Loading...
Resolution No. 2856151 RESOLUTION NO. 2856 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress held a public hear- ing at their meeting on November 26, 1984 to consider a City initiated proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which amendment would change the existing land use designations of PS Public and Semi -Public and CG Commercial General to BP Business Park for the areas generally located at the southwest corner and northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Valley View Street and the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Knott Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered evidence presented at the puhlic hearing including a report and recommendation prepared by the Planning staff; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would designate all properties within the 212 -acre Warland/Cypress Business Center (as legally described in At- tach. "c") which are planned to be zoned PC -4 Planned Community Commer- cial/Light Industrial Zone No.4; and WHEREAS, the City of Cypress has prepared a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEPA) and the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the certified final EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Cypress General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Statements of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Section 15091 and 15092 of the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt certain amendments to the Land Use, element and maps of the Cypress General Plan; and WHEREAS, after discussion by the City Council with the citizens affected by this amendment, a motion was made to approve/deny the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cypress that: 1. The City Council makes the findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the finding that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the final EIR. The City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations which is attached hereto as Attachment "B" and incorporated hereby by this reference as if fully set forth. 3. The City Council finds that the final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of facts. 152 5. The City Council finds that although the final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of conditions on the project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the final EIR. 7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of conditions on the project and the imposition of mitigation measures. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the State of Overriding Considerations. 8. The City Council find that the final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the draft and final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the final EIR. 10. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the project, the environmental document evaluated a range of alter- native land uses and intensities and the project as approved by this Resolution, is included within the range of alternatives. 11. The City Council finds and determines that the Final Environmental Impact Report consists of the following documents: a) Draft EIR b) Technical Appendices c) Comments and Responses d) City Council Minutes e) City Council Staff Reports (with attachments) All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Cypress, City Hall, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California 90630, (714) 828-2200, x250. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cypress DOES HEREBY APPROVE General Plan Amendment No. 84-1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of November 1984. ATTEST>- CLERK 0 -; CI CLERK O HEEL OF CYPRESS Y OF T1iE CITY CYPRESS 153 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS I, DARRELL ESSEX, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the 26th day of November 1984; by the following roll call vote: AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Coronado, Lacayo, Mullen, Partin and Kanel NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None - 3 C I L OF THE C OF CYPRESS .154 ATTACHMENT A STATEMENT OF FACTS November 26, 1984 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE WARLAND/CYPRESS BUSINESS CENTER IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the follow- ing written findings accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting each finding." (Section 15091) The City of Cypress proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan, adopt the proposed Specific Plan and change the zoning designation of the study area. Because [he proposed actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Cypress has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of this project. Further, the City Council desires to approve this project, and has determined that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines. Therefore, findings are set forth herein pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. (b) r All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided J have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires detailed project information (i.e., grading plans, site plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to implementation of any development. 2. Alternatives to the proposed project would create similar hydro- logic impacts. No development would reduce or eliminate che intro- duction of urban pollutants but would result in long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect, if any, is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact Development of the study area will result in the elimination of agricultural fields and some ornamental trees and shrubs. Findings (a) Changes or other measures which have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect in that: 1. Extensive landscaping is proposed to offset the removal of existing vegetation. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not Incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. Variations in urban land use alternatives would not demonstrably change the impact on existing biota. No development could preserve existing agricultural vegetation; however, such vegetation is of little biological value. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect, if any, is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in che Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows. LAND USE Impact The project will result in the conversion of vacant land/agricultural uses to business park and commercial retail uses, and thus, will increase the intensity of uses within the study area. 156 GEOLOGY/SOILS Impact Natural soil and geologic conditions are not well-suited to development. Findings (a) Changes and other measures have been included 1n the project or are otherwise being Implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 1. Low density soils will be excavated and recompacted as necessary to provide secure foundation footings. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, specific soils and foundation studies will be prepared and submitted to the City Engineering Department for review and approval. 