Loading...
03 - Appendix A Notice of Preparation_CommentsD R AFT E NVI R ONME N T AL I MP A C T RE P OR T FEBRUARY 2020 C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A Cover.docx (01/03/20) APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION / COMMENT LETTERS C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA D R AFT E NVI R ONME N T AL I MP A C T RE P OR T FEBRUARY 2020 P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A Cover.docx (01/03/20) This page intentionally left blank D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A NOP, NOP Dist List, Scoping Comments\NOP slip sheet.docx (01/03/20) NOTICE OF PREPARATION C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A NOP, NOP Dist List, Scoping Comments\NOP slip sheet.docx (01/03/20) This page intentionally left blank 1 PUBLIC NOTICE/NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Project: Cypress City Center Lead Agency: City of Cypress Project Applicant: Shea Properties PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Cypress (City) is the Lead Agency responsible for preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing potential environmental impacts associated with the Cypress City Center Project (proposed project). The proposed project is located on an approximately 13-acre site (project site) at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Winners Circle in Cypress, California. The project is currently an undeveloped paved parking lot. Temporary existing uses on the project site include vehicle parking during events at the nearby Los Alamitos Race Course and periodic temporary truck parking two to three times per year. 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. Surrounding land uses include the Los Alamitos Race Course to the north; commercial and retail uses to the east; commercial, office, and business park uses to the south; and religious facilities and a commercial center 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 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 project would require a Specific Plan Amendment to allow the proposed residential and hotel land uses on 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 apartment units and a variety of amenities, including a fitness center, clubhouse, leasing/lounge area, main recreation courtyard, and a dog park. Proposed offsite 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 as part of assumed capital improvements for Assessment District 1. 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 a Specific Plan Amendment 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. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Draft EIR (DEIR) will examine potential environmental impacts generated by the proposed project in relation to the following Environmental Analysis categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality, 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 Systems. These categories reflect the probable environmental effects of the proposed project. •Aesthetics. The proposed project would introduce new structures on the site. The EIR will analyze any impacts of the height and massing of the proposed structures, and will include a consistency analysis with the City’s zoning and General Plan regulations governing scenic quality. Project-related impacts with respect to light and glare will also be analyzed in the EIR. •Air Quality. The construction and operation of the proposed project would cause the emission of certain air pollutants. Potential air quality impacts, including consistency with the AQMP, violation of air quality standards, the 2 increase of criteria pollutants, and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations will be analyzed further in the EIR. •Energy. The construction and operation of the proposed project would involve the use of energy. Project impacts to energy resources will be evaluated as part of the EIR, analyzing short-term and long-term impacts of the project, as well as project consistency with state and local plans related to energy. •Geology and Soils. The proposed project would involve grading and soil disturbance, and would involve the construction of new structures. Potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, soil erosion, unsuitable soils, and paleontological resources will be analyzed further in the EIR. •Greenhouse Gas Emissions. During construction of the project, equipment and vehicles would be used that would generate some greenhouse gases (GHG). In addition, the project’s use of energy during long-term operations would contribute to the emission of GHGs. Potential GHG impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR. •Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Potential impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of project construction and operation will be analyzed further in the EIR. •Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project would alter the drainage of the subject site, and would introduce construction and operation activities on the site. The EIR will evaluate any potentially significant adverse project impacts related to waste discharge requirements and surface and groundwater water quality, on- or off-site erosion and siltation, changes in the rate or amount of surface runoff, and other hydrology and water quality concerns. •Land Use and Planning. The proposed project includes residential and hotel land uses that are not expressly allowed by the Specific Plan, and includes an amendment to the Specific Plan. The project’s potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations will be addressed in the EIR. •Noise. The construction and operation of the proposed would generate certain levels of noise. Potential impacts related to noise exceeding established thresholds and vibration and ground-borne noise impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR. •Population and Housing. The proposed project would include a maximum of 251 apartment units and the corresponding increase in the City’s population. The project’s potential to induce substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly, will be assessed in the EIR. •Public Services. The proposed project would bring additional residents and visitors to the City, which may increase the need for public services. Potentially adverse physical impacts associated with new or physically altered governmental facilities related to police, fire, schools, parks, and libraries will be analyzed in the EIR. •Recreation. The proposed project would bring additional residents and visitors to the City, which may increase the demand for recreational facilities. Potential impacts related to the physical deterioration of park facilities, and the construction or expansion of recreational facilities will be evaluated in the EIR. •Transportation. The project construction would generate construction traffic. The operation of the project would bring approximately 164 additional morning peak hour trips and approximately 323 additional afternoon peak hour trips. The project’s potential short- and long-term traffic impacts with respect to the exceedance of adopted LOS standards and the project’s compliance with program plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system will be analyzed further in the EIR. •Tribal Cultural Resources. The proposed project would involve ground disturbance, which carries with it some potential for encountering tribal cultural resources. Information provided through tribal consultation will be 3 incorporated in the EIR analysis and will assist in identifying whether tribal cultural resources are present, and the significance of any potential impacts to such resources. •Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project would introduce land uses that require utility and drainage services and systems. Potential impacts related to water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, water supply, and solid waste disposal will be analyzed further in the EIR, and mitigation proposed if necessary. The EIR will also identify appropriate and feasible mitigation measures, if necessary, for each of the environmental impacts listed above. Although the proposed project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire, these topics will be briefly discussed in the DEIR. An Initial Study has not been prepared for the proposed project. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. PROJECT SCOPING PROCESS: Circulation of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) starts a 30-day public review and comment period on the scope of the DEIR that begins on November 22, 2019, and ends on December 23, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. All interested parties, including the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies, are invited to provide comments and input on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be addressed in the DEIR. Responsible and trustee agencies should provide comments and input related to the agencies’ respective areas of statutory responsibility. Comments received during the scoping period will be considered during preparation of the DEIR. Public agencies and interested parties will have an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed project during the 45-day public review period to be held after the publication and circulation of the DEIR. SCOPING MEETING: The City will conduct a Public Scoping Meeting in order to present the proposed project and the EIR process and to receive public comments. The City invites interested parties to the following public scoping meeting in order to learn more about the project, ask questions, and submit comments: Date/Time: December 11, 2019, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Location: Cypress Community Center, Arts and Crafts Room, 5700 Orange Avenue, Cypress CA 90630 Address Comments to: City of Cypress: Attn: John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Phone: (714) 229-6720 Email: CityPlanner@cypressca.org D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A NOP, NOP Dist List, Scoping Comments\Distribution List slip sheet.docx (01/03/20) DISTRIBUTION LIST C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A NOP, NOP Dist List, Scoping Comments\Distribution List slip sheet.docx (01/03/20) This page intentionally left blank Agencies (NOP) Cypress School District Attn: Mr. Tim McLellan 9740 Moody Street Cypress, CA 90630 Orange County Transportation Authority Attn: Environmental Review 550 South Main Street Orange, CA 92863 Anaheim Union High School District Attn: CEQA Review 501 N. Crescent Way Anaheim, CA 92801 Native American Heritage Commission Attn: Environmental Review 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 County of Orange, Health Care Agency Attn: Environmental Health Division Manager P.O. Box 355 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Caltrans – District 12 Attn: Local CEQA Review 1750 E. 4th Street, Suite 100 Santa Ana, CA 92705 OCFA Attn: Fire Prevention Department 1 Fire Authority Road Irvine, CA 92602 Cypress Chamber of Commerce 5550 W. Cerritos Ave, Suite D Cypress, CA 90630 California Department of Fish and Wildlife South Coast Region Attn: Environmental Review Manager 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Southern California Edison Attn: Environmental Review 2800 E. Willow Street Long Beach, CA 90806 Orange County Flood Control District Attn: Environmental Review PO Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 California Department of Toxic Substances Control Attn: Environmental Review 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 County of Orange, Waste & Recycling Attn: Environmental Review 320 North Flower Street, #400 Santa Ana, CA 92703-5000 California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region Attn: Mr. Kurt Berchtold 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501-3348 Orange County Water District Attn: Environmental Review 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 County of Orange, Development Services Attn: Environmental Review PO Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Southern California Gas Company Attn: Environmental Review 12631 Monarch Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92841 Golden State Water Company Los Alamitos CSA 10852 S Cherry Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 SCAG Attn: Intergovernmental Review 900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 City of Stanton Community Development Department 7800 Katella Avenue Stanton, CA 90680 City of Los Alamitos Community Development Department 3191 Katella Avenue Los Alamitos, CA 90720 City of Buena Park Community Development Department 6650 Beach Boulevard, First Floor Buena Park, CA 90622 City of Anaheim Community & Economic Development Dept. 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 City of Garden Grove Community & Economic Development Dept. 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840 Orange County Public Library Attn: Environmental Review 1501 E. St. Andrew Place Santa Ana, CA 92705 Orange County Sanitation District Attn: Environmental Review 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Attn: Environmental Review 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Southern California Gas Company Attn: Environmental Review P.O. Box 3150 San Dimas, CA 91773 SCAQMD Attn: Environmental Review 21865 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 State Clearinghouse and Orange County Clerk State of California, State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 212 Sacramento, CA 95814 15 NOP 1 NOC Tribal Representatives (NOP) Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Scott Cozart, Chairperson P. O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92583 Gabrielino Tongva Tribe Sam Dunlap TongvaTCR@gmail.com Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Attn: Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Attn: Charles Alvarez 23454 Vanowen Street West Hills, CA 91307 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Attn: Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Attn: Sonia Johnston, Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Attn: Matias Belardes, Chairperson 32161 Avenida Los Amigos San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes Attn: Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager 4955 Paseo Segovia Irvine, CA 92603 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Attn: Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Attn: Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Attn: Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., #231 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Romero Attn: Teresa Romero, Chairperson 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Attn: Robert Dorame, Chairperson P.O. Box 490 Bellflower, CA 90707 La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Attn: Fred Nelson, Chairperson 22000 Highway 76 Pauma Valley, CA, 92061 Pala Band of Mission Indians Attn: Shasta Gaughen Tribal Historic Preservation Officer PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Rd. Pala, CA 92059 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Attn: Jim McPherson Tribal Historic Preservation Officer One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Attn: Temet Aguilar, Chairperson P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians San Luis Rey, Tribal Council 1889 Sunset Drive Vista, CA 92081 Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Attn: Paul Macarro Cultural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA 92593 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Attn: Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Attn: Mark Macarro, Chairperson P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA 92593 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Attn: Joseph Ontiveros Cultural Resource Director P.O. BOX 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Interested Parties (NOP only) Shea Properties Attn: Elizabeth Cobb Vice President, Development 130 Vantis Street, Ste. 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A NOP, NOP Dist List, Scoping Comments\Scoping Comments slip sheet.docx (01/03/20) SCOPING COMMENTS C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A NOP, NOP Dist List, Scoping Comments\NOP slip sheet.docx (01/03/20) This page intentionally left blank D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA P:\CCP1902\Project Management\Meetings\Scoping Meeting\Scoping Comments\Response Letter Slip page.docx (01/16/20) RESPONSE LETTERS C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 P:\CCP1902\Project Management\Meetings\Scoping Meeting\Scoping Comments\Response Letter Slip page.docx (01/16/20) This page intentionally left blank RINCON BAND OF LUISEÑO INDIANS Cultural Resources Department One Government Center Lane ∙ Valley Center, California 92082 ∙ (760) 297-2330 Fax:(760) 749-8901 Bo Mazzetti Tribal Chairman Tishmall Turner Vice Chairwoman Steve Stallings Council Member Laurie E. Gonzalez Council Member Alfonso Kolb Council Member December 4, 2019 John P. Ramirez City of Cypress 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Re: Cypress City Center Dear Mr. Ramirez: This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians. Thank you for inviting us to submit comments on the above mention project. Rincon is submitting these comments concerning your projects potential impact on Luiseño cultural resources. The Rincon Band has concerns for the impacts to historic and cultural resources and the finding of items of significant cultural value that could be disturbed or destroyed and are considered culturally significant to the Luiseño people. This is to inform you; your identified location is not within the Luiseño Aboriginal Territory. We recommend that you locate a tribe within the project area to receive direction on how to handle any inadvertent findings according to their customs and traditions. If you would like information on tribes within your project area, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission and they will assist with a referral. Thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. Sincerely, Deneen Pelton, Administrative Assistant for Cheryl Madrigal, M.A. Cultural Resources Manager Cultural Resources Department Office:760-297-2635 ext. 318|Cell: 760-648-3000 Email: cmadrigal@rincon-nsn.gov SENT VIA USPS AND E-MAIL: December 17, 2019 CityPlanner@cypressca.org John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner City of Cypress, Planning Department 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Cypress City Center South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. South Coast AQMD staff’s comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the Proposed Project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send South Coast AQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. Note that copies of the Draft EIR that are submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded to South Coast AQMD. Please forward a copy of the Draft EIR directly to South Coast AQMD at the address shown in the letterhead. In addition, please send with the Draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk ass essment files1. These include emission calculation spreadsheets and modeling input and output files (not PDF files). Without all files and supporting documentation, South Coast AQMD staff will be unable to complete our review of the air quality analyses in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Quality Analysis South Coast AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. South Coast AQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from South Coast AQMD’s Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. More guidance developed since this Handbook is also available on South Coast AQMD’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa- air-quality-handbook-(1993). South Coast AQMD staff also recommends that the Lead Agency use the CalEEMod land use emissions software. This software has recently been updated to incorporate up-to- date state and locally approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating pollutant emissions from typical land use development. CalEEMod is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and replaces the now outdated URBEMIS. This model is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. 