02 - Cypress City Center Project Draft Environmental Impact ReportPrepared by:
February 2020
City of Cypress
CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2019110458SCH No. 2019110458
Draft Environmental Impact Report
CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJECT
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Summary of Project Description ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Areas of Controversy ......................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ....................................................................................... 1-4
1.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 1-4
1.5 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.5.1 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR ....................................................................................... 1-4
1.5.2 Identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................... 1-5
1.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 1-6
1.6.1 Secondary Effects of Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 1-6
2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Purpose and Type of EIR/Uses of the EIR .......................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Public Review Process ....................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.1 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Meeting ............................................................................. 2-2
2.2.2 Areas of Controversy .......................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.3 EIR Public Review Period .................................................................................................... 2-5
2.3 Scope of this EIR ................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.4 Format of the EIR .............................................................................................................. 2-6
2.5 Incorporation by Reference .............................................................................................. 2-8
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project/Site History ........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Previous Environmental Reviews ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report (April 1990) ............................................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.3 Cypress General Plan Environmental Impact Report (September 2001) ........................... 3-4
3.1.4 Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan
(June 2012) ......................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.1.5 Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (December 2017) .......................... 3-5
3.2 Project Location and Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................... 3-6
3.2.1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.2 Existing Project Site Conditions .......................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 3-6
3.3 General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning ........................................................................... 3-16
3.3.1 General Plan/Specific Plan ................................................................................................ 3-16
3.3.2 Current Zoning .................................................................................................................. 3-16
3.4 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................... 3-21
3.4.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 3-21
3.4.2 Project Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 3-22
3.4.3 Discretionary Actions ........................................................................................................ 3-35
3.4.4 Ministerial Actions ............................................................................................................ 3-40
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» ii
4.0 EXISTING SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, IMPACTS, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.1.2 Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-2
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.1-3
4.1.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 4.1-6
4.1.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................... 4.1-6
4.1.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ....................................................................... 4.1-27
4.1.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ....................................... 4.1-27
4.1.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................................................... 4.1-27
4.1.9 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.1-27
4.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.2 Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-3
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.2-14
4.2.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................ 4.2-19
4.2.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................. 4.2-22
4.2.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ....................................................................... 4.2-30
4.2.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ....................................... 4.2-31
4.2.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................................................... 4.2-32
4.2.9 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.2-32
4.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.2 Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.3-3
4.3.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 4.3-4
4.3.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................... 4.3-5
4.3.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 4.3-7
4.3.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 4.3-7
4.3.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................................. 4.3-8
4.3.9 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................ 4.3-8
4.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.2 Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.3 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 4.4-3
4.4.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................... 4.4-3
4.4.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 4.4-4
4.4.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 4.4-5
4.4.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................................. 4.4-6
4.4.9 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................ 4.4-6
4.5 Energy ............................................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.5.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4.5-1
4.5.2 Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.5-3
4.5.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 4.5-7
4.5.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................... 4.5-7
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) iii
4.5.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ........................................................................4.5-10
4.5.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ........................................4.5-10
4.5.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................................4.5-11
4.5.9 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................4.5-11
4.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.2 Existing Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 4.6-5
4.6.3 Regulatory Setting .........................................................................................................4.6-10
4.6.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................4.6-11
4.6.5 Project Impacts ..............................................................................................................4.6-12
4.6.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ........................................................................4.6-17
4.6.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ........................................4.6-18
4.6.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................................4.6-21
4.6.9 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................4.6-21
4.7 Greenhouse Gas emissions ............................................................................................ 4.7-1
4.7.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.2 Existing Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 4.7-1
4.7.3 Emissions Sources and Inventories .................................................................................. 4.7-5
4.7.4 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 4.7-5
4.7.5 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................4.7-14
4.7.6 Project Impacts ..............................................................................................................4.7-16
4.7.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ........................................................................4.7-21
4.7.8 Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................4.7-21
4.7.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................................4.7-22
4.7.10 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................4.7-23
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................. 4.8-1
4.8.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.2 Existing Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 4.8-2
4.8.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 4.8-3
4.8.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................... 4.8-5
4.8.5 Project Impacts ................................................................................................................ 4.8-6
4.8.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation .......................................................................... 4.8-8
4.8.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures .......................................... 4.8-9
4.8.8 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4.8-9
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 4.9-1
4.9.1 Existing Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 4.9-1
4.9.1 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 4.9-3
4.9.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................4.9-11
4.9.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................4.9-11
4.9.4 Project Impacts ..............................................................................................................4.9-13
4.9.2 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ........................................................................4.9-25
4.9.3 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ........................................4.9-25
4.9.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................................4.9-27
4.9.5 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................4.9-27
4.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................4.10-1
4.10.2 Existing Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.10-1
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting .........................................................................................................4.10-2
4.10.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................4.10-9
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» iv
4.10.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................. 4.10-9
4.10.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.10-20
4.10.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ..................................... 4.10-20
4.10.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ......................................................................... 4.10-20
4.10.9 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.10-20
4.11 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.11.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.11.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-3
4.11.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.11-8
4.11.4 Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................... 4.11-15
4.11.5 Project Impacts ........................................................................................................... 4.11-16
4.11.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.11-29
4.11.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ..................................... 4.11-29
4.11.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ......................................................................... 4.11-31
4.11.9 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.11-31
4.12 Population and Housing............................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.12-3
4.12.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................ 4.12-6
4.12.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................. 4.12-6
4.12.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ....................................................................... 4.12-9
4.12.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ....................................... 4.12-9
4.12.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................................................... 4.12-9
4.12.9 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.12-9
4.13 Public Services ............................................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4.13-1
4.13.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.13-6
4.13.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................ 4.13-7
4.13.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................. 4.13-8
4.13.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.13-13
4.13.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ..................................... 4.13-13
4.13.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ......................................................................... 4.13-14
4.13.9 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.13-14
4.14 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.14.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.14-5
4.14.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................ 4.14-6
4.14.5 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................. 4.14-7
4.14.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ....................................................................... 4.14-8
4.14.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ....................................... 4.14-9
4.14.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................................................... 4.14-9
4.14.9 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.14-9
4.15 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 4.15-1
4.15.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.15.2 Existing Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.15-3
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.15-7
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) v
4.15.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................4.15-9
4.15.5 Project Impacts ..............................................................................................................4.15-9
4.15.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................4.15-14
4.15.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ......................................4.15-14
4.15.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ..........................................................................4.15-14
4.15.9 Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................4.15-14
4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 4.16-1
4.16.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................4.16-1
4.16.2 Existing Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.16-2
4.16.3 Regulatory Setting .........................................................................................................4.16-2
4.16.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................4.16-3
4.16.5 Project Impacts ..............................................................................................................4.16-3
4.16.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ........................................................................4.16-5
4.16.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ........................................4.16-5
4.16.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ............................................................................4.16-7
4.16.9 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................4.16-7
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................ 4.17-1
4.17.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................4.17-1
4.17.2 Existing Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.17-1
4.17.3 Regulatory Setting .........................................................................................................4.17-6
4.17.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................4.17-9
4.17.5 Project Impacts ..............................................................................................................4.17-9
4.17.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................4.17-17
4.17.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures ......................................4.17-18
4.17.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ..........................................................................4.17-19
4.17.9 Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................4.17-19
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Significant Adverse Unavoidable Impacts of the Proposed Project ................................... 5-3
5.3 Alternatives Initially Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration .................... 5-4
5.3.1 Alternative Sites .................................................................................................................. 5-4
5.4 Alternatives under Consideration ..................................................................................... 5-6
5.5 Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5-8
5.5.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................... 5-8
5.5.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 5-9
5.5.3 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 5-11
5.5.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-12
5.5.5 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 5-14
5.5.6 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 5-15
5.5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 5-16
5.5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 5-19
5.5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 5-20
5.5.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 5-23
5.5.11 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 5-24
5.5.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 5-26
5.5.13 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 5-28
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» vi
5.5.14 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 5-29
5.5.15 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 5-30
5.5.16 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 5-32
5.5.17 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 5-34
5.5.18 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 5-35
5.6 Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................. 5-37
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Summary of Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Energy Impacts ................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................. 6-2
6.3.1 Removal of Obstacles to, or Otherwise Foster, Population Growth.................................. 6-2
6.3.2 Foster Economic Growth ................................................................................................... 6-3
6.3.3 Other Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 6-3
6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................... 6-4
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................. 7-1
7.1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures ................................................................................... 7-2
8.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ............................................................ 8-1
8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Reasons Why the Project is Being Proposed Despite its Significant and
Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................................................ 8-2
9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .............................................. 9-1
9.1 City of Cypress .................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 EIR Preparers .................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2.1 LSA ..................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.3 Technical Report Preparers .............................................................................................. 9-1
9.3.1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ....................................................................................... 9-2
9.3.2 Roux Associates, Inc. .......................................................................................................... 9-2
9.3.3 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County ............................................................... 9-2
9.3.4 NMG Geotechnical, Inc. ..................................................................................................... 9-2
9.3.5 LSA ..................................................................................................................................... 9-2
9.4 Specific Plan Amendment ................................................................................................. 9-3
9.4.1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ....................................................................................... 9-3
9.5 Project Applicant/Developer ............................................................................................ 9-3
9.5.1 Shea Properties .................................................................................................................. 9-3
9.6 Persons Consulted ............................................................................................................ 9-3
10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 10-1
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Regional and Project Location ........................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.2: Project Vicinity Land Uses ................................................................................................. 3-9
Figure 3.3: Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3.4: Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan ............................. 3-13
Figure 3.5: City of Cypress General Plan Land Uses .......................................................................... 3-17
Figure 3.6: Zoning Designations ........................................................................................................ 3-19
Figure 3.7: Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 3-23
Figure 3.8: Proposed Open Space Amenities .................................................................................... 3-31
Figure 3.9: Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................. 3-33
Figure 4.1: Location of Related Projects .............................................................................................. 4-7
Figure 4.1.1: Conceptual Building Elevations—Proposed Movie Theater ....................................... 4.1-9
Figure 4.1.2: Conceptual Building Elevations—Proposed Retail Building A ................................... 4.1-13
Figure 4.1.3: Conceptual Building Elevations—Proposed Retail Building B ................................... 4.1-15
Figure 4.1.4: Conceptual Building Elevations—Proposed Retail Building C ................................... 4.1-17
Figure 4.1.5: Conceptual Building Elevations—Proposed Hotel Building ...................................... 4.1-19
Figure 4.1.6: Conceptual Building Elevations—Proposed Residential Building ............................. 4.1-23
Figure 4.6.1: Boring, Well, and CPT Locations .................................................................................. 4.6-3
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation
Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance ...................................................... 1-7
Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects............................................................................................. 4-6
Table 4.1.A: Specific Plan Architectural Design Elements Consistency Analysis ............................. 4.1-8
Table 4.2.A: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants ............................................................... 4.2-7
Table 4.2.B: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................... 4.2-8
Table 4.2.C: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ...................... 4.2-11
Table 4.2.D: Ambient Air Quality at the 1630 W. Pampas Lane, Anaheim Monitoring Station .... 4.2-13
Table 4.2.E: Regional Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions ............................ 4.2-20
Table 4.2.F: SCAQMD LST Thresholds (lbs/day) ............................................................................. 4.2-21
Table 4.2.G: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions ........................................................... 4.2-25
Table 4.2.H: Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions .......................................................... 4.2-27
Table 4.2.I: Construction Localized Impacts Analysis .................................................................... 4.2-28
Table 4.2.J: Long-Term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis ................................................... 4.2-29
Table 4.5.A: Proposed Project Energy Consumption Estimates ...................................................... 4.5-8
Table 4.7.A: Global Warming Potential for Selected Greenhouse Gases ........................................ 4.7-3
Table 4.7.B: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions ......................................................... 4.7-16
Table 4.7.C: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 4.7-17
Table 4.7.D: Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Service Population .................................................. 4.7-19
Table 4.9.A: Surface Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters...................................... 4.9-8
Table 4.9.B: Groundwater Quality Objectives for Groundwater Basins .......................................... 4.9-9
Table 4.9.C: Ponding Depths for Scenario 1................................................................................... 4.9-19
Table 4.10.A: RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis ................................................................................ 4.10-11
Table 4.10.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis ......................................................................... 4.10-13
Table 4.10.C: Specific Plan Consistency Analysis ......................................................................... 4.10-19
Table 4.11.A: Short-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements ................................................... 4.11-5
Table 4.11.B: Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-1 ............................ 4.11-6
Table 4.11.C: Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-2 ............................ 4.11-7
Table 4.11.D: Long-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements .................................................... 4.11-8
Table 4.11.E: Existing (2019) Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................................... 4.11-9
Table 4.11.F: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis ...................................... 4.11-10
Table 4.11.G: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis ..................................... 4.11-11
Table 4.11.H: City of Cypress Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .......................................... 4.11-12
Table 4.11.I: City of Cypress Stationary Noise Standards ............................................................ 4.11-13
Table 4.11.J: City of Los Alamitos Stationary Noise Standards .................................................... 4.11-14
Table 4.11.K: Summary of Noise and Vibration Standards/Significance Criteria ........................ 4.11-15
Table 4.11.L: Existing (2019) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project .............................. 4.11-19
Table 4.11.M: Opening Year (2021) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project .................. 4.11-21
Table 4.11.N: Noise Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.11-23
Table 4.11.O: Construction Vibration Levels ............................................................................... 4.11-28
Table 4.12.A: 2016 SCAG Population and Housing Forecasts (2012–2040) .................................. 4.12-2
Table 4.12.B: City of Cypress and Orange County Age Characteristics (2013-2017) ..................... 4.12-3
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) ix
Table 4.12.C: City of Cypress Regional Housing Need Allocation (2014–2021) ............................. 4.12-5
Table 4.13.A: Projected School Enrollment .................................................................................. 4.13-11
Table 4.14.A: Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Vicinity of the Project Site ......................... 4.14-3
Table 4.15.A: Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary ....................................................... 4.15-6
Table 4.15.B: Project Trip Generation Summary .......................................................................... 4.15-10
Table 4.15.C: Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary ................................. 4.15-11
Table 4.15.D: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection ................................................ 4.15-15
Table 4.17.A: Orange County Class III Landfills .............................................................................. 4.17-3
Table 5.A: Alternative 2 Service Population Estimate ....................................................................... 5-18
Table 5.B: Alternative 3 Service Population Estimate ....................................................................... 5-18
Table 5.C: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project and Project
Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 5-38
Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................. 7-3
APPENDICES
A: Notice of Preparation/Comment Letters
B: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Energy Analysis Data
C: Biological Resources Species Tables
D: Cultural Survey Results
E: Geotechnical Assessment and Paleontological Memorandum
F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II Limited Soil Investigation
G: Water Quality Management Plan and Hydrology and Hydraulics Study
H: Noise Analysis Results
I: Public Services and Utilities Providers Correspondence
J: Traffic Impact Analysis
K: Tribal Cultural Resources Consultation
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» x
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°F degrees Fahrenheit
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ACS American Community Survey
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT average daily trips
AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan
afy acre-feet per year
Agency Cypress Redevelopment Agency
AGR agricultural supply
AHS American Housing Survey
amsl above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASBS Areas of Special Biological Significance
AST Aboveground Storage Tanks
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District
AWSC all-way stop control
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Basin Plan Santa Ana RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) xi
bgs below ground surface
BMPs Best Management Practices
BTU British Thermal Units
CAA (Federal) Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CalARP California Accidental Release Program
CalEEMod (CAPCOA’s) California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
California Register California Register of Historical Resources
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» xii
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
cfs/acre cubic feet per second per acre
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
City City of Cypress
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COSR (Cypress General Plan) Conservation/Open Space/Recreation (Element)
County County of Orange
CPD Cypress Police Department
CPT cone penetrometer test
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CSD Cypress School District
CTR California Toxics Rule
CUP Conditional Use Permit
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) xiii
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel(s)
dBA A-weighted decibel(s)
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
du dwelling unit(s)
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EIA United States Energy Information Administration
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EJ Environmental Justice
EMFAC EMission FACtor Model
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio; also Federal Aviation Regulations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Federal Insurance Rate Map
ft foot/feet
FTA Federal Transit Administration
g acceleration due to gravity
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» xiv
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic Information System
gpm gallons per minute
GSAs Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSWC Golden State Water Company
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWP global warming potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HA Hydrologic Area(s)
HCD Department of Housing and Community Development
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
HMD Hazardous Materials Disclosure
HRI (California) Historic Resources Inventory
HSA Hydrologic Subarea(s)
HSC California Health and Safety Code
HU Hydrologic Unit(s)
HVAC heating ventilation and air conditioning
I-405 Interstate 405
I-605 Interstate 605
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
inch/sec inch(es) per second
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) xv
IND industrial service supply
IPaC (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JFTB Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base
kWh Kilowatt hours
LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
lbs/day pounds per day
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day-night average noise level
LED light-emitting diode
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID Low Impact Development
LIP Local Implementation Plan
Lmax maximum A-weighted sound level
Lmin minimum A-weighted sound level
LOS level of service
LSI Limited Soil Investigation
LST Localized Significance Threshold
Ma million years ago
MATES-III SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MBTE methyl tertiary butyl ether
MFI median family income
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» xvi
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
mgd million gallons per day
mL milliliters
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMT million metric tons
mpg miles per gallon
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric tons
MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MT CO2e/yr metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
MT CO2e/SP/yr metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population per
year
MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether
MUN municipal and domestic supply
MW megawatt
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Southern California
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) xvii
NALMA North American Land Mammal Age
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NCCP/HCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMAs Neighborhood Mobility Areas
NMG NMG Geotechnical, Inc.
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District
OCPL Orange County Public Libraries
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCWD Orange County Water District
OCWR Orange County Waste and Recycling
OFFROAD Off-Road Emissions Inventory Program Model
OHP (California) Office of Historic Preservation
OPR (California) Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» xviii
P.A.C.E. Positive Actions through Character Education
Pb lead
PBP Planned Business Park
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCH Pacific Coast Highway
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PGA peak ground acceleration
pH percentage of hydrogen
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PRC California Public Resources Code
PROC industrial process supply
proposed project Cypress City Center Project
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RAP rammed aggregate piers
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RECs recognized environmental conditions
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
ROGs reactive organic gases
Roux Associates Roux Associates, Inc.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) xix
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Vehicles Rule The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years
2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEMS Standard Emergency Management System
sf square foot/feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SHL (California) State Historical Landmarks
SHMA Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» xx
SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOX sulfur oxides
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
Specific Plan Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan (2012)
SPHI (California) State Points of Historical Interest
sq mi square mile(s)
SR-1 State Route 1
SR-22 State Route 22
SR-55 State Route 55
SRA Source Receptor Area
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TDS total dissolved solids
TERPS Terminal Instrument Procedures
TGD (County of Orange) Technical Guidance Document
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
U.S. United States
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx (02/06/20) xxi
USC United States Code
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
v/c volume-to-capacity
VC vinyl chloride
VdB vibration velocity decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOCs volatile organic compounds
vph vehicles per hour
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
ZEVs zero emission vehicles
ZNE zero net energy
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «02/06/20» xxii
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, before
taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the
environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a document
designed to provide to the public and to local and State governmental agency decision-makers an
analysis of potential environmental consequences of a project to support informed decision-making.
This EIR has been prepared by the City of Cypress (City) to evaluate environmental impacts
associated with the proposed Cypress City Center Project (proposed project); to discuss alternatives;
and to propose mitigation measures that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid the
identified potentially significant environmental impacts.
This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
The City is the Lead Agency, and as such, has reviewed all submitted drafts, technical studies, and
reports for consistency with applicable City regulations and policies and has commissioned the
preparation of this EIR to reflect its own independent judgment.
Data for this EIR were obtained from on-site field observations; discussion with affected agencies;
review of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, and data; and specialized
environmental assessments prepared for the project (e.g., air quality, noise, and traffic).
The Executive Summary is intended to highlight the major areas of importance in the environmental
analysis for the proposed project as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. The Executive
Summary includes a brief description of the proposed project, areas of controversy known to the
City, including issues raised by agencies and the public, a summary of the significant unavoidable
impacts of the proposed project, and a summary of alternatives evaluated in the EIR. This Executive
Summary also provides a table summarizing (1) the potential environmental impacts that would
occur as a result of project implementation and operation; (2) the level of significance prior to
implementation of mitigation measures; (3) regulatory compliance measures and mitigation
measures that avoid or reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project, and (4) the level of
significance after mitigation measures are implemented.
1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would be located on an approximately 13-acre site (project site) at the
northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Winners Circle in the City. In its existing setting, the project
site is characterized by a paved parking lot, with existing light poles and various electrical utility
boxes and lines. The project site is bounded by vacant land and surface parking lots associated with
the Los Alamitos Race Course to the north, Katella Avenue to the south, Winners Circle to the east,
and Siboney Street to the west.
The project site is within the boundaries of the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific
Plan (Specific Plan), and specifically occupies a portion of Planning Area 5, which is designated for
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-2
Professional Office uses. The project site currently has a zoning designation of PBP-25A, Planned
Business Park (PBP). The Specific Plan is the regulatory plan that constitutes the zoning for the
project site.
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a mixed-use development on the
project site. The proposed project includes a 43,200 sf theater with approximately 840 seats, a five-
story hotel with up to 120 rooms, approximately 20,800 sf of retail and restaurant uses, and a four-
story residential component with up to 251 market-rate apartment units and a variety of amenities,
including a fitness center, clubhouse, leasing/lounge area, main recreation courtyard, and a dog
park. Proposed off-site improvements include curb, sidewalk, and landscaped parkway
improvements along Katella Avenue, Winners Circle, and Siboney Street. Off-site storm drain
improvements along the north edge of the property within an existing storm drain easement are
also included. The proposed project may also reconstruct the portion of Siboney Street along the
western side of the project site to public standards, providing a crowned road section and sufficient
slope to drain to Katella Avenue without ponding.
Required discretionary actions associated with the project include the following: certification of the
EIR; approval of a Development Agreement between SP Acquisition, LLC and the City of Cypress;
approval of an amendment to the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan to create a
new mixed-use land use district for the project site to allow residential and hotel uses; approval of a
Tentative Parcel Map required for the subdivision of the project site; approval of Conditional Use
Permits for the hotel, theater, commercial, and restaurant/alcohol uses; and approval of a Design
Review Permit.
1.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123, this EIR acknowledges the areas of controversy
and issues to be resolved that are known to the City or were raised during the scoping process. The
City held a public scoping meeting at the Cypress Community Center on Wednesday, December 11,
2019, to present the proposed project and to solicit input from interested parties regarding
environmental issues that should be addressed in this EIR. The issues and concerns raised in
response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) or at the scoping meeting included:
• Traffic: Concerns about additional traffic in the Cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos, specifically on
Katella Avenue, north of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of existing schools, intersections along
Katella Avenue, Walker Street, and Lexington Drive, and specific intersections (Katella Avenue/
Los Alamitos Boulevard, Katella Avenue/I-605, and Valley View Street/I-405). Concerns about
traffic on Katella Avenue during peak hours and about additional traffic generated by students.
Request to evaluate the potential traffic impacts on Katella Avenue due to its inclusion as part of
the Congestion Management Program Highway System.
• Population and Housing: Concerns about the lack of affordable housing in the City and about
overpopulation in the City. Concerns about the population generation from the proposed
apartment, hotel, retail, and commercial uses. Suggestion that higher household sizes should be
considered in the analysis because higher rents in Orange County are leading to the
overcrowding of residential units.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-3
• Noise: Suggestion about adding landscaping along all sides of the property to reduce noise on
the project site from surrounding sources and general concern about noise impacts.
• Aesthetics: Concerns about the height of the four-story apartment structure. Concern that the
residential structure and parking garage would not be aesthetically representative of the City.
Concern about off-site blighted retail buildings and off-site City maintenance of buildings.
• Land Use: Opposition to zoning changes to allow residential uses on the project site. Concerns
related to the density of the residential structure and zoning changes to allow residential uses
and higher density development. Suggestion that the residential structure be moved to the
Winners Circle side of the project site. Concerns that parking will be underprovided.
• Air Quality: Concerns about air quality impacts from the proposed project and from increased
traffic on Katella Avenue. Suggestions to adhere to guidelines from the SCAQMD and its CEQA
Air Quality Handbook and recommendations on the identification of mitigation measures,
alternatives, permits, and appropriate data sources.
• Alternatives: Suggestions to evaluate a reduced density alternative, and alternatives with the
replacement of the apartment structure with a family-friendly entertainment center, a high-end
grocery store, or senior apartments. Suggests an alternative with a decrease height of the
residential structure to two stories and the elimination of the parking garage.
• Hydrology: Concern was raised about existing ponding along Siboney Street and on the project
site. Requested that drainage facilities convey stormwater so as not to result in ponding on the
Los Alamitos Racetrack property to the north.
• Public Services: Concern that schools in the City cannot accommodate students generated by
the proposed project. Concern about increased demand for fire, police, library, emergency
services, school, and park facilities/services. Concern about impacts on emergency services from
traffic impacts on Katella Avenue.
• Recreation: Suggestions that parkland/public parks be provided on the project site. Concern
about the amount of green space in the City and about impacts on existing parks.
• Utilities and Service Systems: Concern about increases in energy demand. Concern about added
load to the power grid and water supply.
This is not an exhaustive list of areas of controversy, but rather key issues that were raised during
the scoping process. This EIR addresses each of these areas of concern or controversy in detail,
examines project-related and cumulative environmental impacts, identifies significant adverse
environmental impacts, and proposes mitigation measures and/or alternatives designed to reduce
or eliminate potentially significant impacts. Appendix A to this EIR includes the NOP and copies of
written comments received in response to the NOP, as well as written comment cards received in
response to the public scoping meeting. Appendix A also includes a comment summary.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-4
1.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe significant
environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, including those effects that can be mitigated but not
reduced to a less than significant level. The following is a summary of the impacts that are
considered significant adverse and unavoidable after all mitigation is applied. These impacts are also
described in detail in Chapter 4.0, Existing Environmental Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts,
and Mitigation Measures.
1.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would be designed in compliance with existing regulations aimed at reducing
GHG emissions. Specifically, the project would meet the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
(California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24) and the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen). Although compliance with CCR Title 24 and CALGreen would help to reduce the
proposed project’s GHG emissions, the overall emissions attributable to construction and operation
of the proposed project of 7,208 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr) are
expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) thresholds of
3,000 MT CO2e/yr. The proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions per service population of
7.9 MT CO2e per service population per year (CO2e/SP/yr) would also exceed the SCAQMD’s
threshold of 4.3 MT CO2e/SP/yr for 2022. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a
significant unavoidable project impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative
impact related to greenhouse gas emissions and conflict with an applicable greenhouse gas
reduction plan, policy, or regulations. The proposed project includes mitigation measures that
require the project’s retail commercial buildings, multi-family residential uses, hotel, and movie
theater to be designed and built to be 10 percent more energy-efficient than 2019 Title 24
requirements or the current Title 24 requirements, whichever are more stringent, and the
implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for on-site residents and
workers to reduce vehicle miles traveled. However, because the type and extent of measures that
would be feasible to be implemented would be dependent on the individual tenants that occupy the
project, the total amount of reductions toward the greenhouse gas reduction analysis cannot be
quantified at this time. Furthermore, it may not be feasible for all projects to achieve the reduction
targets. For example, the ability of a business to affect employee and patrons vehicle miles traveled
would depend in part on the number of employees and patrons, where they live, and the availability
of regional programs such as transit buses. Therefore, impacts related to generation of greenhouse
gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
1.5 ALTERNATIVES
1.5.1 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21100 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 require an EIR
to identify and discuss a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the
proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. The following three
alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the
potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project but that may avoid
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-5
or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the
alternatives considered in this EIR include the following:
• Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative: CEQA requires analysis of a “No Project” Alternative. The
purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to
compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the
proposed project. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C), the lead agency
should proceed to analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting what would
reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,
based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The
No Project Alternative assumes that the project site would remain in the same condition as it
was at the time the NOP was published and no new development of any kind would occur on
the project site. The project site would remain a paved parking lot that would continue to be
used for vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los Alamitos Race Course. Other short-term
uses of the project site would also continue, including use as a Christmas tree lot, a truck staging
area, and auxiliary truck and trailer storage. The No Project Alternative would not require any
grading or site work because no new development would occur on the project site. In addition,
no buildings would be constructed on the project site.
• Alternative 2 – Reduced Project Alternative: The Reduced Project Alternative includes a mixed
use development on the project site with the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and
restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with a reduced residential component, no movie
theater, and an increased retail component. The Reduced Project Alternative includes
construction of six retail buildings accommodating 41,600 sf of retail and restaurant uses and a
43,175 sf theater with approximately 840 seats. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative
includes development of 80 residential units at a density of 6.02 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)
on the 13.29-acre project site. The residential units would include a combination of two-story
condominium buildings arranged around motor courts and three-story row townhomes.
Because of the reduced residential uses, the above-grade parking structure would not be
required to serve the residents on the project site. The Reduced Project Alternative includes the
same size hotel (120 rooms with approximately 96,800 sf) as the proposed project.
• Alternative 3 – Commercial/Retail Alternative: The Commercial/Retail Alternative includes
development of 122,556 sf of major retail space, 21,000 sf of other retail/quick-serve restaurant
space, and 9,353 sf of sit-down restaurant space on the project site. The Commercial/Retail
Alternative includes construction of one building with four major retail tenants, one
freestanding restaurant pad, and three retail/restaurant buildings. The Commercial/Retail
Alternative also includes construction of a surface parking lot with 717 parking stalls. The project
site was entitled until recently for development of the Commercial/Retail Alternative, which was
environmentally cleared in the 2008 IS/MND that was prepared for the project site. However,
these entitlements have since expired.
1.5.2 Identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the project and
the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-6
the No Project/No Build Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR shall
also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives and the
proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would have the least impact on the environment
because the project site would be developed at a reduced density, thereby reducing the most of the
proposed project’s environmental impacts compared to the other alternatives (other than the No
Build Alternative). Although the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less total greenhouse
gas emissions than the proposed project, it would generate a greater amount of greenhouse gas
emissions per capita than the proposed project. Therefore, its impacts would also be significant and
unavoidable. The Reduced Project Alternative would potentially meet all of the project alternatives,
but to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Accordingly, it is determined that the Reduced
Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would meet all of the
project objectives and would result in reduced environmental impacts as compared to the proposed
project.
1.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 1.A identifies the potential project environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and
level of significance after mitigation is incorporated into the project. Environmental topics
addressed in this EIR include: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology
and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services,
Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities.
1.6.1 Secondary Effects of Mitigation Measures
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D), if any mitigation measure would
cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the proposed
project, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed. The mitigation measures proposed
(as listed on Table 1.A) require the Applicant/Developer to provide the City with lighting, grading,
excavation or other construction plans, or provide evidence that the project would adhere to
existing programs, regulations, or recommendations in technical reports. The regulations and
policies listed in the mitigation measures have been evaluated during their respective adoptions or
approval processes. No secondary effects related to the proposed mitigation measures are expected
to occur.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-7
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.1: AESTHETICS
Threshold 4.1.1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The City is almost entirely developed and neither the project site nor other properties in the project vicinity provide
substantial views of any water bodies, mountains, hilltops, or any other significant visual resources. As such, the City has not
designated any scenic corridors or scenic vistas within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any impacts on
a scenic vista. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.1.2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed project would
not damage any scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Additionally, the project site consists of a paved parking lot
and does not contain any historic buildings. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.1.3: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and would conform to architectural and
landscape guidelines of the Specific Plan and all applicable development standards in the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes minor amendments to the design guidelines included in the Specific Plan to allow
super graphics (large graphics) and projecting signage for the proposed movie theater structure. With approval of the Specific
Plan Amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with the Specific Plan design guidelines for the project site.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.1.4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. Construction activities would occur only during daylight hours. Any construction-related illumination during
evening and nighttime hours would be used for safety and security purposes only and would occur only for the duration
required for the temporary construction process. Light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact
sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of surrounding uses, or interfere with the performance of off-site activities. In
addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in flat, shiny surfaces that would reflect sunlight or cause other
natural glare.
Operation. New light sources created by the proposed project would include interior and exterior building lighting, security
lighting, signage, and parking lot lighting. The proposed lighting sources would be similar to other lighting sources in the project
vicinity and would not generate artificial light levels that are out of character with the surrounding area, which is densely
developed and characterized by a high degree of human activity and ambient light during the day and night. For these reasons,
the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the surrounding urban area.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact
Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project and all related projects are required to adhere to City and State regulations
designed to reduce and/or avoid impacts related to aesthetics. With compliance with these regulations, cumulative impacts
related to aesthetics would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a
significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-8
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.2: Air Quality
Threshold 4.2.1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP
because (1) the project’s construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance
thresholds, and (2) the proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan land use designation on the project site
and would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP, is consistent with land use planning strategies set forth by
SCAQMD, and includes implementation of all feasible air quality mitigation measures. In order to further reduce construction
impacts, the project would comply with emission reduction measures required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rules 402,
403, 445, and 1113. Therefore, impacts related to the conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air
quality plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measures would be required to further
reduce emissions.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-1:
SCAQMD Rule 403. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive
fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventative
measures by using the following procedures, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during construction.
All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of
dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late
morning and after work is done for the day.
All material transported on-site or off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
These control techniques shall be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with this
measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City.
Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project shall be prevented to the
maximum extent feasible.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-2:
All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material shall comply with State Vehicle Code
Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended,
regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-3:
Prior to approval of the project plans and specifications, the Planning Division shall confirm
that the construction bid packages specify:
Contractors shall use high-pressure-low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer
efficiency of at least 50 percent;
Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a volatile organic compound content lower
than required under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113; and
To the extent feasible, construction/building materials shall be composed of pre-painted
materials.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-4:
The project shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-5:
The project will meet the Statewide 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, formally known
as Title 24, Part 6.
Less Than Significant Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-9
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.2.2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed the significance thresholds
of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS. According to the SCAQMD,
projects that do not exceed the significance thresholds are generally not considered to result in cumulatively considerable air
quality impacts. Therefore, based on the fact that the emissions during construction and operation of proposed project would
not exceed any of the air quality significance thresholds for any criteria pollutants, the proposed project would not have a
cumulatively considerable impact. In order to further reduce construction impacts, the project would comply with emission
reduction measures required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, 445, and 1113. Therefore, impacts related to
the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an
applicable NAAQS or CAAQS would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5,
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.2.3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed
the LSTs established by SCAQMD. In order to further reduce construction impacts, the project would comply with emission
reduction measures required by the SCAQMD, including SCAQMD Rule 403. Because the project would not exceed the LSTs
with compliance with regulatory requirements, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5,
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.2.4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors; however, this would be
temporary in nature and would cease to occur after construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors would
occur during construction of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operation. Potential airborne odors could result from cooking activities associated with new restaurants and trash receptacles.
These odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the project and minimized by SCAQMD odor regulations and lids on
trash receptacles. The proposed uses are not anticipated to emit any other types of objectionable odors. Therefore, operation
of the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5,
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed project is the South Coast Air
Basin. Air pollution is inherently a cumulative impact measured across an air basin. The incremental effects of projects that do
not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively considerable per SCAQMD
guidelines. The proposed project’s construction- and operation-related regional daily emissions are less than the SCAQMD
significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. In addition, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations on a project-by-
project basis would substantially reduce potential impacts associated with the related projects and basin-wide air pollutant
emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions, and the
proposed project’s cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.3: Biological Resources
Threshold 4.3.1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. In its existing condition, the project site does not contain any vegetation. The disturbed condition of the project site
is generally not suitable to support special-status plant or animal species.
Special-Status Animals. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Sensitive Species database potential
occurrences of special status animal species were identified within the project area; however no special-status plant or animal
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-10
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
species were observed during the site survey and suitable habitat for such species is absent from the proposed project
disturbance limits. No special-status species are anticipated to be adversely impacted by the project.
Special-Status Habitat/Vegetation. The USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species map does not identify
any locations of critical habitat within the project site. The closest known critical habitat is the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve,
approximately 6.5 miles south of the project site. According to the CNDDB Sensitive Species Database, no sensitive plant
species have been documented on the project site or in the project vicinity.
The project site is located within an area that is covered by the Orange County Transportation Authority Natural Communities
Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (OCTA NCCP/HCP) that covers the entirety of Orange County. Only some portions
of the Plan Area fall within a designated Permit Area, or the area in which OCTA would request authorization from CDFW and
USFWS to issue permits due to potential project-related impacts to certain identified species. Because the project site does not
fall within the Permit Area, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or State HCP. No special-status
species are anticipated to be directly affected by the project due to the lack of suitable habitat on the project site. Therefore,
no impacts to sensitive or special-status species would result from implementation of the proposed project, and no mitigation
is required.
Threshold 4.3.2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is highly disturbed and developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot and does not support any
special-status or sensitive riparian habitat as identified in regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
Therefore, no significant impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in a local or
regional plan would result from project implementation, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.3.3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by USFWS, the project site does not contain federally
protected wetlands. The project site is located entirely outside of streambeds, banks, and riparian habitat. No potential waters
of the U.S. or CDFW jurisdictional areas are located on the project site.
Although construction activities have the potential to result in temporary indirect effects to water quality including a potential
increase in erosion and sediment transport into adjacent or downstream aquatic areas and the contamination of waters from
construction equipment, these potential indirect effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or substantially
minimized through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and a water quality management plan as
discussed in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality. Specifically, adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 during
construction would ensure that erosion-related impacts during construction would be less than significant by requiring the
implementation of construction site BMPs to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. As
such, impacts on state or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measures would be required to reduce
hydrology and water quality impacts.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, which is provided
below in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1:
Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Applicant
shall obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities (Construction General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as
amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, or any other
subsequent permit. This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs),
including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention 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
(WDID) is obtained for the project from the SMARTS and provided to the Director of the City of
Cypress Community Development Department, 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 stormwater and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and
Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff. Construction Site
No Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-11
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
BMPs shall also conform to the requirements specified in the latest edition of the Orange
County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project
Owners, and Developers to control and minimize the impacts of construction and construction-
related activities, materials, and pollutants on the watershed. Upon completion of
construction activities and stabilization of the Project site, a Notice of Termination shall be
submitted via SMARTS.
Threshold 4.3.4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. The entire project site is highly disturbed and located within a fully urbanized area. The project
site is not located within any local or regional wildlife movement corridor and does not function as a special linkage for wildlife
movement. In addition, there are no bodies of water on the project site with native resident or migratory fish.
Due to the lack of sensitive or special-status species or their habitats on the project site, the project would not result in impacts
on candidate, sensitive, or special-status animal species. The proposed project would avoid impacts on nesting resident and/or
migratory birds either by avoiding vegetation removal during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31) or by
implementing Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1.
The proposed project would avoid impacts on the nests of raptors (which are migratory birds) if the existing trees in the
ornamental vegetation area are removed outside the raptor nesting season (February 1 through June 30) and they contain
raptor nests. Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1, below, would also address any impact to nesting raptors should it be
necessary to conduct vegetation removal during the nesting season and raptors are present.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measures would be required to reduce
biology resource impacts.
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1:
Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance: If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities
are planned to occur within the active nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), the
City of Cypress, (or designee), shall confirm that the Applicant/Developer has retained a
qualified biologist who shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 3
days prior to the start of such activities. The nesting bird survey shall include the work area
and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as feasible) that could potentially be affected
by project-related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human activity, and dust, etc.
For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer
zone around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the qualified
biologist based on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities
shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer active, as
determined by the qualified biologist
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.3.5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Landmark Tree Ordinance in the City’s Municipal Code protects designated landmark trees,
which are specifically identified in the City’s Inventory of Landmark Trees (July 1996). As shown in this inventory, there are no
landmark trees on the proposed project site. The removal of any on-site trees or vegetation would not conflict with the City’s
Landmark Tree Ordinance.
Per Article IV of the Municipal Code, Street Trees, any tree within the public right-of-way belongs to the City of Cypress. Any
work to street trees conducted as part of the proposed project would be done in accordance with the City Council’s adopted
Parkway Tree Policy.
Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.3.6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), NCCP, or other habitat conservation plan in the City.
However, the OCTA’s Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) includes a Plan Area that
covers the entirety of Orange County. Only some portions of the Plan Area fall within a designated Permit Area, or the area in
which OCTA would request authorization from CDFW and USFWS to issue permits due to potential project-related impacts to
certain identified species. Because the project site does not fall within the Permit Area, the proposed project would not conflict
with any local, regional, or State HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impacts related to conflict with an
HCP, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-12
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative Biological Resource Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project site is located in the Orange County Transportation Authority Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (OCTA NCCP/HCP), the project site is not within the Permit Area of
the Plan Area. As such, development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat species
identified in the OCTA NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative loss of biological
resources, and impacts on biological resources would be less than cumulatively significant.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.4: Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.4.1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
No Impact.
The SCCIC record search results and archaeological pedestrian field survey identified no previously recorded cultural resources
on or in soils on the project site. As such, there are no historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA
Guidelines located within the project site. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No Impact.
Threshold 4.4.2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
The SCCIC record search included the project site and the areas within 0.25 mile of the project site. No archaeological resources
have been previously recorded within the project site. There has been one archaeological resource previously recorded within
0.25 mile of the project site, the historic-period Navy Golf Course in Seal Beach (P 30-176854), which would not be impacted by
project-related construction activities. As a result of seasonal flooding, the floodplain containing the project site would not
have been conducive to the accumulation and preservation of intact archaeological cultural deposits. As such, there is a low
likelihood of encountering intact buried archaeological deposits during ground-disturbing construction activities. However,
there is a possibility that isolated archaeological cultural resources may be encountered during construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce any potential impacts of the proposed project on the significance
of archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1:
Archaeological Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified professional
archaeologist shall be retained by the Applicant/Developer to provide cultural resources
awareness training to construction personnel. The qualified professional archaeologist shall
also be retained by the Applicant/Developer on an on-call basis. This training shall be in the
form of a presentation and handout describing the types of possible archaeological deposits
that may be encountered during construction activities; and the procedures that shall be used
in the event of inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources during construction. In the event
that construction personnel encounter any archaeological deposits during construction
activities, the retained qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. If
any such resources are discovered, contractors shall stop work in the immediate area of the
find and contact the retained archaeologist to assess the nature of the find and determine if
future studies and/or monitoring is appropriate. Upon completion of any monitoring activities,
the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of monitoring
activities. This report shall be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC).
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Threshold 4.4.3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact.
No previously identified human remains are present on the project site, and there are no facts or evidence indicating that
Native Americans or people of European descent are buried on the project site. However, undiscovered human remains may
be present below the ground surface on any property. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 requires compliance with the
State’s Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory
Compliance Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains to less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measure would be required to reduce
impacts to human remains.
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1:
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State PRC Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the County Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
which would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of
the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the
discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences
for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations
may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and
associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated
items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-13
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.5: Energy
Threshold 4.5.1: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. The project would consume approximately 72,347 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 162,160 gallons of
gasoline during construction, which would increase the annual construction generated fuel use in Orange County by
approximately 0.05 percent for diesel fuel usage and approximately 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel usage. As such, project
construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. Furthermore, impacts related to energy use
during construction would be temporary and relatively small in comparison to Orange County’s overall use of the State’s
available energy sources. No unusual project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would
be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. Therefore, construction of the
proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts
would be less than significant.
Operation. Energy use consumed by operation of the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity
consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. Operation of the proposed project would increase the
annual consumption of electricity, natural gas, diesel fuel, and gasoline in Orange County by approximately 0.02 percent, 0.04
percent, 0.02 percent, and 0.03 percent, respectively. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1, requiring
compliance with Title 24 standards, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design,
equipment use, and transportation. Therefore, impacts related to consumption of energy resources during operation would be
less than significant.
No mitigation is required, but Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 would apply to the
proposed project.
Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1:
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
City of Cypress (City) Chief Building Official, or designee, shall confirm that the project design
complies with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24) energy conservation
and green building standards, as well as those listed in Part 11 (California Green Building
Standards [CalGreen Code]). The City’s Chief Building Official shall confirm that the project
complies with the mandatory measures listed in the CalGreen Code for residential and non-
residential building construction.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.5.2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be
relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the
proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange County, and the State’s available energy
sources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning
actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would
be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the
California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, as demonstrated above under Threshold
4.5.1, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential
impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Energy Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in an increased services demand in electricity and natural gas.
Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in electricity usage, this increase would not require SCE to expand
or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial environmental impacts. Additionally, it is anticipated that SoCalGas
would be able to meet the natural gas demand of the proposed project without additional facilities. Furthermore, the proposed
project’s percent of cumulative electricity and natural gas consumption would be negligible, and there are sufficient planned
natural gas and electricity supplies in the region for the estimated increases in energy demands. Transportation related energy
use would also increase as part of the proposed project. However, this transportation energy use would not represent a major
amount of energy use when compared to the amount of existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) throughout Orange County and the region. Further, compliance with the existing mitigation
measures would ensure that the proposed project does not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of
energy. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary
consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-14
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.6: Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.6.1(i): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidences of known
fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation 2010 Fault Activity Map, there are no known earthquake
faults that run through the project site nor is there any other evidence of a known fault that runs through the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any impact related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault, and there
would be no impact.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.6.1(ii): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A design-level peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.55 g has been
calculated for the project site. This indicates that strong seismic ground shaking generated by seismic activity is considered a
potentially significant impact that may affect people or structures associated with the proposed project. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance
Measure GEO-1, potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1:
Compliance with the Recommendations in the Project Geotechnical Assessment. The
Applicant/Developer’s construction contractor shall implement the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Due Diligence Study for Proposed Mixed-Use Development at NE Quadrant of
Siboney Street and Katella Avenue, City of Cypress, California (NMG Geotechnical, June 2019;
Geotechnical Assessment) prepared for the proposed project, as applicable to the satisfaction
of the City of Cypress’ (City) Chief Building Official or designee, including, but not limited to:
To address potential liquefaction potential and seismically induced settlement, stone columns
or (Geopier brand) rammed aggregate piers (RAP) or equivalent ground improvement method
alternatives shall be used and installed to a depth of 15 feet (ft). Building areas where the
ground is improved with RAPs or stone columns shall provide a minimum 2 ft thick layer of
newly compacted fill. The smaller retail buildings may be supported on a combination of newly
compacted fill and shallower ground improvement, such as aggregate and geogrid
reinforcement. Fill material shall be a minimum of 5 ft below finish grade or 3 ft below the
bottoms of foundations, whichever is deeper. The bottom of the excavation shall have a layer
of geogrid, such as Tensar 130 or BX1515 and a minimum of 2 ft of aggregate base. The
remaining fill may be compacted native soil.
The deeper undocumented fill in the southeast corner of the project site (future retail shops
area) should be completely removed and replaced with engineered fill.
To address shallow groundwater and wet soil, some type of ground stabilization, such as
cement treatment or aggregate or a combination of both shall be used. Geofabric or geogrid is
recommended in combination with aggregate to reduce the required depth of treatment,
amount of aggregate and time required to backfill the excavations.
Concrete slabs shall be used for all foundations and slabs on grade and shall be a minimum of
4 inches thick.
Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant to refine and enhance these requirements. The Applicant/Developer
shall require the Project Geotechnical Consultant to assess whether the requirements in that
report need to be modified or refined to address any changes in the project features that
occur prior to the start of grading. If the Project Geotechnical Consultant identifies
modifications or refinements to the requirements, the Applicant/Developer shall require
appropriate changes to the final project design and specifications. Design, grading, and
construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Cypress
Municipal Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading,
appropriate local grading regulations, and the requirements of the Project Geotechnical
Consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Cypress
Director of Public Works, or designee, prior to commencement of grading activities.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-15
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the Director of Public Works, or designee, prior
to the start of grading to verify that the requirements developed during the geotechnical
design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Design,
grading, and construction shall be conducted in accordance with the specifications of the
Project Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in a final report based on the CBC applicable at
the time of grading and building, and the City’s Building Code. On-site inspection during
grading shall be conducted by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and the City of Cypress
Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into project plans. Prior to the final grading permits, the Project
Geotechnical Consultant shall submit a Final Testing and Observation Geotechnical Report for
Rough Grading to the City of Cypress Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee.
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1:
California Building Code Compliance Seismic Standards. All structures shall be designed in
accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Geotechnical Assessment prepared
for this project (NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2019) and applicable sections of the most current
California Building Code (CBC). Prior to the issuance of building permits for planned structures,
the Project Soils Engineer and the City of Cypress Chief Building Official, or designee, shall
review building plans to verify that the structural design conforms to the requirements of the
Geotechnical Assessment and the City of Cypress Municipal Code.
Threshold 4.6.1(iii): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the results of the Geotechnical Assessment, the maximum
estimated vertical settlement was calculated to be approximately 2.9 inches for the cone penetrometer test (CPT) locations
within the project site. This is well within the commonly accepted limitations of structural mitigation described above (i.e., 4
inches).
Additionally, predicted liquefaction-induced total settlement with respect to most of the project site would be addressed by
incorporating deep foundations or ground improvement for the larger buildings into the design (Mitigation Measure GEO-1).
The best suited ground improvement to mitigate settlement of the large structures would be stone columns or (Geopier brand)
rammed aggregate piers (RAP) approximately 15 ft deep. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 also includes ground improvement
recommendations (a combination of newly compacted fill and shallower ground improvement, such as aggregate and geogrid
reinforcement) in the areas of the smaller retail buildings to mitigate potential impacts related to liquefaction-induced
settlement. The deeper undocumented fill in the southeast corner of the project site (future retail shops area) would also be
completely removed and replaced with engineered fill (Mitigation Measure GEO-1). With the incorporation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1, the potential adverse effects of seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction would be less than
significant.
Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Threshold 4.6.1(iv): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
No Impact. The project site and vicinity are relatively flat, and the site is not located within a zone of earthquake induced
landslide as mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS) (CGS, 1998). Historically, there have been no recorded landslides
within the City’s boundaries (City of Cypress, 2001, page 4.6-7). No landslides are anticipated as the result of the proposed
project, and there would be no impact.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-16
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.6.2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Most of the site is covered by older degraded asphalt, with a small unpaved dirt area adjacent to
the terminus of Winners Circle (cul-du-sac). The south and southwestern boundaries of the site along Katella Avenue consist of
some landscaping, including mature eucalyptus trees, shrubs, and turf. The total surface area of these existing unpaved areas is
approximately 1 acre. 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. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1).
The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during project construction to
minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and
with implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to on-site erosion and the loss of topsoil would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, which is provided
below in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.6.3: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
Landslides and Unstable Slopes.
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips
occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic
shaking. Because the project site is located in a relatively flat area, landslides or other forms of natural slope instability do not
represent a significant hazard to the project. In addition, as stated above, the site is not within a State-designated hazard zone
for Earthquake-Induced Landslide. Therefore, potential impacts related to landslides would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Lateral Spreading.
Less Than Significant Impact. Lateral spreading often occurs on very gentle slopes or flat terrain. The dominant mode of
movement is lateral extension accompanied by shear or tensile fracture. This failure is caused by liquefaction and is usually
triggered by rapid ground motion, such as that experienced during an earthquake, but can also be artificially induced. When
coherent material, either bedrock or soil, rests on materials that liquefy, the upper units may undergo fracturing and extension
and may then subside, translate, rotate, disintegrate, or liquefy and flow. As discussed above, the Geotechnical Assessment
indicates that lateral spreading is not a potential concern with respect to the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts
related to lateral spreading would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Subsidence.
No Impact. Subsidence refers to broad-scale changes in the elevation of land. Common causes of land subsidence are pumping
water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines;
drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting of dry soils (hydrocompaction). Subsidence is also caused by heavy loads generated
by large earthmoving equipment. The project site is not located within an area of known subsidence that may be associated
with groundwater, peat loss, or oil extraction. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to potential geotechnical
hazards related to subsidence, and no mitigation is required.
Liquefaction and Compressible/Collapsible Soils.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in detail under Threshold 4.6.1(iii) above, implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1
would be required to address the proposed project’s impacts with respect to liquefaction and compressible soils. Provided that
design and remedial grading, ground improvement (as necessary), and design of building foundation systems are performed in
accordance with the applicable requirements in the CBC (adopted by the City as its Building Code with certain amendments),
and current standards of practice in the area, excessive settlement resulting from liquefaction and compression of existing
undocumented fill and native alluvial soils on the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, which are
provided above.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-17
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Wet Soils.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Due the presence of shallow groundwater, excavations deeper than 3–4 ft
are likely to encounter groundwater and/or soft, wet soil. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires that
the ground stabilization recommendations in the Geotechnical Assessment be implemented during grading and construction,
would address soft ground conditions due to shallow groundwater. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the
proposed project’s impacts related to wet soils would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6.4: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site stratigraphy consists soil types have low shrink-swell potential and, therefore,
are not susceptible to expansion. In the event that, following the completion of grading, it is determined that near-surface soils
within building pad areas exhibit an elevated expansion potential, potential impact of those expansive soils would be
addressed through design of structural foundations and floor slabs in compliance with applicable requirements in the California
Building Code, as adopted by the City of Cypress in its Municipal Code (Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1). Since the
potential for expansive soils is low and any potential expansion would be addressed through compliance with applicable code
requirements, the proposed project would not create substantial potential risks to life or property and there would be less than
significant impacts.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1, which is provided
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.6.5: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because
sanitary sewer and wastewater facilities are available in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no
impact with respect to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.6.6: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Ground disturbance associated with the various components of the
proposed project is expected to extend to depths of 10 ft or less below the existing ground surface, with the exception of the
rammed aggregate piers, which will be used for supports for the larger buildings (i.e., theater, five-story hotel, and apartment
complex). The rammed aggregate piers are expected to extend to a depth of 15 ft below the existing surface. The Young
Alluvial Fan Deposits, Unit 2 that lie below surficial Artificial Fill within the project site have low paleontological sensitivity from
the surface to a depth of 10 ft and high sensitivity below a depth of 10 ft. As such, the majority of project activities will remain
in deposits with low paleontological sensitivity. Although the rammed aggregate piers are expected to extend up to 5 ft into
deposits with high paleontological sensitivity, drilling for aggregate piers has a limited impact area and presents challenges to
collecting fossils and the contextual information necessary for scientific importance. Considering the paleontological sensitivity
of the deposits in the project site and the excavation parameters, there is a potential for the proposed project to impact
scientifically important paleontological resources. To mitigate adverse impacts to unknown, buried paleontological resources
that may exist on-site, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires that if paleontological resources are discovered during ground-
disturbing activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery for scientific importance. The qualified
paleontologist shall then make recommendations regarding treatment and disposition of the discovery, the need for
paleontological monitoring, and preparation of the appropriate report. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would
ensure that impacts to paleontological resources are reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2:
Procedures for Unexpected Paleontological Resources Discoveries. If paleontological
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed
project, construction personnel shall immediately halt work within 50 ft of the discovery, and
the Applicant/Developer or construction supervisor shall contact a qualified paleontologist to
assess the discovery for scientific importance. A qualified paleontologist is defined as a person
with an M.S. or Ph.D. in geology or paleontology and who meets the standards set forth by the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontologist shall make recommendations regarding
the collection, treatment, and disposition of the discovery. Scientifically important resources
shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level
possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a museum repository. If
paleontological resources are discovered, regardless of their scientific importance,
paleontological monitoring shall be required for subsequent ground-disturbing activities at a
frequency, depth, and/or interval determined by the paleontologist. Paleontological
monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor as set forth in the Society
of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. At the conclusion of monitoring, a final monitoring
report shall be prepared by the paleontologist to document the results of monitoring and
project compliance with all regulations and project requirements. If scientifically important
paleontological resources are recovered, this report shall also document those paleontological
resources with a catalog, descriptions, and photographs as determined appropriate by the
paleontologist. The final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City of Cypress Director of
Community Development Department or designee for review and approval. A copy of this final
report shall also accompany the fossil material to the museum repository.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-18
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Typically, geology and soils impacts are specific to a particular project site
and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a proposed project and development within a
larger cumulative area. Moreover, while seismic conditions are regional in nature, seismic impacts on a given project site are
site-specific. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect the level of intensity at which a seismic event on an adjacent site
is experienced.
It is not anticipated that the development of nearby projects would have any geotechnical impact on the project site or the
buildings that would be constructed as part of the proposed project, nor would the development of the proposed project have
impacts on nearby projects. Therefore, the proposed project and the applicable related projects would not have the potential
to cause cumulatively significant adverse impacts related to geology and soils.
Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown paleontological resources and unique geologic features, when combined
with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Cypress, could contribute to a cumulatively
significant impact due to the overall loss of paleontological remains unique to the region. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-2 would ensure that the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features.
Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which is provided above. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 4.7.1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Although compliance with CCR Title 24 and the CALGreen Code would help to reduce the
proposed project’s GHG emissions, the overall emissions attributable to construction and operation of the proposed project of
7,208 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr) are expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s (SCAQMD) thresholds of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. The proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions of 7.9 MT
CO2e per service population per year (CO2e/SP/yr) would also exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 4.3 MT CO2e/SP/yr for 2022.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project
includes mitigation measures that require the project’s retail commercial buildings, multi-family residential uses, hotel, and
movie theater to be designed and built to be 10 percent more energy-efficient than the 2019 Title 24 requirements or the
current Title 24 requirements, whichever are more stringent, and the implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program for on-site residents and workers to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Mitigation for greenhouse gas
emissions can include energy conservation, area source emissions reductions, water conservation, implementation of a TDM
program, and recycling requirements. However, because the type and extent of measures that would be feasible and that
could be implemented would be dependent on the individual tenants that occupy the project, greenhouse gas emission
reductions of the individual developments within the project area, the total amount of reductions toward the greenhouse gas
reduction analysis cannot be quantified at this time. Furthermore, it may not be feasible for all projects to achieve the
reduction targets. For example, the ability of a business to affect employee and patron vehicle miles traveled would depend in
part on the number of employees and patrons, where they live, and the availability of regional programs such as transit buses.
Therefore, impacts related to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1:
Energy Conservation. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall
provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director of Community
Development Department, or designee, that the project’s retail commercial buildings, multi-
family residential uses, hotel, and movie theater shall be designed and built to be 10 percent
more energy-efficient than 2019 Title 24 requirements or the current Title 24 requirement,
whichever is more stringent.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2:
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The Applicant/Developer shall develop
a TDM Program for on-site residents and workers with the goal of reducing project-related
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The TDM strategies shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
i. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the project’s buildings, the Applicant/
Developer shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee, that a bicycle rack or a secured bicycle
storage area shall be installed within 50 feet of each proposed building.
ii. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the apartment building, the
Apartment Building Manager shall provide evidence to the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee, that bike route maps, local transit
route maps and schedules, and other transportation information, such as the existing
carpooling program sponsored by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), are
displayed in a prominent area accessible to residents and employees.
iii. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project’s movie commercial
buildings, the Applicant/Developer shall provide evidence to the Director of the City of
Cypress Community Development Department, or designee, that the lease agreements
executed with any tenants contain provision requiring each business to provide cash
incentives for employees to use public transit and display bike route maps, local transit
route maps and schedules, and other transportation information, such as OCTA’s existing
carpooling program in a prominent area accessible to employees.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-19
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
iv. The Applicant/Developer shall organize an annual event on the project site promoting the
use of transit, carpooling programs, and non-motorized methods of transportation by
project residents, employees, and visitors. The City of Cypress Director of Community
Development Department, or designee, shall be responsible for confirming that the event
is held.
Threshold 4.7.2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions include CARB’s
Scoping Plan and SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS. Although measures in the Scoping Plan apply to State agencies and not the
proposed project, the project’s GHG emissions would be reduced by compliance with statewide measures that have been
adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB Scoping
Plan. Based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not
interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts are
considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Because the proposed project is not consistent with the GHG emissions reduction target
from CARB, and because its impacts alone would cause or significantly contribute to global climate change, project-related
greenhouse gas emissions would be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed project would have a
cumulatively considerable increase in emissions, and the proposed project’s cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Refer to the mitigation measures under Threshold 4.7.1. Significant and Unavoidable.
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 4.8.1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of
construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement
products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). Construction activities would be required to comply with applicable State
and federal regulations for proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of excess hazardous materials and hazardous
construction waste. In addition, the proposed project would comply with Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2,
which require compliance with the waste discharge permit requirements to avoid potential impacts to water quality due to
spills or runoff from hazardous materials used during construction. Therefore, with adherence to the regulatory standards
included in Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
Operations. Retail and restaurant uses included in the proposed project may include the use and disposal of typical cleaning
products along with limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape maintenance. Trucks accessing the businesses on site
would contain oil and gasoline, to power their engines, which could have the potential to result in minor releases of such
substances through drips or leaks from truck loading areas. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, conditions of approval
would be applied to the proposed project by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) to reduce hazardous material impacts
and insure that any hazardous waste that is generated on-site would be transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a
licensed hauler in accordance with State and federal law. Therefore, implementation would result in less than significant
impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, which
are provided below in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Less Than Significant Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-20
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.8.2: Would the project create 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Because no significant hazards would be created by uses associated with the proposed project,
the potential for the proposed project to create 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 would be less
than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.8.3: 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. Grace Christian School is located approximately 0.75 mile northwest of the project site, and the
Cottonwood Christian Center preschool facility is located approximately 0.5 mile west of the project site. The proposed
project’s uses would not pose a significant threat of hazardous emissions or significant handling of hazardous materials or
substances. Therefore, impacts on schools would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.8.4: 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 Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites that could create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment and is not a recorded Superfund site. The Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) identified several listings for off-site adjacent or nearby properties on databases potentially indicative of a
contamination concern. However, the Phase I ESA concluded that these sites do not pose a potential hazard to the project site.
In addition, soil sampling undertaken as part of the Phase II Limited Soil Investigation (LSI) did not identify elevated
concentrations of metals, TPH, or VOCs in the soil at the project site. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials sites
would remain less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.8.5: 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 for people residing or working
in the project area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los
Alamitos. According to the Airport Land Use Commission’s 2016 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Joint Forces
Training Base Los Alamitos, the project site is located in the FAA Part 77 Notification Area and the AELUP height restriction zone
for JFTB Los Alamitos. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the
project area because the project would comply with all appropriate FAA standards and requirements, including Regulatory
Compliance Measure HAZ-1, 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 proposed structures and determining whether they pose a potential aviation hazard. With adherence to the
regulatory standards provided in Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1, implementation of the proposed project would result
in less than significant impacts related to safety hazards for people working in the project area.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measures would be required to reduce
hazards and hazardous materials impacts.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1:
Federal Aviation Regulation Title 14 Part 77. The 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.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.8.6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not located along an emergency evacuation route. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not interfere with the adopted emergency response plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan. No impact
would occur.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.8.7: 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. The project site is located within a fully urbanized area. There are no wildlands adjacent or in the vicinity of the
project site, and the project site is not designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone on the Statewide CAL FIRE Map. Therefore,
there will be no risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-21
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts.
No Impact. For the proposed project, impacts due to hazardous materials would less than significant. Although some of the
cumulative projects listed also have potential impacts associated with hazardous materials, the environmental concerns
associated with hazardous materials are site specific. Each project is required to address any issues related to hazardous
material or wastes. Federal, state, and local regulations require mitigation to protect against site contamination by hazardous
materials. Therefore, there would be no cumulative hazardous materials impacts.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold 4.9.1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement
construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater
runoff, and would ensure that water quality impacts are less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measures would be required to reduce
hydrology and water quality impacts.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1:
Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Applicant
shall obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities (Construction General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as
amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, or any other
subsequent permit. This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs),
including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention 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
(WDID) is obtained for the project from the SMARTS and provided to the Director of the City of
Cypress Community Development Department, 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 stormwater and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and
Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff. Construction Site
BMPs shall also conform to the requirements specified in the latest edition of the Orange
County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project
Owners, and Developers to control and minimize the impacts of construction and construction-
related activities, materials, and pollutants on the watershed. Upon completion of
construction activities and stabilization of the Project site, a Notice of Termination shall be
submitted via SMARTS.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3:
Best Management Practices. The Applicant/Developer shall implement the Best Management
Practices identified in Section IV of the Water Quality Management Plan and the drainage
improvements identified in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study. In addition, the Property
Management Association shall be the responsible party for inspection and maintenance of the
Best Management Practices as identified in Section V of the Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan.
Less Than Significant Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-22
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.9.2: 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. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not involve direct groundwater
extraction, and increased water use would not substantially affect groundwater supplies. Additionally, groundwater
dewatering would be localized and temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.3: 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 on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit
and would implement construction BMPs to reduce impacts related to on-site, off-site, or downstream erosion or siltation. In
addition, the proposed project would not increase downstream erosion or siltation impacts during operation because
downstream receiving waters are not susceptible to hydromodification.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, which is provided
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.4: 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES requirements and would implement
construction BMPs, proposed storm drain systems, and a detention system. Two scenarios are proposed to convey off-site
runoff that exceeds the capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system to the curb and gutter in Katella Avenue. Under
Scenario 1, flow that exceeds the capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system would be conveyed west toward Siboney
Street. Siboney Street would be reconstructed to crown the road to provide sufficient slope to allow stormwater to drain to
Katella Avenue without ponding. Additionally, a portion of the parking lot to the north of the project site would be repaved.
Under Scenario 2, flow exceeding the capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system would be conveyed across the project
site via an underground storm drain to the Katella Avenue storm drain system near the existing on-site driveway. With
implementation of the proposed stormdrain systems and detention system, 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.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, which is provided
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.5: 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES requirements to prevent substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff being discharged to the storm drain system, and would target pollutants of concern in
runoff from the Project site through implementation of construction and operational BMPs. The proposed project includes
proposed stormdrain systems and detention system to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not exacerbate the existing
stormdrain capacity deficit.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measures would be required to reduce
hydrology and water quality impacts.
Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3, which are provided above.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2:
Groundwater Dewatering Permit. If groundwater dewatering is required during excavation
activities, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat
to Water Quality (Order No. R8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001) (De Minimus 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.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.6: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement
construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater
runoff to ensure that the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3, which
are provided above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-23
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.9.7: 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?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain; therefore, the project would not place housing or
structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0116J (December 3, 2009), the project site is located within Zone X, which comprises
areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year flood).
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.9.8: Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain; therefore, the project would not place housing or
structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0116J (December 3, 2009), the project site is located within Zone X, which comprises
areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year flood).
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.9.9: 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 project site is located within the inundation zone of Prado Dam and the Carbon Canyon Dam.
Although the project would construct new structures in an inundation zone, the proposed project would not increase the
chance of inundation from failure of Carbon Canyon Dam or Prado Dam. Additionally, the City’s emergency evacuation plans
would be implemented if these dams were susceptible to rupture during heavy rains or other events.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.10: Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and not at risk of mudflow, and is not located within an inundation zone of a seiche
or tsunami.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.9.11: 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).
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement
construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater
runoff, and would ensure that increased pollutant discharge during project construction and operation would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3, which
are provided above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.12: Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following
construction?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement
construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater
runoff, and would ensure that alteration of receiving water quality during project construction and operation would be less
than significant.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3, which
are provided above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.13: Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement
construction BMPs to reduce impacts related to on-site, off-site, or downstream erosion or siltation. In addition, the proposed
project would not increase downstream erosion or siltation impacts during operation because downstream receiving waters
are not susceptible to hydromodification.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, which is provided
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.14: Would the project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff?
No Impact. The proposed project would not change the impervious surface area on site and therefore would not increase
stormwater runoff from the project site. The proposed project would also include a detention system to reduce peak
discharges from the Project site.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-24
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.9.15: 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. The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit
and would implement construction BMPs, proposed storm drain systems, and a detention system to reduce impacts related to
a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, flow, and volume that would result in flooding.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, which is provided
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.16: 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. The proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit
and would implement construction and operational BMPs to target and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the
project site, including those contributing to downstream water quality impairments.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, and HYD-3,
which are provided above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.17: Would the project be tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already
existing sensitive conditions?
No Impact. The nearest CWA Section 303(d) impaired waterbody is San Gabriel River, which is located approximately 6 miles
downstream of the project site. The project would not discharge directly into this CWA Section 303(d) impaired water.
No mitigation is required No Impact.
Threshold 4.9.18: Would the project have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either
marine, fresh, or wetland waters?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with existing NPDES regulations and would implement
construction and operational BMPs. Construction and operational BMPs would reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater
runoff, and would ensure that environmental impacts on surface water quality to marine, fresh, or wetland waters during
project construction and operation would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3, which
are provided above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.19: Would the project have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. Because minimal infiltration would occur and no groundwater injection would occur, project
activities would not substantially degrade groundwater quality.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.20: 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. Because minimal infiltration would occur and no groundwater injection would occur, project
activities would not result in the exceedance of water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.9.21: Would the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
No Impact. There are no aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat present on the project site. Los Alamitos Channel, the
downstream receiving water, is concrete-lined and does not provide aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.9.22: Would the project 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include implementation of post-construction BMPs (underground detention
basins) to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The post-construction BMPs would be underground and
would be designed and routinely inspected and maintained to reduce impacts related to vectors and odors.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project and other related projects would comply with the applicable NPDES
requirements and would implement construction and operational BMPs and drainage facilities to reduce impacts related to
hydrology and water quality.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-25
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.10: Land Use and Planning
Threshold 4.10.1: Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The area surrounding the project site is developed with a variety of racetrack, office, business park, commercial and
retail services, and residential land uses as well as several religious facilities. The proposed project would replace
approximately 13 acres of surface parking with a mix of residential, hotel, entertainment, and retail uses. As a result, the
project would not result in physical divisions in any established community. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Threshold 4.10.2: 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. The proposed project would be consistent with the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, the City’s General Plan,
and the amended Specific Plan. 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.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The cumulative impact area for land use for the proposed project is the City of Cypress. Several
development projects are approved and/or pending within the City. The City of Cypress is an urbanized area with a wide variety
of established land uses. The land around the project site has been developed with a variety of residential, business park,
racetrack, and commercial, land uses. The proposed project would amend the Specific Plan to modify the land use designation
of the project site from Professional Office to Mixed Use Commercial/Residential (Planning Area 5B) to accommodate the
project’s proposed uses. The proposed project would also amend the Specific Plan to update the land use tables to incorporate
the new Planning Area 5B and include site development standards and building floor area ratio (FAR) and site coverage
standards specific to Planning Area 5B. In addition to modifying the parking requirements that would apply to Planning Area
5B, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would amend several of the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. Should the
City Council approve the proposed project, the proposed project would be consistent with the Specific Plan and cumulative
land use impacts would be considered less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.11: Noise
Threshold 4.11.1: 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?
Construction Noise.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During project construction, exterior noise levels could affect sensitive
receptors in the vicinity. The closest residences are located approximately 890 ft west and 350 ft south of the project site. In
addition, the closest church is located approximately 465 ft west of the project site. Construction activities would expose
nearby sensitive receptors to peak noise levels from 64.1 dBA to 66.5 dBA Lmax during the site preparation and grading phase
(Phase 1), 65.8 dBA to 68.3 dBA Lmax during the construction of buildings phase (Phase 2), and 64.9 dBA to 67.4 dBA Lmax during
the paving phase (Phase 3). Noise levels generated from where the installation of Geopiers would take place would range from
64.9 to 73.1 dBA Lmax at the closest sensitive receptors. These noise levels would not exceed the anytime maximum daytime
exterior noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax in the City of Cypress and noise levels would not exceed the anytime maximum daytime
exterior noise standard of 75 dBA Lmax in the City of Los Alamitos. The proposed project would comply with the permitted
construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays specified in the Specific Plan. No construction shall
be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays (Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1). The
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would further minimize construction-related noise to a less than significant
impact.
Operational Noise.
Less Than Significant Impact. Operational noise sources associated with the proposed project include mobile and stationary
(i.e., truck delivery and unloading activities, HVAC equipment, trash pick-up/compactor operations, and parking lot activities)
sources. The proposed project would not result in any exceedances in mobile-source or stationary source noise standards.
Operational impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the construction contractor shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director of Community Development, or designee, the
following:
Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall
be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State required
noise attenuation devices.
Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, installing
temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the
distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and
use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall
be used where feasible.
During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted
noise is directed away from noise-sensitive receptors.
All construction entrances shall clearly post construction hours, allowable workdays, and
the phone number of the job superintendent. This will allow surrounding owners and
residents to contact the job superintendent with concerns. If the Applicant/Developer
receives a noise-related complaint, appropriate corrective actions shall be implemented
and a report taken indicating the action with a copy of the report provided to the reporting
party upon request.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate,
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-26
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director of Community Development, or designee,
that on-site stationary noise sources, such as rooftop air conditioners, shall not exceed City
noise standards as stated within the City’s Municipal Code Sections 13-68 and 13-69.
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1:
The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities to between the hours
7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted
outside of these hours or on Sundays or a federal holiday.
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-2:
Mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units in residential, commercial, and
industrial 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.
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-3:
Trash collection and compacting shall be limited to between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday in commercial zoning districts and between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday in commercial zoning districts that are within
200 feet of residential zoning districts, consistent with Section 3.10.070(C) of the City of
Cypress Municipal Code.
Threshold 4.11.2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed
project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction-related ground vibration is
normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty
construction equipment. Based on the vibration levels presented in Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual (2013), ground vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment at the closest residential, church, office, and
commercial building would not be anticipated to exceed the community annoyance thresholds. In addition, vibration levels
would not result in building damage because vibration levels would not exceed the FTA’s damage threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 PPV
[inch/sec]) and nearby buildings were observed to be constructed of non-engineered timber and masonry. The project
construction contractor would be required implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to further minimize construction-related
vibration. Therefore, ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise levels generated by project construction activities would
be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.
Refer to Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which is provided above. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Threshold 4.11.3: 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 project site is the JFTB Los Alamitos, located approximately 0.5 mile
south of the project site. The project site is within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, but outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise
contour for JFTB Los Alamitos. Therefore, aircraft noise generated from the closest airport would not expose people residing or
working on the project site to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport. This noise impact would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Noise Impacts.
Construction Noise.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities associated with the proposed project and other
construction projects in the area may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the area. However, construction noise impacts
primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to each construction site. Construction noise for the proposed project was
Refer to Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which is provided above. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-27
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires compliance with
the construction hour restrictions specified in the Specific Plan. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site could
result in elevated construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the area surrounding the project site. However, each
project would be required to comply with the applicable City’s Municipal Code limitations on construction. Therefore,
cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
Operational Stationary Source Noise.
Less Than Significant Impact. Long-term stationary noise sources associated with the development at the proposed project,
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. Additionally, each
of the related projects would be required to comply with the City’s noise level standards and include mitigation measures if
standards are exceeded. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant.
Operational Traffic Source Noise Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related traffic would result in small (1.7 dBA or less) noise level increases along roadway
segments in the vicinity of the project site under the project opening year (2021) condition. Therefore, none of the roadway
segments in the vicinity of the project site 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.
4.12: Population and Housing
Threshold 4.12.1: 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 would not 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). The proposed 251 apartment units would generate approximately 758 new residents. The addition of 758
residents represents a population increase of approximately 1.5 percent over existing conditions as of January 2019. SCAG
recently updated its regional forecast in conjunction with its efforts to prepare and adopt the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. Growth
forecasts included in the Draft 2020–2045 RTP/SCS indicate that the City’s population is projected to grow by 1,700 persons
from 2016 to 2045 and the projected population in the City is 51,300 persons in 2045. If SCAG’s updated growth forecast was
used in this analysis instead of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, the population increase of 758 residents as a result of
the proposed project would be within these updated population projections. For all these reasons, the proposed project would
not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, the proposed project’s direct impact on population
growth would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.12.2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. In the existing condition, the project site is a paved parking lot and, therefore, does not contain any population or
housing. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or populations on the project site. Therefore, there
would be no impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing. No mitigation is
required.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with population, housing,
and employment growth would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-28
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
4.13: Public Services
Threshold 4.13.1(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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would incrementally increase demand for fire
protection an emergency service calls. OCFA indicated that all OCFA uses a fair share approach to mitigate fire service response
impacts and facility/equipment needs. To address potential impacts to fire services, the proposed project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure PS-1, which requires the Applicant/Developer to enter into a secure fire protection agreement.
Mitigation Measure PS-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure PS-1:
Secured Fire Protection Agreement: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
Applicant/Developer shall enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the Orange
County Fire Authority (OCFA). This Agreement shall specify the Applicant/Developer’s pro-rata
fair share funding of capital improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection
facilities and equipment, and/or personnel. Said agreement shall be reached as early as
possible in the planning process, preferably for each phase or land use sector of the project,
rather than on a parcel by parcel basis. The obligation must be satisfied prior to the issuance of
the first building permit.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Threshold 4.13.1(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.
As stated in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth.
Although the proposed project may incrementally contribute to the need for one additional police officer to meet future
demand, the addition of one new police officer would not necessitate the expansion of the City’s existing police facilities
because the new police officer would be accommodated in existing facilities. Additionally, the proposed hotel, apartment
building, movie theater, and retail buildings are anticipated to hire private security, enhancing on-site surveillance and
potentially reducing the demand for police services to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any
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.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.13.1(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 proposed project would not 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. 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-1, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would
be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measure would be required to reduce
public service impacts.
Regulatory Compliance Measure-PS-1:
Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/Developer
shall provide proof to the Director of the City of Cypress Community Development
Department, or designee, that payment of school fees to the Anaheim Union High School
District has been made in compliance with Section 65995 of the California Government Code.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.13.1(iv): 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 parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not 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. The incremental increase in demand for park facilities created by the
project’s proposed 251 residential units would result in limited use of existing recreation facilities in the project vicinity.
However, this increased demand would be offset by the payment of park fees required by Regulatory Compliance Measure
REC-1. Additionally, on-site amenities included in the proposed project include: fitness area, open air courtyard, and club room,
which would be available to residents and their guests. The inclusion of these recreational facilities would offset some of the
demand for parks and recreational facilities associated with the new residents.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1, which is provided in
Section 4.14, Recreation, below.
Less Than Significant Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-29
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.13.1(v): 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 other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not 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.
Demand for library services is typically determined based on the size of the resident population. As stated in Section 4.12,
Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in 758 new residents, which is not substantial. As of 2015, the
Cypress Branch Library consisted of a 15,000 sf facility with approximately 88,000 books, CDs, and videos. 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 49,833. Accordingly,
the Cypress Branch Library has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population growth associated with the
proposed project.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Public Services Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a vacant parking lot located in an urban area with existing services provided by
public service providers in the vicinity. The cumulative area for public services is listed below for each individual public service
provider. As described above, the proposed project’s potential impacts to fire services, police protection, school services, and
public libraries are limited. These impacts by their very nature are cumulative impacts. Thus, because the project would result
in less than significant impacts related to the provision of fire services, police protection, school services, and public libraries,
the project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.14: Recreation
Threshold 4.14.1: 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 result in an increase in residents in the City, increasing the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks. However, the City will require the Applicant/Developer to pay fees and/or dedicate
parkland as identified in Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a
substantial increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of any such facility would occur or be accelerated, and the proposed project’s impact would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measure would be required to reduce
impacts on parks and recreational facilities.
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1:
Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to issuance of any building
permits, the Applicant/Developer shall provide proof of compliance with the applicable
provisions of Chapter 25 (Subdivisions), Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City of
Cypress Municipal Code to the Director of the City of Cypress Community Development
Department, or designee.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.14.2: Does 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 proposed project includes the construction of recreational facilities available to residents and
their guests. The potential adverse effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project’s
recreational facilities has been considered throughout the analysis in this Environmental Impact Report and mitigated as
appropriate. Additionally, the Applicant/Developer is required by the City to pay in-lieu park fees as required by Regulatory
Compliance Measure REC-1. Therefore, impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities included as
part of the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1 above. Less Than Significant Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-30
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Cumulative Recreation Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, in conjunction with the related projects in the City, has the potential to
increase demand on the City’s recreational resources. However, the related projects would also be subject to Municipal Code
requirements for the provision of parkland and/or payment of in-lieu fees. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed
project and the applicable related projects would be less than significant with respect to recreational facilities.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1 above. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.15: Transportation
Threshold 4.15.1: 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 would be required to comply with General Plan policies addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The proposed project would also be required to
comply with the City’s transportation-related goals, policies, and metrics for determining traffic impacts, as well as the Orange
County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (2019).
A trip generation analysis was conducted to determine the number of trips that would occur following implementation of the
project. The project has the potential to generate approximately 4,978 average daily trips (ADT), including 164 trips (68
inbound and 96 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 323 trips (176 inbound and 147 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour.
Project impacts are based on LOS significance criteria for the City of Cypress (for Cypress intersections) and the City of Los
Alamitos (for Los Alamitos intersections). Vehicle access to the project site will be provided via Siboney Street, Winners Circle,
and a right-turn-in/out-only driveway directly on Katella Avenue. Both intersections of Siboney Street/Katella Avenue and
Winners Circle/Katella Avenue are analyzed as study intersections in the TIA, and would operate at LOS B or better during both
peak hours in the Existing Plus Project and Opening Year Plus Project Conditions.
As such, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable provisions in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element
regarding the maintenance of 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. Additionally, the
proposed project would be consistent with all relevant goals included in the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy regarding transit and active transportation.
Conformance with the Orange County CMP. As previously noted, a TIA is required for CMP purposes for any proposed
development generating 2,400 or more daily trips, with the exception of developments that will directly access a CMP Highway
System roadway segment, for which the threshold for requiring a TIA is reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day. Because the
proposed project is estimated to generate 4,978 daily trips, a TIA was prepared for the proposed project in compliance with
CMP standards.
The project’s ADT on Katella Avenue exceeds the 3 percent threshold on Katella Avenue immediately east and west of the
project site. However, the project’s ADT is less than the 3 percent threshold on Katella Avenue and Valley View Street at the
traffic study area boundaries based on the distribution of project trips throughout the traffic study area. Therefore, the traffic
study area for the project is sufficiently sized to cover all roadway segments adding the 3 percent threshold of the project’s
ADT to the CMP roadway segment’s LOS E capacity. As such, the traffic analysis satisfies the CMP requirements.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.15.2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), project-related transportation impacts
are generally best measured by evaluating the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT refers to the amount and distance
of automobile travel attributable to a project. At this time, the City has not adopted a methodology to analyze VMT impacts
within its jurisdiction. In addition, the City does not currently have thresholds or standards in place for assessing potential VMT
impacts. Therefore, traffic impacts in this Draft EIR are based on the City’s LOS thresholds and the analysis provided under
Threshold 4.15.1, above.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-31
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.15.3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project does not propose any
major traffic infrastructure improvements. In addition, as described in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, the project would
not include any land uses that would be incompatible with surrounding uses. The proposed project would generate a similar
vehicle mix to other surrounding land uses, consisting primarily of single-occupancy vehicles and distribution trucks.
Additionally, all new driveways at the project site would be subject to the provisions of the City of Cypress design standards to
alleviate design feature and safety hazards, which would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore,
the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.15.4: Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site would be accessed via Siboney Street (and the existing traffic signal at Siboney
Street/Katella Avenue), Winners Circle (and the existing traffic signal at Winners Circle/Katella Avenue), and a
right-turn-in/out-only driveway directly on Katella Avenue. As discussed above under Threshold 4.15.3, the project driveways
will be designed to conform to the City’s standards. Therefore, the project’s impacts associated with emergency access would
be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Transportation Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Applicant/Developer, the project will open in 2021. To develop a Year 2021
condition, an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per year (i.e., 1.5 percent total growth for 3 years) was applied to the existing
traffic counts. This condition also included the proposed project trips. Application of a 0.5 percent per year growth rate to the
existing traffic volumes is considered conservative and would account for any additional future development in the project
vicinity.
Cumulative peak hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections. The addition of the proposed project, all study area
intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours. Therefore, a significant project impact is not
expected to occur at any study area intersection in the Opening Year (2021) conditions.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.16.1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No Impact.
A cultural resources record search was completed on January 9, 2020, at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC)
of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Fullerton. Additionally, Native
American consultations were conducted in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52. As part of these consultations, review of the SLF
by the NAHC yielded negative results. No information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the project site was
provided by the Tribe. Therefore, no tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local
register exist within the project area, and there are no known tribal cultural resources on the project site. The proposed project
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined as a site, feature, place, or
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), and no mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. No Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-32
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.16.2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52. During that process, the Gabrieleno Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe) stated that the project site is within their tribal territory and requested consultation with
the Lead Agency. During a phone consultation meeting with the City, Chairperson Andrew Salas provided the City with the
history of his Tribe and the context in which its members lived in the area, and he indicated specific areas that were prehistoric
travel routes for the Tribe. Due to concerns regarding the lack of historical development on the project site and the level of fill,
the Tribe sent the City proposed mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources. The City received the Tribe’s proposed
mitigation measures. The Tribe’s recommendations have been incorporated into mitigation measures for the proposed project.
Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impact of the
proposed project on human remains to less than significant and addresses tribal concerns regarding the treatment of human
remains. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires the retention of a Gabrieleno Native American Tribal representative to monitor
specified ground-disturbing construction and cultural awareness training requirements. With the implementation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure TCR-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1, which is provided above in Section 4.4,
Cultural Resources.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1:
Tribal Cultural Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant/Developer
shall retain a Gabrieleno Native American Tribal representative to monitor ground-disturbing
construction activities associated with pad grading of Retail Building C (the northernmost retail
building proposed directly to the west of Winners Circle) and all geopier installation
throughout the site. The retained Gabrieleno Native American Tribal representative shall be
present at the cultural resources awareness training to construction personnel, and shall
provide additional tribal cultural resources awareness information at the same meeting.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with pavement removal and initial site-wide grading (at
a maximum anticipated depth of 1 to 2 feet deep) shall not require tribal monitoring.
However, if tribal cultural resources are encountered during the unmonitored excavation
activities previously specified, contractors shall stop work in the immediate area of the find
and contact the retained Gabrieleno Native American Tribal representative to assess the find.
Tribal monitoring shall also be required during excavation trenching for dry utilities, water,
sewer, storm drain, and underground detention basin installation. Tribal monitoring shall not
be conducted after initial excavation of native (previously undisturbed) soil has occurred (i.e.,
no tribal monitoring shall be required for landscaping activities occurring after completion of
project grading and trenching, as this soil will have been previously monitored). On-site Tribal
monitoring shall be considered complete after project grading and trenching are completed
and no disturbance to native (previously undisturbed) soils are anticipated.
If tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, ground-disturbing
activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until the find is assessed by the
tribal monitor. The Applicant/Developer shall determine whether to contact the on-call
archaeologist for his/her assistance in the assessment of the find. Ground-disturbing
construction activities shall be allowed to continue in other portions of the project while the
find is being assessed. If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, the Gabrieleno
Native American Tribe whose representative is responsible for tribal monitoring shall
coordinate with the Applicant/Developer to determine appropriate treatment of the resource.
4.17: Utilities and Service System
Threshold 4.17.1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, or electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. The proposed project would implement
Regulatory Compliance Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-3. With adherence to these Regulatory Compliance Measures, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to these facilities. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3, which
are provided above in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Regulatory Compliance
Measure E-1, which is provided above in Section 4.5, Energy. In addition, although project-
related impacts would be less than significant, incorporation of the following Regulatory
Compliance Measures would be required to reduce utility impacts.
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1:
Sewer Improvement Standards. All required sewer improvements shall be designed and
constructed to City and OCSD standards and shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
development. These improvements may be constructed in a phased sequence depending upon
the development process. Facilities shall be dedicated to the City and/or OCSD at the
completion of construction.
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2:
Drainage Improvement Standards. Drainage system improvements shall be designed and
constructed to City and OCFCD standards, if applicable, and will be approved by those agencies
prior to development. Improvements may be constructed in a phased sequence depending
Less Than Significant Impact.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx (02/06/20) 1-33
Table 1.A: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measure, and Level of Significance
Potential Environmental Impact Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Regulatory Compliance Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation
upon the development process. Facilities shall be dedicated to the City at completion of
construction to the extent required by the City. (Source: Mitigation Measure No. 64, page 151,
Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan EIR.)
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3:
Water Conservation. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all State laws for water
conservation measures and use of reclaimed water. Voluntary water conservation strategies
shall be encouraged. The Building Division shall determine compliance prior to issuance of
building permits. (Source: Mitigation Measure No 75, pages 157 and 158, Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific Plan EIR).
Threshold 4.17.2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years with the implementation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure UTIL-4. Therefore, with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3, impacts to water
supplies would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3, which is provided
above.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.17.3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in a significant contribution to the capacity of wastewater
treatment facilities. Additionally, fees required by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) would sufficiently offset
potential impacts generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to the wastewater treatment capacity and no mitigation measures are required
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.17.4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to solid waste and landfill facilities, and no mitigation is
required.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
Threshold 4.17.5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any potential conflicts with applicable regulations related to solid waste with
adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4. No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required. Although project-related impacts would be less than significant,
incorporation of the following Regulatory Compliance Measure would be required to reduce
utility impacts.
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4:
Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The Construction Contractor shall comply with the
provisions of City Ordinance No. 1166 and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code,
which would reduce construction and demolition waste. Ordinance No. 1166 is codified in
Article VIII, Materials Questionnaire for Certain Construction and Demolition Project within the
City of Cypress in the City of Cypress Municipal Code.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project’s potential impacts to wastewater, portable water, solid waste, electricity,
natural gas, and telecommunications services are not cumulatively considerable.
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Impact.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «02/06/20» 1-34
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «02/06/20» 2-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts
associated with the proposed Cypress City Center Project (proposed project) in Cypress, California.
The City of Cypress (City) is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out
or approving the project”1 and, as such, is the “Lead Agency” for the proposed project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA
requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any
discretionary action on the proposed project. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational
document to be considered by the City and any Responsible Agencies during deliberations on the
proposed project. CEQA Section 21069 defines a “Responsible Agency” as a public agency other than
the Lead Agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The approvals and
permits associated with the proposed project are described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.
The City, as Lead Agency, determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment and that an EIR would be required to more fully evaluate potential adverse
environmental impacts that may result from development of the proposed project. As a result, this
EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). This EIR also complies with the procedures
established by the City for the implementation of CEQA.
Questions regarding the preparation of this document and City review of the proposed project
should be referred to the following person:
Jeff Zwack, Project Planner
City of Cypress Community Development Department
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Phone: (714) 229-6720
Email: projectplanner@cypressca.org
2.1 PURPOSE AND TYPE OF EIR/USES OF THE EIR
This EIR has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts that could result from
implementation of the proposed project. As the Lead Agency, the City has the principal
responsibility for approving the proposed project. In that capacity, the City has decided to prepare
this EIR and, after the public review process, will decide whether to certify the Final EIR.
The City and any Responsible Agencies have the authority to make decisions on discretionary actions
relating to development of the proposed project. As stated previously, this EIR is intended to serve
as an informational document to be considered by the City and Responsible Agencies during
deliberations on the proposed project. This EIR evaluates a reasonable worst-case scenario of
potential impacts associated with the proposed project and identifies feasible mitigation and
alternatives for any identified potentially significant impacts.
1 As defined in Public Resources Code Section 21067.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «02/06/20» 2-2
This EIR will serve as a project EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. According to
Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project EIR is appropriate for specific development
projects and should examine the environmental impacts that could result from all phases of the
project, including planning, construction, and operation.
As the Lead Agency for the proposed project under CEQA, the City must consider the information
contained in the Final EIR prior to taking any discretionary action with respect to the proposed
project. This EIR provides information to the Lead Agency and other public agencies, the general
public, and decision-makers regarding the potential environmental impacts from construction and
operation of the proposed project. The purpose of the public review of this EIR is to evaluate the
adequacy of the environmental analysis in terms of compliance with CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines
§15151 states the following regarding the standards from which adequacy is judged:
“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-
makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently
takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental
effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is
to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among
experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main
points of disagreement among experts. The courts have not looked for perfection
but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”
Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(a) states:
“The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects
on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to
indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.”
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the
State CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental
consequences of a proposed project. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported,
full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that
has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.
2.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
In compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to promote
opportunities for the public and other public agencies to participate in the environmental review
process. The City conducted the scoping process, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP), and
determined that an EIR was required to evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of
the proposed project and related actions. Additionally, a public scoping session was conducted, as
discussed below.
2.2.1 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Meeting
On November 22, 2019, an NOP for the proposed project was distributed by the City via the State
Clearinghouse (SCH) and was circulated for review from November 22 to December 23, 2019. The
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «02/06/20» 2-3
SCH issued a project number for this EIR (SCH No. 2019110458). In accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to the agencies and individuals that were provided
in Appendix A, and was posted at the Orange County Clerk’s Office for a period of 30 days, during
which time written comments were solicited pertaining to environmental issues/topics that this EIR
should evaluate. The NOP was also made available for public review at the City’s Planning
Department and on the City’s website during the review period. The City held a public scoping
meeting at the Cypress Community Center on Wednesday, December 11, 2019, to present the
proposed project and to solicit input from interested parties regarding environmental issues that
should be addressed in this EIR.
Responses to the NOP were received from the following agencies:
• City of Los Alamitos
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans District 12)
• Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
• Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
• Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
In addition, the following organizations and interested parties submitted written comments on the
NOP:
• Angie Mizrahi
• Bill Wostenberg
• Brent Marino
• Brooke Nafarrete
• Carlo Nafarrete
• Christine Scheichl
• Clyde Schechter
• Cynthia O'Malley
• Deanna and Alex Borodayko
• Donna Ballard
• George Pardon
• Heidi Butcher
• Howard Nista
• Jane Lench
• Jimmy Fuller
• Joe and Judy Yenawine
• Jon and Yolie Miasnik
• Lector and Carolyn Orrick
• Leo Friedland
• Linda Lawrence
• Linda Zimmerman
• Lynn Pardon
• Marcela Valencia
• Melody Nista
• Millage House, Jr.
• Peter Korody
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
• Robin and Larry Itzler
• Shaunna Hargrave
• Star Johnson
• Steven Mauss
• TR Maccauley
• Tracy Mackey
• Trisha Ovabuena
• Wayne M. Comeau
• Wayne Yenawine
• William Hutchins
• Yvette and Louis Krebs
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «02/06/20» 2-4
2.2.2 Areas of Controversy
Issues and concerns raised in response to the NOP or at the scoping meeting included:
• Traffic: Concerns about additional traffic in the Cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos, specifically on
Katella Avenue, north of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of existing schools, intersections along
Katella Avenue, Walker Street, and Lexington Drive, and specific intersections (Katella Avenue/
Los Alamitos Boulevard, Katella Avenue/I-605, Valley View Street/I-405). Concerns about traffic
on Katella Avenue during peak hours and about additional traffic generated by students.
Request to evaluate the potential traffic impacts on Katella Avenue due to its inclusion as part of
the Congestion Management Program Highway System. Request that the City of Cypress work
with the City of Los Alamitos to establish a mitigation fee program designed to pay for the future
maintenance of Katella Avenue within the City of Los Alamitos.
• Population and Housing: Concerns about the lack of affordable housing in the City and about
overpopulation in the City. Concerns about the population generation from the proposed
apartment, hotel, retail, and commercial uses. Suggestion that higher household sizes should be
considered in the analysis because higher rents in Orange County are leading to the
overcrowding of residential units.
• Noise: Suggestion about adding landscaping along all sides of the property to reduce noise on
the project site from surrounding sources and general concern about noise impacts.
• Aesthetics: Concerns about the height of the four-story apartment structure. Concern that the
residential structure and parking garage would not be aesthetically representative of the City.
Concern about off-site blighted retail buildings and off-site City maintenance of buildings.
• Land Use: Opposition to zoning changes to allow residential uses on the project site. Concerns
related to the density of the residential structure and zoning changes to allow residential uses
and higher density development. Suggestion that the residential structure be moved to the
Winners Circle side of the project site. Concerns that parking will be underprovided.
• Air Quality: Concerns about air quality impacts from the proposed project and from increased
traffic on Katella Avenue. Suggestions to adhere to guidelines from the SCAQMD and its Air
Quality Handbook and recommendations on the identification of mitigation measures,
alternatives, permits, and appropriate data sources.
• Alternatives: Suggestions to evaluate a reduced density alternative, and alternatives with the
replacement of the apartment structure with a family-friendly entertainment center, a high-end
grocery store, or senior apartments. Suggests an alternative with a decrease height of the
residential structure to two stories and the elimination of the parking garage.
• Hydrology: Concern was raised about existing ponding along Siboney Street and on the project
site. Requested that drainage facilities convey stormwater so as not to result in ponding on the
Los Alamitos Racetrack property to the north.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «02/06/20» 2-5
• Public Services: Concern that schools in the City cannot accommodate students generated by
the proposed project. Concern about increased demand for fire, police, library, emergency
services, school, and park facilities/services. Concern about impacts on emergency services from
traffic impacts on Katella Avenue.
• Recreation: Suggestions that parkland/public parks be provided on the project site. Concern
about the amount of green space in the City and about impacts on existing parks.
