Loading...
Resolution No. 5465 3 2 RESOLUTION NO. 5465 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS CERTIFYING AS TO ITS REVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2001 CYPRESS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (SCH #2000061007) AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DETERMINES,AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress conducted a public hearing on September 10, 2001, and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress has reviewed the General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, including the responses to comments made during the forty-five (45) day public review period, and a motion was made to approve the Final Environmental Impact Report subject to the Statement of Findings in Attachment A. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Cypress does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to the legal requirements for publishing and conducting a public hearing on said Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses thereto, and the City Council having considered the response to all comments received thereon, which comments and responses have been attached to said Draft Environmental Impact Report, and incorporated therein, which are part of the Final Environmental Impact Report, the said Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby approved and adopted for the 2001 General Plan Update. Section 2: The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2001 General Plan Update has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 3: That the City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final Environmental Impact Report: a. That the adverse environmental impacts which may result from implementation of the 2001 Cypress General Plan Update have been considered and recognized by the City Council. b. That the comments and responses on the Draft Environmental Impact Report have been considered and recognized by the City Council and, will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report. c. That based on information set forth in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses thereto, the City Council finds and determines that measures to mitigate certain impacts exist and are included in the Final Environmental Impact Report. d. That based upon mitigation measures referred to in the Final Environmental Impact Report, environmental impacts of this project are mitigated to a level of less than significance with the exception of air quality. Section 4: That the City Council hereby finds and determines that all feasible measures have been incorporated into the General Plan Update which will mitigate or substantially avoid any significant environmental effects, except for those impacts set forth in Section 3.d, the City Council hereby adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations, and as included in Attachment B: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cypress does hereby certify the review of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2001 Cypress General Plan Update of the General Plan for the City of Cypress dated September, 2001, and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. A copy of said General Plan Update is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." -1- 33 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September, 2001. 4/14/14<, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS A'FI EST: 'V I . fit A.. Y CLER OF T I ITY OF CYPRESS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS I, JILL R. INGRAM-GUERTIN, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the 10th day of September, 2001,by the following roll call vote: AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Keenan,McCoy,Piercy, Sondhi, and McGill NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None • e . Y CLERK OF I CITY OF CYPRESS -2- 34 Cypress General Plan EIR STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency issue two sets of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact on the environment. In the first set of findings, the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts; presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis; makes one or more of three findings for each impact; and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. There are three findings available for this first set of findings. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following three finding categories: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. These findings are presented later in Sections IV and V. The second set of findings involves a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Where a project will cause unavoidable significant impacts, the Lead Agency may still approve the project where its benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. Further, as provided in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning by which benefits are balanced against effects, and approves the project. The City of Cypress, the CEQA Lead Agency,finds and declares that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City of Cypress (the "City") finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the proposed Cypress General Plan Update herein referred to as the."project." Based upon its review of the EIR, the Lead Agency finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the City of Cypress General Plan Update (the "project"), represents the independent judgement of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project. The Final EIR is composed of the following elements: a. Public Review Draft, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report,January 29,2001; b. Mitigation Monitoring Program,August 2001; and c. Comments and Responses,August 2001. The remainder of this document is organized as follows: II) Description of Project Proposed for Approval; Ill) Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant; IV) Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels; V) Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation; and VI) Alternatives to the Proposed Project. FINAL FF-1 Facts and Findings sx�...v,..