1 Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15174, the information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Appendices to the EIR may be prepared in volumes separate from the basic EIR document, but shall be readily available for public examination and shall be submitted to all clearinghouses which assist in public review. John P. Ramirez -2- December 17, 2019 South Coast AQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. South Coast AQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the results to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds to determine air quality impacts. South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds can be found here at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf. In the event that some elements of the Proposed Project will be operational when other elements of the Proposed Project are still under construction, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use its best efforts to identify the overlapping years of construction and operational activities, combine construction emissions (including emissions from demolition) with operational emissions from the overlapping years, and compare the combined emissions to South Coast AQMD’s air quality CEQA operational thresholds of significance to determine the level of significance in the Draft EIR. In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts, South Coast AQMD staff recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance threshol ds (LSTs). LSTs can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the Proposed Project, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a localized analysis by either using the LSTs developed by South Coast AQMD staff or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance- thresholds. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the Proposed Project and all air pollutant sources related to the Proposed Project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be ca lculated. Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on-road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, such as sources that generate or attract vehicular trips, should be included in the analysis. In the event that the Proposed Project generates or attracts vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel- fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment (“Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis”) can be found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source- toxics-analysis. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. CARB’s Land Use Handbook is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. Guidance2 on strategies to reduce air pollution exposure near high-volume roadways can be found at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/rd_technical_advisory_final.PDF. 2 In April 2017, CARB published a technical advisory, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways: Technical Advisory, to supplement CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. John P. Ramirez -3- December 17, 2019 Mitigation Measures In the event that the Proposed Project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize these impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a)(1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Several resources are available to assist the Lead Agency with identifying potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project, including:  Chapter 11 “Mitigating the Impact of a Project” of South Coast AQMD’S CEQA Air Quality Handbook South Coast AQMD’s CEQA web pages available here: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures- and-control-efficiencies  South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook for controlling construction-related emissions and Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities  South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) available here (starting on page 86): http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2017/2017-mar3-035.pdf  CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures available here: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14- Final.pdf Alternatives In the event that the Proposed Project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires the consideration and discussion of alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects of the project. The discussion of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, including a “no project” alternative, is intended to foster informed decision-making and public participation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), the Draft EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Proposed Project. Permits If implementation of the Proposed Project requires a permit from South Coast AQMD, South Coast AQMD should be identified as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project in the EIR. For more information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits. Questions on permits can be directed to South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385. Data Sources South Coast AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling South Coast AQMD’s Public Information Center at (909) 396-2001. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available at South Coast AQMD’s webpage at: http://www.aqmd.gov. This technical advisory is intended to provide information on strategies to reduce exposures to traffic emissions near high -volume roadways to assist land use planning and decision-making in order to protect public health and promote equity and environmental justice. The technical advisory is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. John P. Ramirez -4- December 17, 2019 South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project’s air quality and health risk impacts are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at lsun@aqmd.gov. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources LS ORC191126-05 Control Number D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA P:\CCP1902\Project Management\Meetings\Scoping Meeting\Scoping Comments\Response Email-Forms Slip page.docx (01/16/20) RESPONSE FORMS/EMAILS C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT J ANUARY 2020 P:\CCP1902\Project Management\Meetings\Scoping Meeting\Scoping Comments\Response Email-Forms Slip page.docx (01/16/20) This page intentionally left blank From:borodayko To:City Planner Subject:EIR ON KATELLA AVE Date:Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:57:09 PM Mr. Ramirez, I do not want apartments along Katella Ave. It will make the area too dense in population andcause much more congestion and strain on our Fire, Police, EMS, schools, and parks. Measure A was approved in 2018 to change the zoning for the race track, and there was to be 20acres of parkland; but I do not see the park being provided. The residential component of thisproject dramatically changes the clear intent of this property when the voters approved a zoningchange in 1990. The city leaders should honor the voice of the residents from that 1990 vote or take it back to a vote to see if the residents want this type of residential development on this site. Thank you for your consideration. Deanna and Alex Borodayko4682 Larwin Ave.Cypress, Ca. 90630714 222 3807 From:Shaunna Hargrave To:City Planner Subject:RE: Scoping Comments - Shea Katella Development Date:Wednesday, December 18, 2019 4:08:49 PM City of Cypress Attn: John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Phone: 714-229-6720 Email: CityPlanner@cypressca.org Dear Mr. Ramirez, I have been a resident of Cypress for the past 9 years, after having returned here after living out of state of many years. I grew up in Cypress and attended Pacifica High School. I suffer from the lack of affordable housing in Orange County, and want to express my desires to see Cypress develop in a manner that gives greater housing options for all. I know how difficult city planning can be, as low-income people struggle to have their needs met and local property owners fight to maintain property values. I support whichever plan will bring the greatest number of apartments to Cypress. A current search on Zillow for Cypress shows that a 805 sqft condo sells at a price where the estimated monthly costs (mortgage, HOA, etc) are $2500. This is supposed to be an entry level into home ownership. I know very few of my peers, all with degrees beyond high school, who can afford this. Even if they could, there are only 7 available properties in Cypress at that budget. What about the people who need more space (small families) and who aren't in a position to buy a home? We need options. Are luxury apartments my first choice? No. But, in a city with voters like I see in Cypress, I'll take what I can get. From what I can tell, even luxury apartments do their part in managing rent prices for all. I leave an article I found HERE, that also contains links to studies on the effects of luxury apartments on rent prices. Ideally, I would like to see a comprehensive city planning strategy that includes creating more permits for duplexes/triplexes to grow in an organic way, permits for "mother-in-law" units, in addition to zoning for apartments. I'd like to see what I've seen in Ventura and San Luis Obispo, where a certain percentage of dwellings are reserved for county low-income programs. Such a strategy should be future-oriented. Cypress (and OC/LA) cannot remain a metro dominated by the automobile forever. We need to do city planning in a way that makes sense to future public transportation developments. In my view, Katella & Lincoln are the obvious transportation arteries, that will one day feature a light rail or increased bus service. What better place to build apartments? Who is most likely to use public transportation, but apartment dwellers? I am shocked and concerned by public sentiment that I see on these proposed changes to Cypress. I see people who would rather families cram into small apartments and homes or commute 3 hours a day from Corona/Riverside, just so they don't have an extra 15 minute drive on their Costco run and picking up the kids from school. On a Facebook page, a woman complains about traffic while shopping while callously saying that OC is a "commuter culture" and people should just accept 1-3 hour commute times each day. Cypress is a centrally-located city in Orange County. If you build it, they will come. That is a given. I know of college educated couples who work in Cypress and Huntington Beach and commute from Signal Hill and Long Beach. I often work down in Irvine, while my husband commutes to LA. Cypress is a perfect location for us. We have to think bigger than Cypress and be part of the solution for the future of Orange County and this state. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Where is the best place that I might follow the progress on this matter. I want to be sure to participate in any public hearings? Sincerely, Shaunna Hargrave 657-222-5099 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJET Wednesday, December 11, 2018 NAME: Millage House Jr_____________________________________________ Address: 4220 Avenida Sevilla_____ CITY: Cypress ____ ZIP: 90630__ EMAIL ADDRESS: allhouse55@yahoo.com_______________________________ REPRESENTING: Self/Resident________________________________________ Do you wish to wish to be added to the project mailing list? Yes Please drop comments in the Comment Box or mail them to: City of Cypress Attn: John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Phone: (714) 229-6720 Email: CityPlanner@cypressca.org The purpose of this comment car is to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please submit comment for the record that pertain to the environment issues to be addressed in the EIR. Mr. Ramirez: The comment form specially specifies the comments are for records and that they____ pertain to the ‘environment issues’ to be addressed in the EIR. My comments will be submitted in two parts: 1) one to conform to the format request and two a letter to the_ you, City Planner to share with the Mayor and Council._________________________ As a resident I am not knowledge of the California State Clearinghouse requirements for the EIR submission. An observation on the process is that it is solely based on those__ categories that have impacts of the components or elements of a site developments. It lists several of the major Cypress areas and development issues; but, the EIR process does not require the the developer to show or use analysis to establish the project’s compliance with the all City of Cypress plans ordinances and prolicies. The California State regulation is flawed in a similar manner as it required the SMOG Testing of vehicles; with no requirements for annual safety road worthiness testing. The overall, long term financial analysis for it impact of the City of Cypress does not seem to___ addressed. See my attached letter for more on this issue. ______________________ PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJET Wednesday, December 11, 2018 The City of Cypress should engage a independent licensed professional services_____ company to perform a detailed review of this draft EIR. The should be provided with the City of Cypress, Plans, Housing, Developments, ordinances and policies to ensure that they will be using the City base requirements for this development. They should all be required to have a kickoff meeting so that the Mayor and Council with guiding from staff to review the scope with the emphasis on the City of Cypress requirements __________ The licensed professional services company shall review and provide detailed_______ comments on all sections of the EIR. I ask that they do a more detailed analysis on the Air Quality, Energy, Hydrology and Water, Noise, Publics services, recreation, Transportaion._______________________________________________________ All of the areas will have a long term increased financial effect on the City of Cypress.__ The City will require funds and they will be asking us to approve more property taxes.__ In summary, City of Cypress should contract with a licensed professional service _____ company to preform the review of the Draft EIR.________________________________ Millage House, Jr 4220 Avenida Sevilla Cypress, CA 90630-3416 December 20, 2019 City of Cypress Attn: John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Subject: Draft EIR, environmental issues review Mr. Ramirez, this letter is directed to your attention because of the request to submit comments for the record that pertain to the environmental issues to be address in the EIR. I referenced in my submission comment: “An observation on the EIR process is that it is solely based on those__ categories that have impacts of the components or elements of a site development. It lists several of the major Cypress areas and development issues; but, the EIR process does not require the developer to show or use analysis to establish the project’s compliance with the all City of Cypress plans ordinances and policies. The California State regulation is flawed in a similar manner as it required the SMOG Testing of vehicles; with no requirements for annual safety road worthiness testing. The overall, long term financial analysis for it impact of the City of Cypress does not seem to addressed. See my attached letter for more on this issue.” My recommendation is for your office to present a formal request to the Mayor and Council a request to direct the planning department to perform a financial planning study on this EIR and its entire development. The result will be a report that addresses the short and long/life expectancy financial, public services, and infrastructure requirements on the City and the residents. This report should be used to support the staff recommendation to the Mayor and council. The process that the City of Cypress is following seems to be a little flawed and only seems to be addressing the CA state regulations/requirements. The residents need equal representation; since the long term financial responsibly falls on us. The buck stops here. The residents have a right to have full disclosure and the planning Department, Mayor and Council have an obligation to provide this information. The City of Cypress needs to use a model similar to the one that is currently being used by the City of Anaheim. Sincerely, Millage House, Jr. 4220 Avenida Sevilla Cypress, CA 90630-3416 From:robinitzler@aol.com To:City Planner Subject:Four-Story High-Density Apartment Building Date:Saturday, December 21, 2019 5:05:46 PM Mr. John Ramirez City Planner City of Cypress Dear Mr. Ramirez: I am writing regarding the four-story high-density apartment complex that is being planned for the City of Cypress. My husband and I have lived in Cypress since 1978 (first in Tanglewood for 1-1/2 years and then in our current single-family home that we added onto twice). As former New Yorkers, we are flustered as to why the Cypress City Council appears determined to recreate Manhattan traffic gridlock on Cypress and Los Alamitos streets. The four-story high-density apartment complex is not good for Cypress. If built, whatever benefits it brings to the city will be at Los Alamitos’ AND Cypress’ expense. Whenever I speak to residents about the abysmal traffic on Katella Avenue (especially at the Katella/Los Alamitos intersection), many say they get around the awful congestion by using Farquhar Avenue. I started doing that and even with stop signs at each corner traffic currently moves faster than on Katella Avenue. Moreover, you can usually make a left turn onto Los Alamitos Blvd. without waiting through two or three cycles. If this four-story high-density apartment complex is allowed to go through along with all the other asinine residential building that Cypress has approved, who knows how much more traffic Los Alamitos and Cypress residents will suffer with. If you would like additional reasons against the four-story, high-density apartment complex, please let me know. In the meantime, on behalf of my husband and myself, we are AGAINST THIS PROJECT! Sincerely, Robin Itzler Larry Itzler 10252 Delano Drive Cypress From:tpupilov@aol.com To:City Planner Subject:Fwd: Shea project / Katella Date:Sunday, December 22, 2019 4:38:37 PM -----Original Message----- From: TRACY MACKEY <tpupilov@aol.com> To: georgepardon <georgepardon@gmail.com> Sent: Sat, Dec 21, 2019 9:25 pm Subject: Shea project / Katella I very strongly oppose the building of apartments in this said area. It will have a very huge effect on the traffic flow regarding Katella going East to West, also impacting shopping centers throughout Cypress and mainly Los Alamitos. Also the homes considered “Carrier Row”, our parks, our grocery stores, all the facilities west of this complex will see the greatest effect. Cypress or not, it will lead to disaster. At this time we are in the process of a huge luxury apartment complex on Cerritos and Chestnut St., a huge townhome development, plus a hotel within 2 miles of each other in Los Alamitos. This is on Los Alamitos Blvd by Old Town. Sausalito and Los Alamitos Blvd. These quaint towns that we’ve lived in for over 50 years is being over developed and causing grid