).
18 Orange County Public Library (OCPL). 2023b. OC Public Libraries Annual Report 2023. 19 The AWE station provides a computer for children ages 2–8 years that is equipped with a variety of education games in English and Spanish.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -6 volunteer opportunities, world language collections, and special collections of sheet music, local history, and board games.
20 The branch is open Saturday through Thursday and is closed on Fridays.
According to the Public Services and Facilities Element of the Orange County General Plan (2012), the County’s standard for library service is 0.2 square feet of library space per capita. According to that service standard, the Cypress Branch Library has the capacity to accommodate a population of 75,000 persons. The Cypress Branch Library currently exceeds the County’s standards for size since the City’s population estimate as of July 2023 is 48,782. It should also be noted that, according to the Public Services and Facilities Element of the Orange County General Plan, the 0.2 square feet of library space per capita standard has been accepted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors as a planning guide for the purpose of projecting the number and location of new libraries needed.
According to OCPL’s annual report for 2022–2023, OCPL has been working to improve library branches across the County through upgrades to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; roofs; alarm systems; building automation systems; accessibility; electrical and cabling infrastructure updates; and lighting to meet Title 24 requirements. These upgrades would work to increase efficiencies and contribute to a positive patron experience; however, it should be noted that the completed and proposed upgrades do not include the expansion of any library facilities.
4.15.3.5 Public Schools
The Buildout Area is currently served by three public school districts: the Cypress Elementary School District (CSD), the Los Alamitos Unified School District (LAUSD), and the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD), as shown on Figure 4.15-1: School District Boundaries and Potential Residential Growth. However, the Buildout Area is primarily within the boundaries of the CSD, consisting of seven public elementary schools (serving kindergarten through sixth grade), and the AUHSD, consisting of the City’s junior high and high school districts (grades 7 through 12). The CSD’s 2024 enrollment was 3,319 students,
21 the AUHSD’s 2024 enrollment was 27,748 students,22 and the LAUSD’s 2024 enrollment was 8,931 students.23 The CSD currently operates seven elementary schools; six are in Cypress and one is in La Palma. The AUHSD encompasses 46 square miles and has schools in Anaheim, Cypress, Buena Park, La Palma, and Stanton. Additionally, the LAUSD serves kindergarten through twelfth-grade students and currently operates six elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school.
20 Orange County Public Library (OCPL). 2025. Cypress Library, Resources and Services. Website:
https://www.ocpl.org/libraries/cypress (accessed May 7, 2025). 21 Education Data Partnership. 2024b. Cypress Elementary.2023-2024 Enrollment. Website: https://www.eddata.org/district/Orange/Cypress-Elementary (accessed May 7, 2025). 22 Education Data Partnership. 2024a. Anaheim Union High. 2023-2024 Enrollment. Website: https://www. ed-data.org/district/Orange/Anaheim-Union-High/ps_MTIwODg0 (accessed May 8, 2025). 23 Education Data Partnership. 2024c. Los Alamitos Unified. 2023-2024 Enrollment. Website: https://www. ed-data.org/district/Orange/Los-Alamitos-Unified (accessed May 12, 2025).
LSA c::::I Lotline
Los Alamitos Unified School District
Cypress Elementary School District and Anaheim Union High School District 300 600
FE ET
SOURCE: Nearmap Imagery (May 2, 2025), Orange County Department of Education (2020), TAIT & Associates (2024) l:\C\CCP2201.0SO\GIS\Pro\Los Alamitos Race Course Development Project\Los Alamitos Race Course Development Project.aprx (5/13/2025) FIGURE 4.15-1
Specific Plan 3.0 Buildaut Project
School District Boundaries and Potential Residential Growth S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -8 This page intentionally left blank
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-9
4.15.4 Regulatory Setting
The following section describes the federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework applicable to analyzing potential impacts related to public services from development of the proposed project.
4.15.4.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal policies or regulations related to public services applicable to the proposed project.
4.15.4.2 State Regulations
Assembly Bills 2926, 1600, and 2751. To assist in providing facilities to serve students generated from new development projects, the state passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986, which allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Development impact fees are also referenced in the 1987 Leroy Greene LeasePurchase Act, which requires school districts to contribute a matching share of the costs for the construction, modernization, or reconstruction of school facilities. Subsequent legislation has modified the fee structure and general guidelines. In 1987, the provisions of AB 2926 have been expanded and revised by AB 1600, which limits the ability of a school district to levy school fees unless (i) there is a need for the school fee revenues generated, and (ii) there is a nexus or relationship between the need for school fee revenues and the type of development project on which the school fee is imposed. (The requirements of AB 1600 were clarified with the passage in 2006 of AB 2751, which codifies the findings of Shapell Industries vs. Milpitas Unified School District.) California Fire Code. The California Fire Code includes regulations for emergency planning, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Several fire safety requirements include installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
Office of Emergency Services. The State of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.
Senate Bill 50 and California Education Code Section 17620. Senate Bill 50 and California Education Code Section 17620. Senate Bill (SB) 50, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, was signed into law on August 27, 1998. It is a program for funding school facilities largely based on matching funds. The approval of Proposition 1A authorized funds for SB 50 in the amount of $9.2 billion, including grants for construction of new schools and modernization of existing schools. The new construction grant provides funding on a 50/50 State and local match basis. The modernization grant provides funding on a 60/40 State and local match basis. Districts that are unable to provide some or all of the local match requirements and are able to meet financial hardship provisions may S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -10 be eligible for additional State funding.24 SB 50 (codified as California Education Code Section 17620) allows school districts to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project within its boundaries for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The maximum fee amount that school districts can assess is limited by statutes provided in California Government Code Section 65995. All three school districts in the Buildout Area have designated school impact fees based on their respective nexus studies prepared pursuant to SB 50. While these impact fees apply to enclosed space in both residential and commercial development, impact fees that apply to commercial development are substantially lower than those for residential development.
Quimby Act of 1975. The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) allows the legislative body of a city or county to require by ordinance the dedication of land, the payment of an in-lieu park fee, or a combination thereof, for the approval for a final tract or parcel map. In cases where such dedication or park fee is not obtained through a map, they may be imposed when building permits are issued. The following conditions must be met to comply with the Quimby Act:
• The city or county ordinance must include definitive standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof.
The legislative body must adopt a general plan containing a recreation element, and any proposed park or recreational facility must be consistent with the principles and standards established in the element.
4.15.4.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional policies or regulations related to public services applicable to the proposed project.
4.15.4.4 Local Regulations
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0. The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (Specific Plan) does not contain any provisions related to public services.
City of Cypress General Plan, Safety Element. The Safety Element of the City’s General Plan is an official guide for the City Council, government agencies, and individuals to identify and understand potential hazards confronting the City. The following goals and policies would be applicable to the proposed project:
• SAF-5: Protect life and property in Cypress from urban fires. Maintain the Orange County Fire Authority’s high level of service to community businesses and residents. ○ SAF-5.1: Maintain a response time of eight minutes for the first responder engine and provide paramedic service within five minutes.
24 State of California. 2007. Office of Public School Construction, School Facility Program Handbook. State Allocation Board. April.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-11 ○ SAF-5.2: Evaluate the effects of new development on the Orange County Fire Authority’s response time. Ensure through the development review process that new development will not result in reduced emergency service levels.
• SAF-6: Maintain the police department's high quality of service to the City. ○ SAF-6.1: Assess the impacts of incremental increases in development density and the resulting traffic congestion on emergency response time. Ensure through the development review process that new development will not result in reduced emergency service levels. ○ SAF-6.2: Maintain a response time of approximately three minutes for emergency calls and six minutes for non-emergency calls.
• SAF-7: Use good design as a means to promote human safety. ○ SAF-7.1 Provide design criteria in the Zoning Ordinance or design guidelines relating to the prevention of crime prevention through appropriate physical design solutions. ○ SAF-7.3: Provide exterior lighting that enhances safety and night use in public spaces, but minimizes impacts on surrounding land uses.
○ SAF-7.4: Promote the use of defensible space (e.g., site and building lighting, visual observation of open spaces, secured areas) in project design to enhance public safety.
City of Cypress Municipal Code. The Cypress Municipal Code includes the following requirement that would apply to the proposed project related to the provision of public services:
• Section 5-3 (California Fire Code, adoption, amendments) adopts the 2019 CFC, with some amendments and modifications. Generally, the intent of the CFC is to prescribe regulations for the safeguarding of life and property from the hazard of fire and explosion.
4.15.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for public services impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to public services if it would:
Threshold 4.15.1(i): Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection;
Threshold 4.15.1(ii): Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -12 which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection;
Threshold 4.15.1(iii): Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools;
Threshold 4.15.1(iv): Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks; or
Threshold 4.15.1(v): Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities.
4.15.6 Project Impacts
As described in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would include up to 1,791 future residential units and 440,000 square feet of non-residential development within the Buildout Area. Upon full buildout of the Buildout Area, approximately 5,516 residents would be added to the City’s population.25
In accordance with the City of Cypress Municipal Code, new developments are mandated to pay impact fees to mitigate the effects of increased demand on public services, including police and fire protection. These fees are assessed at the time of building permit issuance and are calculated based on factors such as the square footage of the development. The collected fees are allocated to fund the necessary public infrastructure and services that support the additional population and usage generated by new developments. The City’s discretionary permit process incorporates the applicable required improvements and/or impact fees (approved by City resolution), as conditions of approval, on a project-by-project basis.26
25 1,791 households x 3.08 persons per household (the average household size according to 2023 American Community Survey data for the City of Cypress) = 5,516 persons 26 City of Cypress. 2022. Cypress General Plan 2021–2029 Housing Element Update. Website: https://www. cypressca.org/departments/community-development/information-on-notable-projects/housing-elementupdate (accessed May 9, 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-13 Threshold 4.15.1(i): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities, including proposed roadway improvements associated with the extension of Moody Street from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue and Vessels Circle from its current western terminus to intersect with the Moody Street extension, have the potential to affect fire protection services, including emergency vehicle response times, by temporarily requiring partial lane closures, reducing roadway capacity, or increasing congestion.
However, as discussed in Section, 4.17, Transportation, the construction contractor would be required to implement a Transportation Construction Plan (TCP) that complies with applicable engineering standards outlined in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, ensuring that construction activities which may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate and appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Traffic management personnel (flag persons), required as part of the construction worksite traffic control plan would be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access. If partial lane closures are required, notice would be provided to the OCFA, and flag persons would be used to facilitate the traffic flow until construction is complete. Therefore, potential impacts related to emergency access during construction of the proposed project would not be impeded and response times would not be substantially affected.