3. The provisions of the Uniform Building Code, including requirements for seismic safety will be followed. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires detailed project information (i.e., grading plans, site plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to imple- mentation of any development. 2. Project alternatives of different urban uses would result in similar landform impacts. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect, if any, is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows. HYDROLOGY Impact Development of the site will result in short-term increases in sedimentation and long-term, incremental increases in urban pollutants and stormwater runoff sales and volumes. Findings (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 1. A storm drain system will be installed through the study area in accordance with City Master Plans. 2. Exposed soil areas will be planted where appropriate to control erosion and downstream sedimentation. 3. Development within 100 -year flood zone areas shall be subject to all applicable construction and flood -proofing requirements. Findings Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 1. To minimize the potential for land use conflicts with existing surrounding uses, a number of special design treatments are Included in the specific plan including landscaping plans, set -back requirements, and architectural treatments. 2. All development occurring within the study area will be subject to the provisions of City and County noise ordinances. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (a) 157 (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not Incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final E1R, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires detailed project information (i.e., grading plans, site plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to imple- mentation of any development. 2. Project alternatives, other than the no development alternative, would still result in the conversion of vacant land/agricultural uses to urban uses, with an accompanying increase in land use intensity. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect 1s acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows. RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS Impact The project may include multi -story buildings in the vicinity of the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center which could affect flight operations. Findings (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits (at least 30 days before- hand) for development proposed within the study area which would penetrate the 100:1 imaginary surface, the project proponent will submit FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction of Alter- ation," to the Chief, Air Traffic Division of the appropriate FAA regional office for projects within those affected portions of the study area. The project applicant will comply with all applicable FAA standards and requirements. The findings of the FAA will be transmitted to the City of Cypress prior to the application for building permits. 2. The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 150 -foot height limit. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. 158 (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated luto the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and ocher considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires detailed project information (i.e., grading plans, site plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to imple- mentation of any development. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect, if any, is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Impact The proposed project will generate approximately 31,280 vehicle trips per day at buildout. Findings (a) Changes and ocher measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 1. It is recommended that Holder Street be extended over the Stanton Channel prior to 1988. 2. Upon extension of Holder Street, a traffic signal should be installed at the street's intersection with Orangewood Avenue. 3. Traffic signals in the project vicinity should be upgraded co pro- vide left -turn controls for all intersection approaches, as left- curn demand occurs. 4. Major intersections in the project vicinity should be upgraded to provide dual left -turn lanes for approaches where future demand results in heavy peak hour turning volumes (greater than 300 vehicles per hour). This measure should be monitored by the City as future development occurs. 5. If the aforementioned traffic mitigation measures are not imple- mented, it is recommended that those streets which exceed capacity he improved to include additional travel lanes. 6. The use of a Transportation System Management (TSM) measures Lan serve to avoid and reduce peak hour congestion. The project pro- ponent in conjunction with the City of Cypress will work to develop and implement TSM measures specific to the characteristics of future uses within the study area. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires detailed project information (i.e., grading plans, site plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to implementation of any development. 2. The "no development" alternative would not generate any additional traffic; however, this option was rejected based on land use and 1 economic considerations as noted in che Draft EIR. The residential development alternative would generate less traffic than the current project proposal, but was rejected based on land use considerations and designations of the project area as described in the Draft EIR. Any development alternative which involves the conversion of the existing vacant land/agricultural uses to urban uses will contribute incrementally to traffic impacts in and around che study area. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in che Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows. AIR QUALITY Impact The project will create an incremental increase in stationary and mobile source pollutants. Findings (a) Changes and other measures have been included in che project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 59 1. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions) will assist in mitigating the impact of construction -generated dust particulates. 2. TSM measures developed and implemented for the project can serve to reduce mobile source emissions. 3. The project will incorporate mandatory energy conservation require- ments, thereby reducing che need for combustion of fossil fuels and resultant pollutant emissions. (b) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forch in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires detailed project information (i.e., grading plans, sire plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to imple- mentation of any development. (c) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in che Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows: NOISE Impact Project induced traffic will incrementally increase noise along major arterials serving the site and vicinity, and portions of the project site may be exposed to aircraft noise associated with operations at the Los Alamitos AFRC. Findings (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 160 1. Construction activities proposed near residential areas should be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. In addition, con- struction equipment should be equipped with effective muffling devices. 