lock on all the main streets and on our residential streets. This is pure greed shown from these developers, it has literally destroyed both Cypress but mainly Los Alamitos. I realize the city line, but I also see how our town has become a nightmare even to go to a grocery store within a mile from my home. Our children can’t ride bikes because of cars zooming down the side streets and the main streets. Extremely dangerous and extremely selfish to take away the joys of children. It is an absolute disgrace that these city planners are ruining and destroying our homes. Not only removing safety for our children. It is so crowded on the roads, bumper to bumper traffic throughout the day. Unsafe air quality, dredging up contaminated ground that was forbidden to be used for any construction for the last 30 years. I’ve had 3 neighbors that have owned their homes since the late 50’s to the 70’s sell their properties to get away from this massage development that has effected their daily routines, within this last year alone! Shame on you for using and trying to develop any piece of dirt left in this 5 mile radius. You have destroyed a once beautiful area with over population and over building. What’s also amazing to many, there are so many empty office buildings, vacant stores, but you developers still manage to construct new buildings... That are also empty still!!! Believe me when I tell you, it is all people talk about, complaining and disliking living here any longer. I loved my safe town, I loved being able to walk without fear to the local corner store for an ice cream with my children. Or ride our bicycles through Rossmoor and laugh and enjoy the day. Not any more, too many cars, too many people, a complete tragedy waiting to happen. Everyday, all day! I ask please do not develop your plan of another huge “luxury apartment complex”. You will be hurting so many people just to make your pocket book larger. Respectfully, Tracy Mackey Los Alamitos Sent from my iPhone From:Brent Marino To:City Planner Subject:EIR Date:Wednesday, December 18, 2019 2:47:58 PM Regarding the Shea development on Katella... I agree 100% with the quote I attached below. The 4 story high density plan is a radical step away from Cypress’ aesthetics. The impact to parking, traffic, air quality, population, and overall congestion will impact our infrastructure, property values, and quality of life. Our property is located on Ferne Ave. west of Holder Ave. Apartments in the area are 2 stories, lower density. A 4-story apartment building which necessitates a multi-level parking garage to accommodate the influx of vehicles does not provide continuity to Cypress. We have new apartments on Lincoln which have added to parking, traffic, and other problems. This 4-story plan may be in Shea’s best interest but is not in ours. Cypress residents would like Development that would improve the quality of life and maintain our City’s image. 2-story non-dense residential, affordable senior apartments, or a family-friendly hub of activity, dining, retail would be in-line and match Cypress’ current demographic. This proposed plan is fraught with far reaching consequences including the impact to traffic on streets running North/South through Cypress and the congestion it will cause for neighborhood schools. “Comments: • Aesthetics – Katella Ave is a primary transportation corridor in Orange County. Putting a 4-story high density apartment building with a parking garage along a primary city boundary is going to give an image to those driving by that Cypress is something other than a low density residential community. The proposed project introduces the first 4 story apartment building and the first parking garage. This is not representative of who Cypress is. Drive around our city and you will see that this apartment complex with a parking garage is not aesthetically or otherwise representative of who Cypress is. In fact, in 2016, the same City Council members that are serving now opposed a 66 unit residential townhome development on Orange Ave across from City Hall because some units were 3 story and they had traffic and safety concerns. The density on that project was less than twenty units per acre. The developer went back and revised their project to 52 units that were 2 stories with a density closer to 15 units per acre. Everyone agreed that this development with the height limit was more representative of who Cypress is. How could our city have changed so dramatically in 4 years? Even the apartments on Lincoln are substantially lower density when you make the density calculation based on the site the residential units physically occupy. Most residents would tell you that they still believe the density on those Lincoln units is too high. • Air Quality – The density calculation that the city has suggested is very misleading because it gives no consideration to the hotel, movie theater, and retail components. Increased traffic given the compactness of this site will clearly lend itself to poorer air quality. • Land Use and Planning. Prior to 1990, this property had Public/Semi-Public zoning on it which would have prohibited any of the uses being proposed by the project. Any zoning change required a vote of the residents due to Measure D that was approved by voters in 1987. In 1990, the voters approved a change to the zoning on some of the frontage road along Katella and along Walker St. The zoning permitted the commercial/retail/office projects currently found on those frontage properties. The residents did not approve a zoning change that permitted residential. However, when the zoning was changed, there was unfortunately no caveat in the language that said that future zoning changes would have to be voted on by the residents. The residents at that time evidently believed the city leaders would honor the voice of the residents. As residents have seen some of the zoning changes that have been made by the city leadership in recent years, there is a growing demand for a separate planning commission to give residents a greater voice in zoning. It was this concern of the change in zoning that is now being considered that when the zoning was changed for the race track property in 2018, language was incorporated in that initiative that requires another vote of the residents to change the zoning of the race track property from the zoning approved by the residents. The city leaders should honor the voice of the residents from that 1990 vote or take it back to a vote to see if the residents want this type of residential development on this site. The analysis has to take into consideration how the city plans to rezone the property to accommodate the residential component. Given the density calculation of 18.9 units per acre put forth by the city, then one can conclude that all 13.3 acres will be rezoned residential. If only the 4 acres is zoned residential then the 18.9 unit per acre density calculation doesn’t work since the other 9 acres wouldn’t permit residential so shouldn’t be part of the calculation. If, on the other hand, the City Council rezones all 13 acres for residential, nothing would prevent the property owner five or so years from now to seek approval for another apartment building on the retail sites if those aren’t successful. In fact, Shea was just approved in June 2019 to build 44 single-family homes and 61 townhouses on what is now Mission Foothill Marketplace in Mission Viejo, a mostly vacated mall. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url? a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ocregister.com%2f2019%2f06%2f26%2fplan-to-convert-mission-foothill-marketplaces-main-building-into- 105-homes-approved-by-mission-viejo-city-council%2f&c=E,1,1n4xEn7ZXgoc11SA7-tVOMZycYG9shrw- FOfiX3IWwvMQoAHrPCzZfZcG2Is6ETB2yECnFlqp9wvoBzcYztm94stEFvfMazpDC8AymRhwp5R0QsAtWLKoOXVUdM,&typo=1 • Population and Housing. The current residential occupancy in our city averages 3 people per residence. If that average holds out, the population in our city would grow by 750 residents due to this project. Reality is that many recent studies have concluded that the higher rents being demanded in Orange County have led to substantial overcrowding in residential units. In fact, the standard is that two people can occupy each bedroom with one additional person in the living space. As such, if the average apartment in this complex has 2 bedrooms, then each apartment could legally accommodate 5 people which could bring the overall occupancy to 1,250 residents. These new occupancy studies showing the overcrowding issues ultimately falsify the results of a traffic study and lead a developer to substantially underpark a residential development. This doesn’t happen on a retail development as there are only so many seats in a movie theater or restaurant. The residential component of this project dramatically changes the clear intent of this property when the voters approved a zoning change in 1990. • Public Services. This development will significantly increase the demand for police, fire, schools, parks, and libraries especially given the residential component. • Recreation. When Measure A was approved in 2018 to change the zoning for the race track, one of the significant benefits was that 20 acres of park land were going to be provided. No new park land will come from this project. While there will be park developer fees paid as part of the construction costs, this is one time money and no new park will be provided. • Transportation – Since this project will sit on Katella, many think about the traffic impacts on Katella. The problem is to gain access or use any of the city services, the new residents will travel north along already impacted interior roads to gain access to schools, parks, and other public services. The Student Yield Factor established by the State Allocation Board would increase in enrollment due to new housing construction. The states guideline says you can expect .5 elementary students per new residential unit and .2 junior high and high schools for a combination of .7 students per residential unit. As such, we could see an increase of about 175 students needing to go to school and be provided transportation to schools, sporting activities, parks, and public services. The fact that the elementary school district has indicated a willingness to open one of the closed schools, there will still be increased traffic. If overcrowding in these units takes place then the problem is worse. This project will create many impacted intersections along Katella Ave but also along Walker and Lexington that will be affected by the Katella Ave traffic patterns this project will create. These intersections need to be studied. A project alternative would be one with significantly lower density in the apartment complex as well as the overall height of the residential units being limited to two stories and eliminate the parking garage. Another alternative project would be one with no residential with the residential replaced with a family friendly entertainment center like a Dave & Buster’s or the Splitsville Luxury Lanes in Downtown Disney.