In addition, any future projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all OCFA requirements, including providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the properties, hydrants spaced to meet the minimums identified in the fire code, and providing adequate access for emergency vehicles. Future development projects allowed within the Buildout Area pursuant to the previously approved Specific Plan would be required to conform with applicable City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would be subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
OCFA’s ratio of firefighters to residents has remained steady over the last 3 years, ranging from 5.86 to 5.94 per 10,000 residents. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, and based on the average persons per household for the City of 3.08,27 the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 5,516 new residents. With the assumption that there would be no increase in fire personnel, the firefighter-to-resident ratio would drop from 5.86–5.94 to approximately 5.29 per 10,000 residents, thus resulting in the need to hire approximately four firefighters to maintain OCFA’s current firefighter-to-resident ratio. Annual reports show regular additions to staffing, with recent years noting the creation of new positions to meet growing service 27 United States Census Bureau. 2024. Cypress City, California QuickFacts. Website: https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cypresscitycalifornia/PST045224 (accessed January 28, 2025).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -14 demands.28 In addition, it is the OCFA’s goal to have the first responding company for a fire call to reach the emergency scene within 8 minutes and paramedics to reach the scene within 5 minutes at least 90 percent of the time. Based on the Buildout Area’s proximity to Fire Station No. 17 (approximately 75 feet), the OCFA is expected to be able to respond to emergencies within the Buildout Area within the stated response time goal.
At this time, OCFA has not identified any new fire station or related facilities construction in the area impacted by the proposed project. If OCFA determines that new facilities are necessary at some point in the future, such facilities: (1) would occur where allowed under the designated land use; (2) would be located on parcels that are infill opportunities on lots that are likely between 0.5 and one acre in size; and (3) would very likely qualify for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 or 15332 and, if not, a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and, therefore would not be expected to result in significant impacts.
Based on the above, the proposed project’s impacts on fire protection services and the associated need to construct new fire facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Regardless, future development would comply with Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1, which requires coordination with OCFA to determine if any development impact fees will be required for the project related to OCCFA staffing and service. Considering current hiring practices, implementation of a TCP, and adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1, project impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.15.1(ii): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities, including proposed roadway improvements associated with the extension of Moody Street from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue and Vessels Circle from its current western terminus to intersect with the Moody Street extension, have the potential to affect police protection services, including emergency vehicle response times, by temporarily requiring partial lane closures, reducing roadway capacity, or increasing congestion.
However, as discussed in Section, 4.17, Transportation, the construction contractor would be required to implement a TCP that complies with applicable engineering standards outlined in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, ensuring that construction activities which may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate and appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Traffic management personnel (flag persons), required as part of the construction worksite traffic control plan would be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the 28 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2023. 2023 Statistical Annual Report. Website: https://ocfa.org/ Uploads/Transparency/OCFA%20Annual%20Report%202023.pdf (accessed May 9, 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-15 movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access. If partial lane closures are required, notice would be provided to the CPD, and flag persons would be used to facilitate the traffic flow until construction is complete. Therefore, potential impacts related to emergency access during construction of the proposed project would not be impeded and response times would not be substantially affected.
Future development projects allowed within the Buildout Area pursuant to the approved Specific Plan would be required to conform with applicable City standards and criteria, including consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. In addition, the proposed project would incorporate feasible Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principals, including adequate lighting in public and semi-public areas such as walkways, parking lots, and open spaces; clearly defined property boundaries and access control through landscaping and fencing; building designs that promote natural surveillance (e.g., windows overlooking parking areas and pedestrian paths); and the installation of security cameras in parking structures, commercial areas, and community gathering spaces. In addition, the proposed project would coordinate with the CPD during the site design phase for review of circulation, lighting, and security plans. Further, any future development or redevelopment projects requiring discretionary actions would be subject to environmental review, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
As of the most recent data, the CPD staffs approximately 57 sworn officers for a population of around 49,243 residents, resulting in a ratio of about 1.12 officers per 1,000 residents. With an anticipated population increase of 5,516 residents, the ratio would drop to approximately 1.00 officer per 1,000 residents if staffing remains constant. According to CPD’s response letter to the questionnaire sent for the proposed project, CPD has not identified any new police station or related facilities construction in the area impacted by the proposed project and the CPD does not have any current plans to expand existing facilities. However, the CPD continuously evaluates staffing levels and service delivery models as the population in the city grows. In addition, as provided in CPD’s response, the projected population increase associated with the proposed project may warrant the addition of approximately five or six new officers to maintain existing service levels and response time goals; however, the CPD also indicated that it anticipates being able to provide adequate service to the proposed project using existing resources in the short term, provided that the City continues to monitor the proposed project’s phasing and occupancy stages and evaluate staffing levels as development progresses. In addition, although the CPD would also require additional associated equipment and vehicles and the additional officers may strain locker room capacity and workspace at the existing facility, CPD has indicated that they would not need to construct a new facility in order to serve the proposed project.
If CPD determines that new facilities are necessary at some point in the future, such facilities:
(1) would occur where allowed under the designated land use; (2) would be located on parcels that are infill opportunities on lots that are likely between 0.5 and one acre in size; and (3) would very likely qualify for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 or 15332 and, if not, a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and, therefore would not be expected to result in significant impacts.
In addition, it is the CPD’s goal to maintain a response time of three minutes to emergency calls and six minutes for non-emergency calls. Based on the Buildout Area’s proximity to the nearest police S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -16 station (approximately 1 mile away), the CPD would be able to respond to calls within the Buildout Area within the stated response time goal.
All future housing projects implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable policies and codes related to the provision of police services. Any future development projects would be required to obtain City approval of building plans prior to issuance of building permits and would be required to demonstrate during the development review process that law enforcement providers would be able to provide adequate police protection services. In addition, through the City budgetary process a portion of development impact fees would be directed to the CPD, as deemed necessary. The impact development fees have been adopted by the City and are updated periodically following the preparation of a nexus study to confirm that the impact fees are in alignment with the costs required to complete new capital improvements to serve the new development. Considering current hiring practices and discretionary review conditions of approval and with implementation of a TCP, project impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8.1(iii): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Office of Public-School Construction published general student yield factors for elementary, secondary (middle/high school), and unified school districts in California (May 2009). The student generation rate for elementary schools is 0.5 student per dwelling unit and the student generation rate for middle/high school students is 0.2 student per dwelling unit. These student generation rates were used to estimate the number of students that could be generated within the boundaries of the LAUSD and AUHSD as a result of project implementation.
According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study completed for the CSD by Cooperative Strategies and dated April 30, 2020, the student generation rate from elementary schools within the CSD was 0.256.29 These student generation rates were used to estimate the number of students that could be generated within the boundaries of the CSD. 29 Cooperative Strategies. 2020. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, Cypress School District. April 30.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-17 As shown in Table 4.15.B: Residential Lot Acreage and Residential Dwelling Units Distribution by School District, approximately 47 acres of potential residential development fall within the LAUSD district and 69 acres are located within the AUHSD and CSD districts, respectively. The Project would include up to 1,791 additional residential units within the Buildout Area under the Specific Plan.
However, under the proposed development scenario, as detailed in Figure 4.15-1: School District Boundaries and Potential Residential Growth and Table 4.15.B, below, the additional residential units would be distributed across each school district as follows: 1,176 residential units within CSD, 1,176 residential units within AUHSD, and approximately 413 residential units within LAUSD. It should also be noted that Lot 2 within the Buildout Area is designated to accommodate future development of senior housing and medium-density residential uses under the Specific Plan, with a capacity of up to 404 dwelling units (refer to Figure 3-5: Vesting Tentative Map No. 19247 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description). In order to account for potential senior housing within the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District, which does not typically generate a school-age population, a portion of these dwelling units (approximately 50 percent or 202 residential units) are assumed to not contribute to student generation. Therefore, it was assumed that a portion of the Buildout Area located within LAUSD boundaries would not result in the generation of school-age students.
Table 4.15.B: Residential Lot Acreage and Residential Dwelling Units Distribution by School District
Lot
Number
Specific Plan Land
Use District
Lot Size
(ac)
Projected
Residential
dwelling Units
within Buildout
Area
Acreage of School
Districts Within Lots
Project Residential
Dwelling Units within
School Districts
LAUSD AUHSD/
CSD1
LAUSD AUHSD/
CSD
2 Senior
Housing/MDR 23.08 404 du 23.09 -- 202 du2
3 Residential 27.15 269 du 13 14 129 du 140 du
4 Residential 19.00 141 du 11 8 82 du 59 du
7 Medium-Density
Residential 20.66 309 du -- 20.66 -- 309 du
10 Mixed-Use (Town
Center/MDR) 2.00 29 du -- 2.00 -- 29 du
11 Mixed-Use (Town
Center/HDR) 1.75 51 du -- 1.75 -- 51 du
12 Mixed-Use (Town
Center/HDR) 8.86 265 du -- 8.86 -- 265 du
13 Mixed-Use (Town
Center/HDR) 6.52 195 du -- 6.52 -- 195 du
14 Mixed-Use (Town
Center/MDR) 7.33 128 du -- 7.33 -- 128 du
Total Acreage of School Districts Within the Residential portions of Buildout Area 47.09 69.12
Total Residential Units Within School Districts 413 1,176 1 The AUHSD and CSD districts overlap within the Buildout Area. 2 The total number of potential residential units in Lot 2 of LAUSD district is projected to be 404 units. However, given that senior housing typically does not generate school-age students, the number of units contributing to student generation has been adjusted. As such, it assumed that approximately 50 percent of the units planned, are planned for senior housing and are excluded from the student generation calculation.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -18 Additionally, approximately 13 acres of Lot 3 (48 percent) and 11 acres of Lot 4 (58 percent) fall within the boundaries of the LAUSD, while approximately 14 acres of Lot 3 (52 percent) and 8 acres of Lot 4 (42 percent) are located within the CSD. For the purposes of this analysis, the residential units in Lots 3 and 4 were allocated based on the percentage of lot area within each district.
Accordingly, the 269 units proposed for Lot 3 are estimated to include approximately 129 units within LAUSD30 and 140 units within CSD,
31 and the 141 units in Lot 4 are estimated to include
approximately 82 units within LAUSD32 and 59 units within CSD. 33 As such, the proposed project
would generate approximately 237 additional students in the CSD, 235 additional students in the AUHSD, and 288 additional students in the LAUSD (206 elementary school students and 82 middle/high school students) (refer to Table 4.15.C: Student Generation Factor).
Table 4.15.C: Student Generation Factor
Grade Levels Student Generation
Factor
Projected Residential
dwelling Units
Projected Enrollment Increase
(Students)
Cypress School District (CSD)
(Elementary Schools)
0.2011 student/unit 1,176 237
Anaheim Union High School District
(AUHSD) (Middle/High School) 0.2 student/unit 1,176 235 Los Alamitos Unified School District
(LAUSD) (Elementary School) 0.5 student/unit 413 206
Los Alamitos Unified School District
(LAUSD) (Middle/High School) 0.2 student/unit 413 82
Total -- 760
Sources: State of California, Office of Public School Construction (2019); Cooperative Strategies (2020, 2022).