• Utilities and Service Systems: Concern about increases in energy demand. Concern about added
load to the power grid and water supply.
This is not an exhaustive list of areas of controversy, but rather key issues that were raised during
the scoping process. This EIR addresses each of these areas of concern or controversy in detail,
examines project-related and cumulative environmental impacts, identifies significant adverse
environmental impacts, and proposes mitigation measures and/or alternatives designed to reduce
or eliminate potentially significant impacts. Appendix A to this EIR includes the NOP and copies of
written comments received in response to the NOP, as well as written comment cards received at
the public scoping meeting. Appendix A also includes a comment summary.
2.2.3 EIR Public Review Period
This EIR is being distributed to numerous public agencies and other interested parties for review and
comment. This EIR is also available at the following locations and on the City’s website for the
proposed project (add website location):
City of Cypress
Community Development Department
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Cypress Branch Library
5331 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
All comments received from agencies and individuals on this EIR will be accepted during the public
comment period, which will not be less than 45 days, in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines. All comments on this EIR should be sent to the following City contact person:
Jeff Zwack, Project Planner
City of Cypress Community Development Department
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
Email: projectplanner@cypressca.org
Following the close of the public comment period, the City will prepare written responses to all
written comments received during the public comment period and will compile these comments
and responses, together with any text changes to this EIR, into a Final EIR that includes all of the
information required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR will be
provided to all public agencies that submitted comments on this EIR at least 10 days prior to
certification of the Final EIR. The Final EIR shall consist of the EIR or a revision of the draft;
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «02/06/20» 2-6
comments and recommendations received on the EIR either verbatim or in summary; a list of
persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the EIR; the response of the City to
significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process and in comments
submitted on the Draft EIR; and any other information added by the City.
The City will make findings regarding the extent and nature of the impacts as presented in the Final
EIR. The Final EIR must be certified as complete by the City Council prior to making a decision on the
requested entitlements for the proposed project. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings
regarding the proposed project.
2.3 SCOPE OF THIS EIR
As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this EIR must identify the effects of the
proposed project that are determined to be significant. Environmental topics addressed in this EIR
include: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy, Geology and Soils
and Paleontological Resources; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public
Services; Recreation; Transportation and Traffic; Tribal Cultural Resources; and Utilities and Service
Systems.
2.4 FORMAT OF THE EIR
This EIR contains the information and analysis required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines,
including Section 15122–15131, and is generally organized as follows:
• Chapter 1.0: Executive Summary. Chapter 1.0 contains the Executive Summary of this EIR,
which lists all significant project impacts, feasible mitigation measures that have been
recommended to reduce any significant impacts of the proposed project, and the level of
significance of each impact following feasible mitigation. The summary is presented in a
table format.
• Chapter 2.0: Introduction. Chapter 2.0 contains a discussion of the purpose and intended use of
this EIR.
• Chapter 3.0: Project Description. Chapter 3.0 includes a discussion of the proposed project’s
geographical setting, the project site’s previous uses and approvals, and the proposed project’s
objectives, characteristics, components, and construction phases, as well as the anticipated
discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals for the proposed project.
• Chapter 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis. Chapter 4.0 includes an analysis of the proposed
project’s environmental impacts. It is organized into the following topical sections: aesthetics,
air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal
cultural resources and utilities and service system. The environmental setting discussions
describe the “existing conditions” of the environment on the project site and in the vicinity of
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «02/06/20» 2-7
the site as they pertain to the environmental issues being analyzed (State CEQA Guidelines
§15125).
The impact discussions identify and focus on the potentially significant environmental effects of
the proposed project. The direct and indirect effects of the proposed project on the
environment are identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and
long-term effects, as necessary (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2[a]).
Chapter 4.0 also includes within the analysis of each environmental topic a discussion of the
cumulative effects of the proposed project when considered in combination with other projects
causing related impacts, as required by State CEQA Guidelines §15130. Cumulative impacts are
based on the build out of the proposed project and the known relevant approved and proposed
projects in the surrounding area.
The discussions of mitigation measures identify and describe feasible measures that could
minimize or lessen potentially significant impacts for each significant environmental effect
identified in this EIR (State CEQA Guidelines §15126[e]). The levels of significance before and
after mitigation are provided. Significant unavoidable adverse effects are identified where
mitigation is not expected to reduce the effects to less than significant levels.
• Chapter 5.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. In accordance with CEQA, the alternatives
discussion in Chapter 5.0 describes a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain
the basic objectives of the proposed project and are capable of eliminating or substantially
reducing any of the proposed project’s significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects or
reducing them to a less than significant level. The alternatives analyzed in Chapter 5.0 include
three alternatives: (1) the No Project Alternative, (2) the Reduced Project Alternative, and
(3) the Commercial/Retail Alternative.
• Chapter 6.0: Other CEQA Considerations. Chapter 6.0 contains discussions on the following
topics as required by State CEQA Guidelines §15126: (1) growth-inducing impacts of the
proposed project; and (2) whether there are any significant irreversible environmental changes
caused by the proposed project, adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed
project for which either no mitigation or only partial mitigation is feasible.
• Chapter 7.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. State CEQA Guidelines §15091(d)
requires that public agencies adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any
changes that it has either required in a project or made a condition of approval to avoid or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects. Chapter 7.0 provides a list of all proposed
project mitigation measures, defines the parties responsible for implementation and review/,
and identifies the timing for implementation of each mitigation measure.
• Chapter 8.0: Significant Unavoidable Impacts. Chapter 8.0 summarizes the significant
unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated identified in Chapters 4.0 and
6.0.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «02/06/20» 2-8
• Chapter 9.0: List of Preparers. Chapter 9.0 provides the organizations and persons contacted
during preparation of this EIR, the EIR preparers and technical report authors, and other experts
involved in the preparation of this EIR.
• Chapter 10.0: References. Chapter 10.0 provides the references used in this EIR.
2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public
record or is generally available to the public, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines §15150.
Informational details from the documents that have been incorporated by reference are
summarized in the appropriate sections of this EIR, along with descriptions regarding how the public
may review these documents. All documents are available for review at the City of Cypress,
Community Development Department. These documents include:
• City of Cypress General Plan (available online at: https://www.cypressca.org/government/
departments/community-development/planning-division/city-plans)
• City of Cypress Municipal Code (available online at: https://qcode.us/codes/cypress/)
• Proposed Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan Amendment
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Cypress City Center Project (proposed project) proposes the development of a horizontal mixed-
use development on an approximately 13-acre site (project site) at the northwest corner of Katella
Avenue and Winners Circle, which is a vacant property previously planned and entitled for the
development of a retail commercial project in 2008.
3.1 PROJECT/SITE HISTORY
In 2008, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project site.
At the time of the adoption of the 2008 IS/MND for the project site, the property was owned by the
Cypress Redevelopment Agency (Agency), which was negotiating with a developer to construct a
previously approved project. However, the developer did not complete the purchase of the property
from the Agency. In 2011, the City of Cypress (City) acquired the project site from the Agency and
the development of the project site was then postponed due to litigation between the City and the
State, which was subsequently resolved.
There have been numerous prior approved environmental documents that have some relationship
to the project site and/or the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (Approved
April 17, 1990, Amended and Restated June 5, 2012) area in which the project site is located. These
prior environmental documents include the following:
3.1.1 Previous Environmental Reviews
The following projects were reviewed by the City prior to approval of the Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific Plan:
• Cypress Plaza Environmental Impact Report (1986). Environmental study for the race track and
surrounding area (approximately 300 acres) began with the Cypress Plaza EIR, certified in
September 1986. The Cypress Plaza project area is the same as the area covered by the Cypress
Business and Professional Center Specific Plan described above. This EIR covered the
development of 3,720,892 sf of business park, mixed-use business park, professional office,
hotel and support commercial, general retail commercial, roadway use, and shared race track
parking.
• Cypress Downs Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1988). In 1988, a revised project
known as Cypress Downs was proposed by SDC Development for 2,909,208 sf of building area.
The Cypress Downs project area is the same as the area covered by the Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific Plan (described above) and the Cypress Plaza project (described
above). The Supplemental EIR (supplemental to the Cypress Plaza EIR described above) for that
project addressed the environmental impacts relative to changes in the project. These changes
included a major reduction in the square footage of the project and retention of the
Public/Semi-Public General Plan and zoning designation on approximately 30 acres of the site.
Due to these changes, the Supplemental EIR, certified on November 7, 1988, addressed issues
that would be affected by the amended proposal.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-2
3.1.2 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
(April 1990)
Prior to the approval of the Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan (Specific Plan) in 2012, the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan,
approved April 17, 1990, provided guidance and regulations for the development of the 298.2 gross
acres within the planning area for the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan established development
regulations and programs for plan implementation. The Specific Plan included a Land Use Plan
(Specific Plan Exhibit 1), which proposed 11.8 acres of Mixed Use Business Park; 33.4 acres of
Professional Office, 21.2 acres of Professional Office and Hotel and Support Commercial uses,
8.2 acres of Mixed Use Business Park/General Retail Commercial, 93.6 acres of renovated golf
course, and 130 acres of existing race track within the Specific Plan planning area by establishing
policies and zoning designations for the land subject to the Specific Plan.
The Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impacts associated with
buildout of the Specific Plan area with the uses identified in the following paragraph. The Cypress
Business and Professional Center Specific Plan was divided into eight planning areas. The former
Cypress Golf Club property comprises Planning Areas 1 and 7. In addition to the revitalization of the
now closed golf course, the Specific Plan proposed the development of a clubhouse, with banquet
halls and a driving range. Planning Area 2 (8.2 acres) was proposed for the development of
135,736 sf of Mixed Use Business Park and/or 25,000 sf of General Retail Commercial. Planning Area
3 (7.7 acres) and Planning Area 4 (4.1 acres) were proposed for the development of 150,935 sf and
89,000 sf of Mixed Use Business Park, respectively. Planning Area 5, which includes the project site,
is composed of 33.4 acres and was intended for the development of 873,000 sf of Professional
Office use. An approximately 240,000 sf Hotel (100 to 300 rooms), and 20,000 sf of Restaurant uses
and 294,083 sf of Professional Office uses were planned for Planning Area 6 (21.2 acres). The Los
Alamitos Race Course in Planning Area 8 (124.7 acres) was proposed to be retained, although
possibly revitalized or reconstructed.
The impacts identified below could not be feasibly mitigated and would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with implementation of the Cypress Business and Professional
Center Specific Plan.
• Circulation and Traffic. The Specific Plan was expected to further aggravate some of the
congestion problems projected to occur with future development within the Cypress Business
Park, particularly affecting the intersections of Katella Avenue with Los Alamitos Boulevard,
Bloomfield Avenue, Walker Street, and Valley View Street, and the intersection of Cerritos
Avenue and Los Alamitos Boulevard. These intersections would fall below acceptable levels of
service with the buildout of the Specific Plan and cumulative traffic after mitigation.
• Land Use and Relevant Planning. The Specific Plan would result in the conversion of the former
golf course property to more intensive mixed-use/business park/commercial land uses, thereby
increasing the urbanization of Cypress. In addition, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts
associated with the Specific Plan would affect surrounding land uses.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-3
• Aesthetics. Implementation of the Specific Plan would convert land uses within the planning
area and would alter the aesthetic nature of the area by replacing open areas with structures,
landscaping, and infrastructure.
• Air Quality. Construction dust related to the construction of the new development allowed
under the Specific Plan, though partially mitigated through watering of grading surfaces, would
result in some temporary unavoidable impacts. However, these impacts are not considered
significant. The Specific Plan would contribute to cumulative degradation of regional air quality
due to increased vehicular emissions.
The Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan EIR was certified in May 1990, at which
time it superseded the Cypress Downs EIR (described below). As part of the certification process for
the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan EIR, the City Council adopted a Statement
of Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Development that has taken place within the Specific Plan since its adoption in 1990 includes the
SeaCoast Grace Church, the 10801 Walker Street office building, the Ushio America office/
warehouse building, the Cypress Corporate Park (four office/manufacturing/warehouse buildings),
the Marriott Residence Inn Hotel, the Katella/Siboney Commercial Project, the Walker/Katella Retail
Project, and the Cottonwood Christian Center.
Projects approved under the 1990 Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan include
the following:
• Walker/Katella Retail Project (Northwest Corner of Katella Avenue and Walker Street) Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2002). This IS/MND analyzed the owner participation
opportunities for the development of a retail project that included three alternatives ranging
from 150,000 to 180,000 sf of retail/commercial use. The 18-acre Walker/Katella Retail project
site is on the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Walker Street and is within Cypress
Business and Professional Center Specific Plan Planning Area 5, directly east of the project site.
This project has been approved, constructed, and is currently in operation.
• Katella/Siboney Commercial Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2003). This
IS/MND analyzed the proposed 31,100 sf of retail, 6,000 sf of restaurant and 37,000 sf of health
club uses on a 7.08-acre site at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Siboney Street. The
Katella/Siboney Commercial project site is within the Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan Planning Area 6, directly west of the project site. The project is currently in
operation.
• Cottonwood Christian Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2004). This IS/MND
describes existing environmental conditions on a 30-net-acre site at the northeast corner of
Katella Avenue and Lexington Drive and the surrounding area. The project applicant,
Cottonwood Christian Center, proposed to construct a new church campus. The Cottonwood
Christian Center project site is within the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan
Planning Area 7, west of the project site. This project has been approved, and the sanctuary,
offices and youth and children’s centers have been constructed.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-4
• 13-Acre Retail/Commercial Project Northwest Corner Katella Avenue and Winners Circle Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (April 2008). The 13-Acre Retail/Commercial Project
Northwest Corner Katella Avenue and Winners Circle IS/MND was approved in April 2008. This
IS/MND was prepared for the project site and evaluated three proposed alternatives:
Alternatives A, B, and C, of which Alternative C was ultimately approved by the Cypress City
Council. The project proposed the development of 122,556 sf of retail, 21,000 sf of retail/
restaurant uses, and a 9,353 sf sit-down restaurant. The proposed project was proposed on
parcels of land within the planning area for the Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan. The adopted 2008 IS/MND concluded that the project would result in less than
significant environmental impacts with implementation of prescribed mitigation measures.
3.1.3 Cypress General Plan Environmental Impact Report (September 2001)
The Cypress General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified in September 2001. The
General Plan EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the City-wide maximum
development scenario to avoid underestimation of long-term impacts. The maximum level of
development results from construction of the greatest square footage and number of dwelling units
and nonresidential land uses, respectively. The maximum development scenario causes the largest
possible population to inhabit Cypress at buildout.
The Cypress General Plan EIR, a Program EIR, evaluated the impacts of implementing the General
Plan, the consideration of broad policy alternatives, and program-wide mitigation measures. The
Program EIR also determined when subsequent environmental review would be needed for a
specific development proposal that is consistent with the General Plan Update.
The three impacts identified below could not be feasibly mitigated and would result in a significant
and unavoidable impact associated with implementation of the General Plan Update. The General
Plan EIR also concluded significant cumulative unavoidable impacts for the same three impact areas.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts on
September 10, 2001. Both the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Statement of Facts
and Findings are referenced in Resolution No. 5465.
1. Transportation/Circulation (2000 Traffic Volumes, Congestion Management Program Level of
Service Standards). Development under the General Plan Update would create an unavoidable
significant impact for one roadway segment: Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella
Avenue. This roadway segment would remain at Level of Service (LOS) “F”.
2. Air Quality (Construction Emissions, Vehicle Miles Traveled and Stationary Source Emissions).
Unavoidable and significant impacts to air quality relate to construction, mobile sources, and
stationary sources. These impacts are primarily based on the premise that the City of Cypress
and pollutant sources within the City are widely dispersed and numerous. Despite
implementation of city-wide vehicular emission reducing programs, it is anticipated that these
impacts would remain unavoidable and significant.
3. Parks and Recreation. Unavoidable and significant impacts to parks and recreation facilities are
primarily based on the premise that the City currently falls short of meeting the acreage
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-5
requirements for park facilities. Implementation of the General Plan Update would enhance this
deficiency.
3.1.4 Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (June
2012)
This Specific Plan amends and restates the Original Specific Plan. In particular, it establishes a new
Planning Area 9, which consists of portions of Planning Areas 6, 7, and 8 from the original Specific
Plan (1990) and permits a range of commercial uses and senior housing and related uses. This
amended and restated Specific Plan also clarifies that the former Cypress Golf Club property has not
been retained and includes a variety of updated provisions and findings. No environmental review of
the Amended and Restated Specific Plan was required because it was approved by the City’s voters.
The following environmental reviews were completed for nearby projects within the Amended and
Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan:
• Barton Place Environmental Impact Report: This EIR analyzed the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed Barton Place Project, which proposed two main components: a senior
residential community and commercial/retail uses at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and
Enterprise Drive. The Barton Place Project is within Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan Planning Areas 6 and 9, which are west of the project site. The senior residential
community was approved and constructed.
• Barton Place Environmental Impact Report Addendum: This EIR addendum analyzed the
potential environmental impacts of project changes to reduce the amount of commercial
development included on the southern portion of the Barton Place project site as part of the
approved Barton Place project by approximately 34,000 sf. A 129-unit assisted living facility that
would be a licensed residential care facility for the elderly would be built on the eastern half of
the 5-acre area where the approved commercial/retail uses detailed in the Barton Place Final
EIR would be located.
3.1.5 Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (December 2017)
This Specific Plan establishes a master plan and regulatory framework for the use and development
of 154.4 acres of land, which covers a portion of the Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan area adjacent to the project site. On June 5, 2018, Cypress voters approved the Cypress
Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0. Although the Cypress Town Center and Commons
Specific Plan 2.0 has been approved by Cypress voters, no California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) compliance documentation has been completed for its proposed land use changes. As stated
in the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0, “discretionary approvals for
development projects proposed within the Specific Plan Area shall be subject to environmental
review under CEQA, unless such development project is exempt from environmental review
pursuant to the CEQA statute or the State CEQA Guidelines or to the extent that environmental
review under CEQA has already been completed for such development project.”
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-6
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.2.1 Regional Location
The project site is in the southern portion of the City of Cypress, California, approximately 1 mile
northwest of Garden Grove and immediately north of the Los Alamitos corporate boundary. The Los
Alamitos Race Course is north of the project site. Various commercial, office, and business park uses
are south of the project site. As illustrated by Figure 3.1, Regional and Project Location, the project
site is approximately 2 miles east of the San Gabriel River Freeway (Interstate 605) and
approximately 3 miles north of the Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22) and the San Diego
Freeway (Interstate 405).
3.2.2 Existing Project Site Conditions
The project site is on the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Winners Circle in Cypress (refer to
Figure 3.2, Project Vicinity Land Uses). Figure 3.3, Existing Conditions, shows the existing conditions
on the project site. In its existing setting, the project site is characterized by a paved parking lot,
with existing light poles and various electrical utility boxes and lines. A main water valve is within the
current right-of-way along Siboney Street near the southwest corner of the project site. Sewer and
storm drain infrastructure are also within the current right-of way along Katella Avenue. No lateral
lines serve the project site. The edge condition along Katella Avenue and a portion of Siboney Street
has been improved with a public sidewalk, fencing, and ornamental landscaping. There is also a
billboard for the nearby Los Alamitos Race Course on the southwestern boundary of the project site.
The edge condition along Winners Circle has been improved with a public sidewalk and driveway
access points, with no landscaping. The interior property is improved with a parking lot and limited
landscaping.
Temporary existing uses on the project site include vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los
Alamitos Race Course. The existing parking lot rarely reaches capacity, except for during the Wiener
Nationals dog racing event, which takes place annually in July. Other short-term uses include a
Christmas tree lot and a truck staging area. Local businesses have leased the project site on a
temporary basis from time to time for auxiliary truck and trailer storage.
3.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is within the boundaries of the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific
Plan, and specifically occupies a portion of Planning Area 5. The land use plan from the Specific Plan
is provided on Figure 3.4, Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan. As
described above, land use designations within 154.4 acres of the Cypress Business & Professional
Center Specific Plan were replaced and superseded by the Cypress Town Center and Commons
Specific Plan 2.0, which was approved by Cypress voters in June 2018. Although Figure 3.4 shows the
approximate area that was affected by approval of Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan
2.0, it does not reflect the planned land uses within that Specific Plan.
City ofCypress
City ofBuena Park
City ofGarden Grove
City ofLos Alamitos
City ofLongBeach
City ofHawaiianGardens
SOURCE: ArcGIS Online Topographic Map
I:\SHO1901\GIS\MXD\ProjectLocation.mxd (7/9/2019)
FIGURE 3.1
Cypress City CenterRegional and Project Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
LEGEND
Project Site
City Boundary
Project Location
OrangeCounty
Los AngelesCounty
ÃÃ73
ÃÃ42
ÃÃ47
ÃÃ261
ÃÃ142
ÃÃ72
ÃÃ90
ÃÃ1
ÃÃ55
ÃÃ60
ÃÃ22
ÃÃ19
ÃÃ57
ÃÃ91
§¨¦10
§¨¦105
§¨¦110
§¨¦710
§¨¦605
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
Project Vicinity
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-8
This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE Google Earth:FEET5002500NFIGURE 3.2Project Vicinity Land UsesI:\SHO1901\G\Vicinity Land Uses.cdr (8/14/2019)Cypress City CenterWinners CircleWinners CircleSiboney StSiboney StKatella AveKatella AveWalker StWalker StPROJECTSITECity of CypressCity of CypressCity of Los AlamitosCity of Los Alamitos- City BoundaryLEGENDOfficeOfficeOfficeOfficeLos Alamitos Race CourseLos Alamitos Race CourseCommercialCenterCommercialCenterReligiousFacilitiesReligiousFacilitiesResidence InnResidence InnCottonwoodChurchCottonwoodChurchSingle-Family ResidentialSingle-Family ResidentialMotelMotelBarton PlaceResidential Project(Ovation at Flora Park)Barton PlaceResidential Project(Ovation at Flora Park)Commercial andRetailServicesCommercial andRetail ServicesCommercial/Office/Business Park UsesCommercial/Office/Business Park UsesCypressCorporateParkCypressCorporateParkResidentialResidentialReligiousFacilitiesReligiousFacilitiesCostcoCostcoOfficeOfficeUndevelopedUndeveloped
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-10
This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE Google Earth:FEET5002500NFIGURE 3.3Existing ConditionsI:\SHO1901\G\Existing Conditions.cdr (8/14/2019)Cypress City CenterWinners CircleWinners CircleSiboney StSiboney StKatella AveKatella AveLos Alamitos Race TrackLos Alamitos Race TrackWalker StWalker StPROJECTSITE
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-12
This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE RBF:FEET6103050NFIGURE 3.4Cypress Business & Professional CenterSpecific Plan Land Use PlanI:\SHO1901\G\Specific Plan Land Use.cdr (12/27/2019)Cypress City Center- Project Site-Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0LEGEND
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-14
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-15
The project site is bounded by vacant land and surface parking lots associated with the Los Alamitos
Race Course to the north, Katella Avenue to the south, Winners Circle to the east, and Siboney
Street to the west. A number of projects have been developed within the Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific Plan area, which are identified below.
• The Los Alamitos Race Course and the SeaCoast Grace Church are to the north and northeast in
Planning Area 8. A Goodwill Donation Center is also in the southeast portion of Planning Area 8.
• Cypress Business & Professional Center, a two-story office building, is to the northeast, in
Planning Area 4.
• Approximately 165,000 sf of retail/commercial uses with a Costco warehouse outlet and other
services is at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue/Walker Street, occupying the eastern half
of Planning Area 5.
• Cypress Corporate Park is north of Vessels Circle and consists of four two-story office/
manufacturing/warehouse buildings to the northeast in Planning Area 3.
• Ushio America, a two-story office/warehouse building, is on the western portion of Planning
Area 2 and a two-story medical office building is on the eastern half of Planning Area 2 at the
southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Walker Street. Planning Area 2 is to the northeast of
the project site.
• A Marriott Residence Inn is to the west in Planning Area 6.
• An approximately 74,100 sf retail/commercial center, with a 24 Hour Fitness Center, an Office
Max, a Seventh-Day Adventist Church, and various restaurant and retail uses, is to the west in
the southeastern portion of Planning Area 6.
• The Cottonwood Christian Center, a 30-acre site totaling 495,000 sf, is further west in Planning
Area 7.
• Barton Place (now known as Ovation at Flora Park) is west of the project site in Planning Area 6
and Planning Area 9.
The project site is bounded by the following uses in its immediate vicinity:
• North: The Los Alamitos Race Course is immediately north of the project site in Planning Area 8.
Northeast of the site is a Goodwill Donation Center, and Cypress Corporate Park.
• East: East of Winners Circle, commercial and retail services, including a Costco warehouse outlet
and restaurant uses, occupy the eastern portion of Planning Area 5.
• South: Katella Avenue, a six-lane arterial roadway, borders the project site to the south. Uses to
the south of Katella Avenue include commercial and office and business park uses in the City of
Los Alamitos.
• West: A commercial center consisting of restaurant, commercial services, a 24 Hour Fitness and
a Marriott Hotel are in Planning Area 6 to the west. The Barton Place Residential Project (now
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-16
known as Ovation at Flora Park) and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church are immediately west of
the commercial center.
3.3 GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING
3.3.1 General Plan/Specific Plan
The Cypress General Plan Land Use Policy Map designates the project site as “Specific Plan Area” in
recognition that the project site is subject to the Amended Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan (Specific Plan) (Figure 3.5, City of Cypress General Plan Land Uses).1 This Specific Plan
includes a Land Use Plan, which divides land within the Specific Plan area into nine different
planning areas (refer to Figure 3.4). As shown on Figure 3.4 and described above, portions of the
Specific Plan (all of Planning Area 1, most of Planning Area 8, and a small part of Planning Area 6) are
now subject to Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
As stated previously, the project site is part of Planning Area 5, which is designated for Professional
Office uses. The Professional Office designation is intended to accommodate the development of
professional and administrative offices that complement the adjacent hotel center within the
Specific Plan area. Permitted uses within this land use designation include a variety of office, studio,
financial institutions, governmental, corporate, employment, and health service uses. Uses
permitted subject to a conditional use permit include commercial, trade or vocational schools,
restaurant, service stations, post offices, and other similar uses that the Community Development
Director finds to be compatible with these uses, subject to review or approval by the City Council.
Planning Area 8, which includes the Los Alamitos Race Course, is to the north of the project site.2
Planning Area 6, which is designated for Professional Office/Hotel and Support Commercial uses, is
to the west of the project site across Siboney Street.
The proposed project plans residential land uses and hotel land uses that are not expressly
identified as allowable uses within the Professional Office designation in the Specific Plan. Certain
changes to explicit use provisions in the Specific Plan may be made administratively by the
Community Development Director, subject to appeal to the City Council. These changes include the
transfer of a land use from one planning area to another, subject to certain requirements. Although
this would have allowed the hotel uses to be transferred to Planning Area 5, no such transfer could
be made for the residential use, and a Specific Plan Amendment is necessary for the proposed
project. The proposed hotel and residential uses would need to be included under a Specific Plan
Amendment to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan. As such, the proposed project includes a
Specific Plan Amendment for the proposed residential and hotel land uses.
3.3.2 Current Zoning
The project site currently has a zoning designation of PBP-25A, Planned Business Park (PBP) as
shown in Figure 3.6, Zoning Designations, which is intended to provide for the development of
educational, professional office, commercial, industrial, open space, or any public or semi-public
uses.
1 Figure 3.5 does not reflect the approval of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
2 Most of Planning Area 8 is now subject to the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
NFIREDEPTCYNTHIACIRMILDREDCIRMARION AVCATHYCIRST ALBAN STSARATOGASTMOHAWKCTVERNONCTSARATOGAAVLAURELSTLAURELAVWHIRLAWAY STLONGDEN STPONDER STSANDE STVIA EL MERCADOSIBONEY STST JOCHRISTABRAHAMAVGREGOPOMPANOCTMARION AVJANICEBARBAJULIE BETHELDORIS CIRBARBARAANNESTCHRISTOPHERSTJANICE LYNNCIRETHEL CIRJULIE BETHCIRGREGORYCIRROSE ANNCIRMARION AVOLGAAVCITATION AVANTIETAM AVBEAVERCIRPATRICIACIRCIA DRAVJEANINE LNGREEN AVLEXINGTON DRWINNERS CIRCATHY AVCATHY AVWINNERS CIRCYNTHIACIRKANELCIRAURELIAAVCATHYCIRPROGRESS WYMAPLEXECUTIVEDRENTERPRISES DRMARION AVKATELLA AVESOURCE City of Cypress:FIGURE 3.5City of Cypress General Plan Land UsesI:\SHO1901\G\GP Land Use.cdr (7/17/2019)Cypress City CenterSpecific Plan AreaSpecific Plan BoundariesParcels Outside the CityCity LimitsLEGENDCommunity Services and Facilities:GovernmentEducation FacilitiesPublic ParksGolf Course (Privately - Owned)Race Track (Privately - Owned)Cemetery (Privately - Owned)Flood Control FacilitiesRail RoadResidential:Low Density (0-5 du/ac)Medium Density (5.1-15 du/ac)High Density (15.1-20 du/ac)Mobile Home Park (0-12 du/ac)Commercial:General Neighborhood (0.5:1 FAR)Business Park (1.0:1 FAR)Light Industrial (0.5:1 FAR)PROJECTSITEFEET6403200NCity of CypressCity of CypressCity of Los AlamitosCity of Los Alamitos
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-18
This page intentionally left blank
KATELLA AVEPROJECTSITESOURCE City of Cypress:NFIGURE 3.6Zoning DesignationsI:\SHO1901\G\Zoning.cdr (7/17/2019)Cypress City CenterFEET6403200City of CypressCity of CypressCity of Los AlamitosCity of Los Alamitos
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-20
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-21
As previously stated, the Amended Business and Professional Center Specific Plan is the regulatory
plan that constitutes the zoning for the project site. While the City's Zoning Map designates the
project site as PBP-25A, the Specific Plan largely governs the permitted uses and development
standards associated with the project site. An amendment to the Specific Plan is proposed to create
a new mixed-use land use district for the project site to allow residential and hotel uses, as
discussed in Section 3.4.3, below.
3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
3.4.1 Project Objectives
The following provides the objectives established for the proposed project, several of which include
implementation of goals and policies from the City’s General Plan and the Specific Plan:
1. Provide uses that meet the City’s General Plan balanced development goals and objective to
locate higher density housing adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities to
encourage pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for commercial uses (GP LU-1.4).
2. Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific Plan, which would promote a commercial environment that
balances quality development with economic growth while building in flexibility to respond to
the market demands (Cypress Business & Professional Center SP, Objectives 1.2 and 1.3).
3. Support the retention of local employers and increase the fiscal benefits to the City by attracting
new retail, restaurant, hotel and entertainment businesses that can better serve the local
population and employment and would generate additional revenue to the City through
increased sales, property, and transient occupancy taxes (GP LU-17.1).
4. Meet the demand for new hotel rooms in the Cypress Business Center to serve the local
business community.
5. Provide new drainage improvements on the project site, which would reduce the risk of
downstream flooding hazards.
6. Provide a new community gathering place for Cypress residents and workers, including a public
dog park and a landscaped plaza with outdoor dining areas.
7. Allow the City to divest itself of real estate conveyed to it by the Cypress Redevelopment Agency
in March 2011 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement between the City of Cypress, the
Successor Agency to the Cypress Redevelopment Agency, the State Department of Finance, and
the State Controller’s Office, which would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the
City by selling the land to a private owner, who would return the land to the property tax rolls
and develop it with new revenue-generating uses.
8. Expand the variety of housing stock in the City, which would help meet the existing and future
housing needs of all Cypress residents, by providing high-density rental units (GP HOU-3.5).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-22
9. Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high‐quality housing in the City to
alleviate the housing crisis and help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment
allocations (GP HOU-4).
3.4.2 Project Characteristics
The proposed project plans to build a mixed-use development as shown on Figure 3.7, Conceptual
Site Plan. The proposed project further plans a 43,175 sf theater with approximately 840 seats, a
five-story hotel with up to 120 rooms with approximately 96,800 sf and three retail buildings
designed to accommodate a combination of retail and restaurant uses, as follows:
• Shop A: 7,150 sf with approximately 1,300 sf of patio area
• Shop B: 7,150 sf with approximately 1,630 sf of patio area
• Shop C: 6,500 sf with approximately 1,200 sf of patio area
The proposed project also proposes construction of a four-story residential component with up to
251 market-rate apartment units and a variety of apartment amenities as described below. The
configuration of the apartments is a “Texas-wrap,” where the above-grade parking structure serving
the residents is wrapped by residential units. This “wrap” design would conceal the parking
structure from view. The apartment design also accommodates a large central courtyard that is 0.45
acre in size and with perimeter landscape/pedestrian buffers.
3.4.2.1 Proposed Buildings
Four-Story Residential Structure. The four-story residential structure is proposed to consist of
approximately 312,096 sf, which would be developed on the northwest corner of the project site,
and is proposed to be roughly 51 feet (ft) to the top of the tower and 60 ft and 4 inches to the top of
the elevator in height. This building would provide up to 141 one-bedroom units, 98 two-bedroom
units, and 12 three-bedroom units for a total of 251 market-rate units. Apartment amenities include
approximately 3,000 sf of fitness space, an approximately 4,000 sf clubhouse, and an approximately
3,000 sf leasing/lounge area, an approximately 20,000 sf main recreation courtyard, and a 180 sf
dog grooming room. The exact building square footage, unit mix, and amenity square footages
would be determined at the time of Site Plan/Design review.
Five-Story Hotel. The five-story hotel is proposed to consist of 96,800 sf, which is proposed to be
developed in the southeast portion of the project site, and would not exceed 60 ft in height. Hotel
amenities also include a lodge, a meeting room, a fitness center, and a pool.
Commercial. The three retail buildings are proposed to consist of three shops of 7,150 sf, 7,150 sf,
and 6,500 sf, respectively. These buildings are proposed for the southeast portion of the project site,
and would range from 23 to 31 ft in height. The movie theater would consist of 43,175 sf and would
not exceed 42 ft in height.
SOURCE Architects Orange:FEET140700NFIGURE 3.7Conceptual Site PlanI:\SHO1901\G\Site Plan-Modified Project.cdr (7/18/2019)Cypress City Center
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-24
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-25
3.4.2.2 Parking
Parking for the commercial and residential uses is described below. Additionally, the proposed
project design also accommodates drop-off zones for rideshare providers and convenient public
transit is available along Katella Avenue, which can reduce the need for using private vehicles and,
thus, the demand for parking.
• Commercial: The proposed project would provide up to 442 commercial parking spaces
consisting of 280 spaces for the theater, 128 spaces for the restaurants, and 34 spaces for the
retail stores. Commercial parking spaces would be provided within a surface parking lot directly
behind the proposed retail stores and movie theater. Upon completion, the proposed project
would provide parking for the commercial uses at a ratio of 6.91 parking spaces per 1,000 sf.
• Hotel: The proposed project would provide up to 135 parking spaces adjacent to the proposed
hotel. The proposed project would provide parking for the hotel uses at a ratio of 1.13 spaces
per room.
• Residential: The proposed project would provide residential parking spaces within a proposed
five level parking structure wrapped by the proposed apartment units and concealed from view.
All residential parking would be secured by an access gate. The proposed project would provide
up to 414 residential parking spaces, consisting of 364 resident parking spaces and 50 guest
spaces. Upon completion, the proposed project would provide parking for the residential uses at
a ratio of 1.65 parking spaces per unit, based on parking rates in the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment.
3.4.2.3 Site Access
Access to the project site would be provided via three driveways, one each off Siboney Street,
Katella Avenue, and Winners Circle. The proposed driveway off Katella Avenue represents a shift of
an existing driveway approximately 100 ft east of its present location. It would serve the commercial
uses on site (e.g., movie theater, retail, and restaurant uses) and would be restricted to right-turn
in/out movements only. Access to the proposed hotel and residential areas would be provided off of
Siboney Street and Winners Circle.
3.4.2.4 Infrastructure Improvements
The following infrastructure improvements would serve the future development included in the
project:
• Water. Golden State Water Company owns and maintains a network of water mains in Cypress.
They include a 12-inch water main in Katella Avenue and 8-inch water mains in Siboney Street
and Winners Circle. Domestic, irrigation, and fire services would likely be connected primarily to
the Siboney Street and Winners Circle mains. Domestic water, fire water, and irrigation systems
would all be separate. The on-site fire water system would be looped and connect to multiple
private hydrants and building sprinkler service lines.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-26
• Sewer Service. The City owns and maintains a 15-inch diameter sewer main in Katella Avenue
and an 8-inch diameter sewer main in Winners Circle that connects to the Katella sewer. An on-
site network of private sewer mains and laterals would connect to the Katella sewer main. The
City’s sewer network connects to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) network of
sewer trunks and eventually discharges to an OCSD sewage treatment plant.
• Dry Utilities. Dry utilities would be provided to the site from existing infrastructure available
along Katella Avenue and Winners Circle. The proposed project would connect to the existing
infrastructure through established utility easement agreements.
• Grading and Drainage. The proposed grading for the site would require the net import of
approximately 10,000 cubic yards of soil.1 The grading design maintains the north/south sloping
layout of the land, matches existing grades along project perimeters, minimizes the use of
retaining walls, and maintains Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility and pedestrian
connectivity, all while minimizing the earthwork cut and fill.
On-Site Drainage. In the proposed condition, drainage would flow away from the proposed
buildings and into one of several low points across the site. Runoff would be collected into an
on-site private underground storm drain system. The allowable discharge from the site is
restricted to 0.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre per City requirements. To accommodate
developed peak flows that exceed the allowable discharge, the project stormwater
management system incorporates on-site underground detention basins. These detention
basins have been designed to attenuate the 100-year storm event peak flow difference between
the developed flow from the proposed project and allowable discharge flow. A storm drain
pump would drain the detention systems and meet the 0.3 cfs per acre runoff restriction by
limiting the pump discharge to 4.0 cfs. The site would ultimately discharge via a new storm drain
connection to the existing Katella Avenue storm drain that varies in size from 33-inch diameter
to 48-inch diameter along the frontage.
In addition to the site’s high-flow detention system, a low-flow detention system would be
installed to capture and treat the “first flush” storm event. A bifurcation manhole would be
placed upstream of the first flush detention system and divert the first flush volume into a
separate detention system. This system would be pumped separately, and the runoff would
slowly discharge through a manufactured bioretention system over a 48-hour period. The outlet
pipe from the biofiltration system would connect separately to the existing Katella Avenue
storm drain that varies in size from 33 inches in diameter to 48 inches in diameter along the
frontage.
Off-Site Drainage. The existing off-site flows draining toward the site would be captured by
extending the Winners Circle drain, per previously approved plans, to two proposed catch basins
along the north property line and routed through a proposed 18-inch storm drain running east,
ultimately connecting to the existing 24-inch storm drain in Winners Circle. It should be noted
that a drainage easement exists along Winners Circle and extends east and west along the
northern border of the project site. In the event runoff from the area north of the site exceeds
1 Does not reflect any swell/shrinkage factor.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-27
the capacity of the catch basins and drain, one of two potential scenarios would be constructed.
Scenario 1 includes off-site improvements, and the Scenario 2 contains the drainage
improvements within the project site. Under both scenarios, a curb and gutter and an
approximately 2 ft high berm installed north of the property line would block off-site flow from
entering the site. Under both scenarios, the overflow drainage pattern closely mimics the
existing condition by releasing excess stormwater into the Katella Avenue curb and gutter along
the project’s street frontage.
In Scenario 1, the off-site flows would temporarily pond along the northern property line before
discharging to the west, into Siboney Street, ultimately flowing overland to the south into
Katella Avenue. This scenario would repave a portion of the off-site parking lot and reconstruct
the portion of Siboney Street along the western side of the project site to public standards,
providing a crowned road section and sufficient slope to drain to Katella Avenue without
ponding. Scenario 2 would construct an underground storm drain across the project site that
conveys off-site flows from the northerly proposed curb and gutter toward Katella Avenue. The
drain would connect with a restricted size to the Katella Avenue storm drain and potentially
include a stormwater pump. Flows in excess of the restriction/pump capacity would reverse out
of a proposed catch basin into the Katella Avenue curb and gutter.
Both scenarios would be interim conditions until the area to the north of the project site is
developed and a stormwater management and detention system is constructed to serve that
future development. The stormwater management system for any future development north of
the project site would likely connect to the extended Winners Circle storm drain and would be
held to the same 0.3 cfs per acre flow restriction standard.
• Phasing. If the City approves of the proposed project, the project would be constructed as one
phase, with three subphases. The sequence of development would coincide with the product
type, with the retail shops and theater completing construction within 1 year from start of
construction, the hotel about 1 year from start of construction, and the apartments within
2 years from start of construction.
3.4.2.5 Construction Schedule
Construction for the proposed project is anticipated to take approximately 20 months. Although
construction would take place in one phase, three subphases would be involved.
3.4.2.6 Green Building Characteristics
The proposed project is proposed to be designed to meet sustainability goals, including the
California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, and Assembly Bill
1881 water efficient landscape requirements. The proposed project would also incorporate a
number of energy and water conservation measures, green building features, and Low Impact
Development (LID) design features. These design features and practices may include the following
and would be implemented according to each product type:
• Increased insulation in walls and attic spaces.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-28
• Cool roof features.
• Duct insulation and improved-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.
• High-efficiency water heaters.
• Installation of daylighting features on all peripheral rooms.
• Very high efficiency lights (100 percent of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy).
• Installation of high efficiency refrigerator (Energy Star) Dish Washer (Energy Star), and clothes
washing appliances.
• North/south alignment of building or other building placement such that the orientation of the
buildings optimizes conditions for natural heating, cooling, and lighting.
• Shading by vegetation or overhangs.
• Solar photovoltaic panels installed on commercial buildings or in collective arrangements within
a commercial development such that 30 percent of the power needs of the project would be
provided.
• Water efficient landscaping that eliminates conventional turf from landscaping and includes only
moderate-water-using plants.
• Low precipitation spray heads (less than 0.75 inch per hour or drip irrigation).
• Weather-based irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate
20 percent reduced water use).
• Recycled water connection (purple pipe) to irrigation system on site.
• Innovative on-site stormwater collection, filtration, and reuse systems are being developed that
provide supplemental irrigation water and provide vector control. These systems can greatly
reduce the irrigation needs of a project. Point values for these types of systems would be
determined based upon design and engineering data documenting the water savings (for
apartments only).
• Water efficient showerheads (2 gallons per minute [gpm]).
• Water efficient toilets/urinals (1.5 gpm); waterless urinals (note that commercial buildings
having both waterless urinals and high-efficiency toilets would have a combined point value of
6 points—applies to commercial uses only).
• Water-efficient faucets (1.28 gpm).
• Mixes of land uses that complement one another in a way that reduces the need for vehicle
trips can greatly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The point value of mixed-use projects
will be determined based upon traffic studies that demonstrate trip reductions and/or
reductions in vehicle miles traveled.
• Public charging station for use by an electric vehicle.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-29
• Complete sidewalk to residential within 0.25 mile; bicycle lockers and secure racks.
• Local transit within 0.25 mile.
3.4.2.7 Proposed Open Space Amenities
As shown in Figure 3.8, Proposed Open Space Amenities, the proposed project would include a
21,222 sf plaza on the southeastern corner of the project site surrounding the proposed retail
structures. The proposed project would also include an approximately 23,000 sf greenbelt on a
property immediately to the west of the project site. This is an off-site improvement that would be
constructed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would also include a 15,355 sf
dog park and greenbelt on the northwestern portion of the project site. Private open
space/recreational amenities in the proposed project would also include a 20,055 sf courtyard, a
4,135 sf clubroom, a 3,140 sf fitness room, and a 4,170 sf lounge within the proposed residential
development.
3.4.2.8 Landscape Plan
As shown in Figure 3.9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, landscaping for the proposed project would be
provided throughout the project site. It should be noted that although Figure 3.9 shows trees north
of Winners Circle, a roadway easement is proposed that would allow for the future extension of
Winners Circle. This easement would prohibit the planting of trees on the project site to the north of
Winners Circle. Landscaping for the proposed project would include a variety of tree and plant
species in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Specific Plan. A variety of trees, shrubs,
and turf landscaping is proposed along the perimeter of the project site and within the interior and
common areas. The proposed project would provide a landscaped courtyard serving the retail uses
at the southeastern corner of the project site. The courtyard would provide outdoor seating for
diners, a multi-use turf area, a shade structure with a fireplace, and a feature wall with a fountain.
Additionally, the proposed project would provide off-site landscaping along Siboney Street with
trees, an 8 ft wide sidewalk, and a rest area with a bench. Ornamental trees, accent planting, and
monument signs would also be provided at the corners of the Siboney Street entrance to the project
site, with palm trees provided along the Siboney Street driveway. The southern side of the proposed
theater would also include landscaping with a variety of trees and would include a dining patio with
outdoor seating, an accessible drop off zone, and a pedestrian walkway connection. The entrance at
Winners Circle would include a monument sign, accent planting, and palm trees.
3.4.2.9 Architectural Design
The architectural design of the proposed project would include complementary colors and a variety
of building materials and would be consistent with all design guidelines provided in the Specific Plan
and Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed hotel includes fiber cement panels, stone or masonry
veneer, aluminum storefronts and window frames, and anodized dark bronze to make the proposed
structure appear visually appealing. The use of contrasting color tones would break up the scale and
massing of the proposed hotel.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-30
This page intentionally left blank
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCTHYSSENKRUPPHYDRAULIC'SYNERGY'SELF SUPPORTED3500 LB / 150 FPM5'-0" PIT13'-10" OVERRUN7'-3" CAB HEIGHT85' MAX. TRAVELUPLOBBYGraphic Wall5' DIA.ACCESSROOMStorageStorageStorageStorageREFUSETERMINATIONROOMRAMP UP5.5 %GARAGEENTRY5' DIA.REFUSETERMINATIONROOMACCESSROOMLOBBYRAMP UP5.5 %LEVEL 175 STALLS133+2 UP RAMP = 517 152320THYSSENKRUPPHYDRAULIC
'SYNERGY'SELF SUPPORTED
3500 LB / 150 FPM5'-0" PIT13'-10" OVERRUN7'-3" CAB HEIGHT85' MAX.TRAVELStorageUtilityAREA 4 - DOG PARK AND GREENBELTAREA 2B -NORTHERNGREENBELTAREA 2A -NORTHERNGREENBELTAREA 1 - PLAZAAREA 4 - COURTYARDAREA 5 -CLUB ROOMAREA 6 -FITNESS ROOMAREA 7 -LOUNGERESIDENTIALMOVIE THEATERHOTELKATELLAAVE.RETAILARETAILBRETAILCSIBONEYST.WINNER'S CIRCLEPARK AMENITY (PUBLIC)AREA 1 - PLAZA 21,222 SFAREA 2A - SOUTHERN GREENBELT 8,798 SFAREA 2B - NORTHERN GREENBELT 14,280 SFAREA 3 - DOG PARK AND GREENBELT15,355 SFSUBTOTAL 59,655 SFPARK AMENITY (PRIVATE)AREA 4 - COURTYARD 20,055 SFAREA 5 - CLUB ROOM 4,135 SFAREA 6 - FITNESS ROOM 3,140 SFAREA 7 - LOUNGE4,170 SFSUBTOTAL 31,500 SFTOTAL OPEN SPACE 91,155 SFPROPOSED OPEN SPACE AMENITIESSOURCE Architects Orange:FEET140700NFIGURE 3.8Proposed Open Space AmenitiesI:\SHO1901\G\Open Space Amenities.cdr (2/6/2020)Cypress City Center
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-32
This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE Architects Orange:FEET140700NFIGURE 3.9Conceptual Landscape PlanI:\SHO1901\G\Landscape Plan.cdr (8/22/2019)Cypress City Center
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-34
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-35
The proposed commercial buildings and theater would incorporate metal architectural cladding,
brick and stone veneer, porcelain tile, fiber cement siding, metal canopies and slats, anodized
aluminum storefronts, metal trellises with fabric swags, and metal caps, trims, and lattices into the
design to make the proposed buildings both visually interesting and appealing.
The proposed residential structure would include light sand finish stucco, architectural metal panels,
horizontal metal sidings, glass railings, brick veneer, vinyl windows, metal awning canopies, stone or
masonry veneer, an aluminum storefront, faux wood siding material, and a covered arcade metal
trellis. The use of contrasting color tones would break up the scale and massing of the proposed
residential building.
3.4.3 Discretionary Actions
Discretionary approvals required for the proposed project are outlined in the table below:
Discretionary Action Agency Responsible
Certification of this EIR Cypress City Council
Specific Plan Amendment Cypress City Council
Tentative Parcel Map Cypress City Council
Conditional Use Permit Cypress City Council
Development Agreement Cypress City Council
Site Plan/Design review Cypress Design Review Committee
Alcohol permits California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Encroachment Permits Cypress Public Works Department and the Los Alamitos Public
Works Department
Vacation and/or dedication of City right-of-way Cypress Public Works Department
EIR = Environmental Impact Report
The following provides a description of the City’s primary discretionary approvals for the proposed
project.
3.4.3.1 Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would create a new mixed-use land use district for the
project site to allow residential and hotel uses by separate the existing Planning Area 5 into two
subareas (5A and 5B). Planning Area 5B would include the project site and be designated “Mixed
Use Commercial/Residential.” Planning Area 5A, which is located east of the project site, would
remain Professional Office. The new designation would allow for both residential and hotel uses as
well as commercial uses. The Specific Plan Amendment would also update land use tables to
incorporate the new planning area 5B.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also amend the following goals and objectives of the
Specific Plan as described below (proposed amendments are shown in underline/strikeout format):
1. Overall Concept
Goal 1: To achieve the best possible land use for the Specific Plan area with emphasis on
employment generation, economic growth, and generation of revenues to the City, and
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-36
providing a diversity of housing in the City by providing multifamily housing as well as senior
housing through a "continuum of care" approach, while retaining the race track use on-site.
Objective 1.7: Promote multifamily housing in close proximity to commercial uses.
Policy 1: Encourage employment-generating business park and other commercial uses in the
Specific Plan area, while expanding the diversity of housing by providing multifamily housing in
Planning Area 5B, and senior housing and related "continuum of care" facilities, in Planning
Area 9.
2. Uses
Objective 2.2: Establishment of uses which are compatible with contemporary commercial,
mixed-use commercial and residential, and senior housing requirements for a wide range of
uses.
Objective 2.5: Establishment of zoning standards which ensure the continuation of public/semi-
public uses in the race track area of the site (Planning Area 8), while allowing the development
of mixed-use commercial and residential uses, senior housing and related "continuum of care"
uses, in the undeveloped southern portion of the former Golf Course that was previously part of
Planning Area 7 in the Original Specific Plan and is now part of Planning Areas 9, in this amended
and restated Specific Plan.
3. Race Track
Goal 4: Achieve integration of the race track and future on-site and adjacent commercial, mixed-
use, residential, and senior housing development, while minimizing conflicts.
Objective 4.1: Achieve coordinated planning and development along the common boundary
between the race track and the commercial, mixed-use, senior housing, and public/semi-public
areas.
Objective 4.4: Develop Planning Area 5B with mixed-use commercial/residential permitted uses
in a manner compatible with the adjacent planned uses in Planning Area 8.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also amend the circulation component of the
Specific Plan to specify access points to the new subareas in Planning Area 5 as follows (again,
proposed revisions are shown in redline format):
Planning Area 5: Planning Area 5 is split into two subareas: Planning Area 5A and Planning Area
5B. Access driveways areis planned in sixseven locations including the access point on Walker
Street in conjunction with Planning Area 4. One other access point would be located on Walker
Street several hundred feet north of Katella Avenue. Only right-in and right-out traffic would be
permitted at this location. Subarea 5A is developed with a Costco warehouse outlet, with two
drivewaysFour access points would be located along Katella Avenue west of Walker Street. Both
drivewaysThe most easterly driveway would allow right-in and right-out traffic only and would
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-37
beare unsignalized. The next driveway to the west would be aligned with Winners Circle Drive is
located between Subareas 5A and 5B, providing access to both subareas. It is currently
signalized and would allows for a full range of traffic movement. The next existing driveway off
Katella Avenue would be relocated approximately 50 feet to the east with development of
Subarea 5B and allow right-in/right-out traffic only and would be unsignalized. The westernmost
drivewayaccess point is would be aligned with Siboney Street, which is the main access to Los
Alamitos Race Track and would permit the full range of traffic movements. Siboney Street will
also provide access to Subarea 5B. This intersection is currently signalized and would be shared
with traffic to/from Planning Area 6.
The Specific Plan Amendment would include minor changes to the Design Guidelines to allow super
graphics (large graphics) and projecting signage. Additionally, the Specific Plan Amendment would
include site development standards and building floor area ratio (FAR) and site coverage standards
specific to Planning Area 5B. The following setback requirements pertain to Planning Area 5B:
1. Katella Avenue shall have a minimum building setback of fifteen (15) feet, measured from right-
of-way. The setback area shall be landscaped.
2. Siboney Street and Winners Circle setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet, measured from
the property line.
3. Interior setback from Planning Area 8/Town Center Specific Plan areas shall be a minimum of
five (5) feet, measured from the property line.
4. No building shall exceed ninety-nine (99) feet in height.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment also includes modified parking requirements that would
apply to Planning Area 5B (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use). Uses not outlined below would be
required to comply with the requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance:
a. Hotel: 1 space per room.
b. Residential: 1.65 spaces per dwelling unit, inclusive of 0.2 space per unit designated for
visitor parking.
Permitted uses in Planning Area 5B would include:
a. All permitted uses described in Section VI.G.2 (Mixed Use Commercial) of the Specific Plan.
b. Residential Uses, multifamily rental or for-sale, and typical ancillary uses (pool/spa, fitness
rooms, business centers, leasing offices).
Uses permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit in Planning Area 5B would include:
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-38
a. All uses identified in Section VI.G.3 (Mixed Use Commercial) of the Specific Plan.1
Site development standards specific to the Planning Area 5B would include:
a. Minimum Parcel Size: 10,000 square feet.
b. Minimum Parcel Depth: No minimum.
c. Minimum Parcel Width: 50 feet.
d. Maximum Structure Height: 99 feet.
e. Maximum Parcel Coverage: No maximum.
f. Minimum Landscape Coverage: 25% (Residential only). Includes pedestrian walkways,
drives, and hardscape improvements.
g. Common Open Space: 200 sq. ft./du (Residential only)
Common Open Space shall be devoted to landscaping, patios, enclosed club and fitness
rooms, and outdoor facilities such as recreational facilities, pools, and areas devoted to
dogs. These areas can include pedestrian walkways, drives, and hardscape improvements to
support access and use of the common open space/recreational facilities. The above-listed
common open space facilities within Planning Area 5B may be counted towards credit for
private open space facilities under Article VI of the Cypress Municipal Code.
h. Private Open Space: 50 sq. ft. [sf] /du (Residential only)
Private open space requirement is measured over the total number of units. Minimum
private patio/balcony of 50 sf.
Building floor area ratio (FAR) and site coverage standards specific to Planning Area 5B would
include:
a. Site coverage, defined as the building-ground contact area divided by the total net lot area,
shall not exceed 60% if surface parking is provided and 70% with parking structures
providing all or part of the parking spaces; and
b. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for Planning Area 5B as a whole shall not exceed the
density specified in the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 1 of the Specific Plan) and in Table 1,
provided, however, that (a) the floor area devoted to parking within a building shall not be
considered in calculating the FAR for Planning Area 5B.
Building height standards specific to Planning Area 5B are proposed as follows:
1 Includes hotel and motel uses.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-39
Maximum building height shall not exceed 99 feet excluding any roof-mounted equipment and/or
architectural details, provided that a higher limit for a hotel is permissible with City Council approval
subject to Design Review. Ultimately, building heights shall be subject to City Design Review and the
review and determination of Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], under Part 77 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations [FAR], which evaluates development projects in the vicinity of Los Alamitos
Armed Forces Reserve Center. As a result of these reviews, the permitted building height may be
reduced. No buildings will be allowed which penetrate the imaginary surfaces pertaining to hazards
or obstructions, per FAR Part 77 and other applicable FAA standards, such as the Terminal
Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Roof-top mechanical equipment and screening shall be set back
fifteen feet (unless the screening is an integral part of the facade) from an exterior building edge
and shall not project above the equipment which it is designed to shield from view.
3.4.3.2 Tentative Parcel Map
Approval of a Tentative Parcel Map is required to subdivide the property into five parcels. The
Tentative Parcel map also includes all access driveways and public rights-of-way.
3.4.3.3 Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for the proposed hotel and theater, commercial,
and restaurant/alcohol uses.
3.4.3.4 Development Agreement
A Development Agreement would be entered into between the Applicant/Developer, Shea
Properties, and the City of Cypress which provides for Implementation of the proposed project. The
Development Agreement includes provisions regarding the duration of the agreement, vests the
permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and includes provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes. The Development Agreement also includes conditions, terms, restrictions, and
requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, provided that such conditions, terms,
restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development
of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the Development
Agreement.
3.4.3.5 Site Plan/Design Review
Site Plan/Design Review of the proposed project would be conducted pursuant to Section 4.19.060
of the City’s Municipal Code. As part of this review, the City would consider whether the proposed
project is in compliance with all zoning requirements and consider the aesthetics and design of the
proposed project relative to the aesthetic qualities within the City.
3.4.3.6 Certification of Final EIR
The City Council would certify that the Final EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the
proposed project and identifies appropriate mitigation measures to address any potentially
significant effects.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (02/06/20) 3-40
3.4.4 Ministerial Actions
Ministerial approvals required for the proposed project are outlined in the table below:
Action Agency Responsible
General Construction Permit State Water Resources Control Board
Groundwater Dewatering Permit Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Proposed Construction or Alteration Determination,
pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 77
Federal Aviation Administration
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (02/06/20) 4-1
4.0 EXISTING SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, IMPACTS, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is on the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Winners Circle in the southern
portion of Cypress, California, approximately one mile northwest of Garden Grove and immediately
north of the Los Alamitos corporate boundary. As shown on Figure 3.1, Regional and Project
Location, in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, regional access to the project site is provided via
Interstate 605 (I-605), which is located approximately 2 miles west of the project site, and Interstate
405 (I-405) and State Route 22 (SR-22), which are located approximately 3 miles south of the project
site.
In its existing condition, the project site is characterized by a paved parking lot, with existing light
poles and various electrical utility boxes and lines. A main water valve is within the current
right‐of‐way along Siboney Street near the southwest corner of the project site. Sewer and storm
drain infrastructure is also within the current right-of-way along Katella Avenue. No lateral lines
serve the project site. The edge condition along Katella Avenue and a portion of Siboney Street has
been improved with a public sidewalk, fencing, and ornamental landscaping. The edge condition
along Winners Circle has been improved with a public sidewalk and driveway access points, with no
landscaping. The interior property is improved with a parking lot and limited landscaping. Vehicular
access to the project site is provided from four locations, a right-turn-in/out-only driveway directly
on Katella Avenue, two driveways off Winners Circle, and a series of driveways off Siboney Street.
Temporary existing uses on the project site include vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los
Alamitos Race Course. The existing parking lot rarely reaches capacity, except for during the Wiener
Nationals dog racing event, which takes place annually in July. Other short-term uses include a
Christmas tree lot and a truck staging area. Local businesses have leased the project site on a
temporary basis from time to time for auxiliary truck and trailer storage.
Vacant land and surface parking lots associated with the Los Alamitos Race Course, as well as the
race track itself, are immediately north of the project site. Northeast of the site is a Goodwill
Donation Center and Cypress Corporate Park. East of the project site across Winners Circle are
commercial and retail services, including a Costco warehouse outlet and restaurant uses. Katella
Avenue, a six-lane arterial roadway, borders the project site to the south. Uses to the south of
Katella Avenue include commercial and office and business park uses in the City of Los Alamitos. A
commercial center, consisting of restaurant, commercial services, and a 24 Hour Fitness as well as a
Seventh Day Adventist Church, is to the west of the project site across Siboney Street. The Barton
Place Residential Project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park) and a Marriott Hotel are immediately
west of the commercial center.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (02/06/20) 4-2
CHAPTER FORMAT
This chapter contains 17 sections, and each section addresses one environmental topic listed in
Appendix G of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines)
(California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15397).
For each environmental impact issue analyzed, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes a
detailed explanation of the existing conditions, thresholds of significance that will be applied to
determine whether the project’s impacts are significant or less than significant, analysis of the
environmental impacts, and a determination of whether the project would have a significant impact
if implemented. A “significant impact” or “significant effect” means “a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project,
including land, air, water, minerals, flora fauna, ambient noise, and object of aesthetic significance.
An economic or social change by itself shall not considered to be a significant effect on the
environment.” (14 CCR Section 15382). Each environmental topic section in Chapter 4.0 also
includes a discussion of the cumulative effects of the project when considered in combination with
other projects, causing related impacts, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130.
Each of the sections is organized into eleven subsections, as follows:
• Introduction briefly describes the topics and issues covered in the section.
• Methodology describes the approach and methods employed to complete the environmental
analysis for the issue under investigation.
• Existing Environmental Setting describes the relevant physical conditions that exist at the time
of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that may influence or affect the issue under
investigation. This section focuses on physical site characteristics that are relevant to the
environmental topic being analyzed.
• Regulatory Setting lists and discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, plans, and policies that
relate to the specific environmental topic and how they apply to the proposed project.
• Thresholds of Significance sets forth the thresholds that are the basis of the conclusions
regarding significance, which are primarily the criteria in Appendix G to the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Cypress (City) Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, General Plan, or
Zoning Code.
• Project Impacts describes the potential environmental changes to the existing physical
conditions that may occur if the proposed project is implemented. Evidence is presented to
show the cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed project and potential changes in
the environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), this EIR is
required to “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects” of the proposed
project. The magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, and range or other parameters of a
potential impact are ascertained to the extent feasible to determine whether impacts may be
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (02/06/20) 4-3
significant. In accordance with CEQA, potential project impacts, if any, are classified as follows
for each of the environmental topics discussed in this EIR.
○ Significant and Unavoidable Impact: If the proposed project is approved with significant
and unavoidable impacts, the decision-making body is required to adopt a statement of
overriding considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 explaining why
the project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects caused by
those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
○ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: This classification refers to potentially
significant environmental impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance.
If the proposed project is approved, the decision-making body is required to make findings
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that significant impacts have been
mitigated to the extent feasible through implementation of mitigation measures.
○ Less Than Significant Impact: Less than significant impacts are environmental impacts that
have been identified but are not potentially significant. No mitigation is required for less
than significant impacts.
○ No Impact: A “no impact” determination is made when the proposed project is found to
have no environmental impact.
• Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the
project, if any, prior to mitigation.
• Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures describe relevant and applicable
laws or regulations that must be adhered to with respect to the construction and/or operation
of the proposed project and would reduce or lessen potential impacts related to a particular
issue area and identifies project-specific measures that avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce,
eliminate, or compensate for a potentially significant impact.
• Level of Significance after Mitigation describes the significance of potential impacts after
implementation of mitigation measures. Potential significant unavoidable impacts are clearly
stated in this section.
• Cumulative Impacts refers to potential environmental changes to the existing physical
conditions that may occur as a result of project implementation together with all other
reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects in the vicinity of the project site
that produce related impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts
as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which
compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts may result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Projects
that have progressed to the stage where CEQA review has been initiated are normally treated as
foreseeable probable future projects. For each of the environmental topics considered in this
EIR, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis is defined.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (02/06/20) 4-4
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The threshold questions used in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR are consistent
with those included in the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The rest of the threshold
questions used in this EIR are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
EFFECTS EVALUATED IN THIS EIR
The discussion of potential effects is presented by environmental resource area in this EIR. As part of
the scoping and environmental analysis carried out for the proposed project, the following
environmental issues were considered but no adverse impacts were identified. As a result, there is
no further discussion about these issues in the document.
Agriculture/Forestry Resources: The proposed project is located within a suburban setting and does
not affect any existing agricultural or forestry resources. Furthermore, there are no farmlands or
timberlands designations within the project area in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan
or the Zoning Ordinance.
Mineral Resources: As described in the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s
General Plan, The State Division of Mines and Geology identifies mineral resource areas throughout
the State. According to the Geologic Map of Orange County showing Mines and Mineral Deposits,
the City of Cypress does not contain any mineral resources as defined.
Wildfire: There are no very high fire hazard severity zones designated within the City of Cypress
either as part of the City’s General Plan or Municipal Ordinance and there would be no effect on
emergency response or evaluation plans associated with this level of fire hazard zone.
RELATED PROJECTS
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, cumulative impacts are anticipated
impacts of the proposed project along with reasonably foreseeable growth. Reasonably foreseeable
growth may be based on either:
• A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts,
including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or
• A summary of projections contained in the adopted General Plan or related planning document,
or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, and that described or
evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
For the purposes of the EIR, a list of past, present, and probable future projects is used in the
evaluation of potential cumulative impacts. All proposed, recently approved, under construction,
and reasonably foreseeable projects that could produce a related or cumulative impact on the local
environment when considered in conjunction with the proposed project are evaluated in an EIR. As
stated above, an analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with these related projects and the
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (02/06/20) 4-5
proposed project is provided in the cumulative impacts discussion under each individual impact
category in Chapter 4.0.
In coordination with the Cities of Cypress, Garden Grove, Los Alamitos, and Stanton, a list of past,
present, and probable future projects was developed. As shown in Table 4.A, the projects include
various land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, hotel, and mixed-use. The locations of
the related projects are shown on Figure 4.1, Related Projects. Although some projects on the list
have been completed since issuance of the NOP, they remain on the list because they are part of the
cumulative analysis for the EIR.
It is noted that some of the related projects may not be completed by 2021 (the proposed project’s
anticipated buildout year), may never be built, or may be approved and built at reduced densities.
However, to provide a conservative forecast, the future baseline forecast assumes that all of the
related projects will be fully built out by 2021.
The discussion of cumulative impacts “should be guided by the standards of practicality and
reasonableness” (Environmental Protection Info. Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
(2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 524). A proposal that has not crystallized to the point that it would be
reasonable and practical to evaluate its cumulative impacts need not be treated as a probable future
project (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 397).
Rather, a potential future project qualifies for inclusion in an analysis of cumulative impacts only to
the extent the future project is “both probable and sufficiently certain to allow for meaningful
cumulative impact analysis” (Id. at 398; see City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
(2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 902 [when “review[ing] the agency’s decision to include information in
the cumulative impacts analysis[,] ... [w]e determine whether inclusion was reasonable and
practical”]).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (02/06/20) 4-6
Table 4.A: Summary of Related Projects
Project
No. Project Name Location Status Project Description
City of Cypress
1 Barton Place
Mixed-Use
(Ovation)
Northeast corner of
Katella Avenue
and Enterprise Drive
Approximately 100% of the
project was completed as
of December 2019.
244 du senior housing
2 Barton Place
Mixed Use
(Westmont)
Northeast corner of
Katella Avenue and
Enterprise Drive
Approved, construction
expected to start soon.
129-unit (152-bed) assisted living
13,700 sf retail
3 Bonanni
Development
4620 Lincoln Avenue Approved 67 du apartments
4 Cypress Sports
Park
Southeast corner of
Lexington Street and
Cerritos Avenue
Approved, not under
construction yet.
9-acre sports park (6 soccer fields)
City of Los Alamitos
5 Residential
Development
10845 Cherry Street Approved 1 duplex
6 Los Alamitos
Luxury
Apartments
3342 Cerritos Avenue Approved 107 du apartments
7 Residential
Development
10922 Walnut Street Under construction as of
January 2019.
4 du apartments
8 Residential
Development
3751 Farquhar
Avenue
Completed 4 du condominiums
9 Cottonwood
Church Site
Residential
Development
3311 Sausalito Street Under construction as of
May 2019.
50 du condominiums
10 Residential
Development
4071 Farquhar
Avenue
Under construction as of
March 2019.
5 du condominiums
11 Residential
Development
4061 Farquhar
Avenue
Under construction as of
March 2019.
5 du condominiums
12 Residential
Development
10700 Reagan Street Under construction as of
February 2019.
1 duplex
13 Commercial
Development
5250 Katella Avenue Under construction as of
May 2019.
2,400 sf coffee shop
2,800 sf restaurant
14 Hotel
Development
10650 Los Alamitos
Boulevard
Under construction as of
May 2019.
107-room hotel
City of Garden Grove
15 Mixed Use
Development
12101–12111 Valley
View Street
Under construction as of
September 2019.
4,241 sf automatic car wash
1,870 sf drive-through restaurant
2,700 sf sit-down restaurant
2,846 sf movie theater
City of Stanton
16 Commercial
Development
10580–10600 Beach
Boulevard
Under construction as of
February 2019.
4,100 sf retail
850 sf warehouse
17 Residential
Development
7320 Katella Avenue Proposed 6-unit townhouses
du = dwelling unit
sf = square foot/feet
SOURCE Bing Maps:FEET300015000NFIGURE 4.1I:\SHO1901\G\Related_Projects.cdr (12/30/2019)Cypress City CenterLocation of Related Projects#- Related Projects- Project SiteLEGENDFarquhar AveFarquhar AveDenni StDenni StMoody StMoody StEnterprise DrEnterprise DrCottonwood WayCottonwood WayWinners CircleWinners CircleSiboney StSiboney St- City Boundary1234567891011121314151617Cypress City BoundaryCypress City BoundaryGarden Grove City BoundaryGarden Grove City BoundaryLos Alamitos City BoundaryLos Alamitos City BoundarySeal Beach City BoundarySeal Beach City Boundary
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (02/06/20) 4-8
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-1
4.1 AESTHETICS
This section evaluates the existing visual and aesthetic resources on the project site and in the
surrounding area, and evaluates the potential for changes in aesthetic character that could result
from implementation of the proposed Cypress City Center project (proposed project). This section
also evaluates the potential loss of existing visual resources, effects on public views, visual
compatibility with existing uses, and light and glare impacts.
Information presented in this section is based on the building elevations and landscape plan
included in the development plans; the City of Cypress (City) Municipal Code; and the Amended and
Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan) (2012).
4.1.1 Methodology
The assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature. This analysis attempts to identify and
objectively examine factors that contribute to the perception of aesthetic impacts that would be
caused by implementation of the proposed project. The potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed
project have been assessed based on consideration of several factors, including scale, mass,
proportion, and the concepts described below.
• Scenic Resources: Scenic resources are defined as natural or manmade elements that contribute
to an area’s scenic value and are visually pleasing. Scenic resources include landforms,
vegetation, water, or adjacent scenery and may include a cultural modification to the natural
environment. The degree to which these resources are present in a community is clearly subject
to personal and cultural interpretation. However, it is possible to qualify certain resources as
having aesthetic characteristics and establish general guidelines for assessing the aesthetic
impacts of new development.
• Scenic Vista: A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued
landscape for the public’s benefit. It is usually viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic
components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access.
A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by
either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or
“vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project
would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to
surrounding land uses and travel corridors.
• Sensitive Views: Sensitive views are generally those associated with designated vantage points
and public recreational uses, but the term can be more broadly applied to encompass any
valued public vantage point. Sensitivity level has to do with the (1) intensity of use of a visual
resource; (2) visibility of a visual resource; and (3) importance of the visual resource to users.
• Scenic Corridors: Scenic corridors are channels that facilitate movement (primarily by
automobile, transit, bicycle, or foot) from one location to another with expansive views of
natural landscapes and/or visually attractive manmade development. Scenic corridors analyzed
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-2
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) typically include State-designated scenic
highways and locally designated scenic routes.
• Scenic Quality: The scenic quality of a streetscape, building, group of buildings, or other
manmade or natural feature that creates an overall impression of an area within an urban
context. For example, a scenic vista along the boundary of a community, a pleasing streetscape
with trees, and well-kept residences and yards are scenic resources that create a pleasing
impression of an area. In general, concepts of scenic quality can be organized around four basic
elements: (1) site utilization, (2) buildings and structures, (3) landscaping, and (4) signage.
Adverse scenic quality effects can include the loss of aesthetic features or the introduction of
contrasting features that could contribute to a decline in overall scenic quality.
• Glare: A continuous or periodic intense light that may cause eye discomfort or be temporarily
blinding to humans.
• Light Sources: A device that produces illumination, including incandescent bulbs, fluorescent
and neon tubes, halogen and other vapor lamps, and reflecting surfaces or refractors
incorporated into a lighting fixture. Any translucent enclosure of a light source is considered to
be part of the light source.
• Regulations Governing Scenic Quality. Visual impacts have been evaluated based on the
project’s consistency with design guidelines in the City’s Specific Plan and development
standards related to aesthetics in the City’s Municipal Code.
• Light and Glare. The analysis of light and glare identifies the location of light-sensitive land uses
and describes the existing ambient conditions on and in the vicinity of the project site. The
analysis describes the proposed project’s light and glare sources and the extent to which project
lighting, including any potential illuminated signage, would spill off the project site onto
adjacent light-sensitive areas. The analysis also describes the affected street frontages, the
direction in which the light would be focused, and the extent to which the proposed project
would illuminate sensitive land uses. The analysis also considers the potential for sunlight to
reflect off of windows and building surfaces (glare) and the extent to which such glare would
interfere with the operation of motor vehicles, aviation, or other activities. Glare can also be
produced during evening and nighttime hours by artificial light sources, such as illuminated
signage and vehicle headlights. Glare-sensitive uses generally include residences and
transportation corridors (i.e., roadways).
4.1.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The project site is generally flat and is currently characterized by a paved parking lot, with existing
light poles and various electrical utility boxes and lines (refer to Figure 3.3, Existing Conditions, in
Chapter 3.0, Project Description). The edge conditions along Katella Avenue and Siboney Street on
the southern and western borders of the project site have been improved with a public sidewalk,
fencing, and ornamental landscaping. The edge condition along Winners Circle on the eastern
border of the project site has been improved with a public sidewalk and driveway access points,
with no landscaping. The project site is visible from its southern and eastern boundaries by vehicles
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-3
and pedestrians traveling along Katella Avenue and Winners Circle. Although the project site is also
visible from Siboney Street, that street is privately owned and, therefore, does not represent a
public vantage point.
Land uses surrounding the project site reflect a developed, urban area that consists of residential,
commercial/retail, office, hotel, and racetrack uses. Buildings in the vicinity of the project site
include retail and commercial buildings that range from one to three stories and are approximately
15 to 50 feet (ft) in height. The project site is also near the Los Alamitos Race Course grandstand,
which is approximately 75 ft tall.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the City of Cypress is located within the Los
Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urbanized Area.1 As described in the State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15387 and defined by the United States Census Bureau, an “urbanized area” is a central city
or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more people, together with adjacent
densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.2
Because the City is located in an urbanized area, the project site is also located within an urbanized
area. Further, surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the project site are representative of urban
densities.
The Cypress General Plan Land Use Policy Map designates the project site as “Specific Plan Area” in
recognition that the project site is subject to the Amended Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan (Specific Plan) (Figure 3.5, City of Cypress General Plan Land Uses).3 The project site is
part of Planning Area 5 in the Specific Plan, which is designated for Professional Office uses. Planning
Area 8, which includes the Los Alamitos Race Course, is to the north of the project site.4 Planning
Area 6, which is designated for Professional Office/Hotel and Support Commercial uses, is to the
west of the project site across Siboney Street. The project site currently has a zoning designation of
PBP-25A, Planned Business Park (PBP), which is intended to provide for the development of
educational, professional office, commercial, industrial, open space, or any public or semi-public
uses.
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
4.1.3.1 Federal Regulations
No federal policies or regulations pertaining to aesthetics are applicable to the proposed project.
4.1.3.2 State Regulations
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic
Highway Program protects the natural scenic beauty of the State’s highways and corridors through
1 United States Census Bureau. 2010. Los Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urbanized Area No. 51445.
Website: https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua51445los_angeles--long_
beach--anaheim_ca/DC10UA51445.pdf (accessed January 6, 2020).
2 United States Census Bureau. 2010 Census Urban Area FAQs. Website: https://www2.census.gov/geo/
reference/ua/2010ua_faqs.pdf?# (accessed January 6, 2020).
3 Figure 3.5 does not reflect the approval of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
4 Most of Planning Area 8 is now subject to the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-4
its designated scenic highways throughout the State. Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any
freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic
quality. Other considerations given to a scenic highway designation include how much of the natural
landscape a traveler may see and the extent to which visual intrusions degrade the scenic corridor.
The project site is not located in the vicinity of a State Scenic Highway. According to the List of
Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways published by Caltrans, the only State-
designated Scenic Highway in the County is a 4-mile portion of State Route 91 (SR-91) from State
Route 55 (SR-55) to east of the Anaheim city limits.1 This portion of SR-91 is approximately 12 miles
east of the project site. The nearest State highway that is eligible for official designation as a State
Scenic Highway is a portion of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH or State Route 1 [SR-1]), which is located
approximately 4.9 miles southwest of the project site.
4.1.3.3 Regional Regulations
No regional policies or regulations pertaining to aesthetics are applicable to the proposed project.
4.1.3.4 Local Regulations
Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance (refer to Appendix I of the City’s
Municipal Code) includes regulations related to zoning and lighting that are applicable to the
proposed project. The Zoning Ordinance identifies development standards for various land uses,
which aim at regulating aesthetics and scenic quality. The Zoning Ordinance sets forth exterior
lighting standards, including the following:
• Section 3.11.060.A (Exterior Fixtures): Lighting fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with
the character of the surrounding structure(s) and shall be energy efficient. Fixtures shall be
appropriate in height, intensity, and scale to the use they are serving.
• Section 3.11.060.B (Intensity): The level of parking lot light projected onto any ground or wall
surface shall not be less than two (2) footcandles nor more than five (5) footcandles at the base
of the light fixture. Building-mounted decorative lights shall not exceed five (5) footcandles
measured five (5) feet from the light source.
• Section 3.11.060.C (Security Lighting): Security lighting shall provide a minimum of two (2)
footcandles and a maximum of three (3) footcandles at the ground level of the entrance.
• Section 3.11.060.D (Shielding of Light Source): Where the light source is visible from outside the
project boundary, shielding shall be required to reduce glare so that neither the light source nor
its image from a reflective surface shall be directly visible from any point beyond the property
line. This requirement shall not apply to traffic safety lighting or public street lighting.
1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015, last modified December 2019. List of Eligible
and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/
programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug2019_a11y.xlsx (accessed January 8, 2020).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-5
• Section 3.14.050.C.4 (Required Improvements for Off-Street Parking Areas): Lighting as
specified by the building official and police department, with special attention to directing light
and glare away from adjacent properties. The level of parking lot light shall not exceed one
footcandle at a site’s property lines.
Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
establishes design guidelines for land uses proposed as part of the proposed project. All buildings
and open space areas included as part of the proposed project would be consistent with design
guidelines and lighting standards established in the Specific Plan, except where the Specific Plan
references applicable design standards, if any, in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the
exterior lighting standards included in the Zoning Ordinance provided above, the following
development regulations included in the Specific Plan apply to the proposed project:
• Section V.E.8.a. Adequate lighting shall be provided for all automobile parking areas, trucking
and loading area, and all pedestrian and vehicle access points.
• Section V.E.8.b. Parking areas shall be lighted. All lighting, interior and exterior, shall be
designed and located to minimize power consumption and to confine direct illumination to the
premises.
Additionally, the following design elements of the architectural design guidelines provided in the
Specific Plan are applicable to the proposed project:
a. Avoid long, unarticulated building facades. Buildings with varying front setbacks are strongly
encouraged.
b. Flat roofs with parapet walls to screen rooftop equipment are appropriate, although
buildings with articulated varying roof planes are encouraged.
c. The use of prefab, all metal steel for sheathing of buildings is prohibited. This is not to
preclude the use of metal detail within architecturally designed buildings such as "Cor-ten"
steel.
d. Conceal all service areas and storage areas either within the buildings themselves or by
screening walls (solid masonry or stucco stud wall of one color), preferably with appropriate
accent trim.
e. Avoid long linear vistas and building edges within the development envelope and along the
streetscape through variations in setbacks.
f. Buildings shall be sited in a manner that will complement the adjacent buildings and
landscape. Building sites shall be developed in a coordinated manner to provide order and
diversity and avoid a jumbled, confused streetscene. The designer shall consider the existing
development around the subject site in order to establish a context in which to design.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-6
4.1.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for aesthetics impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project
may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to aesthetics if it would:
Threshold 4.1.1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Threshold 4.1.2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Threshold 4.1.3: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
Threshold 4.1.4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
4.1.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.1.1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued
landscape for the benefit of the general public. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista generally
include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access. Although the City of Cypress does
not provide a definition of scenic vistas, potential scenic vistas includes areas with views of the
coastline, mountains, or other prominent scenic features that are considered significant visual
resources for residents and businesses.
The City is almost entirely developed and neither the project site nor other properties in the project
vicinity provide substantial views of any water bodies, mountains, hilltops, or any other significant
visual resources. As such, the City has not designated any scenic corridors or scenic vistas within the
City. The project site is located in a flat area and is surrounded by urban development, including the
Los Alamitos Race Course to the north; a Goodwill Donation Center and Cypress Corporate Park to
the northeast; commercial and retail services, including a Costco warehouse outlet and restaurant
uses to the east; and a commercial center consisting of restaurant, commercial services, a 24 Hour
Fitness and a Marriott Hotel to the west of the project site. In addition, the proposed project has a
relatively moderate scale (i.e., the height of the tallest structure, the apartment structure, would be
approximately 60 ft in height) and would not block the view of any natural features from the project
site or surrounding areas. For these reasons, the development of the proposed project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no
mitigation is required.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-7
Threshold 4.1.2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the project site is not located in the vicinity of a State Scenic
Highway. The nearest State-designated Scenic Highway to the project site is a 4-mile portion of SR-
91 approximately 12 miles east of the project site. The nearest State highway that is eligible for
official designation as a State Scenic Highway is a portion of PCH approximately 4.9 miles southwest
of the project site. Due to distance and intervening land uses, no portion of the project site or
surrounding area is viewable from the officially designated portion of SR-91 or the eligible portion of
PCH. Additionally, the project site consists of a paved parking lot and does not contain any buildings.
Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to the substantial damage of scenic
resources within a State Scenic Highway. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no mitigation is
required.
Threshold 4.1.3: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated previously, the United States Census Bureau designated the
project site as part of an urbanized area because the entire City is within the Los Angeles—Long
Beach—Anaheim, CA Urbanized Area. The project site is part of Planning Area 5 in the Specific Plan,
which is designated for Professional Office uses. The proposed project includes residential land uses
and hotel land uses that are not expressly identified as allowable uses within the Professional Office
designation in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment proposed as part of the project would
create a new mixed-use land use district for the project site to allow residential and hotel uses by
separating the existing Planning Area 5 into two subareas (5A and 5B) and includes development
regulations for the new uses. With approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed project
would be consistent with the Specific Plan designations for the project site, and the proposed
project would comply with all applicable design guidelines and development regulations included in
the Specific Plan and Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes
minor amendments to the design guidelines included in the Specific Plan to allow super graphics
(large graphics) and projecting signage for the proposed movie theater structure. The proposed
project’s consistency with the architectural design elements included in the Specific Plan is provided
in Table 4.1.A, below.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-8
Table 4.1.A: Specific Plan Architectural Design Elements Consistency Analysis
Architectural Design Element Proposed Project Consistency
a. Avoid long, unarticulated building facades.
Buildings with varying front setbacks are
strongly encouraged.
Consistent. As shown in the architectural elevations provided on
Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.6, the architectural design of the
proposed buildings include various plane breaks and color tones
that would break up the scale and massing of the proposed project.
As such, the proposed project would avoid long, unarticulated
building facades. Additionally the proposed project would
incorporate varying front setbacks as shown in Figure 3.7,
Conceptual Site Plan, in Section 3.0, Project Description. Therefore,
the proposed project would be consistent with Design Element a. of
the Specific Plan.
b. Flat roofs with parapet walls to screen
rooftop equipment are appropriate,
although buildings with articulated varying
roof planes are encouraged.
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with Section
3.11.100(b) of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires that
mechanical equipment in residential, commercial, and industrial
zoning districts be enclosed within a structure or completely
screened from view from surrounding properties by the use of a
fence or wall. As such, rooftop equipment would be screened as
appropriate. Additionally, as shown on Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.6,
the proposed project would incorporate multilevel rooftops.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Design
Element b. of the Specific Plan.
c. The use of prefab, all metal steel for
sheathing of buildings is prohibited. This is
not to preclude the use of metal detail
within architecturally designed buildings
such as "Cor-ten" steel.
Consistent. The proposed project would not utilize prefabricated or
metal steel for the sheathing of buildings. The project includes the
use of various metal details, which is consistent with the Specific
Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with
Design Element c. of the Specific Plan.
d. Conceal all service areas and storage areas
either within the buildings themselves or by
screening walls (solid masonry or stucco stud
wall of one color), preferably with
appropriate accent trim.
Consistent. No outdoor storage for any on-site uses is proposed by
the project. Proposed service areas as shown on Figure 3.7,
Conceptual Site Plan, in Section 3.0, Project Description, would be
concealed with screening walls and/or landscaping. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with Design Element d. of
the Specific Plan.
e. Avoid long linear vistas and building edges
within the development envelope and along
the streetscape through variations in
setbacks.
Consistent. As shown on Figure 3.7, Conceptual Site Plan, in Section
3.0, Project Description, the proposed project is designed with
variations in setbacks along Katella Avenue, Siboney Street, and
Winners Circle. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Design Element e. of the Specific Plan.
f. Buildings shall be sited in a manner that
would complement the adjacent buildings
and landscape. Building sites shall be
developed in a coordinated manner to
provide order and diversity and avoid a
jumbled, confused streetscene. The designer
shall consider the existing development
around the subject site in order to establish
a context in which to design.
Consistent. The proposed structures would be visually consistent
with adjoining uses and would consist of similar and compatible
height and landscaping and would be consistent with development
standards in the Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed project
would incorporate similar building materials and color pallet to
create a unified design between all proposed structures.
Additionally, the proposed project would conform to all
architectural and landscape guidelines of the Specific Plan and all
applicable development standards in the Cypress Zoning
Ordinance. As such, the proposed structures would complement
the adjacent buildings and landscapes. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with Design Element f. of the Specific
Plan.
Source: City of Cypress. Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (2012).
I:\SHO1901\G\Elevations_Prop-Theater.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.1.1Conceptual Building Elevations – Proposed Movie TheaterCypress City CenterSOURCE Architects Orange:FEET4020040’-0”40’-0”Page 1 of 2
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-10
This page intentionally left blank
I:\SHO1901\G\Elevations_Prop-Theater.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.1.1Conceptual Building Elevations – Proposed Movie TheaterCypress City CenterSOURCE Architects Orange:FEET40200Page 2 of 242’-0”42’-0”
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-12
This page intentionally left blank
I:\SHO1901\G\Elevations_Prop-Retail-A.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.1.2Conceptual Building Elevations – Proposed Retail Building ACypress City CenterSOURCE Architects Orange:FEET4020026’-0”23’-0”31’-0”26’-0”
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-14
This page intentionally left blank
I:\SHO1901\G\Elevations_Prop-Retail-B.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.1.3Conceptual Building Elevations – Proposed Retail Building BCypress City CenterSOURCE Architects Orange:FEET4020024’-0”23’-0”23’-0”31’-0”
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-16
This page intentionally left blank
I:\SHO1901\G\Elevations_Prop-Retail-C.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.1.4Conceptual Building Elevations – Proposed Retail Building CCypress City CenterSOURCE Architects Orange:FEET4020027’-0”27’-0”26’-0”26’-0”
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-18
This page intentionally left blank
I:\SHO1901\G\Elevations_Hotel.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.1.5Conceptual Building Elevations – Proposed Hotel BuildingCypress City CenterSOURCE DesignCell Architecture:FEET4020062’-0” MAXPage 1 of 262’-0” MAX
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-20
This page intentionally left blank
I:\SHO1901\G\Elevations_Hotel.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.1.5Conceptual Building Elevations – Proposed Hotel BuildingCypress City CenterSOURCE DesignCell Architecture:Page 2 of 262’-0” MAX62’-0” MAXFEET40200
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-22
This page intentionally left blank
I:\SHO1901\G\Elevations_Residential.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.1.6Conceptual Building Elevations – Proposed Residential BuildingCypress City CenterSOURCE Architects Orange:FEET7035.5060’-4”60’-4”60’-4”60’-4”60’-4”60’-4”60’-4”60’-4”
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-24
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-25
The proposed project involves the construction of a four-story apartment complex on the
northwestern portion of the project site, a movie theater on the northeastern portion of the project
site, a five-story hotel on the southwestern portion of the project site, and three commercial/retail
structures on the southeastern portion of the project site. Conceptual elevations of the proposed
structures are shown in Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.6. The proposed apartment structure would be
approximately 60 ft in height, the proposed hotel would be approximately 60 ft in height, and the
proposed movie theater and retail structures would be approximately 42 ft and 32 ft in height,
respectively. The proposed heights of the project would be lower than the maximum height of 99 ft
allowed under the Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed project’s building heights are similar to
and compatible with the commercial, office, and business park uses that surround the project site,
as well as the 75 ft high Los Alamitos Race Course grandstand to the north of the project site. In
addition, the proposed apartment complex would be designed to wrap around the parking
structure, which would be approximately the same height as the apartment building. As shown in
Figure 4.1.6, this “wrap” design would conceal the parking structure from view and avoid any
potential visual conflicts with the surrounding land uses.
The proposed project would also conform to architectural and landscape guidelines of the Specific
Plan and all applicable development standards in the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.1.4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
4.1.5.1 Construction
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would occur only during daylight hours. Any
construction-related illumination during evening and nighttime hours would be used for safety and
security purposes only and would occur only for the duration required for the temporary
construction process. Light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact
sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of surrounding uses or interfere with the
performance of off-site activities. In addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in
flat, shiny surfaces that would reflect sunlight or cause other natural glare. Minor glare from sunlight
on construction equipment and vehicle windshields is not anticipated to impact visibility in the area
because (1) relatively few construction vehicles and pieces of construction equipment would be
used on the project site, and (2) the construction site would be fenced and shielded from pedestrian
and vehicular views. In addition, construction vehicles would not be operating at night and thus
would not create nighttime sources of glare. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would
not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area, and light and glare impacts associated with construction would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
4.1.5.2 Operation
Less Than Significant Impact. In the existing condition, the project site produces light and glare
from a lighted surface parking area. Twelve light poles that are approximately 30 ft tall exist on the
parking area and are an existing source of light on the project site. Existing sources of light in the
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-26
project vicinity include headlights on nearby roadways, building facade and interior lighting, pole-
mounted lighting in the parking areas of adjacent developments, and lighting associated with the
Los Alamitos Race Course. The adjacent commercial center with a hotel and gym west of the project
site and commercial and retail services, including a Costco warehouse outlet and restaurant uses to
the east of the project site, currently emit light and glare along Katella Avenue. Lighting from
existing distant development within the City also contributes to the background lighting in the
project vicinity.
New light sources created by the proposed project would include interior and exterior building
lighting, security lighting, signage, and parking lot lighting. The proposed lighting sources would be
similar to other lighting sources in the project vicinity and would not generate artificial light levels
that are out of character with the surrounding area, which is densely developed and characterized
by a high degree of human activity and ambient light during the day and night. Additionally, the
proposed project would comply with the development regulations outlined in Section V.E.8.,
Lighting, of the Specific Plan, which require that lighting be designed to confine direct illumination to
the premises of the development, and that fixture heights for walkways and other areas within the
project be identified. The Design Guidelines require that lighting not result in glare on neighboring
sites by using fixtures that are fully shielded. Landscaping and buffering requirements set forth in
the Specific Plan would also reduce impacts created by lighting.
In addition, all project lighting is required to meet all applicable lighting standards in the Cypress
Zoning Ordinance. As required by Section 3.11.060.A (Exterior Features) of the Zoning Ordinance,
lighting fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with the character of the surrounding
structure(s) and shall be energy efficient. Fixtures shall be appropriate in height, intensity, and scale
to the use they are serving, In accordance with Section 3.11.060.B (Intensity), the level of parking lot
light projected onto any ground or wall surface shall not be more than 5 footcandles at the base of
the light fixture and building-mounted decorative lights shall not exceed 5 footcandles measured
5 ft from the light source. In accordance with Section 3.11.060.C (Security Lighting), security lighting
shall provide a maximum of 3 footcandles at the ground level of the project entrances. Pursuant to
Section 3.11.060.D (Shielding of Light Source), where a project light source is visible from outside
the project boundary (other than public street lighting), the light source shall be shielded to reduce
glare so that neither the light source nor its image from a reflective surface shall be directly visible
from any point beyond the property line. Finally, as required by Section 3.14.050.C.4 (Required
Improvements for Off-Street Parking Areas), the level of parking lot light shall not exceed 1
footcandle at the boundaries of the project site.
Although the proposed project would increase the overall intensity of on-site land uses and
associated lighting, the increase in lighting would not result in substantial increases in light intensity
at off-site locations. In addition, light intensity diminishes rapidly as an observer moves away from
the light source. As such, the intensity of project-related lighting would be concentrated on site with
little potential to create perceptible changes in ambient lighting intensity at off-site, light-sensitive
locations.
Daytime glare can result from natural sunlight reflecting from a shiny surface that would interfere
with the performance of an off-site activity, such as the operation of a motor vehicle. Reflective
surfaces can be associated with window glass and polished surfaces. The proposed buildings would
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-27
incorporate a variety of building materials, which would primarily be non-reflective materials
(i.e., neutral colors and a variety of materials, such as tile, cement, plaster, and wood).Therefore,
these materials would not have the potential to produce a substantial degree of glare.
Nighttime lighting and glare sources from the proposed project could also include lighting from
interior and exterior building lighting, security lighting, signage, parking lot lighting, and vehicle
headlights. The nighttime glare produced by these sources would be similar to the existing nighttime
glare produced by the surrounding commercial/retail, residential and hotel uses and would not
result in enough glare to be considered substantial or affect nighttime views because lighting would
be designed to be consistent with the development regulations outlined in Section V.E.8., Lighting,
of the Specific Plan and is required to meet all applicable lighting standards in the Cypress Zoning
Ordinance as discussed above.
For these reasons, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the surrounding urban area, and project
impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
4.1.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to aesthetics and no
mitigation is required.
4.1.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures or regulatory compliance measures are required.
4.1.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to aesthetics.
4.1.9 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 aesthetics. The cumulative impact
area for aesthetics related to the proposed project is the City of Cypress. As shown in Table 4.A,
Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures, three residential projects and a sports park are approved or under
construction within the City. Each of these projects, as well as all proposed projects in the City,
would be subject to their own consistency analysis for policies and regulations governing scenic
quality and would be reviewed for consistency with any applicable Specific Plan goals and policies
and Zoning Code development standards. If there were any potential for significant impacts to
aesthetics, appropriate mitigation measures would be identified to reduce and/or avoid impacts
related to aesthetics.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (02/06/20) 4.1-28
As described above in Section 4.1.5, Project Impacts, implementation of the proposed project would
not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics. The proposed project and all
related projects are required to adhere to City and State regulations designed to reduce and/or
avoid impacts related to aesthetics. With compliance with these regulations, cumulative impacts
related to aesthetics would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-1
4.2 AIR QUALITY
This section describes the potential air quality impacts for the Cypress City Center project (proposed
project) and specifically addresses short-term impacts during construction, including fugitive dust
and equipment emissions, long-term emissions associated with operation of the proposed project
(including vehicular travel and stationary equipment), and how potential impacts correlate to
human health.
4.2.1 Methodology
The proposed project would result in criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational
sources. Construction activities would generate emissions at the site from off-road construction
equipment, and on roadways as a result of construction-related truck hauling, vendor deliveries, and
worker commuting. Operational activities would also generate emissions at the project site from
miscellaneous onsite sources, such as natural gas combustion for cooking, heating, and landscaping
equipment, and from operational-related traffic. This analysis utilized the California Emission
Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) to quantify the criteria pollutant emissions for both
construction and operation of the proposed project. The maximum daily emissions are calculated
for the criteria pollutants. The CalEEMod output is contained in Appendix B of this Draft EIR.
Guidance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA, and emissions modeling software (specifically, CalEEMod 1)
were used to calculate the criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project. The letter from
SCAQMD (December 17, 2019) recommended the use of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(1993, currently being revised), use of CalEEMod, SCAQMD’s CEQA regional pollutants significance
thresholds, a mobile source health risk assessment, and the use of CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005). Additionally, SCAQMD provided information
about SCAQMD permits and data availability and suggested potential mitigation measures and
consideration of potential alternatives to lessen impacts to air quality. This analysis takes into
account the recommendations provided by SCAQMD. A mobile source health risk assessment
technical guidance was developed by SCAQMD to address potential diesel particulate matter (DPM)
impacts from the following activities: truck idling and movement, ship hoteling and train idling.