“ Thank you, Ingrid and Brent Marino 23 year residents Photos: Typical parking problems created by increasing numbers of drivers per apartment unit. Pictured, Casa Grande on Denni, 12/15/19. Sent from my iPhone From:Angie Mizrahi To:City Planner Subject:Acreage vs anchorage on Katella Date:Wednesday, December 18, 2019 10:54:55 AM Good afternoon Mr. Ramirez. I am writing to you in regards to the property being developed. I do not support a four story building full of extra people in our community using our resources and crowding our streets. However, I am also a realist that lives off of Walker a much traveled road where people are still able to speed past the speed limit. If we were to have a new apartment complex that is an appropriate location. I personally would like to see the building no taller than the tallest along that street. There is no reason for it to stick out like a sore thumb we all know that apartments are not aesthetically constructed. I drive by the apartments near Bella Terra and cringe. Near a college was fitting for those, not here! Please! I am actually more thrilled about the possibility of family entertainment. Please look at Big Als as a possible fit, if they will come this way we would all benefit! There is a gorgeous, very family orientated mall in Meridian ID called the Village it has this on one corner as an anchor and it is always busy with families, teams, parties and just people enjoying a meal. A Dave and Busters but better. This mall has a small playground and water fountain in the center of the outdoor mall area and at least 4 restaurants face the playground with outdoor seating where families can enjoy outdoor time, watch a sport on tv and watch their children at the playground area all at the same time. The fountain and small water fall are host duck race fundraisers and has colored music for the holidays, There is a small stage also in the center where local bands can rent and entertain guests. The center is very well planned and worth your trip to see what would generate money, family and unity here in CYP! If we have to develop this land. Please consider an environment where we can come together with our community and its youth to enjoy what life has to offer and allow us to stay local. Kind Regards, Angie Mizrahi !"Phish Alert ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I have been following information provided on the Katella Avenue project and I do not like what I am reading. This development does not fit in with the rest of Cypress and I am very disappointed in the direction the city council is taking this city, I have been a resident of Cypress since 1975 and the proposals I have seem of high density residential buildings is not what the people of Cypress want. This was demonstrated by two recent issues put before the voters who turned down high density residential proposals but the city council seems to ignore the will of the voters and approved this project. I would sincerely encourage the city council to review this project again and support a lower density project. Howard Nista 9750 Rome St Cypress Katella Ave Property Reply all |# Inbox $hwnista@aol.com % Yesterday, 6:05 PM City Planner & Label: Cypress 6 Month Retention Policy (6 months) Expires: 6/15/2020 6:05 PM From:Melody Nista To:City Planner Subject:Katella project Date:Sunday, December 22, 2019 8:10:11 AM Please don’t build all those apartments on Katella. Now we hear that if retail can’t be found more apartments will be squeezed onto the property The will of the citizens is of utmost importance. We’ve voted for one thing only to find the city council is doing the complete opposite. Melody Nista 9750 Rome St Sent from my iPad From:cindy omalley To:City Planner Subject:13 Acre Plan Date:Sunday, December 22, 2019 7:57:12 PM I am strongly opposed to the current plan! I'm angry that you would propose a plan like this. I'm too busy to write more but just know How much I oppose it! Concerned Cypress Resident, Cynthia O'Malley From:Lector Orrick To:City Planner Subject:Fw: It"s all about parking, 3 times 251 equals a whopping 753 spaces required! Date:Wednesday, December 18, 2019 3:54:53 PM ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: George Pardon <georgepardon@gmail.com> To: Lector Orrick <col_lector@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 01:52:52 PM PST Subject: Re: It's all about parking, 3 times 251 equals a whopping 753 spaces required! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Lector Orrick <col_lector@yahoo.com> wrote:  Sent me the form, I don't have Facebook. Take a look at parking problem for apartments on n/e corner of Bloomfield and Cerritos. Parking require is going to be way understate. 3 parking spaces required for H and W both working a one teenage son with a drivers license and more than likely a car. Calif very expensive for 80-100 K combined per year. Deluxe apartments great with adequate but lets no agree to build a Slum/Ghetto at the git go. Thanks in advance, Lector and Carolyn Orrick, Cypress residents since 1975. From:Lynn Pardon To:City Planner Subject:Cypress City Center - Public Scoping Meeting Comment Card Revised Date:Saturday, December 21, 2019 12:05:20 AM Attachments:Cypress City Center - Public Scoping Meeting Comment Card Revised.docx Dear Mr. Ramirez, Thank you for the time you spent with George and me discussing our concerns on the pending developments on the 13 Acre Site on Katella Avenue in Cypress. In talking it over, I realized I would like to revise my EIR comments to include my additional concerns. Nothing else is changed in my submission except for an added paragraph at the end of Land Use and Planning and a paragraph added under Drainage and Absorption, noted below. Please forward my attached revised comments to the EIR committee. Sincerely, Lynn Pardon Land Use and Planning - While my hope is that the residential density in this project is lowered significantly, if this project moves forward, I think the residential component should be moved to the Winner’s Circle side of the project site. Having the residential component along the race track entrance doesn’t seem like a good fit. Also, if the race track ever closes, there is supposed to be a town center immediately north of this project site with Siboney as a likely entrance to the town center. This project site should be laid with consideration of any future development. Having the residential component adjacent to Winners Circle also allows residents easy walking access to Costco and the other restaurants in that development rather than the residents having to walk in front of or behind the movie theater which doesn’t seem as safe. Drainage and Absorption - Because of a high water table, much of Cypress is prone to flooding during heavy or frequent rains, as the water takes time to dissipate. I expect the builders of this project to pay extra special attention to the need for a water retention basin and runoff directions to assure that when it rains the subject property, surrounding businesses and streets are not affected by flooding. For instance, on westbound Katella the 3rd lane east of Lexington floods to the extent of closure, which becomes a safety issue as cars abruptly make a lane change to avoid the flooded lane. I personally experienced this several times in 2019. There is a required water retention basin in the parking lot of Cottonwood Church which helps their property but not the flooding on Katella Avenue itself. So it is imperative that each property handle the water retention necessary in order to relieve flooding in surrounding areas. Please Comment by December 23, 2019 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJECT Wednesday, December 11, 2019 Please Comment by December 23, 2019 Name: Lynn Pardon Address: 10447 Santa Clara Street City: Cypress Zip: 90630 Email Address: lpardon@sbcglobal.net Representing: Self Do you wish to be added to the project mailing list? YES Please drop comments in the Comment Box or mail them to: City of Cypress Attn: John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Phone: 714-229-6720 Email: CityPlanner@cypressca.org The purpose of this comment card is to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please submit comment for the record that pertain to the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR (please print). Comments: • Aesthetics – Katella Ave is a primary transportation corridor in Orange County. Putting a 4-story high density apartment building with a parking garage along a primary city boundary is going to give an image to those driving by that Cypress is something other than a low density residential community. The proposed project introduces the first 4 story apartment building and the first parking garage. This is