2. An acoustical analysis should be required for development proposed within the High Noise Impact Zone from LAAFRC. The analysis should be completed at the site plan level of processing and should include a description of measures incorporated into the project design to assure that interior noise standards will be met. 3. TSM measures for the project can serve to reduce CNEL increases along local roadways through the reduction of daily traffic. 4. All development occurring within the study area will be subject to the provisions of City and County noise ordinances. Such noise policies set standards which protect receiving land uses. In the case where business park uses are developed adjacent to residential. areas, such uses shall not generate noise which exceeds the noise standards specified for residential areas. (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated for substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) (d) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of "acts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires derailed project information (i.e., grading plans, sire plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to imple- mentation of any development. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES Impact The proposed project will incrementally increase demand for public services/ utilities including police and fire protection, solid waste disposal, water supply, wastewater disposal., electricity, natural gas, and telephone. Findings (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 1. The developer will coordinate with the City of Cypress and the Orange County Fire Department to ensure that adequate police services and fire protection, respectively, are provided to the study area. 2. All water and wastewater disposal improvements proposed as part of the project shall be designed and constructed to City standards. 3. The developer will coordinate with all affected utilities (gas, electric, telephone, etc.) to ensure that adequate services and facilities are provided to the study area. - 6 (b) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided hLvb l been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires detailed project informatioh (1.e., grading plans, site plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to imple- mentation of any development. 2. Given [he project's urban location, adequate capacity is generally available for the requisite public services and utilities. "Will - serve" letters will be obtained prior to approval of tentative tract maps fur the subject project. (d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect, if any, is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations which follows. AESTHETICS Impact The proposed prnject will change the character of the site from vacant land/ agricultural uses to business park and commercial. uses. Findings (a) Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ- mental effect, in that: 1. Extensive landscaping proposed for the study area and design controls included in the proposed Specific Plan will serve to soften visual impacts and enhance the aesthetic character of the project. (b) All. significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIA and incorporated into the project as set fnrth above. (c) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: 1. At the general plan level of analysis, the site specific impacts of a proposed project cannot be determined in detail. Precise definition of impacts and corresponding mitigation measures requires detailed project information (i.e., grading plans, site plans, engineering data, etc.) which shall be provided prior to imple- mentation of any development. (d) The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Cttsiderations which follows. 162 ATTACHMENT 6 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS November 26, 1984 BACKGROUND. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guide- lines promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "(a) CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoid- able environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. Where agencies have taken action resulting in environmental damage without explaining the reasons which supported the decision, courts have invalidated the action. (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are iden- tified in the final EIR but not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other infor- mation records. This statement may be necessary if the agency also make the finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (2)(3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding con- siderations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mention- ed in the Notices of Determination." (Section 15902 of the Guidelines). The City Council proposes to amend the General Plan for the City of Cy- press, adopt Specific Plan 84-1 and change the zoning designation of the study area. Because the action constitutes a project under CEA and the Guidelines, an environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Cypress. The EIR has identified certain significant effects that will follow from this project and the City Council desires to approve this project. After determining that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA and the Guidelines, and making the Statements of Facts above, the City Council has also weighed the significant effects of the project against the overriding consideration noted as follows: 163 1. The project, upon completion, will produce substantial recurring revenues to the City of Cypress. 2. Implementation of the project will result in substantial traffic and public improvements to the subject site. 3. The project, at ultimate development, will provide and estimated 7,766 jobs. 4. Implementation of this project will promote the objectives of the City's General Plan by providing consistency of land use within the Cypress Business Park. 5. The project represents a logical extension of urban services and facilities, and the in -filling of vacant urban land. 6. The project is consistent with recent growth projections developed by the Southern California Association of Governments for the City of Cypress. 7. The Specific Plan will provide a comprehensive and coordinated development plan for the 2I2 -acre study area. 8. The type and intensity of development proposed is compatible with other business park and commercial uses in the greater Cypress Industrial Area. 9. The project provides for business park and commercial uses of a greater economic viability than that of the current onsite agricultural uses. 164 ATTACHMENT C PC PLANNED COMMUNITY CON"ERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE NO. 4 PLANNING AREA NO. 