SCAQMD’s definition of the truck idling and movement activities would include development
projects such as truck stops, warehouse/distribution centers, or transit centers, which are not a part
of the proposed project. Therefore, a mobile source health risk assessment is not necessary for this
project.
CalEEMod is a statewide program designed to calculate both criteria and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from development projects in California. This model was initially developed under the
auspices of the SCAQMD and received input from other California air quality districts. It is currently
supported statewide for use in quantifying the emissions associated with development projects
undergoing environmental review. CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted models for emission estimates
combined with appropriate default data that can be used if site-specific information is not available.
1 California Emissions Estimator Model. 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2016.3.1.
Website: http://www.caleemod.com/ (accessed: December 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-2
These models and default estimates use sources such as the USEPA AP-42 emission factors;1 CARB’s
on-road and off-road equipment emission models, such as the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) and
the Off-road Emissions Inventory Program model (OFFROAD); and studies commissioned by
California agencies, such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Department
of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
CalEEMod is based on CARB-approved off-road and on-road mobile-source emission factor models
(OFFROAD2011 and EMFAC2014, respectively). It is designed to calculate construction and
operational emissions for land development projects and allows for the input of project-specific
information. OFFROAD2011 2 is an emissions factor model used to calculate emission rates from off-
road mobile sources (e.g., construction equipment, agricultural equipment). EMFAC20143 is a USEPA
approved emissions factor model used to calculate emissions rates from on-road vehicles (e.g.,
passenger vehicles, haul trucks).
CalEEMod provides a platform to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions
from a development project. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average for criteria
pollutants as well as total or annual GHG emissions. The model also provides default values for
water and energy use. Specifically, the model performs the following calculations:
• Short-term construction emissions associated with demolition, site preparation, underground
utility installation, grading, building, coating, and paving from off-road construction equipment;
on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, delivery, and hauling; fugitive dust
associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and roads; and volatile emissions of reactive
organic gases (ROGs) from architectural coating and paving.
• Operational emissions associated with the fully built-out development project, such as on-road
mobile vehicle traffic generated by the land uses, fugitive dust associated with roads, volatile
emissions of ROGs from architectural coatings, off-road emissions from landscaping equipment,
volatile emissions of ROGs from consumer products and cleaning supplies, wood stoves and
hearth usage, natural gas usage in the buildings, electricity usage in the buildings, water usage
by the land uses, and solid waste disposal by the land uses.
In addition, CalEEMod contains default values and existing regulation methodologies to use in each
specific local air quality district region. Appropriate statewide default values can be utilized if
regional default values are not defined. This analysis utilized project-specific inputs and relevant
1 The USEPA maintains a compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors and process information for several
air pollution source categories. The data is based on source test data, material balance studies, and
engineering estimates. Website: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-
compilation-air-emissions-factors (accessed: December 2019).
2 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019. Off Road Mobile Source Emission factors. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools
(accessed: December 2019).
3 CARB. 2019. EMFAC 2017 Web Database. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014 (accessed
December 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-3
model default factors for the Orange County (County) area, which is within the SCAQMD jurisdiction
for the emission inventory, consistent with SCAQMD requirements.
Additional details regarding the specific methodologies used by CalEEMod can be found in the
CalEEMod User’s Guide and associated appendices.1 The CalEEMod output files for the proposed
project are provided for reference in Appendix B.
4.2.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The City is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD.
Background information about air pollutants and health effects, climate, meteorological conditions,
and regional air quality conditions in the SCAB and local air quality conditions in the vicinity of the
project site is provided below.
4.2.2.1 Air Pollutants and Health Effects
Both State and federal governments have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards
for six criteria air pollutants:2 carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM). In addition, the State has set
standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These
standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin
of safety. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants may result in adverse health
effects. However, emission thresholds established by an air quality district are used to manage total
regional emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria
pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute
to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations and could adversely affect or delay the projected
attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants.
Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual
project emissions, there is no known direct correlation between a single project and localized air
quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold
does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This
condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional
effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Occupants of certain types of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds,
hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general
public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory
disease. Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air
quality. Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to
commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their
1 California Emissions Estimator. 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide. Version 2016.
3.2. February. Website: http://www.caleemod.com/ (accessed: December 2019).
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Criteria pollutants are defined as those
pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards, or
criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-4
residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses
are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure
to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise.
4.2.2.2 Ozone
Rather than being directly emitted, ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between
NOx and VOC. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced
lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute
in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during the
summer and early fall months.
4.2.2.3 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the
air. Coarse particles are those that are 10 microns or less in diameter, or PM10. Fine, suspended
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, or PM2.5, is not readily
filtered out by the lungs. Nitrates, sulfates, dust, and combustion particulates are major components
of PM10 and PM2.5. These small particles can be directly emitted into the atmosphere as byproducts
of fuel combustion; through abrasion, such as tire or brake lining wear; or through fugitive dust
(wind or mechanical erosion of soil). They can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical
reactions. Particulates may transport carcinogens and other toxic compounds that adhere to the
particle surfaces and can enter the human body through the lungs.
4.2.2.4 Carbon Monoxide
CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a
colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system
functions. CO passes through the lungs into the bloodstream, where it interferes with the transfer of
oxygen to body tissues.
4.2.2.5 Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial
operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 also
contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter,
poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component on high pollution
days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce
resistance to infection.
4.2.2.6 Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing
sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels in the region. SO2 irritates the
respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces
visibility and the level of sunlight.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-5
4.2.2.7 Lead
Leaded gasoline (phased out in the United States beginning in 1973), paint (on older houses and
cars), smelters (metal refineries), and the manufacture of lead storage batteries have been the
primary sources of lead released into the atmosphere. Lead has multiple adverse neurotoxic health
effects, and children are at special risk. Some lead-containing chemicals cause cancer in animals.
Lead levels in the air have decreased substantially since leaded gasoline was eliminated. Ambient
lead concentrations are only monitored on an as-warranted, site-specific basis in California. On
October 15, 2008, the USEPA strengthened the national ambient air quality standard for lead by
lowering it from 1.5 to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The USEPA revised the monitoring
requirements for lead in December 2010. These requirements focus on airports and large urban
areas, resulting in an increase in 76 monitors nationally.
4.2.2.8 Volatile Organic Compounds
VOCs (also known as reactive organic gases [ROGs] and reactive organic compounds [ROCs]) are
formed from the combustion of fuels and the evaporation of organic solvents. VOCs are not defined
as criteria pollutants, however, because VOCs accumulate in the atmosphere more quickly during
the winter, when sunlight is limited and photochemical reactions are slower, they are a prime
component of the photochemical smog reaction. There are no attainment designations for VOCs.
4.2.2.9 Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride (VC) is a chemical building block, or monomer, used in the production of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC). PVC is used to make materials, including pipes, used in the construction, packaging,
electrical, and transportation industries. Major sources of VC include PVC production and fabrication
facilities and, at the other end of PVC’s lifecycle, as PVC deteriorates, landfills and publicly owned
treatment works. VC is carcinogenic. VC is primarily of concern as a carcinogenic toxic air
contaminant (TAC) at hot spots. It is regulated as a TAC to allow implementation of health-
protective control measures at levels below the ambient standard.
4.2.2.10 Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial
decomposition of sulfur-containing organic substances. In addition, it can be present in sewer gas
and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Breathing
H2S at levels above the State standard could result in exposure to a very disagreeable odor.
For the proposed project, six criteria pollutants were evaluated—NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and
O3—using VOCs 1 and NOX as surrogates. These pollutants were analyzed because they are
considered to be pollutants of concern based on the type of emission sources associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project, and are thus included in this assessment.
Because the ambient concentrations of lead, VC, H2S, and visibility-reducing particles are very low
and the proposed project would not include industrial production facilities or generate substantial
1 The emissions of VOCs and ROGs are essentially the same for the combustion emission sources that are
considered in this EIR. This EIR will typically refer to organic emissions as VOCs.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-6
amounts of exhaust, lead, VC, H2S, and visibility-reducing particles are not considered to be
pollutants of concern for the proposed project and are not analyzed below.
4.2.2.11 Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another
group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated by the USEPA
and the CARB. Some examples of TACs include benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen
sulfide. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that
for criteria pollutants.
TACs do not have ambient air quality standards, but are regulated by the USEPA, CARB, and the
SCAQMD. In 1998, the CARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. The
CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of
activities using diesel-fueled engines.1 High-volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities
attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (e.g., distribution centers and truck stops) were
identified as posing the highest risk to adjacent receptors. Other facilities associated with increased
risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, high-volume transit
centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from TACs are a function of both
concentration and duration of exposure.
Unlike TACs emitted from industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most diesel
particulate matter is emitted from mobile sources—primarily “off-road” sources such as
construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and truck-mounted refrigeration units,
as well as “on-road” sources such as trucks and buses traveling on freeways and local roadways.
Although not specifically monitored, recent studies indicate that exposure to diesel particulate
matter may contribute significantly to a cancer risk (a risk of approximately 500 to 700 in 1,000,000)
that is greater than all other measured TACs combined.2 The technology for reducing diesel
particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty trucks is well established, and both State and federal
agencies are moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control systems to reduce and
remediate diesel emissions. The CARB anticipates that by 2020, average statewide diesel particulate
matter concentrations will decrease by 85 percent from levels in 2000 with full implementation of
the CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan,3 meaning that the statewide health risk from diesel
particulate matter is expected to decrease from 540 cancer cases in 1,000,000 to 21.5 cancer cases
in 1,000,000.
Table 4.2.A summarizes the sources and health effects of air pollutants discussed in this section.
Table 4.2.B presents a summary of State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS).
1 CARB. 2000. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce
Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.
2 CARB, 2000. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce
Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.
3 Ibid.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-7
Table 4.2.A: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Incomplete combustion of fuels
and other carbon-containing
substances, such as motor
exhaust
Natural events, such as
decomposition of organic matter
Reduced tolerance for exercise
Impairment of mental function
Impairment of fetal development
Death at high levels of exposure
Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Motor vehicle exhaust
High temperature stationary
combustion
Atmospheric reactions
Aggravation of respiratory illness
Reduced visibility
Reduced plant growth
Formation of acid rain
Ozone
(O3)
Atmospheric reaction of organic
gases with nitrogen oxides in
sunlight
Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases
Irritation of eyes
Impairment of cardiopulmonary function
Plant leaf injury
Lead
(Pb)
Contaminated soil Impairment of blood functions and nerve construction
Behavioral and hearing problems in children
Suspended
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5 and PM10)
Stationary combustion of solid
fuels
Construction activities
Industrial processes
Atmospheric chemical reactions
Reduced lung function
Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants
Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory
diseases
Increased cough and chest discomfort
Soiling
Reduced visibility
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Combustion of sulfur-containing
fossil fuels
Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal
ores Industrial processes
Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema)
Reduced lung function
Irritation of eyes
Reduced visibility
Plant injury
Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes,
coatings, etc.
Source: California Air Resources Board (2015).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-8
Table 4.2.B: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standardsa Federal Standardsb
Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f Methodg
Ozone
(O3)h
1-Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
– Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)i
24-Hour 50 μg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 –
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)i
24-Hour - 35 μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12.0 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) – Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
1-Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)j
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
0.03 ppm
(57 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemi-
luminescence
53 ppb
(100 μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Gas Phase
Chemi-
luminescence 1-Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3)
100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) -
Lead
(Pb)l,m
30-Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic
Absorption
– –
High-Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Calendar
Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas)l Same as
Primary
Standard
Rolling 3-
Month
Averagei
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)k
24-Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) –
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectro-
photometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
1-Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
75 ppb
(196 μg/m3)k –
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
– 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)k –
Visibility-
Reducing
Particlesl
8-Hour See footnote n
Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter
Tape.
No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloridej 24-Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
Table notes are provided on the following page.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-9
a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and
particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be
equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations.
b National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more
than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year,
averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number
of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour
standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
Contact USEPA for further clarification and current national policies.
c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference
temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference
temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per
mole of gas.
d Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level
of the air quality standard may be used.
e National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
f National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of a pollutant.
g Reference method as described by the USEPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent
relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the USEPA.
h On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
i On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national
24- hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The
existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and
secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
j To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at
each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are
in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be
converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
k On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To
attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at
each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is
designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in
effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm).
To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the
national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
l The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects
determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for
these pollutants.
m The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a
quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated
nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008
standard are approved.
n In 1989, the CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to
instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and
Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
°C = degrees Celsius
CARB = California Air Resources Board
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
ppb = parts per billion
ppm = parts per million
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2016. (Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-10
4.2.2.12 Climate/Meteorology
Air quality in the SCAB is affected not only by various emission sources (mobile and industry, etc.),
but also by atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and rainfall,
etc. The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the
second-largest urban area in the United States gives the SCAB the worst air pollution problem in the
nation.
The SCAB is a coastal plain characterized by connecting broad valleys and low hills, delineated by the
Pacific Ocean as its southwestern border, and fringed by high mountains that form the inland
portion of its border. The region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern
Pacific Ocean. The resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. It maintains
moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity, and precipitation is typically limited to a few
storms during the winter wet season. This weather pattern is fairly predictable. However, periods of
extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds do exist.
Although the SCAB has a semi-arid climate, air near the earth’s surface is generally moist due to the
presence of a shallow marine layer. With very low average wind speeds, there is a limited ability to
disperse air contaminants horizontally. The typical wind flow pattern fluctuates only with occasional
winter storms or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts northeast of
the SCAB. Summer wind flow patterns represent worst-case conditions for air pollution, as this is a
period of higher temperatures and more sunlight, which results in ozone (O3) formation.
Air pollutant emissions within the SCAB are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources.
Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point
sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack. Examples
include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. Area sources are
widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting
operations, lawnmowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products. Mobile sources
refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are
classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and
highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.
Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend
fine dust particles.
4.2.2.13 Attainment Status
The CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified
for all State standards. An attainment designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations
did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A nonattainment designation indicates
that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a
violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An unclassified designation
signifies that data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The California Clean
Air Act (CCAA) divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with
increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-11
The USEPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as either does not meet the primary standards, or
cannot be classified, or better than national standards. For SO2, areas are designated as does not
meet the primary standards, does not meet the secondary standards, cannot be classified, or better
than national standards.
Table 4.2.C provides a summary of the attainment status for the SCAB with respect to National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
Table 4.2.C: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin
Pollutant State Federal
O3 1 hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
O3 8 hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
SO2 N/A Attainment/Unclassified
Lead Attainment Attainment1
All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (2018).
1 Except in Los Angeles County.
CARB = California Air Resources Board
CO = carbon monoxide
N/A = not applicable
NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
O3 = ozone
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
4.2.2.14 Regional Air Quality
The Southern California region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific.
As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. The usually mild climate is
interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.
Meteorological conditions and topography affect the dispersion of pollutants and make the SCAB
susceptible to air pollution. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the SCAB is also
affected by manmade influences, such as development patterns and lifestyle.
The greatest air pollution impacts throughout the SCAB occur from June through September. This
condition is generally attributed to the high emissions, as well as light winds and shallow vertical
atmospheric mixing, which reduce dispersion. Pollutant concentrations in the SCAB vary with
location, season, and time of day. O3 concentrations, for example, tend to be higher in the inland
valleys than either along the coast or in the far inland areas of the SCAB and adjacent desert. Over
the past 30 years, substantial progress has been made in reducing air pollution levels in Southern
California. However, the SCAB still fails to meet federal standards for O3 and PM2.5.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-12
In 2008, SCAQMD released a SCAB-wide air toxics study, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-
III).1 The MATES-III study represents one of the most comprehensive air toxics studies ever
conducted in an urban environment. The study set out to estimate the cancer risk from toxic air
emissions throughout the SCAB by conducting a comprehensive monitoring program, updating the
emissions inventory of TACs, and modeling emissions to characterize health risks for residents
throughout the region. The study calculated an average carcinogenic risk from air pollution in the
SCAB of approximately 1,200 in 1 million over a 70-year duration. Mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks,
trains, ships, and aircraft) represent the greatest contributors. Approximately 85 percent of the risk
was attributed to DPM emissions and approximately 10 percent to other toxics associated with
mobile sources (including benzene, butadiene, and formaldehyde). Approximately 5 percent of all
carcinogenic risk was attributed to stationary sources (which include industries and certain other
businesses, such as dry cleaners and chrome plating operations).
On May 1, 2015, the SCAQMD released a MATES IV Final Report.2 This study showed a dramatic
reduction (70 percent on average) in the level of DPM measured at the 10 monitoring sites
compared to MATES III. The study also concluded that the average carcinogenic risk from air
pollution in the SCAB is approximately 418 in 1 million (a 65 percent overall reduction from MATES
III) based on monitoring. Mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft) account for 90
percent of the air toxics risk, and DPM accounts for 68 percent of the air toxics risk.3
4.2.2.15 Local Air Quality
Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and are maintained by the local air
pollution control district and State air quality regulating agencies. The SCAQMD, together with the
CARB, maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB. The air quality monitoring
station closest to the project site is the 1630 W. Pampas Lane ambient air quality monitoring station
in Anaheim. The air quality trends from this station are used to represent the ambient air quality in
the vicinity of the project site. Ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site from 2016 to
2018 is shown in Table 4.2.D. SO2 is not monitored at the Anaheim station; therefore, the next
closest available SO2 data at the 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East ambient air quality monitoring station
in Costa Mesa is included in Table 4.2.D.
Pollutant monitoring results for the years 2016 to 2018 at the 1630 W. Pampas Lane, Anaheim
ambient air quality monitoring station indicate that air quality in the project vicinity has generally
been good. As indicated in the monitoring results, no violations of the federal PM10 standard
occurred during the 3-year period. The State PM10 standard was exceeded three times in 2016, five
times in 2017, and an unknown number of times in 2018. PM2.5 levels exceeded the federal
standard once in 2016, seven times in 2017, and an unknown number of times in 2018.
1 SCAQMD. 2008. MATES III. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-
studies/mates-iii (accessed December 16, 2019).
2 SCAQMD. 2015b. MATES IV. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/
health-studies/mates-iv (accessed: December 16, 2019).
3 SCAQMD. 2015a. Final Report – Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-toxic-studies/mates-iv/mates-iv-final-draft-
report-4-1-15.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (accessed December 16, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-13
Table 4.2.D: Ambient Air Quality at the 1630 W. Pampas Lane, Anaheim Monitoring
Station
Pollutant Standard 2016 2017 2018
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.6 2.5 2.3
Number of days exceeded: State: > 20 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 35 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 2.1 2.1 1.9
Number of days exceeded: State: > 9 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 9 ppm 0 0 0
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.103 0.090 0.112
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 2 0 ND
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.075 0.076 0.071
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.07 ppm 4 4 ND
Federal: > 0.08 ppm 4 4 1
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 74.0 95.7 129.0
Number of days exceeded: State: > 50 µg/m3 3 5 ND
Federal: > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 28.0 26.9 ND
Exceeded for the year: State: > 20 µg/m3 Yes Yes ND
Federal: > 50 µg/m3 No No ND
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 45.5 56.2 65.1
Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m3 1 7 ND
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 9.4 11.7 11.4
Exceeded for the year: State: > 12 µg/m3 No No No
Federal: > 12 µg/m3 No No No
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.064 0.081 0.066
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.250 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.015 0.014 0.014
Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.053 ppm No No No
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)1
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0033 0.0017 ND
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 ND
Maximum 3-hour concentration (ppm) ND ND ND
Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.50 ppm ND ND ND
Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0007 0.0005 ND
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.04 ppm 0 0 ND
Federal: > 0.14 ppm 0 0 ND
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.0001 0.0001 ND
Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.030 ppm No No ND
Source: CARB (2019); USEPA (2019).
1 Data taken at the 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East, Costa Mesa ambient air quality monitoring station.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
CARB = California Air Resources Board
ND = No data. There was insufficient (or no) data to determine the value.
ppm = parts per million
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-14
The State 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded twice in 2016 and an unknown number of times in
2018. In addition, the State 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded four times in 2016, four times in
2017, and an unknown number of times in 2018 and the federal 8-hour ozone standard was
exceeded four times in 2016, four times in 2017, and once in 2018. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards
were also not exceeded in this area during the 3-year period.
As part of the MATES-III Study, the SCAQMD prepared a series of maps that show regional trends in
estimated outdoor inhalation cancer risk from toxic emissions as part of an ongoing effort to provide
insight into relative risks. The maps’ estimates represent the number of potential cancers per million
people associated with a lifetime of breathing air toxics (24 hours per day outdoors for 70 years) in
parts of the area. The MATES-III map is the most recently available map to represent existing
conditions near the project site. Based on the interactive map, the average cancer risk around the
project site was approximately 1,280 in 1 million. As discussed earlier, the SCAQMD released MATES
IV Draft Final Report on April 1, 2015.
4.2.2.16 Surrounding Uses
To the north of the project site is a surface parking area for the Los Alamitos Race Course and the
Los Alamitos Race Course. To the east of the project site across Winners Circle is a commercial
center containing a Costco and other retail/restaurant uses. The area west of the project site across
Siboney Street is a retail center, including a 24 Hour fitness, and a two-story church. To the south,
on the far side of Katella Avenue, are commercial and multi-family uses, behind which are single-
family residences.
The Air Quality Element of the City’s General Plan states that sensitive populations are more
susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations
(i.e., sensitive receptors) who are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular
concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds,
childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers,
convalescent centers, and retirement homes.
The closest sensitive receptors include the multi-family and single-family residences as close as 350
feet (ft) south of the project site. Other surrounding land uses (such as commercial uses) are not
considered sensitive receptors.
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting
The USEPA and the CARB regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles. The SCAQMD is the
regional agency primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources
(e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as
monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations.
4.2.3.1 Federal Regulations
The 1970 Federal Clean Air Act authorized the establishment of national health-based air quality
standards and also set deadlines for their attainment. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 changed deadlines for attaining national standards as well as the remedial actions required of
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-15
areas of the nation that exceed the standards. Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), State, and
local agencies in areas that exceed the national standards are required to develop State
Implementation Plans to demonstrate how they will achieve the national standards by specified
dates.
4.2.3.2 State Regulations
California Clean Air Act. In 1988, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) required that all air quality
districts in the State endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide by the earliest practical date. The California Clean Air Act provides
districts with authority to regulate indirect sources and mandates that air quality districts focus
particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources.
Each nonattainment district is required to adopt a plan to achieve a 5 percent annual reduction,
averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment
pollutant or its precursors. A Clean Air Plan shows how a district would reduce emissions to achieve
air quality standards. Generally, the State standards for these pollutants are more stringent than the
national standards.
California Air Resources Board. The CARB is the State’s “clean air agency.” The CARB’s goals are to
attain and maintain healthy air quality, protect the public from exposure to toxic air contaminants,
and oversee compliance with air pollution rules and regulations.
Assembly Bill 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act. Under Assembly Bill
(AB) 2588, stationary sources of air pollutants are required to report the types and quantities of
certain substances that their facilities routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics “Hot
Spots” Act are to collect emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, determine health
risks, and notify nearby residents of significant risks.
The California Air Resources Board Handbook. CARB has developed an Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook1 (the CARB Handbook, 2005), which is intended to serve as a general reference guide for
evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land
use decision-making process. According to the CARB Handbook, recent air pollution studies have
shown an association between respiratory and other non-cancer health effects and proximity to
high traffic roadways. Other studies have shown that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing
chemicals emitted from cars and trucks are responsible for much of the overall cancer risk from
airborne toxics in California. The CARB Handbook recommends that county and city planning
agencies strongly consider proximity to these sources when finding new locations for “sensitive”
land uses such as homes, medical facilities, daycare centers, schools, and playgrounds.
Land use designations with air pollution sources of concern include freeways, rail yards, ports,
refineries, distribution centers, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and large gasoline service
stations. Key recommendations in the CARB Handbook include taking steps to avoid siting new,
sensitive land uses:
1 CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). April.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-16
• Within 500 ft of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with
50,000 vehicles/day;
• Within 1,000 ft of a major service and maintenance rail yard;
• Immediately downwind of ports (in the most heavily impacted zones) and petroleum
refineries;
• Within 300 ft of any dry cleaning operation (for operations with two or more machines,
provide 500 ft); and
• Within 300 ft of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million
gallons per year or greater).
The CARB Handbook specifically states that its recommendations are advisory and acknowledges
land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs,
economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.
The recommendations are generalized and do not consider site-specific meteorology, freeway truck
percentages, or other factors that influence risk for a particular project site. The purpose of this
guidance is to further examine project sites for actual health risk associated with the location of new
sensitive land uses.
4.2.3.3 Local and Regional Policies and Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over most air quality
matters in the SCAB. This area includes all of Orange County, Los Angeles County except for the
Antelope Valley, the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and
Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. Los Angeles County is a subregion of the SCAQMD
jurisdiction. The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution
control in the SCAB in and is tasked with implementing certain programs and regulations required by
the CAA and the CCAA. The SCAQMD prepares plans to attain NAAQS. SCAQMD is directly
responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point) sources. The SCAQMD develops
rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces
such measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary.
The proposed project could be subject to the following SCAQMD rules and regulations:
• Regulation IV - Prohibitions: This regulation sets forth the restrictions for visible emissions, odor
nuisance, fugitive dust, various air pollutant emissions, fuel contaminants, start-up/shutdown
exemptions, and breakdown events. These prohibitions will apply to future development
facilitated by approval of the proposed project.
○ Rule 402 - Nuisance: This rule restricts the discharge of any contaminant in quantities that
cause or have a natural ability to cause injury, damage, nuisance, or annoyance to
businesses, property, or the public.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-17
○ Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust: This rule requires the prevention, reduction, or mitigation fugitive
dust emissions from a project site. Rule 403 restricts visible fugitive dust to a project
property line, restricts the net PM10 emissions to less than 50 µg/m3 and restricts the
tracking out of bulk materials onto public roads. Additionally, Rule 403 requires an applicant
to utilize one or more of the best available control measures (identified in the tables within
the rule). Control measures may include adding freeboard to haul vehicles, covering loose
material on haul vehicles, watering, using chemical stabilizers, and/or ceasing all activities.
Finally, Rule 403 requires that a contingency plan be prepared if so determined by the
USEPA. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403(e), Additional Requirements for Large Operations,
includes requirements to provide Large Operation Notification Form 403 N, appropriate
signage, additional dust control measures, and employment of a dust control supervisor that
has successfully completed the Dust Control training class in the South Coast Air Basin.
• Regulation XI - Source Specific Standards: Regulation XI sets emissions standards for different
sources.
○ Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings: This rule limits the amount of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from architectural coatings and solvents, which lowers the emissions of
odorous compounds. Future development facilitated by approval of the project will comply
with Rule 1113.
The SCAQMD is responsible for demonstrating regional compliance with ambient air quality
standards but has limited indirect involvement in reducing emissions from fugitive, mobile, and
natural sources. To that end, the SCAQMD works cooperatively with CARB, the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, and
other federal and State government agencies. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a
series of AQMPs to meet the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating
and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The main purpose of an
AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. Every 3
years, SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and 20-year horizon.1
SCAQMD approved the 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017, and submitted the plan to CARB on
March 10, 2017. Key elements of the 2016 AQMP include the following:
• Calculating and taking credit for co-benefits from other planning efforts (e.g., climate, energy,
and transportation)
• A strategy with fair-share emission reductions at the federal, State, and local levels
• Investment in strategies and technologies meeting multiple air quality objectives
• Seeking new partnerships and significant funding for incentives to accelerate deployment of
zero-emission and near-zero emission technologies
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.
March.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-18
• Enhanced socioeconomic assessment, including an expanded environmental justice analysis
• Attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2019 with no additional measures
• Attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard by 2025 with implementation of a portion of the O3
strategy
• Attainment of the 1-hour O3 standard by 2022 with no reliance on “black box” future technology
(FCAA Section 182(e)(5) measures)
Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and
Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for the discussion of regional issues related to
transportation, the economy and community development, and the environment. SCAG is a council
of governments and acts as a regional planning agency. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG
prepares the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP), which address regional development and growth forecasts and form the basis for the land
use and transportation control portions of the AQMP and are utilized in the preparation of the air
quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The RTP, RTIP, and AQMP are
based on projections originating within local jurisdictions.
Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing
transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. SCAG’s Regional
Comprehensive Plan (RCP) provides growth forecasts that are used in the development of air
quality–related land use and transportation control strategies by the SCAQMD. The RCP is a
framework for decision-making for local governments, assisting them in meeting federal and State
mandates for growth management, mobility, and environmental standards, while maintaining
consistency with regional goals regarding growth and changes. Policies within the RCP include
consideration of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of
government.
On April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Using growth forecasts and economic trends, the RTP provides a
vision for transportation throughout the region for the next 20 years. It considers the role of
transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality-of-life goals for the
future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. The SCS is a newly
required element of the RTP, which integrates land use and transportation strategies to achieve
CARB emissions reduction targets. The inclusion of the SCS is required by Senate Bill (SB) 375, which
was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles and light trucks through
integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning. The RTP/SCS would
successfully achieve and exceed the GHG emission-reduction targets set by CARB by achieving an 8
percent reduction by 2020, an 18 percent reduction by 2035, and a 21 percent reduction by 2040
compared to the 2005 level on a per capita basis. This RTP/SCS also meets criteria pollutant emission
budgets set by the USEPA.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-19
The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation
sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the NAAQS as set forth by the CAA.
Even with ongoing aggressive control strategies, ever more stringent national O3 standards require
further NOX emission reductions in the SCAG region. In the SCAB, for example, it is estimated that
NOX emissions will need to be reduced by approximately 50 percent in 2023 and an additional 15
percent NOX reduction beyond 2023 levels by 2031. Most sources of NOX emissions, cars and
factories, are already controlled by over 90 percent. The level of emission reduction required is so
significant that 2030 emissions forecast from just three sources—ships, trains, and aircraft—would
lead to O3 levels near the Federal standard. To accomplish the reduction required to meet O3
standards, the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS contains a regional commitment for the broad deployment of
zero‐ and near‐zero emission transportation technologies in the 2023–2040 time frame and clear
steps to move toward this objective.
SCAG submits a list of transportation-related projects (in the RTP/SCS) for potential funding by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA will review and approve either portions of or
the entire list of transportation projects. This review will include a determination regarding whether
the Federal agency’s actions on these transportation projects would conform to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). SCAQMD incorporates the SCAG RTP/SCS emission budget for mobile
sources into the AQMP emissions inventory analysis for all sources of emissions (including
stationary, area, and mobile). Conformity analysis and the USEPA review and approval actions are
not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
4.2.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress General Plan. The Air Quality Element of the City’s General Plan is intended to
protect public health and welfare by implementing measures that allow the SCAB to attain federal
and State air quality standards. To achieve this goal, the Air Quality Element sets forth a number of
programs to reduce current pollutant emissions and to require new development to include
measures to comply with air quality standards. The Air Quality Element identifies goals and policies
to reduce the generation of pollutants. It also recognizes that air quality is a regional issue affecting
the entire SCAB. Thus, most of the goals and policies in the Air Quality Element apply generally to
the City, but not necessarily to individual development projects.
4.2.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for air quality impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project
may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to air quality if it would:
Threshold 4.2.1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Threshold 4.2.2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Threshold 4.2.3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-20
Threshold 4.2.4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
As stated in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make determinations about a project’s impacts. This Draft EIR uses the adopted thresholds
of the SCAQMD, the local air quality management district.
4.2.4.1 Regional Emissions Thresholds
SCAQMD has established daily emissions thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed
project in the SCAB. The emissions thresholds were established based on the attainment status of
the SCAB with regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the
concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of
safety, these emissions thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual
project’s contribution to health risks.
Table 4.2.E lists the CEQA significance thresholds for construction and operational emissions
established for the SCAB.
Table 4.2.E: Regional Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions Threshold (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx
Construction 75 100 550 150 55 150
Operations 55 55 550 150 55 150
Source: SCAQMD. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-
quality-significance-thresholds.pdf (accessed December 2019).
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
Projects in the SCAB with construction- or operation-related emissions that exceed any of their
respective emission thresholds would be considered significant under SCAQMD guidelines. These
thresholds, which SCAQMD developed and that apply throughout the SCAB, apply as both project
and cumulative thresholds. If a project exceeds these standards, it is considered to have a project-
specific and cumulative impact.
4.2.4.2 Localized Impacts Analysis
The SCAQMD published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in July 2008,
recommending that all air quality analyses include an assessment of air quality impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors.1 This guidance was used to analyze potential localized air quality impacts
associated with construction of the proposed project. Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are
developed based on the size or total area of the emission source, the ambient air quality in the
1 SCAQMD. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-21
source receptor area, and the distance to the project. Sensitive receptors include residences,
schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to adverse air quality.
LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project Source Receptor
Area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For the proposed project, the
appropriate SRA for the LST is the nearby Central Orange County area (SRA 17). SCAQMD provides
LST screening tables for 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500-meter source-receptor distances. As identified
above, the closest sensitive receptors include the multi-family and single-family residences as close
as 350 ft south of the project site. The SCAQMD has produced look-up tables for projects that
disturb less than or equal to 5 acres daily. The SCAQMD has also issued guidance on applying the
CalEEMod emissions software to LSTs for projects greater than 5 acres. Since CalEEMod calculates
construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil
disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, based on the CalEEMod default list of
equipment (i.e., four dozers, one grader, and one excavator) required for the proposed project, the
maximum daily disturbed acreage is assumed to be approximately 1.5 acres per day. In order to
determine the applicability of the SCAQMD’s LST look-up tables for the minor amount of
construction grading activities and the small amount of equipment utilized, it was assumed that the
look-up table for the 2-acre LST threshold would be sufficient for the proposed residential and
commercial mixed uses. Because a maximum of 1.5 acres of the project site may be subject to soil
disturbance on the peak day of construction activity, the 1.5-acre thresholds would apply to the
proposed project. Table 4.2.F lists the emissions thresholds that apply during project construction
and operation.
Table 4.2.F: SCAQMD LST Thresholds (lbs/day)
Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions Threshold (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction (1.5-acre, 350-foot distance) 113.1 1,408.3 33.7 10.9
Operations (5-acre, 350-foot distance) 181.5 2,599.5 14.5 4.3
Source: SCAQMD. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (July 2008).
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
LST = localized significance threshold
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
4.2.4.3 Local Microscale Concentration Standards
The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in
the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards. Because ambient CO
levels are below the standards throughout the SCAB, a project would be considered to have a
significant CO impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of the 1-hour or
8-hour standards. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO:
• California State 1-hour CO standard of 20 ppm
• California State 8-hour CO standard of 9 ppm
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-22
4.2.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.2.1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993, currently being
revised) indicates that consistency with the SCAG 2016 AQMP is affirmed when a project: (1) does
not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation;
and (2) is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. As described further under
Threshold 4.2.2 below, and shown in Tables 4.2.G through 4.2.J, the proposed project would result
in short-term construction and long-term pollutant emissions that are less than the emissions
thresholds established by the CEQA significant emissions thresholds established by SCAQMD;
therefore, the proposed project would not increase the frequency or severity of any air quality
standard violation or cause a new air quality standard violation.
The proposed project would require the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to allow residential
uses on the project site. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP
growth assumptions must be analyzed for amended Specific Plans. The 2016 AQMP was prepared to
accommodate growth and to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the
jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not
interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the
formulation of the 2016 AQMP. According to SCAG’s 2016–2040 Final RTP/SCS, Orange County’s
population, households, and employment are forecast to increase by approximately 190,000
residents, 77,000 households, and 169,000 jobs, respectively, between 2020 and 2040.1
The proposed project would result a net increase of 758 residents (0.4 percent of SCAG’s projected
population growth for the County from 2020 to 2040 of 190,400 residents) and 251 residential units
(0.3 percent of SCAG’s projected household growth for the County from 2020 to 2040 of 77,600
households). The proposed project would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP and, as such, would not
jeopardize attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS in the area under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.
The proposed project’s 251 residential units would provide housing for the population growth
within the City anticipated in the AQMP. As the proposed project would contribute to local
population and employment growth and associated VMT that is not anticipated for the project site
in the existing Specific Plan, the proposed project would be incorporated into the growth projections
prepared for the next AQMP. The actual population growth in the County is lower than what was
projected in the current AQMP, and therefore, it is unlikely that the additional units from the
proposed project would interfere with SCAQMD’s goals for improving air quality in the region. The
increases in population and housing resulting from the proposed project are not considered
significant because they would not represent a substantial increase in population growth (less than
a 2 percent increase in the City’s total population and less than a 0.03 percent increase in the
County’s total population). Furthermore, as discussed above, emissions generated by the proposed
1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016–2040 Final Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016
RTPSCS. pdf (accessed December 17, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-23
project would be below emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance
Thresholds and would result in less than significant air quality impacts.
Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the Air Quality Element of the City’s General
Plan because it, among other things, allows easy access to the commercial/retail land uses through
its mixed-use design and the proximity of the residential and commercial uses; reduces vehicle
emissions by increasing internal capture between residential and retail segments; complies with
energy efficiency measures that promote conservation through Title 24; and complies with the
adopted attainment standards for the SCAB.
Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not have a significant short- or
long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. The
proposed project would be consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP and would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.2.2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAB is currently designated nonattainment for the federal and
State standards for O3 and PM2.5. In addition, the SCAB is in nonattainment for the PM10 standard.
The SCAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present,
and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a
cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is
sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual
emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s
contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would
be considered significant.
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission
levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project
exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable,
resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not necessary. The following analysis
assesses the potential project-level air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of
the proposed project.
Construction. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the
release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, grading, paving, building, and other
activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx,
VOC, directly-emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust
particulate matter.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-24
Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building
construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Construction-related effects on air quality
from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the
disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate
particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site.
Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets,
which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from
day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather
conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the
amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine
particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.
Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of
50 percent or more. The SCAQMD has established Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which would require the
Applicant/Developer to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter
generated during the construction period.
In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by
gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs and some soot particulate (PM2.5
and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the
area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic.
These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the
construction site.
The tentative project construction schedule for the proposed residential, commercial, and retail
development is 20 months. The project site is mostly flat and ready for site grading and
construction. The proposed project would be developed in one phase with three sub-phases.
Sub-Phase 1 would include the 20,800 sf of retail space, Sub-Phase 2 would include the 251
residential units, and Sub-Phase 3 would include a 120-room hotel and a 10-screen movie theater.
As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, construction of the proposed
project would comply with SCAQMD standard conditions, including Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to
control fugitive dust and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to control VOC emissions from paint.
Compliance with SCAQMD standard conditions are regulatory requirements and were considered in
the analysis of construction emissions.
The maximum daily emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that would result from
construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 4.2.G and compared to the SCAQMD
regional significance thresholds. As shown in Table 4.2.G, construction emissions associated with the
proposed project would not exceed the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD for any
of the criteria pollutants.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-25
Table 4.2.G: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Sub-Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Project
Demolition 3.72 44.97 24.78 0.07 4.50 1.70 0.79 1.58
Site Preparation 4.17 42.48 22.25 0.04 7.25 2.20 3.93 2.02
Grading 4.55 50.26 32.78 0.06 3.61 2.18 1.46 2.00
Building Construction 5.22 39.25 42.07 0.12 5.73 1.50 1.54 1.40
Paving 1.77 11.17 15.10 0.02 0.17 0.57 0.04 0.52
Architectural Coatings 62.98 1.65 4.88 0.01 0.98 0.09 0.26 0.09
Project
Peak Daily Emissions 62.98 50.26 42.07 0.12 9.45 5.95
SCAQMD Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Would the Project exceed
SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: LSA (January 2020).
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air
and wind, as well as cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies
substantially on a project-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific
operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction. The proposed project would be
required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to control fugitive dust (see Regulatory Compliance
Measure AQ-1, below). Architectural coatings contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are an
ozone (O3) precursor. Application of architectural coatings for the proposed peak construction day is
estimated to result in a peak of 63 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOCs. However, the VOC emissions
associated with the project would not exceed the SCAQMD VOC threshold of 75 lbs/day and would
not contribute to significant construction-related air quality impacts.
As discussed above, according to SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the significance
thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts.
Conversely, projects that do not exceed the significance thresholds are generally not considered to
result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Therefore, based on the fact that emissions
during construction of the proposed project would not exceed any of the air quality significance
thresholds for any criteria pollutants, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively
considerable air quality impact. Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements (as
specified in Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4), construction impacts related to
the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under applicable NAAQS or CAAQS would be less than significant, and no mitigation
is required.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-26
Operation. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with the project’s
stationary sources and mobile sources. The proposed project would result in increases in both
stationary and mobile-source emissions compared to existing conditions. Emission modeling
conducted for the proposed project reflects compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445 and assumes there
would be no woodstoves and any fireplaces would be gas powered. The modeling incorporates
project design features such as photovoltaic energy for 30 percent of project power needs, use of
energy efficient appliances, and water-efficient features. Project operations would result in VOC,
NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from three primary sources: area source emissions, energy
source emissions, and mobile source emissions, as described further below.
Area source emissions would be generated from the following sources:
• Architectural Coating: Over a period of time, the buildings that are part of the proposed project
would generate emissions from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes,
primers, and other surface coatings used during maintenance activities.
• Consumer Products: Consumer products include but are not limited to detergents, cleaning
compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. When released in
the atmosphere, many of these products contain organic compounds that can react to form O3
and other photochemically reactive pollutants.
• Landscape Maintenance Equipment: Landscape maintenance equipment would generate
emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category
would include lawnmowers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and hedge
trimmers used to maintain landscaping.
Energy source emissions include criteria pollutant emissions from the generation of electricity and
consumption of natural gas. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-5, the project
building components (e.g., windows, roof systems, electrical and lighting systems, and heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems) would be designed in compliance with the 2019 Title 24
standards. Title 24 requires projects to implement energy efficiency measures that promote
conservation. The 2019 Title 24 standards anticipate 30 percent less energy use for non-residential
buildings and 53 percent less energy use for residential use due to lighting upgrades.
Project vehicle trips to and from the project site would generate mobile source emissions. Vehicles
traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust
and tire wear particulates. Mobile source emissions are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip
generation and the effect of the project on peak-hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the
vicinity of the project site. The project-related operational air quality emissions are primarily due to
vehicle trips. According to the Cypress City Center Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2019), the proposed
project is anticipated to generate a total of 4,978 average daily trips (ADT), with 164 a.m. peak-hour
trips and 147 p.m. peak-hour trips.
The long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 4.2.H.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-27
Table 4.2.H: Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions
Source Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project
Area 11.18 0.24 20.85 <0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy 0.28 2.49 1.79 0.02 0.19 0.19
Mobile 7.69 38.34 89.48 0.33 26.80 7.34
Total Project Emissions 19.15 41.07 112.12 0.35 27.10 7.65
SCAQMD Thresholds 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Would the Project exceed
SCAQMD Thresholds?
No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (January 2020).
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
As shown in Table 4.2.H, project-related increases of all criteria pollutants would not exceed the
corresponding SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for any criteria pollutants under project
operation. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in
emissions due to operation-related emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would
not violate any air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
CO Hot Spot. CO hot spots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested
intersections. Based on the analysis presented below, a CO “hot-spot” analysis is not needed to
determine whether a change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection in the vicinity of the
project site would have the potential to result in exceedance of either the CAAQS or NAAQS.
Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the
allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars
(there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older
vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and
efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as
attainment. In addition, CO concentrations in the vicinity of the project site have steadily declined.
The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SCAB by SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating
the potential for CO exceedances in the SCAB. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO
concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot-spot” analysis was conducted by SCAQMD in 2003 for
four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The busiest
intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a traffic volume of
approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. This analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards.
Based on the SCAQMD 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide
(1992 CO Plan), peak CO concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and
topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular
intersection. Even if the traffic volumes of the proposed project were double or triple that of the
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-28
traffic volumes generated at the four busy intersections in Los Angeles, coupled with the ongoing
improvements in ambient air quality, the project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot
spot” at any study area intersections. Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts
when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a
given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000
vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order
to generate a significant CO impact.
According to the project’s December 2019 Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed project is
anticipated to generate 4,978 ADT. Since the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at
any intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day (the volumes at the busiest intersection
evaluated in SCAQMD’s hot spot analysis), there is no likelihood of the project traffic exceeding CO
values. Because the proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate
a CO “hot spot,” and due to the lack of traffic impacts and extremely low level of CO at surrounding
intersections, CO emissions from operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts related to CO hot spots would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.2.3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction and operation emissions were compared to the
LST screening tables in SRA 17, based on a 350 ft source-receptor distance and a 1.5-acre size for
construction emissions and 5-acre project size for operational emissions. The results of the LST
analysis, summarized in Table 4.2.I and Table 4.2.J, indicate that the project would not result in an
exceedance of SCAQMD LST during project construction or operation.
Table 4.2.I: Construction Localized Impacts Analysis
Emissions Sources Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions 50.2 32.0 9.2 5.9
LST Thresholds 113.1 1,408.3 33.7 10.9
Exceeds LSTs? No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (January 2020).
Note: Source Receptor Area – Central Orange County, 1.5 acres, receptors at 25 meters
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
LST = local significance threshold
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-29
Table 4.2.J: Long-Term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis
Emissions Sources Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions 2.2 25.3 1.5 0.5
LST Thresholds 181.5 2,599.5 14.5 4.3
Exceeds LSTs? No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (January 2020).
Note: Source Receptor Area – Central Orange County, 5 acres, receptors at 350 ft, on-site traffic 5 percent of total.
CO = carbon monoxide
ft = foot/feet
lbs/day = pounds per day
LST = localized significance thresholds
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
Construction. Construction activities would result in localized exhaust emissions that have the
potential to affect nearby sensitive receptors. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the
SCAQMD recommends analyzing LSTs for construction. As discussed previously, sensitive receptors
near the project site include existing single- and multi-family residential homes located
approximately 350 ft south of the project site. Table 4.2.I shows that the localized construction
emissions would not exceed the LSTs that apply to the project site. As shown in Table 4.2.I,
construction emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the LSTs established
by SCAQMD. Further, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-2 construction of the
proposed project would comply with SCAQMD standard conditions, including Rule 403 (Fugitive
Dust) to control fugitive dust. Compliance with SCAQMD standard conditions are regulatory
requirements and were considered in the analysis of construction emissions. Because the project
would not exceed the LSTs with compliance with regulatory requirements (and would be further
reduced with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4), impacts
related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during project
construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation. A project would generate localized exhaust emissions that have the potential to affect
nearby sensitive receivers if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that
may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). As such,
operational LSTs are not applicable to the proposed project. Although the proposed project does not
include such uses, impacts associated with the operational localized emissions have been analyzed
for disclosure purposes. Operational LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5.
Screening-level analysis of LST is recommended for operational activities at the project site only. Off-
site vehicle trips are not included in the LST analysis. The CalEEMod model includes all operational
emission for both on- and off-site. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the LST emissions shown in
Table 4.2.J include all on-site project-related stationary and area sources and 5 percent of the
project-related mobile sources, which is an estimate of the amount of project-related vehicle traffic
that would occur on site. As shown in Appendix B, a total of 5 percent is considered conservative
because 95 percent of the project-related vehicle trips would occur off site.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-30
As discussed previously, sensitive receptors near the project site include existing single- and multi-
family residential homes located approximately 350 ft south of the project site, and LSTs for
receptors located at 107 meters were used in this analysis.
Table 4.2.J shows the maximum daily emissions for the project’s operational activities compared
with the SCAQMD LSTs for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
As shown in Table 4.2.J, project operational source emissions would not exceed LSTs established by
the SCAQMD. Therefore, because the project would not exceed the LSTs established by the
SCAQMD, localized emissions from operation of the proposed project would not expose any
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.2.4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors,
primarily from equipment exhaust. However, the construction activity would cease to occur after
individual construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors would occur during
construction of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operation. SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances states: “A person shall not discharge from any
source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which
endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or
have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
Potential airborne odors could result from cooking activities associated with new restaurants and
trash receptacles. These odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the project site and
minimized by SCAQMD odor regulations and lids on trash receptacles. The proposed uses are not
anticipated to emit any other types of objectionable odors. Therefore, operation of the proposed
project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
4.2.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. However, the
following regulatory compliance measures are existing SCAQMD regulations that are applicable to
the proposed project and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to air quality.
The City of Cypress considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they are not
mitigation measures.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-31
4.2.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.2.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following Regulatory Compliance Measures pertaining to air quality are applicable to the
proposed project.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-1 SCAQMD Rule 403. During clearing, grading, earth
moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust
emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other
dust preventative measures by using the following
procedures, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during
construction.
• All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently
watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
Watering shall occur at least twice daily with
complete coverage, preferably in the late morning
and after work is done for the day.
• All material transported on-site or off-site shall be
either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving,
or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• These control techniques shall be indicated in project
specifications. Compliance with this measure shall be
subject to periodic site inspections by the City of
Cypress (City).
• Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from
the project shall be prevented to the maximum extent
feasible.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-2 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material
shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with
special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4)
as amended, regarding the prevention of such material
spilling onto public streets and roads.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-3 Prior to approval of the project plans and specifications,
the City of Cypress Director of Community Development,
or designee, shall confirm that the construction bid
packages specify:
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx «02/03/20» 4.2-32
• Contractors shall use high-pressure-low-volume paint
applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at
least 50 percent;
• Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a
volatile organic compound content lower than
required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; and
• To the extent feasible, construction/building materials
shall be composed of pre-painted materials.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-4 The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402.
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-5 The project shall meet the Statewide 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, formally known as Title 24, Part 6.
4.2.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for the proposed project.
4.2.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 would further reduce
project-related air quality impacts to a less than significant level. No significant and unavoidable
impacts related to air quality would occur with implementation of these standard measures. All
anticipated impacts related to air quality would be considered less than significant and no mitigation
is required.
4.2.9 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 air quality. The cumulative impact
area for air quality related to the proposed project is the SCAB.
Air pollution is inherently a cumulative type of impact measured across an air basin. The discussion
under Threshold 4.2.2, above, includes an analysis of the proposed project’s contribution to
cumulative air impacts. To summarize the conclusion with respect to that analysis, the incremental
effect of projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to
be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project’s construction- and operation-related regional
daily emissions are less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. In
addition, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations on a project-by-project basis would
substantially reduce potential impacts associated with the related projects and basin-wide air
pollutant emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable
increase in emissions and the proposed project’s cumulative air quality impacts would be less than
significant.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.3 Biological Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.3-1
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing biological resources on and in the vicinity of the Cypress City
Center project (proposed project) site, the potential impacts of the proposed project on those
resources, and measures to mitigate any potentially significant impacts. Information presented in
this section is based on Geographic Information System (GIS) data, the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), and on the City of Cypress’ (City) Inventory of Landmark Trees (July 1996). The
literature review and CNDDB records search results are provided in Appendix C of this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.3.1 Methodology
A literature review was conducted to determine the potential occurrence of special-status plant
species and special-status animal species on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Database records from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), CNDDB – Rarefind 5
and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California were utilized to assist in determining the existence or potential occurrence of any special-
interest plant and animal species in or immediately adjacent to the project site. Similarly, LSA
reviewed records from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Online System 1 and the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper 2 to
determine the likelihood that candidate, threatened, and endangered species; crucial habitat;
national wildlife refuges; and/or migratory birds were present on the site. The USFWS National
Wetlands Inventory 3 was reviewed to determine whether any wetlands or surface waters of the
United States had been previously identified on the site. Database records for the Los Alamitos
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle were examined using the CNDDB and
the CNPS electronic inventory. Sensitive species known by LSA biologists to occur in the general area
were also considered.
4.3.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The approximately 13-acre project site is characterized by a paved parking lot, with existing light
poles and various electrical utility boxes and lines. The edge condition along Katella Avenue and a
portion of Siboney Street has been improved with a public sidewalk, fencing, and ornamental
landscaping. The edge condition along Winners Circle has been improved with a public sidewalk and
driveway access points, with no landscaping. The interior property is improved with a parking lot
and limited ornamental landscaping. The project site is generally flat, and has been fully graded and
disturbed. The urban landscaping within Cypress provides habitat for smaller rodents and birds.
However, the frequent disruptions caused by urban activities and the frequent cultivation of such
plant life make these plant communities less than an ideal habitat for wild animals.
1 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019b. IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation.
Website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed November 6, 2019).
2 USFWS. 2019c. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. Website: https://www.fws.gov/
wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed December 2019).
3 USFWS. 2019d. Wetlands. The National Wetlands Inventory. Website: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
(accessed December 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.3 Biological Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.3-2
4.3.2.1 Plant Species
As described above, the majority of the project site is graded and unvegetated, with the exception
of ornamental landscaping along the southern and western boundaries of the project site. These
landscaped areas contain trees; however, none of the trees are designated as Landmark Trees
according to the City’s Inventory of Landmark Trees (July 1996). The results of the literature review
and CNDDB search did not identify any special-status plant species on the project site or in the
vicinity of the project site. Appendix C contains the table that identifies those special-status plant
species known to occur or that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the project site, and includes
each species’ probability of occurrence within the proposed construction footprint.
4.3.2.2 Animal Species
Animal populations are not known to occur on the project site. Potential animal species supported
by the project site would typically be those found in developed, urban areas in Orange County, such
as coyote (Canis latrans), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and California ground squirrel
(Otospermophilus beecheyi). The project site lacks suitable habitat to support animal communities.
Although some animal species are expected to periodically move about the project site, it is entirely
surrounded by other development and does not function as a wildlife movement corridor or special
linkage. The results of the literature review and CNDDB search did not identify any special-status
plant species on the project site or in the vicinity of the project site. Appendix C contains the table
that identifies those special-status animal species known to occur or that could potentially occur in
the vicinity of the project site, and includes each species’ probability of occurrence within the
proposed construction footprint.
4.3.2.3 On-Site Aquatic Resources
The project site is currently developed with a paved surface parking lot and does not contain any
natural lakes, streams, or riparian habitat, nor hydric soils. No potential waters of the United States
or CDFW jurisdictional areas are located on the project site. Therefore, it does not meet the
minimum criteria for wetlands in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Arid West Supplement Version 2.0 1 and is not a wetland pursuant to Section 404 of the
CWA.
The California Fish and Game Code defines a “stream” (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of
water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and
supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that
supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” The CDFW definition of a “lake” includes “natural
lakes or man-made reservoirs.” The project site does not contain any body of water that meets the
definition of a stream or a lake in the California Fish and Game Code and, as such, would not be
subject to regulation under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.
1 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0).
ERCD/EL TR-08-28. September.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.3 Biological Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.3-3
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting
4.3.3.1 Federal Regulations
United States Endangered Species Act. The USFWS, pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA), protects endangered and threatened species. FESA defines an endangered species as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range and a threatened
species as one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. USFWS also identifies
species proposed for listing as endangered or threatened. Other than for federal actions, there is no
formal protection for candidate species under FESA. However, consultation with USFWS regarding
species proposed for listing can prevent project delays that could occur if a species is listed prior to
project completion.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the take,
possession, import, export, transport, selling, purchasing, or bartering of migratory birds and their
eggs, parts, and nests. Section 704 of the MBTA states that the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized and directed to determine if, and by what means, the take of migratory birds should be
allowed and to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing take while ensuring that take is
compatible with protection of the species. Most bird species are protected under the MBTA.
4.3.3.2 State Regulations
California Fish and Game Code. Under the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take,
possess, or needlessly destroy any bird or the nests or eggs of any bird species except as otherwise
provided in the California Fish and Game Code and its regulations. This code also specifically
protects raptors, including owls. The CDFW considers a disturbance that results in nest
abandonment or loss of reproductive effort as take. Disturbances of active nesting territories should
be avoided during the nesting season.
California Endangered Species Act. The CDFW, through provisions of the California Administrative
Code and policies formulated by the California Fish and Game Commission, regulates plant and
animal species in danger of, or threatened with, extinction based on the list of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species developed by the Fish and Game Commission. Endangered
species are native species or subspecies of plants and animals that are in serious danger of
becoming extinct throughout all or a significant part of their range. Threatened species are those
species that, although not presently threatened with extinction, are likely to become endangered in
the foreseeable future without special protection and management. Candidate species are species
that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review for addition to the
list of endangered or threatened species or as a species proposed for listing.
California Natural Diversity Database. The CDFW administers the CNDDB, which comprises lists of
special-status plants, animals, and natural communities, including species listed under the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) and FESA, California Species of Special Concern, and USFWS Birds of
Conservation Concern. Additional species, natural communities, and habitat types are designated as
being of special interest because of their rarity (e.g., very localized distribution, few scattered
occurrences) and/or threats to their existence, although there is no specific regulatory protection
afforded to those species by listing in the CNDDB.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.3 Biological Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.3-4
4.3.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations applicable to the proposed project.
4.3.3.4 Local Regulations
Landmark Tree Ordinance. The City has identified a number of Landmark Trees within its
jurisdiction. The City’s Landmark Tree Ordinance, as codified in Sections 17-17 through 17-27 of the
City Municipal Code, requires a permit for the cutting, modification, destruction, or removal of
Landmark Trees. Additionally, the Ordinance maintains that no structures can be constructed within
30 feet of a Landmark Tree without a permit from the Cypress City Council.
4.3.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for biological resources impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G
of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed
project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to biological resources if it would:
Threshold 4.3.1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Threshold 4.3.2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold 4.3.3: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Threshold 4.3.4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Threshold 4.3.5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Threshold 4.3.6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.3 Biological Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.3-5
4.3.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.3.1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No Impact. The project site is currently characterized by a paved asphalt surface parking lot. In its
existing condition, the project site contains only a small amount of ornamental vegetation along
Katella Avenue and a portion of Siboney Street. The disturbed condition of the project site is
generally not suitable to support special-status plant or animal species.
Special-Status Habitat/Vegetation. The USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered
Species map does not identify any locations of critical habitat within the project site. The closest
known critical habitat is the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, approximately 6.5 miles south of the
project site.1 According to the CNDDB, no sensitive plant species have been documented on the
project site or in the project vicinity.
The project site is located within the Orange County Transportation Authority Natural Communities
Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (OCTA NCCP/HCP) that covers the entirety of Orange
County. Only some portions of the Plan Area fall within a designated Permit Area, or the area in
which OCTA would request authorization from CDFW and USFWS to issue permits due to potential
project-related impacts to certain identified species. Because the project site does not fall within the
Permit Area, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or State HCP. No
special-status species are anticipated to be directly affected by the project due to the lack of
suitable habitat on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive or special-status species
would result from implementation of the proposed project, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.3.2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is highly disturbed and developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot and
does not support any special-status or sensitive riparian habitat as identified in regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, no impacts related to riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural communities identified in a local or regional plan would result from
project implementation, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.3.3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
1 USFWS. 2019a. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Website: http://www.arcgis.com/
home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://services.arcgis.com/QVENGdaPbd4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/services/
USFWS_Critical_Habitat/FeatureServer&source=sd (accessed December 6, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.3 Biological Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.3-6
No Impact. According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by USFWS, the project site does
not contain federally protected wetlands. The project site is located entirely outside of streambeds,
banks, and riparian habitat. No potential waters of the United States or CDFW jurisdictional areas
are located on the project site.
Although construction activities have the potential to result in temporary indirect effects to water
quality including a potential increase in erosion and sediment transport into downstream aquatic
areas and the contamination of waters from construction equipment, these potential indirect
effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or substantially minimized through the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and a Water Quality Management Plan as
discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Specifically, adherence to Regulatory
Compliance Measure HYD-1, provided in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, during
construction would address erosion-related impacts during construction through implementation of
construction site BMPs to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to downstream aquatic areas
and water quality. As such, there would be no impacts on State or federally protected wetlands.
Threshold 4.3.4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the lack of sensitive or special-status species or their habitats
on the project site, the project would not result in impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status
animal species. The proposed project would avoid impacts on nesting resident and/or migratory
birds either by avoiding vegetation removal during the avian nesting season (February 1 through
August 31) or by implementing Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1. The proposed project has
the potential to impact active migratory bird nests if and to the extent that those trees are removed
during the avian nesting season and they contain nests. Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1,
below, would address any impacts to nesting resident and/or migratory birds should it be necessary
to conduct vegetation removal during the nesting season and nests are present. With
implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1, the proposed project’s potential impacts
on nesting migratory birds would be less than significant.
The proposed project would avoid impacts on the nests of raptors (which are migratory birds) if the
existing trees in the ornamental vegetation area are removed outside the raptor nesting season
(February 1 through June 30) and they contain raptor nests. The proposed project has the potential
to impact active raptor nests if and to the extent that (1) those ornamental trees are removed
during the raptor nesting season, and (2) special-status or common species of raptors establish nests
in the future in any of those ornamental trees prior to their removal. Regulatory Compliance
Measure BIO-1, below, would also address any impact to nesting raptors should it be necessary to
conduct vegetation removal during the nesting season and raptors are present. With
implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1, the proposed project exhibits no
potential to disrupt a wildlife corridor or in any way disrupt movement of native wildlife.
Threshold 4.3.5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.3 Biological Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.3-7
Less Than Significant Impact. The Landmark Tree Ordinance in the City’s Municipal Code protects
designated landmark trees, which are specifically identified in the City’s Inventory of Landmark Trees
(July 1996). As shown in this inventory, there are no landmark trees on the project site. The removal
of any on-site trees or vegetation would not conflict with the City’s Landmark Tree Ordinance.
Per Article IV of the Municipal Code, Street Trees, any tree within the public right-of-way belongs to
the City of Cypress. Any work to street trees conducted as part of the proposed project would be
done in accordance with the City Council’s adopted Parkway Tree Policy.
Therefore, through compliance with the local policies and ordinances relating to tree protection, any
impacts to local street trees would be considered less than significant.
Threshold 4.3.6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The OCTA’s NCCP/HCP includes a Plan Area that covers the entirety of Orange County,
including the City of Cypress. Only some portions of the Plan Area fall within a designated Permit
Area, or the area in which OCTA would request authorization from CDFW and USFWS to issue
permits due to potential project-related impacts to certain identified species. Because the project
site does not fall within the Permit Area, the proposed project would not conflict with any local,
regional, or State HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impacts related to conflict
with an HCP, and no mitigation is required.
4.3.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in no impacts related to candidate, sensitive, or special-status
wildlife species, riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities, wetlands, policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, and conflicts with an adopted HCP. Potential impacts to migratory
birds and raptors and street trees would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
4.3.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.3.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 Nesting Bird Survey and Avoidance. If vegetation
removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to
occur within the active nesting bird season (February 1
through August 31), the City of Cypress, or designee, shall
confirm that the Applicant/Developer has retained a
qualified biologist who shall conduct a preconstruction
nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start
of such activities. The nesting bird survey shall include the
work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet,
as feasible) that could potentially be affected by project-
related activities such as noise, vibration, increased
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.3 Biological Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.3-8
human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s)
identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an
appropriate buffer zone around the active nest(s). The
appropriate buffer shall be determined by the qualified
biologist based on species, location, and the nature of the
proposed activities. Project activities shall be avoided
within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer
active, as determined by the qualified biologist.
4.3.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are applicable the proposed project.
4.3.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed project would be addressed through
compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 and would be considered less than
significant. The proposed project would have no significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related
to biological resources.
4.3.9 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 probable future
projects within the cumulative impact area for biological resources. The project site is heavily
disturbed, with existing paving and light poles. Because the project site is located within the City of
Cypress, the cumulative area for biological impacts is the City. As described above, the proposed
project would have no impacts to federal and State listed species and waters of the United States or
wetlands and would have less than significant effects on migratory birds and local tree policies. As
the proposed project’s impacts to biological resources would be limited, its contribution to
cumulative biological impacts in consideration of the City of Cypress projects identified in Table 4.A,
in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, would be
considered less than significant.
As discussed earlier, the project site is located within the OCTA NCCP/HCP that covers the entirety of
Orange County, including the City of Cypress. Only some portions of the Plan Area fall within a
designated Permit Area, or the area in which OCTA would request authorization from CDFW and
USFWS to issue permits due to potential project-related impacts to certain identified species.
Additionally, the project site is not located within a designated habitat reserve and, therefore, the
proposed project would not contribute to the loss of natural habitat in the City. The development of
the proposed project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat species identified in
the OCTA NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative loss
of biological resources, and impacts on biological resources would be less than cumulatively
significant.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.4 Cultural Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.4-1
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section provides a discussion of the existing cultural resource environment and an analysis of
potential impacts from implementation of the Cypress City Center project (proposed project).
Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts over 50 years old that may
have traditional or cultural value for the historical significance they possess. This section summarizes
information obtained from a record search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC)
of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and an archaeological pedestrian
survey of the project site. A cultural resources technical memorandum summarizing the results of
the record search and archaeological pedestrian field survey are contained in a confidential
appendix (Appendix D) of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.4.1 Methodology
A cultural resources record search was completed on January 9, 2020, at the SCCIC of the CHRIS at
California State University, Fullerton. It included a review of all prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site, as well as a review of known
cultural resource survey and excavation reports in that area. The California State Historic Resources
Inventory (HRI), National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Historical
Landmarks (SHL), California Points of Historical Interest (SPHI), and various local historical registers
were examined. An archaeological pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted on
January 14, 2020.
4.4.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The area that is now Cypress (including the project site) was prehistorically occupied by the
Gabrielino Native American people. The project site is currently characterized by a paved parking lot
with existing light poles and various electrical utility boxed and lines. Temporary existing uses on the
project site include overflow parking and a variety of other temporary uses.
4.4.3 Regulatory Setting
4.4.3.1 Federal Regulations
No federal regulations are applicable to the proposed project.
4.4.3.2 State Regulations
California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. California HSC Section 7050.5 states that in
the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated
cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Coroner of the county in which the
remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the Coroner’s
authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify
a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations
for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.4 Cultural Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.4-2
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. PRC Section 5097.5 provides for the protection of cultural
resources and prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological features
on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.
California Register of Historical Resources (PRC Section 5020 et seq.). State law also protects
cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources in
CEQA documents. A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the
criteria found in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). These criteria are nearly identical to
those for the National Register, which are listed above.
The SHPO maintains the California Register. Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for
listing, on the National Register are nominated to the California Register and then selected to be
listed on the California Register, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest.
The California Register criteria are based on National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible
for inclusion in the California Register, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of
the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that
sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective
on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate
of time needed to develop the perspective to understand the resource’s significance (California
Code of Regulations [CCR] 4852[d][2]).
The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity, which is defined as “the
authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics
that existed during the resource’s period of significance” (California Office of Historic Preservation
[OHP] 1999:2). To retain integrity, a resource should have its original location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Which of these factors is most important depends
on the particular criterion under which the resource is considered eligible for listing (OHP 1999).
4.4.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that are applicable to cultural resources relevant to the proposed
project.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.4 Cultural Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.4-3
4.4.3.4 Local Regulations
Cypress General Plan. The Conservation/Open Space/Recreation (COSR) Element of the Cypress
General Plan identifies goals and policies related to cultural resources (and includes references to
paleontological resources). Goal COSR-5 is to “preserve Cypress’ archaeologic and paleontologic
resources” through implementation of two policies: COSR-5.1 and COSR-5.2. Policy COSR-5.1 is “to
update records of resource finds and locations when required” and COSR-5.2 states that “Prior to
development in previously undeveloped areas, [the City will] require strict adherence to the CEQA
guidelines for environmental documentation and mitigation measures where development will
affect archaeological or paleontological resources.”
4.4.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for cultural resources impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of
the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project
may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to cultural resources if it would:
Threshold 4.4.1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Threshold 4.4.2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Threshold 4.4.3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
4.4.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.4.1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. The SCCIC record search results and archaeological pedestrian field survey identified no
previously recorded cultural resources on or in soils on the project site. As such, there are no
historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines located within the
project site. The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.4.2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The SCCIC record search included the project
site and the areas within 0.25 mile of the project site. No archaeological resources have been
previously recorded within the project site. There has been one archaeological resource previously
recorded within 0.25 mile of the project site, the historic-period Navy Golf Course in Seal Beach
(P-30-176854). One previous study (an archaeological pedestrian field survey) has included the
project site.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.4 Cultural Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.4-4
Historic-period site P-30-176854 is located approximately 0.25 mile southeast of the project site
and, as such, will not be impacted by project-related construction activities. The archaeological
pedestrian field survey did not identify any surficial archaeological cultural deposits within the
project site. The project site is located within pre-development floodplains of rivers and creeks,
which are subject to erosion from seasonal flooding. As a result of this seasonal flooding, the
floodplain containing the project site would not have been conducive to the accumulation and
preservation of intact archaeological cultural deposits. As such, there is a low likelihood of
encountering intact buried archaeological deposits during ground-disturbing construction activities.
However, there is a possibility that isolated archaeological cultural resources may be encountered
during construction activities.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that a qualified professional archaeologist provide cultural
resources awareness training prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities and that a
qualified professional archaeologist be retained on-call in the event that construction personnel
encounter any archaeological deposits and/or human remains during construction activities. If
construction personnel encounter any archaeological deposits during construction activities, the on-
call qualified professional archaeologist will be contacted to assess the nature of the find. When
archaeological resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these
resources would be less than significant. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would reduce the impact of the proposed project on the significance of archaeological resources to
less than significant.
Threshold 4.4.3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. No previously identified human remains are present on the project
site, and there are no facts or evidence indicating that Native Americans or people of European
descent are buried on the project site. However, undiscovered human remains may be present
below the ground surface on any property. Disturbing human remains could violate the State’s
Health and Safety Code as well as destroy the resource. Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1
requires compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains.
Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 would reduce
the impact of the proposed project on human remains to less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
4.4.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
No impacts to historical resources would occur. Prior to mitigation, the proposed project has the
potential to result in significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources. With adherence to
the regulatory standards in Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1, the project would result in less
than significant impacts to previously undiscovered buried human remains.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.4 Cultural Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.4-5
4.4.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.4.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 Human Remains. If human remains are encountered,
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that
no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to State PRC Section 5097.98. The
County Coroner must be notified of the find
immediately. If the remains are determined to be
Native American, the County Coroner would notify the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which
would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant
(MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her
authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site
of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection
and make recommendations or preferences for
treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to
the site. The MLD recommendations may include
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American
burials, preservation of Native American human
remains and associated items in place, relinquishment
of Native American human remains and associated
items to the descendants for treatment, or any other
culturally appropriate treatment.
4.4.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Archaeological Resources. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, a qualified professional archaeologist
shall be retained by the Applicant/Developer to provide
cultural resources awareness training to construction
personnel. The qualified professional archaeologist shall
also be retained by the Applicant/Developer on an on-
call basis. This training shall be in the form of a
presentation and handout describing the types of
possible archaeological deposits that may be
encountered during construction activities; and the
procedures that shall be used in the event of
inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources during
construction. In the event that construction personnel
encounter any archaeological deposits during
construction activities, the retained qualified
professional archaeologist shall be contacted
immediately. If any such resources are discovered,
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.4 Cultural Resources.docx «02/03/20» 4.4-6
contractors shall stop work in the immediate area of the
find and contact the retained archaeologist to assess
the nature of the find and determine if future studies
and/or monitoring is appropriate. Upon completion of
any monitoring activities, the archaeologist shall
prepare a report to document the methods and results
of monitoring activities. This report shall be submitted
to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
4.4.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
No impacts to historical resources would occur. With adherence to the regulatory standards in
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1, the project would result in less than significant impacts to
previously undiscovered buried human remains. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential
impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level. No significant
unavoidable impacts to archaeological resources would occur with implementation of this
mitigation measure.
4.4.9 Cumulative Impacts
Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown cultural resources, when combined with the
impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Cypress, could
contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the overall loss of historical and archaeological
artifacts unique to the region.
Each development proposal received by the City is required to comply with the requirements of
CEQA, including an environmental review, if applicable. If there were any potential for significant
impacts to archaeological resources as a result of present or reasonably foreseeable projects in
Cypress, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources
and identify appropriate mitigation measures. When archaeological resources are assessed and/or
protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources are less than significant.
As such, implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would ensure that the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a
significant cumulative impact to unique archaeological and historical resources.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-1
4.5 ENERGY
This section discusses energy use resulting from implementation of the Cypress City Center Project
(proposed project) and evaluates whether the proposed project would result in the wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with any applicable plans for
renewable energy and energy efficiency. The energy use analysis in this section is based on
information from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2 modeling
results in Appendix B of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.5.1 Methodology
The analysis of electricity/natural gas usage is based on the CalEEMod modeling conducted by LSA
(LSA 2019), which quantifies energy use for project operations. Fuel consumption (diesel fuel and
gasoline) from vehicle trips during operation was estimated for the opening year (2022) of the
proposed project based on trip estimates from the CalEEMod model and fuel efficiencies from the
California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMission FACtor Model (EMFAC2017) model. Estimates of
fuel consumption (diesel fuel and gasoline) from construction trucks and construction worker
vehicles were based on trip estimates from the CalEEMod model and fuel efficiencies from the CARB
EMFAC2017 model.
The analysis focuses on the four sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project:
electricity, natural gas, the equipment fuel necessary for project construction, and vehicle fuel
necessary for project operations. For the purposes of this analysis, the amount of electricity, natural
gas, construction fuel, and fuel use from operations are quantified and compared to that consumed
in Orange County. The electricity/natural gas use of the proposed project is analyzed as a whole on
an annual basis.
4.5.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.5.2.1 Electricity
Electricity is a manmade resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or
conversion of energy resources (including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear
resources) into energy. Electricity is used for a variety of purposes (e.g., lighting, heating, cooling,
and refrigeration, and for operating appliances, computers, electronics, machinery, and public
transportation systems).1
In 2017, California’s electricity was generated primarily by natural gas (33.67 percent), coal
(4.13 percent), large hydroelectric (14.72 percent), nuclear (9.08 percent), and renewable sources
(29 percent). Total electric generation in California in 2017 was 292,039 gigawatt-hours (GWh), up
0.5 percent from the 2016 total generation of 290,567 GWh. In 2017, California produced
approximately 70.7 percent and imported 29.3 percent of the electricity it used.2
1 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2019b. Electricity Explained. Website: https://
www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/ (accessed December 9, 2019).
2 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019c. Notice of Request for Public Comments on the Draft Scoping
Order for the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Docket No. 19-IEPR-01.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-2
The project site is within the service territory of Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides
electricity to more than 15 million people in a 50,000-square-mile (sq mi) area of Central, Coastal,
and Southern California.1 According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity
consumption in the SCE service area in 2018 was 84,000 GWh. (28,617 GWh for the residential
sector and 54,783 GWh for the non-residential sector). Total electricity consumption in Orange
County in 2018 was 19,858 GWh (6,814 GWh for the residential sector and 13,044 GWh for the non-
residential sector).2
Although electricity is used to power the parking lot lights on the project site, the amount of
electricity that is used on an annual basis is unknown.
4.5.2.2 Natural Gas
Natural gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are formed when layers of decomposing plant
and animal matter are exposed to intense heat and pressure under the surface of the Earth over
millions of years. Natural gas is a combustible mixture of hydrocarbon compounds (primarily
methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas is found in naturally occurring reservoirs in deep
underground rock formations. Natural gas is used for a variety of uses (e.g., heating buildings,
generating electricity, and powering appliances such as stoves, washing machines and dryers, gas
fireplaces, and gas grills).3
Natural gas consumed in California is used for electricity generation (45 percent), residential uses
(21 percent), industrial uses (25 percent), and commercial uses (9 percent). California continues to
depend upon out-of-state imports for nearly 90 percent of its natural gas supply.4
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the natural gas service provider for the project
site. SoCalGas provides natural gas to approximately 21.8 million people in a 24,000 sq mi service
area throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border.5 According to
the California Energy Commission (CEC), total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area
in 2018 was 5,156.1 million therms (2,147.4 million therms for the residential sector and 987.5
million therms for the commercial sector). Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2018
was 575.1 million therms (339.0 million therms for the residential sector and 236.1 therms for the
non-residential sector).6
1 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2019. About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are
(accessed December 12, 2019).
2 CEC. 2019a. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.
aspx (accessed December 12, 2019).
3 EIA. 2019c. Natural Gas Explained- Use of Natural Gas. Website: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/
index.php?page=natural_gas_use (accessed December 9, 2019).
4 CEC. 2019d. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website: https:// ww2.energy.ca.gov/
almanac/naturalgas_data/overview.html (accessed December 9, 2019).
5 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2019. About SoCalGas. Website: https://www3.socalgas.
com/about-us/company-profile (accessed December 9, 2019).
6 CEC. 2019b. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
(accessed December 12, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-3
In its existing condition, no natural gas is currently used on the project site.
4.5.2.3 Petroleum/Transportation Energy
Petroleum is also a non-renewable fossil fuel. Petroleum is a thick, flammable, yellow-to-black
mixture of gaseous, liquid, and solid hydrocarbons that occurs naturally beneath the earth's surface.
Petroleum is primarily recovered by oil drilling. It is refined into a large number of consumer
products, primarily fuel oil, gasoline, and diesel.
Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline being
consumed by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. In 2017, total gasoline
consumption in California was 366,820 thousand barrels (15.4 billion gallons) or 1,853.5 trillion
British Thermal Units (BTU).1 Of the total gasoline consumption, 350,604 thousand barrels (14.7
billion gallons) or 1,771.6 trillion BTU were consumed for transportation.2 Based on fuel
consumption obtained from EMFAC2017, 160.5 million gallons of diesel and 1.3 billion gallons of
gasoline were consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2018.
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting
4.5.3.1 Federal Regulations
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light-duty trucks. CAFE standards are
federal regulations that are set to reduce energy consumed by on-road motor vehicles. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates the standards and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) measures vehicle fuel efficiency. The standards specify
minimum fuel consumption efficiency standards for new automobiles sold in the United States. The
law has become more stringent over time. The current standard is 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for
passenger cars and 20.7 mpg for light-duty trucks.
On May 19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy
for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and the United
States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) NHTSA announced a joint final rule establishing a
national program that would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel economy for
new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The first phase of the national program applied to
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles for model years 2012
through 2016. This phase required these vehicles to meet a fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg. The
second phase applied to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles for
1 A British Thermal Unit (BTU) is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one
pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.
2 EIA. 2019a. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Table F3: Motor gasoline consumption, price,
and expenditure estimates, 2017. Website: https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/
seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html&sid=CA (accessed December 12, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-4
model years 2017 through 2025. This phase required these vehicles to meet an estimated fuel
economy standard of 54.5 mpg.1
On September 15, 2011, the USEPA and USDOT issued a final rule for the first national standards to
improve fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses, model years 2014 through
2018. For combination tractors, the agencies proposed engine and vehicle standards that would
achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans, the agencies proposed separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which
would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and a 15 percent reduction for
diesel vehicles (12 and 17 percent, respectively, if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for
vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in
fuel consumption (USEPA 2019a). On October 25, 2016, the USEPA and USDOT issued Phase 2 of the
national standards to improve fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and
buses for model years 2021 through 2027 to achieve vehicle fuel savings as high as 25 percent,
depending on the vehicle category (USEPA 2019a).
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule. On August 2, 2018, the current Administration
released a notice of proposed rulemaking, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for
Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule) to amend the CAFE
and GHG emission standards established in 2012 for model years 2021 through 2026. The SAFE
Vehicles Rule would decrease fuel economy and would withdraw the California Waiver for the
California Advanced Clean Car program, Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, and GHG emission
standards for model years 2021 through 2026. Final rulemaking on the SAFE Vehicles Rule is
pending.2
4.5.3.2 State Regulations
Assembly Bill 1575, Warren-Alquist Act. In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s,
the State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1575 (also known as the Warren-Alquist Act), which
created the CEC. The statutory mission of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs; license power
plants of 50 megawatts (MW) or larger; develop energy technologies and renewable energy
resources; plan for and direct State responses to energy emergencies; and, perhaps most
importantly, promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and
building energy efficiency standards. AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
21100(b)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 to require EIRs to include, where
relevant, mitigation measures proposed to minimize the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy caused by a project. Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created
Appendix F to the State CEQA Guidelines. Appendix F assists EIR preparers in determining whether a
project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Appendix F
of the State CEQA Guidelines also states that the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2019a. Corporate Average Fuel Economy.
Website: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy (accessed December
9, 2019).
2 NHTSA. 2019b. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ‘SAFE’ Vehicles Rule. Website: https://www.nhtsa.gov/
corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe (accessed December 9, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-5
efficient use of energy and the means of achieving this goal, including (1) decreasing overall per
capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil;
and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
Senate Bill 1389, Energy: Planning and Forecasting. In 2002, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill
(SB) 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity,
natural gas, and transportation fuels for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the
State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce
congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy
costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public
agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero emission vehicles (ZEVs)
and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
In compliance with the requirements of SB 1389, the CEC adopts an Integrated Energy Policy Report
every 2 years and an update every other year. The most recently adopted reports include the 2017
Integrated Energy Policy Report (CEC 2018a) and the 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update
(CEC 2018b). The 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments
of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is
to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy
reliability and controlling costs. The 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of
topics, including implementation of SB 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy
resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector,
energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities,
demand response, transmission and landscape-scale planning, the California Energy Demand
Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas,
updates on Southern California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and
resiliency. The 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update included a review of the
implementation of California’s energy policies and updated the 2017 California energy demand
forecasts that were adopted as part of the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report proceedings.
The CEC circulated the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report for public review in February 2019 and
is anticipated to approve the report in February 2020.1
Renewable Portfolio Standards. SB 1078 established the California Renewable Portfolio Standards
program in 2002. SB 1078 initially required that 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by
renewable resources by 2017; however, this standard has become more stringent over time. In
2006, SB 107 accelerated the standard by requiring that the 20 percent mandate be met by 2010. In
April 2011, SB 2 required that 33 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable resources
by 2020. In 2015, SB 350 established tiered increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standards of
40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. In 2018, SB 100 increased the
1 CEC. 2019c. Notice of Request for Public Comments on the Draft Scoping Order for the 2019 Integrated
Energy Policy Report. Docket No. 19-IEPR-01.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-6
requirement to 60 percent by 2030 and required that all State's electricity to come from carbon-free
resources by 2045. SB 100 took effect on January 1, 2019.1
Title 24, California Building Code. Energy consumption by new buildings in California is regulated by
the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), known as the California Building Code (CBC). The CEC first adopted the Building Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce energy consumption in the State. The CBC is updated every 3 years, and the
current 2019 CBC went into effect on January 1, 2020. The efficiency standards apply to both new
construction and rehabilitation of both residential and non-residential buildings, and regulate
energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building
efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process. Local government
agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings, provided these standards meet
or exceed those provided in CCR Title 24.
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In 2010, the California Building
Standards Commission (CBSC) adopted Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards,
referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code
took effect on January 1, 2011. The CALGreen Code is updated on a regular basis, with the most
recent update consisting of the 2019 CALGreen Code standards that became effective January 1,
2020. The CALGreen Code established mandatory measures for residential and non-residential
building construction and encouraged sustainable construction practices in the following five
categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation,
(4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. Although
the CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the
CALGreen Code standards have co-benefits of reducing energy consumption from residential and
non-residential buildings subject to the standard.
California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. On September 18, 2008, the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) adopted California’s first Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting
a roadmap for energy efficiency in California (CPUC 2008). The Plan articulates a long-term vision
and goals for each economic sector and identifies specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term
strategies to assist in achieving those goals. The Plan also reiterates the following four specific
programmatic goals known as the “Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies” that were established by
the CPUC in Decisions D.07-10-032 and D.07-12-051:
• All new residential construction will be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020.
• All new commercial construction will be ZNE by 2030.
• 50 percent of commercial buildings will be retrofitted to ZNE by 2030.
• 50 percent of new major renovations of State buildings will be ZNE by 2025.
1 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2019. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program.
Website: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/rps/ (accessed December 9, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-7
4.5.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional energy regulations that apply to the proposed project.
4.5.3.4 Local Regulations
Cypress Municipal Code. The City of Cypress (City) has adopted the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen Code) and incorporated the CALGreen Code by reference into the City
Municipal Code (Chapter 5, Buildings, Article 1, Building Code, Section 5-1 California Building Codes
– Adopted).
Cypress General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. The following goals and
policies are applicable to the proposed project:
COSR-3: Conserve energy resources through the use of available technology and
conservation practices.
COSR-3.1: Encourage innovative site planning and building designs that minimize energy
consumption by taking advantage of sun/shade patterns, prevailing winds,
landscaping, and building materials.
COSR-3.2: Encourage new development and existing structures to install energy saving
features.
4.5.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for energy impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State
CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be
deemed to have a significant impact with respect to energy if it would:
Threshold 4.5.1: Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Threshold 4.5.2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
4.5.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.5.1: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last 20 months, and would
require energy for activities such as the manufacture and transportation of building materials,
demolition and grading activities, and building construction. Construction of the proposed project
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-8
would require electricity to power construction-related equipment. Construction of the proposed
project would not involve the consumption of natural gas. The construction-related equipment
would not be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction.
Transportation energy represents the largest energy use during construction and would occur from
the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction
worker vehicles that would use petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel fuel and/or gasoline). Therefore, the
analysis of energy use during construction focuses on fuel consumption. Construction trucks and
vendor trucks hauling materials to and from the project site would be anticipated to use diesel fuel,
whereas construction workers traveling to and from the project site would be anticipated to use
gasoline-powered vehicles. Fuel consumption from transportation uses depends on the type and
number of trips, VMT, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles, and travel mode.
As indicated in Table 4.5.A, the project would consume approximately 72,347 gallons of diesel fuel
and approximately 162,160 gallons of gasoline during construction, which would increase the annual
construction generated fuel use in Orange County by approximately 0.05 percent for diesel fuel
usage and approximately 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel usage. As such, project construction would
have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. Furthermore, impacts related to
energy use during construction would be temporary and relatively small in comparison to Orange
County’s overall use of the State’s available energy sources. No unusual project characteristics
would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at
comparable construction sites in the region or the State.
Table 4.5.A: Proposed Project Energy Consumption Estimates
Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption Percentage Increase Countywide
Project Construction
Diesel Fuel (total gallons) 72,347 gallons 0.05%
Gasoline (total gallons) 162,160 gallons 0.01%
Project Operation
Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) 4,094,453 kWh 0.02%
Natural Gas Consumption (therms/year) 94,546 therms 0.04%
Automotive Fuel Consumption
Gasoline (gallons/year) 407,128 gallons 0.03%
Diesel Fuel (gallons/year) 26,198 gallons 0.02%
Source: Compiled by LSA (December 2019).
kWh = kilowatt-hours
For these reasons, fuel consumption during construction would not be any more inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature, and impacts would
be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation. Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas
use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. As shown in
Table 4.5.A, the estimated potential increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of
the proposed project is 4,094,543 kWh per year. Total electricity demand in Orange County in 2018
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-9
was approximately 19,858,000,000 kWh. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would
increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.02 percent.
As shown in Table 4.5.A, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with the
proposed project is 94,546 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in
2018 was 236,102,647 therms. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly
increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.04 percent.
Electrical and natural gas demand associated with project operations would not be considered
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would be required to adhere to all federal, State,
and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 building
energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building
features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation
and roofing, and lighting. Compliance with Title 24 standards is required as identified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure E-1, which would significantly reduce energy usage. Impacts are considered
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
The proposed project would also result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel fuel
consumed by project-related vehicle trips. As shown in Table 4.5.A, fuel use associated with the
vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is estimated at 407,128 gallons of gasoline and
26,198 gallons of diesel fuel per year. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using
CARB’s EMFAC2017 model, which provided projections for typical daily fuel usage in Orange County.
This analysis conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of project operation
would be new to Orange County. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2017, 160.5
million gallons of diesel and 1.3 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed from vehicle trips in
Orange County in 2018. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual
gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.03 percent and 0.2
percent, respectively. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project
operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other
similar developments in the region. The proposed project would increase internal trip capture
between residential and retail segments through its mixed-use design. Additionally, the proposed
project would facilitate transit use by providing a new dense, mixed-use development on an
underutilized property along a major arterial street (Katella Avenue), which is already served by
existing transit service. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.5.2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. In 2002, the Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the CEC to
develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation
fuels for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the
transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-10
the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this
policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet
operators in implementing incentive programs for ZEVs and their infrastructure needs, and
encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
The CEC recently adopted the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report1 and the 2018 Integrated Energy
Policy Report Update.2 The Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s
assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. The City of Cypress relies on the State
integrated energy plan and does not have its own local plan to address renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in
nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition,
energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in
comparison to the overall use in Orange County, and the State’s available energy source. Therefore,
energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation
planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact
on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or
obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy
Report. Additionally, as demonstrated above under Threshold 4.5.1, the proposed project would not
result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential impacts related
to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.5.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Energy impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy are
considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.5.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.5.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The proposed project would comply with the following regulatory standard.
Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the City of Cypress (City) Chief
Building Official, or designee, shall confirm that the project
design complies with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (CCR Title 24) energy conservation and green
building standards, as well as those listed in Part 11
(California Green Building Standards [CALGreen Code]). The
City’s Chief Building Official shall confirm that the project
complies with the mandatory measures listed in the
1 CEC. 2017. 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Publication Number: CEC-100-2017-001-CMF.
2 CEC. 2018a. 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Publication Number: CEC-100-2018-001-V1.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-11
CALGreen Code for residential and non-residential building
construction.
4.5.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for the proposed project.
4.5.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Construction and operational impacts related to energy use would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
4.5.9 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative analysis of electricity is that of the SCE service area, while the
geographic area for cumulative analysis of natural gas service is that of the SoCalGas service area.
The proposed project would result in an increased services demand in electricity and natural gas.
Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in demand for electricity, this increase
would not require SCE to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial
environmental impacts. As discussed previously, the total annual electricity consumption in the SCE
service area in 2017 was 84,291.6 GWh. By 2030, consumption is anticipated to increase by
approximately 12,000 GWh for the low-demand scenario and by 22,000 GWh for the high-demand
scenario.1 While this forecast represents a large increase in electricity consumption, the proposed
project’s share of cumulative consumption would negligible. The proposed project, in combination
with cumulative development, is well within SCE’s system-wide net annual increase in electricity
supplies over the 2018 to 2030 period, and there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the
region for estimated net increases in energy demands.
Similarly, additional natural gas infrastructure is not anticipated due to cumulative development.
Total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2018 was 5,156.1 million therms.
Between 2018 and 2035, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area is forecast to
remain steady for the low- and mid-demand scenarios and to increase by approximately 650 million
therms in the high-demand scenario due to intense energy efficiency efforts.2 The proposed
project’s share of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SoCalGas service area would be
negligible. It is anticipated that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas demand of the
related projects without additional facilities. In addition, both SCE and SoCalGas demand forecasts
include the growth contemplated by the proposed project and the related projects. Increased
energy efficiency to comply with building energy efficiency standards will reduce energy
consumption on a per-square-foot basis. Furthermore, utility companies are required to increase
their renewable energy sources to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate of 60 percent
renewable supplies by 2030. SCE and SoCalGas plan to continue to provide reliable service to their
customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.
1 CEC. 2018b. California Energy Demand, 2018–2030 Revised Forecast. Publication Number: CEC-200-2018-
002-CMF. February. Website: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed
December 12, 2019).
2 Ibid.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.5 Energy.docx «02/03/20» 4.5-12
Transportation energy use would also increase; however, this transportation energy use would not
represent a major amount of energy use when compared to the amount of existing development
and to the total number of vehicle trips and VMT throughout Orange County and the region. The
proposed project and related projects are required to comply with various federal and State
government legislation to improve energy efficiency in buildings, equipment, and appliances, and
reduce VMT.
Compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 would ensure that the proposed project does
not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the
proposed project’s contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary
consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-1
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section provides a discussion of the existing geology and soils setting and an analysis of the
Cypress City Center project’s (proposed project) potential geology and soils impacts. This section
also addresses potential impacts due to the local geology underlying the project site, as well as slope
stability, ground settlement, soil conditions, grading, and regional and local seismic conditions. This
section also evaluates potential impacts to paleontological resources. This section summarizes
information provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Study for Proposed Mixed-Use Development
at NE Quadrant of Siboney Street and Katella Avenue, City of Cypress, California (Geotechnical
Assessment) (NMG Geotechnical, Inc. [NMG], June 13, 2019). This report is included as Appendix E
to this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This section also incorporates data from the City of
Cypress (City) General Plan (City of Cypress 2000), numerous State and federal studies of geologic
and seismic hazards in the vicinity of the City, site-specific investigations in the project site, and field
observations.
4.6.1 Methodology
To assess the impacts of the proposed project with respect to geologic and soil conditions, NMG
conducted a Geotechnical Assessment and field explorations, and reviewed previous geotechnical
reports prepared by others with respect to the project site. The discussion below describes the
scope of the exploration, including methods used during site reconnaissance and the results of
pertinent prior explorations, laboratory tests, and engineering analyses.
4.6.1.1 Background Research and Data Review
Existing geologic literature (i.e., geologic maps, boring logs, and other applicable data) was reviewed
by NMG.
4.6.1.2 Site Reconnaissance
A site reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration of the project site were conducted by NMG. This
included marking exploration and test locations for geology and soils that were analyzed in the
Geotechnical Assessment.
4.6.1.3 Field Investigation
A preliminary field investigation was conducted by NMG to identify subsurface conditions on the
project site related to soil types, groundwater, liquefaction, corrosive soils, settlement, and the
potential need for remedial grading. As part of the field investigation, five small-diameter borings, at
the locations shown on Figure 4.6.1, Boring, Well, and CPT Locations, were conducted on the project
site to a maximum depth of 20 feet (ft) below the surface. One of the boring locations was
converted to a groundwater observation well. Liquefaction analysis was performed using cone
penetrometer (CPT) data from a prior study. All boring sites, wells, and CPT locations are shown in
Figure 4.6.1.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-2
This page intentionally left blank
I:\SHO1901\G\Boring_Well_CPT_Locs.cdr (12/31/2019)FIGURE 4.6.1Boring, Well, and CPT LocationsCypress City CenterSOURCE NMGGeotechnical,Inc.:NO SCALEN
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-4
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-5
4.6.1.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing/Analysis
Laboratory testing was conducted on soil samples collected during the field investigation. Tests were
performed to analyze the soil’s moisture content, in-place dry density and moisture content,
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, shear strength,
consolidation characteristics, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, and organic content, as well as
chemical activity.
Soils, geology, and seismic hazards, as identified in the Geotechnical Assessment, were assessed
with respect to significance within the context of Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines.
To assess the impacts of the project with respect to paleontological resources, project plans,
geologic maps of the project site, and relevant geological and paleontological literature were
reviewed to determine which geologic units are present within the project site and whether fossils
have been recovered within the project site or from those or similar geologic units elsewhere in the
region. In addition, a search for known fossil localities was conducted at the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) to determine the status and extent of previously recorded
paleontological resources within and surrounding the project site. A field survey was also conducted
to identify any paleontological resources and to note the sediments at the surface.
4.6.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.6.2.1 Project Site
The topography of the project site is generally flat, with an elevation range on the project site of
between 22 and 25 ft above mean sea level. Variations in topography occur along the southerly
property boundary, where there is some existing landscaping.
4.6.2.2 Regional Geology
The project site is located within the Los Angeles Basin, a northwest-trending alluviated lowland
situated at the north end of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of coastal Southern
California. The Los Angeles Basin is subdivided into four primary structural blocks that are
distinguished from one another by contrasting basement rock types and stratigraphy. More
specifically, the project site is located within the east-central portion of the Downey Plain, a broad
lowland area that comprises a large portion of the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. This plain
is bounded by the Santa Monica Mountains to the north, the Puente Hills and Santa Ana Mountains
to the northeast and east, and a northwest-trending alignment of hills and mesas to the west and
southwest.
In the area of the project site, the soils that form this extensive alluvial plain are composed primarily
of geologically young materials deposited as a result of sedimentation along the Santa Ana and San
Gabriel Rivers, with additional materials contributed from smaller canyons that drain the adjoining
upland areas to the northeast.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-6
4.6.2.3 Local Geology and Subsurface Conditions
The area occupied by the southern portion of the City of Cypress is underlain by unconsolidated,
generally fine-grained, Holocene-age alluvial floodplain deposits composed primarily of various
combinations of silt, sand, and clay. Underlying these Holocene alluvial deposits are older, semi-
consolidated to consolidated Quaternary-age sediments that extend to depths of 2,700 ft to greater
than 4,200 ft below the surface.
The subsurface investigation revealed that the project site is underlain predominantly by
approximately 100 ft of Holocene sediments and a total of approximately 2,600 ft of Quaternary
sediments. These materials consist of interlayered sands and silts. The native alluvial materials
described above are likely to be capped by several feet of Artificial Fill in most areas of the project
site.