CSD
According to the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study completed for the CSD by Cooperative Strategies and dated March 28, 2024, the CSD had a facilities capacity of 4,400 students in the 2023–2024 school year.34 As previously discussed, CSD’s enrollment was 3,319 students in the 2023–2024 school year.35 As such, the CSD operates under capacity and has an additional 1,081 seats available for new students. As shown in Table 4.15.C, above, the residential units that could be developed within the portion of the Buildout Area that is in the CSD are estimated to generate 237 new elementary level students, at full occupation. This 30 269 (total residential units in Lot 3) × 0.48 (percentage of Lot 3 acreage within LAUSD) = 129 (estimated number of units within the LAUSD portion of Lot 3)
31 269 (total residential units in Lot 3) × 0.52 (percentage of Lot 3 acreage within CSD) = 140 (estimated number of units within the CSD portion of Lot 3)
32 141 (total residential units in Lot 4) × 0.58 (percentage of Lot 4 acreage within LAUSD) = 82 (estimated number of units within the LAUSD portion of Lot 4)
33 141 (total residential units in Lot 4) × 0.42 (percentage of Lot 4 acreage within CSD) = 59 (estimated number of units within the CSD portion of Lot 4)
34 Cooperative Strategies. 2024. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, Cypress School District. March 28.
35 Ibid.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-19 represents a 7.0 percent increase to CSD’s student enrollment population.36 However, this increase in elementary level students can be accommodated by the CSD’s available capacity of 1,081 seats available. In addition, with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2 as described below, it is expected that CSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new elementary level students generated by the housing units in the Buildout Area pursuant to the Specific Plan.
AUHSD
AUHSD’s enrollment was 27,748 students in the 2023–2024 school year. As shown in Table 4.15.C above, development of residential units in the Buildout Area pursuant to the Specific Plan is estimated to generate 235 new middle and high school level students. This represents a
0.84 percent increase to AUHSD’s student enrollment population.37 According to the AUHSD Facilities Master Plan Update,
38 the AUHSD is experiencing an overall decline in enrollment of approximately 3,200 students through the 2025–2026 school year in the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, and Stanton.39
Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The applicant/developer of future residential and commercial development projects in the Buildout Area pursuant to the Specific Plan would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential or commercial development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2). With the AUHSD’s projected decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that AUHSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new middle and high school level students generated with implementation of the proposed project.
LAUSD
LAUSD has been experiencing a decline in enrollment since the 2016–2017 school year.40 As shown in Table 4.15.B above, the residential units that could be developed within the portion of the Buildout Area that is in the LAUSD are estimated to generate 206 new elementary level students and 82 new middle/high school level students, for a total of 288 new students. This represents a 3.2 percent increase to LAUSD’s student enrollment population; however, this increase in students can be accommodated by the LAUSD because LAUSD has sufficient capacity due to decreasing enrollment.
41 In addition, an applicant/developer of future residential and commercial development 36 (237 new students/3,389 current enrollment CSD) × 100 = 7.0 percent increase for CSD 37 (235 new students/27,748 current enrollment AUHSD) ×100= 0.84 percent increase for AUHSD 38 Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). 2022. Facilities Master Plan Update, 3.2 Planning Considerations; Enrollment Projections and Demographics. February 16. Website: https://www.auhsd.us/ District/Department/14195-FACILITIES/88521-New-2022-Facilities-Master-Plan.html (accessed May 8, 2025).
39 Ibid.
40 California Department of Education. 2023. DataQuest, Enrollment Multi-Year Summary by Grade, Los Alamitos Unified Report (30-73924). Website: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdYears. aspx?cds=3073924&agglevel=district&year=2022-23&ro=y (accessed July 28, 2023). 41 (288 new students/8,931current enrollment LAUSD) x 100 = 3.2 percent increase LAUSD S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -20 projects in the Buildout Area pursuant to the Specific Plan may be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2.
With the LAUSD’s continued pattern of decline in enrollment, and with payment of development impact fees on a project-by-project basis, it is expected that LAUSD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate new students generated with implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a project’s impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. Therefore, with payment of the required fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.15.1(iv): Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Conservation/Open Space/ Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan, the City aims to provide a total of 4.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and currently has a total supply of approximately 93.9 acres of park and recreational facilities. Given the approximate population of 48,782 residents, the current parkland ratio is 1.92 acres per 1,000 residents, which does not meet the City’s parkland objective of 4.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The City would need a total of 146.35 acres of park space (including public school facilities) to meet its current goal of providing 4.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, the City currently has a deficiency of approximately 52.45 acres.
As discussed in Section 4.16, Recreation, the proposed project could result in the development of up to 1,791 residential units and 440,000 square feet of non-residential development within the Buildout Area, which could add approximately 5,516 residents to the City’s population.42 The additional 5,516 residents would change this ratio to 1.73 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is also below the City’s goal.43 As specified in Article VI of the City’s Municipal Code, the City requires land to be dedicated as parks for subdivisions that include new residential construction that qualify as dwelling units as defined by section 6.31.020(D) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and section 205(D) of the 2001 California Building Code as they currently exist.44 Per Section 25-45 of the Municipal Code, the amount of required land dedication is 130.68 square feet multiplied by the number of anticipated residents (dwelling units multiplied by average household size). Based on this 42 1,791 households x 3.08 persons per household = 5,516 persons 43 93.9 acres ÷ 54,289 (total population including the additional 5,516 residents) = 1.73 acres per 1,000 residents
44 City of Cypress. 2024. Cypress Municipal Code. Article VI Park and Recreation Facilities. Website:
https://ecode360.com/43174531?highlight=park,recreational&searchId=27310103989275668#43174532 (accessed May 6, 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-21 calculation, the amount of land required to be dedicated in conjunction with the additional 1,791 residential units is approximately 720,830 square feet or 16.5 acres.45 The Municipal Code also allows payment of park fees or a credit for private open space in lieu of the land dedication.
The Specific Plan establishes the development of standards for land uses proposed as part of the project. As established in the Specific Plan, 18.2 acres of land shall be set aside exclusively for two public parks within the Public Park District. This area was considered to be large enough to provide passive and active recreational uses. An additional 2 acres of public park will be, or have been, provided in one or more of the other Land Use Districts, for a total of approximately 20 acres of public parks. Lexington Park, which is approximately 9 acres and is located outside the Buildout Area has already been developed adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 19247, and counts toward the 20-acre park requirement included in the Specific Plan. The proposed project would include approximately 11 acres of land on which park and recreational uses would be developed.
The specific amenities and improvements that would be developed in the Specific Plan’s Public Park District and the additional 2 acres of public park space would be determined in connection with future development projects as they are proposed within the Buildout Area. The proposed project would also include additional open space areas as an amenity for future residents. The amount of open space, improvements, and amenities in the final buildout is not known or defined at this programmatic stage of the proposed project but would be consistent with requirements in the Specific Plan.
In addition, as noted above, the City requires that every subdivider comply with Article VI of the Municipal Code by dedicating land, paying a park fee, obtaining a private open space credit or some combination, for the purposes of providing park and recreational facilities (see Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-3 provided below). As such, all future projects within the Buildout Area would comply with the Specific Plan as well as the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, as applicable. The proposed project would include approximately 11 acres of land in the Buildout Area on which park and recreational uses would be developed and accessible to the public. With the dedication of this land, the City’s parkland to resident ratio would be 1.93 acres per 1,000 residents, which does not meet the City’s parkland goal but is slightly greater than the City’s existing parkland ratio.46 As such, implementation of the proposed project would improve the City’s existing parkland to resident ratio from existing conditions. In addition, consistent with Article VI, a future applicant/developer in the Buildout Area would be required to pay applicable park fees, obtain a private open space credit, or some combination, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-3. Therefore, potential impacts to parks associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 45 5,516 residents X 130.68 square feet = 720,830 square feet or 16.5 acres 46 104.9 acres (total parkland including the 11 acres of parkland) ÷ 54,289 (total population including the additional 5,516 residents) = 1.93 acres per 1,000 residents S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -22 Threshold 4.15.1(v): Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The OCPL system provides library services within the jurisdictions of many of the County’s cities as well as unincorporated areas. The City is served by OCPL’s Cypress Branch, which is located within the Cypress Civic Center at 5331 Orange Avenue, approximately 1 mile north of the Buildout Area. The Cypress Branch is the only library branch serving the City providing library materials, computer access meeting room space, and study areas to its approximately 48,782 residents. According to the City’s Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, the Cypress branch contains approximately 112,566 volumes and sponsors programs including Pre-School Storytime and the Fun Club for Children.
Although OCPL has not formally adopted a library demand ratio, demand for library services is typically determined based on the size of the resident population. As previously stated, buildout of the proposed project may result in approximately 5,516 new residents. According to the County’s service standards of 0.2 sf of library space per capita and 1.5 books per capita, the Cypress Branch Library has the capacity to accommodate a population of 75,000 and enough books to serve a population of 58,667. The City currently exceeds the County’s standards for size and number of books since the City’s most current population estimate is 48,782. Accordingly, the Cypress Branch Library has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population growth associated with the proposed project.
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed project would not result in additional physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance measures. The proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required.
4.15.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts related to public services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.15.8 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.15.8.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The proposed project would comply with the following standards, the implementation of which is intended to reduce impacts related to public services.
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1 Any future projects implemented within the Buildout Area in accordance with the City of Cypress
(City) Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific
Plan 3.0 (Specific Plan) would be required to
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-23 coordinate with the Orange County Fire Authority
(OCFA) to determine the appropriate development
impact fees required to offset potential impact to
OCFA staffing and service ability. Prior to the
approval of such projects, the designated site
developer shall enter into a Secured Fire Protection
Agreement with OCFA that details the agreed-upon
development impact fees required for the project.
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-2 Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the Buildout Area in
accordance with the Specific Plan, the applicant/
developer of future development projects
facilitated by the proposed project shall provide
proof to the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee,
that payment of all applicable school fees has been
made to the appropriate school district(s) in
compliance with Section 65995 of the California
Government Code.
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-3 Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits
within the Buildout Area in accordance with the
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan
3.0 (Specific Plan), a future applicant/developer
shall provide proof of compliance with the
applicable provisions of Chapter 25 (Subdivisions),
Article VI, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the
City of Cypress Municipal Code.
4.15.8.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.15.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to public services. No mitigation is required.
4.15.10 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are impacts created as a result of the combination of an individual project together with other past, current, and probable future projects causing related impacts. An EIR must discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The cumulative study area for public services is the City of Cypress.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -24 As shown in Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, of this Draft EIR, eight projects in proximity to the Buildout Area are approved or under construction within the City. Each of these projects, as well as all proposed projects in the City, are required to comply with applicable State and local regulations governing public services.