�...... ... -- _ .r-, • • 35 Cypress General Plan EIR II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL The Cypress General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1993. The 2001 General Plan Update supersedes the 1993 General Plan and is based upon the community's vision for Cypress and expresses the community's long- term goals. The current update includes revisions to the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space and Recreation, Safety, Noise,Air Quality, and Growth Management Elements. The goal of the General Plan Update is not to make dramatic changes to the City's existing land use plan, but rather to quantify remaining development in a way that can be correlated to traffic system capacity, while at the same time capitalizing on future development potential. The Cypress General Plan Update will not result in any changes to existing density standards and/or Floor Area Ratio assumptions. Nor will the Update result in changes to existing land use designations or impacts generated by the Joint Forces Training Center(JFTC) Los Alamitos. The Program EIR shall evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the following revisions to the City's General Plan, including but not limited to: • Update of the City's land use database. • Update of the City's traffic model. • Revision to the General Plan noise and air quality data based upon the new traffic model runs. • Deletion of redundant and/or completed goals and policies. • Revisions to maps, figures,text, charts, and tables to reflect updated data/information. PROJECTED LAND USE GROWTH The City of Cypress is approximately 95 percent built out, and as such, the General Plan Update will focus on preserving residential neighborhoods, guiding the remaining development opportunities, and encouraging the revitalization of selected areas. In total, these efforts are anticipated to result in a General Plan buildout condition with the following scenario: • 15,905 dwelling units; • 2,100,000 square feet of general and neighborhood commercial; • 400,000 square feet of business park; • 112,000 square feet of light industrial; • 4,800,000 square feet for education uses; • 192,000 square feet for government uses; and • 1,510 dwelling units and 15,000,000 square feet of industrial and business park uses contained within eight specific plan areas. Collectively, these numbers represent a total of 17,415 dwelling units and 22,604,000 square feet of development. A population of 50,756 is anticipated at buildout. In addition to the General Plan buildout estimates, the City has developed estimates for growth over existing conditions, which are listed below. The anticipated growth in residential, commercial, industrial, and business parks uses over year 2000 conditions is: • 1,230 dwelling units; and • 3,058,225 square feet of commercial, industrial and business park related uses. FINAL FF-2 Facts and Findings • 36 • C press General Plan EIR III. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Cypress General Plan EIR found that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on a number of environmental topics. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below. A. LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING 1. Relevant Federal and State Plans and Policies (pages 4.1-12 through 4.1-14 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in potential consistency impacts with relevant Federal and State Plans and Policies. 2. Relevant Regional Plans and Policies(pages 4.1-14 through 4.1-20 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in potential consistency impacts with policies in SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. 3. Relevant Local Plans and Policies (pages 4.1-21 through 4.1-22 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in potential consistency impacts with Local Plans and Policies. B. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 1. Population Growth (page 4.2-5 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update would result in an increase in population of 2,493 persons by the Year 2020. 2. Housing (pages 4.2-5 through 4.2-6 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update would result in the addition of 1,230 dwelling units to the City's housing stock. 3. Employment Growth (pages 4.2-6 through 4.2-7 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update would result in the addition of approximately 26,100 jobs within the City. C. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 1. Consistency with CMP, GMP and AQMP(pages 4.3-24 through 4.3-26 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in inconsistencies with the CMP, GMP&AQMP. 2. Alternative Transportation (pages 4.3-26 through 4.3-27of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in an incremental increase in demand for transit service and may enhance policies supporting alternative transportation. D. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS 1. Fault Rupture (pages 4.6-9 through 4.6-10 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in geologic or seismic hazards with respect to rupture of a known earthquake fault. FINAL FF-3 Facts and Findings • • , 37 Cypress General Plan EIR 2. Landslides (page 4.6-10 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). The proposed General Plan Update for the City of Cypress may result in geologic or seismic hazards with respect to landslides or soil strength. 3. Soil Erosion (page 4.6-11 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may result in impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 4. Expansive Soil and Soil Strength(page 4.6-13 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may result in impacts related to expansive soils or soil strength. E. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE 1. Drainage and Runoff(page 4.7-8 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may result in impacts to drainage patterns in the City of Cypress that may lead to erosion, siltation, or surface water runoff. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may create or contribute runoff water to the stormwater drainage systems in the City. F. PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES 1. Library (page 4.8-12 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in increased demand for the Library facility within the City. 2. Electricity(pages 4.8-16 through 4.8-17 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in increased demand in electricity service provided to the City. 3. Natural Gas(page 4.8-17 through 4.8-18 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in increased demand on natural gas provided to the City. 4. Telephone (pages 4.8-18 through 4.8-19 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in increased demand for telephone service provided to the City. Since the impacts identified above are not significant, findings for these impacts are not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. FINAL FF-4 Facts and Findings • • 3 8 • Cypress General Plan EIR IV. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS A. LAND USE Potential Impacts The project's potential impacts on land use that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.1, Land Use, of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include: 1. Relevant Regional Plans and Policies(pages 4.1-20 through 4.1-21 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Future development projects associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update shall be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with applicable FAA regulations and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan(AELUP). 