4.6.2.4 Local Groundwater Conditions
Information pertaining to the occurrence of groundwater within inland portions of Orange County
has primarily been obtained from borehole logs prepared during installation of the numerous water
wells throughout the area. In the City and surrounding areas, groundwater may occur within the
upper 40 to 50 ft of Holocene-age sediments. This water typically occurs within thin layers of silty
sand and sand at depths of between 5 and 50 ft below the surface. A publication from the California
Division of Mines and Geology 1 indicates that the project site is located within an area where
shallow groundwater (i.e., groundwater existing at a depth of 40 ft or less below the ground surface)
would typically be expected to occur. That publication indicates that the historical high groundwater
depth for the project site is approximately 10 ft below the surface.
The CPT sounding data in the Geotechnical Assessment indicate that static groundwater levels on
the project site are very shallow, ranging from approximately 4.5 to 6 ft below the surface at the
time of the field investigation. This depth range is consistent with the groundwater depths reported
by recent investigations, indicating that the historic high groundwater of 10 ft below the surface is
obsolete.
4.6.2.5 Fault Systems and Seismic Conditions
A potentially active fault is defined by the State as a fault with a history of movement within
Pleistocene time (between 11,000 and 1.6 million years ago [Ma]). The active and potentially active
faults are capable of producing potentially strong seismic shaking at the project site. It is anticipated
that the project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as a result of earthquakes. The
closest mapped active fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located
approximately 4.6 miles southwest of the project site. In addition, several other active faults are
located in the vicinity of the project site, including the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault (6.1 miles to
the northeast).
1 California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1976, Environmental Geology of Orange County,
California Open-File Report 79-8 LA.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-7
No portion of the project site or larger study area in the Geotechnical Assessment is located within
the boundaries of an “Earthquake Fault Zone,” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Furthermore, the Cypress General Plan Safety Element indicates
that no active faults have been identified within City boundaries.
Seismic shaking is characterized by the physical movement of the land surface during and
subsequent to an earthquake. Seismic shaking has the potential to cause destruction and damage to
buildings and property, including damage resulting from damaged or destroyed gas or electrical
utility lines, disruption of surface drainage, blockage of surface seepage and groundwater flow,
changes in groundwater flow, dislocation of street alignments, displacement of drainage channels
and drains and possible loss of life. In addition, ground shaking can induce several kinds of
secondary seismic effects, including liquefaction, differential settlement, and landslides.
The intensity of seismic shaking during an earthquake depends largely on the geologic foundation
conditions of the materials composing the upper several hundred feet of the Earth’s surface. The
greatest amplitudes and longest durations of ground shaking occur on thick, water-saturated,
unconsolidated alluvial sediments, which may lead to liquefaction (as further described below).
Ground shaking can also cause ground failure or deformation due to lurching and liquefaction.
Surface fault rupture refers to the displacement of the ground surface along a fault, which can occur
during strong earthquakes. The potential for seismic hazards at the project site is a consequence of
ground shaking caused by events on nearby active faults. However, as previously discussed, the
project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, so the possibility
for surface fault rupture is low. The project site is, however, located approximately 4.6 miles to the
northeast of an earthquake fault zone that has been established around the active traces of the
Newport-Inglewood Fault.
4.6.2.6 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction occurs when saturated, cohesionless soils temporarily lose shear strength (liquefy) due
to increased pore water pressures induced by strong ground motion during an earthquake. Intervals
of loose sand may, therefore, be subject to liquefaction if these materials are or were to become
submerged and also exposed to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic ground shaking of relatively
loose, granular soils that are saturated or submerged can cause the soils to liquefy and temporarily
behave as a dense fluid. This loss of support can produce local ground failure such as settlement or
lateral spreading that may damage overlying improvements.
Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial
material toward an open or “unconfined” face such as an open body of water, channel, or
excavation. In soils, this movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane and is often
associated with liquefaction.
As discussed in the Geotechnical Assessment, the project site is located within a Liquefaction Hazard
Zone, as designated by the California Geological Survey. This zone extends well beyond the project
site and encompasses all of the land area within the boundaries of the City of Cypress, as well as
large portions of the adjacent Cities of Los Alamitos, Garden Grove, Stanton, Anaheim, and Buena
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-8
Park. The Safety Element of the City’s General Plan identifies the project site as an area at a
potentially high risk of liquefaction.
4.6.2.7 Subsidence
The phenomenon of widespread land sinking, or subsidence, is generally related to substantial
overpumping of groundwater or petroleum reserves from deep underground reservoirs. Like most
of northern Orange County, the City lies atop the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Orange
County Basin). Although slight subsidence has been observed elsewhere in the Orange County Basin
in Santa Ana (likely due to groundwater withdrawal) and in the Huntington Beach area (likely due to
oil withdrawal), there is no recent history of subsidence in the project vicinity.1 Groundwater levels
and storage in the Orange County Basin are managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD)
in a manner that reduces the potential for land subsidence to occur.
4.6.2.8 Compressible/Collapsible Soils
Compressible soils are soils that consolidate when exposed to new loading, such as Artificial Fill or
foundation loads. Soil collapse occurs when soils substantially decrease in volume following an
increase in moisture content. The results of the subsurface investigation within the project site, as
well as investigations conducted for previous reports, indicate that the majority of the project site is
underlain by fill soil that extends to depths of 2 to 5 ft below the surface. In localized areas, this fill
may extend as deep as 9 ft.
During the subsurface investigation, the presence of medium to firm native alluvial soils was noted
from a depth of approximately 10 ft to a depth of approximately 30 ft below the existing ground
surface.
4.6.2.9 Paleontological Resources
Results of the literature review indicate that the project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province, a 900-mile long northwest-southeast trending structural block that extends
from the Transverse Ranges in the north to the tip of Baja California in the south and includes the
Los Angeles Basin (California Geological Survey 2002; Norris and Webb 1976). This province is
characterized by mountains and valleys that trend in a northwest-southeast direction, roughly
parallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone (Norris and Webb 1976; Sharp 1976). Within this larger
region, the project site is located in the Los Angeles Basin, a broad alluvial lowland bounded to the
north and east by the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Mountains, respectively, and by the Pacific Ocean
to the southwest (Yerkes et al. 1965). The basin is underlain by a structural depression that has
discontinuously accumulated thousands of feet of marine and terrestrial deposits since the Late
Cretaceous (approximately 100.5 Ma) (Yerkes et al. 1965). Surficial geologic mapping indicates that
the project site contains Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, Unit 2 (Saucedo et al. 2016). Although Artificial
Fill was not mapped, it was likely placed in certain areas of the project site during previous
development. Ages for the geologic time intervals referenced herein are derived from the
1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2007. Groundwater Assessment Study, Chapter IV –
Groundwater Basin Reports, Orange County Basins – Orange County Basin, September. Website:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/PDFs/OrangeCountyBasins/
OrangeCountyBasin.pdf (accessed April 8, 2015).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-9
International Chronostratigraphic Chart prepared by the International Commission on Stratigraphy
(Cohen et al. 2019).
Artificial Fill consists of sediments that have been removed from one location and transported to
another location by human activity, rather than by natural means. The transportation distance can
vary from a few feet to many miles, and composition is dependent on the source and purpose.
Artificial Fill will sometimes contain modern debris such as asphalt, wood, bricks, concrete, metal,
glass, plastic, and even plant material. While Artificial Fill may contain fossils, these fossils have been
removed from their original location and are thus out of stratigraphic context. Therefore, they are
not considered important for scientific study, and Artificial Fill has no paleontological sensitivity.
The Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, Unit 2 are Holocene to late Pleistocene in age (less than 126,000
years ago) and consist of poorly to moderately consolidated clay, silty clay, and sand (Saucedo et al.
2016). These sediments were eroded from higher elevations, carried by flooding streams and debris
flows, and deposited in gently sloping fan-shapes at the base of the hills (Saucedo et al. 2016).
Although Holocene (less than 11,700 years ago) deposits can contain remains of plants and animals,
only those from the middle to early Holocene (4,200 to 11,700 years ago) are considered
scientifically important (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010), and fossils from this time
interval are not very common. These Holocene deposits overlie older, Pleistocene deposits, which
have produced scientifically important fossils elsewhere in the region (Jefferson 1991a, 1991b;
Miller 1971; Reynolds and Reynolds 1991). These older, Pleistocene deposits span the end of the
Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age (NALMA), which dates from 11,000 to 240,000
years ago (Sanders et al. 2009) and was named for the Rancho La Brea fossil site in central Los
Angeles. The presence of Bison defines the beginning of the Rancholabrean NALMA (Bell et al.
2004), but fossils from this time also include other large and small mammals, reptiles, fish,
invertebrates, and plants (Jefferson 1991a, 1991b; Miller 1971; Reynolds and Reynolds 1991). There
is a potential to find these types of fossils in the older sediments of this geologic unit, which may be
encountered below a depth of approximately 10 ft. Therefore, these deposits are assigned a low
paleontological sensitivity above a depth of 10 ft and a high sensitivity below that mark.
According to the locality search conducted by the LACM, there are no known fossil localities on the
project site. However, the LACM states that it has a record of fossil localities from older, Pleistocene
alluvial deposits (i.e., Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, Unit 2 at depth) near the project site. The closest
locality, LACM 3757, is southwest of the project site south of 7th Street and east of Pacific Coast
Highway. This locality produced specimens of eagle ray (Myliobatis), guitarfish (Rhinobatoidea),
white shark (Carcharodon), blue shark (Prionace), surfperches (Damalichthys and Rhacochilus),
croaker (Genyonemus), pond turtle (Emys), sea duck (Chendytes), loon (Gavia), dog (Canis), sea otter
(Enhydra), horse (Equus), camel (Hemiauchenia), and pocket gopher (Thomomys). Farther to the
west along 7th Street, west of Pacific Coast Highway, locality LACM 6746 produced a fossil
mammoth (Mammuthus). To the west-southwest of the project site, locality LACM 7493, which is
near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Grand Avenue, produced a specimen of camel
(Camelidae) at a depth of 8.5 ft below the surface. A copy of the results letter from the LACM is
included in Appendix E.
The majority of the project site is paved; therefore, the field survey concentrated on areas of
exposed ground around the perimeter of the project site. Visibility during the field survey was poor
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-10
(less than 10 percent) as many of the unpaved areas were landscaped and covered with non-native
vegetation. Exposed sediment consisted of light brown silty sand, overlain by bird’s eye gravel in
some places (i.e., Artificial Fill). No native deposits or paleontological resources were noted during
the field survey.
4.6.3 Regulatory Setting
4.6.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal policies or regulations related to geology and soils that are applicable to the
proposed project.
4.6.3.2 State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
of 1972 and updates (California PRC, Section 2621, et seq.) is the principal California State guidance
to prevent the construction of habitable structures on the surface trace of active earthquake faults.
If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy must be set back from the fault
(generally 50 ft). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act only addresses the hazard of surface
fault rupture; it does not consider other earthquake hazards. There are no known earthquake fault
zones on or in the near vicinity of the project site; therefore, regulations recommended by the
California Geological Survey (CGS) for investigations conducted in such zones do not specifically
apply.
Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (1990). The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA) was adopted by the
State in 1990 to address the potential hazards posed by secondary effects of seismic activity,
including strong ground shaking, soil liquefaction, and associated ground failure and seismically
induced landslides. The CGS prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zone
maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake-induced
landslides, and other ground failures. The seismic hazard zones are referred to as “zones of required
investigation” because site-specific geological investigations are required for construction projects
located within these areas. Before a project can be permitted, a geologic investigation, evaluation,
and written report must be prepared by a licensed geologist to demonstrate that the potential
hazards can be successfully mitigated.
Public Resources Code. Section 5097.5 of the PRC provides for the protection of cultural and
paleontological resources and prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of
archaeological and paleontological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local
authorities.
4.6.3.3 Local Regulations
City of Cypress Municipal Code. Building and construction in the City are subject to the regulations
of the City of Cypress Municipal Code. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, the
California Building Code (CBC) (2019), provides minimum standards for building design in the State.
Local codes are permitted to be more restrictive than Title 24, but not less restrictive. The
procedures and limitations for the design of structures are based on site characteristics, occupancy
type, configuration, structural system height, and seismic design category. The seismic ratings used
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-11
in the CBC are derived from the International Building Code specifications. Most of coastal Southern
California, including the project site, is located in Seismic Design Category D. Construction activities
are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in
the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations (CCR, Title 8).
In addition, the proposed project would adhere to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory
Compliance Measure GEO-1, which includes the seismic and building standards in the City's Building
Code, that adopt the CBC with amendments and modifications.
City of Cypress General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element. The existing City of
Cypress General Plan identifies goals and policies related to paleontological resources. Goal COSR-5
in the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan addresses
paleontological resources (and potential resources) and indicates that conservation of the resources
and investigation of potential resource areas is an important undertaking for connecting with the
community’s past (City of Cypress, 2000).
The following goal and policies apply to the proposed project:
COSR-5: Preserve Cypress’ archaeologic and paleontological resources.
COSR-5.1: Update records of resource finds and locations when required.
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.
4.6.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for geology and soils impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of
the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project
may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to geology and soils if it would:
Threshold 4.6.1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i): Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidences of known fault?
(Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)
(ii): Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii):Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(iv): Landslides?
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-12
Threshold 4.6.2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Threshold 4.6.3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site
landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Threshold 4.6.4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or
property?
Threshold 4.6.5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Threshold 4.6.6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
4.6.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.6.1(i): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a
known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidences of known fault? (Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation 2010 Fault Activity Map, there
are no known earthquake faults that run through the project site, nor is there any other evidence of
a known fault that runs through the project site. Therefore, although the proposed project is in a
seismically active region, it would not result in any impact related to the rupture of a known
earthquake fault, and there would be no impact.
Threshold 4.6.1(ii): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic
ground shaking?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As with all of Southern California, the project
site is subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults. There are
several faults in the vicinity of the project site that are capable of producing strong ground motion,
including the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault, the San Joaquin Hills
Thrust Fault, the Palos Verdes Fault, and the Whittier Fault. During an earthquake along any of these
faults or other faults in the region, seismically induced ground shaking would be expected to occur.
The severity of the shaking would be influenced by the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of
the project site to the seismic source, the soil conditions, the depth to groundwater, and the
duration of the seismic event.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-13
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a measure of earthquake acceleration on the ground and an
important input parameter for earthquake engineering. Based on the Geotechnical Assessment, a
design-level PGA of 0.55 g has been calculated for the project site. This acceleration is consistent
with other areas in this region of California that are underlain by similar geologic materials and
indicates that strong seismic ground shaking generated by seismic activity is considered a potentially
significant impact that may affect people or structures associated with the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the project Applicant/Developer to comply with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Assessment, which stipulates appropriate seismic design
provisions that shall be implemented with project design and construction. The proposed project
would adhere to the adopted City’s Building Code, including the seismic standards therein,
consistent with Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance
Measure GEO-1, potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
Threshold 4.6.1(iii): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The secondary effects of seismic activity that
are typically considered as potential hazards to a particular site include several types of ground
failure. The general types of ground failure that can occur as a consequence of severe ground
shaking include landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, and shallow ground rupture, as
well as liquefaction-induced vertical settlement, lateral spreading, and surface manifestation of
liquefaction. The probability of the occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the
severity of the earthquake, distance from the causative fault, topography, soil and groundwater
conditions, and other factors. Of these seismically induced ground failure modes, liquefaction-
induced settlement and surface manifestation appear to be the only potential concerns with respect
to the proposed project.
Liquefaction can cause settlement of the ground surface, settlement and tilting of engineered
structures, flotation of buoyant buried structures, and fissuring of the ground surface. Assessment
of liquefaction potential for a particular site requires knowledge of a number of regional and site-
specific parameters, including the estimated design earthquake magnitude, the distance to the
assumed causative fault, and the associated probable peak horizontal ground acceleration at the
site, subsurface stratigraphy, and soil characteristics. Parameters such as distance to causative faults
and estimated probable peak horizontal ground acceleration were determined using published
references and online computer programs by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Stratigraphy and soil characteristics were determined by means of a site-specific subsurface
investigation combined with appropriate laboratory analysis of representative samples of on-site
soils.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-14
An analysis was performed using data from the previous CPT soundings conducted at the project
site. As previously discussed, groundwater was observed at depths of between 4.5 and 6 ft below
the ground surface. For purposes of the liquefaction analysis, the groundwater level was assumed to
be 5 ft. Therefore, there is potential for liquefaction on the project site.
Many jurisdictions, including the Counties of Orange and Los Angeles, allow structural fortification of
slabs and footings to mitigate the adverse effect of up to 4 inches of liquefaction-induced total
settlement. Guidelines published by the CGS also suggest that structural mitigation is acceptable
where vertical displacements of less than 4 inches are predicted (CGS Special Publication 117A,
page 54). If liquefaction-induced settlement would exceed 4 inches, some form of ground
improvement is required to reduce the potential total settlement to 4 inches or less. Typical ground
improvement techniques include compaction grouting, installation of stone columns, and
construction of reinforced earth zones beneath proposed structural areas.
Based on the results of the Geotechnical Assessment, the maximum estimated vertical settlement
was calculated to be approximately 2.9 inches for the CPT locations within the project site. This is
well within the commonly accepted limitations of structural mitigation described above (i.e., 4
inches).
Predicted liquefaction-induced total settlement with respect to most of the project site would be
addressed by incorporating deep foundations or ground improvement for the larger buildings into
the design (Mitigation Measure GEO-1). The best-suited ground improvement to mitigate
settlement of the large structures would be stone columns or (Geopier brand) rammed aggregate
piers (RAP) approximately 15 ft deep. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 also includes ground improvement
recommendations (a combination of newly compacted fill and shallower ground improvement, such
as aggregate and geogrid reinforcement) in the areas of the smaller retail buildings to mitigate
potential impacts related to liquefaction-induced settlement. The deeper undocumented fill in the
southeast corner of the project site (future retail shops area) would also be completely removed and
replaced with engineered fill (Mitigation Measure GEO-1). With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1, the potential adverse effects of seismic-related ground failure including
liquefaction would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6.1(iv): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
No Impact. The project site and vicinity are relatively flat, and the site is not located within a zone of
earthquake induced landslide as mapped by the CGS (1998). Historically, there have been no
recorded landslides within the City’s boundaries (City of Cypress, 2001, page 4.6-7). No landslides
are anticipated as the result of the proposed project, and there would be no impact.
Threshold 4.6.2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Most of the site is covered by older degraded asphalt, with a small
unpaved dirt area adjacent to the terminus of Winners Circle (cul-du-sac). The south and
southwestern boundaries of the site along Katella Avenue consist of some landscaping, including
mature eucalyptus trees, shrubs, and turf. The total surface area of these existing unpaved areas is
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-15
approximately 1 acre. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, 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, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality).
The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during
project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit and with implementation of the construction
BMPs, construction impacts related to on-site erosion would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would not change the
impervious surface area on site (the site would consist of 12 acres of impervious surface area in the
existing and proposed conditions). In the proposed condition, 12 acres on the project site would be
impervious surface area and not prone to on-site erosion or siltation because no soil would be
included in these areas. The remaining acreage on the approximately 13-acre project site 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 impacts would be minimal. For
these reasons, operational impacts related to substantial on-site erosion would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.6.3: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result
in on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
4.6.5.1 Landslides and Unstable Slopes
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows,
debris flows, and soil slips occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides
are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking. Because the project site is located in a
relatively flat area, landslides or other forms of natural slope instability do not represent a
significant hazard to the project. In addition, as stated above, the site is not within a State-
designated hazard zone for an earthquake-induced landslide. Therefore, potential impacts related to
landslides would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.6.5.2 Lateral Spreading
Less Than Significant Impact. Lateral spreading often occurs on very gentle slopes or flat terrain.
The dominant mode of movement is lateral extension accompanied by shear or tensile fracture. This
failure is caused by liquefaction and is usually triggered by rapid ground motion, such as that
experienced during an earthquake, but can also be artificially induced. When coherent material,
either bedrock or soil, rests on materials that liquefy, the upper units may undergo fracturing and
extension and may then subside, translate, rotate, disintegrate, or liquefy and flow. As discussed
above, the Geotechnical Assessment indicates that lateral spreading is not a potential concern with
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-16
respect to the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts related to lateral spreading would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.6.5.3 Subsidence
No Impact. Subsidence refers to broad-scale changes in the elevation of land. Common causes of
land subsidence are pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of
limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial
wetting of dry soils (hydrocompaction). Subsidence is also caused by heavy loads generated by large
earthmoving equipment. The project site is not located within an area of known subsidence that
may be associated with groundwater, peat loss, or oil extraction. Therefore, the proposed project
would not be subject to potential geotechnical hazards related to subsidence, and no mitigation is
required.
4.6.5.4 Liquefaction and Compressible/Collapsible Soils
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in detail under Threshold 4.6.1(iii)
above, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and adherence to the regulatory standards
described in Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 would be required to address the proposed
project’s impacts with respect to liquefaction and compressible soils. Provided that design and
remedial grading, ground improvement (as necessary), and design of building foundation systems
are performed in accordance with the applicable requirements in the CBC (adopted by the City as its
Building Code with certain amendments), and current standards of practice in the area, excessive
settlement resulting from liquefaction and compression of existing undocumented fill and native
alluvial soils on the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4.6.5.5 Wet Soils
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Due the presence of shallow groundwater,
excavations deeper than 3–4 ft are likely to encounter groundwater and/or soft, wet soil.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires that the ground stabilization
recommendations in the Geotechnical Assessment be implemented during grading and
construction, would address soft ground conditions due to shallow groundwater. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the proposed project’s impacts related to wet soils
would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6.4: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks
to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are soils that experience volumetric changes in
response to increases or decreases in moisture content. The project site stratigraphy consists of
Artificial Fill and Quaternary Alluvium (NMG 2019). These soil types have low shrink-swell potential
and, therefore, are not susceptible to expansion. In the event that, following the completion of
grading, it is determined that near-surface soils within building pad areas exhibit an elevated
expansion potential, potential impact of those expansive soils would be addressed through design of
structural foundations and floor slabs in compliance with applicable requirements in the CBC, as
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-17
adopted by the City of Cypress in its Municipal Code (Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1). Since
the potential for expansive soils is low and any potential expansion would be addressed through
compliance with applicable code requirements, the proposed project would not create substantial
potential risks to life or property, and there would be less than significant impacts.
Threshold 4.6.5: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems because sanitary sewer and wastewater facilities are available in the
vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Threshold 4.6.6: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Ground disturbance associated with the various
components of the proposed project is expected to extend to depths of 10 ft or less below the
existing ground surface, with the exception of the rammed aggregate piers, which would be used for
supports for the larger buildings (i.e., theater, five-story hotel, and apartment complex) (personal
communication, Shea Properties, December 2019). The rammed aggregate piers are expected to
extend to a depth of 15 ft below the existing surface (personal communication, Shea Properties,
December 2019). The Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, Unit 2 that lie below surficial Artificial Fill within
the project site have low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 ft and high
sensitivity below a depth of 10 ft. As such, the majority of project activities would remain in deposits
with low paleontological sensitivity. Although the rammed aggregate piers are expected to extend
up to 5 ft into deposits with high paleontological sensitivity, drilling for aggregate piers has a limited
impact area and presents challenges to collecting fossils and the contextual information necessary
for scientific importance. Considering the paleontological sensitivity of the deposits in the project
site and the excavation parameters, there is a potential for the proposed project to impact
scientifically important paleontological resources. To mitigate adverse impacts to unknown, buried
paleontological resources that may exist on site, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires that if
paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, a qualified
paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery for scientific importance. The qualified
paleontologist shall then make recommendations regarding treatment and disposition of the
discovery, the need for paleontological monitoring, and preparation of the appropriate report.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure that impacts to paleontological
resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
4.6.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The potential for surface fault rupture, erosion, subsidence, landslides, lateral spreading, and
expansive soil is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The potential impacts related to
seismic shaking, liquefaction, settlement due to undocumented fill, and wet soils would be
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-18
potentially significant prior to mitigation. The proposed project would also have potentially
significant impacts on paleontological resources prior to the implementation of mitigation.
4.6.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.6.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following Regulatory Compliance Measure is a requirement of the CBC that is applicable to the
proposed project and is considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to geology and soils.
The City of Cypress considers this requirement to be mandatory; therefore, it is not a mitigation
measure.
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1 California Building Code Compliance Seismic
Standards. All structures shall be designed in
accordance with the seismic parameters presented in
the Geotechnical Assessment prepared for this project
(NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2019) and applicable sections
of the most current California Building Code (CBC). Prior
to the issuance of building permits for planned
structures, the Project Soils Engineer and the City of
Cypress Chief Building Official, or designee, shall review
building plans to verify that the structural design
conforms to the requirements of the Geotechnical
Assessment and the City of Cypress Municipal Code.
4.6.7.2 Mitigation Measures
In addition to the regulatory requirements described above, the following mitigation measures
would reduce potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, compressible/
collapsible soils, and paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Compliance with the Recommendations in the Project
Geotechnical Assessment. The Applicant/Developer’s
construction contractor shall implement the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Due Diligence
Study for Proposed Mixed-Use Development at NE
Quadrant of Siboney Street and Katella Avenue, City of
Cypress, California (NMG Geotechnical, June 2019;
Geotechnical Assessment) prepared for the proposed
project, as applicable to the satisfaction of the City of
Cypress’ (City) Chief Building Official or designee,
including, but not limited to:
1. To address potential liquefaction potential and
seismically induced settlement, stone columns or
(Geopier brand) rammed aggregate piers (RAP) or
equivalent ground improvement method
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-19
alternatives shall be used and installed to a depth of
15 feet (ft). Building areas where the ground is
improved with RAPs or stone columns shall provide
a minimum 2 ft thick layer of newly compacted fill.
The smaller retail buildings may be supported on a
combination of newly compacted fill and shallower
ground improvement, such as aggregate and
geogrid reinforcement. Fill material shall be a
minimum of 5 ft below finish grade or 3 ft below the
bottoms of foundations, whichever is deeper. The
bottom of the excavation shall have a layer of
geogrid, such as Tensar 130 or BX1515 and a
minimum of 2 ft of aggregate base. The remaining
fill may be compacted native soil.
2. The deeper undocumented fill in the southeast
corner of the project site (future retail shops area)
should be completely removed and replaced with
engineered fill.
3. To address shallow groundwater and wet soil, some
type of ground stabilization, such as cement
treatment or aggregate or a combination of both
shall be used. Geofabric or geogrid is recommended
in combination with aggregate to reduce the
required depth of treatment, amount of aggregate
and time required to backfill the excavations.
4. Concrete slabs shall be used for all foundations and
slabs on grade and shall be a minimum of 4 inches
thick.
Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall
be conducted by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to
refine and enhance these requirements. The Applicant/
Developer shall require the Project Geotechnical
Consultant to assess whether the requirements in that
report need to be modified or refined to address any
changes in the project features that occur prior to the
start of grading. If the Project Geotechnical Consultant
identifies modifications or refinements to the
requirements, the Applicant/Developer shall require
appropriate changes to the final project design and
specifications. Design, grading, and construction shall
be performed in accordance with the requirements of
the City of Cypress Municipal Code and the California
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-20
Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading,
appropriate local grading regulations, and the
requirements of the Project Geotechnical Consultant as
summarized in a final written report, subject to review
by the City of Cypress Director of Public Works, or
designee, prior to commencement of grading activities.
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the
Director of Public Works, or designee, prior to the start
of grading to verify that the requirements developed
during the geotechnical design evaluation have been
appropriately incorporated into the project plans.
Design, grading, and construction shall be conducted in
accordance with the specifications of the Project
Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in a final report
based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and
building, and the City’s Building Code. On‐site
inspection during grading shall be conducted by the
Project Geotechnical Consultant and the City of Cypress
Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee, to
ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as
incorporated into project plans. Prior to the final
grading permits, the Project Geotechnical Consultant
shall submit a Final Testing and Observation
Geotechnical Report for Rough Grading to the City of
Cypress Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or
designee.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 Procedures for Unexpected Paleontological Resources
Discoveries. If paleontological resources are discovered
during ground-disturbing activities associated with the
proposed project, construction personnel shall
immediately halt work within 50 ft of the discovery, and
the Applicant/Developer or construction supervisor
shall contact a qualified paleontologist to assess the
discovery for scientific importance. A qualified
paleontologist is defined as a person with an M.S. or
Ph.D. in geology or paleontology and who meets the
standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology. The paleontologist shall make
recommendations regarding the collection, treatment,
and disposition of the discovery. Scientifically important
resources shall be prepared to the point of
identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level
possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx «02/06/20» 4.6-21
collections of a museum repository. If paleontological
resources are discovered, regardless of their scientific
importance, paleontological monitoring shall be
required for subsequent ground-disturbing activities at
a frequency, depth, and/or interval determined by the
paleontologist. Paleontological monitoring shall be
conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor as set
forth in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standards. At the conclusion of monitoring, a final
monitoring report shall be prepared by the
paleontologist to document the results of monitoring
and project compliance with all regulations and project
requirements. If scientifically important paleontological
resources are recovered, this report shall also
document those paleontological resources with a
catalog, descriptions, and photographs as determined
appropriate by the paleontologist. The final monitoring
report shall be submitted to the City of Cypress Director
of Community Development Department or designee
for review and approval. A copy of this final report shall
also accompany the fossil material to the museum
repository.
4.6.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO‐1 and Mitigation Measures GEO-1
and GEO-2, all identified potentially significant impacts related to geotechnical hazards and
paleontological resources would be reduced below a level of significance.
4.6.9 Cumulative Impacts
Typically, geology and soils impacts are specific to a particular project site and there is little, if any,
cumulative relationship between the development of a proposed project and development within a
larger cumulative area. Moreover, while seismic conditions are regional in nature, seismic impacts
on a given project site are site-specific. For example, development within the project site would not
alter geologic events or soil features/characteristics (such as ground shaking, seismic intensity, or
soil expansion or compression). Therefore, the proposed project would not affect the level of
intensity at which a seismic event on an adjacent site is experienced.
Even if it were appropriate to evaluate cumulative geology and soils impacts, the only related
projects in proximity to the project site that could potentially be relevant with respect to cumulative
geotechnical impacts would be Related Project Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Related Project No. 1 is the
approved retail/commercial project on a 33-acre site located west of the project site and includes
244 units of senior housing, 35,600 square feet (sf) of major retail use, and 11,376 sf of restaurant
uses. Related Project No. 2 is also located west of the project site, and includes a 129-unit assisted
living facility and 13,700 sf of retail use. Related Project No. 3, to the north of the project site,
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.6 Geology and Soils.docx (02/06/20) 4.6-22
includes 67 apartments. Related Project No. 4, to the west of the project, is a 9-acre, 6-field soccer
facility.
Due to the similarities in geologic conditions of the project site and Related Project No. 1, the
Geotechnical Feasibility and CEQA-Level Assessment: 33-Acre Parcel Located Northeast of the
Intersection of Katella Avenue and Enterprise Drive, City of Cypress, California (Petra Geosciences
2015) was reviewed for information regarding potential geotechnical issues in the project vicinity.
This report confirmed that construction of Related Project No. 1 was feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint upon incorporation of design and construction recommendations. Mitigation
recommendations and construction design parameters were identified due to the presence of near-
surface alluvial soils, Artificial Fill, high groundwater levels, and clayey soils.
No geotechnical analysis was available with respect to Related Projects No. 2, 3, or 4. However,
given that the sites are located in proximity to the project site and Related Project No. 1, it is
reasonably expected that these sites have similar geotechnical characteristics and raise similar
geotechnical concerns. Therefore, similar mitigation and regulatory compliance are required for
these related projects to mitigate and minimize potential geologic and soil impacts.
It is not anticipated that their development would have any geotechnical impact on the project site
or the buildings that would be constructed as part of the proposed project, nor would the project
have geotechnical impacts on any nearby projects. Therefore, the proposed project and the
applicable related projects would not have the potential to cause cumulatively significant adverse
impacts related to geology and soils.
Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown paleontological resources and unique
geologic features, when combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects in the City of Cypress, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the
overall loss of paleontological remains unique to the region. However, each development proposal
received by the City is required to undergo environmental review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If there were any potential for significant impacts to
paleontological resources or unique geologic features, an investigation would be required to
determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures.
When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources
are less than significant. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure that
the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant cumulative
impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-1
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section provides a discussion of global climate change (GCC), existing regulations pertaining to
GCC, and an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the Cypress City Center
project (proposed project). This analysis used the California Emissions Estimator Model version
2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) to quantify the potential GHG emissions associated with both construction and
operation of the proposed project. The CalEEMod output is contained in Appendix B of this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.7.1 Methodology
The proposed project would result in criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational
sources. Construction activities would generate emissions at the site from off-road construction
equipment, and on roadways as a result of construction-related truck hauling, vendor deliveries, and
worker commuting. Operational activities would also generate emissions at the project site from
miscellaneous on-site sources, such as natural gas combustion for cooking, heating, and landscaping
equipment, and from operational-related traffic. As described above, this analysis used the
CalEEMod to quantify the criteria pollutant emissions for both construction and operation of the
proposed project. The maximum daily emissions are calculated for the criteria pollutants. The
CalEEMod output is contained in Appendix B of this Draft EIR.
Guidance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSA, and
emissions modeling software (specifically, CalEEMod) was used to calculate the criteria pollutant
emissions from the proposed project.
CalEEMod is a statewide program designed to calculate both criteria and GHG emissions from
development projects in California. The description of this model is provided in Section 4.2.2.
4.7.2 Existing Environmental Setting
Global climate change (GCC) is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s
atmosphere and oceans along with other significant changes in climate (e.g., precipitation or wind)
that last for an extended period of time. The term “global climate change” is often used
interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred to “global
warming” because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures.
Climate change refers to any change in measures of weather (e.g., temperature, precipitation, or wind)
lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from natural factors
(e.g., changes in the sun’s intensity), natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in
ocean circulation), or human activities (e.g., the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, or agriculture).
The primary observed effect of GCC has been a rise in the average global tropospheric 1 temperature of
0.36°F per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and
1 The troposphere is the zone of the atmosphere characterized by water vapor, weather, winds, and
decreasing temperature with increasing altitude.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-2
2005. Climate change modeling shows that further warming may occur, which may induce additional
changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system,
ecosystems, and the environment of the State could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather,
changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns, or more energetic aspects of extreme weather,
including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical
cyclones. Specific effects in the State might include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of
the State’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the San Joaquin Delta.
Global surface temperatures have risen by 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) ±0.32°F over the last 100
years. The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2013). The latest projections, based on state-of-
the-art climate models, indicate that temperatures in the State are expected to rise 3°F to 10.5°F by
the end of the century (California Energy Commission 2006). The prevailing scientific opinion on
climate change is that “most of the warming observed over the last 60 years is attributable to
human activities” (IPCC 2013). Increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are the
primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. The observed warming effect
associated with the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere (from either natural or human sources) is
often referred to as “the greenhouse effect.”1
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from
secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal
contributors to human-induced GCC are:2
• Carbon dioxide (CO2);
• Methane (CH4);
• Nitrous oxide (N2O);
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released
into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which some scientists believe can cause global
warming. While GHGs produced by human activities include naturally occurring GHGs (e.g., CO2,
CH4, and N2O), some gases (e.g., HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) are completely new to the atmosphere.
Certain other gases (e.g., water vapor) are short-lived in the atmosphere compared to these GHGs,
which remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time and contribute to climate change in
the long term. Water vapor is generally excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in
the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes
1 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” Just as
the glass in a greenhouse allows heat from sunlight in and reduces the amount of heat that escapes, GHGs
like CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the
greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is
necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature.
2 The GHGs listed are consistent with the definition in AB 32 (Government Code 38505).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-3
(e.g., oceanic evaporation). For the purposes of this analysis, the term “GHGs” will refer collectively
to the six gases identified in the bulleted list provided above.
These gases vary considerably in terms of global warming potential (GWP), which is a concept
developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another
gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas in absorbing
infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric
lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition
of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of
heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically
measured in terms of metric tons1 of “CO2 equivalents” (metric tons [MT] of CO2e). For example,
N2O is 298 times more potent at contributing to global warming than CO2. Table 4.7.A identifies the
GWP for each GHG analyzed in this EIR.
Table 4.7.A: Global Warming Potential for Selected Greenhouse Gases
Pollutant Lifetime (Years) Global Warming Potential (100-year)1
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) ~1002 1
Methane (CH4) 12 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 121 298
Source: CARB. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (2014).
1 The 100-year global warming potential estimates are from Section 8.7.1.2 of The Global Warming Potential Concept in the IPCC 2007
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Website: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_
and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm (accessed December 2019).
2 CO2 has a variable atmospheric lifetime and cannot be readily approximated as a single number.
CARB = California Air Resources Board
CO2 = carbon dioxide
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six primary GHGs.
4.7.2.1 Carbon Dioxide
In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form as CO2. Natural sources of CO2
include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals, and plants; volcanic outgassing;
decomposition of organic matter; and evaporation from the oceans. Human-caused sources of CO2
include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral production, and
deforestation. The Earth maintains a natural carbon balance, and when concentrations of CO2 are
upset, the system gradually returns to its natural state through natural processes. Natural changes
to the carbon cycle work slowly, especially compared to the rapid rate at which humans are adding
CO2 to the atmosphere. Natural removal processes (e.g., photosynthesis by land- and ocean-
dwelling plant species) cannot keep pace with this extra input of human-made CO2, and
1 A metric ton is equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-4
consequently the gas is building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
has risen approximately 30 percent since the late 1800s.1
The transportation sector remained the largest source of GHG emissions in 2016, representing
39 percent of the State’s GHG emission inventory.2 The largest emissions category within the
transportation sector is on-road, which consists of passenger vehicles (cars, motorcycles, and light-
duty trucks) and heavy-duty trucks and buses. Emissions from on-road sources constitute more than
92 percent of the transportation sector total. Industry and electricity generation were the State’s
second- and third-largest categories of GHG emissions, respectively.
4.7.2.2 Methane
CH4 is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen.
Natural sources of CH4 include fires, geologic processes, and bacteria that produce CH4 in a variety of
settings (most notably, wetlands) (USEPA 2010). Anthropogenic sources include rice cultivation,
livestock, landfills and waste treatment, biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion (e.g., the
burning of coal, oil, and natural gas). As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric CH4—a
chemical breakdown in the atmosphere—cannot keep pace with source emissions, and CH4
concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.
4.7.2.3 Nitrous Oxide
N2O is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils
and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. N2O is
also a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion.
Both mobile and stationary combustion sources emit N2O. The quantity of N2O emitted varies
according to the types of fuel, technology, and pollution control devices used, as well as
maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are
the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in the State.
4.7.2.4 Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride
HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for O3-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal
Protocol.3 PFCs and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting,
semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium
casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in the State; however, the rapid growth in
the semiconductor industry, which is active in the State, has led to greater use of PFCs. However,
there are no known project-related emissions of these three GHGs; therefore, these substances are
not discussed further in this analysis.
1 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Website: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/
reports/2006report/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF (accessed November 2018).
2 Cal/EPA. Air Resources Board. California GHG Emission Inventory. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ghg_inventory_trends_00-16.pdf (accessed November 2018).
3 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on January 1, 1989, and was
designated to protect the O3 layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated
hydrocarbons that are believed to be responsible for O3 depletion and are also potent GHGs.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-5
4.7.3 Emissions Sources and Inventories
An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary human-generated sources and
sinks of GHGs is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section
summarizes the latest information on global, national, State, and local GHG emission inventories.
However, because GHGs persist for a long time in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are
generally well mixed, their impact on the atmosphere and climate cannot be tied to a specific point
of emission.
4.7.3.1 Global Emissions
Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2017 totaled 25.6 billion MT CO2e (UNFCCC 2019).1 Global
estimates are based on country inventories developed as part of the programs of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
4.7.3.2 United States Emissions
In 2017, the United States emitted approximately 6.456 billion MT CO2e, down from 7.4 billion MT
CO2e in 2007. United States emissions decreased by 0.5 percent from 2016 to 2017. This decrease
was largely driven by a decrease in emissions from fossil fuel combustion, which was a result of
multiple factors including a continued shift from coal to natural gas and increased use of renewables
in the electric power sector, and milder weather that contributed to less overall electricity use. In
2017, the total United States GHG emissions were approximately 13 percent less than 2005 levels
(USEPA 2019).
4.7.3.3 State of California Emissions
According to CARB emission inventory estimates, the State emitted approximately 424 million
metric tons of CO2e (MMT CO2e) emissions in 2017. This is a decrease of 5 MMT CO2e from 2016 and
below the 2020 target of 431 MMT CO2e (CARB 2019).
The CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 37 percent of the State’s
GHG emissions in 2017. The transportation sector remains the largest source of GHG emissions,
accounting for 40 percent (CARB 2019). Followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-
state) at 15 percent and industrial sources at 21 percent. The remaining sources of GHG emissions
were residential and commercial activities at 9 percent, agriculture at 8 percent, high-GWP gases at
4.3 percent, and recycling and waste at 2 percent (CARB 2019).
4.7.4 Regulatory Setting
4.7.4.1 Federal Regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG
emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions
from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The USEPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S.
1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2019. GHG Data from UNFCCC.
Website: https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/ghg-data-unfccc
(accessed December 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-6
Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.
The findings did not themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allowed the
USEPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint
rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (USEPA 2009).
To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, USEPA was required to issue an endangerment finding.
The finding identifies emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and SF6— that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades
by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the
proposed project’s GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions;
per SCAQMD guidance, they are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s
GHG emissions inventory.
U.S. Mandatory Reporting Rule for GHGs (2009). In response to the endangerment finding, the
USEPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG
emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000
MT CO2e or more per year are required to submit an annual report.
Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2010/2012). The current Corporate
Average Fuel Economy standards (for model years 2011 to 2016) incorporate stricter fuel economy
requirements promulgated by the federal government and California into one uniform standard.
Additionally, automakers were required to cut GHG emissions in new vehicles by roughly 25 percent
by 2016 (resulting in a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016). Rulemaking to adopt these
new standards was completed in 2010. California agreed to allow automakers who show compliance
with the national program to also be deemed in compliance with state requirements. The federal
government issued new standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025 that will require a fleet
average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 2025. However, the USEPA is reexamining the 2017–2025
emissions standards.
USEPA Regulation of Stationary Sources under the Clean Air Act (Ongoing). Pursuant to its
authority under the Clean Air Act, the USEPA has been developing regulations for new, large,
stationary sources of emissions, such as power plants and refineries. Under former President
Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, the USEPA was directed to develop regulations for existing
stationary sources as well. However, on June 2019, the USEPA has repealed the Clean Power Plan
and implemented the Affordable Clean Energy rule under President Trump’s Energy Independence
Executive Order.
4.7.4.2 State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally
embodied in Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and SB
375.
Executive Order S-03-05. Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG
reduction targets for the state:
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-7
• 2000 levels by 2010
• 1990 levels by 2020
• 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006). Current State of California guidance
and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32, the Global Warming
Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the
state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of
emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-03-05.
CARB 2008 Scoping Plan. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) on December 11, 2008. The 2008 Scoping Plan identified that GHG emissions in California are
anticipated to be 596 MMT CO2e in 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit
of 427 MMT CO2e (471 million tons) for the state (CARB 2008). In order to effectively implement the
emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor
GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MT CO2e per year,
prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate
regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012.
First Update to the Scoping Plan. CARB completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as
required by AB 32. The First Update to the Scoping Plan, adopted May 22, 2014, highlights
California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in
the 2008 Scoping Plan. As part of the update, CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with
the updated IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) GWP, and the 427 MMT CO2e 1990
emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, are slightly higher
at 431 MMT CO2e (CARB 2014b).
As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, California is on track to meeting the goals of AB 32.
However, the update also addresses the state’s longer-term GHG goals in a post-2020 element. The
post-2020 element provides a high level view of a long-term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG
goals, including a recommendation for the state to adopt a midterm target. According to the Update
to the Scoping Plan, local government reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is
consistent with or exceeds the trajectory created by statewide goals (CARB 2014b). CARB identified
that reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient,
clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing toward California’s 2050 climate targets
will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates. Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have
to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020 emissions limit (CARB 2014b).
Executive Order B-30-15. Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, sets a goal of reducing
GHG emissions in the state to 40 percent below 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15
also directs CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state
and requires state agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the
long-term goal for 2050 in Executive Order S-03-05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to
conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, in order to
ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment decisions.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-8
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197. In September 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197,
making the Executive Order goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197
established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the CARB to
prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large
stationary, mobile, and other sources.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare
another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. On December 24, 2017,
CARB approved the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which outlines potential regulations
and programs, including strategies consistent with AB 197 requirements, to achieve the 2030 target.
The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMT CO2e for the year 2030, which
corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030 (CARB 2017b).
California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including
enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued
investment in renewables, such as solar roofs, wind, and other types of distributed generation;
greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies;
coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon,
and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning, to support livable,
transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Requirements for
GHG reductions at stationary sources complement local air pollution control efforts by the local air
districts to tighten criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants emissions limits on a broad
spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:
• Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include
increasing ZE buses and trucks.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030).
• Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50
percent RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030.
• California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes
near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZE trucks.
• Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which focuses on reducing
methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon
emissions by 50 percent by year 2030.
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps.
• Continued implementation of SB 375.
• Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a
net carbon sink.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-9
In addition to these statewide strategies, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan also identified local
governments as essential partners in achieving the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals and
identified local actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB
recommends statewide targets of no more than 6 MT CO2e or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e
or less per capita by 2050. CARB recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt robust
and quantitative locally appropriate goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and the
state’s sustainable development objectives and develop plans to achieve the local goals. The
statewide per capita goals were developed by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach
the 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to the State’s 1990
emissions limit established under AB 32. For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies have
discretion to develop evidenced-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per
service population)—consistent with the Scoping Plan and the state’s long-term GHG goals. To the
degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends that lead agencies prioritize
on-site design features that reduce emissions, especially from vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and
direct investments in GHG reductions within the project’s region that contribute potential air
quality, health, and economic co-benefits. Where further project design or regional investments are
infeasible or not proven to be effective, CARB recommends mitigating potential GHG impacts
through purchasing and retiring carbon credits.
Senate Bill 1383. On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG
reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black
carbon and CH4. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced
during incomplete combustion of fuels. SB 1383 requires the state board, no later than January 1,
2018, to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-
lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases
by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill
also established targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted
the Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which identifies the state’s approach to
reducing sources of short-lived climate pollutants. Human sources of black carbon include on- and
off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial
processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than
in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use (CARB 2017a). In-use on-road rules are
expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000 and
2020. SCAQMD is one of the air districts that requires air pollution control technologies for chain-
driven broilers, which reduces their particulate emissions by over 80 percent (CARB 2017a).
Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 445 limits installation of new fireplaces in the South Coast Air Basin.
Senate Bill 375. In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was
adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for
the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to
reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with
goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing
allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required
CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-10
the Southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,
Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial.
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB
adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction
target. SCAG’s targets are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020
and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035 (CARB 2010). The
2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built
environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the
2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure
changes. Most of the reductions in the interim are anticipated to come from improving the
efficiency of the region’s transportation network. The targets would result in 3 MMT CO2e of
reductions by 2020 and 15 MMT CO2e of reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the
passenger vehicle target in CARB’s Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB 2010).
2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets. CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight
years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology and recently
released another update in February 2018. The updated targets consider the need to further reduce
VMT, as identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update (for SB 32), while balancing the need for
additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and action toward
sustainable communities. Like the 2010 targets, the updated SB 375 targets are in units of percent
per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks relative to 2005; this
excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels strategies, and
any potential future state strategies, such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call
for greater per capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for
2035 translate into proposed targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in
the MPOs’ currently adopted Sustainable Community Strategies (SCSs, discussed below) to achieve
the SB 375 targets. As proposed, CARB staff’s proposed targets would result in an additional
reduction of over 8 MMT CO2e in 2035 compared to the current targets. For the next round of SCS
updates, CARB’s updated targets for the SCAG region are an 8 percent per capita GHG reduction in
2020 from 2005 levels (unchanged from the 2010 target) and a 19 percent per capita GHG reduction
in 2035 from 2005 levels (compared to the 2010 target of 13 percent). CARB anticipates adoption of
the updated targets and methodology in 2018 and subsequent SCSs adopted afterwards would be
subject to these new targets (CARB 2018).
Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2016–2040 RTP/SCS. SB 375 requires the
MPOs to prepare a sustainable communities strategy in their regional transportation plan. For the
SCAG region, the 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) was adopted on April 7, 2016, and is an update to the 2012 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016). In
general, the SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the
transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce VMT from
automobiles and light-duty trucks and thereby reduce GHG emissions from these sources.
The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS projects that the SCAG region will meet or exceed the passenger per capita
targets set in 2010 by CARB. It is projected that VMT per capita in the region for year 2040 would be
reduced by 7.4 percent with implementation of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS compared to a no-plan year
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-11
2040 scenario. Under the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, SCAG anticipates lowering GHG emissions 8 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020, 18 percent by 2035, and 21 percent by 2040. The 18 percent reduction
by 2035 over 2005 levels represents a 2 percent increase in reduction compared to the 2012
RTP/SCS projection. Overall, the SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the
regional GHG emissions reduction targets. Land use strategies to achieve the region’s targets include
planning for new growth around high quality transit areas and livable corridors, and creating
neighborhood mobility areas to integrate land use and transportation and plan for more active
lifestyles (SCAG 2016). However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or
zoning be consistent with the SCS; instead, it provides incentives to governments and developers for
consistency.
Assembly Bill 1493. California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley
I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-
duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and was anticipated to reduce GHG
emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I
standards through a waiver granted to California by the USEPA. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final
Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model
years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also the discussion on the update to the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy standards under Federal Laws, above). In January 2012, CARB approved the
Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The
program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of
ZE vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by
2025 new automobiles will emit 34 percent less GHG and 75 percent less smog-forming emissions.
Executive Order S-01-07. On January 18, 2007, the state set a new LCFS for transportation fuels sold
in the state. Executive Order S-01-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in
carbon dioxide equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a
reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a
reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The standard applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and
importers of transportation fuels and would use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers
to choose how they reduce emissions during the “fuel cycle” using the most economically feasible
methods.
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08. A major component of California’s
Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard (RPS) established under SBs 1078
(Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase
the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20
percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the
state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was
adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small
hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for
electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects, because
electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.
Senate Bill 350. SB 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and established tiered
increases to the RPS— 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-12
set a new goal to double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy
efficiency and conservation measures.
Executive Order B-16-2012. On March 23, 2012, the state identified that CARB, the California Energy
Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the
Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish
benchmarks to accommodate ZE vehicles in major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to
support them (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations). The executive order also directed the number
of ZE vehicles in California’s state vehicle fleet to increase through the normal course of fleet
replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles are ZE by 2015 and
at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also establishes a target for the transportation
sector of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels.
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy conservation standards for
new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised
in 2016 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of
building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically
to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and
methods. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which were recently adopted on May 9,
2018, became effective starting January 1, 2020.
The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and
will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family
buildings of three stories and less. Four key areas the 2019 standards will focus on include (1) smart
residential photovoltaic systems; (2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer
from the interior to exterior and vice versa); (3) residential and nonresidential ventilation
requirements; and (4) and nonresidential lighting requirements (CEC 2018a). Under the 2019
standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016
standards while single-family homes will be 7 percent more energy efficient (CEC 2018b). When
accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would
use 53 percent less energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018b).
California Building Code: CALGreen. On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission
adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code
(24 CCR, Part 11, known as “the CALGreen Code”) was adopted as part of the California Building
Standards Code. The CALGreen Code established planning and design standards for sustainable site
development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and interior air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of the
California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated
in 2019. The 2019 Standards became effective on January 1, 2020.
Solid Waste Regulations. California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public
Resources Code §§40050 et seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to
divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction,
recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-13
requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the act requires that each city and county
prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element. AB 939 also established the goal for
all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75
percent by 2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land
uses.
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code §§
42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in
development projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to
develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection
and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to
adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.
Section 5.408 of the 2016 CALGreen Code also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or
salvaged for reuse.
In October of 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to recycle their organic
waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This
law also required that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an
organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including
multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic waste means food waste,
green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste
that is mixed in with food waste.
Water Efficiency Regulations. The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department
of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to SB 7, which was adopted during the 7th
Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water
conservation and authorized the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation
requirements (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan). In addition, it required agricultural water
providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure water deliveries to customers,
and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 requires urban water providers to adopt a water
conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 compared to
2005 baseline use.
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the
updated DWR model ordinance or an equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the CEC to consult with the
DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape
irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves
to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-14
4.7.4.3 Regional Regulations
The City is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is under the jurisdiction of SCAG and
SCAQMD. The City of Cypress is a member city of the SCAG. SCAG’s 2016–2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), adopted April 7, 2016, is a long-
range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental,
and public health goals. A GHG consistency analysis was conducted to determine whether or not the
proposed project would be consistent with the RTP/SCS.
4.7.4.4 Local Regulations
The City of Cypress does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
4.7.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions impacts used in this analysis are consistent with
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The
proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to greenhouse gas
emissions if it would:
Threshold 4.7.1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold 4.7.2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
4.7.5.1 Regional Emissions Thresholds
The SCAQMD has adopted a significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year (MT CO2e/yr) for
permitted (stationary) sources of GHG emissions for which SCAQMD is the designated lead agency.
To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their
CEQA documents, SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group
(Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting held in September 2010 (Meeting
No. 15), SCAQMD proposed to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for
development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency:
• Tier 1. Exemptions: If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG
emissions are less than significant.
• Tier 2. Consistency with a locally adopted GHG Reduction Plan: If the project complies with a
GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG
emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e., city or county), project-level and cumulative
GHG emissions are less than significant.
• Tier 3. Numerical Screening Threshold: If GHG emissions are less than the numerical screening-
level threshold, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-15
For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly
applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD, under Option 1, is
proposing a “bright-line” screening-level threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr for all land use types or,
under Option 2, the following land-use-specific thresholds: 1,400 MT CO2e for commercial
projects, 3,500 MT CO2e for residential projects, or 3,000 MT CO2e for mixed-use projects. This
bright-line threshold is based on a review of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA
projects would exceed the bright-line thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do
not exceed the bright-line threshold would have a nominal and therefore less than cumulatively
considerable impact on GHG emissions.
• Tier 4. Performance Standards: If emissions exceed the numerical screening threshold, a more
detailed review of the project’s GHG emissions is warranted. SCAQMD has proposed an
efficiency target for projects that exceed the bright-line threshold. The current recommended
approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percent
emissions reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD proposes a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2e
per year per service population (MT CO2e/yr/SP) for project-level analyses and 6.6 MT
CO2e/yr/SP for plan-level projects (e.g., program-level projects such as general plans). The GHG
efficiency metric divides annualized GHG emissions by the service population, which is the sum
of residents and employees, per the following equation:
Rate of Emission: GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/yr) ÷ Service Population
The efficiency evaluation consists of comparing the project’s efficiency metric to efficiency
targets. Efficiency targets represent the maximum quantity of emissions each resident and
employee in the State of California could emit in various years based on emission levels
necessary to achieve the statewide GHG emissions reduction goals. A project that results in a
lower rate of emissions would be more efficient than a project with a higher rate of emissions,
based on the same service population. The metric considers GHG reduction measures integrated
into a project’s design and operation (or through mitigation). The per capita efficiency targets
are based on the AB 32 GHG reduction target and 2020 GHG emissions inventory prepared for
the CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan.
For the purpose of this analysis, the proposed project will first be compared to the SCAQMD interim
screening level Tier 3 Numerical Screening Threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr for mixed-use
development such as the proposed project was used. If it is determined that the proposed project is
estimated to exceed this screening threshold, it will then be compared to the SCAQMD-
recommended efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MT CO2e/yr per service population in 2020, and 4.3
MT CO2e/yr per service population in 2022.
The project is also evaluated for compliance with SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, which establishes an
overall GHG target for the project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 (2020) and
the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of SB 32.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-16
4.7.6 Project Impacts
The GHG analysis is prepared in response to the two GHG thresholds in the Appendix G Checklist of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
Threshold 4.7.1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. During construction of the proposed project, GHGs would be
emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and vendor vehicles,
each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels
creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy
equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction
activity levels change.
Construction activities produce combustion GHG emissions from various sources (utility engines,
tenant improvements, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew). The tentative project
construction schedule for the proposed residential, commercial, and retail development included in
the proposed project is based on a probable start date of early 2020 (after asphalt demolition of
existing parking lot) and a planned completion date of late 2022. The project site is mostly flat and
ready for site grading and construction. For the purpose of the analysis, the proposed project would
be developed in one phase with three subphases. The sequence of development would coincide
with the product type, with the 20,800 sf of retail shops and 10-screen movie theater completing
construction within 1 year from start of construction, the 120-room hotel about 1 year from start of
construction, and the 251 apartment dwelling units within about 2 years from start of construction.
Table 4.7.B presents the annual carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions for each of the planned
construction phases based on the results from CalEEMod.
Table 4.7.B: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Phase Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2020
Demolition 67.55 0.01 0 67.85
Site Preparation 17.60 <0.01 0 17.74
Grading 84.69 0.03 0 85.35
Building Construction 31.01 <0.01 0 31.09
2021 Building Construction 1,327.68 0.14 0 1,331.09
2022
Building Construction 314.89 0.03 0 315.70
Paving 32.11 <0.01 0 32.36
Architectural Coating 31.98 <0.01 0 32.01
Total Construction Emissions 1,907.53 0.23 0 1,913.19
Amortized over 30 years 63.58 <0.01 0 63.77
Source: LSA (January 2020).
CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
MT/yr = metric tons per year
N2O = nitrous oxide
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-17
Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile
sources and indirect emissions from stationary sources associated with energy consumption. The
majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) would occur during
the project’s operation (as opposed to during its construction). Typically, more than 80 percent of
the total energy consumption takes place during the use of buildings and less than 20 percent of
energy is consumed during construction (United Nations Environment Programme 2007). Mobile-
source emissions of GHGs would include project-generated vehicle trips associated with the
residential, commercial, and retail vehicle trips. Area-source emissions would be associated with
activities including landscaping and maintenance of the proposed project, natural gas for heating,
and other sources. Increases in stationary-source emissions would also occur at off-site utility
providers as a result of demand for electricity, natural gas, and water by the proposed project.
Based on trip generation factors provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed
project (Appendix J), the proposed project would generate 5,353 average daily trips (ADTs) without
any internal capture and drive-by trip credits. With these trip credits, the trip generation rate would
decrease to approximately 4,978 ADTs. The CalEEMod modeling data utilizes the appliance data that
is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 445 and assumes there would be no woodstoves and any fireplaces
would be non-wood burning gas powered. Similar to the air quality emissions modeling, the GHG
modeling incorporates project design features in accordance with the 2020 California Green Building
Standard Codes such as such as photovoltaic energy for 30 percent of project power needs,
provided by use of energy efficient appliances, and water-efficient faucets.
The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4.7.C show the emissions associated with the level
of development envisioned by the proposed project at project opening. Area sources include
consumer products and landscaping. Energy sources include natural gas consumption for heating
and cooking. As shown in Table 4.7.C, the proposed project is estimated to result in GHG emissions
of 7,208 metric tons of CO2e per year.
Table 4.7.C: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source Pollutant Emissions (MT/yr)
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Project Construction Emissions
Construction emissions amortized over 30 years 0 63.58 63.58 <0.01 0 63.77
Project Operational Emissions
Area Sources 0 4.26 4.26 <0.01 0 4.36
Energy Sources 0 1,437.94 1,437.94 0.06 0.02 1,445.61
Mobile Sources 0 5,336.41 5,336.41 0.27 0 5,343.06
Waste Sources 73.03 0 73.03 4.32 0 180.92
Water Usage 10.15 126.10 136.24 1.05 0.03 170.26
Total Project Emissions 83.17 6,968.30 7,051.47 5.69 0.05 7,207.98
SCAQMD Tier 3 GHG Numerical Screening Threshold 3,000.0
Exceedance? Yes
Source: LSA (January 2020).
Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding of all numbers to two significant digits.
Bio-CO2 = biologically generated CO2
CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
MT/yr = metric tons per year
N2O = nitrous oxide
NBio-CO2 = Non-biologically generated CO2
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-18
The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4.7.C show that the proposed project would
generate 7,208 MT CO2e/yr. Therefore, the proposed project’s total GHG emissions would exceed
the threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Thus, project-related emissions would have a potentially
significant impact related to generation of GHG emissions.
Therefore, the project is compared with the efficiency-based threshold of 4.3 MT CO2e/yr per
service population (SP). The SCAQMD’s approach is to identify the emissions level for which a
project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions. The SCAQMD efficiency-based threshold describes an efficiency
limit using “per service population.” An advantage of the service population approach is its
application to both residential land uses and employment-oriented land uses. The per capita or per
service population metrics represent the rates of emissions needed to achieve a fair share of the
state’s emission reduction mandate. The use of “fair share” in this instance indicates the GHG
efficiency level that, if applied statewide or to a defined geographic area, would meet the year 2020
and post-2020 emissions targets. The intent of AB 32 and SB 32 is to accommodate population and
economic growth in California but do so in a way that achieves a lower rate of GHG emissions, as
evidenced in the statement from CARB’s Scoping Plan. If projects can achieve targeted rates of
emissions per the sum of residents plus employees (i.e., service population), California can
accommodate expected population growth and achieve economic development objectives, while
also abiding by AB 32’s emissions target and future post-2020 targets.
In order to estimate the service population (i.e., the number of residents and employees who reside
and work on-site), the following assumptions were made:
• The project would include several land uses, including 20,800 square feet (sf) of retail, 251
multi-family residential dwelling units, a 120-room hotel, and a 10-screen movie theater. Based
on the Project Description, the number of residents associated with the project would be 758.
• It is estimated that the apartment complex would employ two groundskeepers, one
maintenance worker, and a total of six sales/office staff.
• The number of retail and hotel employees is not currently known; however, according to the
U.S. Green Building Council (2008)1, retail use can be expected to employ one person per 550 sf
of building space, while hotel uses would employee one employee per 1,500 sf. Thus, based on
the 20,800 sf of retail, the total retail employees would be 38, while the total number of hotel
employees would be 65.
• Based on a survey of existing movie theaters, typical movie theaters employee approximately
3.75 employees per movie screen, resulting in approximately 38 employees for the project’s 10
screen theater.
1 U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). 2020. About LEED. Website: https://www.usgbc.org/credits/
new-construction-existing-buildings-commercial-interiors-core-and-shell-schools-new-constr-3 (accessed
January 2020).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-19
The total number of employees for the apartments, retail, hotel, and movie theater is estimated to
be 149 employees. When added to the residential population estimate of 758, the total project
service population would be 907.
For analysis purposes herein, the SP threshold for the project’s buildout year of 2022 was calculated
by linear interpolation between the 2020 target of 4.8 MT CO2e/yr and the 2030 target of 2.88 MT
CO2e/yr. As such, the target for the project’s buildout year of 2022 is 4.3 MT CO2e/yr.
As shown in Table 4.7.D, the service population with the number of residents and employees would
yield a CO2e metric ton per service population ratio of 7.9.
Table 4.7.D: Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Service Population
Scenario
Project
Emissions
(MT
CO2e/Year)
Project Service
Population
(Residents +
Employees)
Metric Tons of
CO2e/SP/Year
SCAQMD
Threshold
for Buildout
Year 2022
Exceed
Threshold?
Year 2022 Project Buildout 7,208 907 7.9 4.3 Yes
Source: Compiled by LSA with CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
CO2e/SP/Year = carbon dioxide equivalent per service population per year
As shown in Table 4.7.D, the proposed project would also exceed the SCAQMD efficiency-based
significance threshold. SCAQMD thresholds were developed based on substantial evidence that such
thresholds represent quantitative levels of GHG emissions, compliance with which means that the
environmental impact of the GHG emissions will normally not be cumulatively considerable under
CEQA. These thresholds were developed as part of the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold
Working Group. The working group was formed to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG
significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State OPR,
CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the
Southern California Air Basin, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout
the basin, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations.
Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to GHG emissions would be considered
significant, and mitigation would be required.
Threshold 4.7.2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions
include CARB’s Scoping Plan and SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS. A consistency analysis with these plans
for the proposed project is presented below.
CARB Scoping Plan. The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies, but is not directly
applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City
to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations
adopted by the state agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-20
local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates,
increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that
would affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to
reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS and changes in the corporate average fuel economy
standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program). Although measures in
the Scoping Plan apply to state agencies and not the proposed project, the project’s GHG emissions
would be reduced by compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and
SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB Scoping
Plan, and impacts are considered less than significant.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. SCAG’s 2016–2040
RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016. SCAG’s RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on
new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas
would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the
proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS is to plan for
the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas;
provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe
opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of
the region’s remaining natural lands (SCAG 2016). The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS contains transportation
projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as
a forecast development that is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data. The
projected regional development pattern, when integrated with the proposed regional
transportation network identified in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular
travel-related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region.
The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be
consistent with the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments
and developers. The proposed project would involve the operation of a commercial and retail
mixed-use infill development project. Additionally, the proposed project would be in close proximity
(less than 0.1 mile) to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus stop for Bus Route 50
with several nearby bus transit stops along Katella Avenue, and with connections to the Anaheim
Transit Station (i.e., Amtrak and Metrolink Trains). Furthermore, as described in Section 3.4, the
proposed project is envisioned as a pedestrian-friendly mixed use development, and pedestrian
access and circulation are key project components. Overall, the nearby transit facilities and
proposed improvements to the pedestrian network would support public transit use and walking
and bicycling. Furthermore, as discussed under Threshold 4.10.1 in Section 4.10, Land Use and
Planning, the proposed project would not result in physical divisions in any established community.
Implementing SCAG’s RTP/SCS will greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation,
helping to achieve statewide emission reduction targets. As stated above, the proposed project
would in no way conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS; therefore, the proposed project
would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s year 2020 and post-2020 mobile
source GHG reduction targets outlined in the 2016 RTP/SCS, and it can be assumed that regional
mobile emissions will decrease in line with the goals of the RTP/SCS. Furthermore, the proposed
project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it would
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-21
not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets, since those targets were established and are applicable
on a regional level.
Based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed
project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the
RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or
regulation pertaining to GHG emission, and impacts are considered less than significant.
4.7.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact under
Threshold 4.7.1.
4.7.8 Mitigation Measures
If a project cannot achieve the numeric or service population targets, mitigation measures shall be
implemented to reduce project emissions to the extent feasible. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would be required to reduce project operational GHG emissions:
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 Energy Conservation. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
Applicant/Developer shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of
the City of Cypress Director of Community Development
Department, or designee, that the project’s retail commercial
buildings, multi-family residential uses, hotel, and movie theater
shall be designed and built to be 10 percent more energy-efficient
than 2019 Title 24 requirements or the current Title 24
requirement, whichever is more stringent.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The
Applicant/Developer shall develop a TDM Program for on-site
residents and workers with the goal of reducing project-related
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The TDM strategies shall include, but
not be limited to, the following:
i. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the
project’s buildings, the Applicant/Developer shall provide
evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of the City of
Cypress Community Development Department, or designee,
that a bicycle rack or a secured bicycle storage area shall be
installed within 50 feet of each proposed building.
ii. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
apartment building, the Apartment Building Manager shall
provide evidence to the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee, that bike
route maps, local transit route maps and schedules, and other
transportation information, such as the existing carpooling
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-22
program sponsored by the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA), are displayed in a prominent area
accessible to residents and employees.
iii. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
project’s commercial buildings, the Applicant/Developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee, that the
lease agreements executed with any tenants contain
provision requiring each business to provide cash incentives
for employees to use public transit and display bike route
maps, local transit route maps and schedules, and other
transportation information, such as OCTA’s existing
carpooling program in a prominent area accessible to
employees.
iv. The Applicant/Developer shall organize an annual event on
the project site promoting the use of transit, carpooling
programs, and non-motorized methods of transportation by
project residents, employees, and visitors. The City of Cypress
Director of Community Development Department, or
designee, shall be responsible for confirming that the event is
held.
Implementation of both Mitigation Measure GHG-1 and the multi-part Mitigation Measure GHG-2
above would reduce GHG emissions. However, because the type and extent of the measures that
would be feasible to implement would be dependent on the individual future tenants that occupy
the project, the total amount of GHG reductions cannot be quantified at this time. For example, the
ability of a business to affect employee and patron VMT would depend in part on the numbers of
employees and patrons, where they live, and the availability of regional programs such as transit
buses.
4.7.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
All anticipated impacts related to GHG would be considered significant and unavoidable.
All anticipated impacts related to GHGs would be considered significant and unavoidable. However,
it should be noted that the CalEEMod model likely overestimates the GHG emissions from vehicle
trips associated with the proposed hotel and movie theater. The CalEEMod model uses trip lengths
established in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition),
which likely overestimates the trip lengths to and from the proposed hotel and movie theater, and
therefore overestimates the project’s GHG emissions. Once constructed, the movie theater will be
the only movie theater in the City of Cypress. Currently, the closest movie theaters are located
approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the project site in the City of Garden Grove (Starlight 4 Star
Cinemas), approximately 4 miles to the southeast in the City of Garden Grove (Regal Garden Grove
16), approximately 4 miles to the northeast of the project site in the City of Buena Park (Krikorian
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-23
Buena Park Metroplex 18), and approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest of the project site in the
City of Long Beach (Edwards Long Beach Stadium 26). In the existing condition, movie-going
residents in the City of Cypress and surrounding communities are more likely to patronize one of
these movie theaters based on their relatively close proximity. Because the project would add a
movie theater in a community not currently served by a movie theater, it is reasonable to assume
that many residents in the City of Cypress and surrounding communities would visit the movie
theater on the project site rather than travel to one of the further movie theaters, resulting in
reduced trip lengths.
The hotel on the project site would likely be geared toward business travelers associated with the
Cypress Business Center located just east of the project site, generally focused around the
intersection of Valley View Street and Katella Avenue. Furthermore, because guests of the hotel
would likely only travel a short distance from the nearby Cypress Business Center, it is likely that the
trip lengths associated with the hotel would be shorter than those estimated by the ITE.
Because the trip lengths are likely overestimated, the GHG emissions from trips associated with the
movie theater and hotel are also likely overestimated. Regardless, to be conservative, the
significance conclusion for impact related to GHG is significant and unavoidable.
4.7.10 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, or future projects, that
when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. Climate change is a global environ-
mental problem in which: (a) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any
net increase in GHGs, and (b) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs
across the world. Land use projects may contribute to the phenomenon of global climate change in
ways that would be experienced worldwide, and with some specific effects felt in California.
However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project
impacts and global warming.
The analysis of impacts related to GHG emissions is inherently cumulative. The proposed project
would have no conflict with applicable statewide and regional climate action measures. However, as
discussed above, the project’s operational-related GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s
numeric threshold and service population thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 and GHG-2 would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible. However, GHG
emission impacts associated with the proposed project would be significant and unavoidable, and
therefore the cumulative impact would also be significant and unavoidable.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.docx (02/03/20) 4.7-24
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-1
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes known and potential hazards and hazardous materials conditions at the
Cypress City Center project (proposed project) site and in the surrounding area, related potentially
significant adverse public health impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed project, and
addresses the proposed impacts with consideration of local, State, and federal regulations and
policies and provides recommended measures pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
The hazards and hazardous materials analysis in this section is based on the following project-
specific technical reports: the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (2019b) and the Phase II
Limited Soil Investigation, Northwest Corner of Katella Avenue and Winners Circle, Cypress, California
(2019a), prepared by Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux Associates) in June 2019. The findings of these
reports are summarized, and the complete reports are contained in Appendix F.
4.8.1 Methodology
To assess the impacts of the proposed project with respect to hazardous materials and wastes, Roux
Associates performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Phase II Limited Soil
Investigation (LSI) of the property located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Winners
Circle in Cypress, California, with the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 241-091-22, 23, 24, 25, and
26 (project site). Roux Associates performed the Phase I ESA in general accordance with the
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-13) in an effort to
identify, to the extent feasible, the presence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) with
respect to the project site as defined in ASTM E1527-13.
The Phase I ESA used the following methodology:
4.8.1.1 Background Research and Data Review
Roux Associates performed a records review for the project site and surrounding properties in an
effort to identify potential RECs in connection with the project site and assess potential concerns
associated with the migration of hazardous substances to the project site from off-site sources. The
records review included reasonably ascertainable historical data, which can be helpful in identifying
the past uses of the project site and surrounding areas, as they may relate to the environmental
condition of the project site.
4.8.1.2 Site Reconnaissance
On May 13, 2019, Roux Associates visually assessed the project site for potential RECs, including, but
not limited to, potential underground storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks, polychlorinated
biphenyl-containing equipment, hazardous materials storage or handling areas, containerized or
bulk wastes, and visual indications of impacted soil. Roux Associates was unaccompanied during the
site reconnaissance.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-2
The findings of the Phase I ESA identified a REC in connection to disturbed/imported soils along the
southern boundary and in the northeastern corner of the project site. The subsequent Phase II
Limited Soil Investigation used the following methodology:
4.8.1.3 Soil Sampling
Eight soil sampling locations were selected along the southern and eastern portions of the project
site to address fill materials suspected at the project site. Discrete samples were collected from all
borings at depths of 0.5 and 1.5 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs).
4.8.1.4 Laboratory Analysis
A total of 16 soil samples were collected during this investigation, including eight “shallow” samples
from 0.5 ft bgs, and eight “deeper” samples from 2 ft bgs. All shallow soil samples were analyzed for
Title 22 Metals using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Methods 6010B and
7471A. Additionally, one randomly selected shallow sample (SS-2-0.5) also was analyzed for total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) using USEPA method 8015M and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
using USEPA Method 8260B.
Hazardous materials and wastes, as identified in the ESA and LSI, were assessed with respect to
significance within the context of Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines. The shallow soil samples
collected from eight locations across the project site were analyzed for California Title 22 metals,
TPH (one sample only), and VOCs (one sample only). Laboratory reports showed that Title 22 metals
concentrations for all samples analyzed were within acceptable background ranges. Additional
analyses showed TPH concentrations below actionable levels and VOC concentrations below
laboratory method reported limits for all constituents in the one sample analyzed. Based on the
results of the Phase II LSI, the identified REC has been addressed, and no additional investigation of
the project site is recommended.
4.8.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The project site is a relatively flat paved parking lot with existing light poles and various electrical
utility boxes and lines, approximately 13 acres in size, with no physical street address. The project
site has historically been used for surface parking and staging of empty truck trailers and is bordered
by an entrance to the Los Alamitos Race Course to the west, beyond which is a retail development;
parking for the Los Alamitos Race Course to the north; Winners Circle the east, beyond which is
Costco warehouse outlet and other retail development; and, Katella Avenue to the south, beyond
which are commercial properties.
According to aerial photographs, topographic maps, and a City of Cypress (City) directory obtained
from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), the project site was undeveloped from at least 1896
through 1925. The project site appears to have been used for agricultural purposes in 1928 and the
site was vacant from at least 1938 through 1947. The project site was improved with a parking lot
before 1963, and it has been generally used for that purpose since that time.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-3
4.8.3 Regulatory Setting
Hazards and hazardous materials are subject to numerous federal, State, and local laws and
regulations intended to protect health, safety, and the environment. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), California EPA (Cal/EPA), the California Department of Toxic Substance
Control (DTSC), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the County of
Orange are the primary agencies responsible for enforcing these regulations. Local regulatory
agencies enforce many federal and State regulations through the Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA) program.
4.8.3.1 Federal Regulations
Major federal laws and issue areas include the following statutes and regulations:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Title 29 CFR. OSHA is the federal agency
responsible for ensuring worker safety. These regulations provide standards for safe workplaces and
work practices, including those relating to hazardous materials handling.
EPA, Title 40 CFR 700–799 (Toxic Substances Control Act). The Toxic Substances Control Act
regulates manufacturing, inventory, and disposition of industrial chemicals, including hazardous
materials. It addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and lead-based paint.
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Regulations, Title 49 CFR. U.S. DOT, in
conjunction with the U.S. EPA, is responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws
and regulations pertaining to safe storage and transportation of hazardous materials. The Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 49, 171–180, regulates the transportation of hazardous materials, types of
material defined as hazardous, and the marking of vehicles transporting hazardous materials.
Federal Air Regulations, Part 77. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the
review of construction activities that occur in the vicinity of airports. Its role in reviewing these
activities is to ensure that new structures do not result in a hazard to navigation. The regulations in
the Federal Air Regulations (14 CFR, Part 77) are designed to ensure that no obstructions in
navigable air space are allowed to exist that would endanger the public. Federal Air Regulations Part
77 identifies the maximum height at which a structure would be considered an obstacle at any given
point around an airport. The extent of the off‐airport coverage that needs to be evaluated for tall
structure impacts can extend miles from an airport facility. In addition, Federal Air Regulations Part
77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed near airports will be
considered obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of
proposed construction or alterations, and provides for aeronautical studies to determine the
potential impacts of a structure on the flight of aircraft through navigable airspace.
4.8.3.2 State Regulations
State Assembly Bill 2948. In response to the growing statewide concern of hazardous waste
management, State Assembly Bill 2948 (Tanner 1986) enacted legislation authorizing local
governments to develop comprehensive hazardous waste management plans. The intent of each
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-4
plan is to assure that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is available to manage the
hazardous wastes generated within its jurisdiction.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Regulations. Cal/OSHA is
responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and assuring worker safety in
the handling and use of hazardous materials. Among other requirements, Cal/OSHA requires many
entities to prepare injury and illness prevention plans and chemical hygiene plans, and provides
specific regulations to limit exposure of construction workers to lead.
Cortese List Statute (California Government Code, §65962.5). This regulation requires the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control to compile and maintain lists of potentially
contaminated sites throughout the State, and includes the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites
List. The overall list is called the “Cortese” List.
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65, California Health and Safety
Code, §25249.5 et seq.). The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act is similar to the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act in that it regulates the discharge of
contaminants to groundwater.
4.8.3.3 Local Regulations
Certified Unified Program Agency. Senate Bill 1082 provides for the designation of a CUPA that
would be responsible for the permitting process and collection of fees. The CUPA would be
responsible for implementing at the local level the Unified Program, which serves to consolidate,
coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and
enforcement activities for the following environmental and emergency management programs:
• Hazardous Waste
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan
• California Accidental Release Prevention Program
• Underground Hazardous Materials Storage Tanks
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks / Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure Plans
• Hazardous Waste Generator and On-Site Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting)
Programs
In Orange County, the Environmental Health Division of the Orange County Health Care Agency is
designated as the CUPA responsible for implementing the above-listed program elements. The laws
and regulations that established these programs require that businesses that use or store certain
quantities of hazardous materials submit a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP)
that describes the hazardous materials usage, storage, and disposal required by the CUPA.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-5
As the CUPA, the Environmental Health Division of the Orange County Health Care Agency
coordinates five programs regulating hazardous materials and hazardous wastes in Orange County,
which include the following:
• Orange County Health Agency – Environmental Health Division Hazardous Waste
○ Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
○ Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)
• Orange County Fire Authority
○ Hazardous Materials Disclosure (HMD)
○ Business Plan
○ California Accidental Release Program (CalARP)
4.8.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for hazards and hazardous materials impacts used in this analysis are consistent with
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The
proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to hazards and
hazardous materials if it would:
Threshold 4.8.1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Threshold 4.8.2: Create 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?
Threshold 4.8.3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Threshold 4.8.4: 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?
Threshold 4.8.5: 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 for people residing or working in
the project area?
Threshold 4.8.6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Threshold 4.8.7: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-6
4.8.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.8.1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase the regional
transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products
(e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or
acidic chemicals). These materials are commonly used at construction sites, and the construction
activities would be required to comply with applicable State and federal regulations for proper
transport, use, storage, and disposal of excess hazardous materials and hazardous construction
waste. In addition, Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 (refer to Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR) require compliance with the waste discharge permit
requirements to avoid potential impacts to water quality due to spills or runoff from hazardous
materials used during construction. Therefore, with adherence to the regulatory standards included
in Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, impacts related to the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
Operation. Retail and restaurant uses included in the proposed project may include the use and
disposal of typical cleaning products along with limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape
maintenance. Trucks accessing the businesses on site would contain oil and gasoline, to power their
engines, which could have the potential to result in minor releases of such substances through drips
or leaks from truck loading areas. The proposed project’s uses are not anticipated to be associated
with major hazardous materials and would not create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste.
The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Hazardous Material Division and the Orange County
Environmental Health Department both identify types and amounts of waste generated in Orange
County and establish programs for managing waste. The OCFA maintains a Hazardous Material
Management Plan, which assures that adequate treatment and disposal capacity is available to
manage the hazardous waste generated within the County and address issues related to the
disposal, handling, processing, storage, and treatment of local hazardous materials and waste
products.
The proposed project would be reviewed by the OCFA for hazardous material use, safe handling,
and storage of materials. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, conditions of approval would be
applied to the proposed project by the OCFA to reduce hazardous material impacts and insure that
any hazardous waste that is generated on site would be transported to an appropriate disposal
facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with State and federal law. Therefore, due to the type and
nature of the proposed project, its implementation would result in less than significant impacts
related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8.2: Would the project create 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?
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-7
Less Than Significant Impact. Because no significant hazards would be created by uses associated
with the proposed project, the potential for the proposed project to create 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 would be less than significant; no
mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8.3: 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. Grace Christian School is located approximately 0.75 mile northwest
of the project site, and the Cottonwood Christian Center preschool facility is located approximately
0.5 mile west of the project site. The proposed project’s uses would not pose a significant threat of
hazardous emissions or significant handling of hazardous materials or substances. Therefore,
impacts on schools would be less than significant; no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8.4: 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 Impact. Database searches of the project site, including a GeoTracker search
and a search of Superfund sites, determined that the project site is not included on a list of
hazardous materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and
is not a recorded Superfund site. On May 8, 2019, as part of the Phase I ESA, a government records
database search was conducted to identify any properties of potential environmental concern
within a 1-mile radius of the project site. The project site was not listed in any of the queried
databases. The Phase I ESA identified several listings for off-site adjacent or nearby properties on
databases potentially indicative of a contamination concern. However, the Phase I ESA concluded
that these sites do not pose a potential hazard to the project site. In addition, soil sampling
undertaken as part of the Phase II LSI did not identify elevated concentrations of metals, TPH, or
VOCs in the soil at the project site. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials sites would
remain less than significant; no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8.5: 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 for people residing or working in
the project area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.5 mile north of the Joint
Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos. The facilities at JFTB Los Alamitos include two runways and
associated taxiways, ramp space, and hangars. According to the Orange County Airport Land Use
Commission’s 2016 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Joint Forces Training Base Los
Alamitos, the project site is located in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Part 77
Notification Area (Exhibit D1) and the AELUP height restriction zone for JFTB Los Alamitos (Exhibit
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-8
D2).1 Height limitations are imposed on projects within a height restriction zone so that structures
or trees (1) do not obstruct the airspace required for take off, flight, or landing of aircraft at an
airport, or (2) are not otherwise hazardous to the landing or taking off of aircraft.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in
the project area because the project would comply with all appropriate FAA standards and
requirements, including Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1, 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 proposed structures and determining whether they pose a potential aviation hazard.
With adherence to the regulatory standards provided in Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1,
implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to
safety hazards for people working in the project area; no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8.6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not located along an emergency evacuation route.2 Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the adopted emergency response
plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur; no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8.7: 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. The project site is located within a fully urbanized area. There are no wildlands adjacent
or in the vicinity of the project site, and the project site is not designated as a Fire Hazard Severity
Zone on the Statewide CAL FIRE Map.3 Therefore, there would be no risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
4.8.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant prior
to mitigation; no mitigation is required related to hazardous materials and wastes.
1 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. 2016. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces
Training Base Los Alamitos. Website: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JFTB-AELUP2016
ProposedFINAL.pdf (accessed December 29, 2019).
2 City of Cypress General Plan, Safety Element, Emergency Evacuation Routes map (Exhibit SAF-5),
October 2, 2001.
3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in LRA. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6737/fhszs_map30.pdf (accessed December 29, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-9
4.8.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.8.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1 Federal Aviation Regulation Title 14 Part 77. The
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.
4.8.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.8.8 Cumulative Impacts
The project vicinity is largely urbanized with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. As the area
continues to develop, the addition of more development could create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
therefore, cumulative development could result in potentially significant impacts regarding
hazardous materials.
Projects considered part of the cumulative condition include Related Project Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Related Project No. 1 is the approved retail/commercial project on a 33-acre site located west of the
project site and includes 244 units of senior housing, 35,600 square feet (sf) of major retail use, and
11,376 sf of restaurant uses. Related Project No. 2 is also located west of the project site, and
includes a 129-unit assisted living facility and 13,700 sf of retail use. Related Project No. 3, to the
north of the project site, includes 67 apartments. Related Project No. 4, to the west of the project
site, is a 9-acre, 6-field soccer facility.
For the proposed project, impacts due to hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Although some of the cumulative projects listed also have potential impacts associated with
hazardous materials, the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials are site
specific. Each project is required to address any issues related to hazardous material or wastes.
Federal, state, and local regulations require mitigation to protect against site contamination by
hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be no cumulative hazardous materials impacts.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.docx (02/03/20) 4.8-10
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-1
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section evaluates the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality conditions from
implementation of the Cypress City Center Project (proposed project). The analysis in this section is
based in part on the Water Quality Management Plan (Kimley-Horn 2019) (Appendix G), the
Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (Kimley-Horn 2020) (Appendix G), and the Geotechnical
Due Diligence Study for Proposed Mixed-Use Development at NE Quadrant of Siboney Street and
Katella Avenue, City of Cypress, California (Geotechnical Assessment) (NMG Geotechnical, Inc.,
June 13, 2019) (Appendix E) that were prepared for the proposed project and are included in this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.9.1 Existing Environmental Setting
4.9.1.1 Watersheds
The project site is located within the Coyote Creek Subwatershed of the larger San Gabriel River
Watershed. The San Gabriel River Watershed covers 689 square miles (sq mi), primarily in eastern
Los Angeles County with a smaller portion in northwestern Orange County (Los Angeles RWQCB
2019). Coyote Creek drains a watershed of 165 sq mi, 85.5 sq mi 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 Riverside County and empties into the San Gabriel
River just above its tidal prism (Orange County Public Works [OCPW] 2019a). The San Gabriel River
flows into the Pacific Ocean west of Seal Beach.
The project site is 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 RWQCB, the project site is located within the
Los Angeles-San Gabriel River HU, the Anaheim HA Split, and the Anaheim HSA Split (Santa Ana
RWQCB 1995, updated 2019).
4.9.1.2 Drainage
In the existing condition, stormwater runoff on the on-site parking lot flows in an east/west
orientation to two separate concrete ribbon gutters that transverse the project site and convey flow
from north to south. In addition to on-site stormwater runoff, off-site stormwater runoff from 11.8
acres north of the project site is also tributary to the ribbon gutters. Each gutter conveys
stormwater runoff to a separate existing catch basin that connects to an existing 33-inch stormdrain,
that runs on the north edge of Katella Avenue from east to west. The 33-inch stormdrain increases
to a 39-inch then to a 48-inch stormdrain just downstream of the project site. Stormwater runoff
that exceeds the capacity of catch basin inlets ponds onsite to a depth of 12 to 18 inches before
overflowing and discharging overland to the existing on-site driveway and into the Katella Avenue
curb and gutter. The Katella Avenue stormdrain conveys stormwater runoff to the west, where it
connects to the Los Alamitos Channel. Los Alamitos Channel flows southwest where it discharges
into the San Gabriel River just north of its mouth, and then into the Pacific Ocean.
An existing 24-inch storm drain that runs north to south is located in Winners Circle between Katella
Avenue and the end of the cul-de-sac. This stormdrain conveys stormwater runoff from Winners
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-2
Circle to the Katella Avenue stormdrain. The approved City stormdrain plan for the Winners Circle
stormdrain included an extension to the north, past the end of the cul-de-sac, and then west across
the existing parking lot just north of the project site. The stormdrain extension was proposed to
accommodate restricted flows of 0.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre (cfs/acre) from the
property north of the project site. However, only the portion of the stormdrain in Winners Circle has
been constructed.
4.9.1.3 Surface Water Quality
As discussed in greater detail in Section 4.9.3, Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River (from the estuary to
Firestone Boulevard) is impaired for pH (percentage of hydrogen) and temperature. The San Gabriel
River Estuary is impaired for nickel, dissolved oxygen, copper, dioxin, and indicator bacteria.
4.9.1.4 Groundwater
According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the project site is located within
the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which underlies a coastal alluvial plain in
the northwestern portion of Orange County (County). The Coastal Plain of Orange County
groundwater basin underlies a coastal alluvial plain in northwestern 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 (DWR 2016).
For management purposes, groundwater basins are designated in the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Water
Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) as Groundwater Management Zones. The project site 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 (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995; updated 2019).
According to the Geotechnical Assessment (included in Appendix E to this Draft EIR), groundwater at
the project site is very shallow, ranging from approximately 4.5 to 6 feet (ft) below ground surface
(bgs) as measured on April 16, 2019, in two groundwater monitoring wells located on the project
site. In addition, groundwater was measured at approximately 6 ft bgs in an open trench at a
construction site on the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Winners Circle on April 16, 2019.
This is consistent with groundwater levels reported at several other sites in the vicinity of the
project site, which has been measured in the range of 1 to 7 ft bgs.
4.9.1.5 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater in the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin is primarily sodium-
calcium bicarbonate based. In general, total dissolved solids (TDS) content in groundwater ranges
from 232 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 661 mg/L, with an average of 475 mg/L. Groundwater
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-3
impairments include salinity (from seawater intrusion), colored water (from natural organic
materials), high nitrates, and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) (DWR 2004).
4.9.1.6 Flooding
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) No. 06059C0116J (December 3, 2009), the project site is located within Zone X, which
comprises areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year flood). This means that there is a very
low likelihood of flooding within the project site.
According to the Safety Element of the City of Cypress (City) General Plan, the project site is located
within the inundation zone of the Prado Dam and the Carbon Canyon Dam. There are no open
bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site and the project is therefore not located within an
inundation zone of a seiche. The project site is located more than 5 miles to the northeast of the
Pacific Ocean and is not located within the tsunami inundation zone. The levee inundation zone of
Coyote Creek/Carbon Creek is located to the northwest of the project site; however, the project site
is not located within this inundation area.
4.9.1 Regulatory Setting
4.9.1.1 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 United States Environmental Protection Agency (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
IX 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
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-4
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, prepared a 2014/2016 list of
impaired water bodies in California. The SWRCB approved the 2014/2016 California Integrated
Report (CWA Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report) on October 3, 2017. On April 6, 2018, the USEPA
approved the 2014/2016 California 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments (303[d] list) The
303(d) list includes a priority schedule for the development of TMDL implementation for each
contaminant impacting the water body. Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River (from the estuary to
Firestone Boulevard) is impaired for pH and temperature. The San Gabriel River Estuary is impaired
for nickel, dissolved oxygen, copper, dioxin, and indicator bacteria. There are no impairments listed
for Los Alamitos Channel on the 303(d) list.
The Santa Ana RWQCB has not established any TMDLs that are applicable to the proposed project. It
should be noted that the San Gabriel River downstream of the project site is within the jurisdiction
of the Los Angeles RWQCB. TMDLs for metals and selenium and indictor bacteria have been
established for the San Gabriel River and tributaries by the Los Angeles RWQCB. However, because
the San Gabriel River is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB, these TMDLs are not
applicable to the proposed project.
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.
4.9.1.2 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
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-5
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.
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 project site, 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 IX 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 for 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 potential toxicity of these
metals.
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES
No. CAS000002, as amended by Order Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ (Construction
General Permit), 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. The
Construction General Permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater to surface waters from
construction activities.
The Construction General Permit requires that all developers of land where construction activities
will occur over more than 1 acre do the following:
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-6
• Complete a Risk Assessment to determine pollution prevention requirements pursuant to the
three risk levels established in the General Permit;
• Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the
United States;
• Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that will reduce pollution in stormwater discharges to the Best
Available Technology/Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
standards;
• Perform inspections and maintenance of all BMPs; and
• Conduct stormwater sampling, if required based on risk level.
To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a 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,
• Annual fee, and
• Signed certification statement.
Typical BMPs contained in SWPPPs are designed to minimize erosion during construction, stabilize
construction areas, control sediment, and control pollutants from construction materials. The
SWPPP must also include a discussion of the program to inspect and maintain all BMPs.
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 requires the formation of local Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) that are required to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans to
manage the sustainability of the groundwater basins.
4.9.1.3 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
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-7
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 project site. Beneficial uses of the
Orange Groundwater Management Zone include municipal and domestic supply (MUN), agricultural
supply (AGR), industrial service supply (IND), industrial process supply (PROC).
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 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 and groundwater
under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB that are applicable to the receiving waters for the
project site are shown in Tables 4.9.A and 4.9.B, respectively.
In addition, the site-specific water quality objectives for the Irvine 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 project site.
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 (North Orange County MS4 Permit), Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062. The North 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 North 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-8
Table 4.9.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
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-9
Table 4.9.B: 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 Blue-
Activated 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
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-10
The proposed project is considered a Priority Development Project because it is a redevelopment
project that includes the addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet (sf) or more of impervious
surface area.
Drainage Area Management Program. The Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) (2003) was
created by the County of Orange, the OCFCD, and incorporated cities (permittees), and includes
specific water pollutant requirements of the North 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.
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
North 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 Cypress LIP takes precedence over DAMP
requirements.
Model Water Quality Management Plan. The Model Water Quality Management Plan (County of
Orange 2011) 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. The proposed project is categorized as a redevelopment project that
would add or replace more than 5,000 sf of imperious surface area and, thus, is considered a Priority
Development Project.
Priority Development Projects are required to develop a Project 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., Low Impact Development
[LID], site design measures, source control BMPs). The requirements identified in the project
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 (WQMPs) (Technical Guidance Document) (County of Orange 2013) 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 Developers (County of Orange 2012) presents the requirements
related to construction from the DAMP. The goal of this Guidance Manual is to control pollutant
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-11
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.
Groundwater Dewatering Permit. The Santa Ana RWQCB requires a permit for discharging wastes
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. R8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001) 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.
4.9.1.4 Local Regulations
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 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including
preparation of WQMPs for priority development project. 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.
4.9.2 Methodology
Project impacts to hydrology and water quality are evaluated based on the proposed project’s
adherence to local, regional, State, and federal standards; the proposed land uses and project
design; changes in pre- and post-project stormwater flows; and proposed BMPs for control of
surface runoff and reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff.
4.9.3 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for hydrology and water quality impacts used in this analysis are consistent with the
City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a
significant impact with respect to hydrology and water quality if it would:
Threshold 4.9.1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Threshold 4.9.2: 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 4.9.3: 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?
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-12
Threshold 4.9.4: 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 4.9.5: 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 4.9.6: Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Threshold 4.9.7: 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 4.9.8: Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
Threshold 4.9.9: 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 4.9.10: Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Threshold 4.9.11: 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, oxygen-
demanding substances, and trash).
Threshold 4.9.12: Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following
construction?
Threshold 4.9.13: Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream?
Threshold 4.9.14: Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff?
Threshold 4.9.15: Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to
changes in runoff flow rates or volumes?
Threshold 4.9.16: 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 4.9.17: Be tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate
already existing sensitive conditions?
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-13
Threshold 4.9.18: Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality
to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters?
Threshold 4.9.19: Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
Threshold 4.9.20: Cause or contribute to an exceeded applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
Threshold 4.9.21: Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
Threshold 4.9.22: Would the project 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)?
4.9.4 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.9.1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Or
Threshold 4.9.6: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Or
Threshold 4.9.11: 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).
Or
Threshold 4.9.12: Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality
during or following construction?
Or
Threshold 4.9.18: Would the project have a potentially significant environmental impact on
surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. Pollutants of concern during construction 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-14
During construction, 13.33 acres of soil would be disturbed. 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 have the potential
to be discharged to downstream receiving waters during storm events, which can affect water
quality and impair beneficial uses.
Because construction of the proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the
proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit, as specified in
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1. As also specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1,
a SWPPP would be prepared and construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP would be implemented
during construction, in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. 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. Compliance with the requirements
of the Construction General Permit, including incorporation of construction BMPs to target and
reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, 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 Assessment prepared for the project, groundwater at the project site
is very shallow, ranging from approximately 4.5 to 6 ft bgs. Because of the presence of very shallow
groundwater, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be required during excavation
activities. Groundwater 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
groundwater is discharged to receiving waters. Groundwater dewatering activities during excavation
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-
2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001) as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2. This
permit requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during
groundwater dewatering prior to release to the stormdrain system. As a result, groundwater
dewatering 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. Impacts to surface water quality from
groundwater dewatering would be less than significant.