In addition, some of the related projects identified in Table 4.A have undergone environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which included an analysis of potential impacts on public services.
According to the EIRs prepared for the Shae Properties Mixed Use Development Project (Related Project 1), Melia Homes-Citrus Square Project (Related Project 2), and the Los Alamitos Medical Center Project (Related Project 7), impacts on public services would be less than significant with implementation of the projects. Further, the EIRs determined that cumulative impacts related to public services would be less than significant. In addition, Goodman Commerce Center Project (Related Project 3) was analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which determined that all impacts on public services would also be less than significant. In addition, the environmental documents for these projects required adherence to measures similar to Regulatory Compliance Measures PS-1 through PS-3. The Sycamore Creek Charter School Project (Related Project 6) and 4562 Katella Avenue Project (Related Project 8) were determined to be exempt from CEQA review under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines (for infill development) and Notices of Exemption (NOEs) were prepared. In order for a project to be exempt under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project site must be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. As such, development of the related projects in combination with the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on public services. The LTP Modern Machine Project (Related Project 5) and 8561 Belmont Street Project (Related Project 4) would also be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which would include an analysis of potential impacts on public services and the identification of any mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, if necessary.
As detailed in this section, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on public services including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities and would adhere to all applicable policies and codes related to the provision of firefighting and police services including OCFA requirements related to providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the Buildout Area and provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. In addition, OCFA and CPD would be able to respond to emergencies within the Buildout Area within the stated, respective response times. Further, future development projects in the Buildout Area would be required to adhere to Regulatory Compliance Measures PS-1 through PS-3, which require the payment of development impact fees for fire protection, school services, and parks, respectively.
Future development of the Buildout Area would not result in population growth that would exceed the 2019 to 2050 growth forecast for the City. According to the SCAG, the City’s population in 2050 is expected to be 56,200 persons,
47 increasing by 6,000 persons from the actual 2019 population of 47 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. Connect Socal 2024. Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Website: https://sustain.scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23- 2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf (accessed May 13, 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» 4.15-25 50,200 persons.48 Although implementation of the proposed project would facilitate an increase in demand for school facilities, this increase in demand is consistent with the increase in the City’s population. In addition, developers of future residential development projects in the Buildout Area pursuant to the Specific Plan would be required to pay their fair share of school impact fees. Any population growth associated with the project that would lead to potential strains on public services would not be substantial because it would be located within an area capable of supporting it.
Additionally, since all projects within the cumulative study area would be required to implement measures similar to Regulatory Compliance Measures PS-1 through PS-3, to reduce or eliminate project-specific impacts to public resources, implementation of the proposed project, when evaluated in combination with the development of projects listed in Table 4.A, would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on public resources. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively significant impact on public resources, and no mitigation is required. 48 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. Growth Forecasting. Website: https://scag. ca.gov/growth-forecasting (accessed May 8, 2025).
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.15 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.15 Public Services.docx «03/11/26» -26 This page intentionally left blank
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S PE C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C AL I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» 4.16-1
4.16 RECREATION
This section describes the parks and other recreational facilities near the Buildout Area and evaluates the potential impacts of the Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (proposed project) on those facilities. This section also discusses the existing setting of recreational facilities within and near the City of Cypress (City) and sets forth the relevant regulatory requirements that apply to the analysis of the proposed project’s impact on recreation facilities. This section is based, in part, on information provided in the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan and applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code.
4.16.1 Scoping
The City received six comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). For a copy of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). No comment letters included comments related to recreation.
4.16.2 Methodology
Impacts on recreation facilities were assessed based on the potential for the proposed project to generate increased demand on recreational facilities that could result in the deterioration of, or contribute toward substantial accelerated deterioration of, those facilities or require the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. For the purposes of this analysis, “recreational facilities” are defined as parks and designated public areas used for active or passive recreation, including schools and community facilities.
The Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan defines recreational resources to include parks, schools, community facilities, and privately owned recreational facilities.
The City’s Municipal Code and the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element contain requirements for the dedication of land, or the payment of park fees, or both, for recreational purposes in connection with residential development purposes, and an additional 1.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for such purposes that are made available at K-12 schools through a cooperative arrangement between the City, local school districts, and local park and recreation districts. This results in a total of 4.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents.
4.16.3 Existing Environmental Setting
The Buildout Area does not contain any parks or recreation resources. The Buildout Area contains several properties, including the Los Alamitos Race Course (LARC) Property, the Cypress Golf Course property, and the Grace Church Property. The LARC Property includes a variety of existing structures and facilities that support horse racing, training, and community activities. The Cypress GC Property includes a portion of the former Cypress Golf Club, which is no longer operating. LARC currently uses approximately 1 acre of the Cypress GC Property (designated as Lot 1 in Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 19247) as a maintenance yard, while the clubhouse for the former Cypress Golf Club is presently being used as a church. Lastly, the land owned by Grace Church within the Buildout Area, designated as Lots 5 and 10 in VTTM 19247, is part of a larger church property that is currently used for religious services and events and includes a small school, open space, and parking areas.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.16 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» -2 As previously mentioned in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the Specific Plan includes two discrete portions of land that are not part of the Buildout Area. This includes 9 acres of land on which the City has previously developed Lexington Park, located adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 in VTTM 19247.
4.16.3.1 Existing Recreational Facilities
There are currently a total of 20 developed public parks within the City, which range in size from the approximately 0.17-acre Laurel Park to the 22-acre Oak Knoll Park.1 According to the Conservation/ Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan, 2 the City had approximately 82 acres of
park and recreational facilities in 2001.
3 Subsequently, the City added 2.9 acres of park space at the former Mackay School site, which increased its park space to 84.9 acres. Additionally, the City recently constructed Lexington Park, a new 9-acre sports park at the southeastern corner of Lexington Drive and Cerritos Avenue (immediately west of the Buildout Area).
The City classifies parks as community, neighborhood, or mini-facilities based on size. In addition to the City’s parks, Cypress residents have access to recreational facilities at 11 K–12 schools, which add approximately 100 additional acres to the City’s recreational facilities,4and 9 acres of open space and recreational facilities at Cypress Community College. Fees are charged by Cypress Community College for use of its facilities other than its track and tennis courts.
Community Parks. Arnold Cypress Park (14.5 acres) and Oak Knoll Park (22 acres) are the two major community parks located in the City.5 Community parks serve neighborhoods and offer recreational opportunities for large groups. These parks are generally over 10 acres in size and include a variety of facilities, such as active recreational facilities (i.e., athletic fields and group picnic areas). In addition, these large parks often include community centers.
Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks are smaller in size than community parks and typically range in size from 3 to 5 acres. Within the City, the 15 neighborhood parks encompass approximately 48 acres. Neighborhood parks are often located adjacent to elementary schools and normally include tot lots, picnic facilities, and a multi-use court.
Mini Parks. Mini-parks are less than 1 acre in size and are usually located near schools or residential developments. The City’s three mini-parks serve as playgrounds for children or as a place for people to relax in an urban environment. There are 1.26 acres of mini-parks within the City.6 As shown in Table 4.16.A: City of Cypress Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Vicinity of the Buildout Area below, four City parks and recreational facilities are within 1.5 mile of the Buildout Area.
1 City of Cypress. 2020. Facility and Park Locations. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/activities/facilitypark-locations (accessed March 2026). 2 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. 3 Ibid.
4 City of Cypress. 2015. Barton Place Final Environmental Impact Report. October 5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S PE C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C AL I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» 4.16-3 Table 4.16.A: City of Cypress Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Vicinity of the Buildout Area
Name and Address
Distance from
Buildout Area
(miles)
Type Size
(acres) Amenities
Lexington Park
4600 West Cerritos Avenue
70 feet west Community 9 Children’s playground equipment, multi-use court, multi-use play field
(natural and synthetic turf), picnic
pavilions, walking path, electric
vehicle parking, restroom
Damron Park -
5400 Myra Avenue
0.3 mile north Public 0.5 Children’s playground, turf field Veterans Park
4554 Avenida Granada
0.5 mile north Community 6.4 Children’s playground equipment, skatepark, volleyball court,
basketball court, turf field, walking
path parking, restroom
Nature Park
4201 Ball Road
0.7 mile north Private 6 Seasonally open park. Walking trails Regional Parks. Currently, there are no regional parks within the City; however, seven regional park facilities are located in surrounding communities:
• The City of Long Beach operates El Dorado Regional Park approximately 3.3 miles west of the Buildout Area. El Dorado Regional Park incorporates approximately 450 acres total. Recreational amenities within the park include an archery range, barbeque and picnic areas, 5 miles of bike paths, a campground, a 100-acre nature center, two stocked fishing lakes, a physical fitness course, and playgrounds for children.
• The County of Orange (County) operates Ralph B. Clark Regional Park, which is located approximately 9.2 miles northeast of the Buildout Area, in the City of Buena Park. Ralph B. Clark Regional Park incorporates approximately 104 total acres. Recreational amenities within the park include picnic areas, hiking and biking trails, playgrounds for children, sports fields, baseball and softball diamonds, volleyball courts, tennis courts, an amphitheater, and a lake. • Heartwell Park is approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the Buildout Area, in the City of Long Beach. The park incorporates approximately 123 total acres. Recreational facilities within the park include a stocked fishing pond, bike paths, a physical fitness course, picnic areas, baseball diamonds, athletic fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, and volleyball courts. • Cerritos Regional Park is approximately 5 miles northwest of the Buildout Area, in the City of Cerritos. The park incorporates approximately 84 total acres. Recreational amenities within the park include a swimming pool, a stocked fishing pond, baseball diamonds, a gymnasium, a multipurpose room, and picnic areas.
• Rynerson Park is approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the Buildout Area, in the City of Lakewood. The park incorporates approximately 40 total acres. Recreational facilities within the S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.16 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» -4 park include bike paths, baseball diamonds, a wildflower meadow, picnic acres, a physical fitness circuit, a 1.5-mile fitness trail, and an amphitheater. • El Rancho Verde Park and Bicycle Path is approximately 4.2 miles northwest of the Buildout Area, in the Cities of La Palma and Buena Park. The park incorporates approximately 5.25 total acres. Recreational facilities within the park include a botanical garden, exercise stations, playgrounds for children, and a 12-mile bike path.
• The Bolsa Chica Wetlands are approximately 8.6 miles south of the Buildout Area, in the City of Huntington Beach. The wetlands consist of an approximately 1,400-acre nature reserve.
Recreational amenities surrounding the wetlands include walking trails, guided tours, educational programs, and volunteer programs.
Community Facilities. The City has a number of community facilities that host many of its recreation and cultural programs. These facilities include the Cypress Community Center, the Cypress Civic Center and the Cypress Senior Center. These facilities provide a multitude of uses to help meet the recreational needs of the City’s residents.