2. Land Use Compatibility (pages 4.1-22 through 4.1-24 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Development associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may result in direct impacts regarding land use compatibility. 3. Landmark Tree Ordinance(pages 4.1-24 through 4.1-25 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR).The proposed General Plan Update may result in development associated with buildout that may potentially impact the City's Landmark Tree Ordinance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts from these land use conditions have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the policies in the General Plan, which are also referenced in the General Plan EIR. B. AIR QUALITY Potential Impacts The project's potential air quality impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.4,Air Quality,of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include: 1. Consistency with Regional Plans (pages 4.4-14 through 4.1-25 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may conflict or obstruct implementation of the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Comprehensive Plan Guidelines (RCP) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan(AQMD). FINAL FF-5 Facts and Findings • • • Cypress General Plan EIR Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts with regard to consistency with regional air quality plans have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the policies in the General Plan, which are also referenced in the General Plan EIR. C. NOISE Potential Impacts The project's potential impacts on noise that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.5, Noise, of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include: 1. Construction Noise (pages 4.5-15 through 4.5-16 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Development associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may involve construction- related noise as future parcels are developed and/or renovated. 2. Traffic Noise (pages 4.5-16 through 4.6-22 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Future traffic noise levels associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may contribute to an exceedance of the City's noise standard resulting in potential impacts to sensitive receptors. 3. Stationary Noise (pages 4.5-22 through 4.5-23 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Stationary noises within the City may impact adjacent land uses. 4. Aircraft Noise(pages 4.5-23 through 4.5-24 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Operation of the Joint Forces Training Center (JFTC) Los Alamitos will continue to provide a noise source to surrounding land uses. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts from these noise conditions have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies in the General Plan, which are also referenced in the General Plan EIR, as well as the mitigation measures and standard City conditions of approval identified in the General Plan EIR. FINAL FF-6 Facts and Findings • ■ • 40 Cypress General Plan EIR D. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS Potential Impacts The project's potential impacts in regards to geologic and seismic hazards that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.6, Geologic and Seismic Hazards, of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include: 1. Seismic Ground Shaking (pages 4.6-11 through 4.6-12 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). The City of Cypress may be subject to high levels of ground shaking during a seismic event. This may result in substantial damage to some buildings within the community. 2. Liquefaction(page 4.6-12 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). The City of Cypress is underlain by soils that contain alluvium deposits that may become unstable during intense groundshaking, resulting in potential liquefaction. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts from these geologic and seismic hazards conditions have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of the policies included in the General Plan,which are also referenced in the General Plan EIR. E. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE Potential Impacts The project's potential impacts on hydrology and drainage that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Drainage, of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include: 1. Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements(page 4.-6 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 2. Ground Water Depletion (page 4.7-7 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). The City of Cypress obtains approximately 75 percent of its water supply from local ground water. Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may result in impacts associated with the deletion of ground water sources. 3. Flooding(pages 4.7-8 through 4.7-9 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may result in potential flooding impacts within the City of Cypress. 4. Dam Failure (pages 4.7-9 through 4.7-10 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may expose people or structures to hazards involving flooding or the failure of a dam. FINAL FF-7 Facts and Findings • 1 41 Cypress General Plan EIR Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts from these hydrology and drainage conditions have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of the policies included in the General Plan, which are also referenced in the General Plan EIR, as well as the mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR. F. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Potential Impacts The project's potential impacts on public services and utilities that can be mitigated or.are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.8, Public Services and Utilities, of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include: 1. Fire Protection (pages 4.8-8 through 4.8-10 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in the need for additional fire facilities or personnel. 2. Police (pages 4.8-10 through 4.8-11 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in the need for additional police facilities or personnel. 3. Schools (pages 4.8-11 through 4.8-12 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in adverse physical impacts to Anaheim Union High School District and Cypress School District facilities. 4. Water(pages 4.8-12 through 4.8-13 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in increased demand for the water service within the City. 5. Sewer(pages 4.18-13 through 4.8-15 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in increased demand for the sewer system within the City. 6. Solid Waste(pages 4.8-15 through 4.8-16 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in increased demand for solid waste service provided to the City. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. FINAL FF-8 Facts and Findings 4 Cypress General Plan EIR Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to these public services and/or utilities have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies included in the General Plan, which are also referenced in the General Plan EIR, as well as the mitigation measures and standard City conditions of approval identified in the General Plan EIR. G. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Potential Impacts The project's potential impacts on public health and safety that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.10, Public Health and Safety, of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include: 1. Hazardous Materials Use, Generation and Transport (pages 4.10-8 through 4.8-10 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). New commercial or industrial development in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in an increased risk of upset associated with the routine use, generation, and transportation of hazardous materials,which may potentially pose a health or safety hazard. 2. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials (pages 4.10-10 through 4.10-11 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Accidental release of hazardous materials uses, stored, or transported in the City may result in a public health risk. 3. Increased Air Toxic Emissions (pages 4.10-11 through 4.10-12 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). New businesses locating in the City of Cypress may include additional sources of air toxic emissions, potentially increasing exposure of residents and employees to air toxics. 4. Aircraft Overflight (pages 4.10-12 through 4.10-14 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). The accident potential from aircraft overflights may impact structures and individuals within the flight pattern of Joint Forces Training Center(JFTC) Los Alamitos. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts from the public health and safety conditions have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the General Plan, which are also referenced in the General Plan EIR, as well as the mitigation measures and standard City conditions of approval identified in the General Plan EIR. FINAL FF-9 Facts and Findings • • • • • • • Cypress General Plan EIR V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION In all but five instances, environmental impacts were found to be either less than significant, or mitigated to a less than significant level. The five remaining unavoidable impacts include: 1) 2020 Traffic Volumes on Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue roadway segment; 2) CMP LOS Standards on Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue roadway segment; 3) Construction Emissions; 4) Vehicles Miles Traveled and Stationary Source Emissions; and 5) Parks and Recreation. A. 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Potential Impacts 1. 2020 Traffic Volumes (pages 4.3-16 through 4.3-19 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout of the proposed General Plan may result in increases in traffic volumes within the City of Cypress. Impacts remain significant and unavoidable impact for one roadway segment: Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue. All other major roadway segments could be mitigated to less than significant levels. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The traffic volume impacts to roadway segment Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after mitigation, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. All other impacts to roadway segments have been determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding The traffic volumes impacts to one roadway segment(Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue) in the City remains a significant impact despite the imposition of available General Plan policies. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided for these effects(see attachment titled Statement of Overriding Considerations). B. CMP LOS STANDARDS Potential impacts 1. CMP LOS Standards. Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update may result in the exceedance of LOS standards established by the CMP for designated Cypress roadway segments. Impacts remain significant and unavoidable impact for one roadway segment: Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue. All other major roadway segments and intersections could be mitigated to less than significant levels. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The CMP LOS Standards impacts to roadway segment Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after mitigation,the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. All other impacts to roadway segments and intersections have been determined to be less than significant with mitigation. FINAL FF-10 Facts and Findings 4 4 Cypress General Plan EIR Facts in Support of Finding The impact on CMP LOS Standards to one roadway segment (Knott Avenue from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue) in the City remains a significant impact despite the imposition of the policies contained in the General Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided for these effects(see attachment titled Statement of Overriding Considerations). C. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Potential Impacts 1. Construction Emissions. Citywide construction activity under the proposed General Plan Update may result in a cumulatively considerable increase of criteria pollutants, and thus may violate air quality standards. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The impacts in regards to construction emissions have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after mitigation,the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project's impact in regards to construction emissions remains a significant impact despite the imposition of the policies contained in the General Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided for these effects(see attachment titled Statement of Overriding Considerations). D. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND STATIONARY SOUCE EMISSIONS Potential Impacts 1. Vehicles Miles Traveled and Stationary Source Emissions (pages 4.4-10 through 4.4-13 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR). Buildout under the proposed General Plan Update may result in an overall increase in mobile and stationary source emissions within the City which may exceed SCAQMD Air Quality Standards. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The impacts in regards to vehicles miles traveled and stationary source emissions have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after mitigation, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project's impact in regards to vehicles miles traveled and stationary source emissions remains a significant impact despite the imposition of the policies contained in the General Plan. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided for these effects(see attachment titled Statement of Overriding Considerations). FINAL FF-11 Facts and Findings • • Cypress General Plan EIR E. PARKS AND RECREATION Potential Impacts 1. Parks and Recreation. Buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update may result in significant impacts to the recreational facilities within the City. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. 2. The impacts to parks and recreation have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after mitigation,the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project's impact on parks and recreation remains a significant impact despite the imposition of the policies contained in the General Plan and mitigation measures contained in the General Plan EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided for these effects (see attachment titled Statement of Overriding Considerations). VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The General Plan EIR addresses the environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed project, and the City's findings are listed below. A. NO PROJECT- NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The No Project/No Development Alternative (pages 5-1 through 5-9 of the Public Review Draft General Plan EIR) assumes that no additional development would occur and that the City would maintain the status quo of existing land use conditions and levels of development in the City of Cypress. Any development that would occur as part of buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would not occur under this Alternative. By definition, this Alternative prohibits the issuance of any further building permits. It should be recognized that this alternative is not feasible because development entitlements for the majority of the future growth in the City were previously granted through the approvals of specific plans for the Cypress Business Park and Lincoln Avenue, as well as through approval of development agreements. Findings The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no change to the existing conditions within the City of Cypress. Therefore, no new or additional environmental impacts would directly result from this Alternative. However, the No Project/No Development Alternative would prevent the City of Cypress from making needed improvements to existing properties, infrastructure, and public services. Existing conditions, under this Alternative would be maintained, but not improved. The adoption of the No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the area or other areas in the region, open for future growth that may not be comparable in quality with the development under the proposed General Plan Update. Hence, if the development did not occur in Cypress, it would probably occur elsewhere in the region. Development in other areas could result in a greater impact on the environment. FINAL FF-12 Facts and Findings 46 Cypress General Plan EIR Overall, the level of impact under the No Project/No Development Alternative is less than significant, with the exception of traffic and parks and recreation impacts. This Alternative does not significantly reduce or avoid any potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. The No Project/No Development Alternative fails to accomplish the project objectives and has other potential environmental impacts resulting from its implementation. The No Project/No Development Alternative, due to these reasons, is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan Update. B. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE As required by Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, as revised October 26, 1998, the Existing General Plan Alternative describes buildout of the City of Cypress in accordance with existing zoning and general plan land use designations under the policies and implementing strategies of the current General Plan, adopted in 1993. Implementation of this Alternative assumes that ultimate buildout of the existing General Plan (1993) would occur. The 1993 General Plan encompassed the same geographic area as that in the proposed General Plan Update, but would allow the maximum development of 15,400 dwelling units and 22,401,000 square feet of non-residential uses. A total population of 44,880 was forecasted in the 1993 General Plan. Findings Implementation of the 1993 General Plan would result in slightly fewer dwelling units and non-residential square footage than the proposed General Plan Update. The Existing General Plan Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts as the proposed General Plan Update for land use; population, employment and housing; air quality; noise, geologic and seismic hazards; hydrology and drainage; public services and utilities; and public health and safety. Slightly fewer impacts are anticipated for traffic and parks and recreation. Implementation of the Existing General Plan does not eliminate significant traffic, air quality or parks and recreation impacts, but these impacts are slightly less than those for the proposed General Plan Update. However, as it is the intent of the proposed General Plan Update to provide new information based on current conditions within the City, the 1993 General Plan evaluated under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not serve the City as adequately as the proposed General Plan Update. Overall, the Existing General Plan Alternative and the proposed General Plan Update would result in similar environmental impacts; thus the Existing General Plan Alternative is not considered environmentally superior when compared to the proposed General Plan Update. FINAL FF-13 Facts and Findings } DRAFT If2 " 7 Cypress Gener al Plan£ 12.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 12.1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with Sections 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Cypress has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the proposed General Plan Update. The Comments and Responses section, combined with the Draft EIR, comprise the Final EIR. The following is an excerpt from the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report. `The Final EIR shall consist of: (a) The Draft EIR or a version of the draft. (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.' Comments regarding the Draft EIR for the General Plan Update were received during the 45-day public review period,which was open from February 13, 2001 to March 29, 2001. This Comments and Responses section includes all of the above-required components and shall be attached to the revised Draft EIR to make up the Final EIR. All correspondence from those agencies or individuals commenting on the Draft EIR is reproduced on the following pages. The individual comments on each letter have been consecutively numbered for ease of reference. Following each comment letter are responses to each numbered comment. A.response is •rovided for each comment raising significant environmental issues. Added or modified text is shaded while deleted text will have a strike out(example)through the text. In addition,text excerpted from the Draft EIR,for ease of commentor reference,will be included in a box,as the example below shows. "Text from Draft EIR" FINAL 12-1 Comments and Responses • .48 I-e i-1 eo��EpF PUNNU,C149 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 902.)''