not representative of who Cypress is. Drive around our city and you will see that this apartment complex with a parking garage is not aesthetically or otherwise representative of who Cypress is. In fact, in 2016, the same City Council members that are serving now opposed a 66 unit residential townhome development on Orange Ave across from City Hall because some units were 3 story and they had traffic and safety concerns. The density on that project was less than twenty units per acre. The developer went back and revised their project to 52 units that were 2 stories with a density closer to 15 units per acre. Everyone agreed that this development with the height limit was more representative of who Cypress is. How could our city have changed so dramatically in 4 years? Even the apartments on Lincoln are substantially lower density when you make the density calculation based on the site the residential units physically occupy. Most residents would tell you that they still believe the density on those Lincoln units is too high. • Air Quality – The density calculation that the city has suggested is very misleading because it gives no consideration to the hotel, movie theater, and retail components. Increased traffic given the compactness of this site will clearly lend itself to poorer air quality. • Land Use and Planning - Prior to 1990, this property had Public/Semi-Public zoning on it which would have prohibited any of the uses being proposed by the project. Any zoning change required a vote of the residents due to Measure D that was approved by voters in 1987. In 1990, the voters approved a change to the zoning on some of the frontage road along Katella and along Walker St. The zoning Please Comment by December 23, 2019 permitted the commercial/retail/office projects currently found on those frontage properties. The residents did not approve a zoning change that permitted residential. However, when the zoning was changed, there was unfortunately no caveat in the language that said that future zoning changes would have to be voted on by the residents. The residents at that time evidently believed the city leaders would honor the voice of the residents. As residents have seen some of the zoning changes that have been made by the city leadership in recent years, there is a growing demand for a separate planning commission to give residents a greater voice in zoning. It was this concern of the change in zoning that is now being considered that when the zoning was changed for the race track property in 2018, language was incorporated in that initiative that requires another vote of the residents to change the zoning of the race track property from the zoning approved by the residents. The city leaders should honor the voice of the residents from that 1990 vote or take it back to a vote to see if the residents want this type of residential development on this site. The analysis has to take into consideration how the city plans to rezone the property to accommodate the residential component. Given the density calculation of 18.9 units per acre put forth by the city, then one can conclude that all 13.3 acres will be rezoned residential. If only the 4 acres is zoned residential then the 18.9 unit per acre density calculation doesn’t work since the other 9 acres wouldn’t permit residential so shouldn’t be part of the calculation. If, on the other hand, the City Council rezones all 13 acres for residential, nothing would prevent the property owner five or so years from now to seek approval for another apartment building on the retail sites if those aren’t successful. In fact, Shea was just approved in June 2019 to build 44 single-family homes and 61 townhouses on what is now Mission Foothill Marketplace in Mission Viejo, a mostly vacated mall. https://www.ocregister.com/2019/06/26/plan-to-convert-mission-foothill-marketplaces-main-building- into-105-homes-approved-by-mission-viejo-city-council/ While my hope is that the residential density in this project is lowered significantly, if this project moves forward, I think the residential component should be moved to the Winner’s Circle side of the project site. Having the residential component along the race track entrance doesn’t seem like a good fit. Also, if the race track ever closes, there is supposed to be a town center immediately north of this project site with Siboney as a likely entrance to the town center. This project site should be laid with consideration of any future development. Having the residential component adjacent to Winners Circle also allows residents easy walking access to Costco and the other restaurants in that development rather than the residents having to walk in front of or behind the movie theater which doesn’t seem as safe. • Drainage and Absorption – Because of a high water table, much of Cypress is prone to flooding during heavy or frequent rains, as the water takes time to dissipate. I expect the builders of this project to pay extra special attention to the need for a water retention basin and runoff directions to assure that when it rains the subject property, surrounding businesses and streets are not affected by flooding. For instance, on westbound Katella the 3rd lane east of Lexington floods to the extent of closure, which becomes a safety issue as cars abruptly make a lane change to avoid the flooded lane. I personally experienced this several times in 2019. There is a required water retention basin in the parking lot of Cottonwood Church which helps their property but not the flooding on Katella Street itself. So it is imperative that each property handle the water retention necessary in order to relieve flooding in surrounding areas. • Population and Housing - The current residential occupancy in our city averages 3 people per residence. If that average holds out, the population in our city would grow by 750 residents due to this project. Reality is that many recent studies have concluded that the higher rents being demanded in Orange County have led to substantial overcrowding in residential units. In fact, the standard is that two Please Comment by December 23, 2019 people can occupy each bedroom with one additional person in the living space. As such, if the average apartment in this complex has 2 bedrooms, then each apartment could legally accommodate 5 people which could bring the overall occupancy to 1,250 residents. These new occupancy studies showing the overcrowding issues ultimately falsify the results of a traffic study and lead a developer to substantially underpark a residential development. This doesn’t happen on a retail development as there are only so many seats in a movie theater or restaurant. The residential component of this project dramatically changes the clear intent of this property when the voters approved a zoning change in 1990. • Public Services - This development will significantly increase the demand for police, fire, schools, parks, and libraries especially given the residential component. • Recreation - When Measure A was approved in 2018 to change the zoning for the race track, one of the significant benefits was that 20 acres of park land were going to be provided. No new park land will come from this project. While there will be park developer fees paid as part of the construction costs, this is one time money and no new park will be provided. • Transportation – Since this project will sit on Katella, many think about the traffic impacts on Katella. The problem is to gain access or use any of the city services, the new residents will travel north along already impacted interior roads to gain access to schools, parks, and other public services. The Student Yield Factor established by the State Allocation Board would increase in enrollment due to new housing construction. The states guideline says you can expect .5 elementary students per new residential unit and .2 junior high and high schools for a combination of .7 students per residential unit. As such, we could see an increase of about 175 students needing to go to school and be provided transportation to schools, sporting activities, parks, and public services. The fact that the elementary school district has indicated a willingness to open one of the closed schools, there will still be increased traffic. If overcrowding in these units takes place then the problem is worse. A project alternative would be to significantly lower the density of the apartment complex as well as the overall height of the residential units to two stories and eliminate the parking garage. Another alternative project would be one with no residential with the residential replaced with a family friendly entertainment center like a Dave & Buster’s or the Splitsville Luxury Lanes in Downtown Disney. Comments are due by December 23, 2019 __ PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJECT Wednesday, December 11, 2019 NAME: CITY: _ _ ZIP: _90630 ADDRESS: _ 9684 Via Media EMAIL ADDRESS: _clyde.schechter@gmail.com_ _ REPRESENTING: _ ___________ √ YES Do you wish to be added to the project mailing list? The purpose of this comment card is to solicit input regarding Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please submit comments for environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR (please print). the scope and content the record that pertain of to the the Please comment by December 23, 2019 Please drop comments in the Comment Box or mail them to: City of Cypress Attn: John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Phone: (714) 229-6720 Email: CityPlanner@cypressca.org Clyde Schechter Cypress 90630 Self With 250 units planned, at a rental that will be affordable primarily to households with two (or more) income earners, we can anticipate that the development will bring in around 500 additional cars. The proposed four-story garage, with 55 spots per story can accommodate less than half of that. Where will the rest of the cars park? Worse, being cars of people with jobs, we can anticipate that all 500 of them will enter and leave the development within a short time at evening and morning rush hours, adding to the already intense traffic on Katella Avenue. As the existing Cypress schools are already packing students into temporary structures (trailers, actually) for classrooms, the school systems (CSD and AUHSD) are already working at over 100% capacity. Some proportion of the households that can afford this housing will have children and will further overburden the local schools. This will, in turn, add to traffic congestion experienced at drop-off and pick-up time on the streets adjacent to the Cypress schools. Cypress does not need more people living here, and it certainly does not need the associated crowding and traffic congestion. What Cypress needs is more business establishments catering to the needs of the existing residents. 