Resolution No. 2858u
RESOLUTION N0. 2858
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 84-1, WARLAND/CYPRESS BUSINESS CENTER
SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress conducted a public hear-
ing on November 26, 1984, which was continued to December 10, 1984, to con-
sider Specific Plan No. 84-1, a development plan for the Warland/Cypress
Business Center located on ± 212 acres of land bisected by Katella Avenue and
Valley View Street, as shown in Exhibit "A;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered evidence presented at the public
hearing including all exhibits submitted by the applicant, presentations
by the applicant's professional consultants, and recommendations from City
Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan derails a land use plan and development
criteria for a mixture of office, commercial, research and development, light
industry/manufacturing, and commercial office on three (3) separate parcels
totalling 212 acres with access to be provided by an internal roadway system
which will be privately maintained until the development of Phase 3; and
WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned BP -20,000 Business Park Zone and
Specific Plan No. 84-1 establishes development criteria favorable to both the
community and the property owner.
WHEREAS, after a thorough analysis by the City Council of the City of
Cypress concerning the Plan's future impact on the community and upon con-
sideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report therefor, a motion was
made to approve the Specific Plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of Warland/Cypress Business Center, including location
of future land uses and street alignments, shall substantially occur
as detailed in Exhibit No. 4 and Exhibit No. 6 of the Specific Plan
unless otherwise amended pursuant to procedures outlined in Section
VIII.D.2 of said Plan.
2. The final design specifications for all street improvements offered
for dedication to the City, including, but not limited to, location
and dimensions of driveways, bicycle trails, curb, gutter and
sidewalk, shall be determined by the City Engineer.
3. All streets indicated on Exhibits Nos. 4 and 6 of the Specific Plan
shall be offered for dedication to the City; however, the City shall
not accept dedication and maintenance of internal streets (exclusive
of Knott Street, Katella Avenue and Valley View Street) until com-
pletion of Phase No. 3 development, Exhibit No. 11.
4. The applicant shall agree to provide one (1) of the two (2) options
presented below as determined by the City Council:
a. A minimum eight -foot (8') high landscaped earth berm buffer shall
be constructed along the entire southerly property line of Plan-
ning Area 3 in accordance with the uniform design approved by the
Cypress City Council for Parcel Map No. 80-1128. A property
owners' association shall be created with bylaws and covenants,
conditions and restrictions recorded upon all properties within
Planning Area 3 to provide for the common maintenance of the
landscaped berm, subject to the City's review and approval.
The City of Cypress, at its discretion, may maintain the berm
through formation of a City maintenance district.
b. An alternative plan, if acceptable to staff and the City Council.
The applicant acknowledges that approval of an alternate plan
has not been given by City Council or staff.
5. The applicant shall provide a thirty-foot (30') building setback,
fully landscaped, and meandering ten -foot (10') wide bike trail,
within the thirty-foot (30') setback. The applicant shall grant
to the City an easement for said bike trail, as set forth in
Attachment "C."
6. The following items are incorrectly stated in Specific Plan No. 84-1,
and shall be amended to read as follows:
a. Knott Street is NOT fully improved adjacent to the project area
as mentioned in the report. (Page 34)
b. Walker Street is a fully improved primary arterial highway with
five to six lanes between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue. It
has a one hundred -foot (100') right-of-way with traffic signals
at Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue. Future signal is proposed
at Executive Drive (race track entrance). (Page 34)
c. No on -street parking shall be permitted on any street within the
Warland/Cypress Business Center. (Page 36)
d. On -street parking shall be prohibited. (Page 37)
e. Orangewood Avenue SHALL be improved to eighty-four feet (84')
wide. (Page 38, Vehicular Access Points)
f. No more than thirty percent (30%) of the required parking spaces
in retail commercial areas and no more than thirty percent (30%)
of the required parking spaces in business parking areas shall
be designed fnr compact cars, subject to all provisions of
Section 11 of the Zoning Code.
g•
Boundary landscaping abutting arterial highways is required to a
minimum depth of twenty feet (20'), excepting Valley View Street
(south of Katella Avenue) which shall be landscaped to a minimum
depth of thirty feet (30'), and shall include a ten -foot (10')
wide concrete meandering bike trail. The bike trail shall be
dedicated to the City as a public walkway and bicycle trail
easement and any liability insurance carried by the property
owner shall include the City of Cypress as an additional insured
with respect to this easement.