Operation. Expected pollutants of concern from long-term operation of the proposed project
include suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides,
oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. According to the Water Quality
Management Plan prepared for the project, potential sources of these pollutants include the
following:
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-15
• 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 project would be required to comply with the requirements of the North Orange County MS4
Permit and associated guidance documents. The North Orange County MS4 Permit requires that a
WQMP be prepared for priority new development and redevelopment projects. WQMPs 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 Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the project specifies the Source Control and LID
BMPs proposed for the project (no Treatment Control BMPs are proposed). The proposed BMPs
would improve water quality compared to the existing parking lot, which is currently untreated. The
BMPs specified in the Water Quality Management Plan would be implemented and maintained, as
specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3. The proposed project 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;
common area catch basin inspections; and street sweeping public streets and parking lots. Proposed
Structural Source Control BMPs include stormdrain system stenciling and signage; trash and waste
storage areas; use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart
controllers, and source control; energy dissipation and protection of slopes and channels; and
hillside landscaping (along the Katella Avenue roadway embankment). Please refer to the Water
Quality Management Plan included in Appendix G for additional details of the proposed Non-
Structural Source Control BMPs and Structural Source Control BMPs.
Proposed LID BMPs include underground detention and biotreatment BMPs. These BMPs would be
supplemented with a hydrodynamic separator for trash and debris removal. The hydrodynamic
separator is proposed for BMP maintenance benefits and provides stormwater pre-treatment.
Stormwater would be conveyed via on-site stormdrain facilities to the hydrodynamic separator and
then to the underground detention system. A stormdrain pump would drain the detention system
and control stormwater flow into the biotreatment BMP (a proprietary Modular Wetland
biofiltration system) before release into the stormdrain system in Katella Avenue.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-16
The proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern from runoff from the project site
in compliance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit requirements. Compliance with the
requirements of the North Orange County MS4 Permit, 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.
Threshold 4.9.2: 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. According to the Geotechnical Assessment prepared for the project,
groundwater at the project site is very shallow, ranging from approximately 4.5 to 6 ft bgs. Because
of the presence of very shallow groundwater, it is likely that groundwater dewatering would be
required during excavation activities. However, groundwater dewatering would be localized and
temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. In addition, any
volume of water removed during groundwater dewatering would be minimal compared to the size
of the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which has a surface area of 350 sq mi
and a storage capacity of 38,000,000 acre-feet (DWR 2004). Construction and operation of the
proposed project would not involve direct groundwater extraction. Additionally, the project would
not substantially change infiltration because the site is currently primarily (90 percent) impervious
surface areas and on-sites soils have a low infiltration potential (on-site soils are Hydrologic Soil
Ground D which have a minimal infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted). Increased water use
would not substantially affect groundwater supplies, because the groundwater basin has been
sustainably managed by Orange County Water District (OCWD) over the last 10 years and will
continue to be sustainably managed (OCWD 2017). Therefore, construction and operational impacts
related to a decrease in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.3: 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 on- or off-site?
Or
Threshold 4.9.13: Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream?
Less Than Significant Impact.
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.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-17
Project construction would not alter the course of a stream or river. As discussed above, the
Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP (Regulatory Compliance Measure
HYD-1). The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented
during project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. With compliance with
the requirements of the Construction General Permit and with implementation of the construction
BMPs, construction impacts related to on-site, off-site, or downstream erosion or siltation would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. According to the Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the project, the project
would not change the impervious surface area on site (the site would be 12 acres of impervious
surface area in the existing and proposed condition). In the proposed condition, 12 acres of the
project site would be impervious surface area and not prone to on-site erosion or siltation because
no soil would be included in these areas. The remaining acreage of the approximately 13-acre
project site 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. However, the
proposed project would not increase impervious area on the project site and would therefore not
result in a net increase in stormwater runoff. An on-site detention system and pump also restricts
runoff from the proposed site to 0.3 cfs/acre, a substantial reduction from the existing condition.
Additionally, according to the Water Quality Management Plan (2019) and the Preliminary
Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (2020) prepared for the project, downstream receiving waters are
not susceptible to hydromodification.1 Therefore, the proposed project would not increase
downstream erosion or siltation impacts. 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 4.9.4: 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?
Or
Threshold 4.9.15: 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.
Construction. As discussed above, project construction would comply with the requirements of the
Construction General Permit and would include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP.
1 Hydromodification is the alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of water bodies. Increased stream
flows and changes in sediment transport caused by increased impervious areas from urbanization or
other land use changes can result in increased stream flows, erosion, and changes in sediment transport.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-18
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. With implementation of BMPs,
construction 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, and no mitigation is
required.
Operation. In the existing condition, stormwater runoff on the parking lot flows in an east/west
orientation to two separate concrete ribbon gutters. The ribbon gutters convey stormwater runoff
south to catch basins that connects to the existing stormdrain system that varies in size from 33
inches to 39 inches in Katella Avenue. The proposed project would alter the on-site drainage
patterns; however, stormwater runoff on the project site would still ultimately be conveyed to the
Katella Avenue stormdrain system. In the proposed condition, stormwater would flow away from
the proposed buildings, into one of the several low points on the project site where it would be
conveyed to the underground detention system via a proposed on-site stormdrain system.
Stormwater runoff would then be discharged to the Katella Avenue stormdrain system via a new
stormdrain connection. The proposed on-site stormdrain system would be adequately sized to
accommodate stormwater runoff so that on-site flooding would not occur.
According to the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (2020) prepared for the project, the
downstream stormdrain system is at-capacity. As a result, the City restricts peak discharges from the
project site to 0.3 cfs/acre (or 4.0 cfs for the project site). As demonstrated by the hydraulic
modeling conducted as part of the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (2020), the detention
system would be designed to attenuate the 100-year storm event peak flow difference between the
stormwater flow generated on the project site (49.8 cfs) and the allowable discharge flow of 4.0 cfs.
A stormdrain pump would drain the detention system to meet the 0.3 cfs/acre runoff restriction by
limiting the pump discharge to 4.0 cfs.
In addition to the high-flow detention system described above, a low-flow detention system would
be installed to capture and treat the “first flush” storm event. A bifurcation manhole would be
placed upstream of the first flush detention system and divert the first flush volume into a separate
detention system. This system would be pumped separately and the runoff would slowly discharge
through a manufactured bioretention system over a 48-hour period. The outlet pipe from the
biofiltration system would connect separately to the existing 48-inch Katella Avenue storm drain.
Because the proposed on-site detention system would convey flow to the existing Katella Avenue
stormdrain and would be adequately sized and designed to reduce flow to the 0.3 cfs/acre runoff
restriction, impacts related to off-site flooding would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
In the existing condition, off-site stormwater runoff from 11.8 acres north of the project site is also
tributary to the on-site ribbon gutters, across the project site, and into the existing storm drain in
Katella Avenue. This off-site flow is approximately 34.96 cfs during a 100-year storm event. In the
proposed condition, a portion of this off-site flow would be captured by extending the existing 18-
inch storm drain at the end of Winners Circle. As discussed in Section 4.9.2, above, the approved
stormdrain plan for the Winners Circle stormdrain included an extension to the north, past the end
of the cul-de-sac, and then west across the existing parking lot just north of the project site.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-19
However, this stormdrain extension was never constructed. The proposed project plans to construct
this extension, per the approved plans. Specifically, off-site stormwater flow would be captured via
two proposed catch basins along the northern property line of the project site and routed east
through a proposed 18-inch storm drain, and into the existing 18-inch storm drain at the end of
Winners Circle. A proposed curb and gutter and an approximately 2 ft high berm installed north of
the project site’s property line would block off-site flow from entering the project site. Two
scenarios, described below, are proposed to convey off-site runoff that exceeds the 0.3 cfs capacity
of the Winners Circle stormdrain system to the curb and gutter in Katella Avenue.
In Scenario 1, flow that exceeds the 0.3 cfs capacity of the Winner Circle stormdrain system would
be conveyed west toward Siboney Street. Siboney Street would be reconstructed to crown the road
to provide sufficient slope to allow stormwater to drain to Katella Avenue without ponding.
Additionally, a portion of the parking lot to the north of the project site would be repaved. The off-
site flows would temporarily pond along the project site’s northern property line at variable depths
up to approximately 13 inches during a 100-year storm, 11.5 inches during a 10-year storm, and
10 inches during a 2-year storm before discharging to the west, into Siboney Street, then would flow
overland to the south into Katella Avenue (see Table 4.9.C). During a 100-year storm event, the
Winners Circle stormdrain would accommodate 3.54 cfs of the off-site runoff. The remaining 31.55
cfs during a 100-year storm, 19.78 cfs during 10-year storm, and 9.39 cfs during a 2-year storm
would be directed to Siboney Street. The ponding would only occur during storms that produce
more runoff than 0.3 cfs/acre and only during the peak intensity of the storm event. For example,
during a 100-year storm event, the capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system would only be
exceeded for approximately 3–4 hours and the maximum ponding would only occur for
approximately 30 minutes. This ponding would not flood any structures and would only affect the
portions of the parking lot north of the project site that are farthest away from the Los Alamitos
Race Course grandstand. It should be noted that racing and other major events at the Los Alamitos
Race Course that rely on the use of the race track are typically cancelled on days in which heavy rain
falls. Therefore, this minor ponding is not expected to result in the loss of any parking spaces or
inconvenience to visitors to the Los Alamitos Race Course. The ponding along the project site’s
northern property line would be a temporary condition until the area to the north has been
developed and a stormwater management and detention system is constructed during future
development on the 11.8 acres to the north of the project site.
Table 4.9.C: Ponding Depths for Scenario 1
Storm Event Maximum Overflow (cfs) Existing Conditions Flow
Depth
Maximum Instantaneous
Flow Depth
2-year 9.38 N/A 2.5”–10”
10-year 19.78 N/A 3.5”–11.5”
100-year 31.55 0”–4.5” 4”–13”
Source: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study (2020).
N/A = not applicable
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-20
In Scenario 2, flow exceeding the capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system would be
conveyed across the project site via an underground storm drain to the Katella Avenue storm drain
system near the existing on-site driveway. An on-site stormwater pump would likely be required to
convey flow from the project site to Katella Avenue. The connection to the Katella Avenue storm
drain would have a capacity of 0.3 cfs/acre (3.53 cfs total). Flows in excess of the pump capacity
(31.55 cfs during a 100-year storm) would reverse out of a proposed catch basin into the Katella
Avenue curb and gutter. As the stormwater is currently conveyed across the project site to Katella
Avenue, this option mimics the existing drainage pattern, but flow would be conveyed via an on-site
underground stormdrain system instead of via the existing ribbon gutters. The runoff diverted under
the project site would reach Katella Avenue at a similar location as in the existing condition. Under
Scenario 2, the proposed project would not result in any additional off-site ponding over existing
conditions. This option would also be a temporary condition until the area to the north has been
developed and a stormwater management and detention system is constructed during future
development on the 11.8 acres to the north of the project site.
In Scenario 1, the stormwater runoff diverted around the proposed site in the proposed condition
would have reached Katella Avenue in the existing condition at a similar location. Instead of
overflowing at the existing catch basins and running off through the existing on-site driveway, the
overflow would instead flow into Katella Avenue at Siboney Street. In Scenario 2, stormwater would
reach Katella Avenue at a similar location as in the existing condition. Since the on-site portion of
the area tributary to Katella Avenue would connect directly into the Katella Avenue storm drain and
would be reduced to 4.0 cfs by the detention systems, the overall amount of flows that would reach
the Katella Avenue curb and gutter is greatly reduced compared to the existing condition. With
implementation of the proposed stormdrain 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, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.5: 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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction. As discussed above, construction of the proposed project has the potential to
introduce pollutants to the stormdrain system from erosion, siltation, and accidental spills.
However, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, the Construction General Permit
requires preparation of a SWPPP, which would identify the construction BMPs to be implemented
during construction to reduce impacts to water quality, including those impacts associated with soil
erosion, siltation, and spills. 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
stormdrain system through implementation of construction BMPs that target pollutants of concern
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-21
in runoff from the project site as well as testing and treatment (if required) of groundwater prior to
its discharge to surface waters.
Additionally, the SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct surface runoff on
site and would include detention measures if required to ensure that stormwater runoff from the
construction site does not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems. For these
reasons, construction 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.
Operation. As discussed above, operation of the project has the potential to introduce pollutants to
the stormdrain 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
project. Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3 is an existing NPDES requirement with which the
project is required to comply. This measure would prevent substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff being discharged to the stormdrain system through implementation of operational BMPs to
target pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site. Additionally, the proposed detention
system would reduce stormwater runoff from the project site to below existing conditions and at
the allowable system capacity of 0.3 cfs/acre. For these reasons, 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.
Threshold 4.9.7: 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?
Or
Threshold 4.9.8: Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. According to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0116J
(December 3, 2009), the project site is located within Zone X, which comprises areas of 0.2 percent
annual chance flood (500-year flood). As the project is not located within a 100-year floodplain, the
project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would
occur, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.9: 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?
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-22
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within the inundation zone of a levee.
However, the project site is located within the inundation zone of Prado Dam and the Carbon
Canyon Dam.
The Carbon Canyon Dam, which was constructed in 1961 by the USACE and is operated by the
USACE Los Angeles District, works in conjunction with the Brea and Fullerton Dams for flood
protection of portions of the coastal plains in Orange County (USACE 2016). According to the City’s
General Plan Safety Element (2001), the dam is designed to hold 12,000 acre-feet of water. During a
flood event that would cause the dam to exceed its capacity, the portion of Cypress below Orange
Avenue could be completely inundated.
Prado Dam was designed in the 1930s, but increased its functioning capability due to Seven Oaks
Dam, which was completed in November 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. In addition, construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project was initiated in 1989,
and is scheduled for completion in 2021. 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
2021. 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 (OCPW Orange County Flood Division 2019b).
Although the project would construct new structures in an inundation zone, the proposed project
would not increase the chance of inundation from failure of Carbon Canyon Dam or Prado Dam.
Additionally, the entire City of Cypress is within a dam inundation zone. The potential for dam
failure is remote and the City’s emergency evacuation plans would be implemented if these dams
were susceptible to rupture during heavy rains or other events. Therefore, 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. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.10: Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and not at risk of mudflow. The project site is not
located within an inundation zone of a seiche or tsunami. Therefore, no impact from inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur, and no mitigation is required.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-23
Threshold 4.9.14: Would the project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated
increased runoff?
No Impact. The proposed project would not change the impervious surface area on site (the site
would be 12 acres of impervious surface area in the existing and proposed condition); therefore, the
proposed project would not increase stormwater runoff from the project site. The proposed project
would include a detention system to reduce peak discharges from the project site to 0.3 cfs/acre (or
4.0 cfs for the project site) per City requirements. Because the proposed project would not increase
impervious surface area or runoff, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.16: 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. After entering the stormdrain system in Katella Avenue, runoff from
the project site is eventually discharged to the San Gabriel River. Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River
(from the estuary to Firestone Boulevard) is impaired for pH and temperature. The San Gabriel River
Estuary is impaired for nickel, dissolved oxygen, copper, dioxin, and indicator bacteria.
As discussed above, construction of the proposed project has the potential to introduce pollutants
to the stormdrain 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. 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 U.S. in 1979. Therefore, project
construction would not contribute to the dioxin impairment.
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. 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 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-24
During operation, expected pollutants of concern include suspended solids/sediment, nutrients,
heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and
trash and debris. Pets utilizing the landscaped areas would be a potential source of bacteria (e.g.,
fecal matter) which could contribute to the indicator bacteria and dissolved oxygen impairment.
Vehicles operating within the project site could be a source of heavy metals (nickel and copper).
Therefore, 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. Therefore, the project would not contribute to the dioxin impairment.
As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3, post-construction BMPs would be
implemented and maintained during operation to target and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff
from the project site during operation. The Source Control and LID BMPs specified in the WQMP
would target and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site, including those
contributing to downstream water quality impairments. Therefore, with implementation of
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3, 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.
Threshold 4.9.17: Would the project be tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so,
can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions?
No Impact. According to the North Orange County MS4 Permit, Environmentally Sensitive Areas are
areas such as those designated in the Ocean Plan as Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) or
waterbodies listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The project site is not
tributary to an ASBS (SWRCB 2019). In addition, the proposed project does not meet the priority
development project definition of “a development of 2,500 sf of impervious surface or more,
adjacent to (within 200 ft) or discharging directly into Environmentally Sensitive Areas.” The nearest
CWA Section 303(d) impaired waterbody is the San Gabriel River, which is located approximately 6
miles downstream of the project site. In addition, the project would not discharge directly into this
CWA Section 303(d) impaired water. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in any impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.19: Would the project have a potentially significant adverse impact on
groundwater quality?
Or
Threshold 4.9.20: 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. Although groundwater dewatering would be required, dewatered
groundwater would be discharged to the stormdrain 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
Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the project, the on-site soils are not favorable for
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-25
infiltration. Specifically, on-site soils are classified as Hydrologic Soil Ground D, which has a minimal
infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. Therefore, minimal infiltration would occur on site during
construction and operation. Project construction and operation would not involve groundwater
injection. Additionally, infiltration BMPs are not proposed. Because minimal infiltration would occur
and no groundwater injection would occur, project construction activities would not substantially
degrade groundwater quality or result in the exceedance of water quality objectives or degradation
of beneficial uses. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Threshold 4.9.21: Would the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
No Impact. There is no aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat present on the project site. Los Alamitos
Channel, the downstream receiving water, is concrete-lined and does not provide aquatic, wetland,
or riparian habitat. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impact any aquatic,
wetland, or riparian habitat. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.9.22: Would the project 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would include implementation of
post-construction BMPs (underground detention basins) to reduce impacts related to hydrology and
water quality. These post-construction BMPs would not result in additional impacts not already
evaluated throughout this EIR. The post-construction BMPs would be underground and 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.
4.9.2 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Construction and operational impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than
significant with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3.
4.9.3 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.9.3.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following Regulatory Compliance Measures are existing regulations that are applicable to the
proposed project and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to hydrology and
water quality. The City of Cypress considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they
are not mitigation measures.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of
construction activities, the Applicant/Developer shall
obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit),
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-26
NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as
amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No.
2012-0006-DWQ, or any other subsequent permit. This
shall include submission of Permit Registration
Documents (PRDs), including permit application fees, a
Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention 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 (WDID) is obtained for
the project from the SMARTS and provided to the Director
of the City of Cypress Community Development
Department, 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
stormwater and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment
Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs)
to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff.
Construction Site BMPs shall also conform to the
requirements specified in the latest edition of the Orange
County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff
Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and
Developers to control and minimize the impacts of
construction and construction-related activities,
materials, and pollutants on the watershed. Upon
completion of construction activities and stabilization of
the project site, a Notice of Termination shall be
submitted via SMARTS.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2 Groundwater Dewatering Permit. If groundwater
dewatering is required during excavation activities, the
Applicant/Developer shall obtain coverage under the
General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to
Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis)
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-27
Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R8-2009-0003, NPDES
No. CAG998001) (De Minimis 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 Best Management Practices. The Applicant/Developer
shall implement the BMPs identified in Section IV of the
Water Quality Management Plan and the drainage
improvements identified in the Hydrology and Hydraulics
Study. In addition, the Property Management Association
shall be the responsible party for inspection and
maintenance of the BMPS as identified in Section V of the
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan.
4.9.3.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.9.4 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.
4.9.5 Cumulative Impacts
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 within the same watershed as the proposed project (i.e., the San Gabriel River Watershed)
and/or discharging to the same stormdrain systems as the proposed project (i.e., the Katella Avenue
stormdrain and the Los Alamitos Channel). Please refer to Table 4.A and Figure 4-1, in Chapter 4.0,
Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, for the descriptions and
locations of these related projects.
Related Projects 7–15, 18, and 19 would discharge to the Katella Avenue stormdrain and then the
Los Alamitos Channel. Related Projects 1–5 would discharge to the stormdrain system in Cerritos
Avenue, which connects to the Los Alamitos Channel. Each of these related projects could
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-28
potentially increase the volume of stormwater runoff and contribute to pollutant loading in
stormwater runoff reaching both the City’s stormdrain system and the San Gabriel River Watershed,
thereby resulting in cumulative impacts to hydrology and surface water quality. Projects 6, 16, and
17 are located within the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour Watershed and do not discharge to the
same stormdrain systems or receiving waters as the project site. These related projects are not
considered in this cumulative analysis because they do not have the potential to contribute to the
hydrology- and water quality-related impacts of the proposed project to result in cumulative
impacts.
New development and redevelopment can result in increased stormwater runoff and increased
urban pollutants in stormwater runoff from each of the related project sites. Each related project
must include 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.
Specifically, the related projects that disturb 1 acre or more of soil must comply with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit and the North Orange County MS4 Permit. The
preparation and approval of a SWPPP (for construction) and a WQMP (for operation) would be
required for each related project to determine appropriate BMPs to minimize water quality impacts.
In addition, 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 they do not exceed
existing conditions or result in hydromodification impacts. In addition, cities review all development
projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure that sufficient local and regional drainage capacity is
available.
Each related project must 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 and the North 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 stormdrain systems, including the Katella Avenue stormdrain system, are currently at
capacity. Other related projects that would discharge stormwater to the same stormdrain system as
the proposed project would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact related to
stormdrain capacity and flooding. However, each individual project would be required to prepare a
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-29
hydrology study, which would be reviewed and approved by the applicable city. The hydrology study
would be required to demonstrate that the project would reduce stormwater discharge to at or
below that allowed by the city for the individual project site. The City of Cypress 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 stormdrain
system will continue to be reduced, lessening the existing stormdrain capacity deficit. Because the
proposed project includes an on-site detention system that would be adequately sized and designed
to reduce flow to the 0.3 cfs/acre runoff restriction, the project would not contribute to the existing
stormdrain capacity deficit.
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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.docx (02/06/20) 4.9-30
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-1
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section describes the existing land uses on the Cypress City Center project (proposed project)
site and in its vicinity, and evaluates the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding land
uses and relevant policy and planning documents. The consistency analysis presented in this section
was prepared in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). Information presented in
this section is based on information provided in the City of Cypress (City) General Plan, the Cypress
Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan; last amended in 2012), the City’s
General Plan Land Use Map, the City’s Zoning Code (2019), the City’s Zoning Map. In addition,
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), this Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with other applicable planning documents as they
relate to specific topical sections within Chapter 4.0, Existing Environmental Setting, Environmental
Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
4.10.1 Methodology
The impact analysis presented in this Land Use and Planning section evaluates potential physical
impacts of the proposed project on land use compatibility and considers whether the proposed
project would result in potential inconsistencies with relevant plans or policies contained in
applicable planning documents adopted by the City and other agencies. Neither CEQA nor the State
CEQA Guidelines set forth standards for determining whether or not a project is consistent with an
applicable plan; rather, the final determination that a project is consistent or inconsistent 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.
A project’s inconsistency with a plan or policy is only considered significant if such inconsistency
would result in a significant physical environmental impact (per 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
policy or program 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.
4.10.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The project site is in the southern portion of the City of Cypress, California, which in the northwest
portion of the County. As illustrated in Figure 3.2, Project Vicinity Land Uses, in Chapter 3.0, Project
Description, of this EIR, the project site is on the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Winners
Circle in Cypress. The project site is rectangular in shape and consists of five parcels (Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers [APNs] 241-091-22, -23, -24, -25, and -26) totaling approximately 13 acres. In its
existing setting, the project site is characterized by a paved parking lot, with existing light poles and
various electrical utility boxes and lines. The edge condition along Katella Avenue and a portion of
Siboney Street has been improved with a public sidewalk, fencing, and ornamental landscaping. The
edge condition along Winners Circle has been improved with a public sidewalk and driveway access
points, with no landscaping.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-2
Temporary existing uses on the project site include vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los
Alamitos Race Course. Other short-term uses include a Christmas tree lot and a truck staging area.
Local businesses have leased the project site on a temporary basis from time to time for auxiliary
truck and trailer storage.
Figure 3.2 also shows that the project site is surrounded by a variety of racetrack, office, business
park, commercial and retail services, and residential land uses as well as several religious facilities.
Specifically, land uses surrounding the project site include the Los Alamitos Race Course to the north
of the project site. Northeast of the site is a Goodwill Donation Center and Cypress Corporate Park.
East of the site, beyond Winners Circle, are commercial and retail services, including a Costco
warehouse outlet and restaurant uses. Katella Avenue, a six-lane arterial roadway, borders the
project site to the south. Uses to the south of Katella Avenue include commercial and office and
business park uses in the City of Los Alamitos. A commercial center consisting of restaurant and
commercial services uses, a 24 Hour Fitness and a Marriott Hotel are to the west. The Barton Place
Residential Project (now known as Ovation at Flora Park), and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church are
immediately west of the commercial center.
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting
4.10.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations applicable to land use and planning.
4.10.3.2 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:
• Land Use
• Circulation
• Housing
• Conservation
• Open Space
• Noise
• Safety
Cities and counties in the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District 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.1
1 Senate Bill 1000 (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.”
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-3
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 375 (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 a Sustainable Communities Strategy
(SCS) in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTP). The SCS provides a plan for meeting the regional
emissions reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). 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 2016 RTP/SCS adopted 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. The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS is discussed in further detail below.
4.10.3.3 Regional Regulations
The project site is covered by several planning documents and programs that have varying degrees
of regulation over use of the project site. The following paragraphs explain regional regulations,
plans, and policies applicable to the project site that are analyzed in this EIR section.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). As discussed above, regional planning in
Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties is conducted by
SCAG. SCAG 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 the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS are relevant to the project.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. On April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted
the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS. The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS is a long-range planning document that provides a
common foundation for regional and local planning, policymaking, and infrastructure goals in the
SCAG region. The overall vision for the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS is to allow for compact communities that
are connected by numerous public transit options, are more walkable, and are safe for bicyclists. By
promoting more compact communities and improving the regional transit system, SCAG’s 2016–
2040 RTP/SCS aims to reduce vehicular miles traveled and associated air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions, promote active lifestyles, and fuel economic growth.
The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS establishes a number of initiatives aimed at improving the regional transit
system and reducing automobile reliance in the SCAG planning area. Examples of these initiatives
include promoting alternative modes of transportation and active transportation (e.g., bicycling and
focusing new growth near transit and High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) and Livable Corridors).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-4
HQTAs are defined as walkable transit villages or corridors within 0.5 mile of a well-serviced transit
stop or transit corridor with a 15-minute or less service frequency during peak commuting hours.
Livable corridors are defined as arterials characterized by a mix of higher-density residential uses,
employment centers, active transportation, and alternative transportation modes. In addition, the
2016–2040 RTP/SCS aims to provide sustainable transportation options or residents of the region
through the creation of Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs). NMAs promote active transportation
and encourage biking, walking, skateboarding, neighborhood electric vehicles, and senior mobility
devices in place of automobile use. Overall, the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS aims to focus new growth
around transit.
The following goals in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS are applicable to the proposed project:1
Goal 1: Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic
development and competitiveness.
Goal 2: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region.
Goal 3: Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region.
Goal 4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system.
Goal 5: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system.
Goal 6: Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality
and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking).
Goal 7: Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where
possible.
Goal 8: Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active
transportation.
4.10.3.4 Local Regulations
The City has preeminent decision-making authority regarding allowable land uses on the project
site. As discussed in greater detail below, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code both apply to the
project site; however, the Specific Plan largely governs the permitted uses on, and development
standards for, the project site.
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 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:
1 Goal 9 of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS relates to planning/policy actions to be taken by regional and local
agencies; therefore, it does not apply to the project.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-5
• 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)
The City of Cypress General Plan was last comprehensively updated by the City Council in September
2001. The Housing Element was last updated in January 2013.
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
use designations indicate the type and nature of development that is allowed in a given location.
As shown on Figure 3.5, City of Cypress General Plan Land Uses, the Cypress General Plan Land Use
Policy Map designates the project site as “Specific Plan Area” in recognition that the project site is
subject to the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific
Plan is discussed in further detail below.
The following goals and policies included in the General Plan are relevant to the proposed project:
• 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.
■ Policy LU-1.2: Allow for multi-family infill in designated areas to satisfy regional housing
needs.
○ Goal LU-2: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses, the
circulation network, availability of public facilities, and existing development constraints.
■ Policy LU-2.2: Where residential/commercial mixed use is permitted, ensure compatible
integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-6
■ Policy LU-2.4: Mitigate traffic congestion and unacceptable levels of noise, odors, dust,
and light and glare which affect residential areas and sensitive receptors, where
feasible.
■ 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.
○ Goal LU-5: Ensure that public facilities and services are available to accommodate
development allowed under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
■ Policy LU-5.5: Continue to make incremental improvements to the City’s flood control
and drainage system.
○ Goal LU-17: Facilitate the expansion of the local serving retail sector.
■ Policy LU-17.1: Increase the fiscal benefits to the City by attracting new retail,
restaurant and entertainment businesses that can better serve the local population and
employment.
■ Policy LU-17.2: Target locations for new retail establishments in heavily traveled areas,
such as along Lincoln Avenue and Valley View Street, as well as locations for a potential
restaurant row.
• 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.
■ 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).
■ Policy CIR-2.8: Enhance the sidewalk environment to encourage pedestrian activities
through streetscape and transit enhancement programs.
• Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element
○ Goal COSR-3: Conserve energy resources through the use of available technology and
conservation practices.
○ Goal COSR-5: Preserve Cypress' archaeologic and paleontologic resources.
■ 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.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-7
■ 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.
• 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.
○ 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.
• Safety Element
○ Goal SAF-1: Protect residents, workers, and visitors from flood hazards, including dam
inundation.
○ Goal SAF-2: Protect life and property in Cypress from seismic events and resulting hazards.
○ Goal 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.
○ Goal SAF-6: Maintain the police department's high quality of service to the City.
○ Goal SAF-8: Protect Cypress residents from air operation accidents.
• Noise Element
○ Goal N-2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions.
○ Goal N-3: Minimize noise spillover from commercial uses into nearby residential
neighborhoods.
• Air Quality Element
○ Goal AQ-1: Reduce air pollution through proper land use and transportation planning.
○ Goal AQ-2: Improve air quality by reducing the amount of vehicular emissions in Cypress.
• Growth Management Element
○ Goal GM-1: Reduce traffic congestion.
■ 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 decision-making.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-8
Cypress Business and Professional Center 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. On April 17, 1990, the
Cypress City Council adopted the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (Specific
Plan), which established comprehensive guidance and regulations for the development of
approximately 298 acres of land within the City, including the approximately 13-acre project site. In
2012, the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan was amended. On June 5, 2018,
Cypress voters approved the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0, which establishes
a master plan and regulatory framework for the use and development of 154.4 acres of land that
were formerly included in the Specific Plan area.
The Specific Plan is a regulatory plan that constitutes the zoning for the project site. As shown in
Figure 3.6, Zoning Designations, according to the City’s Zoning Map, the project site currently has a
zoning designation of PBP-25A, Planned Business Park (PBP), which is intended to provide for the
development of educational, professional office, commercial, industrial, open space, or any public or
semi-public uses. However, as discussed above, the Specific Plan largely governs the permitted uses
on, and development standards for, the project site. As shown on Figure 3.4, the Specific Plan
includes a Land Use Plan, which divides land within the Specific Plan area into nine different
planning areas. Figure 3.4 also indicates that portions of the Specific Plan (all of Planning Area 1,
most of Planning Area 8, and a small part of Planning Area 6) are now subject to Cypress Town
Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
As stated previously, the project site is part of Planning Area 5, which is designated for Professional
Office uses. The Professional Office designation is intended to accommodate the development of
professional and administrative offices that complement the adjacent hotel center within the
Specific Plan area. Permitted uses within this land use designation include a variety of office, studio,
financial institutions, governmental, corporate, employment, and health service uses. Uses
permitted subject to a conditional use permit include commercial, trade or vocational schools,
restaurant, service stations, post offices, and other similar uses that the Community Development
Director finds to be compatible with these uses, subject to review or approval by the City Council.
The following policies included in the Specific Plan are relevant to the proposed project:
• Development Plan
○ Overall Concept
■ Policy 1: Encourage primarily employment generating business park and other
commercial uses in the Specific Plan area and senior housing and related “continuum of
care” facilities in Planning Area 9.
■ Policy 2: Encourage revenue generating uses (i.e., retail sales).
■ Policy 3: Utilize site plan review as a means of authorizing the maximum and best use of
each parcel of land allowed by this Specific Plan.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-9
○ Parcel Size
■ Policy 1: Proposed tentative tract or parcel maps and/or conditional use permit
applications for subdivisions must be accompanied by a site plan in order to be
processed.
○ Race Track
■ Policy 2: Encourage the design of projects along the common boundary with the race
track to include integrated access.
○ Visual Quality and Design
■ Policy 2: Require site plan review for each development project with the Specific Plan
area.
• Circulation Plan
○ Overall Concept
■ Policy 2: Access driveway connections to arterial highways shall be aligned with major
access points of adjacent developments.
4.10.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for land use and planning impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix
G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed
project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to land use and planning if it
would:
Threshold 4.10.1: Physically divide an established community?
Threshold 4.10.2: 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?
4.10.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.10.1: Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The area surrounding the project site is developed with a variety of racetrack, office,
business park, commercial and retail services, and residential land uses as well as several religious
facilities. The proposed project would replace approximately 13 acres of surface parking with a mix
of residential, hotel, entertainment, and retail uses. The project is designed to activate a currently
underutilized parcel along Katella Avenue, one of the City’s major travel corridors, with a mix of land
uses that would complement existing and planned development in the Specific Plan and the
adjacent Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0. In addition, the proposed project is
designed to provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses rather than
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-10
dividing or separating existing land uses or neighborhoods. As a result, the project would not result
in physical divisions in any established community. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.10.2: 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. As discussed above, the main documents regulating land use on the
project site and the immediate vicinity are the City’s General Plan and the Specific Plan. The
proposed project’s relationship to these planning documents is described below; however, the
proposed project’s consistency with the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS is also provided below.
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Table 4.10.A provides a
consistency analysis of the goals from the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS that are relevant to the proposed
project. In order to eliminate repetitive policies and focus on key issues, goals that are not relevant
to the proposed project are not included in Table 4.10.A. As stated in Table 4.10.A, the proposed
project would be consistent with applicable goals in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, and no mitigation is
required.
City of Cypress General Plan. Table 4.10.B provides a consistency analysis of the goals and policies
from the City’s General Plan that are relevant to the proposed project. As stated in Table 4.10.B, the
proposed project would be consistent with all of the applicable General Plan goals and policies.
Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan. As described in Chapter 3.0, Project
Description, the proposed project includes a Specific Plan Amendment request to modify the land
use designation of the project site from Professional Office to a newly created mixed-use land use
district that would allow residential and hotel uses, while still permitting commercial/retail uses. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would separate the existing Planning Area 5 into two subareas
(5A and 5B). Planning Area 5B would include the project site and be designated “Mixed Use
Commercial/Residential.” Planning Area 5A, which is located east of the project site, would remain
Professional Office. The new designation would allow for both residential and hotel uses as well as
commercial uses. The Specific Plan Amendment would also update land use tables to incorporate
the new Planning Area 5B and include site development standards and building floor area ratio
(FAR) and site coverage standards specific to Planning Area 5B. In addition, the Specific Plan
Amendment would include minor changes in the Design Guidelines to allow super graphics (large
graphics) and projecting signage for the proposed movie theater. In addition to modifying the
parking requirements that would apply to Planning Area 5B, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
would amend several of the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. Therefore, upon its approval
by the City Council, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use designations,
development standards, design guidelines, parking requirements, and goals and objectives
contained in the Specific Plan.
Table 4.10.C provides a consistency analysis of the policies from the Specific Plan that are relevant
to the proposed project. As stated in Table 4.10.B, the proposed project would be consistent with all
of the applicable Specific Plan policies.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-11
Table 4.10.A: RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis
Relevant RTP/SCS Goals Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Goal 1: Align the plan investments and
policies with improving regional economic
development and competitiveness.
Consistent. The proposed project would amend the Specific Plan to
create a new mixed-use land use district that would allow residential
and hotel uses on the project site while still permitting
commercial/retail uses. The development of up to 251 new housing
units in an area of Cypress that is surrounded by business parks
would improve the region’s economic competitiveness by ensuring
that area workers would have access to new housing in close
proximity to their jobs. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Goal 1 in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
RTP/SCS Goal 2: Maximize mobility and accessibility
for all people and goods in the region.
Consistent. The proposed project would result in the replacement of
a currently underutilized parking lot to a mix of land uses located
directly adjacent to Katella Avenue, which is one of the City’s major
travel corridors. Four OCTA bus stops for Westbound and Eastbound
Route 50 are located directly adjacent and across the street from the
project site, providing connections for the site with the local and
regional transportation systems.
Access to the project site would be provided via three driveways,
one each off Siboney Street, Katella Avenue, and Winners Circle.
Additionally, the proposed project is designed to provide safe and
attractive pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 2 of
the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
RTP/SCS Goal 3: Ensure travel safety and reliability
for all people and goods in the region.
Consistent. All proposed pedestrian improvements included as part
of the proposed project would comply with City and OCFA standards
to ensure their safety and reliability. Therefore, the proposed project
would be consistent with Goal 3 in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
RTP/SCS Goal 4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable
regional transportation system.
Consistent. As described above in the analysis for Goal 2, the
proposed project would provide safe and attractive pedestrian
connections to surrounding land uses. The project site would be
accessible from the existing bus stops on Katella Avenue, which
would provide connections for the site to the local and regional
transportation systems. Additionally, the project site is in the vicinity
of a Class I regional bike path on Valley View and Class II bike lanes
on Cerritos Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Goal 4 in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
RTP/SCS Goal 5: Maximize the productivity of our
transportation system.
Consistent. The proposed project would provide access to the site
from Siboney Street, Katella Avenue, and Winners Circle and would
provide connections to public sidewalks adjacent to the project site,
which would serve to connect the site with the local and regional
transportation systems. As such, development of the proposed
project would maximize the productivity of the existing roadway
network in the vicinity of the site. In addition, the project would
have access to OCTA’s transportation services and would be in the
vicinity of existing bike facilities, which would encourage greater use
of the region’s existing transportation system. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with Goal 5 in the 2016–2040
RTP/SCS.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-12
Table 4.10.A: RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis
Relevant RTP/SCS Goals Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Goal 6: Protect the environment and
health of our residents by improving air quality and
encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling
and walking).
Consistent. As described above in the analysis for Goal 2, the
proposed project is designed to provide safe and attractive
pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses. The project site
would be accessible from the existing bus stops on Katella Avenue,
which would provide connections for the site to the local and
regional transportation systems. Additionally, the project site is in
the vicinity of a Class I regional bike path on Valley View and Class II
bike lanes on Cerritos Ave.
As described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this EIR, construction and
operation of the proposed project would result in less than
significant air quality impacts with the implementation of Regulatory
Compliance Measures. Because the proposed project would
encourage active transportation and not degrade air quality, the
proposed project would be consistent with Goal 6 in the 2016–2040
RTP/SCS.
RTP/SCS Goal 7: Actively encourage and create
incentives for energy efficiency, where possible.
Consistent. The proposed project would provide energy efficiency
through compliance with the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen Code). The proposed project would also incorporate
a number of energy and water conservation measures, green
building features, and Low Impact Development (LID) design
features. Sustainability features proposed as part of the proposed
project include, but are not limited to: the implementation of
renewable energy (i.e., solar panels and LED lights) and USEPA
energy star rating appliances. As such, the proposed project would
be consistent with Goal 7 in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
RTP/SCS Goal 8: Encourage land use and growth
patterns that facilitate transit and active
transportation.
Consistent. As described above in the analysis for Goal 2, the
proposed project is designed to provide safe and attractive
pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses. The project site
would be accessible from the existing bus stops on Katella Avenue,
which would provide connections for the site to the local and
regional transportation systems. Additionally, the project site is in
the vicinity of a Class I regional bike path on Valley View and Class II
bike lanes on Cerritos Avenue.
The proposed project would facilitate transit use and active
transportation by providing a new dense, mixed-use development
on an underutilized property along a major arterial street (Katella
Avenue), which is already served by existing transit service on Katella
Avenue. New residents would be able to take transit to or walk to
surrounding land uses, including nearby jobs in the business parks
clustered around the intersection of Valley View Street and Katella
Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with
Goal 8 in the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments. 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
LED = light-emitting diode
OCFA = Orange County Fire Authority
OCTA = Orange County Transportation Authority
RTP/SCS = Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-13
Table 4.10.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis
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.
Consistent. The proposed project would develop a mixed-use project
in an area of the City that is currently characterized by a mix of
residential and commercial uses. As discussed further in Section 4.13,
Public Services, and Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the
affected public agencies were contacted during preparation of this EIR
to determine potential project-related impacts to affected public
agencies. As described in Sections 4.13 and 4.17, the project’s impacts
to utilities and other public services would be less than significant.
Therefore, project implementation would contribute to a well-
balanced land use pattern that accommodates the City’s existing and
future needs for housing and commercial uses, while providing
adequate community services to City residents. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Land Use
Element Goal LU-1.
Policy LU-1.2: Allow for multi-family infill in
designated areas to satisfy regional housing needs.
Consistent. The proposed project would develop multi-family housing
on an underutilized infill parcel along a major arterial street. Although
the proposed project would require the approval of a Specific Plan
amendment to create a new mixed-use land use district that would
allow residential uses on the project site, as described in further detail
in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the development of new
housing on the project site would help the City meet its regional
housing needs requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-1.2.
Goal LU-2: Ensure that new development is
compatible with surrounding land uses, the
circulation network, availability of public facilities,
and existing development constraints.
Consistent. As demonstrated in this Section 4.10, Land Use and
Planning; Section 4.2, Air Quality; and Section 4.11, Noise, the project
is designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses. As discussed
further in Section 4.15, Transportation, the proposed project would
have less than significant impacts on the local circulation network.
According to Section 4.13, Public Services, and Section 4.17, Utilities
and Service Systems, the proposed project would not have a
significant impact on public facilities in light of existing development
constraints. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with
General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU-2.
Policy LU-2.2: Where residential/commercial
mixed use is permitted, ensure compatible
integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts.
Consistent. As demonstrated in this Section 4.10, Land Use and
Planning; Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.11, Noise; and Section
4.15, Transportation, the project is designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2.
Policy LU-2.4: Mitigate traffic congestion and
unacceptable levels of noise, odors, dust, and light
and glare which affect residential areas and
sensitive receptors, where feasible.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation, the
proposed project would not generate significant adverse impacts
related to traffic and transportation. As discussed in Sections 4.1,
Aesthetics, 4.2, Air Quality, and 4.11, Noise, sensitive receptors at
nearby churches and residential neighborhoods would not experience
unacceptable levels of noise, odors, dust, light, or glare as a result of
project implementation. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-2.4.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-14
Table 4.10.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis
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.
Consistent. As shown in Figure 3.9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, in
Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project would provide
internal walkways connecting the on-site residential, commercial and
hotel uses. In addition to installing a new sidewalk along Siboney
Street to the west of the project site, the proposed project would
provide pedestrian connections to the existing sidewalks along Katella
Avenue and Winners Circle, which would facilitate pedestrian access
to neighboring commercial development to the east and west. The
proposed project would also provide pedestrian connections to areas
north of the project site that are planned for future development
under the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General
Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-2.7.
Goal LU-5: Ensure that public facilities and services
are available to accommodate development
allowed under the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
Consistent. The proposed project would amend the Specific Plan to
create a new mixed-use land use district that would allow residential
and hotel uses on the project site while still permitting
commercial/retail uses. As discussed further in Section 4.13, Public
Services, public facilities and services in the City of Cypress would not
be significantly impacted by the proposed project. With
implementation of mitigation measures or adherence to regulatory
standards, project implementation would not disrupt or impair
current fire, police, library, or education service levels. As discussed in
Section 4.14, 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.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General
Plan Land Use Element Goal LU-5.
Policy LU-5.5: Continue to make incremental
improvements to the City’s flood control and
drainage system.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality,
the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
related to causing a substantial increase in the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding during
construction or operation. The proposed project’s stormwater
detention system would be designed to attenuate the 100- year storm
event and meet the City’s peak discharge requirement of 4.0 cfs from
the project site. This would help alleviate pressure on the existing
Katella Avenue stormdrain, which is currently at capacity, and make
incremental improvements in the City’s flood control and drainage
system. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with
General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-5.5.
Goal LU-17: Facilitate the expansion of the local
serving retail sector.
Consistent. The proposed project would include 20,800 sf of
commercial retail space, which would allow for the addition of new
local-serving retail establishments. Therefore, the proposed project
would be consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU-17.
Policy LU-17.1: Increase the fiscal benefits to the
City by attracting new retail, restaurant and
entertainment businesses that can better serve
the local population and employment.
Consistent. The proposed project would include 20,800 sf of
commercial retail space and a 10-screen movie theater. Because the
City does not currently have any movie theaters, the proposed project
would add new entertainment uses to serve local residents and
employees. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with
General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-17.1.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-15
Table 4.10.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis
Policy LU-17.2: Target locations for new retail
establishments in heavily traveled areas, such as
along Lincoln Avenue and Valley View Street, as
well as locations for a potential restaurant row.
Consistent. The proposed project would include 20,800 sf of new
commercial retail space along Katella Avenue, one of the City’s most
heavily traveled streets. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-17.2.
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.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related
to traffic at all study area intersections. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with General Plan Circulation Element
Goal CIR-1.
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).
Consistent. The proposed project would include 20,800 sf of new
commercial retail space along Katella Avenue, one of the City’s most
heavily traveled streets. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policy CIR-1.3.
Policy CIR-2.8: Enhance the sidewalk environment
to encourage pedestrian activities through
streetscape and transit enhancement programs.
Consistent. As shown in Figure 3.9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, in
Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project would install a
new sidewalk along Siboney Street to the west of the project site and
connections to the existing sidewalks along Katella Avenue and
Winners Circle, which would facilitate pedestrian access to
neighboring commercial development to the east and west. The
proposed project would also provide pedestrian connections to areas
north of the project site that are planned for future development
under the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent 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.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.5, Energy, the proposed project
would comply with the energy efficiency standards included in Title
24 (Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1), which would significantly
reduce energy usage. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation
Element Goal COSR-3.
Goal COSR-5: Preserve Cypress' archaeologic and
paleontologic resources.
Consistent. As described in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, the
proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which
would require that a qualified paleontologist be contacted in the
event that any paleontological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities so the discovery can be assessed for
scientific importance. The qualified paleontologist shall then make
recommendations regarding treatment and disposition of the
discovery, the need for paleontological monitoring, and preparation
of the appropriate report. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
GEO-2 would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources are
reduced to a level that is less than significant.
As described in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, the proposed project
would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which would require
that a qualified professional archaeologist provide cultural resources
awareness training prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing
activities. If construction personnel encounter any archaeological
deposits during construction activities, a qualified professional
archaeologist will be contacted to assess the nature of the find, with
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-16
Table 4.10.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis
the archaeological resources assessed and/or protected as they are
discovered. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would
ensure that impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to a level
that is less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General
Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Goal COSR-5.
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.
Consistent. Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 in Section 4.4, Cultural
Resources, and Mitigation Measure GEO-2 in Section 4.6, Geology and
Soils. The proposed project has the potential to affect unknown
archaeological and paleontological resources. The proposed project
would adhere to the State CEQA Guidelines for environmental
documentation and mitigation measures where development could
affect these resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and GEO-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 and
paleontological resources, respectively.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent 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.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.14, 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 be consistent 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.
Consistent. The proposed project would develop multi-family rental
housing on an underutilized infill parcel. As described in further detail
in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the development of new
housing on the project site would help the City meet its regional
housing needs requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with General Plan Housing Element Goal HOU-3.
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.
Consistent. The proposed project includes a Specific Plan amendment
to create a new mixed-use land use district that would allow
residential uses on the project site. As described in further detail in
Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the development of new
housing on the project site would help the City meet its regional
housing needs requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would
be consistent with General Plan Housing Goal HOU-4.
Safety Element
Goal SAF-1: Protect residents, workers, and
visitors from flood hazards, including dam
inundation.
Consistent. As described in further detail in Section 4.9 Hydrology and
Water Quality, the proposed project would not result in significant
impacts related to flooding. Additionally, the project site has a very
low likelihood of flooding and the proposed on-site stormdrain system
would be adequately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff so
that on-site flooding would not occur. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with General Plan Safety Element Goal
SAF-1.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-17
Table 4.10.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis
Goal SAF-2: Protect life and property in Cypress
from seismic events and resulting hazards.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.6, Geology and
Soils, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which
requires compliance with the recommendations in the project
Geotechnical Assessment, all impacts related to geological hazards
would be less than significant. As such, the proposed project would be
consistent with General Plan Safety Element Goal SAF-2.
Goal 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.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.13, Public
Services, the proposed project requires the implementation of
Mitigation 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 with
the County Fire Authority would ensure adequate service to the
project site. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with
General Plan Safety Element Goal SAF-5.
Goal SAF-6: Maintain the police department's high
quality of service to the City.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.13, Public
Services, the proposed project is expected to be adequately served by
existing police facilities. Additionally, the proposed hotel, apartment
building, movie theater, and retail buildings are anticipated to hire
private security, enhancing on-site surveillance and potentially
reducing the demand for police services to the project site.
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 be
consistent with General Plan Safety Element Goal SAF-6.
Goal SAF-8: Protect Cypress residents from air
operation accidents.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.8, 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.
As such, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan
Safety Element Goal SAF-8.
Noise Element
Goal N-2: Incorporate noise considerations into
land use planning decisions.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.11, Noise, the
proposed uses on the project site would be compatible with
surrounding uses based on noise standards established by the City.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in the development of
land uses consistent with the City’s noise standards and the proposed
project would be consistent with General Plan Noise Element Goal N-
2.
Goal N-3: Minimize noise spillover from
commercial uses into nearby residential
neighborhoods.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.11, Noise, with
the implementation of mitigation measures, which include measures
to reduce noise impacts to surrounding residential areas, noise
impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed project
would be consistent with General Plan Noise Element Goal N-3.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-18
Table 4.10.B: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant General Plan Goals/Policies Consistency Analysis
Air Quality Element
Goal AQ-1: Reduce air pollution through proper
land use and transportation planning.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.2, Air Quality,
the proposed project allows easy access to the commercial/retail uses
through its mixed use design and proximity of the residential and
retail segments. The proposed project would facilitate transit use by
providing a new dense, mixed-use development on an underutilized
property along a major arterial street (Katella Avenue), which is
already served by existing transit service. As such, the proposed
project would be consistent with General Plan Air Quality Element
Goal AQ-1.
Goal AQ-2: Improve air quality by reducing the
amount of vehicular emissions in Cypress.
Consistent. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.2, Air Quality,
the proposed project reduces vehicle emissions by increasing internal
capture between residential and retail segments. The proposed
project would also facilitate transit use by providing a new dense,
mixed-use development on an underutilized property along a major
arterial street (Katella Avenue), which is already served by existing
transit service. As such, the proposed project would be consistent
with General Plan Air Quality Element Goal AQ-2.
Growth Management Element
Goal GM-1: Reduce traffic congestion. Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related
to traffic at all study area intersections. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with General Plan Growth Management
Element Goal GM-1.
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 decision-
making.
Consistent. According to the Growth Forecast prepared for the 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS, the City of Cypress had a jobs-to-household ratio of
1.74, which is slightly higher than that of Orange County overall
(1.67). This means that the City experiences a minor influx of workers
from surrounding communities. The proposed project’s addition of
251 new housing units and approximately 115 new jobs on the project
site would slightly lower the City’s jobs-to-household ratio from 1.74
to 1.72. Generally speaking, however, the Orange County region
suffers from a surplus of jobs and a deficit of housing to serve the
workers employed in those jobs. Consistent with the referenced
policy, this information will be provided to City decision-makers prior
to considering approval of the proposed project. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Growth
Management Element Policy GM-4.1.
Source: City of Cypress General Plan (2001).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-19
Table 4.10.C: Specific Plan Consistency Analysis
Relevant Specific Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
Development Plan
Overall Concept Policy 1: Encourage primarily
employment generating business park and other
commercial uses in the Specific Plan area and
senior housing and related “continuum of care”
facilities in Planning Area 9.
Consistent. The Specific Plan amendment proposed as part of the
project would amend this policy as follows: “Encourage
employment-generating business park and other commercial uses in
the Specific Plan area, while expanding the diversity of housing by
providing multifamily housing in Planning Area 5B, and senior
housing and related "continuum of care" facilities, in Planning
Area 9.” The proposed project would include the development of
multifamily housing and employment-generating commercial and
retail uses in Planning Area 5B. Therefore, the proposed project
would be consistent with Overall Concept Policy 1.
Overall Concept Policy 2: Encourage revenue
generating uses (i.e., retail sales).
Consistent. The proposed project would develop a mixed-use
project including retail, hotel, and commercial uses on a currently
underutilized parcel. Therefore, the proposed project would
encourage sales tax revenue generating uses and would be
consistent with Overall Concept Policy 2.
Overall Concept Policy 3: Utilize site plan review
as a means of authorizing the maximum and best
use of each parcel of land allowed by this Specific
Plan.
Consistent. As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, a Site
Plan/Design Review would be conducted pursuant to Section
4.19.060 of the City’s Municipal Code by the Cypress Design Review
Committee. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with
Overall Concept Policy 3.
Parcel Size Policy 1: Proposed tentative tract or
parcel maps and/or conditional use permit
applications for subdivisions must be
accompanied by a site plan in order to be
processed.
Consistent. As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, a Site
Plan/Design Review would be conducted in conjunction to the
approvals required for the proposed project, including a Tentative
Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit. As such, the proposed
project would be consistent with Parcel Size Policy 1.
Race Track Policy 2: Encourage the design of
projects along the common boundary with the
race track to include integrated access.
Consistent. The proposed project is designed to provide safe and
attractive pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses,
including the race track. As such, the proposed project would be
consistent with Race Track Policy 2.
Visual Quality and Design Policy 2: Require site
plan review for each development project with
the Specific Plan area.
Consistent. As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, a Site
Plan/Design Review would be conducted as part of the proposed
project pursuant to Section 4.19.060 of the City’s Municipal Code by
the Cypress Design Review Committee. As part of this review, the
City would consider whether the proposed project is in compliance
with all zoning requirements and consider the aesthetics and design
of the proposed project relative to the aesthetic qualities within the
City. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with Visual
Quality and Design Policy 2.
Circulation Plan
Overall Concept Policy 2: Access driveway
connections to arterial highways shall be aligned
with major access points of adjacent
developments.
Access to the project site would be provided on Siboney Street and
Winners Circle, which provide access to Katella Avenue for adjacent
developments. As such, the proposed project would be consistent
with Overall Concept Policy 2.
Source: Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (2012).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-20
Summary. As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2016–2040
RTP/SCS, the City’s General Plan, and the amended Specific Plan. 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.
4.10.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning.
4.10.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to land use and
planning, so no mitigation is required. No regulatory compliance measures are required.
4.10.8 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.
4.10.9 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 land use and planning. The
cumulative impact area for land use for the proposed project is the City of Cypress. Several
development projects are approved and/or pending within the City. Table 4.A (refer to Chapter 4.0,
Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures) lists adopted and
planned projects within the City, and Figure 4.1, Location of Related Projects, maps the locations of
these projects. Each of these projects, as well as all proposed development in the City, would be
subject to its own General Plan consistency analysis and would be reviewed for consistency with
adopted land use plans and policies.
The City of Cypress is an urbanized area with a wide variety of established land uses. The land
around the project site has been developed with a variety of residential, business park, racetrack,
and commercial, land uses. As previously stated, the project site is designated for Professional Office
uses in the Specific Plan. However, the proposed project would amend the Specific Plan to modify
the land use designation of the project site from Professional Office to Mixed Use
Commercial/Residential (Planning Area 5B) to accommodate the project’s proposed uses. The
proposed project would also amend the Specific Plan to update the land use tables to incorporate
the new Planning Area 5B and include site development standards and building floor area ratio
(FAR) and site coverage standards specific to Planning Area 5B. In addition, the Specific Plan
Amendment would include minor changes in the Design Guidelines to allow super graphics (large
graphics) and projecting signage for the proposed movie theater. In addition to modifying the
parking requirements that would apply to Planning Area 5B, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
would amend several of the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. Should the City Council
approve the proposed project, the proposed project would be consistent with the Specific Plan and
cumulative land use impacts would be considered less than significant.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-21
The proposed project would include land uses that would be compatible with the existing and
planned neighborhoods and commercial areas surrounding the project site and would replace the
existing underutilized parking lot on 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.
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 the SCAG 2016-2040
RTP/SCS or any City-adopted plans or policies. All identified City-related projects 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.10 Land Use and Planning.docx (02/06/20) 4.10-22
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-1
4.11 NOISE
This section evaluates the potential short-term and long-term noise impacts associated with the
construction and operation of the Cypress City Center project (proposed project). This section is
based in part on information provided in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan, the Amended
and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan), and noise
measurements conducted on the project site on July 10 and July 11, 2019. The assumptions used in
the noise analysis and the noise modeling results are provided in Appendix H.
4.11.1 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 and vibration
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, City of Los Alamitos Municipal Code, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
criteria.
4.11.1.1 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-2
4.11.1.2 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, 10 dB is
10 times more intense than 0 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more intense than 0 dB, and 30 dB is
1,000 times more intense than 0 dB. Thirty (30 dB) dB represents 1,000 times as much acoustic
energy as 0 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound
pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. 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 equivalent continuous
sound level (Leq) is the total sound 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 Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (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
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-3
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.
4.11.1.3 Vibration
According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) FTA’s 2018 Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment 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.
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 vibration velocity decibels
(VdB). Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most
people, a vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely
perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne
vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway
is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The relevant range of vibration for the
purposes of this analysis is from approximately 50 VdB, the typical background vibration velocity
level, to 100 VdB, the general threshold where minor damage can occur in buildings.
4.11.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.11.2.1 Overview of the Existing Noise Environment
The primary existing noise sources in the vicinity of the project site are transportation facilities.
Traffic on Katella Avenue is a steady source of ambient noise. Other sources of noise in the vicinity
of the project site include aircraft noise from the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos,
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 quarter horse
races Fridays through Sundays, starting at 7:00 p.m. on Fridays, 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 5:00
p.m. on Sundays with a closing time of 11:00 p.m. In addition, three thoroughbred events are
scheduled each year. Based on long-term noise level measurements obtained from the Noise Impact
Analysis prepared for the Barton Place EIR (Urban Crossroads, April 2015), events at the race course
may be audible or distinguishable at the project site.
4.11.2.2 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
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-4
their intended purpose. Noise-sensitive land uses include residences, hospitals, school classrooms,
churches, libraries, and parks. Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site include
residences to the west and south and a church (Seventh-Day Adventist Church) to the west of the
project site. Other land uses immediately adjacent to the project site include the Los Alamitos Race
Course to the north, commercial/retail uses to the east and west, and office and commercial uses to
the south.
4.11.2.3 Existing Noise Levels
The existing noise levels at the project site are assessed from ambient noise levels measurements
conducted on the project site, existing aircraft noise, and existing traffic noise levels along roadways
in the project vicinity. The existing noise levels in the area surrounding the project site are further
described in detail below.
Short-Term Noise Measurements. Three short-term (20-minute) noise level measurements were
conducted on the project site on Wednesday, July 10, 2019, using a Larson David Model 824 Type 1
sound level meter. Table 4.11.A shows the results of the short-term measurements along with a
description of the measurement location and noise sources that occurred during the measurement.
As shown in Table 4.11.A, measured Leq noise levels at the northwestern portion of the project site
ranged from 55.2 to 55.8 dBA Leq. In addition, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) level at
these locations range from 57.1 to 60.5 dBA CNEL, which was calculated based on the noise level
profile of the long-term noise level measurement at LT-2. Figure 4.11.1 shows the short-term
monitoring locations.
Long-Term Noise Measurements. Long-term (24-hour) noise level measurements were conducted
from July 10 to July 11, 2019, using Larson Davis Spark 706RC noise dosimeters at two locations on
the project site. Tables 4.11.B and 4.11.C show the hourly equivalent continuous sound level (Leq)
results from the long-term measurements, and Table 4.11.D shows the calculated CNEL from the
long-term noise level measurements. As shown in Table 4.11.D, the calculated CNELs are 65.8 dBA
CNEL and 61.2 dBA CNEL at LT-1 and LT-2, respectively. The long-term monitoring locations are also
shown in Figure 4.11.1.
4.11.2.4 Existing Aircraft Noise Levels
The Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos is located approximately 0.5 mile south of the
project site in the City of Los Alamitos. 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 project site is within
the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, but outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JFTB Los Alamitos.
In addition, the Long Beach Municipal Airport is located approximately 5.4 miles northwest of the
project site. According to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, the project site is located
outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Long Beach Municipal Airport. In addition, there
are no private airstrips located on or within the vicinity of the project site.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-5
Table 4.11.A: Short-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Monitor
No. Location Description Date Start
Time
Duration
(minutes)
Noise Level
Noise Source dBA
Leq
dBA
Lmax
dBA
Lmin
dBA
CNEL1
ST-1
In the parking lot, approximately 30 ft east of
Siboney Street, across from the Los Alamitos
Seventh-day Adventist Church entrance.
7/10/19 10:12
a.m. 20 55.2 69.2 45.1 57.1
Light traffic on Siboney Street.
Faint and constant traffic noise
from Katella Avenue.
ST-2 Middle of the parking lot approximately 350 ft
west of Winners Circle. 7/10/19 11:39
a.m. 20 54.3 66.5 47.8 57.3 Traffic on Katella Avenue
ST-3
In the parking lot, approximately 20 ft south of
the fifth row of light poles and approximately
250 ft east of Siboney Street.
7/10/19 10:49
a.m. 20 55.8 66.6 47.1 60.5
Faint traffic noise on Katella
Avenue
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
1 The CNEL level was calculated based on the noise level profile of LT-2.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum A-weighted sound level
Lmin = minimum A-weighted sound level
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-6
Table 4.11.B: Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-1
Start Time Date Noise Level (dBA Leq)
1 10:00 AM 7/10/19 60
2 11:00 AM 7/10/19 61
3 12:00 PM 7/10/19 61
4 1:00 PM 7/10/19 61
5 2:00 PM 7/10/19 62
6 3:00 PM 7/10/19 62
7 4:00 PM 7/10/19 62
8 5:00 PM 7/10/19 62
9 6:00 PM 7/10/19 62
10 7:00 PM 7/10/19 61
11 8:00 PM 7/10/19 62
12 9:00 PM 7/10/19 61
13 10:00 PM 7/10/19 58
14 11:00 PM 7/10/19 56
15 12:00 AM 7/11/19 54
16 1:00 AM 7/11/19 53
17 2:00 AM 7/11/19 53
18 3:00 AM 7/11/19 53
19 4:00 AM 7/11/19 57
20 5:00 AM 7/11/19 61
21 6:00 AM 7/11/19 64
22 7:00 AM 7/11/19 64
23 8:00 AM 7/11/19 64
24 9:00 AM 7/11/19 62
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
dBA Leq = equivalent continuous sound level measured in A-weighted decibels
48505254565860626466
10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AMNoise Level (dBA Leq)Time of Day
Long-Term (24 Hour) Noise Level Measurement
LT-1: North of Katella Avenue between Siboney Street
and Winners Circle, Cypress, California
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-7
Table 4.11.C: Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-2
Start Time Date Noise Level (dBA Leq)
1 10:00 AM 7/10/19 59
2 11:00 AM 7/10/19 58
3 12:00 PM 7/10/19 57
4 1:00 PM 7/10/19 58
5 2:00 PM 7/10/19 58
6 3:00 PM 7/10/19 59
7 4:00 PM 7/10/19 58
8 5:00 PM 7/10/19 59
9 6:00 PM 7/10/19 59
10 7:00 PM 7/10/19 56
11 8:00 PM 7/10/19 59
12 9:00 PM 7/10/19 58
13 10:00 PM 7/10/19 52
14 11:00 PM 7/10/19 50
15 12:00 AM 7/11/19 48
16 1:00 AM 7/11/19 51
17 2:00 AM 7/11/19 51
18 3:00 AM 7/11/19 50
19 4:00 AM 7/11/19 50
20 5:00 AM 7/11/19 54
21 6:00 AM 7/11/19 59
22 7:00 AM 7/11/19 58
23 8:00 AM 7/11/19 57
24 9:00 AM 7/11/19 58
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
dBA Leq = equivalent continuous sound level measured in A-weighted decibels
4547495153555759616365
10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PM12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AMNoise Level (dBA Leq)Time of Day
Long-Term (24 Hour) Noise Level Measurement
LT-2: North of Katella Avenue between Siboney Street
and Winners Circle, Cypress, CA
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-8
Table 4.11.D: Long-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Monitoring
No. Location Start
Date
Start
Time
Duration
(hours)
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL) Noise Sources
LT-1
North of Katella Avenue
between Siboney Street
and Winners Circle
7/10/19 10:00
a.m. 24 65.8
Traffic on Katella Avenue,
Siboney Street, and Winners
Circle.
LT-2
North of Katella Avenue
between Siboney Street
and Winners Circle
7/10/19 10:00
a.m. 24 62.1
Traffic on Katella Avenue,
Siboney Street, and Winners
Circle.
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
dBA = A-weighted decibels
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
4.11.2.5 Existing Traffic Noise Levels
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-
108) was used to evaluate traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site. 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 CNEL values. Traffic
volumes on roadways within the vicinity of the project site were obtained from the Cypress City
Center Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2019). The standard vehicle mix for Southern California roadways
was used for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site. The existing traffic noise levels along
roadway segments within the vicinity of the project site are presented in Table 4.11.E. These traffic
noise levels are representative of a worst-case scenario that assumes a flat terrain and no shielding
between the traffic and the noise contours. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise
levels and the model printouts are provided in Appendix H.
4.11.3 Regulatory Setting
4.11.3.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Transit Administration. The USDOT 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 feel-able 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.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-9
Table 4.11.E: Existing (2019) Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA) 50 ft
from Centerline of
Outermost Lane
Cerritos Avenue west of Los Alamitos
Boulevard 22,200 < 50 107 225 67.6
Cerritos Avenue from Los Alamitos
Boulevard to Bloomfield Street 25,660 < 50 95 200 66.8
Cerritos Avenue from Bloomfield
Street and Denni Street 26,255 59 119 251 68.3
Cerritos Avenue from Denni Street
and Moody Street 27,365 72 147 314 69.8
Cerritos Avenue from Moody Street
and Walker Street 30,485 76 158 337 70.2
Cerritos Avenue from Walker Street
and Valley View Street 27,125 73 147 312 69.3
Cerritos Avenue east of Valley View
Street 21,190 62 125 265 68.6
Los Alamitos Boulevard north of
Cerritos Avenue 17,390 < 50 80 157 64.4
Los Alamitos Boulevard from Cerritos
Avenue to Katella Avenue 25,125 < 50 98 198 66.0
Los Alamitos Boulevard from Katella
Avenue to Farquhar Avenue 33,830 63 116 241 67.3
Los Alamitos Boulevard south of
Farquhar Avenue 35,980 64 121 251 67.5
Bloomfield Street north of Cerritos
Avenue 12,950 < 50 76 158 65.2
Bloomfield Street from Cerritos
Avenue to Katella Avenue 11,990 < 50 73 150 64.9
Denni Street north of Cerritos Avenue 7,660 < 50 < 50 90 62.0
Lexington Drive from Cerritos Avenue
to Katella Avenue 4,825 < 50 < 50 65 61.0
Moody Street north Cerritos Avenue 10,410 < 50 67 137 64.3
Walker Street north of Cerritos
Avenue 15,900 < 50 87 181 66.1
Walker Street from Cerritos Avenue
to Katella Avenue 19,850 < 50 99 209 67.1
Valley View Street north of Cerritos
Avenue 37,440 90 182 387 70.4
Valley View Street from Cerritos
Avenue to Katella Avenue 38,235 91 185 392 70.5
Valley View Street from Katella
Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 51,485 109 224 477 71.8
Valley View Street south of
Orangewood Avenue 42,570 97 198 421 71.0
Katella Avenue from I-605 Ramps to
Wallingsford Road 49,955 90 182 385 70.4
Katella Avenue from Wallingsford
Road to Los Alamitos Road 44,415 85 169 357 69.9
Katella Avenue from Los Alamitos
Road to Bloomfield Street 38,980 79 155 327 69.3
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-10
Table 4.11.E: Existing (2019) Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA) 50 ft
from Centerline of
Outermost Lane
Katella Avenue from Bloomfield
Street to Denni Street/Lexington Drive 37,135 77 151 317 69.1
Katella Avenue from Denni Street/
Lexington Drive to Cottonwood Way 37,390 77 151 318 69.1
Katella Avenue from Cottonwood
Way to Siboney Street 37,940 78 153 321 69.2
Katella Avenue from Siboney Street to
Winners Circle 37,460 77 151 319 69.1
Katella Avenue from Winners Circle to
Walker Street 37,610 77 152 320 69.1
Katella Avenue from Walker Street to
Valley View Street 43,675 99 201 428 71.1
Katella Avenue east of Valley View
Street 30,070 80 159 334 69.4
Siboney Street north of Katella
Avenue 3,130 < 50 < 50 < 50 53.8
Winners Circle north of Katella
Avenue 1,960 < 50 < 50 < 50 53.6
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
Note: Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
I-605 = Interstate 605
Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks can cause perceptible vibration levels at close
proximity. With no enforceable regulations in the Cities of Cypress or Los Alamitos, the FTA
guidelines for potential interference or annoyance shown in Table 4.11.F and potential building
damage shown in Table 4.11.G are used to assess vibration impacts of the proposed project and
determining the significance vibration impacts.
Table 4.11.F: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis
Land Use Max Lv
(VdB)1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Distinctly feelable vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non-sensitive areas.
Office 84 Feelable vibration. Appropriate to offices and non-sensitive areas.
Residential Day 78 Feelable vibration. Appropriate for computer equipment and low-power optical
microscopes (up to 20X).
Institutional 75 Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. These uses include schools,
churches, and doctors’ offices.
Residential Night and
Operating Rooms 72
Vibration not feelable, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet
rooms. Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100X) 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 = vibration velocity in decibels
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-11
Table 4.11.G: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis
Building Category PPV (inch/sec) Approximate LV (VdB)1
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 102
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 98
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 94
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).
1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 µinch/sec.
µinch/sec = microinches per second
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
inch/sec = inches per second
LV = vibration velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
4.11.3.2 State Regulations
State of California Noise Requirements. The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets
standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise
standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each
county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element, which is to be prepared
according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The
purpose of the Noise Element, as defined by the OPR guidelines, is to limit the exposure of the
community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the State CEQA Guidelines include thresholds of
significance for analyzing environmental noise impacts.
State of California Building Code. The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in
the California Code of Regulations, Title 24; the Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2; and
the California Building Code (which has been adopted by the City of Cypress, with modifications, as
the City’s Building Code). These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the
purpose of controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations
(Chapter 2-35, Part 2, Title 24) specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive
structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major
transportation noise sources and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA
CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must
demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to
acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior
noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
4.11.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations related to noise that are applicable to the proposed project.
4.11.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress General Plan. The City’s General Plan Noise Element has established interior and
exterior noise standards for various land use categories shown in Table 4.11.H. As shown in
Table 4.11.H, the City’s exterior and interior noise standards are 50–60 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
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-12
Table 4.11.H: 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 environment 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.
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 ft
deep or less are exempted 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. 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.”
To provide a comprehensive and conservative analysis, the operational noise level limits discussed
below 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
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-13
impacts because the City of Cypress has established maximum exterior noise standards to control
operational noise levels.
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 4.11.I. 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 4.11.I: City of Cypress Stationary Noise Standards
Noise Zone Exterior/
Interior Time Period L50
(30 mins)1
L25
(15 mins)2
L8
(5 mins)3
L2
(1 min)4
Lmax
(Anytime)5
1 Exterior 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55 60 65 70 75
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50 55 60 65 70
2 Exterior 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 60 65 70 75 80
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 55 60 65 70 75
1 and 2 Interior 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM -- -- 55 60 65
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM -- -- 45 50 55
Source: City of Cypress Municipal Code (July 2019).
Note: It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the city to create any noise or to allow the
creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person when the foregoing causes the noise
level when measured on any other residential property either incorporated or unincorporated to exceed the applicable noise standard. In
the event the alleged offensive noise consists of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the
above noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dBA. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories
above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient
noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the
maximum ambient noise level.
1 The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour
2 The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour
3 The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour
4 The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour
5 The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
min/mins = minute/minutes
City of Los Alamitos Municipal Code. The project site is located within and under the jurisdiction of
the City of Cypress. However, due to the close proximity to the City of Los Alamitos, and to present a
conservative analysis, the analysis in this section also applies the City of Los Alamitos noise
standards to land uses located within that city. The City of Los Alamitos Municipal Code, Chapter
17.24, Noise, provides noise control guidelines for evaluating non transportation or stationary-
source noise impacts from operations at private properties.
Construction Noise Standards. Section 17.24.020(D) of the City of Los Alamitos Municipal Code,
states that “noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real
property; provided a permit has been obtained from the city; and provided the activities do not take
place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time
on Sunday or a federal holiday.”
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-14
To provide a comprehensive and conservative analysis, the operational noise level limits discussed
below were used to evaluate noise generated from project construction because the City of Los
Alamitos has not established noise level limits that apply to construction. The anytime maximum
exterior noise level of 75 dBA Lmax for residential uses in the City of Los Alamitos 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 Los Alamitos has established maximum exterior noise standards to
control operational noise levels.
Operational Noise Standards. Sections 17.24.050 and 17.24.060 of the City of Los Alamitos
Municipal Code has established exterior and interior noise standards for various noise zones from
stationary noise sources. The exterior and interior stationary source noise standards are shown in
Table 4.11.J. Land uses in Noise Zone 1 are all residential properties. Land uses in Noise Zone 2 are
all professional office and public institutional properties. Land uses in Noise Zone 3 are all
commercial properties, with the exception of professional office properties. Land uses in Noise Zone
4 are all industrial properties.
Table 4.11.J: City of Los Alamitos Stationary Noise Standards
Noise
Zone
Exterior/
Interior Time Period L50
(30 mins)1
L25
(15 mins)2
L8
(5 mins)3
L2
(1 min)4
Lmax
(Anytime)5
1 Exterior
7:00 AM to 10:00
PM 55 60 65 70 75
10:00 PM to 7:00
AM 50 55 60 65 70
2 Exterior Anytime 55 60 65 70 75
3 Exterior Anytime 60 65 70 75 80
4 Exterior Anytime 70 75 80 85 90
1 Interior
7:00 AM to 10:00
PM -- -- 55 60 65
10:00 PM to 7:00
AM -- -- 45 50 55
2, 3, and 4 Interior Anytime -- -- 55 60 65
Source: City of Los Alamitos Municipal Code (July 2019).
Note: It shall be unlawful for a person to create noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or
otherwise controlled by a person that causes the noise level when measured on a residential, public institutional, professional,
commercial, or industrial property either within or without the city to exceed the applicable noise standard. Each of the noise limit
specified above shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impact or predominant tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music. In the event
that the noise source and the affected property are within different noise zoning districts, the noise standards of the affected property
shall apply. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds either of the first two noise limit categories above, the cumulative period
applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third
noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under that category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise
level.
1 The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour
2 The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour
3 The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour
4 The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour
5 The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
min/mins = minute/minutes
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-15
Amended and Restated Specific Plan (Specific Plan). Because the Specific Plan supersedes any
conflicting provisions in the City’s Municipal Code regarding the zoning standards applicable to the
proposed project, the proposed project would adhere to the construction hours set forth in the
Specific Plan. Therefore, the construction hours for the proposed project would be limited to
weekdays and Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. No construction shall be
permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays.
4.11.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for noise and vibration impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G
of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed
project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to noise if it would result in:
Threshold 4.11.1: 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 4.11.2: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Threshold 4.11.3: 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?
In addition to the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds above, the quantitative noise and
vibration standards in Table 4.11.K below, are used in this analysis to evaluate construction and
operational impacts related to noise and vibration.
Table 4.11.K: Summary of Noise and Vibration Standards/Significance Criteria
Noise Analysis Jurisdiction Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site Traffic Cypress and
Los Alamitos
Project-related traffic
noise increase ≥ 3 dBA CNEL
On-Site Traffic Cypress
Interior multifamily residence 45 dBA CNEL
Interior hotel and movie theater 45 dBA CNEL
Interior commercial retail 55 dBA CNEL
Operational Cypress
Exterior residential land use 60 dBA L50 55 dBA L50
≥ 30 minutes 60 dBA L50 55 dBA L50
≥ 15 minutes 65 dBA L25 60 dBA L25
≥ 5 minutes 70 dBA L8 65 dBA L8
≥ 1 minute 75 dBA L2 70 dBA L2
Anytime 80 dBA Lmax 75 dBA Lmax
Interior residential land use 55 dBA L8 45 dBA L8
≥ 5 minutes 55 dBA L8 45 dBA L8
≥ 1 minute 60 dBA L2 50 dBA L2
Anytime 65 dBA Lmax 55 dBA Lmax
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-16
Table 4.11.K: Summary of Noise and Vibration Standards/Significance Criteria
Noise Analysis Jurisdiction Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Operational Los Alamitos
Exterior residential land use 55 dBA L50 50 dBA L50
≥ 30 minutes 55 dBA L50 50 dBA L50
≥ 15 minutes 60 dBA L25 55 dBA L25
≥ 5 minutes 65 dBA L8 60 dBA L8
≥ 1 minute 70 dBA L2 65 dBA L2
Anytime 75 dBA Lmax 70 dBA Lmax
Interior residential land use 55 dBA L8 45 dBA L8
≥ 5 minutes 55 dBA L8 45 dBA L8
≥ 1 minute 60 dBA L2 50 dBA L2
Anytime 65 dBA Lmax 55 dBA Lmax
Exterior office/commercial land use 55 dBA L50/60 dBA L50
≥ 30 minutes 55 dBA L50/60 dBA L50
≥ 15 minutes 60 dBA L50/65 dBA L25
≥ 5 minutes 65 dBA L50/70 dBA L8
≥ 1 minute 70 dBA L50/75 dBA L2
Anytime 75 dBA L50/80 dBA Lmax
Interior office/commercial land use 55 dBA L8
≥ 5 minutes 55 dBA L8
≥ 1 minute 60 dBA L2
Anytime 65 dBA Lmax
Construction
Cypress and Los
Alamitos
Permitted hours of construction: Weekdays and Saturdays between 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays
and federal holidays.
Cypress Noise level threshold 80 dBA Lmax N/A
Los Alamitos Noise level threshold 75 dBA Lmax N/A
Cypress and Los
Alamitos Vibration level threshold See Tables 4.11.F and 4.11.G
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
Note: “Daytime” = 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.; “Nighttime” = 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
L50 = The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour
L25 = The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour
L8 = The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour
L2 = The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour
Lmax = The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.
N/A = Not applicable. Construction during nighttime hours is not permitted. Therefore, no nighttime construction noise level threshold is
identified.
4.11.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.11.1: 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 with Mitigation Incorporated.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-17
Construction Noise Impacts. Construction noise associated with the proposed project would be
temporary and would vary depending on the nature of the activities being performed. 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 acoustical 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. The closest residences are located approximately
890 ft west and 350 ft south of the project site. In addition, the closest church is located
approximately 465 ft west of the project site. Construction activities would expose nearby sensitive
receptors to peak noise levels from 64.1 dBA to 66.5 dBA Lmax during the site preparation and
grading phase (Phase 1), 65.8 dBA to 68.3 dBA Lmax during the construction of buildings phase (Phase
2), and 64.9 dBA to 67.4 dBA during the paving phase (Phase 3). These noise levels would not exceed
the anytime maximum daytime exterior noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax in the City of Cypress and
noise levels would not exceed the anytime maximum daytime exterior noise standard of 75 dBA Lmax
in the City of Los Alamitos.
In addition, the proposed project would use the Geopier system during the construction of the
proposed hotel and apartments. Installation of piles using the Geopier system, or similar methods,
generates a maximum noise level of 90 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. Based on a usage factor of 60 percent,
noise levels generated by the installation of Geopiers during construction would be 87.8 dBA Leq at a
distance of 50 ft. The closest residences are located approximately 900 ft west and 350 ft south of
the project site. In addition, the closest church is located approximately 465 ft west of the project
site. Noise levels generated from where the installation of Geopiers would take place would range
from 64.9 to 73.1 dBA Lmax at the closest sensitive receptors. These noise levels would not exceed
the anytime maximum daytime exterior noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax in the City of Cypress and
noise levels would not exceed the anytime maximum daytime exterior noise standard of 75 dBA Lmax
in the City of Los Alamitos. The proposed project would comply with the permitted construction
hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays specified in the Specific Plan. No
construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays (Regulatory
Compliance Measure NOI-1). The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would further
minimize construction-related noise to a less than significant impact.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Operational Noise.
Long-Term Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts. The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site. Table 4.11.L
shows the modeled traffic noise levels under the existing (2019) year without and with the proposed
project. Table 4.11.M shows the modeled traffic noise levels under the opening year (2021)
conditions without and with the proposed project. These traffic noise levels are representative of a
worst-case scenario that assumes a flat terrain and no shielding between the traffic and the noise
contours. The specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and the model printouts
are provided in Appendix H.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-18
As shown in Tables 4.11.L and 4.11.M, the modeled project-related traffic noise increase would be
less than 3 dBA under both scenarios. Noise level increases less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible
to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, the proposed project’s long-term off-site
traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.
Project Land Use Compatibility. The proposed project’s land use compatibility is based on the City’s
exterior and interior noise standards established in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan. The
City’s has an exterior noise standard for single-family and multifamily residences of 50 to 60 dBA
CNEL and an interior noise standard of 45 to 55 dBA CNEL. While the 60 dBA CNEL is the upper limit
for exterior noise, an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows closed was used to
evaluate potential interior noise impacts. The proposed project’s multifamily residences would be
exempt from the City’s exterior noise standards because the proposed upper floor balconies would
be 6 ft in depth or less. 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.
Table 4.11.N shows the modeled exterior and interior traffic noise levels under the Opening Year
(2021) with project scenario at each modeled on-site receptor. Although the proposed project may
be exposed to intermittent noise levels from parking activities at adjacent land uses and events at
the Los Alamitos Race Course, the intermittent noise levels would not be high or frequent enough to
contribute to the CNEL level. The interior noise levels were calculated from the exterior noise levels
by applying an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 24 dBA (USEPA 1978) based on standard
construction in Southern California with window and doors closed. Traffic noise levels at Receptors
R-5 through R-7 shown in Table 4.11.N are considered conservative because noise attenuation
provided by the proposed buildings was not factored in and traffic noise levels would be lower.
Figure 4.11.1 shows the noise monitoring locations and the locations of the modeled receptors.
Table 4.11.N shows that the modeled traffic noise levels under the Opening Year (2021) with project
scenario at the modeled on-site receptors representing the apartment, hotel, movie theater, and
commercial uses would not exceed their respective interior noise standards. As discussed above, the
exterior noise standards for the multifamily residences are not applicable because the proposed
balconies would be 6 ft in depth or less. Therefore, the proposed uses on the project site would be
compatible with surrounding uses based on the noise standards established by the City. Therefore,
the proposed project would result in the development of land uses consistent with the City’s noise
standards and long-term on-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.
Long-Term Stationary-Source Noise Impacts. The proposed project would include several on-site
stationary noise sources, such as truck delivery and truck unloading activities, HVAC equipment,
trash pick-up/compactor operations, and parking lot activities.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-19
Table 4.11.L: Existing (2019) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project
Roadway Segment
Without Project Traffic Conditions With Project Traffic Conditions
ADT
Centerline
to
70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
ADT
Centerline
to
70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase
from
Baseline
Condition
(dBA)
Cerritos Avenue west of Los Alamitos
Boulevard 22,200 < 50 107 225 67.6 22,200 < 50 107 225 67.6 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Los Alamitos
Boulevard to Bloomfield Street 25,660 < 50 95 200 66.8 25,660 < 50 95 200 66.8 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Bloomfield Street and
Denni Street 26,255 59 119 251 68.3 26,255 59 119 251 68.3 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Denni Street and
Moody Street 27,365 72 147 314 69.8 27,365 72 147 314 69.8 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Moody Street and
Walker Street 30,485 76 158 337 70.2 30,565 76 158 337 70.2 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Walker Street and
Valley View Street 27,125 73 147 312 69.3 27,285 74 148 313 69.4 0.1
Cerritos Avenue east of Valley View Street 21,190 62 125 265 68.6 21,350 62 125 266 68.7 0.1
Los Alamitos Boulevard north of Cerritos
Avenue 17,390 < 50 80 157 64.4 17,580 < 50 80 158 64.4 0.0
Los Alamitos Boulevard from Cerritos
Avenue to Katella Avenue 25,125 < 50 98 198 66.0 25,300 < 50 98 199 66.0 0.0
Los Alamitos Boulevard from Katella Avenue
to Farquhar Avenue 33,830 63 116 241 67.3 34,070 63 117 242 67.3 0.0
Los Alamitos Boulevard south of Farquhar
Avenue 35,980 64 121 251 67.5 36,220 65 121 252 67.6 0.1
Bloomfield Street north of Cerritos Avenue 12,950 < 50 76 158 65.2 13,030 < 50 77 159 65.3 0.1
Bloomfield Street from Cerritos Avenue to
Katella Avenue 11,990 < 50 73 150 64.9 12,070 < 50 73 151 64.9 0.0
Denni Street north of Cerritos Avenue 7,660 < 50 < 50 90 62.0 7,740 < 50 < 50 91 62.0 0.0
Lexington Drive from Cerritos Avenue to
Katella Avenue 4,825 < 50 < 50 65 61.0 4,950 < 50 < 50 67 61.1 0.1
Moody Street north Cerritos Avenue 10,410 < 50 67 137 64.3 10,490 < 50 67 138 64.3 0.0
Walker Street north of Cerritos Avenue 15,900 < 50 87 181 66.1 16,060 < 50 87 182 66.2 0.1
Walker Street from Cerritos Avenue to
Katella Avenue 19,850 < 50 99 209 67.1 20,295 < 50 101 212 67.2 0.1
Valley View Street north of Cerritos Avenue 37,440 90 182 387 70.4 37,770 91 183 389 70.4 0.0
Valley View Street from Cerritos Avenue to
Katella Avenue 38,235 91 185 392 70.5 38,565 92 186 394 70.5 0.0
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-20
Table 4.11.L: Existing (2019) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project
Roadway Segment
Without Project Traffic Conditions With Project Traffic Conditions
ADT
Centerline
to
70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
ADT
Centerline
to
70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase
from
Baseline
Condition
(dBA)
Valley View Street from Katella Avenue to
Orangewood Avenue 51,485 109 224 477 71.8 51,965 109 225 480 71.8 0.0
Valley View Street south of Orangewood
Avenue 42,570 97 198 421 71.0 43,050 98 199 424 71.0 0.0
Katella Avenue from I-605 Ramps to
Wallingsford Road 49,955 90 182 385 70.4 50,750 91 184 389 70.4 0.0
Katella Avenue from Wallingsford Road to
Los Alamitos Road 44,415 85 169 357 69.9 45,215 85 171 361 69.9 0.0
Katella Avenue from Los Alamitos Road to
Bloomfield Street 38,980 79 155 327 69.3 40,185 80 158 334 69.4 0.1
Katella Avenue from Bloomfield Street to
Denni Street/Lexington Drive 37,135 77 151 317 69.1 38,465 78 154 324 69.2 0.1
Katella Avenue from Denni Street/Lexington
Drive to Cottonwood Way 37,390 77 151 318 69.1 38,930 79 155 327 69.3 0.2
Katella Avenue from Cottonwood Way to
Siboney Street 37,940 78 153 321 69.2 39,525 79 157 330 69.4 0.2
Katella Avenue from Siboney Street to
Winners Circle 37,460 77 151 319 69.1 39,105 79 156 328 69.3 0.2
Katella Avenue from Winners Circle to
Walker Street 37,610 77 152 320 69.1 39,230 79 156 329 69.3 0.2
Katella Avenue from Walker Street to Valley
View Street 43,675 99 201 428 71.1 44,810 100 205 435 71.2 0.1
Katella Avenue east of Valley View Street 30,070 80 159 334 69.4 30,400 81 160 337 69.5 0.1
Siboney Street north of Katella Avenue 3,130 < 50 < 50 < 50 53.8 3,810 < 50 < 50 < 50 54.7 0.9
Winners Circle north of Katella Avenue 1,960 < 50 < 50 < 50 53.6 2,950 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.4 1.8
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
Note: Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
I-605 = Interstate 605
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-21
Table 4.11.M: Opening Year (2021) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project
Roadway Segment
Without Project Traffic Conditions With Project Traffic Conditions
ADT
Centerline
to
70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
ADT
Centerline
to
70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase
from
Baseline
Condition
(dBA)
Cerritos Avenue west of Los Alamitos
Boulevard 23,370 < 50 110 233 67.8 23,370 < 50 110 233 67.8 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Los Alamitos
Boulevard to Bloomfield Street 26,480 < 50 97 204 66.9 26,480 < 50 97 204 66.9 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Bloomfield Street and
Denni Street 27,085 60 121 257 68.4 27,085 60 121 257 68.4 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Denni Street and
Moody Street 28,405 73 151 321 69.9 28,405 73 151 321 69.9 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Moody Street and
Walker Street 31,680 78 162 345 70.4 31,760 78 162 346 70.4 0.0
Cerritos Avenue from Walker Street and
Valley View Street 28,065 75 151 319 69.5 28,220 75 151 320 69.5 0.0
Cerritos Avenue east of Valley View Street 22,050 63 128 272 68.8 22,210 63 129 273 68.8 0.0
Los Alamitos Boulevard north of Cerritos
Avenue 17,940 < 50 81 160 64.5 18,110 < 50 81 161 64.5 0.0
Los Alamitos Boulevard from Cerritos
Avenue to Katella Avenue 26,190 < 50 100 204 66.2 26,360 < 50 100 205 66.2 0.0
Los Alamitos Boulevard from Katella Avenue
to Farquhar Avenue 34,605 63 118 244 67.4 34,850 63 118 245 67.4 0.0
Los Alamitos Boulevard south of Farquhar
Avenue 36,790 65 122 254 67.6 37,030 65 123 255 67.7 0.1
Bloomfield Street north of Cerritos Avenue 13,230 < 50 77 160 65.3 13,310 < 50 78 161 65.4 0.1
Bloomfield Street from Cerritos Avenue to
Katella Avenue 12,260 < 50 74 153 65.0 12,345 < 50 74 153 65.0 0.0
Denni Street north of Cerritos Avenue 8,390 < 50 < 50 96 62.4 8,470 < 50 < 50 96 62.4 0.0
Lexington Drive from Cerritos Avenue to
Katella Avenue 5,850 < 50 < 50 74 61.9 5,970 < 50 < 50 75 62.0 0.1
Moody Street north Cerritos Avenue 10,860 < 50 69 141 64.5 10,940 < 50 69 142 64.5 0.0
Walker Street north of Cerritos Avenue 16,440 < 50 88 185 66.3 16,600 < 50 89 186 66.3 0.0
Walker Street from Cerritos Avenue to
Katella Avenue 20,645 < 50 102 215 67.3 21,085 < 50 103 218 67.3 0.0
Valley View Street north of Cerritos Avenue 38,760 92 186 395 70.5 39,070 93 187 398 70.6 0.1
Valley View Street from Cerritos Avenue to
Katella Avenue 39,625 93 189 401 70.6 39,940 94 190 403 70.7 0.1
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-22
Table 4.11.M: Opening Year (2021) Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project
Roadway Segment
Without Project Traffic Conditions With Project Traffic Conditions
ADT
Centerline
to
70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
ADT
Centerline
to
70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to
60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Increase
from
Baseline
Condition
(dBA)
Valley View Street from Katella Avenue to
Orangewood Avenue 53,000 111 228 487 71.9 53,485 111 229 489 71.9 0.0
Valley View Street south of Orangewood
Avenue 43,810 99 202 429 71.1 44,300 100 203 432 71.1 0.0
Katella Avenue from I-605 Ramps to
Wallingsford Road 51,410 92 185 393 70.5 52,205 92 187 397 70.6 0.1
Katella Avenue from Wallingsford Road to
Los Alamitos Road 45,780 86 172 364 70.0 46,575 87 174 368 70.1 0.1
Katella Avenue from Los Alamitos Road to
Bloomfield Street 40,260 80 158 334 69.4 41,470 81 161 341 69.6 0.2
Katella Avenue from Bloomfield Street to
Denni Street/Lexington Drive 38,610 78 154 325 69.3 39,940 80 158 333 69.4 0.1
Katella Avenue from Denni Street/Lexington
Drive to Cottonwood Way 39,535 79 157 330 69.4 41,290 81 161 340 69.5 0.1
Katella Avenue from Cottonwood Way to
Siboney Street 40,305 80 159 335 69.4 41,875 82 162 343 69.6 0.2
Katella Avenue from Siboney Street to
Winners Circle 40,185 80 158 334 69.4 41,820 82 162 343 69.6 0.2
Katella Avenue from Winners Circle to
Walker Street 40,250 80 158 334 69.4 41,865 82 162 343 69.6 0.2
Katella Avenue from Walker Street to Valley
View Street 45,915 102 208 442 71.3 47,040 103 211 450 71.4 0.1
Katella Avenue east of Valley View Street 30,950 81 161 341 69.6 31,270 82 162 343 69.6 0.0
Siboney Street north of Katella Avenue 3,540 < 50 < 50 < 50 54.3 4,210 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.1 0.8
Winners Circle north of Katella Avenue 2,150 < 50 < 50 < 50 54.0 3,130 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.7 1.7
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
Note: Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
I-605 = Interstate 605
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-23
Table 4.11.N: Noise Impact Analysis
Receptor
No. Use
Exterior
Noise Level
Exterior
Noise Standard
Interior
Noise Level
Interior
Noise Standard
Exceed
Noise Standard?
(dBA CNEL)
R-1 Hotel 66.8 --1 42.8 45 No
R-2 Hotel 66.9 -- 42.9 45 No
R-3 Hotel 66.2 -- 42.2 45 No
R-4 Multifamily Residence 60.5 N/A2 36.5 45 No
R-5 Multifamily Residence 59.7 N/A 35.7 45 No
R-6 Multifamily Residence 57.4 N/A 33.4 45 No
R-7 Multifamily Residence 55.4 N/A 31.4 45 No
R-8 Commercial 69.5 -- 45.5 55 No
R-9 Commercial 66.7 -- 42.7 55 No
R-10 Commercial 63.4 -- 39.4 55 No
R-11 Movie Theater 59.8 -- 35.8 45 No
Source: Compiled by LSA (2019).
1 No exterior noise standard for this use.
2 N/A = Not Applicable. The multifamily residences are exempt from the City’s exterior noise standard because the balconies would be 6 ft in depth or less.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-24
Truck Delivery and Truck Unloading Activities. The proposed project would include two truck
loading docks, one on the northeast corner of the project site and the other on the southeastern
corner of the project site. Noise sources at loading docks may include maneuvering and idling trucks,
truck refrigeration units, forklifts, banging and clanging of equipment (i.e., handcarts and roll-up
doors), noise from public address systems, and voices of truck drivers and employees. Although a
typical truck unloading process takes an average of 15 to 20 minutes, the maximum loading and
unloading noise level for each truck delivery occurs in a much shorter time period (at most 5
minutes). In addition, maximum noise levels of slow-moving heavy and small trucks at the loading
areas range between 70 and 73 dBA at 50 ft. The maximum noise level associated with loading
docks is typically 76.5 dBA at 50 ft.
City of Cypress. The closest off-site residences in the City of Cypress (Noise Zone 2) are located
approximately 1,400 ft west of the proposed truck loading docks. At this distance, noise levels
generated from truck delivery and unloading activities would be attenuated by 28.5 dBA compared
to the noise levels at 50 ft from the source. The residences would also be shielded by intervening
buildings that would provide a minimum noise attenuation of 10 dBA. Noise associated with the on-
site truck delivery and unloading activities would be 38 dBA Lmax (i.e., 76.5 dBA - 28.5 dBA - 10.0
dBA= 38.0 dBA). This noise level would not exceed the City of Cypress daytime and nighttime
exterior 5-minute noise standard of 70 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively. Assuming an exterior-to-
interior reduction of 24 dBA with windows and doors closed based on the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Protective Noise Levels (1978) and standard
construction for Southern California (warm climate), interior noise levels at the closest residences to
the west of the loading docks would be 14 dBA Lmax (38 dBA – 24 dBA = 14 dBA). This noise level
would not exceed the City of Cypress daytime and nighttime interior 5-minute noise standard of 55
dBA and 45 dBA, respectively.