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KATELLA AVENUE PND VALLEY VIEW STREET THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST IN THE RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE Of CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 2 ATTACHED TO THE FINAL DECREE OF PARTITION OF SAID RANCHO, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED FEBRUARY 2, 1891, IN BOOK 14, PAGE 31 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28, (SAID CORNER BEING THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF KATELLA AVENUE AND VALLEY VIEW STREET) AS SHOWN ON THE IMP FILED IN BOOK 96, PAGE 38 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER (SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF VALLEY VIEW STREET), S 0° 20' 03" W, 2640.09 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; (SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE INTER- SECTION OF VALLEY VIEW STREET AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE); THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER (SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE) N 89° 40' 30" W, 1320.13 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QJARSER OF SAID NORIHLCST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG ltiE WEST LINE OF TIDE UST HALF OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, N 0° 20' 58" E 1815.25 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHERLY 495.00 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N 89° 39' 56" W, 1319.64 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE N 0° 21' 54" E 825.47 FEET TO THE 165 NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER (SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE INTER- SECTION OF SAID WEST LINE WITH THE CENTERLINE OF KATELLA AVENUE), THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER (SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF KATELLA AVENUE), 5 89° 39' 23" E, 2638.84 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PLANNING AREA NO. 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF VALLEY VIEW AND KATELLA PARCEL 1 PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 79-1160, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 121, PAGES 9 AND 10 OF PARCEL MMS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 2 PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 79-1147, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A5 SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 142, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 3 PARCELS 4 THROUGH 9, INCLUSIVE, PND PARCELS 14 PND 15, OF PARCEL MAP RST 9084, 1N THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 124, PAGES 5 PND 6 OF PARCEL MAPS; RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. 166 - 3 - PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 80-1145, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 153, PAGE 18 OF PARCEL NAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 5 THAT PORTION OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST IN THE RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS AS SHOWN ON NAP NO. 2 ATTACHED TO THE FINAL DECREE OF PARTITION ENTERED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CASE NO. 13527, AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 2, 1891, IN BOOK 14, PAGE 31, OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, AS SHOWN ON THE IMP FILED IN BOOK. 51, PAGE 11, OF MISCELLAN- EOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF HOLDER STREET, 60 FEET WIDE WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT N0. 4399, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 175, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 5 88° 50' 43" W, 654,54 FEET TO THE LINE DIVIDING RANCHO L05 COYOTES AND RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS AS S,10bRN ON SAID TRACT; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N 70° 44' 48" W, 2020.10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF VALLEY VIEW STREET, 60 FEET WIDE, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF VALLEY VIEW STREET THE FOLLOWING COURSES: 1. SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1260 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THIGH 5L *3 5 89° 11' 33" E, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANSLE OF 6° 15' 45", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 137.72 FEET; 2. S 7° 04' 12" W, 200.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY; - 4 - 167 3. SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1140,00 FEET; THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7° 03' 58", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 140.59 FEET; 4. S 0° 00' 14" W, 445.99 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, 60 FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 79-1147, FILED IN BOOK 142, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LIFE THE FOLLOWING COURSES: 1. 5 89° 59' 33" E, 2135.14 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY; 2. EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 22948.32 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0° 04' 30", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.04 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY; 3. EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11489.17 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO WHICH BEARS N 0° 04' 57" E, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0° 09' 00", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CON- CAVE SOUTHERLY; 4. EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 7669.45 FEET; A RADIAL LINE TO WHICH BEARS N 0° 13' 57" E, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0° 13' 30", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.12 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE `..CUIr ERL1; 5. EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 5759.60 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO WHICH BEARS N 00 27' 27" E, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 41' 26", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 371.05 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF HOLDER STREET, 84 FEET WIDE; 168 THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, N 0° 45' 28" W, 45.90 FEET TO THE LINE DIVIDING THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES FROM THE RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE, S 70° 44' 48" E, 12.77 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF HOLDER STREET, 60 FEET WIDE; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, N 0° 45' 28" W, 242.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PLANNING AREA NO. 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KATELLA AVENUE AND KNOTT AVENUE PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 108, PAGE 10 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.