WHEREAS, the City of Cypress has prepared a Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the State EIR Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cypress has reviewed and considered the certified
Final EIR in making its decision on the proposed Specific Plan No. 84-1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Statement 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 approve Specific Plan No. 84-1; and
171
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.
that:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the. City Council of the City of Cypress
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.
172
3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all signifi-
cant 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.
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 con-
ditions 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 consider-
ations 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 finds 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 gond 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 alternative
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)
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of
Cypress DOES HEREBY APPROVE Specific Plan No. 84-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular
meeting held on the 10th day of December 1984.
MAYOR OF T ITY OF 'C CYPRESS
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY Op'CY
THEPRESS
173
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, DARRELL ESSEX, City Clerk of che 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 10th day of December 1984, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lacayo, Mullen, Partin and Kanel
NOES: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Coronado
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS None
CITY CLERK THE CITY OF CYPRESS
174
odd IA .19
EXHIBIT "A"
_1
•
: •__•
x•U
1 4 1'
0.
•
•
•
•
_rarisr�itr�u�J
tC
•
MS
,, PLANNING AREA S2
.. ---- /LOKSr., C' .not
OUT
4
.M
TIM
um rot
AVENUE
i
PLANNING AREA 1
28
reriLl A
/tea
f .- ungr= IF-71re-31
Site V cinity
WARLAND/CYPRESS BUSINESS CENTER
City of Cypress
e..
Tirrein
y
1..;
'
. ..
ss•
0
!;
pbr
175
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
(Guideli.nes) 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 the 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
co 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.
176
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Impact
Natural soil and geologic conditions are not well-suited to development.
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. 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
Develnpment 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 baen 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 co
all applicable construction and flood -proofing requirements.
1??
(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. Alternatives to the proposed project would create similar hydro-
logic impacts. No development would reduce or eliminate the 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 the 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.
178
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. 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.
(c) Potential mitigation measures nr 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 informatinn (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/agri.cultural
uses to urban uses, with an accompanying increase in land use
intensity.
(d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is 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-stnry 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.
(c)
(d)
179
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.
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 buildnut.
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. It is recommended that Holder Street be extended over the Stanton
Channel prior co 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 to pro-
vide left -turn controls for all intersection approaches, as left -
turn demand occurs.
4. Major intersections in the project vicinity should be upgraded to
provide dual left -turn lanes fnr 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
be improved to include additional travel lanes.
6. The use of a Transportation System Management (TSM) measures can
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, baaed 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 plane, site plane, engineering
Ors, err.) which shall ba provided prior to implamanta€Son of any
development.
180 2. The "no development" alternative would not generate any additional
traffic; however, this option was rejected based on land use and
economic considerations as noted in the 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 EIA.
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 the study area.
(d) The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and in the 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 the project or are
otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ-
mental effect, in that:
1. Compliance with SCARMD 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 the 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 forth in the Statement of Facts, the
Final EIR, and listed below:
(c)
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 co imple-
mentation of any development.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts sec forth above and in the 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 nr are
otherwise being implemented which mitigate this significant environ-
mental effect, in that:
6
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.
181
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)
Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated
into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social
and other considerations as sec 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 Conslderati.ons 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 protecei.on, 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.
(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. Given the 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 for 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 project will change the character of the site from vacant land/
agricultural uses to business park and commercial uses.
Findings
(a) Changes and nther 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 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. Ar 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-
mentarion of any development.
(d) The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations which follows.
- 8
183
ATTACHMENT B
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 CEQA 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:
184
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 212 -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.
ATTACHMENT "C"
ROADWAY
0
Ate
0
|
U.
0
■
0
84
ROADWAY
w
10!
§�
-J
a
185