City of Los Alamitos. The closest residences and office/commercial uses in the City of Alamitos are
located approximately 415 ft and 200 ft south from the proposed truck loading docks, respectively.
At the distances of 415 ft and 200 ft, noise levels generated from the truck delivery and unloading
activities would be attenuated by 18.5 dBA and 12.5 dBA, respectively, compared to the noise levels
at 50 ft from the source. The residences would also be shielded by intervening buildings that would
provide a minimum noise attenuation of 10 dBA. Noise associated with the on-site truck delivery
and unloading activities would be 48 dBA Lmax (i.e., 76.5 dBA - 18.5 dBA - 10.0 dBA = 48.0 dBA) at the
closest residences and 64 dBA (76.5 dBA - 12.5 dBA = 64.0 dBA) at the closest office/commercial use.
Noise levels at the closest residences would not exceed the City of Los Alamitos daytime and
nighttime exterior 5-minute noise standard of 65 dBA and 60 dBA, respectively. Noise levels at the
closest office and commercial use would not exceed the City of Los Alamitos exterior 5-minute noise
standard of 65 dBA and 70 dBA, respectively. Assuming an exterior-to-interior reduction of 24 dBA
with windows and doors closed based on the USEPA’s Protective Noise Levels (1978) and standard
construction for Southern California (warm climate), interior noise levels would be 24 dBA Lmax (48
dBA – 24 dBA = 24 dBA) at the closest residences and 40 dBA (64 dBA – 24 dBA = 40 dBA) at the
closest office/commercial use. Noise levels would not exceed the City of Los Alamitos daytime and
nighttime interior 5-minute noise standard of 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively, for residences. In
addition, noise levels would not exceed the City of Los Alamitos interior 5-minute noise standard of
55 dBA for office and commercial uses.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-25
The proposed project would not require a substantial amount of truck deliveries and noise
generated by these activities is expected to be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed
project’s off-site noise impacts from on-site truck delivery and unloading activities would be less
than significant.
HVAC Equipment. The proposed project would require the use of rooftop heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) units for the proposed buildings. Noise generated from HVAC units could
impact sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project site by exceeding the City’s daytime and
nighttime exterior noise standard. However, noise levels from HVAC equipment would be minimized
with compliance with Section 3.11.100(b) in the City’s Municipal Code (Regulatory Compliance
Measure NOI-2), which requires that mechanical equipment in residential, commercial, and
industrial zoning districts be enclosed within a structure or completely screened from the view of
surrounding properties by the use of a fence or wall. Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which would
require the project Applicant/Developer to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, that on-site stationary noise sources, such as rooftop air
conditioners, compliance with City noise standards as stated in the City’s Municipal Code Sections
13-68 and 13-69 would further minimize noise generated from HVAC units. Therefore, the noise
levels generated by the proposed project’s HVAC equipment would be less than significant with
adherence to Section 3.11.100(b) and Sections 13-68 and 13-69 in the City’s Municipal Code.
Trash Pick-Up/Compactor Operations. The proposed project would have trash pick-up at various
locations on the project site. The multifamily residential building would include a trash compactor
in a fully enclosed and dedicated room inside the building. Therefore, this noise analysis evaluates
noise generated at trash pick-up locations at various locations on the project site only because noise
generated from the trash compactor would not result in noise impacts. Trash pick-up activities
would last approximately 3 minutes and would generate a maximum noise level of 73.4 dBA Lmax at
50 ft.
City of Cypress. The closest residences in the City of Cypress (Noise Zone 2) are located
approximately 950 ft west of the nearest proposed trash pick-up area on the project site. At this
distance, noise levels generated from trash pick-up operations would be attenuated by 25.4 dBA
compared to the noise levels at 50 ft from the source. The residences would be shielded by
intervening buildings that would provide a minimum noise attenuation of 10 dBA. Noise associated
with trash pick-up would be 38 dBA Lmax (i.e., 73.4 dBA – 25.4 dBA – 10.0 dBA= 38.0 dBA). This noise
level would not exceed the City of Cypress daytime and nighttime exterior 5-minute noise standards
of 65 dBA and 60 dBA, respectively. Assuming an exterior-to-interior reduction of 24 dBA with
windows and doors closed based on the USEPA’s Protective Noise Levels (1978) and standard
construction for Southern California (warm climate), interior noise levels would be 14 dBA Lmax (38
dBA – 24 dBA = 14 dBA). This noise level would not exceed the City of Cypress daytime and
nighttime interior 5-minute noise standard of 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively.
City of Los Alamitos. The closest residences and office/commercial uses in the City of Los Alamitos
are located approximately 415 ft and 220 ft from the nearest proposed trash pick-up areas. At the
distance of 415 ft and 220 ft, noise levels generated from trash pick-up operations would be
attenuated by 18.4 dBA and 12.4 dBA, respectively, compared to the noise levels at 50 ft from the
source. The residences would be shielded by intervening buildings that would provide a minimum
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-26
noise attenuation of 10 dBA. Noise associated with trash pick-up would be 45 dBA Lmax (i.e., 73.4
dBA – 18.4 dBA – 10.0 dBA = 45.0 dBA) at the closest residences and 61 dBA Lmax (i.e., 73.4 dBA –
12.4 dBA = 61.0 dBA) at the closest office/commercial uses. Noise levels at the closest residence
would not exceed the City of Los Alamitos daytime and nighttime exterior 5-minute noise standard
of 65 dBA and 60 dBA, respectively. Noise levels at the closest office and commercial use would not
exceed the City of Los Alamitos exterior 5-minute noise standard of 65 dBA and 70 dBA,
respectively. Assuming an exterior-to-interior reduction of 24 dBA with windows and doors closed
based on the USEPA’s Protective Noise Levels (1978) and standard construction for Southern
California (warm climate), interior noise levels would be 21 dBA Lmax (45 dBA – 24 dBA = 21 dBA) at
the closest residence and 37 dBA (61 dBA – 24 dBA = 37 dBA) at the closest office/commercial use.
Noise levels would not exceed the City of Los Alamitos daytime and nighttime interior 5-minute
noise standard of 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively, for residences. In addition, noise levels would
not exceed the City of Los Alamitos interior 5-minute noise standard of 55 dBA for office and
commercial uses.
The proposed project would be required to comply with Section 3.10.070(C) of the City’s Municipal
Code, which limits trash collection and deliveries in a commercial zoning district to the hours of 5:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. For commercial zoning districts that are within 200 ft of
residential zoning districts, trash collection is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday (Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-3). Therefore, noise generated from the
proposed project’s trash collection would be less than significant.
Surface Parking Lot Activities. The proposed project would include designated surface parking
areas. Instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by parking activities include car door
slamming, engine starting up, cars passing, and conversations in parking areas could be an
annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Peak noise levels generated by parking lot activities can
range from 61.4 dBA to 74 dBA Lmax at 25 ft.
City of Cypress. The closest residences in the City of Cypress (Noise Zone 2) are located
approximately 880 ft west from the nearest proposed hotel parking lots on the project site. At the
distance of 880 ft, noise levels generated from parking activities would be attenuated by 30.9 dBA
compared to the noise levels at 25 ft from the source. Noise levels generated by parking activities
would reach 43.1 dBA Lmax (i.e., 74 dBA – 30.9 dBA = 43.1 dBA). This noise level would not exceed
the City of Cypress daytime and nighttime exterior maximum noise standards of 80 dBA and 75 dBA,
respectively. Assuming an exterior-to-interior reduction of 24 dBA with windows and doors closed
based on the USEPA’s Protective Noise Levels (1978) and standard construction for Southern
California (warm climate), interior noise levels would be 19.1 dBA Lmax (43.1 dBA – 24 dBA = 19.1
dBA). This noise level would not exceed the City of Cypress daytime and nighttime maximum interior
noise standards of 65 dBA and 55 dBA, respectively.
City of Los Alamitos. The closest residences and office/commercial uses in the City of Los Alamitos
are located approximately 388 ft and 145 ft south of the nearest proposed parking lots on the
project site. At the distances of 388 ft and 145 ft, noise levels generated from parking activities
would be attenuated by 23.8 dBA and 15.3 dBA, respectively, compared to the noise levels at 25 ft
from the source. Noise levels generated by parking activities would reach 50.2 dBA Lmax (74 dBA –
23.8 dBA = 50.2 dBA) at the closest residences and 58.7 dBA Lmax (74 dBA – 15.3 dBA = 58.7 dBA) at
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-27
the closest office/commercial use. Noise levels at the closest residences would not exceed the City
of Los Alamitos daytime and nighttime maximum exterior noise standards of 75 dBA and 70 dBA,
respectively. Noise levels at the closest office and commercial uses would not exceed the City of Los
Alamitos exterior maximum noise standards of 75 dBA and 80 dBA, respectively. Assuming an
exterior-to-interior reduction of 24 dBA with windows and doors closed based on the USEPA’s
Protective Noise Levels (1978) and standard construction for Southern California (warm climate),
interior noise levels would be 26.2 dBA Lmax (50.2 dBA – 24 dBA = 26.2 dBA) at the closest residences
and 34.7 dBA Lmax (58.7 dBA – 24 dBA = 34.7 dBA) at the closest office/commercial uses. Noise levels
would not exceed the City of Los Alamitos daytime and nighttime maximum interior noise standards
of 65 dBA and 55 dBA, respectively, for residences. In addition, noise levels would not exceed the
City of Los Alamitos maximum interior noise standards of 65 dBA for office and commercial uses.
Therefore, noise from parking lot activities under the proposed project would be less than
significant.
With adherence to the regulatory standards outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measures NOI-1,
NOI-2, and NOI-3, the noise levels of these stationary activities have the potential to exceed
applicable noise standards for the Cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos. However, with the
incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, impacts to ambient noise levels in the area would be
reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, impacts related to
operational noise from stationary sources would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.11.2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activity can result in varying
degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the
affected structures, and soil type. Ground-borne vibration from construction activities associated
with the proposed project would cause intermittent and temporary vibration events. Construction
activities during the site preparation, grading, and paving phase would have the potential to
generate ground-borne vibration. Construction equipment that would generate vibration levels
during these phases of construction would include pile driving, large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and
jack hammers. Pile driving using the Geopiers system would generate a vibration level of
95 vibration velocity decibels (VdB) (0.22 peak particle velocity [PPV] inches per second [inch/sec])
at 15 ft. Ground-borne vibration levels generated from large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and jack
hammers during project construction were estimated using reference vibration levels from the FTA’s
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and
jack hammers would generate a vibration level of 87 VdB (0.087 PPV [inch/sec]), 86 VdB (0.076 PPV
[inch/sec]), and 79 VdB (0.035 PPV [inch/sec]), respectively.
Table 4.11.O show the vibration levels at the closest residential, church, office, and commercial
building from each type of construction equipment. Other buildings in the vicinity of the project site
are located further away and would experience lower vibration levels. As shown in Table 4.11.O,
vibration levels generated during project construction would not result in a community annoyance
because vibration levels would not exceed the FTA community annoyance threshold of 84 VdB for
office and commercial uses, 78 VdB for residences during daytime hours, and 75 VdB for
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-28
Table 4.11.O: Construction Vibration Levels
Land Use Direction Equipment/
Reference
Vibration
Level (VdB)
Reference
Vibration
Level
(PPV)
Reference
Vibration
Distance (ft)
Distance
(ft)1
Maximum
Vibration
Level
(VdB)
Maximum
Vibration
Level
(PPV)
Commercial West
Pile Driving1 95 0.220 15 170 63 0.006
Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 25 155 63 0.006
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 25 155 62 0.005
Jack Hammer 79 0.035 25 155 55 0.002
Church West
Pile Driving1 95 0.220 15 465 50 0.001
Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 25 465 49 0.001
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 25 465 48 0.001
Jack Hammer 79 0.035 25 465 41 0.000
Residential West
Pile Driving1 95 0.220 15 900 42 0.000
Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 25 890 40 0.000
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 25 890 39 0.000
Jack Hammer 79 0.035 25 890 32 0.000
Office/
Commercial South
Pile Driving1 95 0.220 15 220 60 0.004
Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 25 130 66 0.008
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 25 130 65 0.006
Jack Hammer 79 0.035 25 130 58 0.003
Residential South
Pile Driving1 95 0.220 15 425 51 0.001
Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 25 350 53 0.002
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 25 350 52 0.001
Jack Hammer 79 0.035 25 350 45 0.001
Commercial East
Pile Driving1 95 0.220 15 480 50 0.001
Large Bulldozers 87 0.089 25 65 75 0.021
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 25 65 74 0.018
Jack Hammer 79 0.035 25 65 67 0.008
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2019).
Note: The FTA-recommended building damage threshold is 94 VdB (0.2 PPV [inch/sec]) at the receiving structure or building.
1 Piles would be installed using the Geopiers system.
ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
inch/sec = inch/inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
institutional land uses. In addition, vibration levels would not result in building damage because
vibration levels would not exceed the FTA’s damage threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 PPV [inch/sec]) and
nearby buildings were observed to be constructed of non-engineered timber and masonry. The
project construction contractor would be required implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to further
minimize construction-related vibration. Therefore, ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise
levels generated by project construction activities would be less than significant with the
implementation of mitigation measures.
The proposed project would not generate ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels
during long-term operations. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on
the adjacent roadway (Katella Avenue) are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires
and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Therefore, operation of the
proposed project would not result in excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels,
and no mitigation is required.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-29
Threshold 4.11.3: 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 project site is the JFTB Los Alamitos, located
approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site. 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 project site
is within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, but outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JFTB Los
Alamitos. Although the project site 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
northwest of the project site. According to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, the
project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Long Beach Municipal
Airport. Therefore, aircraft noise generated from the two closest airports would not expose people
residing or working on the project site to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public
airport. This noise impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.11.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to the implementation of mitigation measures, the project could potentially result in the
generation of a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
established noise standards during construction and operation. The project would result in less than
significant impacts related to ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise levels and to the
exposure of people to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip.
4.11.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.11.7.1 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 construction-
related activities to between the hours 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction
shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays
or a federal holiday.
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-2 Mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units in
residential, commercial, and industrial 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-30
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-3 Trash collection and compacting shall be limited to
between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday in commercial zoning districts and
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday in commercial zoning districts that are
within 200 feet of residential zoning districts, consistent
with Section 3.10.070(C) of the City of Cypress Municipal
Code.
4.11.7.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
construction contractor shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director of Community
Development, or designee, the following:
• Construction contracts shall specify that all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be
equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers and other State required noise attenuation
devices.
• Construction noise reduction methods such as
shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary
acoustic barriers around stationary construction
noise sources, maximizing the distance between
construction equipment staging areas and occupied
residential areas, and use of electric air compressors
and similar power tools, rather than diesel
equipment, shall be used where feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction
equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is
directed away from noise-sensitive receptors.
• All construction entrances shall clearly post
construction hours, allowable workdays, and the
phone number of the job superintendent. This will
allow surrounding owners and residents to contact
the job superintendent with concerns. If the
developer receives a noise related complaint,
appropriate corrective actions shall be implemented
and a report taken indicating the action with a copy
of the report provided to the reporting party upon
request.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-31
Mitigation Measure NOI-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director of Community
Development, or designee, that on-site stationary noise
sources, such as rooftop air conditioners, shall not
exceed City noise standards as stated within the City’s
Municipal Code Sections 13-68 and 13-69.
4.11.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
4.11.9 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 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 project site and any sensitive receptors in the
immediately surrounding area.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Construction Noise. Construction activities associated with the proposed project and other
construction projects in the area may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the area. However,
construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to each construction site.
Construction noise for the proposed project was determined to be less than significant with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires compliance with the construction
hour restrictions specified in the Specific Plan. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the project
site could result in elevated construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the area surrounding
the project site. However, each project would be required to comply with the applicable city’s
Municipal Code limitations on construction. Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would
be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Operational Stationary Source Noise. Long-term stationary noise sources associated with the
development at the proposed project, 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. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with the city’s
noise level standards and include mitigation measures if standards are exceeded. Therefore,
cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.11 Noise.docx (02/03/20) 4.11-32
Operational Traffic Source Noise Impacts. According to the USEPA’s, 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 significant portion of the
noise increase must be due to the proposed project.
Cumulative noise impacts would occur as a result of increased traffic volumes on local roadways due
to future growth in the vicinity of the project site. A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic
noise increase could be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds the perception
level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. A cumulative significant impact would occur when the
proposed project and related projects create a barely perceptible noise level increase of 3 dBA.
The Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2019 [Appendix J of this Draft EIR]) prepared for the proposed
project includes a cumulative analysis of traffic impacts under the project opening year (2021)
conditions, based on all of the related projects identified in Table 4.A, in Chapter 4.0, Existing
Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this Draft EIR. Trip generation
estimates for the related projects were obtained from the available approved traffic studies or from
calculations based on applicable Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) trip generation rates.
Table D of the Traffic Impact Analysis summarizes the list of related projects and their respective trip
generation estimates. Trip distribution for the related projects is based on the available approved
traffic studies or has been estimated by LSA. Figure 9 in the Traffic Impact Analysis shows the
locations of the related projects. Figure 10 in the Traffic Analysis shows the trips associated with the
related projects at the study intersections.
The information in that cumulative traffic analysis was used to determine the “No Project”
cumulative baseline for analyzing the proposed project’s traffic noise impacts in 2021, as shown in
Table 4.11.M. Table 4.11.M further shows that project-related traffic would result in small (1.7 dBA
or less) noise level increases along roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site under the
project opening year (2021) condition. Therefore, none of the roadway segments in the vicinity of
the project site 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.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-1
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section describes the existing population and housing characteristics in both the City of Cypress
(City) and the County of Orange and evaluates the potential impacts of the Cypress City Center
project (proposed project) on population and housing growth. This section is based on sources of
demographic information provided by various agencies, including the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), the Cypress General Plan’s Housing Element (2013), the
California Department of Finance, and the United States Census Bureau.
4.12.1 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 build out. City goals and policies regarding population and housing
were used to evaluate potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed
project.
4.12.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.12.2.1 Population and Housing Trends in the City and County
The City is characterized by urban areas, including single-family and multi-family residential uses and
concentrations of retail, office, and industrial uses.
In its existing condition, the approximately 13-acre project site is characterized by a paved parking
lot, with existing light poles and various electrical utility boxed and lines, and therefore, does not
contain any population or housing.
SCAG, the regional planning agency for the six-county Southern California region that includes Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial counties, is responsible for
preparing a regional growth forecast in conjunction with its efforts to prepare a Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for its regional planning area. The
SCAG RTP/SCS Growth Forecast is meant to provide a common foundation for regional and local
planning, policymaking, and infrastructure provision within the SCAG region. These projections are
used as a reference point for discussing population and housing growth throughout this section.
The growth forecast for the City and County in the SCAG RTP/SCS Growth Forecast is provided below
in Table 4.12.A. These projections are used as a reference point for discussing population and
housing growth throughout this section.
4.12.2.2 Population
As shown in Table 4.12.A, according to the SCAG RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, the City’s population
was estimated to grow by approximately 0.6 percent (approximately 0.08 percent per year)
between 2012 and 2020. The County was estimated to experience a higher population growth rate
of approximately 6.5 percent (approximately 0.8 percent per year) increase between 2012 and 2020.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-2
Table 4.12.A: 2016 SCAG Population and Housing Forecasts (2012–2040)
2012 2020
2012–2020
Increase
% Change
2012–2020 2040
2020–2040
Increase
% Change
2020–2040
2012–2040
Increase
Total Population
City of
Cypress 48,500 48,800 300 0.6% 49,700 900 1.8% 1,200
Orange
County 3,071,600 3,271,100 199,500 6.5% 3,461,500 190,400 5.8% 389,900
Total Households
City of
Cypress 15,700 15,900 200 1.3% 16,300 400 2.5% 600
Orange
County 999,500 1,074,700 75,200 7.5% 1,152,300 77,600 7.2% 152,800
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction. Website:
https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2016_2040RTPSCS_FinalGrowthForecastbyJurisdiction.pdf (accessed December 9, 2019).
RTP/SCS = Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments
The City’s population is anticipated to increase by approximately 1.8 percent between 2020 and
2040, while the County’s population is expected to grow by approximately 5.8 percent between
2020 and 2040. According to the State of California Department of Finance population estimates,
the City’s population in January 2019 was 49,833.1 Therefore, the City’s population growth between
2012 and 2019 (2.7 percent) appears to have substantially exceeded the growth forecast by SCAG
for that period (0.6 percent).
4.12.2.3 Age Characteristics
A city’s age distribution often shapes its housing demand because different age groups prefer
different types of housing. According to the City of Cypress Housing Element, the City’s population is
aging. Table 4.12.B, below provides a comparison of the City’s and County’s population by age group
using data from the 2013–2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate. According to
the ACS data, the City’s median age is 41.7 years, compared with 40.4 years from the 2008–2012
ACS 5-year estimate.2 This increase in median age is consistent with County, State, and national
trends.
1 California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties, and the State
2011–2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/
Estimates/e-5/ (accessed December 27, 2019).
2 United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2008–2012 5-Year Estimate Table S0101.
Website: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_
5YR_S0101&prodType=table (accessed December 27, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-3
Table 4.12.B: City of Cypress and Orange County Age Characteristics (2013-2017)
Age Group City of Cypress Orange County
Persons Percentage Persons Percentage
Under 18 Years 10,793 22.0% 716,767 22.7%
18 to 24 Years 4,819 9.8% 306,891 9.7%
25 to 44 Years 11,502 23.4% 869,275 27.6%
45 to 64 Years 15,099 30.8% 836,438 26.4%
65 and Over 6,895 14.0% 426,445 13.5%
Total 49,108 100% 3,155,816 100%
Median Age 41.7 37.5
Source: United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2013-2017 5-Year Estimate Table S0101. Website: https://factfinder.
census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_5YR_S0101&prodType=table (accessed December 27, 2019).
As shown in Table 4.12.B, the City and County have similar proportions of residents under the age of
18 (22.0 percent and 22.7 percent, respectively) and between 18 and 24 years (9.8 percent and
9.7 percent, respectively). The City has a lower percentage of residents between the ages of 25 and
44 (23.4 percent, compared to 27.6 percent for the County). The City has a higher percentage of
residents between the ages of 45 and 64 (30.8 percent, compared to 26.4 percent for the County)
and a slightly higher percentage of residents older than age 65 (14.0 percent, compared to
13.5 percent for the County) than the County. Approximately 14 percent of Cypress residents are
over age 65, an approximately 1 percent increase compared to the 2008–2012 ACS 5-year estimate.
Households.1 As shown in Table 4.12.A, the City is anticipated to experience an approximately
1.3 percent (approximately 0.2 percent per year) increase in households between 2012 and 2020,
while the number of households in the City is anticipated to increase approximately 2.5 percent
between 2020 and 2040. The County was forecast to experience an approximately 7.5 percent
(approximately 0.9 percent per year) increase in households between 2012 and 2020, followed by a
7.2 percent increase in households between 2020 and 2040. By forecasting a greater percentage of
household growth than population growth, the SCAG growth forecast projects a decrease in the
average household size in both the City and the County in coming years.
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting
4.12.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations applicable to the proposed project.
4.12.3.2 State Regulations
There are no State regulations applicable to the proposed project.
1 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-4
4.12.3.3 Regional Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments. As the designated metropolitan planning
organization (MPO)1 for the six-county subregion that includes Orange County, SCAG prepares
several plans to address regional growth, including the RTP/SCS. The regional growth forecasts
undertaken by SCAG are developed for three planning horizons: 2020, 2035, and 2040. 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.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS was
adopted on April 7, 2016. The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility
and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. On November 7, 2019,
SCAG’s Regional Council approved the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS (also known as the Draft Connect SoCal
plan) for public review and comment. The Draft 2020-2045 RTP/SCS takes into account demographic
and economic changes that have occurred since the adoption of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, including a
declining birth rate, an aging population, and domestic outmigration. The RTP/SCS charts a course
for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and
sustainably. The long-term vision will address regional transportation and land use challenges and
opportunities.
The RTP/SCS includes:
• Visions, policies, and performance measures;
• Forecasts (e.g., population, households, employment, land use, and housing needs);
• A financial plan;
• A list of projects (to be initiated and/or completed by 2040); and
• An analysis of priority focus areas (e.g., goods movement and active transportation).
Regional Growth Forecast. The regional growth forecasts undertaken by SCAG are developed in
5-year increments through 2040. The 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecasts were adopted in
conjunction with the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS on April 7, 2016. SCAG recently released the 2020–2045
RTP/SCS Draft Growth Forecasts in conjunction with its efforts to prepare and adopt the 2020–2045
RTP/SCS. The projected growth in population, household, and employment is the data relied upon
during development of SCAG’s RTP, SCS, and the RHNA. Consistency with the growth forecast at the
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.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-5
subregional level is one criterion that SCAG uses in exercising its federal mandate to review
“regionally significant” development projects for conformity with regional plans.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Local jurisdictions are required by State law (Government
Code Section 65580 et seq.) to plan for their fair share of projected housing construction needs in
their region. Housing unit construction goals are set by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and allocated to cities through regional planning agencies such as
SCAG. This is called the RHNA. Future housing need refers to the proportion of the region’s future
housing needs allocated to a community. Each jurisdiction’s future housing need is calculated in
terms of four factors: (1) the number of units needed to accommodate forecast global household
growth; (2) the number of units needed to replace demolition due to 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 January 1, 2014, and October 1, 2021 (the last adopted
RHNA period) was established by SCAG at 308 units. The RHNA target number was based on
projected household growth and the resulting need for construction of additional housing units
allocated over a 5- to 7-year planning period (2014–2021). This 308-unit share was divided into the
following income groups according to median family income (MFI) as shown in Table 4.12.C, below:
Table 4.12.C: City of Cypress Regional Housing Need Allocation (2014–2021)
Income Level Percent of Area MFI No. of Units
Very Low 0–50% 71
Low 51–80% 50
Moderate 81–120% 56
Above Moderate >120% 131
Source: City of Cypress 2014–2021 Housing Element Technical Report (2013), Table 2-25; SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2014–2021.
4.12.3.4 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
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.
In August 2013, the 2014–2021 Housing Element was adopted 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
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-6
meet community needs. The following goals and policies are found in the City’s Housing Element
and are applicable to the proposed project:
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.
Policy HOU-3.6: Encourage use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing
housing.
Goal HOU-4: Ensure the provision of adequate and appropriate housing sites through
appropriate land use, zoning, and specific plan designations to accommodate
the City’s share of regional housing needs.
Policy HOU-6.3: Encourage the provision of adequate housing to meet the needs of families of
all sizes.
4.12.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for population and housing impacts used in this analysis are consistent with
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The
proposed project may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to population and
housing if it would:
Threshold 4.12.1: 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)?
Threshold 4.12.2: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
4.12.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.12.1: 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)?
4.12.5.1 Direct Growth
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the development of a four-story
residential component with 251 market-rate apartment units. According to the 2010 Census, the
average household size in the City was 3.02 persons per household. Based on that estimate, the
proposed 251 apartment units would generate approximately 758 new residents. However, applying
the City’s average household size is likely to overestimate the population growth that would be
attributable to the proposed project because higher density housing tends to attract smaller
households. According to the United States Census Bureau’s 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS),
the average household size in structures that have 50 or more housing units (the highest housing
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-7
density type evaluated in the AHS) in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA)—which includes Cypress—was 1.99 persons. By comparison, the 2017 AHS indicates
that the average household size for single-family detached housing units in the Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Anaheim MSA was 3.12 persons (more than 1.5 times the average household size for higher
density housing). According to the 2010 5-Year ACS, 62.4 percent of Cypress’s occupied housing
units were single-family detached housing. In contrast, only 7 percent of the City’s occupied housing
units were in structures with 50 or more units during the same period. Therefore, the City’s average
household size is likely greatly skewed toward lower density housing that would result in larger
households. Although the proposed project is likely to generate less than 758 new residents, the
City’s average household size has been applied to present a conservative analysis.
The project site is included in Planning Area 5 and is designated as Professional Office in the
Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Specific Plan; no residential uses were
designated within Planning Area 5. Therefore, any population and housing growth anticipated as a
result of the proposed project was not previously envisioned in the Specific Plan area. The proposed
Specific Plan Amendment would divide Planning Area 5 into two planning areas (5A and 5B), with
Planning Area 5B consisting of the project site. Land uses within Planning Area 5B would be
designated for mixed-use commercial residential development.
As shown in Table 4.12.A, SCAG projects that the City of Cypress’ population will increase by 1,200
from 2012 (48,500 persons) to 2040 (49,700 persons) and that the number of households will
increase by 600 from 2012 (15,700 households) to 2040 (16,300 households). Because housing was
not envisioned on the project site, the proposed project would increase the Cypress population by
approximately 758 net new residents and the amount of housing units by 251 new dwelling units
not previously assumed in the in the 2016 SCAG projections. The estimated increase in population
from the proposed project accounts for 63.2 percent of the City’s projected population growth from
2012 to 2040 and 41.8 percent of the City’s projected household growth from 2012 to 2040.
Moreover, the City’s estimated population was 49,833 in January 2019 according to Department of
Finance population estimates. As such, the City’s existing estimated population has already
exceeded SCAG projections of 49,700 persons in 2040. The addition of 758 residents represents a
population increase of approximately 1.5 percent over existing conditions as of January 2019. In
addition, the estimated number of households in Cypress was 16,609 in 2019 according to
Department of Finance housing estimates, which has also exceeded SCAG projections of 16,300
households by 2040; the addition of 251 units represents an increase of approximately 1.5 percent
over existing conditions as of January 2019. However, the increases in population and housing
resulting from the proposed project are considered significant because they would represent a
substantial unplanned increase in population as discussed below.
SCAG recently updated its regional forecast in conjunction with its efforts to prepare and adopt the
2020–2045 RTP/SCS. Growth forecasts included in the Draft 2020–2045 RTP/SCS indicate that the
City’s population is projected to grow by 1,700 persons from 2016 to 2045 and the projected
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-8
population in the City is 51,300 persons in 2045.1 If SCAG’s updated growth forecast was used in this
analysis instead of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, the population increase of 758
residents as a result of the proposed project would be within these updated population projections.
Additionally, SCAG is in the process of developing the 6th cycle RHNA allocation plan, which will
cover the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029, which is planned for adoption by
SCAG in October 2020. SCAG’s Draft RHNA Allocation Methodology, which is designed to allocate
the final regional determination from HCD of 1,341,827 housing units by income categories to 197
local jurisdictions in the region was approved by the SCAG Regional Council at its meeting on
November 7, 2019, and is under HCD review. According to SCAG’s Draft RHNA Methodology
Estimate Tool developed by SCAG pursuant to the Draft RHNA Allocation Methodology, the City of
Cypress has a total estimated RHNA of 3,967 units (1,159 Very Low income, 662 Low Income, 629
Moderate Income, and 1,518 Above Moderate Income).2 Therefore, the total RHNA for the City of
Cypress would be much larger than the projected housing growth included in the Draft 2020–2045
RTP/SCS growth forecasts that indicate that the City’s housing is projected to grow by 800 units from
2016 to 2045.3 The market-rate housing units included in the proposed project would help the City
meet the need for Above Moderate Income units included in the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. Because
there is a need for additional housing over SCAG projections because the City is required by State
law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.) to plan for its fair share of projected housing
construction needs in the City, the population growth as a result of the proposed project would not
constitute substantial unplanned population growth in the area.
For all these reasons, the proposed project would not directly induce substantial unplanned
population growth. Therefore, the proposed project’s direct impact on population growth would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
4.12.5.2 Indirect Growth
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes approximately 20,800 sf of retail uses,
approximately 43,175 sf of movie theater uses, and approximately 75,600 sf of hotel uses. The
proposed commercial/retail establishments would increase employment in the City, but the number
of employees would not be substantial due to the limited size of the commercial/retail area. The
movie theater and hotel uses are not expected to generate a substantial number of new employees
considering the limited capacity of the hotel (120 rooms) and the limited number of jobs necessary
for movie theater operations. In addition, it is anticipated that most of the new employees of the
new establishments already live in the project vicinity and, in any event, virtually all of the
employees would commute to work rather than moving to the project area. Therefore, the
1 SCAG. 2019a. Current Context, Demographics, and Growth Forecast Technical Report: Draft for Public
Review and Comment. Website: https://connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/dConnectSoCal_
Demographics-And-Growth-Forecast.pdf (accessed December 12, 2019).
2 SCAG. 2019b. Regional Council Approved Draft RNA Methodology Estimate Tool. Website: http://www.
scag.ca.gov/programs/Documents/RHNA/SCAG-RHNA-Methodology-Worksheet-Nov19-Adopted.xlsx
(accessed December 31, 2019).
3 SCAG. 2019a. Current Context, Demographics, and Growth Forecast Technical Report: Draft for Public
Review and Comment. Website: https://connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/dConnectSoCal_
Demographics-And-Growth-Forecast.pdf (accessed December 12, 2019) .
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-9
proposed project would not indirectly induce population growth related to the inclusion of
commercial/retail uses.
The proposed project would not propose new roadways but would extend infrastructure (e.g., water
facilities, sewer facilities, and energy services) to and within the project site. However, this
infrastructure would not induce additional population growth because it would only serve the
proposed project’s residents, patrons, and employees and would not provide additional
infrastructure capacity for other projects. Therefore, the development of the proposed project
would not indirectly induce substantial population growth, and indirect impacts would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.12.2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. In the existing condition, the project site is a paved parking lot and therefore, does not
contain any population or housing. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or
populations on the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the displacement of
substantial numbers of existing people or housing. No mitigation is required.
4.12.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and
housing.
4.12.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are required.
4.12.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and
housing.
4.12.9 Cumulative Impacts
The purpose of this section is to evaluate any additional incremental impact that the proposed
project is likely to cause over and above the combined impacts of recently approved and proposed
projects in the City. The impact area used to assess potential cumulative population and housing
impacts is the City of Cypress because the proposed project would affect population, housing, and
employment within the City. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the 17
related projects identified in Table 4.A, Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting,
Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, would contribute to population and
housing growth in the project vicinity. The related projects would include 625 residential units that
could be constructed in several cities within Orange County, including 440 residential units in the
City of Cypress. According to the 2010 Census, the average household size in Orange County was
2.99 persons (which is similar to the City of Cypress’ average household size of 3.02). Based on the
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-10
County’s average household size, and an average household size of 1.8 persons 1 for the senior
housing units included in the Barton Place Mixed Use Project (Ovation) and 1 person per bed for the
assisted living facility included in the Barton Place Mixed Use Project (Westmont). The combined
construction of the related residential units would yield a total of approximately 1,338 new County
residents. Construction of the proposed project and the related projects would result in a
cumulative population increase of 2,095 new County residents (758 residents [proposed project] +
1,338 residents [related projects]).
The addition of 2,095 new residents would represent a small fraction (0.54 percent) of SCAG’s
forecasted County increase of 389,900 between 2012 and 2040 as shown in Table 4.12.A. However,
if the proposed project and all 440 of the related residential units in the City of Cypress were
constructed, the cumulative population increase of 1,552 residents in the City of Cypress (758
residents [proposed project] + 794 residents [related projects]) would be greater than the City’s
projected population increase of 1,200 between 2012 and 2040 as shown in Table 4.12.A utilizing
the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts.
As discussed above, SCAG recently updated its regional forecast in conjunction with its efforts to
prepare and adopt the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. Growth forecasts included in the Draft 2020–2045
RTP/SCS indicate that the City’s population is projected to grow by 1,700 persons from 2016 to
2045.2 If SCAG’s updated growth forecast was used in this analysis instead of the 2016–2040
RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, the City’s cumulative population increase of 1,552 residents, described
above, would be within these updated population projections.
Additionally, as discussed above, according to SCAG’s Draft RHNA Methodology Estimate Tool, the
City of Cypress has a total estimated RHNA of 3,967 units (1,159 Very Low income, 662 Low Income,
629 Moderate Income, and 1,518 Above Moderate Income).3 Therefore, the total RHNA for the City
of Cypress would be much larger than the projected housing growth included in the Draft 2020–
2045 RTP/SCS growth forecasts that indicate that the City’s housing is projected to grow by 800
units from 2016 to 2045.4 The housing units included in the proposed project and related projects
would help the City meet the need for the 3,967 units included in the 6th cycle RHNA allocation.
Because there is a need for additional housing over SCAG projections because the City is required by
State law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.) to plan for its fair share of projected housing
construction needs in its region, the population growth as a result of the proposed project would
1 Due to the older demographics associated with a senior residential community, the Barton Place EIR
assumed that approximately 80 percent of the 244 units would be occupied by two residents, with the
other 20 percent of the residential units anticipated to be occupied by one resident, for an average
household size of approximately 1.8 persons per unit.
2 SCAG. 2019a. Current Context, Demographics, and Growth Forecast Technical Report: Draft for Public
Review and Comment. Website: https://connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/dConnectSoCal_
Demographics-And-Growth-Forecast.pdf (accessed December 12, 2019).
3 SCAG. 2019b. Regional Council Approved Draft RNA Methodology Estimate Tool. Website: http://www.
scag.ca.gov/programs/Documents/RHNA/SCAG-RHNA-Methodology-Worksheet-Nov19-Adopted.xlsx
(accessed December 31, 2019).
4 SCAG. 2019a. Current Context, Demographics, and Growth Forecast Technical Report: Draft for Public
Review and Comment. Website: https://connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/dConnectSoCal_
Demographics-And-Growth-Forecast.pdf (accessed December 12, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-11
not constitute substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The related projects include a
variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational land uses. Some of the related
projects may include the installation or extension of roads or infrastructure. However, it is expected
that those infrastructure improvements would only serve the applicable related projects. Therefore,
it is not anticipated that the related projects would extend roads or other infrastructure into
previously undeveloped areas that would be available for future development, particularly given
that the project area is highly urbanized and largely built out.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project in combination with the related projects would not
result in a significant impact on population and housing because the increase in population that
would be generated by the proposed project and the related projects would not result in substantial
unplanned population growth. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project and the
related projects on population growth would be less than significant.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.12 Population and Housing.docx «02/06/20» 4.12-12
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-1
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section describes the public services providers within whose jurisdiction the Cypress City Center
project (proposed project) site is located and evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed
project on public services. This section is based on multiple data sources, including: written
correspondence and coordination with public service providers (Appendix I). 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) and Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD)
4.13.1 Methodology
Public service providers were sent a questionnaire requesting information regarding current service
provided to the project site and possible constraints or impacts to this service associated with
project buildout, which is anticipated to occur in 2022. The impact analyses are based on responses
to the questionnaires, data obtained through websites, and adopted planning documents of the
service providers. Correspondence with public service providers is included in Appendix I.
4.13.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.13.2.1 Fire Protection
The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is a Joint Powers Authority responsible for reducing loss of
life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. The OCFA is a regional fire
service agency that serves 24 cities in Orange County (County) and all unincorporated areas in the
County. The OCFA protects over 1,984,758 residents from its 79 fire stations located throughout the
County. In addition, OCFA Reserve Firefighters work 10 stations throughout the County.1
In addition to providing fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials
response, wildland firefighting, technical rescue, and airport rescue firefighting services, the OCFA
provides a variety of public services, including the following:
• Receiving and dispatching emergency calls;
• Providing public education programs to schools, businesses, community associations, childcare
providers and other members of the community;
• Administering a Reserve Firefighter Program;
• Adopting and enforcing codes and ordinances relative to fire and life safety issues associated
with commercial, industrial, and residential development;
1 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2019a. Member Cities. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Partner
Cities. aspx (accessed December 20, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-2
• Maintaining a firefighting helicopter used for emergency responses throughout the year;
• Coordinating the inspection of all commercial buildings, investigating all fires, and enforcing
hazardous materials regulations;
• Working with developers and jurisdictional planning departments on development projects
impacting fire protection services, from conception through planning process approval;
• Conducting new construction inspections, fire safety inspections, and State Fire Marshal-
required inspections (including high rise, jail, board and care, and day care inspections), and
enforcing applicable fire codes and ordinances;
• Interacting with developers, architects, and engineers to meet the fire protection requirements
for buildings and developments by reviewing all architectural blue prints, development plans,
and proposals submitted in OCFA's jurisdiction;
• Conducting an inventory program of hazardous materials stored, handled, and used within
OCFA's jurisdiction, and maintaining related information on a data base accessible to all
emergency response agencies in the event of a major emergency;
• Conducting California Fire Code inspections, assists in reducing risks associated with the use of
hazardous materials in the community, and administering the State-mandated Risk
Management and Prevention program;
• Investigating fires to determine their cause, preparing arson and hazardous materials cases for
the district attorney, and initiating actions to recover costs for negligently caused fires; and
• Developing and maintaining a fire-safe corridor between the wildland and community
developments through fuel modifications and inspections.
The City of Cypress is located in Operations Division 7, which serves the cities of Buena Park,
Cypress, La Palma, and Stanton along with portions of several unincorporated communities.1
There is one OCFA fire station in the City (Fire Station No. 17, at 4991 Cerritos Avenue in Cypress).
Fire Station No. 17 is located approximately 0.4 mile northwest of the project site and would be the
first to the project site in the event of an emergency and would thus be designated as the “first-in”
station. Fire Station No. 17 is staffed by six captains, six engineers, six firefighter/paramedics, and six
firefighters and is equipped with a fire truck and paramedic engine. Fire Station No. 17 was
substantially rebuilt and expanded in 2012 with added capacity to accommodate the existing and
1 OCFA. 2019b. Operations Directory. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Departments/Operations
Directory/ Division7.aspx (accessed December 1, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-3
future fire protection and paramedic needs in the service area and has the equipment to handle
fires in five-story buildings. In 2018, the City of Cypress generated 3,218 calls for service.1
“Second call” stations are fire stations that support the “first-in” station. Fire Stations No. 2 and 84
would be designated as the “second call” stations to support Fire Station No. 17. Fire Station No. 2,
at 3642 Green Avenue in Los Alamitos, is approximately 3.0 miles southwest of the project site and
is staffed by three captains, three engineers, and three firefighters. Fire Station No. 2 is equipped
with a paramedic assessment unit engine. Fire Station No. 84, at 12191 Valley View Street in Garden
Grove, is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project site and is staffed by three captains, three
engineers, six firefighters, and six emergency trauma technicians. Fire Station No. 84 is equipped
with an ambulance and an engine.
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. In Fiscal Year 2017–2018, OCFA
responded to emergency calls within 7 minutes and 58 seconds 80 percent of the time across all
service areas.2 The shortfall is due to a sustained decrease of OCFA’s firefighter-to-resident ratio
covering the prior 10 years (on average 0.6 percent per year) and a 72 percent increase in call load.3
According to the OCFA, there are currently no plans for expanded services or facilities near the
project area.4
4.13.2.2 Police Protection
The Cypress Police Department (CPD) would serve the project site. Management and supervision of
the CPD is provided by 1 chief, 3 commanders, 1 civilian manager, 10 sergeants, and 1 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 23 civilian employees and numerous
volunteers.5 The current officer-to-resident ratio in 2019 is 1.0 CPD officer per 1,000 residents.
The services provided by the department include a detective bureau, canine teams, narcotics team,
vice and intelligence, motorcycle officers, Personnel & Training, Positive Actions thru Character
Education (P.A.C.E.) program, S.W.A.T. and a Lead Patrol Officer program. In addition, the
Department has established Community Policing, or Cypress Policing, as the philosophy for
providing public safety services.6
1 OCFA. 2019c. Station Statistics. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/Transparency/OCFA%20Annual
%20Report %202018.pdf (accessed December 1, 2019).
2 OCFA. 2019d. Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Adopted Budget. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/
Transparency/OCFA%202018-2019%20Adopted%20Budget.pdf (accessed December 1, 2019).
3 Ibid.
4 OCFA. 2019e. Response to Fire Service Questionnaire. Received December 9, 2019.
5 City of Cypress. 2017b. Cypress Police Department Overview. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/
government/departments/police/inside-cypress-pd/the-community-we-serve#overview (accessed
December 1, 2019).
6 Ibid.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-4
Police dispatch services for the City of Cypress 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 Beach Police Department, West-Comm serves a combined population of
approximately 90,000 and handles approximately 100,000 calls for service each year.1
4.13.2.3 Parks
Section 4.14, Recreation, provided later in this EIR, contains a detailed discussion related to parks
and recreational facilities within the City. There are currently a total of 20 developed public parks
within the City. According to the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General
Plan (2001), the City currently has a total supply of approximately 82 acres of park and recreational
facilities. However, the City recently added 2.9 acres of park space at the former Mackay School site,
which increased its park space to 84.9 acres.2 The City is also currently in the process of planning a
new approximately 10-acre park at the southeastern corner of Lexington Drive and Cerritos Avenue,
with an expected opening date of 2021.3
4.13.2.4 Public Libraries
The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) system provides library services to the County, including
the City. OCPL operates 33 library branches across the County, including an outlet in the
Orangewood Children’s Home.4 The Cypress Library is located at 5331 Orange Avenue,
approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site. As of 2015, the Cypress Branch Library
consisted of a 15,000 sf facility with approximately 88,000 books, CDs, and videos.5 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 foot (sf) of library space per capita. 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 49,833.6
1 City of Cypress. 2017b. Cypress Police Department Overview. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/
government/departments/police/inside-cypress-pd/the-community-we-serve#overview (accessed
December 1, 2019).
2 City of Cypress. 2017a. Cypress City Council Breaks Ground at Mackay Park. January 23. Website:
http://www.cypressca.org/Home/Components/News/News/54/ (accessed December 31, 2019).
3 City of Cypress. 2019. Cypress Receives Donation of Over 8 Acres for New Park from Los Alamitos Race
Course, May 21, 2018. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/Home/Components/News/News/1158/
17?arch=1 (accessed December 31, 2019).
4 Orange County Public Libraries (OCPL). 2019a. About OCPL. Website: http://www.ocpl.org/services/about
(accessed December 18, 2019)
5 City of Cypress. 2015. Barton Place Final Environmental Impact Report. October.
6 California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties, and the State
2011–2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/
Estimates/e-5/ (accessed December 1, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-5
According to correspondence with the OCPL, dated December 26, 2019, the State American Library
Association or the County of Orange no longer sets quantitative standards for public library buildings
and the library demand standard of 0.2 sf of library space per capita is obsolete with the advent of
electronic access to library services.1 According to the OCPL, these standards no longer exist as
libraries in Orange County, are usually built by the City, and administered by the County to meet the
needs of the specific community. According to the OCPL, the Cypress library is at full capacity.2
It should also be noted that, according to the Public Services and Facilities Element of the Orange
County General Plan, the 0.2 sf 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.
4.13.2.5 Public Schools
The provision of education and school facilities in the City is the responsibility of the Cypress School
District (CSD) which served the City’s kindergarten through sixth-grade students and Anaheim Union
High School District (AUHSD), which serves the City’s junior high and high school districts (grades 7
through 12).
The CSD currently operates six elementary schools; five are located within Cypress and one is in
La Palma. The CSD’s 2018–2019 enrollment was 3,923.3 In addition, all of the CSD’s schools offer on-
site privately owned and operated childcare and preschool services.
The AUHSD encompasses 46 square miles and has schools in Anaheim, Cypress, Buena Park,
La Palma, and Stanton. According to correspondence with the AUHSD on December 20, 2019,
AUHSD is composed of 8 junior high, 8 high schools, and the Oxford Academy Hope School, and
Gilbert High School.4 AUHSD’s enrollment totaled 30,292 students in the 2018–2019 school year.5
The project site is within the attendance boundaries of the following schools: Frank Vessels
Elementary (0.7 mile northeast of the site), Lexington Junior High (1.5 mile northwest of the site),
and Cypress High School (1.2 mile northeast of the site). According to the AUHSD, both the
Lexington Junior High School and Cypress High School are operating beyond their existing
capacities.6 Planned improvements for Lexington Junior High School and Cypress High School include
improvements to existing infrastructure and services but do not include the new construction of
classrooms.7
1 OCPL. 2019b. Response to Library Services Questionnaire. Received December 26, 2019.
2 Ibid.
3 California Department of Education. DataQuest. Enrollment Data 2018–2019. Website: https://dq.cde.ca.
gov/dataquest/ (accessed December 1, 2019).
4 AUHSD. 2019. Response to School Services Questionnaire. Received December 20, 2019.
5 California Department of Education. DataQuest. Enrollment Data 2018–2019. Website: https://dq.cde.ca.
gov/dataquest/ (accessed December 1, 2019).
6 AUHSD. 2019. Response to School Services Questionnaire. Received December 20, 2019.
7 AUHSD. 2014. Facilities Master Plan. Website: https://auhsdblueprint.auhsd.us/overview.aspx (accessed
December 30, 2019)
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-6
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting
4.13.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal policies related to public services applicable to the proposed project.
4.13.3.2 State Regulations
Assembly Bills 2926, 1600, and 2751. To assist in providing facilities to serve students generated
from new development projects, the State enacted 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 Lease-
Purchase 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.)
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
be eligible for additional State funding.1 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. According to the AUHSD,
the current Development Impact fees for projects within the AUHSD’s jurisdictional boundaries are
$3.79 per square foot of enclosed residential floor space and $0.61 per square foot of enclosed
commercial/industrial floor space; however, these fees are reviewed and adjusted from time to
time.2. The fees are collected by the AUHSD and shared equally with the CSD.
The payment of these fees by a developer serves to mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities
that may result from implementation of a project to levels that are less than significant (see
California Government Code Section 65996). Stated another way, the provisions of SB 50 provide full
and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the
1 State of California. 2007. State Allocation Board. Office of Public School Construction, School Facility
Program Handbook. April.
2 AUHSD. 2019. Response to School Services Questionnaire. Received December 20, 2019.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-7
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other State or local laws. The California Department
of Education permits local school districts to increase facility fees subject to Department of
Education review and with approval of a nexus study from the school District that demonstrates that
costs incurred by the school District for the provision of school facilities and services are higher than
Level 1 funding provides. In such an instance, a nexus must be demonstrated in the study between
the increase proposed by the local school District and the actual cost of provision of school facilities
and services.
California Fire Code. The California Fire Code (CFC) 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 wildlife 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.
4.13.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional policies or regulations related to public services applicable to the proposed
project.
4.13.3.4 Local Regulations
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.
4.13.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for public services impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project
may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to public services if it would:
Threshold 4.13.1(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?
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-8
Threshold 4.13.1(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
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for police protection?
Threshold 4.13.1(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 4.13.1(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?
Threshold 4.13.1(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?
4.13.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.13.1(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?
4.13.5.1 Construction
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would incrementally increase demand for fire
services. The proposed project would not result in construction activities that would substantially
change the existing fire protection needs in the area. There would be minimal fire protection needs
during the temporary construction activities. Furthermore, short-term construction activities would
be limited to the project site and would not significantly impact the ability of emergency response
vehicles traveling through streets adjacent to the project site. Therefore, construction of the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the provision of fire
services.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-9
In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) requirements regarding site safety during construction. All
construction managers and personnel would be trained in emergency response and fire safety, and
on-site fire suppression equipment specific to construction activities would be maintained.
As discussed previously, OCFA Fire Station No. 17, which is approximately 0.4 mile from the project
site was rebuilt and expanded to accommodate existing and planned future needs in the service
area in 2012. Therefore, construction activities associated with the proposed project would not
result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential
impact on fire protection services with respect to construction activities would be less than
significant.
4.13.5.2 Operation
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would incrementally
increase demand for fire protection and emergency service calls. The proposed project would
adhere to the development standards described in the City’s Municipal Code related to public
safety. The proposed project would also be designed to comply with all OCFA requirements,
including providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the project site and providing
adequate access for emergency vehicles. Written correspondence with Tamera Rivers, a
Management Analyst at OCFA indicated it is estimated that the structures proposed would require a
fire flow of approximately 3,000-4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for 3 hours.1 Additionally, the
proposed project would comply with current editions of the California Building Code, California Fire
Code, and related codes.
As stated in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce
substantial population growth in the City and therefore would be able to be served by Fire Station
No. 17. The proposed project would be designed to comply with all OCFA requirements, including
providing adequate fire flow/structure protection to the project site and providing adequate access
for emergency vehicles. Written correspondence with the OCFA indicated that all OCFA uses a fair
share approach to mitigate fire service response impacts and facility/equipment needs. To address
any potential impacts to fire services, Mitigation Measure PS-1, which requires the applicant/
developer to enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement prior to the issuance of any building
permits, would be implemented. The Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the OCFA would
ensure adequate service to the project site. The OCFA would review and comment on the site plan
prior to project approval. As part of the review, the OCFA would impose standard conditions of
approval, which would ensure all impacts regarding fire protection would be less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new fire protection facilities
or the upgrade of existing facilities, which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratio, response times, or other performance objectives for fire
protection. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure
PS-1.
1 OCFA. 2019e. Response to Fire Service Questionnaire. Received December 9, 2019.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-10
Threshold 4.13.1(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?
4.13.5.3 Construction
Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed
project would not substantially change the existing police protection needs in the area. There would
be minimal police protection needs beyond the existing conditions during construction activities.
Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related
to the provision of police services; no mitigation is required.
4.13.5.4 Operation
Less Than Significant Impact. The population and housing growth anticipated as a result of the
proposed project would incrementally increase demand for police protection and emergency service
calls. Although there may be an incremental increase in calls for service related to new residents,
the related population growth and anticipated commercial/retail activity would not be considered
substantial. As stated in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not
induce substantial population growth. Although the proposed project may incrementally contribute
to the need for one additional police officer to meet future demand, the addition of one new police
officer would not necessitate the expansion of the City’s existing police facilities because the new
police officer would be accommodated in existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project is
expected to be adequately served by existing police facilities. Additionally, the proposed hotel,
apartment building, movie theater, and retail buildings are anticipated to hire private security,
enhancing on-site surveillance and potentially reducing the demand for police services to the project
site. Additionally, the CPD would review the site plan during the project approval phase and would
impose standard conditions of approval. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the
construction of new police protection facilities or the upgrade of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objective for police protection. Potential impacts
related to the provision services for operation of the proposed project would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.13.1(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?
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-11
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Office of Public School Construction has published
general student yield factors for elementary, secondary (middle/high school), and unified school
districts in California (May 2009). These student generation rates were used to estimate the number
of elementary and secondary school students that could be generated as a result of project
implementation. Based on these generation factors, it is estimated that the proposed project’s 251
residential units could generate approximately 126 elementary school students and 50 middle/
high school students (refer to Table 4.13.A, Projected School Enrollment).
Table 4.13.A: Projected School Enrollment
Grade Levels Student Generation Factor Projected Enrollment
Elementary School 0.5 student/unit 126 students
Middle/High School 0.2 student/unit 50 students
Total -- 176 students
Source: State of California, Office of Public School Construction. 2019. School Facility Program Handbook. January. Website:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Services/Guides-and-Resources/SFP_Hdbk_ADA.ashx?la=en&hash=14D0F03EABD3A
F437F3F4E2FDE1A602AFDFEE6C2 (accessed December 31, 2019).
Note: The projected enrollment is based on 251 residential units.
The increase in students projected as a result of project implementation would incrementally
increase the demand for school facilities. 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 would be
required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services
as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance
Measure PS-1 below). The fees are collected by the AUHSD and shared equally with the CSD.
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. According to the AUHSD, the current Development Impact Fees for
projects within the AUHSD’s jurisdictional boundaries were $3.79 per square foot of enclosed
residential floor space and $0.61 per square foot of enclosed commercial/industrial floor space;
however, these fees are reviewed and adjusted from time to time.1 Therefore, with payment of the
required fees, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1, potential impacts to school
services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.13.1(iv): 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 parks?
1 AUHSD. 2019. Response to School Services Questionnaire. Received December 20, 2019.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-12
Less Than Significant Impact. A detailed discussion of the proposed project’s impacts to parks and
recreational facilities is provided in Section 4.14, Recreation. As discussed in Section 4.14, the
incremental increase in demand for park facilities created by the project’s proposed 251 residential
units would result in limited use of existing recreation facilities in the project vicinity. However, this
increased demand would be offset by the payment of park fees required by Regulatory Compliance
Measure REC-1. Additionally, on-site amenities included in the proposed project include: fitness
area, open air courtyard, club room, and a dog park, which would be available to residents and their
guests. The inclusion of these recreational facilities would offset some of the demand for parks and
recreational facilities associated with the new residents. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in additional physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park
facilities. Impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation
is required.
Threshold 4.13.1(v): 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 other public facilities?
4.13.5.5 Construction
Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction activities would not have any impact on the
existing OCPL system because there are no nearby libraries that could be impacted by construction
activities and construction activities would not generate demand for library services. It is unlikely
that construction workers would increase the demand for library services during construction of the
proposed project as most workers would commute directly to and from the project site for the sole
purpose of working on the proposed project. Therefore, no new libraries would be required to be
developed nor would an existing library need to be expanded to provide adequate public library
services during proposed project construction. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential impact
on public libraries during construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
4.13.5.6 Operation
Less Than Significant Impact. Demand for library services is typically determined based on the size
of the resident population. As stated in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project
would result in 758 new residents, which is not substantial. As of 2015, the Cypress Branch Library
consisted of a 15,000 sf facility with approximately 88,000 books, CDs, and videos.1 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 49,833.2 Accordingly, the Cypress Branch
1 City of Cypress. 2015. Barton Place Final Environmental Impact Report. October.
2 California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties, and the State
2011–2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/
Estimates/e-5/ (accessed December 18, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-13
Library has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population growth associated with
the proposed project.
As noted above, the OCPL does not use a library demand ratio. According to the OCPL, the Cypress
Library is at full capacity and consideration should be given to implement a development fee to
mitigate the impact on Cypress Library and its services to the facility. However, implementation of
the proposed project would generate additional funding for the City and County through property
tax revenue and sales tax revenue the proposed project would generate. These funds could be used
for the development of new or expanded library facilities or new library equipment if required. The
allocation of additional tax revenues would be at the discretion of City policymakers based on City
needs.
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.
4.13.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts related to police services, schools, parks, and libraries would be less than significant prior to
mitigation. The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to fire protection
services, and mitigation is required.
4.13.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.13.7.1 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 REC-1 Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/
Developer shall provide proof of compliance with the
applicable provisions of Chapter 25 (Subdivisions),
Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City of
Cypress Municipal Code to the Director of the City of
Cypress Community Development Department, or
designee.
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1 Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any
building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall provide
proof to the Director of the City of Cypress Community
Development Department, or designee, that payment
of school fees to the Anaheim Union High School
District has been made in compliance with Section
65995 of the California Government Code.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-14
4.13.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure PS-1 Secured Fire Protection Agreement. Prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/
Developer shall enter into a Secured Fire Protection
Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority
(OCFA). This Agreement shall specify the Applicant/
Developer’s pro-rata fair share funding of capital
improvements necessary to establish adequate fire
protection facilities and equipment, and/or personnel.
Said agreement shall be reached as early as possible in
the planning process, preferably for each phase or land
use sector of the project, rather than on a parcel-by-
parcel basis. The obligation must be satisfied prior to
the issuance of the first building permit.
4.13.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1, potentially significant impacts would be
reduced below a level of significance.
4.13.9 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 probable future
projects within the cumulative impact area for public services. The project site is a vacant parking lot
located in an urban area with existing services provided by public service providers in the vicinity.
The cumulative area for public services is listed below for each individual public service provider.
4.13.9.1 Fire Protection
The geographic area for cumulative analysis of fire protection services is defined as the service
territory of Fire Station No. 17. As stated above, Fire Station No. 17 was rebuilt and expanded to
accommodate existing and planned future needs in its service area. Although the proposed project
would increase calls for service the increase in calls for service is not anticipated to result in an
excessive increase in calls for service. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a
cumulatively significant impact on the provision of fire services.
Of the 17 related projects, 4 would potentially be served by Fire Station No. 17. Operation of the
related project is anticipated to increase the overall demand for fire protection services provided by
Fire Station No. 17. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, population growth
generated by the proposed project in conjunction with related projects would not result in
substantial unplanned population growth. Thus, the proposed project and the related project’s
population increase would be accommodated as part of OCFA’s long-term growth planning for fire
and other public facilities. Additional demands for fire protection services would be funded by
existing funding sources (i.e., property tax and government funding), to which the proposed project
and related projects would contribute. Additionally, to address the increase in cumulative regional
demand for fire and emergency medical services. The OCFA requires all developers to enter into a
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-15
secured fire protection agreement with OCFA to ensure the availability of adequate fire protection
services. The agreements specify a developer’s pro-rata fair-share funding for capital improvements
necessary to establish and maintain adequate fire protection facilities, equipment, and personnel.
Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to fire protection impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable, and no mitigation is required.
4.13.9.2 Police Protection
The geographic area for cumulative analysis of police protection services is defined as the service
area for the Cypress Police Department. Although the proposed project would result in an
incremental increase in calls for service, it would not result in the need for additional or physically
altered police facilities.
Of the 17 related projects, 4 are located within the City of Cypress. As discussed previously
population growth generated by the proposed project in conjunction with related projects would
not result in substantial unplanned population growth. As such, the proposed project and the
related project’s demand for police services would be accommodated by the City and the OCSD’s
long-term growth planning for police protection services and facilities. Additionally, additional
demands for OCSD services would be funded by existing funding sources (i.e., property taxes and
government funding), to which the proposed project and related projects would contribute.
Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to police protection impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.
4.13.9.3 Schools
The geographic area for cumulative analysis of school services includes the school districts that
serve the proposed project (CSD and AUHSD). As described above, the proposed project would not
result in significant impacts to school facilities. However, a cumulative increase in the demand for
school services is anticipated to take place with the development of future residential projects, the
proposed project itself, and more specifically, the future household growth within the school
boundaries currently servicing the project site. Of the 17 related projects listed in Table 4.A,
Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures, only three contain residential uses and are within the boundaries of the CSD
and the AUHSD. Two of the three developments, Barton Place Mixed-Use and SRM Cypress
(Westmont) would not result in the generation of students because the residential uses included in
these developments consist of senior housing and assisted living facilitates, which would not house
any students. The Bonanni Development would generate approximately 34 elementary school
students and 14 middle/high school students.
As discussed above, the proposed project would generate an increase of 126 elementary school
students and 50 middle/high school students. When added to the students generated by the
Bonanni Development, the cumulative student generation would include 160 elementary school
students and 64 middle/high school student for a total of 224 students. As described above, all
projects are required to pay full payment of requisite development fees pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65995, as described in Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1. Because the
proposed project and all future related projects would be required to pay school fees as required by
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1, cumulative impacts that the proposed project may have on
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.13 Public Services.docx «02/03/20» 4.13-16
school services would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to
school impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.
4.13.9.4 Parks
Section 4.14, Recreation, of this EIR, contains a detailed discussion of the proposed project’s
potential impacts on parks and recreational facilities. As discussed therein, the proposed project and
the applicable related projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact to park and
recreational facilities and the incremental contribution of the proposed project to a potentially
significant impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.13.9.5 Public Libraries
The geographic area for the assessment of cumulative impacts pertaining to library services is the
City of Cypress. Of the 17 related projects, the three projects involving residential uses would
introduce new residents to the library service area, potentially increasing demand for library
services. Nonresidential projects are viewed as having relatively limited impacts attributable to
occasional and incidental use of library facilities for generalized research purposes. As discussed in
Section 4.12, Population and Housing, if the proposed project and all related residential units in the
City were constructed, the cumulative population increase would be 1,552 residents. According to
the State of California Department of Finance population estimates, the City’s population in January
2019 was 49,833.1 Therefore, the cumulative population increase would result in a population of
51,385 residents in the City. As discussed above, the OCPL adopted service standards of 0.2 sf of
library space per capita and 1.5 books per capita were used to evaluate the potential impacts of the
proposed project. Based on this service standard, the Cypress Branch Library has the capacity to
accommodate a population of 75,000 and enough books to serve a population of 58,667. Therefore,
the Cypress Branch Library has sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated demand from future
projects. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to library impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable.
1 California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties, and the State
2011–2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/
Estimates/e-5/ (accessed December 18, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx «02/03/20» 4.14-1
4.14 RECREATION
This section describes the parks and other recreational facilities near the project site and evaluates
the potential impacts of the Cypress City Center 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 recreational 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.
4.14.1 Methodology
Impacts to recreational facilities were assessed based on the potential for the proposed project to
generate increased demand on recreational facilities that could result in 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. The Conservation/Open
Space/Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan states that recreational resources 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 parks fees, or both, for recreational purposes in connection
with residential development projects, based on 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 through a cooperative arrangement between the
City and local school districts and local park and recreation districts. This results in a total of
4.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents.
4.14.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.14.2.1 Existing Project Site
The approximately 13-acre site is characterized by a paved parking lot, with existing light poles and
various electrical utility boxed and lines. There are no existing public parks or other public recreation
uses adjacent to the project site.
4.14.2.2 Existing Recreational Facilities within the City
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 (2001), the City currently has a total
supply of approximately 82 acres of park and recreational facilities.2 Subsequently, the City added
2.9 acres of park space at the former Mackay School site, which increased its park space to
1 City of Cypress. 2019b. Facility and Park Locations. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/government/
departments/recreation-community-services/facility-park-locations (accessed December 31, 2019).
2 City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx (02/03/20) 4.14-2
84.9 acres.1 The City recently approved plans for a new approximately 9-acre sports park at the
southeastern corner of Lexington Drive and Cerritos Avenue, with an expected opening date of
2021.2
The City classifies parks as community, neighborhood, or mini-facilities based on size. In addition to
the City’s parks, Cypress residents enjoy access to recreational facilities at 11 K-12 schools, which
add approximately 100 additional acres to the City’s recreational facilities,3 and 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.
4.14.2.3 Community Parks
Arnold Cypress Park (14.5 acres) and Oak Knoll Park (22 acres) are the two major community parks
located in the City.4 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 such as athletic fields and group picnic areas. In addition, these large
parks often include community centers.
4.14.2.4 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.
4.14.2.5 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.5
As shown in Table 4.14.A, five existing parks and recreational facilities in Cypress are within 1 mile of
the project site.
The nearest community park is Oak Knoll Park, which is 1.1 mile northeast of the project site. The
nearest neighborhood park is Cedar Glen Park (0.6 mile northwest); however, Darrell Essex Park is
0.8 mile north of the project site. There are two mini-parks within 1 mile of the project site: Damron
Park (0.7 mile northeast) and Laurel Park (0.7 mile northeast).
1 City of Cypress 2019b. Facility & Park Locations: Mackay Park Webpage. Website: https://www.
cypressca.org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/66/240 (accessed December 21,
2019)
2 City of Cypress. 2019a. City Council Meeting Minutes. October 28, 2019.
3 City of Cypress. 2015. Barton Place Final Environmental Impact Report. October.
4 City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element.
5 Ibid.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx «02/03/20» 4.14-3
Table 4.14.A: Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Name and Address
Distance from
Project Site
(miles)
Type Size
(acres) Amenities
Darrell Essex Park
5131 Ball Road
0.8 Neighborhood 2.5 Children’s playground equipment, barbeques,
picnic shelters, and drinking fountains
Damron Park
5400 Myra Avenue
0.7 Mini 0.5 Children’s playground equipment
Laurel Park
5902 Cathy Avenue
0.7 Mini 0.2 Children’s playground equipment
Cedar Glen Park
10201 Moody Street
0.6 Neighborhood 2.5 Children’s playground equipment, basketball
court, barbeques, picnic shelters, and drinking
fountains
Oak Knoll Park
9600 Graham Street
1.1 Community 22 Baseball field, basketball court, barbeques,
exercise course, on-site parking, picnic
facilities, playground equipment, restroom,
softball field, volleyball court
Source: City of Cypress, Facility and Park Locations (2019b). Website: https://www.cypressca.org/play/facility-park-locations (accessed
December 31, 2019).
4.14.2.6 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 2.3 miles west of the
project site. El Dorado Regional Park incorporates approximately 450 total acres. 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 7 miles northeast of the project site. 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 4.7 miles northwest of the project site, 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 3 miles northwest of the project site, 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx (02/03/20) 4.14-4
• Rynerson Park is approximately 3.6 miles northwest of the project site, in the City of Lakewood.
The park incorporates approximately 40 total acres. Recreational facilities within the 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 2.9 miles north of the project site, 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 6.4 miles south of the project site, in the City of
Huntington Beach. The wetlands are an approximately 1,400-acre nature reserve. Recreational
amenities surrounding the wetlands include walking trails, guided tours, educational programs,
and volunteer programs.
4.14.2.7 Schools
City residents also enjoy access to open space and recreational facilities at 11 K-12 schools,
contributing approximately 119 acres to the City’s open space and recreation resources.1 School
sites are available for public recreational use after school hours and on weekends.
In addition to these K-12 schools, Cypress Community College contains 93 acres of open space
(inclusive of parking) and includes large playing fields, a running track, tennis courts, a swimming
pool, and handball courts. These facilities are available for public use during specified hours by
reservation. Fees are charged for use of the Cypress Community College facilities with the exception
of the track and tennis courts.
4.14.2.8 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.
4.14.2.9 Other Public Facilities
A portion of one public golf course, the Navy Golf Course, is located within the City of Cypress
0.5 miles southeast of the project site. 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 five
miles of the proposed project:
• The El Dorado Park Golf Course is approximately 2.7 miles west of the project site, 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.
1 City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx «02/03/20» 4.14-5
• The Heartwell Golf Course is approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the project site, 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 4.8 miles southwest of the project site, 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 4.5 miles northeast of the project site, 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.
4.14.2.10 Private Recreation Facilities
Private athletic clubs in the City also offer recreational facilities, including the approximately 37,500-
square-foot (sf) 24 Hour Fitness facility adjacent to the western boundaries of the project site. The
majority of these facilities, although privately owned, are open to the public subject to a user fee.
These private recreational amenities within the City also help meet residents’ recreation needs by
providing swimming, racquet and court sports, and exercise classes.
Additionally, many of the residential developments and commercial/industrial open space facilities
within the City feature recreational amenities, including clubhouses, pools, tennis courts, and other
related recreational facilities. Although they are not included in the City’s parkland inventory, these
facilities complement public recreational amenities.
4.14.3 Regulatory Setting
4.14.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations applicable to the proposed project.
4.14.3.2 State Regulations
Quimby Act of 1975. The State Quimby Act (California Government Code § 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.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx (02/03/20) 4.14-6
4.14.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations applicable to the proposed project.
4.14.3.4 Local Regulations
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.”
Accordingly, 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 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy COSR-6.1, as discussed below.
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:
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.
4.14.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for recreation impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project
may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to recreation if it would:
Threshold 4.14.1: 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?
Threshold 4.14.2: Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx «02/03/20» 4.14-7
4.14.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.14.1: 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. As described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed
project includes the construction of a 251-unit apartment structure that would add 758 new
residents. As described previously, there are four parks and recreational facilities in Cypress that are
within 1 mile of the project site, as shown in Table 4.14.A, above. Based on proximity, the parks and
recreation facilities listed in Table 4.14.A would serve the project site; however, all parks in the City
could be affected, because residents can use any park or recreation facility anywhere in Cypress.
As discussed above, Section 25-43 of the City’s 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 through a cooperative
arrangement between the City and local school districts and local park and recreation districts. This
results in a total of 4.5 acres of land per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would comply with
the applicable provisions in Chapter 25, Article 6, Park and Recreational Facilities, of the City’s
Municipal Code (refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1), which require the payment of an
in-lieu park fee, the dedication of land for park and recreational purposes, or both, based on a
standard of 3.0 acres of land for park and recreational purposes for each 1,000 residents. In
addition, at the discretion of the City Council, a percentage of the required in-lieu fees may be
credited based on the amount of the private open space provided within the development
(Municipal Code Section 25-47, Credit for Private Open Space). If approved, the credit would be no
less than 1 percent and no greater than 50 percent of the required in-lieu fee.
As discussed previously the City has a total supply of approximately 84.9 acres of park and
recreational facilities. Based on the City’s 2019-estimated population of 49,833 residents,1 and the
standard of 3.0 acres for each 1,000 residents in Section 25-43 of the Cypress Municipal Code, the
City should optimally have 149.5 acres 2 of park and recreational facilities within its boundaries to
serve its existing population. Therefore, the City currently has a deficiency of approximately 64.6
acres (149.5 - 84.9 = 64.6). With the development of the planned approximately 9-acre park, the
park deficiency would be reduced to 55.6 acres. The addition of approximately 758 additional
residents to Cypress could incrementally increase usage of City parks and recreational facilities. The
proposed project’s additional residents would require 2.27 acres of parkland based on the standard
of 3.0 acres for each 1,000 residents in City’s Municipal Code Section 25-43. As shown in Figure 3.8,
Proposed Open Space Amenities, in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project would
include a total of 59,655 sf (1.37 acres) of public open space/recreational amenities, including a
plaza, two greenbelts, and a dog park, all of which would be available to the public. The proposed
1 California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties, and the State
2011–2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/
Estimates/e-5/ (accessed December 18, 2019).
2 49,833 residents * 3.0 acres / 1,000 residents.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx (02/03/20) 4.14-8
project would also include 31,500 sf (0.72 acre) of private open space/recreational amenities,
including a fitness area, a recreational courtyard, a club room, and lounge, which would be available
only to residents and their guests. At the discretion of the City Council, a percentage of these private
recreational amenities may be credited towards required in-lieu fees (Municipal Code Section
25-48).
The City will require the Applicant/Developer to pay fees and/or dedicate parkland as identified in
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. Therefore, with the payment of in-lieu park fees and/or the
dedication of parkland, impacts to recreation requirements would be less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of any such facility would occur or be accelerated, and the proposed project’s impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.14.2: Does 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 proposed project would include a fitness area, recreational
courtyard, a club room, and a lounge, which would be available only to residents and their guests as
shown in Figure 3.8, Proposed Open Space Amenities. The proposed project would also include a
plaza, two greenbelts, and a dog park, which would be open to the public. The construction of
recreational facilities is part of the proposed project; the potential adverse effects associated with
the construction and operation of the proposed project’s recreational facilities has been considered
throughout the analysis in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and mitigated as appropriate.
Therefore, the proposed project does not include recreational facilities that would have an adverse
physical effect on the environment. Additionally, the inclusion of these recreational facilities would
offset some of the demand associated with the new residents. Therefore, the proposed project does
not require construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities and would not result in
adverse off-site physical effects at those facilities.
As discussed earlier in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project’s 251 residential
units could result in the addition of approximately 758 residents to the City’s population. Based on
the City’s parkland requirement of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, the proposed project would
increase the demand for parkland in the City by 2.27 acres. As previously mentioned, the
Applicant/Developer is required by the City to pay in-lieu park fees (refer to Regulatory Compliance
Measure REC-1). Therefore, impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities included as part of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
4.14.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to parks and
recreational resources.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx «02/03/20» 4.14-9
4.14.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.14.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1 Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park
Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the
Applicant/Developer shall provide proof of
compliance with the applicable provisions of
Chapter 25 (Subdivisions), Article 6, Park and
Recreational Facilities, of the City of Cypress
Municipal Code to the Director of the City of
Cypress Community Development Department, or
designee.
4.14.7.2 Mitigation Measures
With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1, the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts related to recreation, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.14.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to parks and recreational
resources.
4.14.9 Cumulative Impacts
The project site is located within the City and the proposed project is subject to the City’s Municipal
Code requirement for payment of park fees, the dedication of land for park and recreational
purposes, or both. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the geographic area for potential
cumulative impacts on recreational facilities is the City. The proposed project, in conjunction with
the related projects in the City, would increase the City’s population (refer to Table 4.A and Figure
4.1, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, for
the descriptions and locations of these related projects). However, the proposed project includes
on-site recreational facilities for its residents, which reduces the project demand for off-site
recreational facilities. In addition, the Applicant/Developer would pay any required park fees as
described in Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1. Moreover, the applicants for the related
projects that involve residential development in the City (Related Projects 1–4) would also be
required to either dedicate land and/or pay park fees for the purposes of providing park and
recreational facilities consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requirements to offset their
respective impacts related to parks and recreation.
Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project and the applicable related projects would
be less than significant with respect to recreational facilities and, in any event, the proposed
project’s contribution to a potentially significant cumulative impact on park and recreational
facilities would not be cumulatively considerable.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.14 Recreation.docx (02/03/20) 4.14-10
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-1
4.15 TRANSPORTATION
This section analyzes the existing and planned transportation and circulation conditions for the
proposed Cypress City Center project (proposed project) and the surrounding area, and identifies
circulation impacts that may result subsequent to the development of the proposed project. The
analysis contained in this section is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Cypress City Center
Project, Cypress, Orange County, California (TIA) (LSA, December 2019), which is provided in
Appendix J to this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.15.1 Methodology
The TIA prepared for the project is consistent with the objectives and requirements of the City of
Cypress, the City of Los Alamitos, and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP)
(County of Orange 2019), as well as applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), including disclosure of project impacts in both existing and cumulative horizon years.
The scope of work for the TIA, including the project study area, was reviewed and approved by the
City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the preparation of the TIA. Study area locations were selected in
consultation with City staff. The study area analyzed in the project TIA includes the following
19 intersections (5 intersections in Cypress, 6 intersections in both Cypress and Los Alamitos,
7 intersections in Los Alamitos, and 1 interchange along Interstate 605 (I-605) that is under the
jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation [Caltrans]):
1. Los Alamitos Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue (Los Alamitos)
2. Bloomfield Street/Cerritos Avenue (Los Alamitos)
3. Denni Street/Cerritos Avenue (Cypress/Los Alamitos)
4. Moody Street/Cerritos Avenue (Cypress)
5. Walker Street/Cerritos Avenue (Cypress)
6. Valley View Street/Cerritos Avenue (Cypress)
7. Interstate (I) 605 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue (Caltrans)
8. Wallingsford Road–Walnut Street/Katella Avenue (Los Alamitos)
9. Los Alamitos Boulevard/Katella Avenue (Los Alamitos)
10. Bloomfield Street/Katella Avenue (Los Alamitos)
11. Lexington Drive/Katella Avenue (Cypress/Los Alamitos)
12. Cottonwood Way/Katella Avenue (Cypress/Los Alamitos)
13. Siboney Street/Katella Avenue (Cypress/Los Alamitos)
14. Winners Circle/Katella Avenue (Cypress/Los Alamitos)
15. Walker Street/Katella Avenue (Cypress/Los Alamitos)
16. Valley View Street/Katella Avenue (Cypress)
17. Valley View Street/Orangewood Avenue (Cypress)
18. Lexington Drive/Farquhar Avenue (Los Alamitos)
19. Los Alamitos Boulevard/Farquhar Avenue (Los Alamitos)
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-2
4.15.1.1 Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
In accordance with the requirements of the City of Cypress, the City of Los Alamitos, and the Orange
County CMP, signalized intersection operation is analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization
(ICU) methodology. The ICU methodology compares the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios of
conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums up these critical conflicting v/c ratios for each
intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of
level of service (LOS), where LOS A represents free-flow operation and LOS F represents over
capacity operation.
The relationship between LOS and the ICU value (i.e., v/c ratio) is as follows.
Level of Service Volume-to-Capacity (ICU Methodology)
A ≤0.60
B >0.60 and ≤0.70
C >0.70 and ≤0.80
D >0.80 and ≤0.90
E >0.90 and ≤1.00
F >1.00
ICU = intersection capacity utilization
In addition to the ICU methodology of calculating signalized intersection LOS, the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), 6th Edition (Transportation Resources Board 2016) methodology is used to
determine the LOS of the unsignalized intersections and signalized intersections at freeway
interchanges (i.e., I-605 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue), as required by Caltrans. The HCM
signalized intersection methodology is based on delay (in seconds per vehicle), as opposed to
capacity, as the measure of effectiveness. The following table illustrates the relationship of delay to
LOS for unsignalized and signalized intersections.
Level of Service
Intersection Delay (seconds) per Vehicle (HCM
Methodology)
Signalized Unsignalized
A ≤10.0 ≤10.0
B >10.0 and ≤20.0 >10.0 and ≤15.0
C >20.0 and ≤35.0 >15.0 and ≤25.0
D >35.0 and ≤55.0 >25.0 and ≤35.0
E >55.0 and ≤80.0 >35.0 and ≤50.0
F >80.0 >50.0
HCM = Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2017)
It should be noted that since the HCM 6th Edition analysis methodology does not support analysis of
nonstandard signal phasing or more than one exclusive lane on turning movements, the HCM 2000
analysis methodology was utilized at one location (Lexington Drive/Farquhar Avenue).
4.15.1.2 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Cypress considers LOS D as the upper limit of satisfactory operations for intersections,
except at intersections along Valley View Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Katella Avenue. The City has
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-3
adopted LOS E as the standard for intersections along these three arterials, as they carry a
significant amount of traffic. In addition, Valley View Street and Katella Avenue are designated in the
Orange County CMP as CMP facilities, and intersections along these roadways must not be below
LOS E.
Based on the City of Cypress and the City of Los Alamitos standards, a project traffic impact occurs
at an intersection if the project causes an intersection operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate
to an unacceptable LOS, or if an intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS and the
project adds 0.01 or more to the peak-hour ICU.
For the purpose of this analysis, a project impact would occur at an unsignalized intersection if the
project adds traffic to a deficient intersection, project traffic results in a deficient intersection, or a
traffic signal warrant is met.
The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) does not have published
criteria for determination of significant impacts. Caltrans states that it endeavors to maintain a
target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities and to maintain the
existing LOS in cases where a facility is operating at less than the target LOS. LOS C is considered the
target LOS standard and was used in the TIA to assess the project’s impacts at the Caltrans study
intersection. A significant project impact at a Caltrans intersection would occur if the addition of the
project trips causes the peak-hour LOS to deteriorate from an acceptable LOS (LOS A, B, or C) to an
unacceptable LOS (LOS D, E, or F), or causes an intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS to deteriorate to a worse LOS.
4.15.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.15.2.1 Existing Circulation System
The project site is generally bounded by Katella Avenue to the south, Siboney Street to the west,
Winners Circle to the east, and the Los Alamitos Race Course to the north. Access to the project site
would be provided via Siboney Street (and the existing traffic signal at Siboney Street/Katella
Avenue), Winners Circle (and the existing traffic signal at Winners Circle/Katella Avenue), and a
right-turn-in/out-only driveway directly on Katella Avenue.
Key roadways in the vicinity of the project site are as follows:
• Valley View Street is a north-south six-lane divided roadway located east of the project site.
According to the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element (City of Cypress 2000), Valley
View Street is classified as a Major Arterial. Valley View Street is designated in the Orange
County CMP as a CMP facility. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph). Sidewalks are
provided on both sides of the street in the vicinity of the project site. On-street parking is not
permitted.
• Walker Street is a north-south four-lane undivided roadway located east of the project site.
According to the City of Cypress General Plan Circulation Element, Walker Street is classified as a
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-4
Secondary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of
the street. On-street parking is not permitted.
• Moody Street is a north-south four-lane divided roadway. Moody Street is located north of the
project site and ends at Cerritos Avenue at the Los Alamitos Race Course. According to the City’s
General Plan Circulation Element, Moody Street is classified as a Primary Arterial. The posted
speed limit is 40 mph. On-street bicycle lanes (Class II) and sidewalks are provided on both sides
of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted.
• Denni Street–Lexington Drive is a north-south undivided roadway located west of the project
site. Lexington Drive is a two-lane roadway located south of Cerritos Avenue, and Denni Street is
a four-lane roadway located north of Cerritos Avenue. According to the City of Cypress General
Plan Circulation Element, Denni Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial. The posted speed
limit is 35 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Denni Street and on some parts of
Lexington Drive. On-street parking is not permitted.
• Bloomfield Street is a north-south four-lane divided roadway located west of the project site.
According to the City of Cypress and City of Los Alamitos General Plans, Bloomfield Street is
classified as a Secondary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. On-street bicycle lanes
(Class II) and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted
in select locations.
• Los Alamitos Boulevard is a six-lane divided roadway located west of the project site. According
to the City of Los Alamitos General Plan, Los Alamitos Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial.
The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street
parking is permitted in select locations.
• Katella Avenue is a six-lane divided roadway located south of the project site. Katella Avenue is
located in both City of Cypress and City of Los Alamitos jurisdictions. Katella Avenue is
designated as a Major Arterial in the City of Cypress General Plan and as a Smart Street in the
City of Los Alamitos General Plan. Katella Avenue is designated on the Orange County CMP as a
CMP facility. The posted speed limit is 40 to 45 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the
street. On-street parking is permitted in select locations.
• Cerritos Avenue is a four to five-lane divided roadway located north of the project site.
According to both the City of Cypress and City of Los Alamitos General Plans, Cerritos Avenue is
a Primary Arterial. The posted speed limit is 35 to 45 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides
of the street, and on-street (Class II) bicycle lanes are provided on both sides between Walker
Street and Denni Street. On-street parking is permitted in select locations.
• Orangewood Avenue is a four-lane undivided roadway located southeast of the project site.
According to the City of Cypress General Plan, Orangewood Avenue is a Secondary Arterial. The
posted speed limit is 40 mph. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. On-street
parking is not permitted.
All other roadways within the study area are local or collector streets.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-5
Pedestrian Circulation. Sidewalks currently exist on both sides of Katella Avenue in the vicinity of
the project site. There are pedestrian crosswalks at all signalized intersections in the vicinity of the
project site. These facilities provide for pedestrian circulation between the project site and the
surrounding areas.
Bicycle Circulation. 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 bicycle lane on
the south side of Cerritos Avenue between Walker Street and Denni Street. On-street bicycle lanes
(Class II) and sidewalks are provided on both sides of Moody Street. There are no bicycle lanes on
Katella Avenue.
Transit Facilities. Transit facilities will be accessible to and from the project site. An Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus stop is provided adjacent to the project site (OCTA Route 50).
OCTA Route 50 provides transportation to/from the Cities of Orange and Long Beach via Katella
Avenue. OCTA Route 50 runs at an approximately 30-minute headway during weekday peak hours.
An OCTA bus stop is provided on Valley View Street/Katella Avenue within 1 mile of the project site
(OCTA Route 21). OCTA Route 21 provides transportation to/from Buena Park and Sunset Beach via
Valley View Street. OCTA Route 21 runs at an approximately 60-minute headway during weekday
peak hours.
4.15.2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS Analysis
Existing turn movement counts were provided by the City of Cypress for nine of the study area
intersections (October 2018) and additional turning movement counts were conducted for the
remaining 10 study area intersections in May of 2019. All counts were conducted by National Data &
Surveying Services (NDS).
Table 4.15.A summarizes the results of the existing peak-hour LOS analysis for the study area
intersections. As discussed above, the ICU methodology for signalized intersections compares the
v/c ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums up these critical conflicting v/c
ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The HCM intersection
methodology presents LOS in terms of delay (in seconds per vehicle). The resulting delay is
expressed in terms of LOS, as in the ICU methodology. As shown in Table 4.15.A, all study area
intersections currently operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-6
Table 4.15.A: Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control Peak Hour
Existing
ICU/Delay LOS
1 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.704 C
PM 0.745 C
2 Bloomfield Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.693 B
PM 0.739 C
3 Denni Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.594 A
PM 0.751 C
4 Moody Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.572 A
PM 0.756 C
5 Walker Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.681 B
PM 0.730 C
6 Valley View Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.731 C
PM 0.834 D
7 I-605 Northbound Ramps/Katella Avenue
Signal AM 0.493 A
PM 0.590 A
Signal
(Delay)
AM 2.8 A
PM 4.1 A
8 Wallingsford Road – Walnut Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.811 D
PM 0.711 C
9 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.745 C
PM 0.745 C
10 Bloomfield Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.819 D
PM 0.742 C
11 Lexington Drive/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.579 A
PM 0.592 A
12 Cottonwood Way/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.371 A
PM 0.447 A
13 Siboney Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.461 A
PM 0.524 A
14 Winners Circle/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.396 A
PM 0.521 A
15 Walker Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.658 B
PM 0.687 B
16 Valley View Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.723 C
PM 0.749 C
17 Valley View Street/Orangewood Avenue Signal AM 0.784 C
PM 0.826 D
18 Lexington Drive/Farquhar Avenue AWSC
(Delay)
AM 8.8 A
PM 9.7 A
19 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Farquhar Avenue Signal AM 0.614 B
PM 0.618 B
Note: Delay is reported in seconds.
AWSC = all-way stop control
I-605 = Interstate 605
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-7
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting
4.15.3.1 Federal Regulations
No federal policies or regulations pertaining to transportation are applicable to the proposed
project.
4.15.3.2 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 of a transportation impact analysis as part of
CEQA requirements. SB 743 directed the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 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, vehicle miles traveled (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 be used as the basis for determining
significant transportation impacts in the State.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b). In January 2018, the State of California
Office of Planning and Research (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,
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. Although an agency may elect to be governed by the
provisions of this section immediately, it is not required until July 1, 2020.
At this time, the City has not adopted a methodology to analyze VMT impacts within its jurisdiction.
In addition, the City does not currently have thresholds or standards in place for assessing potential
VMT impacts. Therefore, traffic impacts in this Draft EIR are based on the City’s LOS thresholds.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-8
4.15.3.3 Regional Regulations
Orange County Congestion Management Program. The Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) is a multimodal transportation agency that began in 1991 with the consolidation of seven
separate agencies. OCTA serves Orange County residents and travelers by providing the following:
countywide bus and paratransit service; Metrolink rail service; the 91 Express Lanes; freeway, street,
and road improvement projects; individual and company commuting solutions; motorist aid
services; and regulation of taxi operations. State law requires that a Congestion Management
Program (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.
4.15.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Cypress General Plan. The Cypress General Plan is the primary source of long-range planning
and policy direction that will guide growth and preserve the quality of life within the community.
The future of Cypress, like that of all cities, will be the result of past and current decision making by
those who have a local role in the development process, including residents, property and business
owners, elected officials and City staff. The 2000 General Plan Update supersedes the 1993 General
Plan Update and is based upon the community’s vision for Cypress and expresses the community’s
long-term goals. Implementation of the Cypress General Plan will ensure that future projects and
improvements are consistent with the community’s goals, policies, and objectives.
Circulation Element. The Circulation Element is a general guide for the planning, development, and
enhancement of the City of Cypress circulation system, based on existing and 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 Level of Service 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 Cypress. Based on the Circulation Element, the local and regional street network is built
out in Cypress. Similarly, the bikeway system is generally built out in the project vicinity, with the
exception of a planned bike lane on Walker Street south of Cerritos Avenue. This proposed bike lane
would connect to the existing bike lane on Walker Street north of Cerritos Avenue.
City of Los Alamitos General Plan. The City of Los Alamitos General Plan establishes a
comprehensive framework through which the City manages its growth and development to ensure it
efficiently and effectively provides public facilities and services. The General Plan guides land use
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-9
and development for the entire Los Alamitos planning area, which includes the City, JFTB Los
Alamitos, and the unincorporated community of Rossmoor. The General Plan identifies JFTB Los
Alamitos as Community & Institutional/JFTB. The Los Alamitos City Council adopted an updated
General Plan on March 23, 2015, to better reflect current conditions, refine goals and policies, and
position the City for success over the next 20 years through the year 2035. The new General Plan
replaces the previous plan adopted in 1990.
Mobility and Circulation Element. The City of Los Alamitos analyzes the operation of the roadway
system in Los Alamitos and Rossmoor in terms of LOS. Similar to the City of Cypress, the City of Los
Alamitos considers LOS D as the upper limit of satisfactory operations for intersections, except at
intersections along Katella Avenue, where LOS E is acceptable.
4.15.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for transportation impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project
may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to transportation if it would:
Threshold 4.15.1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Threshold 4.15.2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
Threshold 4.15.3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Threshold 4.15.4: Result in inadequate emergency access?
4.15.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.15.1: 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 would be required to comply with General Plan
policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the City’s transportation-
related goals, policies, and metrics for determining traffic impacts, as well as the Orange County
Congestion Management Program (CMP) (2019). The project’s consistency with these plans is
described in detail below.
A trip generation analysis was conducted to determine the number of trips that would occur
following implementation of the project. As shown in Table 4.15.B, the project has the potential to
generate approximately 4,978 average daily trips (ADT), including 164 trips (68 inbound and 96
outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 323 trips (176 inbound and 147 outbound) in the p.m. peak
hour.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-10
Table 4.15.B: Project Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Size Unit ADT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates1
Shopping Center
TSF 37.75 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
du 5.44 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44
Hotel
rooms 8.36 0.28 0.19 0.47 0.31 0.29 0.60
Multiplex Movie Theater
screens 220.00 - - - 7.00 6.73 13.73
Project Trip Generation
Shopping Center 20.800 TSF 785 12 8 20 38 41 79
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 251 du 1,365 23 67 90 68 42 110
Hotel 120 rooms 1,003 34 22 56 37 35 72
Multiplex Movie Theater 10 screens 2,200 0 0 0 70 67 137
Gross Trip Generation
5,353 69 97 166 213 185 398
Internal Capture Reduction2
(375) (1) (1) (2) (26) (26) (52)
Shopping Center Pass-By Trip Reduction (PM-34%)3 0 0 0 0 (11) (12) (23)
Net Trip Generation
4,978 68 96 164 176 147 323
1 Trip rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
Land Use Code 820 - Shopping Center
Land Use Code 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
Land Use Code 310 - Hotel
Land Use Code 445 - Multiplex Movie Theater has been used for PM trip rates. Multiplex Movie Theater rate was not available
for daily.
Land Use Code 444 - Movie Theater has been used for daily rate. The movie theater is assumed to be closed in the AM peak
hour.
2 Internal capture referenced from NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool (AM 1%, PM 13%). Internal capture for daily is
the average of internal capture for AM and PM (7%).
3 Pass-by percentages are based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition.
ADT = average daily trips
du = dwelling units
TSF = thousand square feet
In order to determine impacts at roadway intersections associated with implementation of the
project (i.e., the Existing Plus Project condition), the results of the trip generation analysis for the
proposed project were added to existing baseline traffic volumes at the study area intersections.
Tables 4.15.C summarizes the results of the Existing Plus Project peak hour LOS analysis. As shown in
Table 4.15.C, with the addition of the project, all study area intersections would continue to
operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours. Project impacts are based on LOS significance
criteria of the City of Cypress (for Cypress intersections) and/or the City of Los Alamitos (for Los
Alamitos intersections). As previously stated, vehicle access to the project site would be provided
via Siboney Street, Winners Circle, and a right-turn-in/out-only driveway directly on Katella Avenue.
Both intersections of Siboney Street/Katella Avenue and Winners Circle/Katella Avenue are analyzed
as study intersections in the TIA, and would operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours in the
Existing Plus Project and Opening Year Plus Project Conditions.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-11
Table 4.15.C: Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control
Peak
Hour
Existing
Existing Plus
Project Project Impact
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
∆ ICU/
Delay Yes/No
1 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Cerritos
Avenue Signal AM 0.704 C 0.705 C 0.001 No
PM 0.745 C 0.747 C 0.002 No
2 Bloomfield Street/Cerritos
Avenue Signal AM 0.693 B 0.693 B 0.000 No
PM 0.739 C 0.741 C 0.002 No
3 Denni Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.594 A 0.594 A 0.000 No
PM 0.751 C 0.754 C 0.003 No
4 Moody Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.572 A 0.572 A 0.000 No
PM 0.756 C 0.757 C 0.001 No
5 Walker Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.681 B 0.684 B 0.003 No
PM 0.730 C 0.734 C 0.004 No
6 Valley View Street/Cerritos
Avenue Signal AM 0.731 C 0.733 C 0.002 No
PM 0.834 D 0.840 D 0.006 No
7 I-605 Northbound Ramps/Katella
Avenue
Signal AM 0.493 A 0.498 A 0.005 No
PM 0.590 A 0.599 A 0.009 No
Signal
(Delay)
AM 2.8 A 2.9 A 0.1 No
PM 4.1 A 4.1 A 0.0 No
8 Wallingsford Road – Walnut
Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.811 D 0.815 D 0.004 No
PM 0.711 C 0.718 C 0.007 No
9 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Katella
Avenue Signal AM 0.745 C 0.752 C 0.007 No
PM 0.745 C 0.756 C 0.011 No
10 Bloomfield Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.819 D 0.828 D 0.009 No
PM 0.742 C 0.755 C 0.013 No
11 Lexington Drive/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.579 A 0.585 A 0.006 No
PM 0.592 A 0.608 B 0.016 No
12 Cottonwood Way/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.371 A 0.377 A 0.006 No
PM 0.447 A 0.460 A 0.013 No
13 Siboney Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.461 A 0.480 A 0.019 No
PM 0.524 A 0.551 A 0.027 No
14 Winners Circle/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.396 A 0.405 A 0.009 No
PM 0.521 A 0.591 A 0.070 No
15 Walker Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.658 B 0.666 B 0.008 No
PM 0.687 B 0.691 B 0.004 No
16 Valley View Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.723 C 0.730 C 0.007 No
PM 0.749 C 0.758 C 0.009 No
17 Valley View Street/Orangewood
Avenue Signal AM 0.784 C 0.786 C 0.002 No
PM 0.826 D 0.832 D 0.006 No
18 Lexington Drive/Farquhar Avenue AWSC AM 8.8 A 8.8 A 0.0 No
PM 9.7 A 9.7 A 0.0 No
19 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Farquhar
Avenue Signal AM 0.614 B 0.615 B 0.001 No
PM 0.618 B 0.621 B 0.003 No
Note: Delay is reported in seconds.