Other Public Facilities. A portion of one public golf course, the Navy Golf Course, is located within the City approximately 1 mile southeast of the Buildout Area. This 220-acre, 27-hole golf complex is owned by the United States Department of the Navy. Additionally, four other public golf courses are located within 5 miles of the proposed project:
• The El Dorado Park Golf Course is approximately 4 miles west of the Buildout Area in the City of Long Beach. This golf course includes an 18-hole golf course, occupying approximately 275 total acres. The El Dorado Park Golf Course is open to the public and includes an event center.7 • The Heartwell Golf Course is approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the Buildout Area in the City of Long Beach. This golf course includes an 18-hole golf course, occupying approximately 37 total acres. The Heartwell Golf Course is open to the public and includes a restaurant. • The Recreation Park Golf Course is approximately 7 miles southwest of the Buildout Area in the City of Long Beach. This golf course includes an 18-hole golf course, occupying approximately 170 total acres. The Recreation Park Golf Course is open to the public and includes a clubhouse, banquet facility, and garden gazebo.
• The Dad Miller Golf Course is approximately 6.2 miles northeast of the Buildout Area, in the City of Anaheim. This golf course includes an 18-hole golf course, occupying approximately 60 total acres. The Dad Miller Golf Course is open to the public and includes a clubhouse and a banquet hall.
7 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S PE C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C AL I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» 4.16-5
4.16.4 Regulatory Setting
The following section describes the federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework applicable to analyzing potential impacts related to recreation from development of the proposed project.
4.16.4.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal policies or regulations related to recreation applicable to the proposed project.
4.16.4.2 State Regulations
Quimby Act of 1975. The State Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) allows the legislative body of a city or county to require by ordinance the dedication of land, the payment of an in-lieu park fee, or a combination thereof, for the approval for a final tract or parcel map. In cases where such dedication or park fee is not obtained through a map, compliance with local Quimby requirements may be imposed when building permits are issued. The following conditions must be met to comply with the Quimby Act:
• The city or county ordinance must include definitive standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof. • The legislative body must adopt a general plan containing a recreation element, and any proposed park or recreational facility must be consistent with the principles and standards established in the element
4.16.4.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations applicable to the proposed project.
4.16.4.4 Local Regulations
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0. The Specific Plan establishes the development of standards for land uses proposed as part of the proposed project. As established in the Specific Plan, 18.2 acres of land shall be set aside exclusively for two public parks within the Public Park District. This area was considered to be large enough to provide passive and active recreational uses. An additional 2 acres of public park will be, or have been, provided in one or more of the other Land Use Districts, for a total of approximately 20 acres of public parks.
City of Cypress Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. The Conservation/Open Space/ Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan describes existing park and recreational facilities within the City, compares the existing acreage of facilities to the standard set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (described above) and identifies goals and policies for the provision of parks and recreational facilities.
The following policy in the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element applies to the proposed project:
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.16 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» -6 • COSR-6.1: Continue to require new developments to provide recreational opportunities for their residents in accordance with the City’s park standard, three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
City of Cypress Municipal Code. The City of Cypress Municipal Code Chapter 25, Article 6, Section 25-41, Provision of Park and Recreational Facilities, states that “every subdivider who subdivides land shall dedicate a portion of such land, pay a fee, or do both as set forth in this article for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities, including recreational community gardening facilities, to help serve the future residents of such subdivision.” Section 25-43 of the Municipal Code establishes a standard of 3.0 acres of land per 1,000 residents for park and recreational purposes, and an additional 1.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for such purposes that are made available at K-12 schools. This code standard is also consistent with the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy COSR-6.1, as discussed below.
4.16.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for recreation impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to recreation if it would:
Threshold 4.16.1: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
Threshold 4.15.2: Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
4.16.6 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.16.1: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include up to 1,791 residential units and 440,000 square feet of non-residential development within the Buildout Area. As described in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, and based on the average persons per household for the City of 3.08,
8 full buildout of the Buildout Area is expected to result in approximately 5,516 new residents.9The City’s Municipal Code states a goal of providing 4.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for park and recreational purposes, including 1.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents for purposes that are made available at K-12 schools through a cooperative arrangement between the City, local school districts, and local park and recreation districts. 8 United States Census Bureau. 2024. Cypress City, California QuickFacts. Website: https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cypresscitycalifornia/PST045224 (accessed January 28, 2025). 9 1,791 households x 3.08 persons per household =5,516 persons
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S PE C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C AL I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» 4.16-7 The City currently has 93.9 acres of parkland available for its 48,782 residents, and it currently provides approximately 1.92 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which does not meet the City’s parkland objective of 4.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The additional 5,516 residents would change this ratio to 1.73 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, prior to construction of any recreational resources proposed by the project.
10 As specified in Article VI of the City’s Municipal Code, the City requires land to be dedicated as parks for subdivisions that include new residential construction that qualify as dwelling units as defined by section 6.31.020(D) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and section 205(D) of the 2001 California Building Code as they currently exist.11 Per Section 25-45 of the Municipal Code, the amount of required land dedication is 130.68 square feet multiplied by the number of anticipated residents (dwelling units multiplied by population density). Based on this calculation, the amount of land required to be dedicated is approximately 720,830 square feet or
16.5 acres.12 The Municipal Code also allows payment of park fees or a credit for private open space in lieu of the land dedication.
The Buildout Area would include approximately 11 acres of land on which park and recreational uses would be developed, which does not include the already developed, 9-acre Lexington Park, adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 of VTTM 19247. Project implementation would include an additional 11 acres of park space, provided in the Public Park District and one or more of the other Land Use Districts. With the dedication of this land, the City’s parkland to resident ratio would be 1.93 acres per 1,000 residents, which is an improvement over existing ratios. However, even with project implementation, the City would not meet the overall stated goals.13 The specific amenities and improvements that would be developed in the Public Park District and additional 2 acres of public park space would be determined in connection with future development projects that are proposed within the Buildout Area. The proposed project would also include additional open space areas as an amenity for future residents. The amount of open space, improvements, and amenities in the final buildout is not known or defined at this programmatic stage of the proposed project but would be consistent with requirements in the Specific Plan.
As such, implementation of the proposed project would not worsen the City’s existing parkland to resident ratio from existing conditions. In addition, consistent with Article VI, a future applicant/ developer in the Buildout Area would be allowed to pay applicable park fees, obtain a private open space credit, or some combination, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-3, detailed in Section 4.15, Public Services and provided below. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 10 93.9 acres ÷ 54,289 (total population including the additional 5,516 residents) = 1.73 acres per 1,000 residents
11 City of Cypress. Cypress Municipal Code. Article VI Park and Recreation Facilities. Website:
https://ecode360.com/43174531?highlight=park,recreational&searchId=27310103989275668#43174532 (accessed May 6, 2025).
12 5,516 residents X 130.68 square feet = 720,830 square feet or 16.5 acres 13 104.9 acres (total parkland including the 11 acres of parkland) ÷ 54,289 (total population including the additional 5,516 residents) = 1.93 acres per 1,000 residents S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.16 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» -8 Threshold 4.16.2: Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities at a programmatic level, based on the overall buildout scenario proposed under the proposed project. This includes a general assessment of whether the proposed project would result in the need for new or physically altered recreational facilities or otherwise degrade the quality of existing recreational resources in the City. Any construction or operational impacts associated with the proposed project are addressed in this program-level analysis. The proposed project would include approximately 11 acres of land on which park and recreational uses would be developed.
The specific amenities and improvements that would be developed in the 9 acres of Public Park District and the additional 2 acres of public park space would be determined in connection with future development projects as they are proposed within the Buildout Area. Future individual development projects implemented within the Buildout Area pursuant to the previously approved Specific Plan would be subject to further project-specific evaluation to determine whether they are consistent with the assumptions in Draft EIR. If a future project exceeds the scope of this analysis or results in site-specific impacts not previously addressed, additional environmental review under CEQA may be required to evaluate impacts to recreation and ensure compliance with applicable policies, standards, and mitigation measures.
Although the proposed project is anticipated to add approximately 5,516 new residents to the City, as described in Threshold 4.16.1 previously, it is not expected to result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. The Buildout Area is well-served by a range of existing parks and recreational resources, both locally within the City and regionally through access to nearby county and open space amenities. In addition, as previously discussed, project implementation would include an additional 11 acres of park space, provided in one or more of the other Land Use Districts. With the addition of this land, the City’s parkland to resident ratio would be 1.93 acres per 1,000 residents, which is an improvement over existing ratios.
Given the availability and distribution of these facilities, as well as the City's existing park planning framework and service standards, the increase in population would not result in the physical deterioration of existing recreational resources or necessitate the construction of new parks or recreational infrastructure. As such, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.16.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to parks and recreation resources, and no mitigation is required.
4.16.8 Mitigation Measures
With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-3, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to recreation, and no mitigation measures are required.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S PE C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C AL I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» 4.16-9
4.16.9 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The proposed project would comply with the following standards, the implementation of which is intended to reduce impacts related to parks and recreational facilities.
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-3 Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees.
Prior to issuance of any building permits within the
Buildout Area in accordance with the Cypress Town
Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (Specific Plan), a future applicant/developer shall provide proof of
compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 25 (Subdivisions), Article VI, Park and Recreational
Facilities, of the City of Cypress Municipal Code.
4.16.10 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to parks and recreation resources, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.16.11 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are impacts created as a result of the combination of an individual project together with other past, current, and probable future projects causing related impacts. An EIR must discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The Buildout Area is located within the City of Cypress and is subject to the City's Municipal Code requirements for dedicating land, paying a park fee, obtaining a private open space credit or some combination. For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, the geographic scope includes the City of Cypress, as the potential impacts on recreational facilities would occur within the City through increased demand for parkland and recreational amenities.
Future residents of the proposed project would utilize the proposed parkland and recreational facilities associated with the proposed project due to proximity to their residents. The proposed project, in combination with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects identified in Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, of this Draft EIR, would incrementally increase the City's population, thereby increasing demand for park and recreational facilities. However, the proposed project and related projects in the City would be required to comply with Article VI of the Municipal Code, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-3. Article VI requires the dedication of land, payment of a park fee, a private open space credit, or some combination for the purposes of providing park and recreational facilities.
In addition, some of the related projects identified in Table 4.A have undergone environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which included an analysis of potential impacts related to recreation.