1/16/20 (P:\CCP1902\Project Management\Meetings\Scoping Meeting\Scoping Comments\Willian Hutchins Comment.docx) 1 Please Comment by December 23, 2019 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROJECT Wednesday, December 11, 2019 Please Comment by December 23, 2019 Name: Linda Zimmerman_____________________________________________________ Address: 5036 Eucalyptus Circle_______________ City: Cypress ______ Zip: 90630______ Email Address: kennys1mom@hotmail.com______________________________________ Representing: ______________________________________________________________ Do you wish to be added to the project mailing list? YES NO X Please drop off comments at the Planning Department or mail or email them to: City of Cypress Attn: John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Phone: 714-229-6720 Email: CityPlanner@cypressca.org The purpose of this comment card is to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please submit comment for the record that pertain to the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR (please print). Comments (copied from George Pardon): • Aesthetics – Katella Ave is a primary transportation corridor in Orange County. Putting a 4-story high density apartment building with a parking garage along a primary city boundary is going to give an image to those driving by that Cypress is something other than a low density residential community. The proposed project introduces the first 4 story apartment building and the first parking garage. This is not representative of who Cypress is. Drive around our city and you will see that this apartment complex with a parking garage is not aesthetically or otherwise representative of who Cypress is. In fact, in 2016, the same City Council members that are serving now opposed a 66 unit residential townhome development on Orange Ave across from City Hall because some units were 3 story and they had traffic and safety concerns. The density on that project was less than twenty units per acre. The developer went back and revised their project to 52 units that were 2 stories with a density closer to 15 units per acre. Everyone agreed that this development with the height limit was more representative of who Cypress is. How could our city have changed so dramatically in 4 years? Even the apartments on Lincoln are substantially lower density when you make the density calculation based on the site the residential units physically occupy. Most residents would tell you that they still believe the density on those Lincoln units is too high. • Air Quality – The density calculation that the city has suggested is very misleading because it gives no consideration to the hotel, movie theater, and retail components. Increased traffic given the compactness of this site will clearly lend itself to poorer air quality. • Land Use and Planning. Prior to 1990, this property had Public/Semi-Public zoning on it which would have prohibited any of the uses being proposed by the project. Any zoning change required a vote of the residents due to Measure D that was approved by voters in 1987. In 1990, the voters approved a Please Comment by December 23, 2019 change to the zoning on some of the frontage road along Katella and along Walker St. The zoning permitted the commercial/retail/office projects currently found on those frontage properties. The residents did not approve a zoning change that permitted residential. However, when the zoning was changed, there was unfortunately no caveat in the language that said that future zoning changes would have to be voted on by the residents. The residents at that time evidently believed the city leaders would honor the voice of the residents. As residents have seen some of the zoning changes that have been made by the city leadership in recent years, there is a growing demand for a separate planning commission to give residents a greater voice in zoning. It was this concern of the change in zoning that is now being considered that when the zoning was changed for the race track property in 2018, language was incorporated in that initiative that requires another vote of the residents to change the zoning of the race track property from the zoning approved by the residents. The city leaders should honor the voice of the residents from that 1990 vote or take it back to a vote to see if the residents want this type of residential development on this site. The analysis has to take into consideration how the city plans to rezone the property to accommodate the residential component. Given the density calculation of 18.9 units per acre put forth by the city, then one can conclude that all 13.3 acres will be rezoned residential. If only the 4 acres is zoned residential then the 18.9 unit per acre density calculation doesn’t work since the other 9 acres wouldn’t permit residential so shouldn’t be part of the calculation. If, on the other hand, the City Council rezones all 13 acres for residential, nothing would prevent the property owner five or so years from now to seek approval for another apartment building on the retail sites if those aren’t successful. In fact, Shea was just approved in June 2019 to build 44 single-family homes and 61 townhouses on what is now Mission Foothill Marketplace in Mission Viejo, a mostly vacated mall. https://www.ocregister.com/2019/06/26/plan-to-convert-mission-foothill-marketplaces-main-building- into-105-homes-approved-by-mission-viejo-city-council/ • Population and Housing. The current residential occupancy in our city averages 3 people per residence. If that average holds out, the population in our city would grow by 750 residents due to this project. Reality is that many recent studies have concluded that the higher rents being demanded in Orange County have led to substantial overcrowding in residential units. In fact, the standard is that two people can occupy each bedroom with one additional person in the living space. As such, if the average apartment in this complex has 2 bedrooms, then each apartment could legally accommodate 5 people which could bring the overall occupancy to 1,250 residents. These new occupancy studies showing the overcrowding issues ultimately falsify the results of a traffic study and lead a developer to substantially underpark a residential development. This doesn’t happen on a retail development as there are only so many seats in a movie theater or restaurant. The residential component of this project dramatically changes the clear intent of this property when the voters approved a zoning change in 1990. • Public Services. This development will significantly increase the demand for police, fire, schools, parks, and libraries especially given the residential component. • Recreation. When Measure A was approved in 2018 to change the zoning for the race track, one of the significant benefits was that 20 acres of park land were going to be provided. No new park land will come from this project. While there will be park developer fees paid as part of the construction costs, this is one time money and no new park will be provided. • Transportation – Since this project will sit on Katella, many think about the traffic impacts on Katella. The problem is to gain access or use any of the city services, the new residents will travel north along already impacted interior roads to gain access to schools, parks, and other public services. The Student Please Comment by December 23, 2019 Yield Factor established by the State Allocation Board would increase in enrollment due to new housing construction. The states guideline says you can expect .5 elementary students per new residential unit and .2 junior high and high schools for a combination of .7 students per residential unit. As such, we could see an increase of about 175 students needing to go to school and be provided transportation to schools, sporting activities, parks, and public services. The fact that the elementary school district has indicated a willingness to open one of the closed schools, there will still be increased traffic. If overcrowding in these units takes place then the problem is worse. This project will create many impacted intersections along Katella Ave but also along Walker and Lexington that will be affected by the Katella Ave traffic patterns this project will create. These intersections need to be studied. A project alternative would be one with significantly lower density in the apartment complex as well as the overall height of the residential units being limited to two stories and eliminate the parking garage. Another alternative project would be one with no residential with the residential replaced with a family friendly entertainment center like a Dave & Buster’s or the Splitsville Luxury Lanes in Downtown Disney. Comments are due by December 23, 2019 —- Please drop off comments at the Planning Department or mail or email them to: City of Cypress Attn: John P. Ramirez, AICP, City Planner 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Phone: 714-229-6720 Email: CityPlanner@cypressca.org