AWSC = all-way stop control ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
I-605 = Interstate 605 LOS = level of service
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-12
As such, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable provisions in the City’s General Plan
Circulation Element regarding the maintenance of 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. Additionally, the proposed project would be
consistent with all relevant goals included in the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy regarding transit and active transportation as shown in
Table 4.10.A in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
Therefore, the project could be implemented with no significant peak-hour impacts when compared
to existing conditions. No mitigation would be required.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Conformance with the Orange County CMP As previously noted, a TIA is required for CMP purposes
for any proposed development generating 2,400 or more daily trips, with the exception of
developments that will directly access a CMP Highway System roadway segment, for which the
threshold for requiring a TIA is reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day. Because the proposed
project is estimated to generate 4,978 daily trips, a TIA was prepared for the proposed project in
compliance with CMP standards.
The CMP Highway System includes two roadway arterials in the project area: Valley View Street and
Katella Avenue. In addition, the CMP Highway System includes two intersections within the study
area: Valley View Street/Katella Avenue and I-605 northbound ramps/Katella Avenue. These two
intersections are both study intersections within the project study area.
Based on CMP requirements, the study area for a project must extend far enough to cover any CMP
roadway segment on which the project traffic would represent 3 percent or more of the roadway
segment’s LOS E capacity. According to the OCTA’s Guidance for Administration of the Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (2017), the LOS E capacity for a six-lane major roadway
(i.e., Katella Avenue and Valley View Street) is 56,300 vehicles per day.
The project’s ADT on Katella Avenue exceeds the 3 percent threshold on Katella Avenue
immediately east and west of the project site. However, the project’s ADT is less than the 3 percent
threshold on Katella Avenue and Valley View Street at the traffic study area boundaries based on
the distribution of project trips throughout the traffic study area. Therefore, the traffic study area
for the project is sufficiently sized to cover all roadway segments adding the 3 percent threshold of
the project’s ADT to the CMP roadway segment’s LOS E capacity. As such, the traffic analysis
satisfies the CMP requirements. Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere in this section, the project is
not expected to result in a significant traffic impact at any CMP intersection, as shown in Table
4.15.C above and in Table 4.15.D provided later in this section. Therefore, this TIA complies with the
CMP requirements.
Threshold 4.15.2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a),
project-related transportation impacts are generally best measured by evaluating the project’s
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-13
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel
attributable to a project.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) sets forth criteria for analyzing transportation impacts,
breaking down the methodology based on project type and specifying other criteria for conducting
VMT analysis.
For land use projects, VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a
significant impact. Generally, projects located within 0.5 mile of an existing high-quality transit
corridor should be considered to have a less than significant impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b)(2) addresses VMT associated with transportation projects and states that projects that
reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, should be presumed to have a less
than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3,
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. The regulation goes on to state that Lead
Agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a
project’s VMT. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4)). It is important to note that State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c) states that while an agency may elect to be governed by the
provisions of this section immediately, it is not required until July 1, 2020.
At this time, the City has not adopted a methodology to analyze VMT impacts within its jurisdiction.
In addition, the City does not currently have thresholds or standards in place for assessing potential
VMT impacts. Therefore, traffic impacts in this Draft EIR are based on the City’s LOS thresholds and
the analysis provided under Threshold 4.15.1, above.
Threshold 4.15.3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project
does not propose any major traffic infrastructure improvements. In addition, as described in Section
4.10, Land Use and Planning, the project would not include any land uses that would be
incompatible with surrounding uses. The proposed project would generate a similar vehicle mix to
other surrounding land uses, consisting primarily of single-occupancy vehicles and distribution
trucks. Additionally, all new driveways at the project site would be subject to the provisions of the
City of Cypress design standards to alleviate design feature and safety hazards, which would reduce
any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.15.4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site would be accessed via Siboney Street (and the existing
traffic signal at Siboney Street/Katella Avenue), Winners Circle (and the existing traffic signal at
Winners Circle/Katella Avenue), and a right-turn-in/out-only driveway directly on Katella Avenue. As
discussed above under Threshold 4.15.4, the project driveways would be designed to conform to the
City’s standards. Therefore, the project’s impacts associated with emergency access would be less
than significant. No mitigation is required.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-14
4.15.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Information related to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) was not provided
because the City has not yet adopted VMT metrics or thresholds of significance related to VMT, and
the use of VMT is not yet required under Section 15064.3. The proposed project would have less
than significant impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, hazards due to geometric design features and emergency access. In addition, the
project is not expected to result in a significant impact at any CMP intersection. Therefore, no
mitigation is required.
4.15.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
No regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are required for the proposed project.
4.15.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project’s impacts related to traffic/transportation would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
4.15.9 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 probable future
projects. The cumulative impact area for traffic/transportation is the traffic study area outlined in
the TIA, which includes 17 intersections in the Cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos. A list of approved/
pending projects provided by the Cities of Cypress and Los Alamitos and the surrounding Cities of
Garden Grove, Stanton, La Palma, Buena Park, and Hawaiian Gardens were reviewed to determine
whether projects in the vicinity of the project site (if any) should be included in the cumulative
condition. With concurrence from the City of Cypress, all 17 of the related projects listed in
Table 4.A, Summary of Related Projects, in Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis,
Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, were included in the cumulative (Opening Year 2021) condition.
4.15.9.1 Project Plus Cumulative (Opening Year 2021) Condition
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Applicant/Developer, the project would open in
2021. To develop a Year 2021 condition, an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per year (i.e., 1.5
percent total growth for 3 years) was applied to the existing traffic counts. This condition also
included the proposed project trips. Application of a 0.5 percent per year growth rate to the existing
traffic volumes is considered conservative and would account for any additional future development
in the project vicinity.
Table 4.15.D summarizes the results of the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative peak hour LOS
analysis for the study area intersections. As shown in Table 4.15.D, with the addition of the
proposed project, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS during both
peak hours. Therefore, a significant project impact is not expected to occur at any study area
intersection in the Opening Year (2021) conditions.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-15
Table 4.15.D: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection
Intersection Control
Peak
Hour
Opening Year
Opening Year
Plus Project Project Impact
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
∆ ICU/
Delay Yes/No
1 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Cerritos
Avenue Signal AM 0.725 C 0.726 C 0.001 No
PM 0.770 C 0.770 C 0.000 No
2 Bloomfield Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.707 C 0.707 C 0.000 No
PM 0.757 C 0.758 C 0.001 No
3 Denni Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.626 B 0.626 B 0.000 No
PM 0.812 D 0.817 D 0.005 No
4 Moody Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.594 A 0.594 A 0.000 No
PM 0.782 C 0.784 C 0.002 No
5 Walker Street/Cerritos Avenue Signal AM 0.711 C 0.714 C 0.003 No
PM 0.755 C 0.759 C 0.004 No
6 Valley View Street/Cerritos
Avenue Signal AM 0.755 C 0.756 C 0.001 No
PM 0.861 D 0.866 D 0.005 No
7 I-605 Northbound Ramps/Katella
Avenue
Signal AM 0.503 A 0.508 A 0.005 No
PM 0.602 B 0.611 B 0.009 No
Signal
(Delay)
AM 3.0 A 4.0 A 1.0 No
PM 4.2 A 4.3 A 0.1 No
8 Wallingsford Road – Walnut
Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.828 D 0.831 D 0.003 No
PM 0.726 C 0.733 C 0.007 No
9 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Katella
Avenue Signal AM 0.764 C 0.770 C 0.006 No
PM 0.766 C 0.773 C 0.007 No
10 Bloomfield Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.838 D 0.848 D 0.010 No
PM 0.762 C 0.776 C 0.014 No
11 Lexington Drive/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.613 B 0.620 B 0.007 No
PM 0.623 B 0.630 B 0.007 No
12 Cottonwood Way/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.392 A 0.399 A 0.007 No
PM 0.470 A 0.484 A 0.014 No
13 Siboney Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.520 A 0.543 A 0.023 No
PM 0.556 A 0.584 A 0.028 No
14 Winners Circle/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.424 A 0.450 A 0.026 No
PM 0.560 A 0.629 B 0.069 No
15 Walker Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.695 B 0.703 C 0.008 No
PM 0.703 C 0.722 C 0.019 No
16 Valley View Street/Katella Avenue Signal AM 0.756 C 0.762 C 0.006 No
PM 0.771 C 0.779 C 0.008 No
17 Valley View Street/Orangewood
Avenue Signal AM 0.805 D 0.808 D 0.003 No
PM 0.848 D 0.853 D 0.005 No
18 Lexington Drive/Farquhar Avenue AWSC AM 8.8 A 8.8 A 0.0 No
PM 9.8 A 9.8 A 0.0 No
19 Los Alamitos Boulevard/Farquhar
Avenue Signal AM 0.624 B 0.625 B 0.001 No
PM 0.630 B 0.633 B 0.003 No
Note: Delay is reported in seconds.
AWSC = all-way stop control ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
I-605 = Interstate 605 LOS = level of service
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.15 Transportation.docx (02/03/20) 4.15-16
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (02/03/20) 4.16-1
4.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section provides a discussion of the existing tribal cultural resource environment and an
analysis of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources from implementation of the Cypress City
Center project (proposed project). According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
21080.3.1 and Chapter 532, Statutes 2014 (i.e., Assembly Bill 52), “tribal cultural resources” are
defined as the following:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either: (A) included or determined to be eligible for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (B) included in a local register of
historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1
This section summarizes information obtained from Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52
Native American consultation efforts. The record of these consultation efforts is contained in
Appendix J of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.16.1 Methodology
4.16.1.1 Senate Bill 18
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on July 11, 2019, to conduct a
Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and provide a Native American Contact List for the project site
pursuant to SB 18. The NAHC responded on August 1, 2019, stating that an SLF search was
completed for the project site with negative results. The NAHC recommended that 21 Native
American individuals representing the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, Juaneño, Luiseño, Cupeño Luiseño, and
Cahuilla Luiseño groups be contacted for information regarding cultural resources that could be
affected by the project. These 21 individuals were contacted via letter sent on August 26, 2019, and
contacted again between September 9, 2019, and September 27, 2019, via email or phone as a
follow-up. Responses were received from Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleno Band
of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians,
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. Of those responses, only
one was a request to consult on the project – received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
– Kizh Nation. SB 18 consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation was
conducted concurrently with AB 52 consultation.
4.16.1.2 Assembly Bill 52
The NAHC was contacted on November 18, 2019, to conduct an SLF search and provide a Native
American Contact List for the project site pursuant to AB 52. The NAHC responded on December 4,
2019, stating that an SLF search was completed for the project site with negative results. The NAHC
also recommended that 29 Native American individuals representing the Cahuilla, Diegueño,
Gabrielino, Juaneño, Luiseño, Cupeño Luiseño, Cahuilla Luiseño, and Kumeyaay groups be contacted
for information regarding cultural resources that could be affected by the proposed project. These
29 individuals were contacted by the City of Cypress (City) via a letter sent on December 11, 2019.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (02/03/20) 4.16-2
Letters were also sent to three individuals who had requested to be notified of projects during AB 52
consultation, representing the Gabrielino, Juaneño, and Luiseño groups. Two of the additional
letters were sent via mail on December 16, 2019, and the third letter was sent via email on
December 13, 2019, as no mailing address was provided. With the exception of the Gabrieleno Band
of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, no responses were received. AB 52 consultation with the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation was conducted concurrently with SB 18
consultation.
4.16.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The area that is now the City of Cypress was prehistorically occupied by Native Americans. This area
is within the traditional boundaries of the Gabrielino.
4.16.3 Regulatory Setting
4.16.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations that are applicable to tribal cultural resources relevant to the
proposed project.
4.16.3.2 State Regulations
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Tribal Consultation. California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted
pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and
consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a General or Specific
Plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s
jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines
(2005)1, “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to
participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or
mitigating impacts to, cultural places.”
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) Tribal Consultation. California PRC Section 21080.3.1 and Chapter 532,
Statutes 2014 (i.e., AB 52), require that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment. The bill requires a lead agency to begin consultation with each
California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area
of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the
lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior
to determining whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental
Impact Report is required for a project. The bill specifies examples of mitigation measures that may
be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources. The bill makes the above
provisions applicable to projects that have a Notice of Preparation or a notice of Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. By requiring the lead
1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to
General Plan Guidelines. April 15, 2005. Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22491/files/tribal_
consultation_guidelines_vol-4.pdf 9 (accessed January 2, 2020).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (02/03/20) 4.16-3
agency to consider these effects relative to tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation
with California Native American tribes, this bill imposes a State-mandated local program.
4.16.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that are applicable to tribal cultural resources relevant to the
proposed project.
4.16.3.4 Local Regulations
There are no local regulations that are applicable to tribal cultural resources relevant to the
proposed project.
4.16.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for tribal cultural resources impacts used in this analysis are consistent with
Appendix G of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City’s
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed project may be deemed to have a significant
impact with respect to tribal cultural resources if it would:
Threshold 4.16.1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
Threshold 4.16.2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
4.16.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.16.1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (02/03/20) 4.16-4
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
No Impact. A cultural resources record search was completed on January 9, 2020, at the South
Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) at California State University, Fullerton. It included a review of all prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site, as well as a review of known
cultural resource survey and excavation reports in that area. The California State Historic Resources
Inventory (HRI), National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Historical
Landmarks (SHL), California Points of Historical Interest (SPHI), and various local historical registers
were examined. The SCCIC record search included the project site and the areas within 0.25 mile of
the project site. No archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the project site.
There has been one archaeological resource previously recorded within 0.25 mile of the project site,
the historic-period Navy Golf Course in Seal Beach (P-30-176854). One previous study (an
archaeological pedestrian field survey) included the project site.
Native American consultations were conducted in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52. As part of these
consultations, review of the SLF by the NAHC yielded negative results. Subsequently Native
American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to consult on the
proposed project. During that process, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe)
stated that the project site is within their tribal territory and requested consultation with the City.
During a January 16, 2020, phone consultation meeting with City staff, Chairperson Andrew Salas of
the Tribe was provided with a summary of the project and its location. Chairperson Salas provided
the City staff who participated in the meeting with the history of his Tribe and the context in which
they lived in the area, and indicated specific areas that were prehistoric travel routes for the Tribe.
Due to concerns regarding the lack of historical development on the project site and the level of fill,
the Tribe sent the City proposed mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources. On January 17,
2020, the City received the Tribe’s proposed mitigation measures. The Tribe’s recommendations
were incorporated into draft mitigation measures for the proposed project by City staff and shared
with the Tribe on January 29, 2020. On January 30, 2020, the Tribe accepted the proposed
mitigation measures and indicated that consultation has concluded.
No information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the project site was provided
by the Tribe. Therefore, no tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or in a local register exist within the project
area, and there are no known tribal cultural resources on the project site. The proposed project
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined
as a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.16.2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (02/03/20) 4.16-5
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource
determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Native American consultation was conducted in
compliance with SB 18 and AB 52. As part of these consultations, review of the SLF by the NAHC
yielded negative results. Subsequently Native American representatives were contacted by the City
to determine their desire to consult on the proposed project. During that process, the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Tribe stated that the project site is within their tribal territory
and requested consultation with the City. As discussed above, the Tribe proposed mitigation
measures during the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation processes. The Tribe’s recommendations have
been incorporated into mitigation measures for the proposed project.
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 requires compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code
for the treatment of human remains. Adherence to regulatory standards included in Regulatory
Compliance Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains to
less than significant and addresses tribal concerns regarding the treatment of human remains.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires the retention of a Gabrieleno Native American Tribal
representative to monitor ground-disturbing construction activities associated with pad grading of
Retail Building C (the northernmost retail building proposed directly to the west of Winners Circle)
and all geopier installation throughout the site. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 further requires the
retained Gabrieleno Native American Tribal representative to be present at the cultural resources
awareness training for construction personnel and provide additional tribal cultural resources
awareness information. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 also requires tribal monitoring during excavation
trenching for dry utilities, water, sewer, storm drain, and underground detention basin installation.
4.16.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
No impacts to known tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or
in a local register would occur. Prior to mitigation, the proposed project has the potential to result in
significant impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources.
4.16.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.16.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources.
4.16.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Applicant/Developer shall retain a
Gabrieleno Native American Tribal representative to
monitor ground-disturbing construction activities
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (02/03/20) 4.16-6
associated with pad grading of Retail Building C (the
northernmost retail building proposed directly to the
west of Winners Circle) and all geopier installation
throughout the site. The retained Gabrieleno Native
American Tribal representative shall be present at the
cultural resources awareness training to construction
personnel, and shall provide additional tribal cultural
resources awareness information at the same meeting.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with pavement
removal and initial site-wide grading (at a maximum
anticipated depth of 1 to 2 feet deep) shall not require
tribal monitoring. However, if tribal cultural resources
are encountered during the unmonitored excavation
activities previously specified, contractors shall stop
work in the immediate area of the find and contact the
retained Gabrieleno Native American Tribal
representative to assess the find. Tribal monitoring shall
also be required during excavation trenching for dry
utilities, water, sewer, storm drain, and underground
detention basin installation. Tribal monitoring shall not
be conducted after initial excavation of native
(previously undisturbed) soil has occurred (i.e., no tribal
monitoring shall be required for landscaping activities
occurring after completion of project grading and
trenching, as this soil will have been previously
monitored). On-site tribal monitoring shall be
considered complete after project grading and
trenching are completed, and no disturbance to native
(previously undisturbed) soils is anticipated.
If tribal cultural resources are discovered during
construction activities, ground-disturbing activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until
the find is assessed by the tribal monitor. The
Applicant/Developer shall determine whether to
contact the on-call archaeologist for his/her assistance
in the assessment of the find. Ground-disturbing
construction activities shall be allowed to continue in
other portions of the project while the find is being
assessed. If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural
resource, the Gabrieleno Native American Tribe whose
representative is responsible for tribal monitoring shall
coordinate with the Applicant/Developer to determine
appropriate treatment of the resource.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (02/03/20) 4.16-7
4.16.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
No impacts to known tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or
in a local register would occur. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to newly
discovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
4.16.9 Cumulative Impacts
Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown tribal cultural resources, when combined
with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Cypress, could
contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the overall loss of tribal cultural resources in
the region. However, each development proposal received by the City is required to undergo
environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there were any potential for significant impacts to tribal
cultural resources, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the
resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant
impacts.
When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources
are less than significant. As such, adherence to the regulatory standards in Regulatory Compliance
Measure CUL-1 and implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure that the proposed
project, together with the related projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to
tribal cultural resources.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (02/03/20) 4.16-8
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-1
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
This section describes the utility providers within whose jurisdiction the project site is located and
evaluates the potential impacts of the Cypress City Center project (proposed project) on utilities and
service systems. This section is based on multiple data sources, including: written correspondence
and coordination with utility providers (Appendix I) and the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) outputs generated for the proposed project (Appendix B). This section addresses the
following utilities and service systems (service providers are noted in parentheses).
• Electricity (Southern California Edison [SCE])
• Natural Gas (Southern California Gas Company [SoCalGas])
• Solid Waste (Valley Vista Services; Orange County Waste and Recycling [OCWR])
• Wastewater (Orange County Sanitation District [OCSD])
• Potable Domestic Water (Golden State Water Company [GSWC])
• Storm Drainage (Orange County Flood Control District [OCFCD]).
4.17.1 Methodology
Utility providers were sent a questionnaire requesting information regarding current service
provided to the project site and possible constraints or impacts to this service associated with
project buildout, which is anticipated to occur in 2021. The impact analyses are based on
information obtained through subsequent phone conversations with utility provider
representatives, data obtained through websites, and adopted planning documents of the service
and utility providers. This analysis also includes CalEEMod outputs generated for the proposed
project, which are included in Appendix B of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Correspondence with utility providers is included in Appendix I.
4.17.2 Existing Environmental Setting
4.17.2.1 Electricity
In 2017, California’s electricity was generated primarily by natural gas (33.67 percent), coal
(4.13 percent), large hydroelectric (14.72 percent), nuclear (9.08 percent), and renewable sources
(29 percent). Total electric generation in California in 2017 was 292,039 gigawatt-hours (GWh), up
0.5 percent from the 2016 total generation of 290,567 GWh. In 2017, California produced
approximately 70.7 percent and imported 29.3 percent of the electricity it used.1
The project site is within the service territory of SCE, which provides services through a grid of
transmission lines and related facilities. SCE provides electricity to more than 15 million people in a
50,000-square-mile (sq mi) area of Central, Coastal, and Southern California.2 According to the
1 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019e. Notice of Request for Public Comments on the Draft Scoping
Order for the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Docket No. 19-IEPR-01.
2 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2019. About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are
(accessed December 12, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-2
California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the SCE service area in 2018
was 84,000 GWh.1 Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2018 was 19,858 GWh (6,814
GWh for the residential sector and 13,044 GWh for the non-residential sector).2
4.17.2.2 Natural Gas
Natural gas consumed in California is used for electricity generation (45 percent), residential uses
(21 percent), industrial uses (25 percent), and commercial uses (9 percent). California continues to
depend upon out-of-state imports for nearly 90 percent of its natural gas supply.3 SoCalGas, the
service provider for the project site, serves approximately 21.8 million customers in a 24,000 sq mi
service territory.4 SoCalGas has four storage fields—Aliso Canyon, Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and
Playa del Rey—and has a combined storage capacity of 74 billion cubic feet.5
According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas
service area in 2018 was 5,156.1 million therms (2,147.4 million therms for the residential sector
and 987.5 million therms for the commercial sector).6 Total natural gas consumption in Orange
County in 2018 was 575.1 million therms (339.0 million therms for the residential sector and 236.1
therms for the non-residential sector).7
4.17.2.3 Solid Waste
The City of Cypress (City) currently contracts with Valley Vista, a private solid waste hauler, to collect
and dispose of the solid waste/refuse generated by the City. Solid waste/refuse collected in the City
by Valley Vista would be transported to one of the Class III landfills operated and maintained by
OCWR. Class III landfills only accept non-hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal; no hazardous
or liquid waste is accepted. County residents are able to dispose of their household hazardous waste
items at any of OCWR’s four household hazardous waste collection centers. Currently, OCWR
maintains and operates three Class III sanitary landfills, identified below in Table 4.17.A.
Of the three Class III landfills currently operated by OCWR, the closest active landfill to the project
site is the Olinda Alpha Landfill.
1 CEC. 2019b. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx
(accessed December 19, 2019)
2 CEC.. 2019a. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdmsenergy.ca.gov/elecby
county.aspx (accessed December 12, 2019).
3 CEC. 2019f. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/
almanac/naturalgas_data/overview.html (accessed December 9, 2019).
4 SoCalGas. Company Profile: About SoCalGas Webpage. Website: https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/
company-profile (accessed December 11, 2019)
5 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2019. Today in Energy Webpage. Website: https://www.
eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36416 (accessed December 11, 2019)
6 CEC. 2019d. Natural Gas Consumption by Entity. Website: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx
(accessed December 11, 2019)
7 CEC. 2019c. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
(accessed December 12, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-3
Table 4.17.A: Orange County Class III Landfills
Landfill Location
Approximate Distance from
Project Site (miles) Service
Frank R. Bowerman 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road
Irvine, CA 92602
20 Commercial dumping
No public dumping
Olinda Alpha 1942 North Valencia Avenue
Brea, CA 92823
15 Commercial dumping
Public dumping allowed
Prima Deshecha 32250 La Pata Avenue
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
33 Commercial dumping
Public dumping allowed
Source: Orange County Waste and Recycling.
The Olinda Alpha Landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2030, at which time it will be
landscaped to become a County Regional Park.1 The Olinda Alpha Landfill is currently permitted by
the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) to receive a maximum
of 8,000 tons per day (tpd) of waste, but currently receives an average of approximately 7,000 tpd.2
Therefore, the Olinda Alpha Landfill currently operates at approximately 87.5 percent of its daily
capacity. As of November 2014, the Olinda Alpha Landfill had an estimated remaining disposal
capacity of 34,200,000 cubic yards.3
4.17.2.4 Wastewater
The project site is in the sewer service area of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The
OCSD provides wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling for approximately 2.6 million people
living within a 479 sq mi area of central and northwestern Orange County.4 The OCSD’s facilities
include 396 miles of sewer pipes and 15 pump stations located throughout the county. The OCSD
treats approximately 185 million gallons of wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial
sources per day that is sent to two treatment plants: Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2. Treatment Plant
No. 1, at 10844 Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley, is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the
project site. Treatment Plant No. 2, at 22212 Brookhurst Street in Huntington Beach, is located
approximately 12.5 miles southeast of the project site.
The OCSD is responsible for the provision of wastewater treatment facilities that serve the project
site. Sewage from the City of Cypress is diverted to either Reclamation Plant No. 1 or Reclamation
Plant No. 2. Excess wastewater from any of six trunk sewers tributary to Plant No. 1 are diverted to
Plant No. 2 to not overload the capacity of Plant No. 1 and to provide for maintenance or
construction activities.5 Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a primary treatment capacity of 208 mgd,1 and
1 Orange County Waste & Recycling. 2019. Landfill Information. Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/
landfill (accessed December 12, 2019).
2 Ibid.
3 California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility Detail, Olinda
Alpha Landfill (30-AB-0035). Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035
(accessed December 23, 2019).
4 Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2018. 2017-2018 Annual Report. Website: https://www.ocsd.
com/Home/ShowDocument?id=26276 (accessed December 17, 2019).
5 OCSD. 2019a. 2018–2019 Annual Report Resource Protection Division Pretreatment Program. Website:
https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=29255 (accessed December 17, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-4
is running under capacity at approximately 120 mgd.2 Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a primary
treatment capacity of 1683 mgd and currently receives 65 mgd. 4 Additionally, through its Capital
Improvement Program, the OCSD strives to continue maintaining its facilities at optimal levels by
planning, designing, and preparing for future demand by developing Facilities and Biosolids Master
Plans that address 20-year planning horizons.5
4.17.2.5 Potable Domestic Water Service
GSWC provides domestic water service to the project site. GSWC’s Los Alamitos service area
includes Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Stanton; additionally, small portions of Buena Park, Garden
Grove, La Palma, Seal Beach, and the unincorporated community of Rossmoor are included in the
Los Alamitos service area. There are approximately 27,200 customers within GSWC’s Los Alamitos
service area.6
The 2015 West Orange Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) demonstrates that GSWC has
adequate domestic water supply for future water demands through 2040. GSWC obtains its water
supply for the West Orange System from two primary sources: imported groundwater and GSWC-
operated groundwater wells. Imported water is purchased from the Municipal Water District of
Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC is largely a pass-through provider of imported water, obtaining
its water supply from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).7 According to
the UWMP, MWD intends to provide 100-percent supply reliability to MWDOC, which in turn
provides 100-percent supply reliability to the West Orange System. Groundwater is extracted from
17 active, GSWC-owned wells in the Orange County Groundwater Basin.8 The UWMP includes a
water supply and demand assessment that demonstrates that adequate water supply, including
both imported groundwater and groundwater from GSWC-owned wells, will be available to GSWC
through 2040.9
As of 2015, recycled water was not used within the West Orange System. However, an existing
agreement would allow GSWC to purchase recycled water from the Los Angeles County Sanitation
District and provide the recycled water to Forest Lawn Memorial-Park in Cypress.10 Therefore,
projected water supply information in the UWMP includes recycled water as a source.
1 OCSD. 2019b. Budget Update Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/Show
Document?id=28411 (accessed December 17, 2019).
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 OCSD. 2019c. Facts and Key Statistics Webpage. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-
sewer-service (accessed December 1, 2019).
5 OCSD. 2019d. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2017/2018. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/
Home/ShowDocument?id=26170 (accessed December 1, 2019).
6 Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2019. Los Alamitos Customer Service Area. Website: http://www.
gswater.com/los-alamitos/ (accessed August 23, 2019).
7 GSWC. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, West Orange. Section 6.1. July.
8 GSWC. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, West Orange. Section 6.2. July.
9 GSWC. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, West Orange. Section 7.3.
10 Ibid.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-5
The total projected water demand for customers served by GSWC is approximately 16,722 acre-feet
per year (afy) in 2020; the projected water demand increases every 5-year period, totaling 17,701
afy by 2040.1 GSWC’s planned water supplies for 2020 total 16,722 afy, which consists of 1,644 afy
(9.8 percent) of imported water, 14,798 afy (88.5 percent) of groundwater from GSWC-owned wells,
and 280 afy (1.7 percent) of recycled water.2 Imported water from MWDOC is provided to the GSWC
West Orange System through three connections, which have supply capacities of 4,500 gallons per
minute (gpm), 11,200 gpm, and 9,000 gpm. These three connections together account for a total
supply capacity of 24,700 gpm.3 Over the next 20 years, imported water supplies are anticipated to
comprise the same proportion of GSWC’s water supply as under current conditions.
4.17.2.6 Storm Drain
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, in its existing condition, stormwater
runoff on the on-site parking lot flows in an east/west orientation to two separate concrete ribbon
gutters that transverse the project site and convey flow from north to south. In addition to on-site
stormwater runoff, off-site stormwater runoff from 11.8 acres north of the project site is also
tributary to the ribbon gutters. Each gutter conveys stormwater runoff to a separate existing catch
basin that connects to an existing City maintained 33-inch storm drain that runs on the north edge
Katella Avenue from east to west. The 33-inch storm drain increases to a 39-inch storm drain then to
a 48-inch storm drain just downstream of the project site. Stormwater runoff that exceeds the
capacity of catch basin inlets ponds in the parking lot to a depth of 12 to 18 inches before
overflowing and discharging overland to the existing on-site driveway and into the Katella Avenue
curb and gutter. The Katella Avenue stormdrain conveys stormwater runoff to the west, where it
connects to the Los Alamitos Channel. Los Alamitos Channel flows southwest where it discharges
into the San Gabriel River just north of its mouth, and then into the Pacific Ocean.
An existing 24-inch storm drain that runs north to south is located in Winners Circle between Katella
Avenue and the end of the cul-de-sac. This stormdrain conveys stormwater runoff from Winners
Circle to the Katella Avenue stormdrain. The approved stormdrain plan for the Winners Circle
stormdrain included an extension to the north, past the end of the cul-de-sac, and then west across
the existing parking lot just north of the project site. The stormdrain extension was proposed to
accommodate restricted flows of 0.3 cfs/acre from the property north of the project site. However,
only the portion of the stormdrain in Winners Circle was constructed.
4.17.2.7 Telecommunications Facilities
Telephone, television, and internet services are offered by a variety of providers in the City of
Cypress, including AT&T, Frontier Communications, Spectrum, HughesNet, and ViaSat. Non-satellite
providers include Frontier, DirectTV, Spectrum Cable, and DishTV. Satellite internet providers
include ViaSat. These services are privately operated and offered to each location in the City for a
fee defined by the provider.
1 GSWC. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, West Orange. Section 4.2.1.
2 Ibid. 2016. Section 6.9.
3 Ibid. 2016. Section 6.1.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-6
4.17.3 Regulatory Setting
4.17.3.1 Federal Regulations
There are no federal policies or regulation applicable to the proposed project.
4.17.3.2 State Regulations
Water Supply Assessment. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21151.9 requires that any
proposed “project,” as defined in Section 10912 of the Water Code, prepare a Water Supply
Assessment in compliance with Water Code Section 10910, et seq. Water Code Section 10910 et
seq. outlines the necessary information and analysis that must be included in an EIR to ensure that a
proposed land development has a sufficient water supply to meet existing and planned water
demand over a 20-year horizon.
According to Water Supply Assessment requirements, a “project” is defined as any of the following:
• A residential development of more than 500 dwelling units;
• A shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having
more than 500,000 square feet (sf) of floor space;
• A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
250,000 sf of floor space;
• A hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
• An industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than
1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 sf of floor
area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above; and
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of
water required by a 500-dwelling-unit project.
If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, a “project” means any proposed
residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for
an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service
connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or
greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an
increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service
connections.
The proposed project would include the development of 251 dwelling units and 65,975 sf of
commercial/retail space. GSWC has not published water demand factors for the Los Alamitos
Customer Service Area. In the absence of these factors, estimated water demand for the proposed
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-7
project was compared to estimated water demand for a 500-unit low-rise apartment complex based
on water demand factors in CalEEMod.
The proposed project’s land uses would demand approximately 16 percent less water than a 500-
unit low-rise apartment complex. Additionally, GSWC has more than 5,000 service connections.
Therefore, the proposed project does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to Water Code
Section 10912, and a Water Supply Assessment is not required for the proposed project.
Assembly Bill 341. Assembly Bill (AB) 341 extends the waste diversion requirements established
under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to the year 2020. In 1989, the
California Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is
administered by CalRecycle (formerly known as the California Integrated Waste Management Board)
and requires each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source reduction and recycling
element of an integrated waste management plan. Each adopted source reduction and recycling
element was required to demonstrate the diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill
disposal or transformation by January 1, 2000. Annual progress reports were required to be filed
with the State Legislature that included specified information regarding the act. AB 341 further
establishes the policy goal of the State that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be
source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. AB 341 requires CalRecycle, by January 1,
2014, to provide a report to the Legislature that provides strategies to achieve that policy goal and
also includes other specified information and recommendations in addition to the annual progress
report.
Title 24, California Building Code. Energy consumption by new buildings in California is regulated by
the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), known as the California Building Code (CBC). The CEC first adopted the Building Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce energy consumption in the State. The CBC is updated every 3 years. The 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards became effective on January 1, 2020. The efficiency standards
apply to both new construction and rehabilitation of both residential and non-residential buildings,
and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The
building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process. Local
government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings, provided these
standards meet or exceed those provided in CCR Title 24.
4.17.3.3 Regional Regulations
Metropolitan Water District 2015 Regional Urban Water Management Plan. MWD’s 2015 Regional
UWMP lists and describes the various uses, demand, supplies, target reductions, and compliance
measures for 26 member agencies. These include 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and one
county water authority serving approximately 18.7 million people in Southern California. The 2015
Regional UWMP found that under the current supply demands for a multiple-dry-year scenario (i.e.,
drought conditions), MWD would have sufficient supply to meet the projected growing demand for
water from 2020 to 2040 while still meeting statewide reduction targets of 20 percent of 2009 levels
by 2020. MWD is currently working to develop programs to increase its water supply and create a
large surplus during multiple-dry-year scenarios to ensure that water demands will still be addressed
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-8
during emergency drought situations. With demands projected to be around 2.3 million acre-feet in
2040 during multiple-dry-year scenarios, MWD would have a surplus of 2,000 acre-feet with current
capabilities and 288,000 acre-feet with the implementation of the programs under development.
Municipal Water District of Orange County 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. The region
served by MWDOC is located in Orange County, California, and includes 26 cities (including the City
of Cypress) and water districts, referred to as MWDOC member agencies. MWDOC’s 2015 UWMP
documents information on all sources of water supplies for the region—imported water,
groundwater, surface water, recycled water, and wastewater—as a summary of information for
regional planning. The plan concludes that the MWDOC service area will have sufficient existing and
planned supplies to meet full service demands under every water-year hydrologic scenario from
2015 through 2040. The plan also evaluates each source of water in the region. The resource mix for
meeting total demand includes local groundwater, recycled water, surface water, and imported
water from MWD. The plan documents MWDOC’s cooperative efforts with its member agencies in
developing local supplies and finds that in the region the percentage of its supply from each source
will remain approximately the same for the next 25 years, with 30 percent of its supplies from
imported water and 70 percent of its supplies from local sources in 2040, even with projected
growth occurring.
4.17.3.4 Local Regulations
Golden State Water Company 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (West Orange). GSWC
published its 2015 West Orange UWMP, which outlines how GSWC will provide customers with a
reliable supply of drinking water for the next 30 years. The 2015 UWMP provides the California
Department of Water Resources with information regarding present and future water resources and
demands and provides an assessment of GSWC’s water resource needs. The 2015 UWMP utilizes
factors that were evaluated in ensuring supply reliability in the MWDOC’s 2015 UWMP and the
MWD’s 2015 Regional UWMP.
The UWMP conducts a supply assessment to meet the projected growing demand in its West
Orange service area. The UWMP analyzes water supply during multiple-dry-year scenarios to ensure
that water demands will still be addressed during emergency drought situations. The UWMP
includes these multiple-dry-year scenarios in its analysis of future water demand.
City of Cypress Municipal Code. The Cypress Municipal Code includes the following requirements
that would apply to the proposed project related to the provision of utilities:
• Section 12-31 (Required Diversion Rates) of the City’s Municipal Code requires that the
applicant for a covered project shall divert, at a minimum, the percentage of construction and
demolition debris as specified by the California Green Building Standards.
• Section 5-1 (California Building Codes—Adopted) adopts the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code, 2019 Edition (Title 24). Generally, the intent of Title 24 is to provide efficiency
standards for new construction and the rehabilitation of both residential and nonresidential
buildings, including building energy consumption, water conservation, and operational
efficiencies. Title 24 regulates building energy consumption for heating, cooling, ventilation,
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-9
water heating, and lighting with regard to both electricity and natural gas, while also regulating
water consumption through the installation of efficient plumbing fixtures. Title 24 is included as
Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 below.
4.17.4 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for utilities and service system impacts used in this analysis are consistent with
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. In
determining whether the proposed project may have a significant impact with respect to utilities
and service systems, it is necessary to consider whether it would:
Threshold 4.17.1: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold 4.17.2: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Threshold 4.17.3: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Threshold 4.17.4: Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Threshold 4.17.5: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
4.17.5 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.17.1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
4.17.5.1 Water
Construction.
Less Than Significant Impact. Short term demand for water may occur during excavation, grading,
and construction activities on site. Construction activities would require water primarily for dust
mitigation purposes. Water from the existing potable water lines in the vicinity of the project site
would be used. Overall, short-term construction activities would require minimal water and are not
expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing water system or available water supplies. The
proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded water conveyance,
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-10
treatment, or collection facilities with respect to construction activities. Therefore, the impacts on
water facilities during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include an on-site domestic water
distribution system to serve the proposed residential and commercial/retail uses. The on-site system
would be constructed in compliance with the City’s building and plumbing codes in the Municipal
Code. The proposed on-site distribution system would connect to the existing GSWC water facilities
located within Katella Avenue adjacent to the southern border of the project site. Extension of the
water infrastructure from the adjacent streets into the project site would be a routine part of the
construction process analyzed in this EIR and would not have a material environmental impact. The
water facility improvements would be limited to the project site and connection points to the
adjacent, existing GSWC facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the
construction of new water facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause a
significant environmental impact, and the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
4.17.5.2 Wastewater
Construction.
Less Than Significant Impact. No significant increase in wastewater flows is anticipated as a result of
construction activities on the project site. Sanitary services during construction would be provided
by portable toilet facilities, which transport waste off-site for treatment and disposal. Therefore,
during construction, potential impacts to wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance
infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation.
Less Than Significant Impact. The on-site network of private sewer mains and laterals for the
proposed project would connect to the sewer mains along Katella Avenue and convey wastewater
flows to OCSD’s trunk line along Lexington Drive before eventually discharging to either OCSD’s
Reclamation Plant No. 1 or Reclamation Plant No. 2. Any sewer improvements associated with the
proposed project would be designed and constructed to City and OCSD standards. The proposed
project’s site plans would be accompanied by adequate plans for sewer improvements prepared by
a registered professional engineer and facilities would be dedicated to the City and/or OCSD at the
completion of construction. Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1 requires all sewer
improvements to comply with City and OCSD sewage standards. With the implementation of
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1, the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the
proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment or
collection facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause a significant
environmental impact, and the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-11
4.17.5.3 Stormwater/Drainage
Construction.
Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and construction activities would disturb soils and
temporarily modify the stormwater flow patterns on the construction site. As described under the
analysis of Thresholds 4.9.1, 4.9.6, 4.9.11, 4.9.12, and 4.9.18 in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the Construction General
Permit (Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1), which requires the preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and identification of construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that must be implemented during project construction to address potential impacts to
hydrology and stormwater drainage, including soil erosion, siltation, spills, and runoff. Adherence to
the regulatory standards described in Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1 would ensure that any
changes in stormwater drainage from the project site are controlled during construction. Therefore,
the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, and the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation.
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional
information regarding the proposed project’s impacts related to hydrology during operation. The
proposed project includes the construction of an on-site stormdrain system. Stormwater runoff
would be discharged to the Katella Avenue stormdrain system via a new stormdrain connection. The
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the proposed project identified pollutants of
concern that may affect the quality of discharges of stormwater from the site. The WQMP sets forth
measures specified in the Countywide WQMP and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) (2003), the assignment of long-term
maintenance responsibilities, and the locations of all structural Best Management Practices, which
are intended to provide measures that minimize or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into the
stormwater system. Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3 in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, requires the implementation of BMPs identified in Section IV of the Water Quality
Management Plan and the drainage improvements identified in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study.
The proposed detention system would reduce stormwater runoff from the project site to below
existing conditions. The proposed project would implement one of two scenarios to convey off-site
runoff that exceeds the 0.3 cfs capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system to the curb and
gutter in Katella Avenue. Under Scenario 1, flow that exceeds the 0.3 cfs capacity of the Winners
Circle stormdrain system would be conveyed around the project site before discharging to the storm
drain in Katella Avenue. Under Scenario 2, those flows would be conveyed through the project site
before discharging to the storm drain in Katella Avenue.
Under Scenario 1, the off-site flows would temporarily pond along the project site’s northern
property line at variable depths, depending on the magnitude of the storm event (e.g., 2-year, 10-
year, and 100-year storm) before discharging to the west, into Siboney Street, then flowing overland
to the south into Katella Avenue. This ponding would last for a short duration, would not flood any
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-12
structures, and would only affect the portions of the parking lot north of the project site that are
farthest away from the Los Alamitos Race Course grandstand. The ponding along the project site’s
northern property line would be a temporary condition until the area to the north has been
developed and a stormwater management and detention system is constructed during future
development on the 11.8 acres to the north of the project site. Each development proposal received
by the City is required to undergo environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). If there were any potential for significant impacts to occur as a result of these
future off-site drainage improvements, those impacts would be identified and appropriate
mitigation measures would be imposed within the CEQA compliance document that would be
prepared in support of future development on the property to the north of the project site.
Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Regulatory Compliance
Measure UTIL-2, which requires drainage system improvements to be designed and constructed to
City and OCFCD standards. With the adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3 and
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2, the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities. No mitigation is
required.
4.17.5.4 Electric Power
Construction.
Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction activities would be limited to providing
power to the staging area and portable construction equipment and would not substantially
increase demand for electricity. The heavy equipment used for construction is primarily powered by
diesel fuel. Temporary electric power would be provided via existing utility boxes and lines on the
project site. Given the limited nature of potential demand for electricity during construction and the
availability of existing power lines on the site, there would not be a need to construct new or alter
existing electric transmission facilities. Impacts to local regional supplies of electricity would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation.
Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed project would increase on-site electricity
demand compared to existing conditions. CalEEMod 2016.3.2 was used to calculate the approximate
annual electricity demand of the proposed project. The project site in existing condition is a parking
lot with existing light poles. Therefore, current demand for electricity on the project site is
negligible. As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, based on the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix B of this
EIR) the proposed project is estimated to consume a total of 2,238,566 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of
electricity per year with the implementation of renewable energy (i.e., solar panels and LED lights)
and USEPA energy star rating appliances. Additionally the proposed project would be required to
comply with Title 24 energy efficiency measures and sustainability features of the California Building
Code as described under Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-13
Additionally the proposed project would reduce electricity consumption by incorporating the
following energy efficiency measures in the design of the proposed structures in addition to
complying with Title 24 requirements:
• Increased insulation in walls and attic spaces.
• Cool roof features.
• Duct insulation and improved-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.
• High-efficiency water heaters.
• Installation of daylighting features on all peripheral rooms.
• North/South alignment of building or other building placement such that the orientation of the
buildings optimizes conditions for natural heating, cooling, and lighting.
• Shading by vegetation or overhangs.
The implementation of these energy efficiency measures and compliance with Title 24 requirements
could potentially result in further reductions in the estimated electricity consumption of the
proposed project.
Total electricity consumption in Orange County in 2018 was approximately 19,858,000,000 kWh.
Therefore, the increased electricity demand associated with the proposed project would be
approximately 0.01 percent of Orange County’s total electricity demand. Service providers utilize
projected demand forecasts in order to provide an adequate supply or plan for surplus in their
service areas. As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in
the SCE service area for estimated net increases in energy demands through 2030. Because the
proposed project would only represent a small fraction of electricity demand in Orange County, the
project would meet Title 24 requirements and incorporate additional energy conservation
measures, and there would be sufficient electricity supplies available, energy demand for the
proposed project would be less than significant.
The supply and distribution network within the area surrounding the project site would remain
essentially the same as exists currently, with the exception of on-site improvements to connect to
the existing infrastructure. These on-site improvements would provide electrical service to the
residential, commercial, and retail uses proposed. The proposed project would not increase
electrical demand beyond existing projections from the local electricity provider and the project site
is within a developed service area with existing demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not
require the construction of any physical improvements related to the provision of electricity service
that would result in significant environmental impacts and the proposed project’s impacts would be
less than significant. No mitigation is required.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-14
4.17.5.5 Natural Gas
Construction.
Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction activities would not result in demand for
natural gas since construction activities/equipment would not require accessing existing adjacent
natural gas facilities. Therefore, construction activities would not impact natural gas services, and
the proposed project would not require new or physically altered gas transmission facilities.
Operation.
Less Than Significant Impact. The existing use of the project site as a parking lot does not require
the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase on-
site natural demand compared to existing conditions. CalEEMod 2016.3.2 was used to calculate the
approximate annual natural gas demand of the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.5 Energy,
the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is
97,767 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2018 was 236,102,647
therms. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual natural
gas consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.04 percent. The estimated increase in
natural gas demand associated with the proposed project would represent a very small fraction of
the natural gas demand in Orange County. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to
comply with Title 24 requirements as described under Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 and
would reduce natural gas consumption by incorporating the energy efficiency measures listed above
in the design of the proposed structures.
As noted above, service providers utilize projected demand forecasts in order to provide an
adequate supply or plan for surplus in their service areas. As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, it is
anticipated that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas demand in its service area through
2035. Because the proposed project would only represent a small fraction of natural gas demand in
Orange County, the project would meet Title 24 requirements and incorporate additional energy
conservation measures, and there would be sufficient natural gas supplies available, natural gas
demand for the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
The supply and distribution network within the area surrounding the project site would remain
essentially the same as exists today except for standard on-site improvements, and levels of service
to off-site users would not be adversely affected. Existing gas transmission and distribution services
maintained by SoCalGas would provide natural gas service to the proposed project. The proposed
project would not increase natural gas demand beyond existing projections from the local natural
gas provider and the project site is within a developed service area with existing demand. Therefore,
the proposed project would not require the construction of any physical improvements related to
the provision of natural gas service that would result in significant environmental impacts and the
proposed project’s potential impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation would be
required.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-15
4.17.5.6 Telecommunication Facilities
Less Than Significant Impact. Telephone, cable, and internet service lines in the vicinity will be
extended into the project site. Internal to the project site, the project Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for constructing adequate telecommunication facility extensions to the various
structures of the proposed project. The construction and expansion of these facilities would occur
on site during the site preparation and earthwork phase and are not expected to impact any
telephone, cable, or internet services offsite that serve the surrounding areas. Additionally,
telecommunication facilities are generally installed concurrently with utility expansions and impacts
associated with the expansion of telecommunications facilities are already considered in the air
quality, noise, and construction traffic analysis. Therefore, the project impacts associated with the
relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities and impacts would be
less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.17.2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the Golden State Water Company (GSWC)
would provide water services to the project site and would connect the proposed project to the
existing 10-inch water main along the north side of Katella Avenue.
The proposed residential units would result in a minor increase in water demand. However, as
discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce
substantial population growth. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3, which requires the project to use reclaimed water and to
comply with all State laws for water conservation measures, including the use of low-flow fixtures.
With the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3, the total water demand
generated by the proposed project as estimated by the CalEEMod outputs would be approximately
107,750 gpd or 120.7 afy.
The estimated increase in water demand associated with the proposed project would represent 0.7
percent of the West Orange System’s current annual water demand, based on the system’s
projected demand of 16,722 afy in 2020. The proposed project does not require the preparation of a
Water Supply Assessment pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21151.9, as
discussed previously, because the proposed project does not meet the definition of a “project” as
set forth in Section 10912 of the Water Code. The proposed project does not meet any of the
criteria listed in Water Code Section 10912 and is not a project that would demand an amount of
water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling-unit project.
Based on CalEEMod estimates, the proposed project is expected to demand approximately 16
percent less water than a 500-unit residential project.
As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the
GSWC would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water. Therefore, with
implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3, impacts to water supplies would be less
than significant. No mitigation is required.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-16
Threshold 4.17.3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, sewage from Cypress is diverted to either
Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley or Reclamation Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach.
Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a primary treatment capacity of 208 mgd,1 and is running under
capacity at approximately 120 mgd.2 Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a primary treatment capacity of
168 3 mgd and is running under capacity at approximately 65 mgd. 4
The proposed project is anticipated to generate 80,223 gpd of wastewater. However, the 80,223
gpd of wastewater generated by the proposed project would only represent a small fraction of the
primary daily treatment capacity of Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Reclamation Plant No. 2 (0.04
percent and 0.05 percent, respectively). Additionally, through its Capital Improvement Program, the
OCSD strives to continue maintaining its facilities at optimal levels by planning, designing, and
preparing for future demand by developing Facilities and Biosolids Master Plans that address 20-
year planning horizons.5 Through these long-range planning activities, the OCSD would be able to
accommodate the growth in demand for wastewater treatment generated by the proposed project
and other projects in its service area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a
significant contribution to the capacity of Reclamation Plant No. 1 or Reclamation Plant No. 2.
Additionally, fees required by the OCSD would sufficiently offset potential impacts generated by the
proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
related to the wastewater treatment capacity and no mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 4.17.4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards,
or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the closest active landfill to the proposed project
is the Olinda Alpha Landfill. The Olinda Alpha Landfill currently operates at approximately 87.5
percent of its daily capacity. As of November 2014, the Olinda Alpha Landfill had an estimated
remaining disposal capacity of 34,200,000 cubic yards.6
1 OCSD. 2019b. Budget Update Fiscal Year 2019–2020. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/Show
Document?id=28411 (accessed December 17, 2019).
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 OCSD. 2019c. Facts and Key Statistics Webpage. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-
sewer-service (accessed December 1, 2019).
5 OCSD. 2019d. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2017/2018. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/
Home/ShowDocument?id=26170 (accessed December 20, 2019).
6 California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility Detail, Olinda
Alpha Landfill (30-AB-0035). Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/30-AB-0035
(accessed December 23, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-17
Based on the CalEEMod outputs, the proposed project is estimated to generate 1,955 pounds of
solid waste per day during operation. The incremental increase of solid waste generated by the
proposed project would constitute 0.1 percent of the remaining daily available capacity (1,000 tpd)
at the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Therefore, solid waste generated by the proposed project would not
cause the capacity at the Olinda Alpha Landfill to be exceeded. As such, the proposed project would
be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate its solid waste disposal
needs. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to solid
waste and landfill facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.17.5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste practices in California are governed by multiple federal,
State, and local agencies that enforce legislation and regulations ensuring that landfill operations
minimize impacts to public health and safety and the environment. The project site is located within
OCWR’s service area. An important part of OCWR’s mission is to apply sound environmental
practices to ensure compliance with these regulations. Additionally, OCWR has an adopted CIWMP
that requires countywide facilities to meet the 15-year capacity requirements. OCWR is also
obligated to obtain a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, a Storm Water Discharge Permit, and permits to
construct and operate gas management systems and meet Waste Discharge Requirements. The LEA,
the SCAQMD, and the RWQCB enforce landfill regulations related to health, air quality, and water
quality, respectively. The proposed project would not inhibit OCWR’s compliance with the
requirements of each of the governing bodies.
The proposed project would comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance
(Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4). The Applicant/Developer would also be required to
submit a Materials Questionnaire should the contractor haul away its own demolition waste.
Additionally, the proposed project would comply with AB 341, which went into effect on July 1,
2012. AB 341 requires businesses and multifamily residential dwelling units of five units or more
that generate four or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week to implement recycling
programs.1 With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4, the proposed project would
comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.17.6 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
With adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures UTIL-1 through UTIL-4, Regulatory Compliance
Measure E-1, Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1, and Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3,
the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to utilities and service
systems.
1 City of Cypress. AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/work/
trash-recycling/ab-341-mandatory-commercial-recycling (accessed December 23, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-18
4.17.7 Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures
4.17.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Measures
The following regulatory compliance measures pertaining to utilities and service systems are
applicable to the proposed project.
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1 Sewer Improvement Standards. All required sewer
improvements shall be designed and constructed to City
and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) standards
and shall be approved by the City of Cypress (City)
Engineer prior to development. These improvements
may be constructed in a phased sequence depending
upon the development process. Facilities shall be
dedicated to the City and/or OCSD at the completion of
construction.
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2 Drainage Improvement Standards. Drainage system
improvements shall be designed and constructed to City
and Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD)
standards, if applicable, and will be approved by those
agencies prior to development. Improvements may be
constructed in a phased sequence depending upon the
development process. Facilities shall be dedicated to
the City at completion of construction to the extent
required by the City (Source: Mitigation Measure No.
64, page 151, Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan EIR).
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3 Water Conservation. The Applicant/Developer shall
comply with all State laws for water conservation
measures and use of reclaimed water. Voluntary water
conservation strategies shall be encouraged. The
Building Division shall determine compliance prior to
issuance of building permits (Source: Mitigation
Measure No 75, pages 157 and 158, Cypress Business
and Professional Center Specific Plan EIR).
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4 Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The
Construction Contractor shall comply with the
provisions of City Ordinance No. 1166 and the 2016
California Green Building Standards Code, which would
reduce construction and demolition waste. Ordinance
No. 1166 is codified in Article VIII, Materials
Questionnaire for Certain Construction and Demolition
Project within the City of Cypress in the City of Cypress
Municipal Code.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-19
Additionally, refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 in Section 4.5, Energy, and Regulatory
Compliance Measures HYD-1 and HYD-3 in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
4.17.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project.
4.17.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to utilities or service systems. No
mitigation is required.
4.17.9 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 probable future
projects within the cumulative impact area for public services and utilities. The project site is a
vacant parking lot located in an urban area with existing services provided by utility providers in the
vicinity. The cumulative area for utilities is listed below for each individual utility provider.
4.17.9.1 Wastewater
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis for wastewater treatment is defined as the City and
the OCSD service area. Within its service area, the OCSD uses United States Census Bureau
population data, as well as information regarding existing and zoned land uses, to project current
and future wastewater flows. For this reason, the projected demand for wastewater treatment is
cumulative in nature.
The wastewater capacities of OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 and 2 are designed to accommodate
the growth forecast within the OCSD service area and development outlined in the General Plans for
jurisdictions within its service area. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, population
growth generated by the proposed project in conjunction with related projects would not induce
substantial population unplanned population growth in the City. Through its Capital Improvement
Program, the OCSD strives to continue maintaining its facilities at optimal levels by planning,
designing, and preparing for future demand by developing Facilities and Biosolids Master Plans that
address 20-year planning horizons.1 Because OCSD prepares for future demand over long planning
horizons, adequate facilities would be planned for to account for population growth. Therefore, the
cumulative population and housing growth from the proposed project and the related projects
would be planned for and the OCSD would have adequate capacity for the increased wastewater
treatment demand associated with implementation of the proposed project and the related projects
within its service area.
1 OCSD. 2019d. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2017/2018. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/
Home/ShowDocument?id=26170 (accessed December 1, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-20
Furthermore, OCSD is starting construction on the Western Regional Sewers project as early as
Spring 2020, which would further improve OCSD sewer facilities in the vicinity of the project site.1
Individual projects in the OCSD service area, including the related projects, would address the
localized capacity of OCSD facilities and identify whether new or upgraded facilities are required.
For these reasons, the proposed project and related projects would not result in a cumulatively
significant impact to wastewater generation.
4.17.9.2 Potable Water
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of water infrastructure is the West Orange service
area of GSWC. The projections for potable water demand in the GSWC West Orange service area are
based on regional population and economic growth forecasts, and account for potential future
development within its service area, including the additional demand for water generated by the
related projects. According to the GSWC 2015 UWMP, by 2035, the West Orange service area’s
population is estimated to increase at a 0.3 percent growth rate per year, and households and
employment in the service area are both expected to grow at an annual growth rate of 0.2 percent
over the same period. For this reason, the projected demand for water supply in the GSWC West
Orange service area is inherently cumulative in nature. As discussed previously, population growth
generated by the proposed project in conjunction with related projects would not result in
substantial unplanned population growth. As such, GSWC would update its population projections
and expected water demand accordingly to accommodate population and housing growth.
Therefore, GSWC would have adequate capacity for the increased demand for potable water
associated with the development of the proposed project and the related projects within its service
area. Therefore, the proposed project and the related projects would not have a cumulatively
significant impact on water supply or facilities.
4.17.9.3 Electricity
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts to the provision of electricity is the
service territory of SCE. SCE’s service area covers approximately 50,000 sq mi in Southern and
Central California, with the provision of energy service to approximately 15 million across the service
territory.2 The projections of statewide electricity supply capacity demand rates are cumulative in
nature. They are based on population and economic growth in addition to such physical variables as
average temperature and water supplies (important to hydroelectric generation) in a given year. The
total annual electricity consumption in the SCE service area in 2017 was 84,291.6 GWh and by 2030,
consumption is anticipated to increase by approximately 12,000 GWh for the low-demand scenario
and by 22,000 GWh for the high-demand scenario.3 While this forecast represents a large increase in
electricity consumption, the proposed project’s percent of cumulative consumption of electricity in
1 OCSD. 2019e. Western Regional Sewers Program Webpage. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/residents/
future-projects/western-regional-sewers (accessed December 17, 2019).
2 Southern California Edison. 2019. About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are
(accessed December 12, 2019).
3 CEC. 2018. California Energy Demand, 2018-2030 Revised Forecast. Publication Number: CEC-200-2018-
002-CMF. February. Website: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed
December 12, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-21
the SCE service area would be negligible. Therefore, any increase in electrical demand resulting from
the proposed project would be incremental compared to an increase in regional demand. Sufficient
electricity supplies and infrastructure capacity are available, or have already been planned, to serve
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.
Additionally, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code regulates energy and water consumption
in new construction and regulates building energy consumption for heating, cooling, ventilation,
water heating, and lighting. Therefore, in relation to the cumulative study area, the proposed
project would not generate a significant cumulative increase in demand for electricity or a
significant disruption in service or service level. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to
electricity impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.
4.17.9.4 Natural Gas
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts to the provision of natural gas is the
service territory for SoCalGas. SoCalGas provides natural gas to approximately 21.8 million people in
a 24,000 sq mi service area throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican
border. Total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2018 was 5,156.1 million
therms. 1 Between 2018 and 2035, total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area is
forecast to remain steady for the low- and mid-demand scenarios and to increase by approximately
650 million therms in the high-demand scenario due to intense energy efficiency efforts.2 The
proposed project’s percent of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SoCalGas service area
would be negligible. Therefore, any increase in natural gas demand resulting from the proposed
project would be incremental compared to an increase in regional demand. Furthermore, like the
proposed project, all future projects would be subject to Title 24 requirements and would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the need for specific distribution improvements.
Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to natural gas impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable, and no mitigation is required.
4.17.9.5 Solid Waste
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of solid waste infrastructure is OCWR’s service
territory. Development associated with the proposed project would contribute to an increased
demand for landfill capacity for solid waste. As stated previously, the landfill serving the project site
would be the Olinda Alpha Landfill, which is not scheduled to close until 2030. As discussed under
Threshold 4.17.4 above, the proposed project would only constitute approximately 0.1 percent of
the remaining average daily capacity at the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Additionally the Olinda Alpha
Landfill is currently only receiving 87.5 percent of the 8,000 tons it is permitted to receive.
Therefore, the Olinda Alpha Landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to provide adequate capacity
for Orange County’s solid waste needs and with compliance with federal, State, and local statues
and regulations related to solid waste, which require reductions in solid waste generation.
1 CEC. 2019e. Natural Gas Consumption by Entity. Website: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx
(accessed December 12, 2019).
2 Ibid.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (02/03/20) 4.17-22
Furthermore, based on their current daily maximum permitted disposal capacities and current
average daily tonnage, the Alpha Olinda Landfill will reach capacity in 2030, the Frank R. Bowerman
Landfill will reach capacity in 2053, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill will reach capacity in 2102.1
Therefore, there is currently sufficient permitted capacity within the existing OCWR system serving
Orange County to provide adequate future capacity for the County’s solid waste needs. Therefore,
the proposed project’s contribution to solid waste impacts would not be cumulatively considerable,
and no mitigation is required.
4.17.9.6 Telecommunication Facilities
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts to the provision of telecommunication
facilities is the City. Telephone, cable, and internet services are provided to residents through
private providers of these services. The construction and expansion of telecommunication facilities
for the proposed project would occur on site and is not expected to impact any telephone, cable, or
internet services offsite that serve the surrounding areas. Likewise, construction and expansion of
telecommunication facilities would generally occur on site to extend through proposed related
developments. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new
or expanded telecommunication facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
1 Orange County Waste & Recycling. 2019. Landfill Information Webpage. Website: http://www.oc
landfills.com/landfill (accessed December 12, 2019)
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section
15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the Cypress City Center Project (proposed
project), evaluates the potential impacts of each alternative, and compares the potential impacts of
each alternative against the proposed project’s impacts, as required by CEQA.
Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[b] through [f]) are
summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in
the EIR:
• The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be
more costly (15126.6[b]).
• The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact
(15126.6[e][1]). The ‘no project’ analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the
Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as
well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project
were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and
community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative,
the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives
(15126.6[e][2]).
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the ‘rule of reason’ that requires the
EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives
shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead
agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of
feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account
when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability
of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional
boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise
have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent) (15126.6[f]).
• For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (15126.6[f][2][A]).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-2
• If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the
reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some
cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project
which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location (15126.6[f][2][B]).
• An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and
whose implementation is remote and speculative (15126.6[f][3]).
Pursuant to the guidelines stated above, a range of alternatives to the proposed project is
considered and evaluated in this EIR. These alternatives were developed in the course of project
planning and environmental review. The discussion in this section provides:
1. A description and analysis of impacts for each of the alternatives considered;
2. Comparative analysis of each alternative that focuses on the potentially significant unavoidable
environmental impacts of the proposed project (the purpose of this analysis is to determine
whether alternatives are capable of eliminating or reducing the significant environmental
impacts of the project to a less than significant level); and
3. Conclusions regarding the alternative’s: (1) ability to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
unavoidable impacts of the project; (2) ability to attain the project objectives (as stated below);
and (3) merits compared to the merits of the proposed project.
5.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
5.2.1 Project Objectives
As discussed in Section 1.3.1, Project Objectives, of this EIR, the following project objectives have
been established to aid decision-makers in their review of the proposed project and its associated
environmental impacts:
The following provides the objectives established for the proposed project, which include
implementation of goals and policies from the City of Cypress (City) General Plan and the Specific
Plan:
1. Provide uses that meet the City’s General Plan balanced development goals and objective to
locate higher density housing adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities to
encourage pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for commercial uses (GP LU-1.4).
2. Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Cypress Business and
Professional Center Specific Plan, which would promote a commercial environment that
balances quality development with economic growth while building in flexibility to respond to
the market demands (Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan, Objectives 1.2 and
1.3).
3. Support the retention of local employers and increase the fiscal benefits to the City by attracting
new retail, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment businesses that can better serve the local
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-3
population and employment and would generate additional revenue to the City through
increased sales, property, and transient occupancy taxes (GP LU-17.1).
4. Meet the demand for new hotel rooms in the Cypress Business Center to serve the local
business community.
5. Provide new drainage improvements on the project site, which would reduce the risk of
downstream flooding hazards.
6. Provide a new community gathering place for Cypress residents and workers, including a public
dog park and a landscaped plaza with outdoor dining areas.
7. Allow the City to divest itself of real estate conveyed to it by the Cypress Redevelopment Agency
in March 2011 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement between the City of Cypress, the
Successor Agency to the Cypress Redevelopment Agency, the State Department of Finance, and
the State Controller’s Office, which would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the
City by selling the land to a private owner, who would return the land to the property tax rolls
and develop it with new revenue-generating uses.
8. Expand the variety of housing stock in the City, which would help meet the existing and future
housing needs of all Cypress residents, by providing high density rental units (GP HOU-3.5).
9. Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high‐quality housing in the City to
alleviate the housing crisis and help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment
allocations (GP HOU-4).
5.2.2 Significant Adverse Unavoidable Impacts of the Proposed Project
The following discussion focuses on alternatives that would reduce or avoid the significant adverse
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. As detailed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
the proposed project would result in significant, adverse, and unavoidable impacts related to
greenhouse gas emissions after all mitigation is applied. These impacts are summarized below.
The proposed project would be designed in compliance with adopted regulations aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the project would be designed and built to be 10 percent
more energy-efficient than the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Title 24), or the current Title 24 requirements, whichever are more stringent.
Although exceeding the current CCR Title 24 requirements would help to reduce the proposed
project’s greenhouse gas emissions, the overall emissions attributable to construction and operation
of the proposed project of 7,208 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr) are
expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of 3,000
MT CO2e/yr. The greenhouse gas emissions of 7.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per
service population per year (MT CO2e/SP/yr) would also exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 4.3 MT
CO2e/SP/yr for 2022. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable
project impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-4
greenhouse gas emissions and conflict with an applicable greenhouse gas reduction plan, policy, or
regulations.
5.3 ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines suggests that EIRs identify any alternatives that
were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected during the scoping process and briefly
explain the reasons underlying the Lead Agency’s determination. In evaluating an appropriate range
of alternatives to the proposed project, a number of alternatives were considered and rejected for
differing reasons by the City of Cypress (City).
The following is a discussion of the development alternatives considered during the environmental
review process and the reasons they were not selected for detailed analysis in this Draft EIR.
5.3.1 Alternative Sites
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location
that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant impacts of the project. The key
question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant impacts of the project would
be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. Only locations that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project need be considered for inclusion in
the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][A]). Among the factors that may be taken
into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability,
availability of infrastructure, General Plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations,
jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Applicant/Developer can reasonably acquire, control, or
otherwise have access to the alternative site (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][1]). If it is
determined that no feasible alternative locations exist, the EIR must disclose the reasons for this
conclusion (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][B]).
No alternative locations where the proposed project could be undertaken are analyzed in the Draft
EIR. One of the fundamental purposes of the project is to facilitate the City’s disposal of real estate
conveyed to it by the Cypress Redevelopment Agency in March 2011 in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement between the City of Cypress, the Successor Agency to the Cypress
Redevelopment Agency, the State Department of Finance, and the State Controller’s Office. The
consideration of an alternative development site elsewhere in the City would not facilitate this
important goal.
In addition, as discussed further below, there is no other property in the City that would support a
development similar to the proposed project. The surrounding area is highly urbanized, and no land
is currently available for development that is large enough (approximately 13 acres) to develop the
proposed project in an area that would be compatible with the proposed residential and
commercial/retail uses. In addition, the City and/or the Applicant/Developer does not own or
control any other property within the City or in the vicinity of the project site that would be suitable
for development of the proposed project. Moreover, the Applicant/Developer cannot reasonably
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-5
acquire or control an alternative site in a timely fashion that would allow for the implementation of
a project with similar uses and square footage.
The following alternative sites were considered as potential alternatives to the project site, but
eliminated for the reasons discussed above and below:
1) Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0: The Cypress Town Center and
Commons Specific Plan 2.0, approved by voters in 2018, covers an approximately 154.4-acre
area located to the north of the project site and generally bound by Cerritos Avenue, Katella
Avenue, and Lexington Drive. The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0
established a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework to develop a town
center, housing, and public park space in parts of the Los Alamitos Race Course, the former
Cypress Golf Club, and adjacent property. The districts within the Cypress Town Center and
Commons Specific Plan 2.0 are primarily designated for single-family residential, senior
housing, or public parks. Although property may be available (such as the parking lot north
of the project site) in these districts, the commercial uses included in the proposed project
would not be compatible with the single-family residential, senior housing, or public parks
uses intended in these areas. The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0
includes two mixed-use districts. The commercial and residential uses of the proposed
project would be compatible with the uses intended in these districts by the Cypress Town
Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0. However, one of the mixed-use districts would be
too small (4.2 acres) to accommodate the proposed project. Although the second mixed-use
district, located to the west of the project site, would be large enough (15 acres) to
accommodate the proposed project, the existing Seventh-Day Adventist Church would be
displaced. In addition, according to the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan
2.0, it is anticipated that no development would occur within the mixed-use districts until
the Los Alamitos Race Course ceases operation. At this time, there is no indication that the
owners of the Los Alamitos Race Course intend to close this facility. Therefore, development
of the proposed project within the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 is
not a feasible option.
2) Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan covers the area along Lincoln
Avenue between Buena Park on the east and Hawaiian Gardens on the west. The Lincoln
Avenue Specific Plan established a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework to
guide development in the plan area. Within the plan area, the majority of the available
parcels are not large enough to accommodate the proposed project. An approximately 14-
acre parcel located at 4552 Lincoln Avenue, developed with a self-storage facility, was
previously considered to be developed with a residential development. However, the
residential development is no longer being considered on this property, so it could feasibly
be available for development of the project. However, neither the City nor the
Applicant/Developer owns or controls this property. The property site is designated for
residential uses in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan; therefore, a specific plan amendment
would be required to allow for development of the commercial and retail uses on the
project site. Additionally, this property is a rectangular property with limited frontage along
Lincoln Avenue. Because good street visibility is necessary to make retail and commercial
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-6
uses viable, and this property is not highly visible from Lincoln Avenue, this site is not a
viable alternative site for the proposed project.
3) Former Mitsubishi Motors Property. In 2019, Mitsubishi Motors relocated its headquarters
from 6400 Katella Avenue. The approximately 22-acre property is developed with office
buildings, but is currently unoccupied. Therefore, it is conceivable the property could be
available for development of the proposed project. However, development of the proposed
project on this site would require demolition of the existing office buildings. Additionally,
neither the City nor the Applicant/Developer owns or controls this property. Finally, the
property is currently zoned for the Planned Community Zone (PC-2): Cypress Corporate
Center and the surrounding properties are developed with office uses. The residential and
commercial/retail uses proposed as part of the proposed project would not be compatible
with the corporate/office land uses within the Cypress Corporate Center planned
community. Therefore, this site is not a viable alternative site for the proposed project.
Development of the proposed project at an alternative site (assuming one was available) could
potentially result in some environmental impacts that would be similar to or greater than those of
the proposed project’s environmental impacts, depending on the proximity of the alternate site to
sensitive uses. Conversely, given that the project site is located in a highly urbanized area, it is
unlikely that relocating the proposed project to another site would substantially lessen any of its
impacts. Additionally, developing the project on a different site would not reduce the significant
unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions because the greenhouse gas emissions are
primarily dependent on the construction activities and proposed on-site uses and not on the location
of the project. This, of course, assumes that an alternative development site would also be located in
an urbanized area with equal access to housing, jobs, and services as that of the project site. Siting
the project in a rural area that is far from housing, jobs, and services would greatly increase the
vehicle miles traveled associated with the project, which would also increase the project’s
greenhouse gas emissions.
As such, no alternative sites were considered feasible because, as discussed above, one of the
fundamental purposes of the project is to facilitate the City’s sale of the project site. In addition,
neither the City nor the Applicant/Developer owns or controls another project site in the City, no
suitable alternative site is available that would achieve the underlying purpose and objectives of the
proposed project, development of the proposed project on an alternative site would likely result in
many of the same environmental impacts as development of the proposed project on the project site
and would not reduce the significant, unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. For
these reasons, this alternative was rejected from further consideration.
5.4 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines
require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives
to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. Based on the
criteria listed above, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a
reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-7
objectives of the proposed project but that may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the alternatives considered in this EIR include the
following:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative: CEQA requires analysis of a “No Project” Alternative. The
purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to
compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the
proposed project. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C), the lead agency
should proceed to analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting what would
reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,
based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The
No Project Alternative assumes that the project site would remain in the same condition as it
was at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published and no new development of any
kind would occur on the project site. The project site would remain a paved parking lot that
would continue to be used for vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los Alamitos Race
Course. Other short-term uses of the project site would also continue, including use as a
Christmas tree lot, a truck staging area, and auxiliary truck and trailer storage.
• Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative includes a mixed-
use development on the project site with the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and
restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with a reduced residential component, no movie
theater, and an increased retail component. The Reduced Project Alternative includes
construction of six retail buildings accommodating 41,600 square feet (sf) of retail and
restaurant uses. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative includes development of 80
residential units at a density of 6.02 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on the 13.29-acre project
site. The residential units would include a combination of two-story condominium buildings
arranged around motor courts and three-story row townhomes. Because of the reduced
residential uses, the above-grade parking structure would not be required to serve the residents
on the project site. The Reduced Project Alternative includes the same size hotel (120 rooms
with approximately 96,800 sf) as the proposed project.
• Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative. The Commercial/Retail Alternative includes
development of 122,556 sf of major retail space, 21,000 sf of other retail/quick-serve restaurant
space, and 9,353 sf of sit-down restaurant space on the project site. The Commercial/Retail
Alternative includes construction of one building with four major retail tenants, one
freestanding restaurant pad, and three retail/restaurant buildings. The Commercial/Retail
Alternative also includes construction of a surface parking lot with 717 parking stalls. The project
site was entitled until recently for development of the Commercial/Retail Alternative, which was
environmentally cleared in the 2008 IS/MND that was prepared for the project site. However,
these entitlements have since expired.
For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all of the alternatives would comply with
applicable federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances. The alternatives are further
described below and their potential impacts compared to those of the proposed project.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-8
5.5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5.5.1 Aesthetics
The City is almost entirely developed and there are no designated scenic corridors, scenic vistas, or
scenic highways within the City. The project site is also located within an urbanized area. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment does includes minor amendments to the design guidelines
included in the Specific Plan to allow super graphics (large graphics) and projecting signage for the
proposed movie theater structure. With approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed
project would be consistent with the Specific Plan design guidelines for the project site. Additionally,
the proposed project’s building heights would be similar to and compatible with the commercial,
office, and business park uses that surround the project site. Therefore, impacts related to
degradation of existing visual character or quality would be less than significant. Construction-
related illumination during evening and nighttime hours would be used for safety and security
purposes only. In addition, although the proposed project would increase the overall intensity of on-
site land uses and associated lighting, lighting would comply with all applicable lighting standards in
the Cypress Zoning Ordinance and would not result in substantial increases in light intensity at off-
site locations. The materials of the proposed buildings would primarily be non-reflective to minimize
glare. Therefore, impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant. No mitigation
would be required.
5.5.1.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading, site work, or removal of vegetation
because no new development would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be
constructed on the project site. As such, the proposed project would result in no impacts to scenic
vistas or scenic highways. The project site is currently developed with a parking lot, which produces
light and glare from the on-site light poles and vehicles utilizing the parking lot in the evenings.
However, because the No Project Alternative would not include construction activities, construction
of new buildings, or intensification of the on-site lighting sources, the No Project Alternative would
not result in impacts related to visual character or quality or light and glare. Therefore, aesthetic
impacts would be less than the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not
result in improved landscaping along Katella Avenue or the off-site landscaping along Siboney Street
included under the proposed project.
5.5.1.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. There are
no scenic corridors, scenic vistas, or scenic highways within the City; therefore, like the proposed
project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not result in impacts to scenic vistas or scenic
highways. Unlike the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would be consistent with
the Specific Plan design guidelines for the project site and would not require any minor
amendments to the design guidelines. Additionally, the building heights would be similar to and
compatible with the commercial, office, and business park uses that surround the project site.
Therefore, impacts related to degradation of existing visual character or quality would be less than
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-9
significant and similar to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, construction-related
illumination during evening and nighttime hours would be used for safety and security purposes
only. In addition, although the Reduced Project Alternative would increase the overall intensity of
on-site land uses and associated lighting, lighting would comply with all applicable lighting standards
in the Cypress Zoning Ordinance and would not result in substantial increases in light intensity at off-
site locations. The materials of the proposed buildings would primarily be non-reflective to minimize
glare. Therefore, impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant. However, the
Reduced Project Alternative would result in a smaller project overall compared to the proposed
project and would therefore result in aesthetic impacts that are less than the proposed project.
5.5.1.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The same grading footprint would be required compared to the proposed project. There are no
scenic corridors, scenic vistas, or scenic highways within the City; therefore, like the proposed
project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not result in impacts to scenic vistas or scenic
highways. Unlike the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would be consistent with
the Specific Plan design guidelines for the project site and would not require any minor
amendments to the design guidelines. However, the building heights (one-story) would be
substantially less than the proposed project. The Commercial/Retail Alternative buildings would be
similar to and compatible with the commercial, office, and business park uses that surround the
project site. Therefore, impacts related to degradation of existing visual character or quality would
be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, construction-
related illumination during evening and nighttime hours would be used for safety and security
purposes only. In addition, although the Commercial/Retail Alternative would increase the overall
intensity of on-site land uses and associated lighting, lighting would comply with all applicable
lighting standards in the Cypress Zoning Ordinance and would not result in substantial increases in
light intensity at off-site locations. The materials of the proposed buildings would primarily be non-
reflective to minimize glare. Therefore, impacts related to light and glare would be less than
significant. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in a smaller scale project overall
compared to the proposed project and would therefore result in aesthetic impacts that are less than
the proposed project.
5.5.2 Air Quality
Air quality emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would not
exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds. Therefore,
impacts of the proposed project related to the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under applicable National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) would be less than
significant. The proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs);
therefore, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors would be less than significant. The
proposed project is consistent with the SCAQMD Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
because (1) the construction and operation emissions of the proposed project would not exceed the
regional significance thresholds or cause or contribute to NAAQS or CAAQS violations, and (2)
increases in population and housing resulting from the proposed project would not represent a
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-10
substantial increase in population growth. Therefore, impacts related to conflict or obstruction of
implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. Finally, odors would
be limited to odors generated during construction and operational odors from the restaurants and
trash receptacles, which would be confined to the project site. Therefore, impacts related to odors
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.5.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require grading or construction and would not change the
existing on-site use or increase vehicle trips to and from the project site. Therefore, no additional air
pollutant emissions related to grading, construction, additional vehicle trips, and operational uses
would be generated under this alternative, and no air quality impacts would occur. During
operation, fewer emissions would be generated (primarily from the reduced vehicle trips) compared
to the proposed project, and no construction emissions would occur. As such, the No Project
Alternative’s impacts on air quality would be less than the air quality impacts associated with the
proposed project.
5.5.2.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. A similar
grading footprint but less construction would be required for the Reduced Project Alternative
compared to the proposed project; therefore, construction emissions would be less than the
proposed project and less than significant. The Reduced Project Alternative would generate fewer
vehicle trips than the proposed project because there would be fewer residential uses and no movie
theater, and the expanded retail component would generate fewer vehicle trips than a 10-screen
movie theater. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer residents and visitors to the project
site. As a result, emissions generated during operation of the Reduced Project Alternative would be
less than the proposed project and would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. As such, air quality
impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative would be less than significant and less than the proposed
project.
5.5.2.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The same grading footprint would be required compared to the proposed project. However, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would require less building construction activities because the total
building square footage would be approximately 320,000 sf less than the proposed project. The
Commercial/Retail Alternative would have lower peak VOCs, SOx, PM2.5, and PM10 emissions but
greater peak NOx and CO emissions than the proposed project. The Commercial/Retail Alternative
would generate similar area source emissions compared to the proposed project. However, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would generate 1,225 more daily vehicle trips than the proposed
project and would therefore generate more vehicle emissions and more total emissions than the
proposed project. Therefore, emissions generated during operation of the Commercial/Retail
Alternative would be greater than the proposed project. However, construction and operational
emissions of the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. As such,
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-11
air quality impacts of the Commercial/Retail Alternative would be less than significant and greater
than the proposed project.
5.5.3 Biological Resources
The project site is highly disturbed and developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot and does not
support special-status species, riparian habitat, or wetlands and is not located within a Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in impacts to special-status species, riparian habitat, wetlands, or
NCCP/HCPs. The small amount of ornamental vegetation, including trees, along Katella Avenue
would be removed outside of the nesting season to reduce impacts to nesting raptors and migratory
birds. Therefore, impacts to wildlife movement and wildlife corridors would be less than significant.
None of the trees on the project site are designated as Landmark Trees. In addition, work on street
trees would be done in accordance with the City Council’s adopted Parkway Tree Policy; therefore,
impacts to local street trees would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
5.5.3.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading, site work, or removal of vegetation
because no new development would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be
constructed on the project site. Because the No Project Alternative would not involve construction
activities or removal of the on-site vegetation, no impacts to biological resources would occur.
Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant and less than that of the
proposed project.
5.5.3.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial used (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. As stated
above, the project site is highly disturbed and developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot and does
not support special-status species, riparian habitat, or wetlands and is not located within an
NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would not result in impacts to special-status
species, riparian habitat, wetlands, or NCCP/HCPs. Similar to the proposed project, the small amount
of ornamental vegetation, including trees, along Katella Avenue would be removed outside of the
nesting season to reduce impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds. Therefore, impacts to
wildlife movement and wildlife corridors would be less than significant. None of the trees on the
project site are designated as Landmark Trees. In addition, work on street trees would be done in
accordance with the City Council’s adopted Parkway Tree Policy; therefore, impacts to local street
trees would be less than significant. Because the same grading footprint would be required
compared to the proposed project, and construction would occur on the same project site, impacts
to biological resources would be the same as the proposed project.
5.5.3.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The same grading footprint would be required compared to the proposed project. As stated above,
the project site is highly disturbed and developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot and does not
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-12
support special-status species, riparian habitat, or wetlands and is not located within an NCCP/HCP.
Therefore, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not result in impacts to special-status species,
riparian habitat, wetlands, or NCCP/HCPs. Similar to the proposed project, the small amount of
ornamental vegetation, including trees, along Katella Avenue would be removed outside of the
nesting season to reduce impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds. Therefore, impacts to
wildlife movement and wildlife corridors would be less than significant. None of the trees on the
project site are designated as Landmark Trees. In addition, work on street trees would be done in
accordance with the City Council’s adopted Parkway Tree Policy; therefore, impacts to local street
trees would be less than significant. Because the same grading footprint would be required
compared to the proposed project, and construction would occur on the same project site, impacts
to biological resources would be the same as the proposed project.
5.5.4 Cultural Resources
The South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) record search results and archaeological
pedestrian field survey identified no previously recorded cultural resources on or in soils on the
project site. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource. Although there is a low likelihood of encountering intact buried
archaeological deposits during ground-disturbing construction activities, implementation of
mitigation would reduce any potential impacts of the proposed project on the significance of
archaeological resources to a less than significant level by requiring that a qualified professional
archaeologist provide cultural resources awareness training prior to the commencement of ground-
disturbing activities and that a qualified professional archaeologist be retained on-call in the event
that construction personnel encounter any archaeological deposits and/or human remains during
construction activities. No previously identified human remains are present on the project site, and
there are no facts or evidence indicating that Native Americans or people of European descent are
buried on the project site. However, undiscovered human remains may be present below the
ground surface on any property. Compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code for the
treatment of human remains would reduce the impact of the proposed project on human remains
to less than significant.
5.5.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development
would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be constructed on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource. Further, the No Project Alternative would not have the potential to disrupt
human remains or result in the discovery of previously unknown archaeological resources. No
impacts related to cultural resources would occur; therefore, the impacts of the No Project
Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project.
5.5.4.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined by CEQA because no previously
recorded historical resources were identified in the project site. The Reduced Project Alternative
would develop the project site with residential, retail, and hotel uses, but at a lower density than
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-13
the proposed project, and would require ground-disturbing construction activities for the
development. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would have a low
likelihood of encountering intact buried archaeological deposits and previously discovered buried
human remains during ground-disturbing construction activities; however, the Reduced Project
Alternative would require the installation of fewer geopiers and, therefore, would be incrementally
less likely to disturb archaeological resources and human remains. The Reduced Project Alternative
would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to
archaeological resources by requiring cultural resources awareness training prior to the
commencement of ground-disturbing activities and the retention of a qualified professional
archaeologist on an on-call basis during construction. The Reduced Project Alternative would also be
required to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which would reduce potentially
significant impacts to previously undiscovered buried human remains. Implementation of this
mitigation and adherence to regulatory standards would reduce potential impacts related to cultural
resources to a less than significant level.
In summary, similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in no
impacts to historical resources and less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for
archaeological resources, and less than significant impacts on human remains after complying with
regulatory standards. However, because the Reduced Project Alternative would require the
installation of fewer geopiers, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less impacts to
unknown cultural resources compared to the proposed project.
5.5.4.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
Similar to the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined by CEQA because no previously
recorded historical resources were identified in the project site. The Commercial/Retail Alternative
would develop the same project site with commercial/retail uses and would require ground-
disturbing construction activities for the development. Similar to the proposed project, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would have a low likelihood of encountering intact buried
archaeological deposits and previously discovered buried human remains during ground-disturbing
construction activities; however, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not require the
installation of geopiers and, therefore, would be less likely to disturb archaeological resources and
human remains. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would be required to incorporate mitigation
measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources by requiring cultural
resources awareness training prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities and the
retention of a qualified professional archaeologist on an on-call basis during construction. The
Commercial/Retail Alternative would also be required to comply with Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, which would reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered
buried human remains. Implementation of this mitigation and adherence to regulatory standards
would reduce potential impacts related to cultural resources to a less than significant level.
In summary, similar to the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in no
impacts to historical resources, less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for
archaeological resources, and less than significant impacts on human remains after complying with
regulatory standards. However, because the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not require the
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-14
installation of geopiers, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in less impacts to unknown
cultural resources compared to the proposed project.
5.5.5 Energy
Project construction would consume diesel fuel and gasoline. Additionally, project operation would
increase electricity and natural gas demand. Although project construction and operation would
require using energy, the proposed project would comply with including the Title 24 building energy
efficiency standards. The proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, energy impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
5.5.5.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development
would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be constructed on the project site.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not increase energy demand on the project site. No
energy impacts would occur; therefore, energy impacts of the No Project Alternative would be less
than that of the proposed project.
5.5.5.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. A similar
grading footprint but less construction would be required for the Reduced Project Alternative
compared to the proposed project; therefore, energy use during construction would be less than the
proposed project. Like the proposed project, the buildings construction as part of the Reduced
Project Alternative would meet the Title 24 building energy efficiency standards. Like the proposed
project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency; therefore, impacts related to energy use would be less than significant.
However, because the Reduced Project Alternative includes less development than the proposed
project, consumption of natural gas, electricity, and fuel during operation would be less than the
proposed project. Therefore, energy impacts would be less than significant and less than the
proposed project.
5.5.5.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The same grading footprint would be required compared to the proposed project. However, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would require less building construction activities because the total
building square footage would be approximately 320,000 sf less than the proposed project.
Therefore, construction energy use would be less than the proposed project. In addition, the
buildings constructed as part of the Commercial/Retail Alternative would meet the Title 24 building
energy efficiency standards and would result in less electricity and natural gas demand compared to
the proposed project. However, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would generate 1,225 more daily
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-15
vehicle trips than the proposed project and would therefore consume more fuel than the proposed
project from vehicle trips during operation. Like the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail
Alternative would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency;
therefore, impacts related to energy use would be less than significant. Although the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would consume more fuel from vehicle trips during operation than
the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would consume less fuel and energy overall
than the proposed project considering both vehicular and stationary source demands.
5.5.6 Geology and Soils
The proposed project would not result in any impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake
fault, landslides, subsidence, and septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Potential impacts related to landslides and unstable slopes, lateral spreading, and expansive soils
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Impacts related to strong seismic
ground shaking, liquefaction, compressible/collapsible soils, and wet soils are considered potentially
significant, and mitigation is required. Project construction would comply with the requirements of
the California Building Code and the City’s Building Code. In addition, the mitigation measures
require compliance with the recommendations in the project’s Geotechnical Assessment. With
implementation of mitigation, the proposed buildings would be designed and constructed to current
safety standards, and all potentially significant impacts related to soils and geology would be less
than significant. Project construction would increase erosion and loss of topsoil during construction;
however, Erosion Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Sediment Control BMPs would be
implemented during construction in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General
Permit to ensure that impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. Soils on the project
site have a low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 feet and high sensitivity
below a depth of 10 feet; therefore, it is possible that deeper ground-disturbing construction
activities such as construction of the geopiers could have a potentially significant impact on
previously undiscovered paleontological resources. The mitigation measures require paleontological
monitoring. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction,
construction activities shall be halted until the find can be assessed by a qualified paleontologist,
who will make recommendations for the appropriate collection, treatment, and disposition of the
discovery. These measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources
to less than significant.
5.5.6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development
would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be constructed on the project site.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impacts related to geology and soils, and this
alternative would have less geology and soils impacts than the proposed project.
5.5.6.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. The same
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-16
grading footprint and similar construction would be required compared to the proposed project.
The required grading and construction activities would result in reduced impacts related to geology
and soils as the proposed project because the Reduced Project Alternative would result in the
installation of fewer geopiers. As with the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would
be designed and constructed to conform to the current seismic design provisions of the California
Building Code and the City Building Code. In addition, this alternative would implement the same
mitigation measure as the proposed project, which requires implementation of the measures
contained in a final design-level geotechnical analysis and paleontological monitoring. Therefore,
like the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would have less than significant impacts
related to geology and soils with implementation of mitigation. Given the similar footprint and
reduced construction activities, the geology-related impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative
would be less than that of the proposed project.
5.5.6.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The same grading footprint would be required compared to the proposed project; however, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would not require the installation of geopiers. The required grading
would result in reduced impacts related to geology and soils as the proposed project because the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in a reduced scale of proposed structures and would not
install geopiers. As with the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would be designed
and constructed to conform to the current seismic design provisions of the California Building Code
and the City’s Building Code. In addition, this alternative would implement the same mitigation
measure as the proposed project, which requires implementation of the measures contained in a
final design-level geotechnical analysis and paleontological monitoring. Therefore, like the proposed
project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to
geology and soils with implementation of mitigation. Given the similar footprint and reduced
construction activities of the Commercial/Retail Alternative, the geology-related impacts of the
Commercial-Retail Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project.
5.5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would be designed in compliance with adopted regulations aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the project would meet the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24). Although compliance with CCR Title 24
would help to reduce the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions, the overall emissions
attributable to construction and operation of the proposed project of 7,208 MT CO2e/yr are
expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) thresholds of
3,000 MT CO2e/yr. The greenhouse gas emissions of 7.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
per service population per year (MT CO2e/SP/yr) would also exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 4.3
MT CO2e/SP/yr for 2022. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable
project impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to
greenhouse gas emissions and conflict with applicable greenhouse gas reduction plans, policies, or
regulations. The proposed project includes mitigation measures that require (1) the project’s retail
commercial buildings, multi-family residential uses, hotel, and movie theater to be designed and
built to be 10 percent more energy-efficient than 2019 Title 24 requirements or the current Title 24
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-17
requirement, whichever is more stringent, and (2) the implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Program for on-site residents and workers to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
However, because the type and extent of measures that would be feasible to be implemented
would be dependent on the individual tenants that occupy the project, the total amount of
greenhouse gas reductions cannot be quantified at this time. For example, the ability of a business
to affect employee and patrons vehicle miles traveled would depend in part on the number of
employees and patrons, where they live, and the availability of regional programs such as transit
buses. Therefore, impacts related to generation of greenhouse gas emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable.
5.5.7.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development
would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be constructed on the project site.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not increase greenhouse gas emissions from new on-
site uses or additional vehicle trips. No impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would occur;
therefore, greenhouse gas emission impacts of the No Project Alternative would be less than that of
the proposed project.
5.5.7.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. A similar
grading footprint but less construction would be required for the Reduced Project Alternative
compared to the proposed project; therefore, greenhouse gas emission during construction would
be less than the proposed project. Because the Reduced Project Alternative includes less
development and would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project, greenhouse gas
emissions during operation would be less than the proposed project. The Reduced Project
Alternative is estimated to generate 4,109 MT of CO2e/yr, which is less than the proposed project.
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative’s greenhouse gas emissions would
exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative’s
emissions should be compared against the SCAQMD’s efficiency-based threshold of 4.3 MT
CO2e/SP/yr. As described in Table 5.A below, the Reduced Project Alternative is estimated to have a
service population of 383. Based on this service population estimate, the Reduced Project
Alternative would generate approximately 10.7 MT of CO2e/SP/yr, which is greater than the
proposed project. Therefore, although the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less total
greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would
generate a greater amount of greenhouse gas emissions per capita than the proposed project and
its impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-18
Table 5.A: Alternative 2 Service Population Estimate
Gross Building Area
Population/Employment
Generation Factor
Estimated
Employees
80 residential units 3.02 persons/household 242
120 room hotel (96,800 sf) 1500 gross sf/employee 65
41,600 sf of retail space 550 gross sf/employee 76
Total Service Population 383
Sources: U.S. Green Building Council. 2008. Building Area per Employee by Business Type; and United
States Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census. Table DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics.
sf = square foot/feet
5.5.7.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The same grading footprint would be required compared to the proposed project. However, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would require less building construction activities because the total
building square footage would be approximately 320,000 sf less than the proposed project.
Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions during construction would be less than the proposed project.
The buildings constructed as part of the Commercial/Retail Alternative would generate similar
greenhouse gas emissions compared to the proposed project during operation. However, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would generate 1,225 more daily vehicle trips than the proposed
project and would therefore generate more greenhouse gas emissions during operation than the
proposed project. According to the 2008 IS/MND, the Commercial/Retail Alternative is estimated to
generate 6,866 MT of CO2e/yr, which is slightly less than the proposed project; however, this
estimate did not include an amortization of the Commercial/Retail Alternative’s construction
emissions. Similar to the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative’s greenhouse gas
emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Therefore, the Commercial/
Retail Alternative’s emissions should be compared against the SCAQMD’s efficiency-based threshold
of 4.3 MT CO2e/SP/yr. As described in Table 5.B below, the Commercial/Retail Alternative is
estimated to have a service population of 293. Based on this service population estimate, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would generate approximately 23.4 MT of CO2e/SP/yr, which is
substantially greater than the proposed project. Therefore, although the Commercial/Retail
Alternative would result in less total greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed project, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would generate a greater amount of greenhouse gas emissions per
capita than the proposed project, and its impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be
significant and unavoidable.
Table 5.B: Alternative 3 Service Population Estimate
Gross Building Area
Gross square feet
per employee
Estimated
Employees
122,556 sf of major retail space 550 223
30,353 sf of other retail/quick-serve or sit-down
restaurant space 435 70
Total Service Population 293
Source: U.S. Green Building Council. 2008. Building Area per Employee by Business Type.
sf = square foot/feet
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-19
5.5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would result in no impacts related to physical interference with an adopted
emergency response plan or related to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Impacts
related to upset of hazardous materials, emission or handling of hazardous materials in the vicinity
of a school, hazardous materials sites, and safety hazards within airport land use plans would be less
than significant and no mitigation is required. Construction and operation activities on the project
site would involve transport, use, and disposal of small quantities of hazardous materials or wastes.
Adopted regulations and procedures are in place to minimize impacts related to use and disposal of
household hazardous waste associated with project construction and operation. During
construction, good housekeeping BMPs would be implemented to reduce risk of spills of hazardous
materials. Conditions of approval specified by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), which
would review the project, would be applied to the proposed project to reduce operational
hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste that is generated on-site would be
transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with State and
federal law. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all appropriate Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) standards and requirements and the FAA would review the height of the
proposed buildings to ensure that no aviation hazards would occur. Adherence to regulatory
standards would ensure that impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
5.5.8.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development
would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be constructed on the project site.
Because no construction activities would occur, no construction impacts related to hazardous
materials would occur. The project site would remain a paved parking lot that would continue to be
used for temporary uses, such as vehicle parking, Christmas tree lot, truck staging area, and auxiliary
truck and trailer storage. Small amounts of hazardous materials may be used on the project site;
however, the No Project Alternative would not increase the use of hazardous materials because the
on-site use would remain the same. In addition, hazardous materials would be handled in
accordance with State and federal law. The No Project Alternative would not require transport or
handling of hazardous materials during construction and operational use of hazardous materials
would continue to be limited due to the lack of development and temporary use of the project site.