According to the EIRs prepared for the Shea Properties Mixed Use Development Project (Related Project 1), Melia Homes-Citrus Square Project (Related Project 2), and the Los Alamitos Medical Center Project (Related Project 7), impacts related to recreation would be less than significant with implementation of the projects. Further, the EIRs determined that cumulative impacts related to S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.16 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.16 Recreation.docx «03/11/26» -10 recreation would be less than significant. In addition, Goodman Commerce Center Project (Related Project 3) was analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which determined that all impacts related to recreation would also be less than significant. In addition, the environmental documents for these projects required adherence to measures similar to Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-3. The Sycamore Creek Charter School Project (Related Project 6) and 4562 Katella Avenue Project (Related Project 8) were determined to be exempt from CEQA review under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines (for infill development) and Notices of Exemption (NOEs) were prepared. In order for a project to be exempt under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project site must be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, including recreation. As such, development of the related projects in combination with the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to recreation. The LTP Modern Machine Project (Related Project 5) and 8561 Belmont Street Project (Related Project 4) would also be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which would include an analysis of potential impacts related to recreation and the identification of any mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, if necessary.
Additionally, the Buildout Area would include approximately 11 acres of land on which park and recreational uses would be developed. The specific amenities and improvements that would be developed in the Public Park District and the additional two acres of public park space would be determined in connection with future development projects as they are proposed within the Buildout Area.
Therefore, through compliance with Article VI of the City’s Municipal Code, the cumulative impact of the proposed project and other related development would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed project’s contribution to a potentially significant cumulative impact on park and recreational facilities would not be cumulatively considerable.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) 4.17-1
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
This section describes the existing and planned transportation and circulation conditions for the Buildout Area and the surrounding area and identifies potential transportation-related impacts that may result from implementation of the Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (proposed project). The analysis contained in this section is based in part on the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project (VMT Memo)
1 included as Appendix K to this Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Draft EIR) that was prepared for the proposed project.
4.17.1 Scoping Process
The City of Cypress (City) received four comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). For a copy of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A to this Draft EIR. Two of the comment letters, from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), included comments related to transportation.
SCAG recommended that this Draft EIR evaluate the proposed project’s alignment with the Connect SoCal 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal 2024), which outlines goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve regional air quality, and support an integrated multimodal transportation network. Although SCAG does not implement or approve projects, it advised the City to consult the Connect SoCal 2024 Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for guidance on identifying appropriate CEQA mitigation strategies. These may include measures to minimize emissions, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and enhance transportation efficiency. SCAG also highlighted that achieving regional sustainability goals depends on local agency action and encourages the use of a side-by-side consistency analysis comparing project features with Connect SoCal 2024 goals. These comments are addressed in this section.
Caltrans requested that this Draft EIR discuss transit service and include a discussion of the City’s multimodal mobility strategies and opportunities and safety hazards. Caltrans also suggested that the proposed project encourage the use of transit; incorporate Complete Streets; and include bike and electric vehicle parking, visibility crosswalks and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps, and well-lit loading docks and parking spaces. In addition, Caltrans requested that this Draft EIR ensure that appropriate detours and safety measures are in place during construction, consider the creation of an emergency plans, analyze short term and long term VMT impacts, and include an analysis and discussion of the 95 percent vehicle queue. Lastly, Caltrans noted that, if any future development occurs within Caltrans right-of-way, a required discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans right-of-way prior to construction.
1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025b. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project. May.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.17 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) -2
4.17.2 Methodology
4.17.2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared revised State CEQA Guidelines for use. Among the changes to the State CEQA Guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) from consideration under CEQA. Under the revised State CEQA Guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on VMT. The City utilizes the methodology and significance threshold criteria identified in the Guidelines For Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for Orange County (County Guidelines).2 A VMT screening was conducted to evaluate the proposed project based on the pre-established criteria outlined in the County Guidelines for presuming a less than significant impact. These criteria assess whether a project or its location has specific characteristics that justify such a presumption.
The County Guidelines provide the following screening criteria:
1. Project in High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) – A project located within 0.5 mile from an existing major transit stop3 or within 0.5 mile from an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor4 is considered an HQTA project and is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
2. Neighborhood Retail Project – A project involving local‐serving retail space of less than 50,000 square feet is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
3. Affordable Housing Project – A project that is 100 percent affordable‐housing units is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
4. Low VMT Area – A project located in an area with low VMT is generally presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
5. Small Project – A project that generates 500 or fewer average daily trips (ADT) is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
6. Public Facilities – The development of institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety or welfare are also screened from subsequent CEQA VMT analysis.
Of the County’s screening criteria provided above, the VMT analysis prepared for the proposed project only included discussion of the screening criteria that could be applicable to the proposed 2 County of Orange. 2020. Guidelines For Evaluating Vehicle Miles Traveled Under CEQA for Orange County.
September 17.
3 Under the amended Public Resources Code § 21064.3 – “‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” 4 Public Resources Code § 21155 - For purposes of this section, a “‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) 4.17-3 project, including Criterion 1 being located in an HQTA, Criterion 2 being a neighborhood retail project, and Criterion 4 being within a low VMT area.
A VMT analysis was conducted for both the residential and non-residential components of the proposed project using the most recent version of the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), Version 5.1. OCTAM is a trip-based travel demand model that simulates travel behavior based on socioeconomic data, including household, population, and employment characteristics, to estimate trip generation and mode choice.
To accurately reflect the proposed project within the model, updates were made to the socioeconomic data for the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) encompassing the Buildout Area—TAZ 440.
This included adjustments to both residential households and employment estimates associated with retail and other commercial uses.
The OCTAM model uses 2019 as its base year and 2050 as its horizon year. Accordingly, the VMT analysis was conducted under the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions: Reflecting the 2019 model base year. • Existing Plus Project Conditions: Reflecting 2019 conditions with the proposed project incorporated.
• Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: Reflecting 2050 conditions with the proposed project incorporated.
To model the full proposed project accurately, the land use program described in the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 (Specific Plan) was converted into terms compatible with OCTAM. As the detailed VMT impact determinations focus on the full land use mix, both residential and non-residential land uses were integrated into the model to ensure accurate representation of internal trip-making behavior (e.g., residents accessing on-site retail and other commercial uses or jobs).
In OCTAM, non-residential land uses are modeled using employment estimates categorized as retail, service, or basic employment. Therefore, the retail square footage assumed for the proposed project was converted to employment estimates based on trip generation-based assumptions.
Specifically, employment was calculated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Retail employment was estimated at a rate of approximately two employees per 1,000 square feet. Based on the anticipated land use mix, 90 percent of non-residential employment was assigned to the retail category and 10 percent to service, consistent with expected project uses such as general merchandise, food services, personal care, and small-scale office.
These estimates were added to the baseline household and employment values within TAZ 440 for use in both the existing plus project and cumulative plus project model runs. Employment associated with the existing Los Alamitos Race Course was not included, as the continued operation S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.17 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) -4 of the racetrack is not part of the proposed project. As such, 95 race-course-related jobs were excluded from the adjusted baseline.
The residential component of the proposed project was evaluated using a measurement called Home-Based VMT per Capita. This metric estimates the average amount of driving generated by each project resident. The calculation is based on the Production-Attraction (PA) method from the OCTAM model, a tool used to analyze travel behavior. The City’s threshold of significance for a project’s VMT impact with respect to residential uses, based on the County Guidelines, is 13.21 VMT per capita (15 percent below the existing regional average).
4.17.2.2 Consistency with Plans, Programs, Ordinances, or Policies As described below, the CEQA Guidelines Transportation Threshold (a) has been updated to require an analysis of a project’s potential to conflict with plans, programs, ordinances, or policies that address the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Therefore, the impact analysis below evaluates the proposed project’s potential to conflict with the applicable plans, programs, ordinances, and policies discussed below. A project that generally conforms with and does not obstruct the City’s development policies and standards will generally be considered to be consistent. Specifically, an impact would not occur merely for an inconsistency with or a failure to implement an adopted plan, program, ordinance, or policy. Rather, it is the intention of the threshold test to ensure that the proposed development does not conflict with nor preclude the City from implementing adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies.
Furthermore, under CEQA, a project is considered consistent with an applicable plan if it is consistent with the overall intent of the plan and would not preclude the attainment of its primary goals. A project does not need to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy. Finally, any inconsistency with an applicable policy, plan, or regulation is only a significant impact under CEQA if the policy, plan, or regulation was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and if the inconsistency itself would result in a direct physical impact on the environment.
4.17.3 Existing Environmental Setting
The Buildout Area is generally bounded by West Cerritos Avenue to the north, several existing commercial and institutional uses along and near Walker Street to the east, Katella Avenue and several existing commercial, retail and residential uses to the south, and Lexington Drive to the west. Immediately northwest of most of the Buildout Area is Lexington Park, a nine-acre park located at 4600 West Cerritos Avenue at the southeast corner of the Cerritos Avenue/Lexington Drive intersection. Immediately east and north of the Buildout Area is Grace Church, located at 5100 West Cerritos Avenue. Southeast of the Buildout Area is the Belmont residential project developed by Melia Homes, which includes only residential uses, and The Square at Cypress developed by Shea Homes, which includes residential, hotel, retail, and service uses, including the Homewood Suites by Hilton located at 5233 Katella Avenue. Farther east, a retail center at 5401 Katella Avenue contains a Costco Wholesale warehouse and gas station, as well as other commercial uses. Cottonwood Church, located at 4505 Katella Avenue, is located southwest of the Buildout Area, along with the Ovation at Flora Park, a senior housing community, and a commercial center that includes
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) 4.17-5 restaurant, retail, service uses, a 24-Hour Fitness, and the Residence Inn Cypress Los Alamitos, at 4931 Katella Avenue. West of Lexington Drive are light industrial, office, and commercial uses.
Regional vehicular access to the Buildout Area is provided by Interstates 605 and 405 (I-605 and I-405), which are approximately 1.5 miles to the west and 3.5 miles to the south, respectively; Beach Boulevard (State Route 39 [SR-39]), approximately 2.7 miles to the east; and State Route 22 (SR-22), approximately 3.5 miles to the south. Local access to the project vicinity is provided by several arterial and commuter roadways, including Cerritos Avenue, Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos Boulevard, Bloomfield Street, Denni Street/Lexington Drive, Moody Street, Walker Street, and Valley View Street.
4.17.3.1 Existing Circulation System
Existing Roadway Network. The City’s existing circulation system in the vicinity of the Buildout Area includes the following key roadways:
• Cerritos Avenue is classified as an east-west Primary Roadway in both the City of Cypress and the City of Los Alamitos Circulation Elements. Cerritos Avenue provides access from the City of Long Beach in the west, where it is named Spring Street, and to the City of Anaheim in the east, where it terminates at Walnut Street, near Disneyland. Cerritos Avenue has a partial interchange with I-605 approximately 1.5 miles west of the Buildout Area. This roadway provides two travel lanes in each direction, separated by a painted median. On-street parking is prohibited, and the speed limit varies between 40 and 45 miles per hour (mph). • Katella Avenue is a six-lane roadway through the Cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos, with a center median and turn lanes at major intersections. Katella Avenue is designated as a Smart Street through the Cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos and is designated on the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) as a CMP facility. The posted speed limit varies between 35 and 45 mph through the traffic study area.
• Los Alamitos Boulevard varies from a four- to six-lane divided roadway, traversing the City of Los Alamitos in a north-south direction. The posted speed limit on Los Alamitos Boulevard is 35 mph north of Katella Avenue and 40 mph south of Katella Avenue. On-street parking is permitted along some segments of the roadway. The street name changes to Norwalk Boulevard to the north of Los Alamitos, and to Seal Beach Boulevard to the south. • Bloomfield Street is a four-lane roadway with a center two-way turn lane divider along some segments of the roadway. The posted speed limit on Bloomfield Street is 40 mph north of Cerritos Avenue and 35 mph south of Cerritos Avenue. On-street parking is generally permitted along Bloomfield Street.
• Denni Street/Lexington Drive is a north-south roadway. Denni Street/Lexington Drive begins at Lincoln Avenue in Cypress and ends at the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos. The name changes from Denni Street to Lexington Drive at Cerritos Avenue. For most of its length, Denni Street is a four-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit varying between 35 and 40 mph. Lexington Drive is generally a two-lane undivided roadway. On-street parking is mostly S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.17 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) -6 prohibited. Along some segments, Class II bike lanes are provided, while other segments are designated Class III bike routes.
• Moody Street is a north-south Primary Roadway stretching from Cerritos Avenue on the south, northward through the Cities of La Palma, Cerritos, and others. Moody Street changes name to Carmenita Road north of State Route 91 (SR-91). Moody Street is a four-lane roadway with Class II bike lanes on both sides, divided by a painted median. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides, and the posted speed limit is 40 mph.
• Walker Street is a north-south Secondary Roadway which begins at Katella Avenue and ends at Interstate 5 (I-5). Walker Street is a four-lane roadway divided by a painted median. For a short segment south of Cerritos Avenue, Walker Street has three northbound lanes. Class II bike lanes are generally provided on Walker Street throughout the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
• Valley View Street is a north-south Major Roadway providing regional access between several cities in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Valley View Street is a six-lane roadway, divided by a raised landscaped median, with Class II bike lanes on both sides. On-street parking is prohibited for its entire length and the posted speed limit is 45 mph. Valley View Street is designated in the Orange County CMP as a CMP facility.
Pedestrian Circulation. Sidewalks currently exist on both sides of Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Walker Street, and Moody Street, and one side of Lexington Drive, in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. There are pedestrian crosswalks at all signalized intersections in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. These facilities provide for pedestrian circulation between the Buildout Area and the surrounding areas.
Bicycle Circulation. Katella Avenue and Valley View Street currently accommodate off-street bike paths. On-street (Class II) bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of Cerritos Avenue (between Walker Street and Denni Street) and Bloomfield Street. There is a Class I bike path on the south side of Cerritos Avenue between Walker Street and Denni Street. On-street bicycle lanes (Class II) are provided on both sides of Moody Street and Walker Street. On Cerritos Avenue, west of Denni Street/Lexington Drive and east of Walker Street there is a Class III bike facility. Denni Street has an existing Class III bike facility.
Transit Services. Bus service is currently provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) along Katella Avenue and Valley View Street. OCTA Route 50 runs along Katella Avenue and currently has existing bus stops near Lexington Drive, Siboney Street, Winners Circle, and Walker Street in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. Route 50 provides transportation to/from the Cities of Orange and Long Beach via Katella Avenue. OCTA Route 123 runs along Valley View Street. OCTA Route 123 provides transportation to/from the Cities of Buena Park and Huntington Beach via Valley View Street. OCTA buses stop approximately every hour (60 minutes) during the morning and evening commute hours (operational between 4:00 AM and 10:00 PM).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) 4.17-7
4.17.4 Regulatory Setting
The following section describes the federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework applicable to analyzing potential impacts related to transportation from development of the proposed project.
4.17.4.1 Federal Regulations
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Titles I, II, III, and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have been codified in Title 42 of the United States Code (USC), beginning at Section 12101.
Title III prohibits discrimination based on disability in “places of public accommodation” (businesses and nonprofit agencies that serve the public) and “commercial facilities” (other businesses). The regulation includes Appendix A through Part 36 (Standards for Accessible Design), establishing minimum standards for ensuring accessibility when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility. Examples of key guidelines include detectable warnings for pedestrians entering traffic where there is no curb, a clear zone of 48 inches for the pedestrian travel way, and a vibration-free zone for pedestrians.
4.17.4.2 State Regulations
Senate Bill 743. On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law and started a process that changes the methodology used to prepare a transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA requirements. SB 743 directed the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which has since been renamed as the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), to establish new CEQA guidance for jurisdictions that removes the LOS method, which focuses on automobile vehicle delay and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, from CEQA transportation analysis. Rather, VMT, or other measures that promote “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses,” are now used as the basis for determining significant transportation impacts in the State.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b). In January 2018, OPR submitted a proposal for comprehensive updates to the State CEQA Guidelines to the California Natural Resources Agency. The submittal included proposed updates related to the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy, transportation impacts pursuant to SB 743, and wildfires, as well as revisions to Section 15126.2(a) in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369. On December 28, 2018, the updated State CEQA Guidelines went into effect.
As part of the update to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3 was added and codifies that project-related transportation impacts are typically best measured by evaluating the project’s VMT.
Specifically, subdivision (b) focuses on specific criteria related to transportation analysis and is divided into four subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3), qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology. Subdivision (b)(1) provides guidance on determining the significance of transportation impacts of land use projects using VMT; projects located within 0.5 mile of high quality transit should be considered to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(2) addresses VMT associated with transportation projects and states that projects that reduce VMT, S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.17 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) -8 such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) acknowledges that lead agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative analysis may be used. Subdivision (b)(4) stipulates that lead agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a project’s VMT.
California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill [AB] 1358), signed into law on September 30, 2008, requires cities and counties to plan for the needs of all roadway users—motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, children, seniors, and transit riders—when updating the circulation element of their general plans. Specifically, Government Code Section 65302(b)(2)(A) requires that upon any substantial revision of the circulation element, the general plan must “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel.” The act aims to ensure that transportation planning in California supports sustainable communities by promoting active transportation modes and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It directs local jurisdictions to incorporate Complete Streets principles— such as multimodal connectivity, context-sensitive design, and pedestrian safety—into transportation planning, design, and construction. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) issued its Deputy Directive 64-R2 to implement Complete Streets principles in all transportation projects on the State Highway System, ensuring that facilities accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists of all ages and abilities. The City’s General Plan has not yet been updated to address the requirements of AB 1358.
4.17.4.3 Regional Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024). SCAG serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region, and under state law it is designated as both a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments.
The SCAG region encompasses six counties—Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura—and 191 cities within an area covering more than 38,000 square miles.
SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans, including sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, and regional housing needs allocations. SCAG also provides support to the various air quality management districts within its jurisdiction, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which addresses air quality issues within the City, in preparing air quality management plans.
In compliance with Senate Bill 375, the SCAG Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal 2024, the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, on April 4, 2024. This long-range visioning plan integrates land use and transportation strategies to enhance mobility options, achieve a more sustainable growth pattern, and meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Connect SoCal 2024 establishes goals that address mobility, communities, environment, and the economy. If fully implemented, it is projected to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and enhance the region’s long-term economic viability through over $751 billion in transportation investments and by fostering a more sustainable development pattern. Connect SoCal 2024 also
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) 4.17-9 provides baseline socioeconomic projections used as the basis for SCAG’s transportation planning and service provision across the six-county region.
As part of Connect SoCal 2024, SCAG developed a set of Regional Planning Policies that guide regional decision-making in alignment with Connect SoCal 2024’s long-term vision and goals. These policies advance priorities refined over multiple planning cycles to promote a multimodal transportation system and sustainable land use practices. They address Priority Development Areas (PDAs), housing provision, equitable engagement and decision-making, sustainable development, air quality, clean transportation, preservation of natural and agricultural lands, and climate resilience.
SCAG identifies development within PDAs, provision of adequate housing opportunities, creation of 15-minute communities, and equitable decision-making as key strategies for implementing these regional planning priorities. PDAs are defined as areas where future growth can be located to support Connect SoCal 2024’s goals, typically where residents have access to multiple travel modes or where trip origins and destinations are in close proximity, resulting in shorter trips. PDAs function as a technical tool used in growth visioning, performance measurement, and funding applications.
Development within overlapping PDAs generally indicates a greater degree of alignment with Connect SoCal 2024’s objectives.
PDAs include Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs), Livable Corridors, and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). SCAG also recognizes that many Livable Corridors are High-Quality Transit Corridors (HQTCs) that provide frequent bus service and strong multimodal connectivity.
Orange County Congestion Management Program. Established in 1991, OCTA consolidated seven separate agencies into a single multimodal transportation agency. State law requires that a CMP be developed, adopted, and updated biennially for every county that includes an urbanized area, and requires that it include every city and the county government within that county. As the Congestion Management Agency for Orange County, OCTA is responsible for implementing the Orange County CMP. OCTA adopted the CMP in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions in Orange County. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city’s eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. The CMP Highway System includes two arterials within the Cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos: Valley View Street and Katella Avenue.
County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) defines the arterial system in the Circulation Element of the Orange County General Plan. This system, which is the planned future roadway system in the County, incorporates several specific arterial roadway classifications. The Circulation Elements of cities within the County are expected to be consistent with the MPAH in order to be eligible for funding improvements on MPAH roadways.
County of Orange Measure M Growth Management Program. Measure M, approved in 1990 by the voters in the County, authorized the collection of a one-half percent sales tax to fund needed transportation improvements in the County. In order to be eligible to receive funds, cities must satisfy a number of requirements, including adopting a Circulation Element that is consistent with S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.17 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) -10 the County’s MPAH, adopting a Growth Management Plan, and adopting a seven-year capital improvement program to include transportation projects funded by Measure M.
4.17.4.4 Local Regulations
Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0. The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 3.0 contains the following provisions in Section 2.2 (Circulation Plan) thereof related to transportation:
• Circulation Plan: Primary access to the Buildout Area will be from Katella Avenue, which is designated as a Major Arterial in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Cerritos Avenue, which is designated as a Primary Arterial in the Circulation Element, and the extension of Vessels Circle. Additional access to the site will be provided from Lexington Drive and Enterprise Drive.
The backbone circulation for the Buildout Area has been designed to accommodate the contemplated development under the Specific Plan and is depicted on Figure 2-3 in the Specific Plan. The backbone circulation improvements include the extension of Moody Street south of Cerritos Avenue to Siboney Street, the extension of Vessels Circle to the west to intersect with the Moody Street extension, and the required future widening of Lexington Drive adjacent to the Buildout Area.