Therefore, no impacts related to hazardous materials would occur and impacts related to hazardous
materials would be less than that of the proposed project.
5.5.8.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. The
Reduced Project Alternative would involve demolition of the existing parking lot and construction of
new buildings that would result in similar impacts related to hazardous waste and materials
compared to the proposed project. Construction and operation activities on the project site would
involve transport, use, and disposal of small quantities of hazardous materials or wastes. Adopted
regulations and procedures are in place to minimize impacts related to use and disposal of
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-20
household hazardous waste associated with construction and operational activities. During
construction, good housekeeping BMPs would be implemented to reduce risk of spills of hazardous
materials. Conditions of approval specified by OCFA would be applied, similar to the proposed
project, to reduce operational hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste
that is generated on-site would be transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed
hauler in accordance with State and federal law. The residential building height would be reduced
compared to the proposed project which would reduce safety risks to aviation, although the tallest
on-site structure would still be the five-story hotel. However, similar to the proposed project, the
Reduced Project Alternative would comply with all appropriate FAA standards and requirements and
the FAA would review the height of the proposed buildings to ensure that no aviation hazards would
occur. Adherence to regulatory standards would ensure that impacts related to the transport, use,
and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant and similar to that of the
proposed project.
5.5.8.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would involve demolition of the existing parking lot and
construction of new buildings that would result in similar impacts related to hazardous waste and
materials compared to the proposed project. Construction and operation activities on the project
site would involve transport, use, and disposal of small quantities of hazardous materials or wastes.
Adopted regulations and procedures are in place to minimize impacts related to use and disposal of
household hazardous waste associated with construction and operational activities. During
construction, good housekeeping BMPs would be implemented to reduce risk of spills of hazardous
materials. Conditions of approval specified by OCFA would be applied, similar to the proposed
project, to reduce operational hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste
that is generated on-site would be transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed
hauler in accordance with State and federal law. The building heights (one-story) would be
substantially reduced compared to the proposed project which would reduce safety risks to
aviation. However, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would comply with all appropriate FAA
standards and requirements and the FAA would review the height of the proposed buildings to
ensure that no aviation hazards would occur. Adherence to regulatory standards would ensure that
impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than
significant and similar to that of the proposed project.
5.5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction of the proposed project would disturb soil and increase erosion and the risk of spills
which would increase the potential for pollutants to be transported via stormwater runoff into
receiving waters. The proposed project would comply with the Construction General Permit and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and best management practices (BMPs)
during construction to address pollutants of concern and to ensure protection of beneficial uses of
receiving waters. The proposed project would change the use of the project site and would
therefore change the pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. A comprehensive Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) and BMPs would be implemented during operation to address
pollutants of concern and to ensure protection of beneficial uses of receiving waters. The water
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-21
quality impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant upon compliance with existing
plans, programs, and policies in place to ensure compliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. No mitigation is required.
The proposed project would change on-site drainage patterns. Because the project site is currently
90 percent impervious, the proposed project would not increase impervious surface areas or
increase stormwater runoff from the project site. The proposed project includes drainage
infrastructure and detention system to minimize development impacts to the site hydrology and
reduce peak discharges from the project site in compliance with City discharge requirements for the
project site. The detention systems would greatly reduce the amount of flows that would reach the
downstream stormdrain system compared to the existing condition. The proposed project would
implement one of two scenarios to convey off-site runoff that exceeds the 0.3 cfs capacity of the
Winners Circle stormdrain system to the curb and gutter in Katella Avenue. Under Scenario 1, flow
that exceeds the 0.3 cfs capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system would be conveyed
around the project site before discharging to the storm drain in Katella Avenue. Under Scenario 2,
those flows would be conveyed through the project site before discharging to the storm drain in
Katella Avenue.
Under Scenario 1, the off-site flows would temporarily pond along the project site’s northern
property line at variable depths, depending on the magnitude of the storm event (e.g., 2-year, 10-
year, and 100-year storm) before discharging to the west, into Siboney Street, then flowing overland
to the south into Katella Avenue. This ponding would last for a short duration, would not flood any
structures, and would only affect the portions of the parking lot north of the project site that are
farthest away from the Los Alamitos Race Course grandstand. Under Scenario 2, the proposed
project would not result in any additional off-site ponding over existing conditions. The hydrology
impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant upon compliance with existing City
requirements. No mitigation is required.
Groundwater dewatering during construction would be localized and temporary, and the volume of
groundwater removed would not be substantial. Project operation would not require groundwater
extraction and would not substantially change infiltration. The groundwater impacts of the
proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
The proposed project would result in no impacts related to flood hazards, inundation, increases in
impervious surface area, environmentally sensitive areas, or aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat
and no mitigation is required.
5.5.9.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development
would occur on the project site. Therefore, no soil disturbance would occur under this alternative
and there would be no construction impacts on water quality. The No Project Alternative would not
change impervious surface areas, add new uses or structures, or change stormwater runoff on the
project site compared to existing conditions. However, no operational BMPs would be implemented
and site runoff would continue to be untreated. In addition, no drainage infrastructure or detention
systems would be implemented. Therefore, the peak flow from the site would continue to
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-22
contribute to the exceedance of the capacity of the downstream stormdrain systems. Although the
No Project Alternative would have no hydrology and water quality impacts compared to existing
conditions, this alternative would have greater hydrology and water quality impacts than the
proposed project because it would not include implementation of BMPs, drainage infrastructure, or
detention systems.
5.5.9.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. Because
the Reduced Project Alternative would be constructed on the same project site as the proposed
project, the same soil disturbance would occur during construction. In addition, the impervious
surface area on the project site would be similar to the proposed project. Also similar to the
proposed project, the implementation of BMPs during the construction and operation phases would
ensure that this alternative would not generate significant water quality impacts. The Reduced
Project Alternative would also be required to implement drainage infrastructure and detention
systems to reduce peak flow from the peak discharges from the project site in compliance with City
discharge requirements for the project site. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project
Alternative would implement one of two scenarios to convey off-site runoff that exceeds the 0.3 cfs
capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system to the curb and gutter in Katella Avenue. If the
Reduced Project Alternative would implement Scenario 1 for addressing off-site flows, it would also
result in the same short-term off-site ponding during storm events as the proposed project. The
Reduced Project Alternative would have less than significant impacts on hydrology and water
quality, and this alternative would have similar impacts to those associated with the proposed
project.
5.5.9.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
Because the Commercial/Retail Alternative would be constructed on the same project site as the
proposed project, the same soil disturbance would occur during construction. In addition, the
impervious surface area on the project site would be similar to the proposed project. Also similar to
the proposed project, the implementation of BMPs during the construction and operation phases
would ensure that this alternative would not generate significant water quality impacts. The
Commercial/Retail Alternative would also be required to implement drainage infrastructure and
detention systems to reduce peak flow from the reduce peak discharges from the project site in
compliance with City discharge requirements for the project site. Similar to the proposed project,
the Commercial/Retail Alternative would implement one of two scenarios to convey off-site runoff
that exceeds the 0.3 cfs capacity of the Winners Circle stormdrain system to the curb and gutter in
Katella Avenue. If the Commercial/Retail Alternative would implement Scenario 1 for addressing off-
site flows, it would also result in the same short-term off-site ponding during storm events as the
proposed project. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would have less than significant impacts on
hydrology and water quality, and this alternative would have similar impacts to those associated
with the proposed project.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-23
5.5.10 Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would not divide an existing community. The Cypress General Plan Land Use
Policy Map designates the project site as “Specific Plan Area” in recognition that the project site is
subject to the Amended Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The
Specific Plan land use designation for the project site is Professional Office, which is intended to
accommodate the development of professional and administrative offices that complement the
adjacent hotel center within the Specific Plan area. The project site currently has a zoning
designation of PBP-25A, Planned Business Park (PBP), which is intended to provide for the
development of educational, professional office, commercial, industrial, open space, or any public or
semi-public uses. The proposed project would require a Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land
use designation of the project site from Professional Office to a newly created mixed-use land use
district that would allow residential and hotel uses, while still permitting commercial/retail uses.
Upon the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with
the land use designations contained in the Specific Plan.
The proposed project would develop a currently underutilized project site to provide additional
housing opportunities in a region that is currently experiencing a severe housing shortage.
Additionally, new housing units in an area of surrounded by business parks would improve the
region’s economic competitiveness by ensuring that area workers would have access to new
housing in close proximity to their jobs. The proposed project would provide safe and attractive
pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses and would facilitate transit use and active
transportation by providing a new dense, mixed-use development along a major arterial street
(Katella Avenue), which is already served by existing transit service. For these reasons, the proposed
project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, the City’s
General Plan, and the Specific Plan. 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.
5.5.10.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
No development would occur on the project site under the No Project Alternative. The project site
would remain a paved parking lot. The No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the
Specific Plan land use designation of Professional Office or the zoning designation of PBP-25A,
Planned Business Park (PBP). Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with
the City’s goals or the Specific Plan, which envisions buildout of the Specific Plan area with business
park, professional office, and support commercial, and retail/commercial uses. Therefore, impacts
to land use would be greater than the proposed project.
5.5.10.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. Like the
proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not divide an existing community. Like the
proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would require a Specific Plan Amendment to
modify the land use designation of the project site from Professional Office to a newly created
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-24
mixed-use land use district that would allow residential uses, while still permitting commercial/retail
uses. Upon the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed project would be consistent
with the land use designations contained in the Specific Plan. The Reduced Project Alternative
includes similar uses as the proposed project, but with reduced residential uses and no movie
theater. Because of the similar proposed uses, the Reduced Project Alternative would be consistent
with the goals and policies of the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, the City’s General Plan, and the Specific Plan,
as amended, for the same reasons as the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Project
Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable
land use plans, policies, and regulations. Land use impacts of the Reduced Project Alternative would
be similar to the proposed project.
5.5.10.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
Like the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not divide an existing
community. The project site is within an area designated as Professional Office, which permits the
development of shopping centers of not less 10 acres in gross land area subject to a conditional use
permit. Therefore, the Commercial/Retail Alternative is consistent with allowable uses designated in
the existing Specific Plan. The Commercial/Retail Alternative is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the Specific Plan because it would diversify the types of uses in the Cypress Business
Park by including retail and restaurant uses, which would also provide additional employment
opportunities and increase the fiscal benefits to the City by generating additional revenues and sales
tax. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related
to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. Land use impacts of
the Commercial/Retail Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, except that it would
not require a Specific Plan Amendment.
5.5.11 Noise
The construction noise, construction vibration, or off-site operational traffic noise levels would not
exceed City noise level standards or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) community annoyance
threshold for vibration. Although project construction would not exceed applicable thresholds, the
project includes mitigation to further minimize construction-related vibration. The construction
contractor would be required to demonstrate to the City that construction noise reduction
measures are being implemented to reduce construction noise. Operation of the proposed project
would require the use of rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units for the
proposed buildings. Noise generated from HVAC units could impact sensitive receptors within the
vicinity of the project site by exceeding the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standard.
Therefore, the proposed project includes mitigation which requires the Applicant/Developer to
demonstrate to the City that on-site stationary noise sources comply with City noise standards.
Therefore, noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant with implementation of
mitigation. Additionally, aircraft noise generated from the two closest airports would not expose
people residing or working on the project site to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a
public airport. Airport noise impacts would be less than significant.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-25
5.5.11.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not involve any grading, construction, vehicle, or truck trips.
Therefore, the noise impacts that are typically associated with grading and construction would not
occur under this alternative Because no development would be constructed under the No Project
Alternative and vehicle trips would not increase, there would be no increase in noise levels.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no noise impacts, and this alternative would have
less noise impacts than the proposed project.
5.5.11.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would involve a grading footprint and construction activities similar
to the proposed project; however, the Reduced Project Alternative would require the installation of
fewer geopiers. Therefore, this alternative would result in less construction noise impacts associated
with grading and construction than the proposed project. In addition, the construction period may
be a shorter duration due to the decreased density. The Reduced Project Alternative would be
expected to implement the same mitigation as the proposed project. As such, the construction
contractor would be required to demonstrate to the City that construction noise reduction
measures are being implemented to reduce construction noise. Construction noise impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation and less than the proposed project.
Under this alternative, and like the proposed project, operational noise would include vehicular
noise associated with traffic related to the occupancy and operation of the new housing and
commercial uses. However, because fewer residential units and no movie theater would be
constructed under the Reduced Project Alternative, these operational noise levels would be
reduced. Although this reduction in operational noise levels would be partially offset by the increase
in retail space, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a net reduction in operational noise
levels. Additionally, the Reduced Project Alternative would have fewer vehicle trips than then
proposed project. Therefore, operational noise associated with vehicle trips would be reduced. The
Reduced Project Alternative would also include HVAC units on the buildings, which could impact
sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project site by exceeding the City’s daytime and
nighttime exterior noise standard. The Reduced Project Alternative would be expected to include
similar mitigation as the proposed project, which requires the Applicant/Developer to demonstrate
to the City that on-site stationary noise sources comply with City noise standards. Therefore, the
Reduced Project Alternative would have less than significant noise impacts with implementation of
mitigation, and this alternative would have less impacts than the proposed project.
5.5.11.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would involve a grading similar to the proposed project.
However, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would require less building construction activities
because the total building square footage would be approximately 320,000 sf less than the
proposed project and this alternative would not require the installation of geopiers. The level of
noise generated during construction would be less than the proposed project and would occur for a
shorter period of time. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would be expected to implement the
same mitigation as the proposed project. As such, the construction contractor would be required to
demonstrate to the City that construction noise reduction measures are being implemented to
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-26
reduce construction noise. Construction noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
and less than the proposed project.
Under this alternative, operational noise would include vehicular noise associated with traffic
related to the occupancy and operation of the commercial/retail uses. However, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would have more vehicle trips than then proposed project.
Additionally, due to the increased commercial/retail uses, this alternative would require more truck
deliveries compared to the proposed project. Therefore, operational noise associated with vehicle
and truck trips would be greater than the proposed project. The Commercial/Retail Alternative
would also include HVAC units on the buildings, which could impact sensitive receptors within the
vicinity of the project site by exceeding the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standard.
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would be expected to include similar mitigation as the proposed
project, which requires the Applicant/Developer to demonstrate to the City that on-site stationary
noise sources comply with City noise standards. Therefore, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would
have less than significant noise impacts with implementation of mitigation, and this alternative
would have greater operational impacts than the proposed project.
5.5.12 Population and Housing
The project site is currently a paved parking lot; therefore, the proposed project would not displace
any existing housing or populations on the project site. The proposed project includes the
development of 251 apartment units, which is estimated to generate approximately 758 new
residents. The addition of 758 new residents represents an increase of approximately 1.5 percent
over the City’s existing population of 49,833 as of January 2019.
Based on the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, SCAG projects that the City of Cypress’
population will increase by 1,200 from 2012 to 2040 and that the number of households will
increase by 600 from 2012 to 2040. Because housing was not envisioned on the project site, the
proposed project would increase the Cypress population by approximately 758 net new residents
and the amount of housing units by 251 new dwelling units not specifically assumed in the 2016
SCAG projections. The estimated increase in population from the proposed project accounts for
63.2 percent of the City’s projected population growth from 2012 to 2040 and 41.8 percent of the
City’s projected household growth from 2012 to 2040.
SCAG recently updated its growth forecasts as part of the Draft 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, which indicates
that the City’s population is projected to grow more rapidly between 2016 and 2045 than previously
forecast. Based on the Draft 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, the population increase of 758
residents as a result of the proposed project would be within the updated SCAG population
projections.
Additionally, according to SCAG’s Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Methodology
Estimate Tool for the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029, the City of Cypress
has a total estimated RHNA of 3,967 units (1,159 Very Low-Income, 662 Low-Income, 629 Moderate-
Income, and 1,518 above moderate-income units). Therefore, the total RHNA for the City of Cypress
would be much larger than the projected housing growth included in the Draft 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
growth forecasts that indicate that the City’s housing is projected to grow by 800 units from 2016 to
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-27
2045. The housing units included in the proposed project would help the City meet the need for
above moderate-income units included in the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. Because there is a need for
additional housing over SCAG projections because the City is required by State law (Government
Code Section 65580 et seq.) to plan for its fair share of projected housing construction needs in the
City, the population growth as a result of the proposed project would not constitute substantial
unplanned population growth in the area. Therefore, the proposed project’s direct impact on
population growth would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
5.5.12.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
No development would occur on the project site under the No Project Alternative. The project site
would remain a paved parking lot and no housing or populations would be displaced. The No Project
Alternative would not include housing and would not increase the population in the City, so it would
not induce substantial population growth. In comparison, the proposed project would result in a
direct, though not substantial, increase in population within the project area. Therefore, the No
Project Alternative would have less impact than the proposed project. However, unlike the
proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not help the City meet the need for above
moderate-income units included in its RHNA allocation.
5.5.12.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. The
Reduced Project Alternative would include 80 residential units, which would generate approximately
242 new residents. The 242 new residents represent a 0.49 percent increase over the City’s existing
population as of January 2019.
Because housing was not envisioned on the project site, the Reduced Project Alternative would
increase the Cypress population by approximately 242 net new residents and the amount of housing
units by 80 new dwelling units not specifically assumed in the 2016 SCAG projections. The estimated
increase in population from the Reduced Project Alternative would account for 20.2 percent of the
City’s projected population growth from 2012 to 2040 and 13.3 percent of the City’s projected
household growth from 2012 to 2040. Based on the Draft 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, the
population increase of 242 residents as a result of the Reduced Project Alternative would be within
the updated SCAG population projections.
Additionally, the housing units included in the Reduced Project Alternative would help the City meet
the need for above moderate-income units included in the City’s RHNA allocation. However, as
compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative provides less housing to help
the City meet the need for above moderate-income units included in the RHNA allocation. Because
there is a need for additional housing over SCAG projections because the City is required by State
law to plan for its fair share of projected housing construction needs in the City, the population
growth as a result of the Reduced Project Alterative would not constitute substantial unplanned
population growth in the area. Therefore, like the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative
direct impact on population growth would be less than significant. However, because the Reduced
Project Alternative would include less housing than the proposed project, and would therefore
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-28
result in less population growth, impacts would be less than the proposed project. However,
compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in fewer residential
units and would therefore contribute less to helping the City meet its need for above moderate-
income units included in its RHNA allocation.
5.5.12.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The project site is currently a paved parking lot; therefore, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would
not displace any existing housing or populations on the project site. The Commercial/Retail
Alternative would not include housing and would not increase the population in the City, so it would
not induce substantial population growth. In comparison, the proposed project would result in a
direct, though not substantial, increase in population within the project area. Therefore, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would have less impact than the proposed project. However, unlike
the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not help the City meet the need for
above moderate-income units included in the RHNA allocation.
5.5.13 Public Services
The proposed project would incrementally increase demand for fire protection and emergency
service calls, which would result in a potentially significant impact. However, the
Applicant/Developer would be required to enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the
OCFA to ensure adequate fire protection service are available for the project site, which would
reduce operational impacts to less than significant. The proposed project may incrementally
contribute to the need for one additional police officer to meet future demand, but would not
necessitate the expansion of the City’s existing police facilities. Therefore, impacts related to police
protection services would be less than significant. The proposed project’s 251 residential units could
generate approximately 126 elementary school students and 50 middle/high school students, which
would increase the demand for school services. However, the Applicant/Developer would be
required to pay school fees to reduce any impacts on school services. With payment of the required
fees, impacts to schools would be less than significant. The proposed project’s additional residents
would require 2.27 acres of parkland based on the standard of 3.0 acres for each 1,000 residents in
City’s Municipal Code Section 25-43. Per City requirements, the Applicant/Developer would be
required to pay fees and/or dedicate parkland. With the payment of in-lieu park fees and/or the
dedication of parkland, impacts related to parks would be less than significant. Finally, the Cypress
Branch Library has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population growth associated
with the proposed project and library impacts would be less than significant. In conclusion, with
implementation of the mitigation described above for fire service impacts, impacts to public services
would be less than significant.
5.5.13.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
No development would occur on the project site under the No Project Alternative. The No Project
Alternative would not result in an increase in demand for fire protection and emergency services or
police protection services because no new housing or commercial uses would be developed on the
project site. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not increase the demand for parks,
libraries, school, or other public facilities because there would be no new residents on the project
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-29
site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impacts on public services, and this
alternative would have less impacts than the proposed project.
5.5.13.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. Compared
to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative, the demand for fire protection and
emergency services and police protection services would decrease because fewer residential units
and no movie theater would be developed on the project site. This reduction would be partially
offset by the increase in retail space; however, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a net
reduction in the demand for fire protection, emergency services, and police protection services. Like
the proposed project, the Applicant/Developer would be required to enter into a Secured Fire
Protection Agreement with the OCFA to ensure adequate fire protection service are available for the
project site. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would decrease the demand for parks,
libraries, schools, and other public facilities because there would be fewer residents on the project
site. Like the proposed project, the Applicant/Developer would be required to pay school fees and
pay in-lieu park fees and/or or dedicate parkland to reduce any impacts on schools and parks.
Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would have less than significant impacts on public
services, and this alternative would have less impacts than the proposed project.
5.5.13.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The new commercial/retail uses on the project site would incrementally increase demand for police,
fire, and emergency medical services. Although the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not
increase the population within the City, it would attract employees and customers to the project
site. The increase in demand for fire and police services would be similar to the proposed project
and would be less than significant. In addition, because the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not
increase population within the City, this alternative would not increase demand for library, park, or
school services. Therefore, impacts to public services would be less than significant and less than the
proposed project.
5.5.14 Recreation
The proposed project includes the construction of a 251-unit apartment structure that would add
758 new residents. The proposed project would include a public open space/recreational amenities,
including a plaza, two greenbelts, and a dog park, all of which would be available to the public. The
proposed project’s additional residents would require 2.27 acres of parkland based on the standard
of 3.0 acres for each 1,000 residents in City’s Municipal Code Section 25-43. Per City requirements,
the Applicant/Developer would be required to pay fees and/or dedicate parkland. With the payment
of in-lieu park fees and/or the dedication of parkland, impacts related to recreation would be less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-30
5.5.14.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development
would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be constructed on the project site.
Because no residential uses would be construction on the project site, the No Project Alternative
would not increase demand for City parkland. No impacts to recreational facilities would occur and
impacts would be less than the proposed project.
5.5.14.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. The
Reduced Project Alternative would include 80 residential units, which would serve 242 residents,
based on the average household size in the City of 3.02 persons per household. The 242 additional
residents would require 0.73 acres of parkland based on the standard of 3.0 acres for each 1,000
residents in City’s Municipal Code Section 25-43. Per City requirements, the Applicant/Developer
would be required to pay fees and/or dedicate parkland. With the payment of in-lieu park fees
and/or the dedication of parkland, impacts related to recreation would be less than significant.
Because the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less residents than the proposed project,
the increased use and impacts to parks and recreational facilities would also be less than the
proposed project.
5.5.14.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would not include housing and would not increase the
population in the City. Employees would be reasonably expected to use parks near their homes;
therefore, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not substantially increase the use of existing
parks in the vicinity of the project site. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would, therefore, result in
less than significant impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities.
Because the Commercial/Retail Alternative would not increase the population in City and would not
increase use of parks and recreational facilities, impacts to park and recreational facilities would be
less than that of the proposed project. However, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would also not
include publicly-available open space/recreational amenities, including a plaza, two greenbelts, and
a dog park.
5.5.15 Transportation
The proposed project would develop the project site with a mixed-use development that would
include commercial uses (e.g., movie theater, retail, hotel, and restaurant uses) and residential uses.
The new uses on the project site have the potential to generate approximately 4,978 ADT, including
164 trips (68 inbound and 96 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 323 trips (176 inbound and 147
outbound) in the p.m. peak hour. With the addition of the project, all study area intersections would
continue to operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours. The proposed project would not
conflict with the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP), City’s General Plan
Circulation Element, or the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy. Impacts related to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-31
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than
significant. The project does not include any land uses that would be incompatible with surrounding
land uses and would generate a similar vehicle mix to other surrounding land uses, consisting
primarily of single-occupancy vehicles and distribution trucks. In addition, all new driveways at the
project site would be subject to the provisions of the City of Cypress design standards to alleviate
design feature and safety hazards. Therefore, impacts related to hazards due to a geometric feature
or incompatible uses and inadequate emergency access would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
5.5.15.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading or site work because no new development
would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be constructed on the project site
and the project site would remain a parking lot. The No Project Alternative would not increase
vehicle trips to and from the project site. Therefore, no traffic impacts would occur and the No
Project Alternative’s impacts would be less than the proposed project.
5.5.15.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. The
Reduced Project Alternative would result in less of an increase in vehicle trips to and from the
project site because of the reduced residential uses and no movie theater. The expanded retail
component would also generate fewer vehicle trips than a 10-screen movie theater. Like the
proposed project, all study area intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS during
both peak hours under the Reduced Project Alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative would not
conflict with the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP), City’s General Plan
Circulation Element, or the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy. Impacts related to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than
significant. The Reduced Project Alternative would not include any land uses that would be
incompatible with surrounding land uses and would generate a similar vehicle mix to other
surrounding land uses, consisting primarily of single-occupancy vehicles and distribution trucks. In
addition, all new driveways would be subject to the provisions of the City of Cypress design
standards to alleviate design feature and safety hazards. Therefore, impacts related to hazards due
to a geometric feature or incompatible uses and inadequate emergency access would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. Because the Reduced Project Alternative would result in
less vehicle trips compared to the proposed project, traffic impacts would be less than the proposed
project.
5.5.15.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would generate 1,225 more daily vehicle trips than the proposed
project. Although the Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in more vehicle trips than the
proposed project, all study area intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS during
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-32
both peak hours. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would not conflict with the Orange County
Congestion Management Program (CMP), City’s General Plan Circulation Element, or the 2016–2040
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Impacts related to conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. The Commercial/Retail Alternative
would not include any land uses that would be incompatible with surrounding land uses and would
generate a similar vehicle mix to other surrounding land uses, consisting primarily of single-
occupancy vehicles and distribution trucks. In addition, all new driveways would be subject to the
provisions of the City of Cypress design standards to alleviate design feature and safety hazards.
Therefore, impacts related to hazards due to a geometric feature or incompatible uses and
inadequate emergency access would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Because
the Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in more vehicle trips compared to the proposed
project, traffic impacts would be greater than the proposed project.
5.5.16 Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed project would develop the project site, which would require ground-disturbing
construction activities. No previously recorded cultural resources were identified in the project site,
and no specific information regarding tribal cultural resources was received during the Native
American consultation. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined by CEQA that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or a local register. Based
on the results of Native American consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation, there is potential that ground-disturbing construction activities would impact previously
undiscovered significant tribal cultural resources. The proposed project would incorporate a
mitigation measure to reduce potentially significant impacts to previously undiscovered significant
tribal cultural resources through Native American monitoring and evaluation of archaeological
resources by the Native American monitor, and reduce potentially significant impacts to Native
American buried human remains through compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
The mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
5.5.16.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not require any grading, site work, or removal of vegetation
because no new development would occur on the project site. In addition, no buildings would be
constructed on the project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined by CEQA that is listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register. Further, the No Project Alternative
would not have the potential to disrupt human remains or result in the discovery of previously
unknown tribal cultural resources. No impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur;
therefore, the impacts of the No Project Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project.
5.5.16.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. Similar to
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-33
the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would require ground-disturbing construction
activities during the development; however, this alternative would require the installation of fewer
geopiers. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined by CEQA that is
listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register because no previously
recorded cultural resources were identified in the project site during the records search or during
the Native American consultation. Based on the results of the Native American consultation, there is
potential that ground-disturbing construction activities would impact previously undiscovered
significant tribal cultural resources. The Reduced Project Alternative would be required to
incorporate the same mitigation measure as the proposed project that requires Native American
monitoring and evaluation of archaeological resources by the Native American monitor, and would
also be required to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Implementation of
mitigation and adherence to regulatory standards would reduce potential impacts related to tribal
cultural resources to a less than significant level.
In summary, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in no impacts to tribal cultural resources
that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register, and less than
significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for previously undiscovered significant tribal
cultural resources and Native American human remains. The Reduced Project Alternative would
result in less impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources compared to the proposed project
because it would require the installation of fewer geopiers.
5.5.16.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
Similar to the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would require ground-disturbing
construction activities during development; however, this alternative would not require the
installation of geopiers. Similar to the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined by
CEQA that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register because no
previously recorded cultural resources were identified in the project site during the records search
or during the Native American consultation. Based on the results of the Native American
consultation, there is potential that ground-disturbing construction activities would impact
previously undiscovered significant tribal cultural resources. The Commercial/Retail Alternative
would be required to incorporate the same mitigation measure as the proposed project that
requires Native American monitoring and evaluation of archaeological resources by the Native
American monitor, and would also be required to comply with Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5. Implementation of mitigation and adherence to regulatory standards would reduce
potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
In summary, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in no impacts to tribal cultural
resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register, and less
than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for previously undiscovered significant tribal
cultural resources and Native American human remains. The Commercial/Retail Alternative would
result in less impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources compared to the proposed project
because it would not require the installation of geopiers.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-34
5.5.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Utilities and service systems include water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunication,
solid waste, and storm drain facilities. The proposed project would include on-site water
distribution, wastewater conveyance, stormdrain systems, electrical lines, natural gas lines, and
telecommunication lines that would connect to the existing utility systems in the City. The proposed
project would increase demand for these services as well as solid waste disposal and wastewater
treatment; however, there is sufficient supplies and capacity available to service the increased
demand. Impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
5.5.17.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not include any new development on the project site so it would
not increase demand for or require any enhancement or new construction of public facility
infrastructure for electricity, natural gas, water, or telecommunications. Additionally because no
construction would occur and there would be no residential or commercial uses added to the site,
no increase in solid waste or wastewater generation would occur. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative would have no impacts on utilities and service systems, and this alternative would have
less impacts than the proposed project.
5.5.17.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the same commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) as the proposed project, but with
a reduced residential component, no movie theater, and an increased retail component. Compared
to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less demand for electricity,
natural gas, water, or telecommunications because of the reduced residential and hotel uses on the
project site. Additionally, the Reduced Project Alternative would generate less solid waste and
wastewater. Although the reduction in demand for electricity, natural gas, water, and
telecommunications and generation of less solid waste and wastewater would be partially offset by
the increase in retail space, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a net reduction in
demand for electricity, natural gas, water, and telecommunications and less generation of solid
waste and wastewater compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Project
Alternative would have less than significant impacts on utilities. This alternative would have less
impacts related to utilities and service systems than the proposed project.
5.5.17.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
Compared to the proposed project, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would result in less demand
for electricity, natural gas, water, or telecommunications because this alternative would not include
residential uses, which typically have a higher utility demand than retail/commercial uses.
Additionally, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would generate less solid waste and wastewater.
Therefore, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would have less than significant impacts on utilities.
This alternative would have less impacts related to utilities and service systems than the proposed
project.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-35
5.5.18 Project Objectives
The Project Objectives include:
Objective 1: Provide uses that meet the City’s General Plan balanced development goals and
objective to locate higher density housing adjacent to commercial and employment
opportunities to encourage pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for
commercial uses (GP LU-1.4).
Objective 2: Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Cypress Business
and Professional Center Specific Plan, which would promote a commercial
environment that balances quality development with economic growth while
building in flexibility to respond to the market demands (Cypress Business &
Professional Center Specific Plan, Objectives 1.2 and 1.3).
Objective 3: Support the retention of local employers and increase the fiscal benefits to the City
by attracting new retail, restaurant, hotel and entertainment businesses that can
better serve the local population and employment and would generate additional
revenue to the City through increased sales, property, and transient occupancy
taxes (GP LU-17.1).
Objective 4: Meet the demand for new hotel rooms in the Cypress Business Center to serve the
local business community.
Objective 5: Provide new drainage improvements on the project site, which would reduce the
risk of downstream flooding hazards.
Objective 6: Provide a new community gathering place for Cypress residents and workers,
including a public dog park and a landscaped plaza with outdoor dining areas.
Objective 7: Allow the City to divest itself of real estate conveyed to it by the Cypress
Redevelopment Agency in March 2011 in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement between the City of Cypress, the Successor Agency to the Cypress
Redevelopment Agency, the State Department of Finance, and the State Controller’s
Office, which would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the City by
selling the land to a private owner, who would return the land to the property tax
rolls and develop it with new revenue-generating uses.
Objective 8: Expand the variety of housing stock in the City, which would help meet the existing
and future housing needs of all Cypress residents, by providing high density rental
units (GP HOU-3.5).
Objective 9: Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high‐quality housing in
the City to alleviate the housing crisis and help the City meet its Regional Housing
Needs Assessment allocations (GP HOU-4).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-36
5.5.18.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain a paved parking lot that would
continue to be used for vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los Alamitos Race Course and
temporarily used throughout the year as a Christmas tree lot, truck staging area, and auxiliary truck
and trailer storage. No residential, commercial, or other new uses would be developed on the
project site. The No Project Alternative would not include development of residential uses adjacent
to commercial and employment opportunities, would not facilitate the generation of additional
revenue to the City through the sale of the land and increased sales and property tax, and would not
expand and improve the City’s housing supply. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not be
consistent with any of the project objectives.
5.5.18.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop the project site with a mixed-use development with
the commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, and restaurant uses) and residential uses. The Reduced
Project Alternative would include residential uses adjacent to commercial and employment
opportunities, would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the City through the sale of
the land and increased sales and property tax, and would expand and improve the City’s housing
supply. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would be consistent with all of the project
objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed project. This assumes, however, that a
developer would be willing and able to purchase the project site and feasibly develop it at the
reduced density.
5.5.18.3 Alternative 3: Commercial/Retail Alternative
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would develop the project site with retail and restaurant uses.
The Commercial/Retail Alternative would not include residential or hotel uses. Therefore, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would not be consistent with the following project objectives:
Objective 1: Provide uses that meet the City’s General Plan balanced development goals and
objective to locate higher density housing adjacent to commercial and employment
opportunities to encourage pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for
commercial uses (GP LU-1.4).
Objective 2: Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Cypress Business
and Professional Center Specific Plan, which would promote a commercial
environment that balances quality development with economic growth while
building in flexibility to respond to the market demands (Cypress Business &
Professional Center Specific Plan, Objectives 1.2 and 1.3).
Objective 4: Meet the demand for new hotel rooms in the Cypress Business Center to serve the
local business community.
Objective 6: Provide a new community gathering place for Cypress residents and workers,
including a public dog park and a landscaped plaza with outdoor dining areas.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-37
Objective 8: Expand the variety of housing stock in the City, which would help meet the existing
and future housing needs of all Cypress residents, by providing high density rental
units (GP HOU-3.5).
Objective 9: Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high‐quality housing in
the City to alleviate the housing crisis and help the City meet its Regional Housing
Needs Assessment allocations (GP HOU-4).
If the City were able to find a buyer/developer for the project site with this alternative, the
Commercial/Retail Alternative would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the City
through the sale of the land and increased sales and property tax from the new commercial/retail
uses on the project site. However, the City’s past experience in marketing the project site suggests
that it would be difficult to sell the site for this purpose. The new commercial/retail uses would also
create employment opportunities within the City. In addition, the Commercial/Retail Alternative
would include drainage infrastructure and a detention system that would greatly reduce the amount
of flows that would reach the downstream stormdrain system compared to the existing condition.
Therefore, if economically feasible, the Commercial/Retail Alternative would be consistent with the
following project objectives:
Objective 3: Support the retention of local employers and increase the fiscal benefits to the City
by attracting new retail, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment businesses that can
better serve the local population and employment and would generate additional
revenue to the City through increased sales, property, and transient occupancy
taxes (GP LU-17.1).
Objective 5: Provide new drainage improvements on the project site, which would reduce the
risk of downstream flooding hazards.
Objective 7: Allow the City to divest itself of real estate conveyed to it by the Cypress
Redevelopment Agency in March 2011 in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement between the City of Cypress, the Successor Agency to the Cypress
Redevelopment Agency, the State Department of Finance and the State Controller’s
Office, which would facilitate the generation of additional revenue to the City by
selling the land to a private owner, who would return the land to the property tax
rolls and develop it with new revenue-generating uses.
5.6 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the proposed
project and the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)
provides that, if the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR
shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives and the
proposed project. Table 5.C provides, in summary format, a comparison of the level of impacts of
each alternative to the proposed project.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-38
Table 5.C: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives
Impact Area Proposed Project Impact with
Mitigation (if any)
Alternative 1:
No Project Alternative
Alternative 2:
Reduced Project Alternative
Alternative 3:
Commercial/Retail Alternative
Aesthetics Less than Significant Less Less Less
Air Quality Less than Significant Less Less Greater
Biological Resources Less than Significant Less Similar Similar
Cultural Resources Less than Significant1 Less Less Less
Energy Less than Significant Less Less Less
Geology and Soils Less than Significant1 Less Less Less
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant and Unavoidable1 Less Less/Greater2 Less/Greater2
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant Less Similar Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Greater Similar Similar
Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Greater Similar Similar
Noise Less than Significant1 Less Less Greater
Population and Housing Less than Significant Less Less Less
Public Services Less than Significant1 Less Less Less
Recreation Less than Significant Less Less Less
Transportation Less than Significant Less Less Greater
Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant1 Less Less Less
Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Less Less Less
1 Mitigation identified.
2 This alternative would generate less total greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed project; however, it would generate a greater amount of greenhouse gas emissions per capita
than the proposed project.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-39
The No Project Alternative has the least impact on the environment because the project site
would remain a paved parking lot and would thereby avoid most of the proposed project’s
environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative cannot be the only
Environmentally Superior Alternative. Therefore, according to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, because the No Project Alternative has been identified as the environmentally
superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify the proposed project or one of the other
alternatives as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Putting aside the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative is the Environmentally
Superior Alternative. As shown in Table 5.C, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in
more impacts that are “less” than the proposed project compared to the commercial/Retail
Alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative has the least impact on the environment because
the project site would be developed at a reduced density, thereby reducing the most of the
proposed project’s environmental impacts compared to the other alternatives (other than the
No Project Alternative). Although the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less total
greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed project, it would generate a greater amount of
greenhouse gas emissions per capita than the proposed project. Therefore, its impacts would
also be significant and unavoidable. The Reduced Project Alternative would also meet all of the
project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Accordingly, it is determined
that the Reduced Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it
would meet all of the project’s objectives and would result in reduced environmental impacts as
compared to the proposed project.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx (02/06/20) 5-40
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (02/03/20) 6-1
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states that
an EIR shall:
“Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not
reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be
alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons
why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be
described.”
The Executive Summary of this document (Chapter 1.0) contains a detailed summary that identifies
the proposed project’s environmental impacts as compared to existing conditions, proposed
mitigation measures, and the level of significance of any impacts after mitigation. The following is a
summary of the impact that is considered significant, adverse, and unavoidable after all mitigation is
applied.
6.1.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Service Population greenhouse gas (GHG) thresholds. Thus, project-related emissions
would have a potentially significant impact related to the generation of GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measures to reduce the project GHG emissions include energy conservation measures
and developing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. Implementation of the
mitigation measures described above would reduce GHG emissions. However, because the type and
extent of measures that could be implemented will be dependent on the individual future tenants
that occupy the project site, the total amount of GHG reductions cannot be quantified at this time.
For example, the ability of a business to affect employee and patrons vehicle miles traveled would
depend in part on the number of employees and patrons, where they live, and the availability of
regional programs such as transit buses. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of GHG
emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.2 ENERGY IMPACTS
According to Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f analysis of the project’s energy
use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR
shall mitigate that energy use.”
As described in Section 4.5, Energy, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in
significant impacts related to energy use. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (02/03/20) 6-2
6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR analyze growth-
inducing impacts and discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or
population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment. This section examines ways in which the proposed project could foster
economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly or
indirectly in the surrounding environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) also requires a
discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that
could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To address these
issues, potential growth-inducing effects were examined through analysis of the following
questions:
• Would the project remove obstacles to, or otherwise foster, population growth (e.g., through
the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the
project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)?
• Would the project foster economic growth?
• Would approval of the project involve some characteristic that may encourage and facilitate
other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(e)). This issue is presented
to provide additional information on ways in which the proposed project could contribute to
significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of developing the proposed
land uses as described in earlier sections of this Draft EIR.
6.3.1 Removal of Obstacles to, or Otherwise Foster, Population Growth
The area surrounding the project site is already highly urbanized and developed with a variety of
residential, business park, racetrack, and commercial land uses, so limited population growth is
feasible within the vicinity of the project site. In any event, the proposed project would not remove
impediments to population growth in the area surrounding the project site. While the proposed
project may require water, sewer, drainage, electricity, and natural gas lines on site and in the
immediate vicinity of the project site, such improvements would be intended primarily to meet
project-related demand and would not necessitate substantial utility infrastructure improvements.
In addition, all roadway improvements planned with respect to the proposed project are intended
to provide for better circulation flows within the project site and the immediate project vicinity, and
would not foster off-site population growth.
The construction of the proposed project would generate a substantial number of construction-
related jobs. However, the proposed project would not promote construction workers relocating
their places of residence as a direct consequence of working on the proposed project because it is
expected that local and regional construction workers would be available to meet the proposed
project’s construction needs. The work requirements of most construction projects are highly
specialized so construction workers remain at a job site only for the limited time in which their
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (02/03/20) 6-3
specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. Therefore, the
proposed project would not induce material population growth from a short-term employment
perspective.
Upon completion of the proposed project, the 251 residential housing units are estimated to
generate a total of approximately 758 new residents on the project site. While this direct population
growth would increase the demand for neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the area
surrounding the project site, the proposed project would be located in a built out area of the City of
Cypress that is already served by neighborhood-serving retail and service uses. Although some local
businesses that provide goods and services to nearby residents may hire a small number of
additional employees to accommodate the minor increase in clientele associated with the proposed
project, this additional hiring is not expected to induce material population growth because most of
these new employees are not expected to change their place of residence.
With regard to project operation, the proposed hotel, theater, apartment building, and commercial/
retail components are expected to employ approximately 149 employees. Due to the limited
number of jobs induced, and because it is expected that the local and regional labor pools would be
available to fill these jobs, it is unlikely that the employment offered by the proposed project would
cause people to move or relocate to the area solely for the purpose of being close to the project
site. Therefore, although the proposed project would provide employment opportunities, it would
not result in substantial indirect growth or create a significant demand for housing in the project site
vicinity.
Therefore, given that the employment opportunities generated by the construction and operation of
the proposed project would be filled by people who would commute to the project site, the
potential population growth associated with project employees would be minimal.
6.3.2 Foster Economic Growth
In its existing condition, the project site is a paved and underutilized parking lot. Aside from the
receipt of short-term lease payments associated with temporary uses, the project site currently
does not generate revenue for the City. The proposed project would provide a new source of
property, sales, and transient occupancy tax revenues to the City, thereby increasing the local tax
base. The proposed project would also introduce new residents and hotel guests that would
invigorate the local economy by spending on goods and services at local businesses. As previously
discussed, the construction of the proposed project would generate a substantial number of
construction-related jobs and new employment opportunities in the City during the construction
period. As also discussed, the hotel, theater, apartment building, and commercial/retail components
would be expected to employ approximately 149 workers, and these positions would likely be filled
by persons already residing in the City of Cypress or the region. Therefore, the proposed project
would foster economic growth.
6.3.3 Other Characteristics
The proposed project involves a Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation of the
project site from Professional Office to a newly created mixed-use land use district that would allow
residential and hotel uses, while still permitting commercial/retail uses. The proposed project
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (02/03/20) 6-4
includes the development of up to 251 residential units on the project site. Because the Specific Plan
Amendment included as part of the proposed project would not modify the existing General Plan
land use designations or zoning classifications on any off-site properties, the proposed project would
not directly increase the City’s population beyond the number of residents who would live in the
251 on-site residential units. While it is conceivable that the project’s approval could attract the
interest of new housing developers to Cypress who may seek the approval of Specific Plan or
General Plan Amendments on other undeveloped or underutilized properties in the City for the
purpose of developing new housing, it is highly unlikely, given that the City of Cypress has very little
land that would be able to accommodate new housing development that has not already been
designated for housing. Any future growth in the City is likely to occur regardless of whether or not
the project is approved.
6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider and discuss significant
irreversible changes that would be caused by implementation of a proposed project. The State CEQA
Guidelines specify that the use of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of
a project should be discussed because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-
use thereafter unlikely. Primary and secondary impacts (e.g., a highway improvement that provides
access to a previously inaccessible area) should also be discussed because such changes generally
commit future generations to similar uses. Irreversible damage can also result from environmental
accidents associated with a project and should be discussed.
The types and level of development associated with the proposed project would consume limited,
slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption would occur during construction
of the proposed project and would continue throughout the operational lifetime of the proposed
project. The development of the proposed project would require a commitment of resources that
would include (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the
transportation of goods and people to and from the project site.
Construction of the proposed project would require consumption of resources that are not
replenishable or that may renew so slowly as to be considered nonrenewable. These resources
would include certain types of lumber and other forest products (e.g., hardwood lumber), aggregate
materials used in concrete and asphalt (e.g., sand, gravel, and stone), metals (e.g., steel, copper, and
lead), petrochemical construction materials (e.g., plastics), and water. Fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline and
oil) would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment. Water, which is a
limited, slowly renewable resource, would also be consumed during construction of the proposed
project. However, given the temporary nature of construction activities, water consumption during
construction would result in a less than significant impact on water supplies. Furthermore, the use
of construction vehicles and equipment would require the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels
such as natural gas and oil. As with other resources consumed during construction, the consumption
of nonrenewable fossil fuels for energy use would occur on a temporary basis during construction of
the proposed project.
Operation of the proposed project would continue to expend similar nonrenewable resources that
are currently consumed within Cypress and on site. These include energy resources such as
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (02/03/20) 6-5
electricity, petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. Energy resources would be used for
heating and cooling buildings, transportation within the project site, and building lighting. Fossil
fuels are primary energy sources for project construction and operation. This existing, finite energy
source would thus be incrementally reduced. Under Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), conservation practices limiting the amount of energy consumed by the proposed
project would be required during operation. Additionally the proposed project would implement
renewable energy (i.e., solar panels and LED lights) and USEPA energy star rating appliances and
would incorporate additional energy efficiency measures. Nevertheless, the use of such resources
would continue to represent a long-term commitment of essentially nonrenewable resources.
The proposed project would result in the limited use of potentially hazardous materials contained in
typical cleaning agents and pesticides for landscaping on the project site. Such materials would be
used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable government regulations and
standards that would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change
resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials.
In summary, construction and operation of the proposed project would commit the use of slowly
renewable and nonrenewable resources and would limit the availability of these resources on the
project site for future generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed project.
However, the continued use of such resources during operation would be on a relatively small scale
and consistent with regional and local urban design and development goals for the area. As a result,
the use of nonrenewable resources in this manner would not result in significant irreversible
changes to the environment under the proposed project.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx (02/03/20) 6-6
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-1
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
7.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which is part of the CEQA statute, mandates that
the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs:
• The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the
project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance
during project implementation. For those changes that have been required or incorporated into
the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law
over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead
agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring
program.
• The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials
that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
• The lead agency shall provide measures to mitigate or avoid potentially significant effects on the
environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents that
address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy,
regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy,
regulation, or project design.
• Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report, a
responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the
project, shall either (1) submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives
for mitigation measures that would address the significant effects on the environment identified
by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the
project, or (2) refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference
documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an
agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to
measures that mitigate impacts to resources that are subject to the statutory authority of, and
definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance with that requirement by a
responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project
shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural
resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or
deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-2
7.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed City Center Project (Project) has
been prepared in compliance with Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to
be followed by the City of Cypress, as the Lead Agency, to ensure that all mitigation measures
adopted as part of the proposed project will be carried out as described in this Draft EIR.
Table 7.A sets forth the proposed mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It lists each of the
mitigation measures specified in this Draft EIR and identifies the party or parties responsible for
implementation and monitoring of each measure.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-3
Table 7.A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.2: Air Quality
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-1:
SCAQMD Rule 403. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or
excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall
be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventative
measures by using the following procedures, in compliance
with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rule 403 during construction.
All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently
watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering
shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage,
preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the
day.
All material transported on-site or off-site shall be either
sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or
excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
These control techniques shall be indicated in project
specifications. Compliance with this measure shall be subject
to periodic site inspections by the City of Cypress (City).
Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the
project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible.
During ground-
disturbing
activities
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-2:
All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material shall
comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special
attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended,
regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public
streets and roads.
During
construction
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-4
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-3:
Prior to approval of the project plans and specifications, the
City of Cypress Director of Community Development, or
designee, shall confirm that the construction bid packages
specify:
Contractors shall use high-pressure-low-volume paint
applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50
percent;
Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a volatile
organic compound content lower than required under
SCAQMD Rule 1113; and
To the extent feasible, construction/building materials shall
be composed of pre-painted materials.
Prior to approval
of project plans
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-4:
The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402.
During
construction and
operation
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-5:
The project shall meet the Statewide 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, formally known as Title 24, Part 6.
During
construction
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
4.3: Biological Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Survey
and Avoidance
If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are
planned to occur within the active nesting bird season
(February 1 through August 31), the City of Cypress (or
designee), shall confirm that the Applicant/Developer has
retained a qualified biologist who shall conduct a
Three days prior
to
commencement
of grading
activities
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Community
Development
Director, or
designee
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-5
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior
to the start of such activities. The nesting bird survey shall
include the work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500
feet, as feasible) that could potentially be affected by project-
related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human
activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the
qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone
around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be
determined by the qualified biologist based on species,
location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project
activities shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest
is deemed no longer active, as determined by the qualified
biologist.
4.4: Cultural Resources
Regulatory Compliance Measure CUL-1:
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State PRC
Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the
find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the County Coroner would notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which would
determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the
permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery.
The MLD shall complete the inspection and make
recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours
of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations
may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native American
burials, preservation of Native American human remains and
associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American
human remains and associated items to the descendants for
treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.
During
construction
activities
Construction
supervisor/
Applicant/
Developer/
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-6
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 :
Archaeological Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained
by the Applicant/Developer to provide cultural resources
awareness training to construction personnel. The qualified
professional archaeologist shall also be retained by the
Applicant/Developer on an on-call basis. This training shall be in
the form of a presentation and handout describing the types of
possible archaeological deposits that may be encountered
during construction activities; and the procedures that shall be
used in the event of inadvertent discoveries of cultural
resources during construction. In the event that construction
personnel encounter any archaeological deposits during
construction activities, the retained qualified professional
archaeologist shall be contacted immediately. If any such
resources are discovered, contractors shall stop work in the
immediate area of the find and contact the retained
archaeologist to assess the nature of the find and determine if
future studies and/or monitoring is appropriate. Upon
completion of any monitoring activities, the archaeologist shall
prepare a report to document the methods and results of
monitoring activities. This report shall be submitted to the
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
and during
construction
activities
Applicant/Developer
and/or construction
supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
Department, or
designee
4.5: Energy
Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1:
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the City of Cypress (City) Chief
Building Official, or designee, shall confirm that the project
design complies with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (CCR Title 24) energy conservation and green
building standards, as well as those listed in Part 11 (California
Green Building Standards [CALGreen Code]). The City’s Chief
Building Official shall confirm that the project complies with the
mandatory measures listed in the CALGreen Code for
residential and non-residential building construction.
Prior to issuance
of a building
permit
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Chief Building
Official, or designee
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-7
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.6: Geology and Soils
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-1:
California Building Code Compliance Seismic Standards. All
structures shall be designed in accordance with the seismic
parameters presented in the Geotechnical Assessment
prepared for this project (NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2019) and
applicable sections of the most current California Building Code
(CBC). Prior to the issuance of building permits for planned
structures, the Project Soils Engineer and the City of Cypress
Chief Building Official, or designee, shall review building plans
to verify that the structural design conforms to the
requirements of the Geotechnical Assessment and the City of
Cypress Municipal Code.
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Chief Building
official, or designee
Mitigation Measure GEO-1:
Compliance with the Recommendations in the Project
Geotechnical Assessment. The Applicant/Developer’s
construction contractor shall implement the recommendations
of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Study for Proposed Mixed-
Use Development at NE Quadrant of Siboney Street and Katella
Avenue, City of Cypress, California (NMG Geotechnical, June
2019; Geotechnical Assessment) prepared for the proposed
project, as applicable to the satisfaction of the City of Cypress’
(City) Chief Building Official or designee, including, but not
limited to:
1. To address potential liquefaction potential and seismically
induced settlement, stone columns or (Geopier brand)
rammed aggregate piers (RAP) or equivalent ground
improvement method alternatives shall be used and
installed to a depth of 15 feet (ft). Building areas where the
ground is improved with RAPs or stone columns shall
provide a minimum 2 ft thick layer of newly compacted fill.
The smaller retail buildings may be supported on a
combination of newly compacted fill and shallower ground
improvement, such as aggregate and geogrid
Prior to issuance
of grading
permits.
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of Public
Works and Chief
Building Official, or
designee(s)
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-8
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
reinforcement. Fill material shall be a minimum of 5 ft
below finish grade or 3 ft below the bottoms of foundations,
whichever is deeper. The bottom of the excavation shall
have a layer of geogrid, such as Tensar 130 or BX1515 and a
minimum of 2 ft of aggregate base. The remaining fill may
be compacted native soil.
2. The deeper undocumented fill in the southeast corner of the
project site (future retail shops area) should be completely
removed and replaced with engineered fill.
3. To address shallow groundwater and wet soil, some type of
ground stabilization, such as cement treatment or aggregate
or a combination of both shall be used. Geofabric or geogrid
is recommended in combination with aggregate to reduce
the required depth of treatment, amount of aggregate and
time required to backfill the excavations.
4. Concrete slabs shall be used for all foundations and slabs on
grade and shall be a minimum of 4 inches thick.
Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be
conducted by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to refine and
enhance these requirements. The Applicant/Developer shall
require the Project Geotechnical Consultant to assess whether
the requirements in that report need to be modified or refined
to address any changes in the project features that occur prior
to the start of grading. If the Project Geotechnical Consultant
identifies modifications or refinements to the requirements,
the Applicant/Developer shall require appropriate changes to
the final project design and specifications. Design, grading, and
construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Cypress Municipal Code and the
California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading,
appropriate local grading regulations, and the requirements of
the Project Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in a final
written report, subject to review by the City of Cypress Director
of Public Works, or designee, prior to commencement of
grading activities.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-9
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the Director of
Public Works, or designee, prior to the start of grading to verify
that the requirements developed during the geotechnical
design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into
the project plans. Design, grading, and construction shall be
conducted in accordance with the specifications of the Project
Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in a final report based
on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and building, and
the City’s Building Code. On-site inspection during grading shall
be conducted by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and the
City of Cypress Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or
designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into project plans. Prior to the
final grading permits, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall
submit a Final Testing and Observation Geotechnical Report for
Rough Grading to the City of Cypress Director of Public Works/
City Engineer, or designee.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2:
Procedures for Unexpected Paleontological Resources
Discoveries. If paleontological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed
project, construction personnel shall immediately halt work
within 50 ft of the discovery, and the Applicant/Developer or
construction supervisor shall contact a qualified paleontologist
to assess the discovery for scientific importance. A qualified
paleontologist is defined as a person with an M.S. or Ph.D. in
geology or paleontology and who meets the standards set forth
by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontologist
shall make recommendations regarding the collection,
treatment, and disposition of the discovery. Scientifically
important resources shall be prepared to the point of
identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible,
cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a
museum repository. If paleontological resources are
discovered, regardless of their scientific importance,
During ground-
disturbing
activities
Applicant/Developer
and/or construction
supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-10
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
paleontological monitoring shall be required for subsequent
ground-disturbing activities at a frequency, depth, and/or
interval determined by the paleontologist. Paleontological
monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological
monitor as set forth in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standards. At the conclusion of monitoring, a final monitoring
report shall be prepared by the paleontologist to document the
results of monitoring and project compliance with all
regulations and project requirements. If scientifically important
paleontological resources are recovered, this report shall also
document those paleontological resources with a catalog,
descriptions, and photographs as determined appropriate by
the paleontologist. The final monitoring report shall be
submitted to the City of Cypress Director of Community
Development Department or designee for review and approval.
A copy of this final report shall also accompany the fossil
material to the museum repository.
4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measure GHG-1:
Energy Conservation. Prior to the issuance of building permits,
the Applicant/Developer shall provide evidence to the
satisfaction of the City of Cypress Director of Community
Development Department, or designee, that the project’s retail
commercial buildings, multi-family residential uses, hotel, and
movie theater shall be designed and built to be 10 percent
more energy-efficient than 2019 Title 24 requirements or the
current Title 24 requirement, whichever is more stringent.
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits
Applicant/Developer
and the City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development, or
designee
Mitigation Measure GHG-2:
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The
Applicant/Developer shall develop a TDM Program for on-site
residents and workers with the goal of reducing project-related
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The TDM strategies shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
i. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the
project’s buildings, the Applicant/Developer shall provide
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits/
prior to the
issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy for the
project’s
commercial
Applicant/Developer
and the City of
Cypress Community
Development
Director, or
designee
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-11
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of the City of
Cypress Community Development Department, or
designee, that a bicycle rack or a secured bicycle storage
area shall be installed within 50 feet of each proposed
building.
ii. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
apartment building, the Apartment Building Manager shall
provide evidence to the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee, that
bike route maps, local transit route maps and schedules,
and other transportation information, such as the existing
carpooling program sponsored by the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA), are displayed in a
prominent area accessible to residents and employees.
iii. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
project’s commercial buildings, the Applicant/Developer
shall provide evidence to the Director of the City of Cypress
Community Development Department, or designee, that
the lease agreements executed with any tenants contain
provision requiring each business to provide cash
incentives for employees to use public transit and display
bike route maps, local transit route maps and schedules,
and other transportation information, such as OCTA’s
existing carpooling program in a prominent area accessible
to employees.
iv. The Applicant/Developer shall organize an annual event on
the project site promoting the use of transit, carpooling
programs, and non-motorized methods of transportation
by project residents, employees, and visitors. The City of
Cypress Director of Community Development Department,
or designee, shall be responsible for confirming that the
event is held.
buildings
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-12
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Regulatory Compliance Measure HAZ-1:
Federal Aviation Regulation Title 14 Part 77. The
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.
45 days prior to
beginning
construction
Applicant/Developer
and Federal
Aviation
Administration
4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-1:
Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of
construction activities, the Applicant/Developer shall obtain
coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities
(Construction General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order
No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-
DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, or any other subsequent
permit. This shall include submission of Permit Registration
Documents (PRDs), including permit application fees, a Notice
of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention 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
(WDID) is obtained for the project from the SMARTS and
provided to the Director of the City of Cypress Community
Development Department, 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
Prior to
commencement
of construction
activities
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-13
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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 stormwater and shall include BMPs
(e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good
Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in stormwater
runoff. Construction Site BMPs shall also conform to the
requirements specified in the latest edition of the Orange
County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff Guidance
Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers to
control and minimize the impacts of construction and
construction-related activities, materials, and pollutants on the
watershed. Upon completion of construction activities and
stabilization of the project site, a Notice of Termination shall be
submitted via SMARTS.
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-2:
Groundwater Dewatering Permit. If groundwater dewatering is
required during excavation activities, the Applicant/Developer
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.
R8-2009-0003, NPDES No. CAG998001) (De Minimis 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.
Prior to
commencement
of construction
activities
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-14
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Regulatory Compliance Measure HYD-3:
Best Management Practices. The Applicant/Developer shall
implement the BMPs identified in Section IV of the Water
Quality Management Plan and the drainage improvements
identified in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study. In addition,
the Property Management Association shall be the responsible
party for inspection and maintenance of the BMPS as identified
in Section V of the Preliminary Water Quality Management
Plan.
During
construction and
operation
Applicant/Developer
and Property
Management
Association
4.11: Noise
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-1:
The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related
activities to between the hours 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on
weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted
outside of these hours or on Sundays or a federal holiday.
During
construction
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-2:
Mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units in
residential, commercial, and industrial 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.
During operation Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure NOI-3:
Trash collection and compacting shall be limited to between
the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday
in commercial zoning districts and between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday in commercial
zoning districts that are within 200 feet of residential zoning
districts, consistent with Section 3.10.070(C) of the City of
Cypress Municipal Code.
During operation Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-15
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure NOI-1:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the construction
contractor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of
Cypress Director of Community Development, or designee, the
following:
Construction contracts shall specify that all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers and other State required
noise attenuation devices.
Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off
idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers
around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing
the distance between construction equipment staging areas
and occupied residential areas, and use of electric air
compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel
equipment, shall be used where feasible.
During construction, stationary construction equipment shall
be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from
noise-sensitive receptors.
All construction entrances shall clearly post construction
hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the
job superintendent. This will allow surrounding owners and
residents to contact the job superintendent with concerns. If
the developer receives a noise related complaint,
appropriate corrective actions shall be implemented and a
report taken indicating the action with a copy of the report
provided to the reporting party upon request.
Prior to issuance
of any grading
permits
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Mitigation Measure NOI-2:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
the City of Cypress Director of Community Development, or
designee, that on-site stationary noise sources, such as rooftop
air conditioners, shall not exceed City noise standards as stated
within the City’s Municipal Code Sections 13-68 and 13-69.
Prior to issuance
of any building
permits
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-16
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.13: Public Services
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1:
Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to
issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall
provide proof of compliance with the applicable provisions of
Chapter 25 (Subdivisions), Article 6, Park and Recreational
Facilities, of the City of Cypress Municipal Code to the Director
of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or
designee.
Prior to issuance
of any building
permits
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure PS-1:
Payment of School Fees. Prior to issuance of any building
permits, the Applicant/Developer shall provide proof to the
Director of the City of Cypress Community Development
Department, or designee, that payment of school fees to the
Anaheim Union High School District has been made in
compliance with Section 65995 of the California Government
Code.
Prior to issuance
of any building
permits
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
Mitigation Measure PS-1:
Secured Fire Protection Agreement. Prior to the issuance of
any building permits, the Applicant/ Developer shall enter into
a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the Orange County
Fire Authority (OCFA). This Agreement shall specify the
Applicant/Developer’s pro-rata fair share funding of capital
improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection
facilities and equipment, and/or personnel. Said agreement
shall be reached as early as possible in the planning process,
preferably for each phase or land use sector of the project,
rather than on a parcel by parcel basis. The obligation must be
satisfied prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Prior to issuance
of any building
permits
Applicant/Developer
and Orange County
Fire Authority
(OCFA)/ City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-17
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
4.14: Recreation
Regulatory Compliance Measure REC-1:
Dedication of Parkland and/or Payment of Park Fees. Prior to
issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall
provide proof of compliance with the applicable provisions of
Chapter 25 (Subdivisions), Article 6, Park and Recreational
Facilities, of the City of Cypress Municipal Code to the Director
of the City of Cypress Community Development Department, or
designee.
Prior to issuance
of any building
permits
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure TCR-1:
Tribal Cultural Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Applicant/Developer shall retain a Gabrieleno
Native American Tribal representative to monitor ground-
disturbing construction activities associated with pad grading of
Retail Building C (the northernmost retail building proposed
directly to the west of Winners Circle) and all geopier
installation throughout the site. The retained Gabrieleno Native
American Tribal representative shall be present at the cultural
resources awareness training to construction personnel, and
shall provide additional tribal cultural resources awareness
information at the same meeting. Ground-disturbing activities
associated with pavement removal and initial site wide grading
(at a maximum anticipated depth of 1 to 2 feet deep) shall not
require tribal monitoring. However, if tribal cultural resources
are encountered during the unmonitored excavation activities
previously specified, contractors shall stop work in the
immediate area of the find and contact the retained Gabrieleno
Native American Tribal representative to assess the find. Tribal
monitoring shall also be required during excavation trenching
for dry utilities, water, sewer, storm drain, and underground
detention basin installation. Tribal monitoring shall not be
conducted after initial excavation of native (previously
undisturbed) soil has occurred (i.e., no tribal monitoring shall
be required for landscaping activities occurring after
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
Applicant/Developer
and/or construction
supervisor/City of
Cypress Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-18
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
completion of project grading and trenching, as this soil will
have been previously monitored). On-site Tribal monitoring
shall be considered complete after project grading and
trenching are completed and no disturbance to native
(previously undisturbed) soils are anticipated.
If tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction
activities, ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity
of the find shall be halted until the find is assessed by the tribal
monitor. The Applicant/Developer shall determine whether to
contact the on-call archaeologist for his/her assistance in the
assessment of the find. Ground-disturbing construction
activities shall be allowed to continue in other portions of the
project while the find is being assessed. If the find is
determined to be a tribal cultural resource, the Gabrieleno
Native American Tribe whose representative is responsible for
tribal monitoring shall coordinate with the Applicant/Developer
to determine appropriate treatment of the resource.
4.17: Utilities and Service Systems
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-1:
Sewer Improvement Standards. All required sewer
improvements shall be designed and constructed to City and
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) standards and shall
be approved by the City of Cypress (City) Engineer prior to
development. These improvements may be constructed in a
phased sequence depending upon the development process.
Facilities shall be dedicated to the City and/or OCSD at the
completion of construction.
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Completion of
applicable
facilities
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Engineer or
designee
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-2:
Drainage Improvement Standards. Drainage system
improvements shall be designed and constructed to City and
Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) standards, if
applicable, and will be approved by those agencies prior to
development. Improvements may be constructed in a phased
sequence depending upon the development process. Facilities
Prior to issuance
of grading
permits
Completion of
applicable
facilities
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Engineer
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-19
Mitigation Measure/Regulatory Compliance Measure
Monitoring
Milestone
Responsible Party
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
shall be dedicated to the City at completion of construction to
the extent required by the City (Source: Mitigation Measure
No. 64, page 151, Cypress Business and Professional Center
Specific Plan EIR).
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-3:
Water Conservation. The Applicant/Developer shall comply
with all State laws for water conservation measures and use of
reclaimed water. Voluntary water conservation strategies shall
be encouraged. The Building Division shall determine
compliance prior to issuance of building permits (Source:
Mitigation Measure No 75, pages 157 and 158, Cypress
Business and Professional Center Specific Plan EIR).
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Building Division
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTIL-4:
Construction and Demolition Ordinance. The Construction
Contractor shall comply with the provisions of City Ordinance
No. 1166 and the 2016 California Green Building Standards
Code, which would reduce construction and demolition waste.
Ordinance No. 1166 is codified in Article VIII, Materials
Questionnaire for Certain Construction and Demolition Project
within the City of Cypress in the City of Cypress Municipal Code.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Applicant/Developer
and City of Cypress
Director of
Community
Development
Department or
designee
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\7.0 MMRP.docx (02/06/20) 7-20
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\8.0 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.docx (02/03/20) 8-1
8.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe the significant adverse environmental impacts of a
proposed project that cannot be avoided, including those effects that can be mitigated but not
reduced to below a level of significance. If the EIR identifies impacts that cannot be alleviated
without imposing an alternative design, the impact’s implications and the reasons why the project is
being proposed, despite those impacts, must also be described. The Executive Summary of this Draft
EIR contains a detailed summary table that identifies the potentially significant adverse impacts of
the Cypress City Center Project (proposed project), the proposed project mitigation measures, and
the level of significance of each impact after mitigation. These impacts are also described in detail in
those portions of Sections 4.1 through 4.17 titled Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in
Chapter 4.0, Existing Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
As described in detail in Chapter 4.0, the proposed project would not result in significant
unavoidable adverse impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation,
Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. Therefore, the project
impacts related to these issues are not discussed further in this section.
8.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The proposed project would be designed in compliance with existing regulations aimed at reducing
GHG emissions. Specifically, the project would meet the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
(California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24) and the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code). Although compliance with CCR Title 24 and the CALGreen Code would help to
reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions, the overall emissions attributable to construction and
operation of the proposed project of 7,208 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT
CO2e/yr) are expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD)
thresholds of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. The proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions of 7.9 MT CO2e
per service population per year (CO2e/SP/yr) would also exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 4.3 MT
CO2e/SP/yr for 2022. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable
project impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to
greenhouse gas emissions and conflict with an applicable greenhouse gas reduction plan, policy, or
regulations. Mitigation for greenhouse gas emissions would include energy conservation measures
and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. However, because
the type and extent of measures that could be implemented would be dependent on the individual
future tenants that occupy the project, the total volume of greenhouse gas reductions cannot be
quantified at this time. For example, the ability of a business to affect employee and patrons vehicle
miles traveled would depend in part on the number of employees and patrons, where they live, and
the availability of regional programs such as transit buses. Therefore, impacts related to generation
of greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\8.0 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.docx (02/03/20) 8-2
8.3 REASONS WHY THE PROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED DESPITE ITS SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As discussed above, the proposed project is anticipated to result in significant and unavoidable
impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, the project is being proposed for the
following reasons:
• The proposed project would provide a mixed-use project that would meet the City’s General
Plan balanced development goals and objectives to locate higher density housing adjacent to
commercial and employment opportunities in order to encourage pedestrian access and provide
a consumer base for commercial uses.
• The proposed project would support the retention of local employers and increase the fiscal
benefits to the City by attracting new retail, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment businesses
that can better serve the local population and employment and that would generate additional
revenue to the City.
• The proposed project would meet the demand for new hotel rooms in the Cypress Business
Center to serve the local business community.
• The proposed project would provide new drainage improvements on the project site, which
would reduce the risk of downstream flooding hazards.
• The proposed project would allow the City to divest itself of real estate conveyed to it by the
Cypress Redevelopment Agency in March 2011 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
between the City of Cypress, the Successor Agency to the Cypress Redevelopment Agency, the
State Department of Finance, and the State Controller’s Office.
• The proposed project would expand the variety of housing stock in the City, which would help
meet the existing and future housing needs of all Cypress residents, by providing high-density
rental units.
• The proposed project would expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing
high‐quality housing in the City to alleviate the housing crisis and help the City meet its Regional
Housing Needs Assessment allocations.
• As described in Chapter 5.0, alternatives to the proposed project were identified and evaluated
to determine if the identified significant impact could be eliminated while continuing to achieve
the project objectives described above. As discussed in Chapter 5.0, no alternative project
designs were identified that met the project objectives and eliminated the significant
greenhouse gas impacts identified with the proposed project.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\9.0 Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx (02/03/20) 9-1
9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
9.1 CITY OF CYPRESS
The following individuals from the City of Cypress (City) were involved in the preparation of this
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
• John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner, Community Development Department
• Jeff Zwack, Project Planner, Community Development Department
• Doug Dancs, PE, Director of Community Development, Community Development Department
9.2 EIR PREPARERS
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this Draft EIR. The nature of their
involvement is summarized below.
9.2.1 LSA
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of this Draft EIR:
• Deborah Pracilio, Principal in Charge
• Ryan Bensley, AICP, Associate/Project Manager
• Amy Fischer, Principal/Air Quality, Noise and Global Climate Change Specialist
• Sarah Rieboldt, PH.D., Associate/Senior Paleontological Resources Manager
• Nicole West, CPSWQ, QSD/QSP, Associate
• Jason Lui, Associate/Senior Noise Specialist
• Michael Slavick, Senior Air Quality Specialist
• Kerrie Collison, Senior Cultural Resources Manager
• Katherine Hughes, Environmental Planner
• Cara Carlucci, Environmental Planner
• Elise Miller, Assistant Environmental Planner
• Marlene Watanabe, Assistant Environmental Planner
• Abby Annicchiarico, Assistant Environmental Planner
• Jeremy Rosenthal, Biologist
• Gary Dow, Associate, Graphics
• Matt Phillips, Graphics Technician
• Lauren Johnson, Technical Editor
• Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor
9.3 TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARERS
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the technical reports in support of this
Draft EIR. The nature of their involvement is summarized below.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\9.0 Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx (02/03/20) 9-2
9.3.1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
The following individual was involved in the preparation of the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics
Study (January 2020):
• Jason Marechal, PE, LEED AP, Associate
The following individual was involved in the preparation of the Water Quality Management Plan
(August 2019):
• Brian Gillis, PE, Principal Engineer
9.3.2 Roux Associates, Inc.
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment and Phase II Limited Soil Investigation (June 2019):
• Mark A. Edwards, GIT, Staff Geologist
• Mauricio H. Escobar, Principal Geologist
9.3.3 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
The following individual was involved in the preparation of the Paleontological Resources Records
Check for the Proposed Cypress Mixed-Use Development Project, LSA Project #SHO1901, in the City
of Cypress, Orange County (December 2019):
• Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D., Vertebrate Paleontology
9.3.4 NMG Geotechnical, Inc.
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Study
for Proposed Mixed-Use Development at NE Quadrant of Siboney Street and Katella Avenue, City of
Cypress, California (June 2019):
• Ted Miyake, RCE, Principal Engineer
• William Goodman, CEG, Principal Geologist
9.3.5 LSA
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis (December
2019):
• Ken Wilhelm, Principal
• Shiva Delparastaran, Transportation Engineer
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\9.0 Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx (02/03/20) 9-3
9.4 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
9.4.1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
The following individual was involved in the preparation of the Specific Plan Amendment (January
2020):
• Margit Allen, AICP, Planning and Entitlement Practice Builder, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
9.5 PROJECT APPLICANT/DEVELOPER
9.5.1 Shea Properties
The project Applicant/Developer was consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR:
• Kevin McCook, Vice President of Acquisitions and Development, Shea Properties
9.6 PERSONS CONSULTED
The following individuals were consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR:
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
○ Andrew Salas, Chairman
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
○ Deneen Pelton, Administrative Assistant
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
\\VCORP12\Projects\CCP1902\Draft EIR\9.0 Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx (02/03/20) 9-4
This page intentionally left blank
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-1
10.0 REFERENCES
AESTHETICS
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015, last modified December 2019. List of
Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov//
media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug2019_a11y.xlsx
(accessed January 8, 2020).
City of Cypress. 2012. Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan.
United States Census Bureau. 2010a. Los Angeles—Long Beach—Anaheim, CA Urbanized Area No.
51445. Website: https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua
51445los_angeles--long_beach--anaheim_ca/DC10UA51445.pdf (accessed January 6, 2020).
_____. 2010b. Census Urban Area FAQs. Website: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/
ua/2010ua_faqs.pdf?# (accessed January 6, 2020).
AIR QUALITY
California Emissions Estimator Model. 2016a. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version
2016.3.1. Website: http://www.caleemod.com/ (accessed: December 2019).
_____. 2016b. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide. Version 2016.3.2. February.
Website: http://www.caleemod.com/ (accessed: December 2019).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control
Division. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled
Engines and Vehicles. October.
_____. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB
Handbook). April.
_____. 2019a. EMFAC 2017 Web Database. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014/
(accessed December 2019).
_____. 2019b. Off Road Mobile Source Emission factors. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools (accessed:
December 2019).
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology. July.
_____. 2008. MATES III. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/
health-studies/mates-iii (accessed: December 16, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-2
_____. 2015a. Final Report – Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin.
MATES-IV. May. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-toxic-
studies/mates-iv/mates-iv-final-draft-report-4-1-15.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (accessed January 2,
2020).
_____. 2015b. MATES IV. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/
health-studies/mates-iv (accessed: December 16, 2019).
_____. 2016. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016-2040 Final Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: http://scagrtpscs.net/
Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf (accessed December 17, 2019).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Website: https://www.epa.gov/air-
emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors (accessed:
December 2019).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. CNDDB Maps and Data. Website:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/ CNDDB/Maps-and-Data (accessed December 31, 2019).
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.
Website: www.rareplants.cnps.org/ (accessed December 31, 2019).
City of Cypress. 1996. Inventory of Landmark Trees. July.
Natural Resources Conservation Survey (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Website: https://websoil
survey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed December 2019).
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program.
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West
Region (Version 2.0). ERCD/EL TR-08-28. September.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019a. Critical Habitat for Threatened &
Endangered Species. Website: http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html ?url=
https://services.arcgis.com/QVENGdaPbd4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/services/USFWS_Critical
_Habitat/FeatureServer&source=sd (accessed December 6, 2019).
_____. 2019b. IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation. Website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
(accessed November 6, 2019).
_____. 2019c. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. Website: https://www.fws.gov/
wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed December 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-3
_____. 2019d. Wetlands. The National Wetlands Inventory. Website: https://www.fws.gov/
wetlands/ (accessed December 2019).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
_____. 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks
and Recreation, Sacramento.
_____. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento.
_____. 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento.
_____. 2012. Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File. California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. April 5.
National Environmental Title Research (NETR). 2020. Historic Aerials. Website: http://www.historic
aerials.com (accessed January 8, 2020).
Saucedo, George J., H. Harry Greene, Michael P. Kennedy, and Stephen P. Bezore. 2016. Geologic
Map of the Long Beach 30-minute by 60-minute Quadrangle, California. Version 2.0.
Prepared by the California Geological Survey in Cooperation with the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). Map Scale 1:100,000.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1981. Los Alamitos, California 7.5-minute Topographic
Quadrangle. Prepared in 1964. Photorevised in 1981. USGS, Denver, Colorado.
ENERGY
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2017. 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Publication
Number: CEC-100-2017-001-CMF.
_____. 2018a. 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Publication Number: CEC-100-2018-001-V1.
_____. 2018b. California Energy Demand, 2018-2030 Revised Forecast. Publication Number: CEC-
200-2018-002-CMF. February. Website: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx? tn
=223244 (accessed December 12, 2019).
_____. 2019a. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elec
bycounty.aspx (accessed December 12, 2019).
_____. 2019b. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycount
y.aspx (accessed December 12, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-4
_____. 2019c. Natural Gas Consumption by Entity. Website: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasby
util.aspx (accessed December 11, 2019)
_____. 2019d. Notice of Request for Public Comments on the Draft Scoping Order for the 2019
Integrated Energy Policy Report. Docket No. 19-IEPR-01.
_____. 2019e. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website: https:// ww2.energy.
ca.gov/almanac/naturalgas_data/overview.html (accessed December 9, 2019).
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2019. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program.
Website: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/rps/ (accessed December 9, 2019).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2019a. Corporate Average Fuel Economy.
Website: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy
(accessed December 9, 2019).
_____. 2019b. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ‘SAFE’ Vehicles Rule. Website: https://www.nhtsa.
gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe (accessed December 9, 2019).
Southern California Edison. 2019. About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are
(accessed December 12, 2019).
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2019. About SoCalGas. Website: https://www3.socal
gas.com/about-us/company-profile (accessed December 9, 2019).
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2019a. California State Profile and Energy
Estimates. Table F3: Motor gasoline consumption, price, and expenditure estimates, 2017.
Website: https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_
mg. html&sid=CA (accessed December 12, 2019).
_____. 2019b. Electricity Explained-. Website: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/
(accessed December 9, 2019).
_____. 2019c. Natural Gas Explained- Use of Natural Gas. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/
index.php?page=natural_gas_use (accessed December 9, 2019).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Bell, Christopher J., Ernest L. Lundelius, Jr., Anthony D. Barnosky, Russell W. Graham, Everett H.
Lindsay, Dennis R. Ruez, Jr., Holmes A. Semken, Jr., S. David Webb, and Richard J.
Zakrzewski. 2004. The Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Mammal Ages. Chapter 7
in Michael O. Woodburne, ed., Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America.
pp. 232–314.
California Department of Conservation. 2010. Fault Activity Map.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-5
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geologic
Survey Note 36. California Department of Conservation.
City of Cypress, 2000. City of Cypress General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element.
_____. 2001. Cypress General Plan EIR Section 4.6: Geologic and Seismic Hazards. Website:
https://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?id=678 (accessed December 17, 2019).
Cohen, K.M., S.C. Finney, P.L. Gibbard, and J.X. Fan, 2019. The ICS International Chronostratigraphic
Chart. Updated May 2019. Episodes 36: 199-204.
Jefferson, George T. 1991a. A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part One:
Non-marine Lower Vertebrate and Avian Taxa. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County Technical Reports No. 5, Los Angeles.
_____. 1991b. A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two: Mammals.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 7, Los Angeles.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2015. Barton Place Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. July.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2007. Groundwater Assessment Study, Chapter
IV – Groundwater Basin Reports, Orange County Basins – Orange County Basin, September.
Website: http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/PDFs/
OrangeCountyBasins/OrangeCountyBasin.pdf (accessed April 8, 2015).
Miller, W.E. 1971. Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity (Exclusive of Rancho
La Brea). Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Science: No. 10.
NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG). 2019. Geotechnical Due Diligence Study for Proposed Mixed-Use
Development at NE Quadrant of Siboney Street and Katella Avenue, City of Cypress,
California (Geotechnical Assessment). June 13, 2019.
Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb. 1976. Geology of California. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 379 pp.
Petra Geosciences. 2015. Geotechnical Feasibility and CEQA-Level Assessment: 33-Acre Parcel
Located Northeast of the Intersection of Katella Avenue and Enterprise Drive, City of Cypress,
California. February 23, 2015.
Reynolds, R.E., and R.L. Reynolds. 1991. The Pleistocene Beneath our Feet: Near-surface Pleistocene
Fossils in Inland Southern California Basins. In M.O. Woodburne, R.E. Reynolds, and D.P.
Whistler, eds., Inland Southern California: The Last 70 Million Years. San Bernardino County
Museum Special Publication 38(3 and 4): 41–43.
Sanders, A.E., R.E. Weems, and L.B. Albright. 2009. Formalization of the Middle Pleistocene “Ten
Mile Beds” in South Carolina with Evidence for Placement of the Irvingtonian-Rancholabrean
Boundary. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 64:369–375.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-6
Saucedo, George J., H. Harry Greene, Michael P. Kennedy, and Stephen P. Bezore. 2016. Geologic
Map of the Long Beach 30-minute by 60-minute Quadrangle, California. Version 2.0.
Prepared by the California Geological Survey in Cooperation with the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). Map Scale 1:100,000.
Sharp, R.P. 1976. Geology: Field Guide to Southern California. Second Edition. Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company. p. 181.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology. Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee, p. 1–11.
Yerkes R.F., T.H. McCulloh, J.E. Schoellhamer, and J.G. Vedder. 1965. Geology of the Los Angeles
Basin, California – An Introduction. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-
A. 57 pp.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by: BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity
Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the
California Air Districts.
California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for
Change. October.
_____. 2010. Staff Report Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for
Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. August.
_____. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, Pursuant
to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 15. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.
_____. 2016. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 2017 Edition. June. Website: http://www.arb.
ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
_____. 2017a. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March 14. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.
_____. 2017b. November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving
California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/
2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
_____. 2018. Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. February.
Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375_target_update_final_staff_report_feb
2018.pdf. California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report
to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-7
_____. 2019. California GHG Emission Inventory 2000 - 2017. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-16.pdf (accessed December
2019).
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012. July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and
Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California.
2006 Biennial Report. CEC-500-2006-077. California Climate Change Center.
_____. 2009, May. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and
Response Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077.
_____. 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Adoption Hearing Presentation. Website:
http:// www. energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/ June 10.
_____. 2018a. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New
Homes, First in Nation. Website: http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/ 2018-
05- 09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html.
_____. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Website:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Buildin
g_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Website: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/
climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF (accessed
November 2018).
_____. Air Resources Board. California GHG Emission Inventory. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/
cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ghg_inventory_trends_00-16.pdf (accessed
November 2018).
California Natural Resources Agency. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, An
Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. July.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing
Climate Change through CEQA Review. Technical Advisory. June. Website: http:// www.opr.
ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1995. Second Assessment Report: Climate
Change 1995.
_____. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-8
_____. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth 26 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [S.
Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 27 M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United 28 Kingdom 996 pp. Website:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/ (accessed in December 2019).
_____. 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York: Cambridge University Press.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2009. GHG Meeting 14 Main Presentation.
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. November 19, 2009.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-
(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-14/ghg-meeting-14-main
presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
_____. 2010a. September 28. Agenda for Meeting 15. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance
Thresholds Working Group. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/hand
book/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghgmeeting-
15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
_____. 2010b. September 28. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder
Working Group #15. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/green
house-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-
meeting-15-minutes.pdf.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April 7. Final 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility,
Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. Website: http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/
FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx.
United Nations Environment Programme. 2007. Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges
and Opportunities. Paris, France. Website: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/
DTIx0916xPA-BuildingsClimate.pdf (accessed December 2019).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2019. Combined Total of
Annex I and Non-Annex I Country CO2e emissions, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data.
Website: https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/ghg-
data-unfccc (accessed December 2019).
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2018. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide
Emissions at the State Level, 2000-2015. January 22, 2018. Website: https://www.eia.gov/
environment/emissions/state/analysis/.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases
Threaten Public Health and the Environment: Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse
gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. http://yosemite.epa.gov/
opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252. 240.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-9
_____. 2019. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2017. Washington,
D.C. Website: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
and-sinks (accessed December 2019).
U.S. Green Building Council. 2008. Building Area per Employee by Business Type. Website:
https://www.usgbc.org/drupal/legacy/usgbc/docs/Archive/General/Docs4111.pdf (accessed
December 2019).
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in LRA. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6737/fhszs_map30.pdf (accessed
December 29, 2019).
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1976, Environmental Geology of Orange County,
California Open-File Report 79-8 LA.
_____. 1980. Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of
Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County California, Annual
Technical Report, F.Y. Sept. 19, 1979 - Sept. 18, 1980, Open File Report 81-966 O.F. R 80-
19L.A. Plate No. 1, Map Nos. 1 through 4, Authored by Davis, J. F.
City of Cypress General Plan. 2001. Safety Element, Emergency Evacuation Routes map (Exhibit SAF-
5). October 2, 2001.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2015. Barton Place Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. July.
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. 2016. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces
Training Base Los Alamitos. Website: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JFTB-
AELUP2016ProposedFINAL.pdf (accessed December 29, 2019).
Roux Associates, Inc. 2019a. Phase II Limited Soil Investigation, Northwest Corner of Katella Avenue
and Winners Circle, Cypress, California. June.
_____. 2019b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. June.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
California Department of Water Resources. 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Coastal
Plains of Orange County Groundwater Basin.
_____. 2016. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Coastal Plains of Orange County Groundwater
Basin.
City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Safety Element.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-10
County of Orange. 2003. Drainage Area Management Plan. Website: https://cms.ocgov.com/gov/
pw/watersheds/documents/damp/default.asp (accessed January 2, 2020).
_____. 2011. Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP). May. Website: http://www.
ocwatersheds.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=21237 (accessed January 2,
2020).
_____. 2012. Construction Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers.
_____. 2013. Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary
and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) (Technical Guidance Document).
December.
Kimley-Horn. 2019. Water Quality Management Plan.
_____. 2020. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study. January.
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles RWQCB). 2019. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/regional_program/
Water_Quality_and_Watersheds/san_gabriel_river_watershed/summary.shtml (accessed
December 16, 2019).
NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG). 2019. Geotechnical Due Diligence Study for Proposed Mixed-Use
Development at NE Quadrant of Siboney Street and Katella Avenue, City of Cypress,
California (Geotechnical Assessment). June 13, 2019.
Orange County Public Works (OCPW). 2019a. Anaheim Bay Huntington Harbour Watershed
Programs & Project. Website: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/programs/ourws/anaheim
_bay_huntington_harbour/anaheim_bay_huntington_harbour_watershed_programs__proj
ects (accessed December 19, 2019).
_____. 2019b. Orange County Flood Division. Santa Ana River Project. Website: http://www.ocflood.
com/sarp (accessed December 19, 2019).
Orange County Water District. 2017. Basin 8-1 Alternative – OCWD Management Area. January 1,
2017.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 1995. Water Quality Control
Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. Updated June 2019.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. Final 2014/2016 California Integrated Report
(Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report.
_____. 2019. California’s Areas of Special Biological Significance. Website: https://www.Water
boards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/asbs_map.shtml (accessed December 19,
2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-11
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Los Angeles District. 2016. Carbon Canyon Dam.
Website: http://resreg.spl.usace.army.mil/pages/ccyn.php (accessed December 19, 2019).
LAND USE AND PLANNING
City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan.
_____. 2012. Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016–2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. April 7, 2016.
NOISE
Airport Land Use Commission. 2017. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base
Los Alamitos. August 17. Website: https://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JFTB,
LosAlamitos-AELUP2017.pdf (accessed December 2019).
City of Cypress. General Plan Noise Element. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/show
document?id=718 (accessed December 2019).
_____. General Plan Safety Element. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/home/showdocument?
id=714 (accessed December 2019).
_____. 2019. Municipal Code. July.
City of Los Alamitos. 2019. Municipal Code. July.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1977. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-
RD-77-108.
_____. 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Roadway Construction Noise Model, FHWA-
HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. NTIS No. PB2006-109012. August.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Office of Planning and Environment. Report No. 0123. September. Website: https://www.
transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-
vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf (accessed December 2019).
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2014. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan.
December 1. Website: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf (accessed
December 2019).
LSA Associates, Inc. 2019. Cypress City Center Traffic Impact Analysis. December.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines.
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-12
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1978. Protective Noise Levels, Condensed
Version of EPA Levels Document, EPA 550/9-79-100. November.
Urban Crossroads. 2015. Barton Place Noise Impact Analysis. April 27, 2015.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties, and the
State 2011–2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/
Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed December 18, 2019).
City of Cypress. 2012. Amended and Restated Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific
Plan.
_____. 2013. 2014–2021 Housing Element Technical Report. Table 2-25.
_____. 2013. General Plan Housing Element.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2013. Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2014–2021.
_____. 2016. 2016–2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction. Website: https://www.
scag.ca.gov/Documents/2016_2040RTPSCS_FinalGrowthForecastbyJurisdiction.pdf
(accessed December 11, 2019)
_____. 2019a. Current Context, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report: Draft for
Public Review and Comment. Website: https://connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/
dConnectSoCal_Demographics-And-Growth-Forecast.pdf (accessed December 12, /19)
_____. 2019b. Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Council Approved Draft
RNA Methodology Estimate Tool. Website: http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/
Documents/RHNA/SCAG-RHNA-Methodology-Worksheet-Nov19-Adopted.xlsx (accessed
December 31, 2019)
United States Census Bureau. 2010a. 2010 Census. Table DP-1 Profile of General Population and
Housing Characteristics.
_____. 2010b. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. City of Cypress. Website:
https://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed December 23, 2019).
_____. 2012. American Community Survey 2008–2012 5-Year Estimate Table S0101. Website:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_
17_5YR_S0101&prodType=table (accessed December 27, 2019).
_____. 2017a. American Housing Survey. Los Angeles-Long-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Units By Structure Type. Website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/
data.html (accessed December 23, 2019).
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-13
_____. 2017b. American Community Survey 2013-2017 5-Year Estimate Table S0101. Website:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17
_5YR_S0101&prodType=table (accessed December 27, 2019).
PUBLIC SERVICES
Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). 2014. Facilities Master Plan. Website: https://auhsd
blueprint.auhsd.us/overview.aspx (accessed December 30, 2019)
_____. 2019. Response to School Services Questionnaire. Received December 20, 2019.
California Department of Education. DataQuest. Enrollment Data 2018–2019. Website: https://dq.
cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ (accessed December 1, 2019).
California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties, and the
State 2011–2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/
Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed December 18, 2019).
City of Cypress. 2015. Barton Place Final Environmental Impact Report. October.
_____. 2017a. Cypress City Council Breaks Ground at Mackay Park. January 23. Website: http://
www.cypressca.org/Home/Components/News/News/54/ (accessed December 31, 2019).
_____. 2017b. Cypress Police Department Overview. Website: https://www.cypressca. org/
government/departments/police/inside-cypress-pd/the-community-we-serve#overview
(accessed December 1, 2019).
_____. 2019. Cypress Receives Donation of Over 8 Acres for New Park from Los Alamitos Race
Course, May 21, 2018. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/Home/Components/News/
News/1158/17?arch=1 (accessed December 31, 2019).
Cypress School District. Facilities Master Plan 2018/19. Revised February 2019. Website:
https://4.files.edl.io/308b/02/16/19/180111-3ad0439e-1cfc-474b-ac14-dc7bbb000524.pdf
(accessed December 1, 2019).
Orange County Fire Authority. 2019a. Member Cities Webpage. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/
aboutus/PartnerCities.aspx (accessed December 20, 2019).
_____. 2019b. Operations Directory: https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Departments/Operations
Directory/Division7.aspx (accessed December 1, 2019).
_____. 2019c. Station Statistics: Website: https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/Transparency/OCFA%20
Annual%20Report%202018.pdf (accessed December 1, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-14
_____. 2019d. Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Adopted Budget. Website: https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/
Transparency/OCFA%202018-2019%20Adopted%20Budget.pdf (accessed December 1,
2019).
_____. 2019e. Response to Fire Service Questionnaire. Received December 9, 2019.
Orange County Public Libraries. 2019a. About OCPL Webpage. Website: http://www.ocpl.org/
services/about (accessed December 18, 2019).
_____. 2019b. Response to Library Services Questionnaire. Received December 26, 2019.
State of California. 2007. State Allocation Board. Office of Public School Construction, School Facility
Program Handbook. April.
_____. 2019. Office of Public School Construction. School Facility Program Handbook. January.
Website: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/OPSC/Services/Guides-and-Resources/
SFP_Hdbk_ADA.ashx?la=en&hash=14D0F03EABD3AF437F3F4E2FDE1A602AFDFEE6C2
(accessed December 31, 2019).
RECREATION
California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities Counties, and the
State 2011–2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/
Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed December 18, 2019).
City of Cypress. 2001. General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element.
_____. 2015. Barton Place Final Environmental Impact Report. October.
_____. 2019a. City Council Meeting Minutes. October 28, 2019.
_____. 2019b. Facility & Park Locations: Mackay Park Webpage. Website: https://www.cypressca.
org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/66/240 (accessed December 21,
2019).
TRANSPORTATION
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies. December.
City of Cypress. 2000. General Plan Circulation Element.
County of Orange. 2017. Guidance for Administration of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways.
County of Orange. 2019. Orange County Congestion Management Program.
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-15
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2017. Guidance for Administration of the Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
Transportation Resources Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement
to General Plan Guidelines. April 15, 2005. Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/
22491/files/tribal_ consultation_guidelines_vol-4.pdf 9 (accessed January 2, 2020).
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEM
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. California Energy Demand, 2018-2030 Revised Forecast.
Publication Number: CEC-200-2018-002-CMF. February. Website: https://efiling.energy.
ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed December 12, 2019).
_____. 2019a. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elec
bycounty.aspx (accessed December 12, 2019).
_____. 2019b. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecby
util.aspx (accessed December 19, 2019).
_____. 2019c. Gas Consumption by County. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasby
county.aspx (accessed December 12, 2019).
_____. 2019d. Natural Gas Consumption by Entity. Website: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasby
util.aspx (accessed December 9, 2019).
_____. 2019e. Notice of Request for Public Comments on the Draft Scoping Order for the 2019
Integrated Energy Policy Report. Docket No. 19-IEPR-01.
_____. 2019f. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/
almanac/naturalgas_data/overview.html (accessed December 9, 2019).
California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility Detail,
Olinda Alpha Landfill (30-AB-0035). Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/
Directory/30-AB-0035 (accessed December 23, 2019).
City of Cypress. AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling. Website: https://www.cypressca.org/
work/trash-recycling/ab-341-mandatory-commercial-recycling (accessed December 23,
2019).
Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, West Orange.
_____. 2019. Los Alamitos Customer Service Area. Website: http://www.gswater.com/los-alamitos/
(accessed December 23, 2019).
C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT
C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA
D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
F EBRUARY 2020
P:\CCP1902\Draft EIR\10.0 References.docx (02/06/20) 10-16
Orange County Waste & Recycling. 2019. Landfill Information. Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/
landfill (accessed December 12, 2019)
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2018. 2017-2018 Annual Report. Website: https://www.
ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=26276 (accessed December 17, 2019).
_____. 2019a. 2018–2019 Annual Report Resource Protection Division Pretreatment Program.
Website: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=29255 (accessed December 17,
2019).
_____. 2019b. Budget Update Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/Home/
ShowDocument?id=28411 (accessed December 17, 2019).
_____. 2019c. Facts and Key Statistics Webpage. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/services/
regional-sewer-service (accessed December 1, 2019).
_____. 2019d. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2017/2018. Website: https://www.ocsd.
com/Home/ShowDocument?id=26170 (accessed December 1, 2019).
_____. 2019e. Western Regional Sewers Program Webpage. Website: https://www.ocsd.com/
residents/future-projects/western-regional-sewers (accessed December 17, 2019)
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2019. About Us. Website: https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-
we-are (accessed December 12, 2019).
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Company Profile: About SoCalGas Webpage. Website:
https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile (accessed December 11, 2019)
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2019. Today in Energy Webpage. Website:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36416 (accessed December 11, 2019)