City of Cypress General Plan. The Cypress General Plan5is the primary source of long-range planning and policy direction that guides growth and preserves the quality of life within the community. The General Plan contains goals, policies, and plans that are intended to guide land use and development decisions. The General Plan, last comprehensively updated by the City Council in September 2001, includes a Land Use Map and the following eight elements, or chapters, which together fulfill the State requirements for a General Plan:
• Land Use Element
• Housing Element
• Circulation Element
• Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element (satisfies the State’s Conservation and Open Space Element requirements)
• Safety Element
• Noise Element
• Air Quality Element (optional element not required by State law) • Growth Management Element (optional element not required by State law).
City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element. The Circulation Element6is a general guide for the planning, development, and enhancement of the City’s public roadways, based on existing and 5 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan.
6 City of Cypress. 2001. Cypress General Plan Circulation Element.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) 4.17-11 anticipated land uses. Most transportation-related plans and programs are established with the goal of maintaining acceptable operating LOS on the City’s transportation system. The City of Cypress has adopted LOS D or better as the desired citywide operating standard for most City streets. However, given the influence of regional traffic on Valley View Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Katella Avenue, which are beyond the control of the City of Cypress, LOS E or better has been adopted as the minimum operating LOS for street segments and intersections on these arterials. The Circulation Element goals and policies define the City’s vision for a balanced, efficient circulation system which incorporate many modes of travel and which allows for the safe movement of people and goods in and around the City. Based on the Circulation Element, the local and regional street network is built out in the City. Similarly, the City’s bikeway system is generally built out, although a bike lane is planned on Walker Street south of Cerritos Avenue in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. This proposed bike lane would connect to the existing bike lane on Walker Street north of Cerritos Avenue. Applicable goals and policies provided in the Circulation Element include:
• CIR-1: Maintain a safe, efficient, economical, and aesthetically pleasing transportation system providing for the movement of people, goods, and services to serve the existing and future needs of the City of Cypress.
○ CIR-1.1: Respond to transportation problem areas with efforts to implement both interim and long-term solutions.
○ CIR-1.2: Participate in transportation planning efforts which involve other governmental agencies, mandated programs, and regulations in order to minimize environmental impacts related to transportation and to enhance transportation systems. ○ CIR-1.3: Encourage development which contributes to a balanced land use, which in turn serves to reduce overall trip lengths (i.e., jobs/housing balance, locate retail in closer proximity to resident/patrons).
○ CIR-1.4: Require new development to conform to the standards and criteria of the City of Cypress and other mandated programs. This includes mitigation of traffic impacts to the surrounding street system.
○ CIR-1.5: The City of Cypress will continue involvement in plans and programs related to the Circulation Element. This involvement is anticipated to result in traffic studies to be undertaken by City staff, to identify specific circulation programs and improvements to be implemented, in order to satisfy the various related programs. ○ CIR-1.6: Encourage the development of aesthetic streetscapes to promote a positive City image and provide visual relief.
○ CIR-1.7: Maintain consistency between the City Circulation Element and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
• CIR-2: To facilitate alternative modes of transportation, including public transportation, bicycles, ridesharing, and pedestrians, to support the land use plans and related transportation needs.
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.17 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) -12 ○ CIR-2.1: Encourage development and improvements which incorporate innovative methods of accommodating transportation demands.
○ CIR-2.2: Give high priority to the establishment of a high-quality public transit system that minimizes dependency on the automobile.
○ CIR-2.3: Ensure that effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and programs are being implemented.
○ CIR-2.4: Encourage development and site design which facilitate implementation of high quality, desirable bicycle routes which meet or exceed established standards. ○ CIR-2.5: Implement adequate sidewalks to meet the required uses and needs, which serves to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Bicycle routes which utilize sidewalks require establishment of a City ordinance, per the Vehicle Code. ○ CIR-2.6: Respond to increases in demand for additional bus service through interaction with OCTA and other available resources.
○ CIR-2.7: Implement plan to install handicap access ramps to improve disabled access to transportation facilities.
○ CIR-2.8: Enhance the sidewalk environment to encourage pedestrian activities through streetscape and transit enhancement programs.
○ CIR-2.9: Enhance transit environment by improving passenger loading sites by providing bus benches, safety lighting and other projects to enhance bus stops.
4.17.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for transportation impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact with respect to transportation if it would:
Threshold 4.17.1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; Threshold 4.17.2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b);
Threshold 4.17.3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
Threshold 4.17.4: Result in inadequate emergency access.
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) 4.17-13
4.17.6 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.17.1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the reasonably foreseeable buildout of the Buildout Area in the City. The proposed project would include the development of up to 1,791 additional residential units and approximately 440,000 square feet of non-residential development within the Buildout Area.
Consistent with the Circulation Plan shown on Figure 2-3 in the Specific Plan, the proposed project would include the extension of Moody Street from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue, as well as the extension of Vessels Circle from its current western terminus to intersect with the Moody Street extension. The Moody Street extension would traverse the Buildout Area, passing adjacent to Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14 in proposed VTTM 19247, and create a central north-south corridor, while the extension of Vessels Circle within Lot C would, among other things, provide access to Lots 10 and 11 in proposed VTTM 19247. The proposed project also includes, consistent with the Specific Plan, the widening of Lexington Drive within Lot B in proposed VTTM 19247. In addition, the proposed project would include seven access driveways, including one at Lexington Drive and two each at Cerritos Avenue, Moody Street, and Vessels Circle. Future development within the Buildout Area may require the construction of private driveways, accessways and/or streets that connect to the Moody Street and Vessels Circle extensions and existing public streets adjacent to the Buildout Area, but their specific locations and sizes would be determined during the design process for specific development projects. As the proposed project would include the extension of Moody Street south of Cerritos Avenue to Siboney Street, the extension of Vessels Circle to the west to intersect with the Moody Street extension, and the required future widening of Lexington Drive, consistent with the Circulation Plan contained in the Specific Plan, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Specific Plan with respect to transportation.
The following evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with other programs, plans, ordinances, and/or policies addressing the circulation system, including those relating to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Circulation System: In the City, the circulation system is primarily regulated by the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, the City’s General Plan Growth Management Element contains a goal to reduce traffic congestion. Table 4.11.D: General Plan Consistency Analysis in Section 4.11 Land Use and Planning provides a consistency analysis of the goals and policies from the City’s General Plan pertaining to the circulation system that are relevant to the proposed project. As provided in Table 4.11.D, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan related to the circulation system.
The regional circulation system is also regulated through Connect SoCal 2024, which is the longrange visioning plan for the Southern California region that details land use and transportation strategies to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. As discussed in Section 4.11, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable Connect SoCal 2024 goals, S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
4.17 P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) -14 and no mitigation is required. Furthermore, the proposed project reinforces the stated goals of Connect SoCal 2024, including Connect SoCal 2024’s goals to develop, connect and sustain communities that are livable and thriving and to create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow, by providing additional housing opportunities within locations near amenities and already used by the public for commercial, recreational, and/or professional uses. In addition, the proposed project would support the development, connection, and sustainability of communities that are livable and thriving by providing necessary housing for all income levels in a bustling economic corridor. Table 4.11.C in Section 4.11 provides a full consistency analysis of the proposed project and the specific goals and policies contained in Connect SoCal 2024.
Transit. As previously discussed, transit service in the vicinity of the Buildout Area is provided by the OCTA along Katella Avenue and Valley View Street. OCTA Route 50 runs along Katella Avenue, with existing bus stops located near Lexington Drive, Siboney Street, Winners Circle, and Walker Street in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. OCTA Route 123 runs along Valley View Street. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 21,041 net daily vehicle trips, combining residential and nonresidential land uses and accounting for existing trips. 7 Based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition and the project’s mixed-use composition, the residential component would account for roughly 60 percent of total daily trips, while the non-residential component contributes the remaining 40 percent. Applying a 1.0 percent bus transit mode share derived from the United States Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-Year Estimates for Cypress and Orange County, 8 the project is expected
to generate approximately 210 daily transit trips. When converted to total bus boardings (assuming two boardings per round trip), this equates to 420 OC Bus boardings.
Based on the transit trip estimate provided above, the proposed project’s residential uses would account for approximately 126 daily bus trips, while the non-residential uses would account for 84 daily bus trips. The City’s General Plan Circulation Element contains Policy CIR-2.6, which requires the City to respond to increases in demand for additional bus service through interaction with OCTA and other available resources. As such, the City is continually assessing ridership demand and coordinates with OCTA in order to address any deficiencies in service. OCTA has also recently completed the 2024 Orange County Transit Vision Master Plan,9 which aims to integrate, enhance, and expand multimodal transportation services throughout the County and is currently developing the Directions 2050 plan10 to update OCTA’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Directions 2050 7 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025a. Traffic Study for Cypress Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Project, Table
3. July.
8 United States Census Bureau. 2022. American Community Survey 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates: Table B08301, “Means of Transportation to Work”. National Archive: https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/acs/technical-documentation/table-and-geography-changes/2022/5-year.html (accessed March 2026). While there is a more recent survey (2019-2023), the data does not provide an updated transit mode share percentage for work commuters via transit.
9 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2025a. 2024 Orange County Transit Vision Master Plan.
May.
10 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2025c. OCTA Seeks Public Input to Help Shape Orange County’s Transportation Future. October 3. Website: https://www.octa.net/news/news-releases/octaseeks-public-input (accessed October 2025).
DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T MA R C H 2026
S P E C I F I C PL A N 3 . 0 B U I L D O U T P R O J E C T
CY P R E S S , C A L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CCP2201.05 LARC EIR\PRODUCTS\3_Public Draft EIR 2\4.17 Transportation.docx (03/11/26) 4.17-15 will look ahead to 2050 and outline strategies to ensure that the County’s transportation system remains efficient, safe, balanced, and sustainable, and addresses the provision of transit services.
OCTA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 budget also highlights increased transit service, including adding more bus service to meet rising demand, and investments in transit infrastructure. 11 Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with implementation of these transit planning documents, including the specific actions to address the growing need for expanded transit service. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards and impacts to transit facilities would be less than significant.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Under existing conditions, sidewalks are located along Katella Avenue, Cerritos Avenue, Walker Street, Moody Street, and Lexington Drive in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. There are pedestrian crosswalks at all signalized intersections in the vicinity of the Buildout Area. These facilities provide for pedestrian circulation between the Buildout Area and the surrounding areas. In addition, Katella Avenue and Valley View Street currently accommodate offstreet bike paths and on-street (Class II) bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of Cerritos Avenue (between Walker Street and Denni Street) and Bloomfield Street. There is a Class I bike path on the south side of Cerritos Avenue between Walker Street and Denni Street and on-street bicycle lanes (Class II) are provided on both sides of Moody Street and Walker Street.