= Governor's Office of Planning and Research • �`\‘`- . Clearinghouse house . . -.F ��,`�.' . State Cle g ";. Steve Nissen cii Gray Davis FEB .1 h 'Mul imu.(.,.uK GovI:R�oic ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: February 22, 2001 TO: Ted Commerdinger City of Cypress 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 RE: City of Cypress General Plan Update • SCH#: 2000061007 This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: February 13, 2001 Review End Date: March 29, 2001 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects California Highway Patrol Caltrans,District 12 Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Caltrans,Division of Transportation Planning Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game,Region 5 Department of Housing and Community Development Department of Parks and Recreation Native American.Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 8 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML l y R 49 Cypress General Plan EIR A. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, DATED FEBRUARY 22, 2001. The comment letter identifies that the Draft EIR was received by the State Clearinghouse, the time period for the 45-day public review, and which State Agencies the Draft EIR was distributed to for comments. No environmental issues are raised in this comment letter;therefore, no response is necessary. Comments and Responses 12-it FINAL ' 5 0 RECEIVED 101 r%. HJ R 28 2001 p ,-` ; ,GNSULTING 1TY O F E RI�,I T O A 110-* FEB 0 1001 CIVIC CENTER• 18125 B ELD AVENUE P.O. BOX 3130 • CERRITOS.CALIFORNIA LIFO 90703-3130 PHONE: (562) 860-0311 • FAX: (562)916-1371 February 7, 2001 Mr. Ted Commerdinger, AICP Planning Manager City of Cypress 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90603 -Dear Mr. Commerdinger: Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2001 CYPRESS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Staff members of the City of Cerritos have received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for 2001 Cypress General Plan Update. As indicated, this Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. Because f does projects location on in proximity to the City of Cerritos, the Cerritos City any significant impacts to the City of Cerritos at this time and therefore no comments have been made for the proposed General Plan Update. We thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed General Plan Update and we wish the best of luck with this update. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (562) 916-1202. Sincerely, Metre Anthony Assistant Planner Dept. of Community Development MC BRACE HU GLORIA A. KAPPE ROBERT HUGHLETT, Ed.D. PAUL W. BOWLEN BRUCE W. BARROWS COUNCILME 0 GLORIA A. K PP MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCILMEMBER ■ * i . , Cypress General Plan Elf? 51 B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM METRE ANTHONY, ASSISTANT PLANNER, CITY OF CERRITOS, DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2001. No environmental issues are raised;therefore, no response is necessary. Comments and Responses 12-6 FINAL I 5.2 i. , c AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ORANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa,California 92626•949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 March 8, 2001 MAP, 1 2 2001 Mr. Ted J. Commerdinger, AICP Planning Manager City of Cypress 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Subject: Comments on Draft EIR–2001 Cypress General Plan Update Dear Mr. Commerdinger: I We have reviewed the subject document and wish to offer the following comments. We have noted that this updated General Plan will supercede the existing Cypress General Plan, and will incorporate modernized traffic models and GIS-based land use tools, yielding new air quality and noise analyses, while eliminating completed and/or redundant goals and policies. Regarding environmental noise, Section 4.5.2 "Environmental Setting"references the location, activities,-- and resulting aviation noise impacts of the Army Airfield at the recently renamed Joint Forces Training Base C (JFTB), Los Alamitos. Our Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)refers to this facility as the Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos The discussion of"aircraft operations" as currently—'- written fails to inform the reader that the"occasional operations by transient military and civil support aircraft" can be significant in terms of aviation noise. For example, during a recent operations year, the airfield was visited twelve times by C-5 transports,the;largest aircraft in them nary fleet, and twice by Air_ Force One, a Boeing 747: More importantly,Exhibit 4.5,the accompanying graphic,is erroneous in presenting an outdated map, not used by our Commission for over five,years Attached for your review and i inclusion in the final EIR and General Plan Update is a copy of the current AELUP Noise Impact Zones map for the Base. A copy of the current AELUP dated November 16, 1995 was recently sent to your City. Regarding public health and safety, Sections 4.10.1 through 4.10.3 analyze in some detail the twin issues of safety on the ground and safety aloft,as concerns the aviation activities of the JFTB. As the DEIR notes with regard to safety on the ground,the AELUP recognizes only the on-base Clear Zones (Runway Protection Zones) as pertaining to safety on the ground, and as derived from the 1994 AICUZ Study for the Base. The DEIR also notes and describes the applicable FAA/AELUP restrictions that pertain to the protection of the navigable airspace surrounding the Base,which encompasses the issue of safety aloft. The policies of the Safety and the Land Use Elements, and the City Condition of Approval,which are listed at the conclusion of Section 4.10.3 should serve to ensure the compliance by future development projects with the mandatory FAA and ALUC reviews of potential airspace conflicts. As you know,the AELUP presents in its YY Y: Y i • 5 3 • Mr. Ted J. Commerdinger, AICP Page 2 March 8, 2001 ached pertinent information for use by the public regarding compliance with FAR Part r IG Appendix B (copy attached) p in the Cypress General Plan V ' PP 77, including a sample of FAA Form 7460-1. Inclusion of this information/form YP is—. should prove beneficial to its users by augmenting Exhibits 4.10-2 and 4.10-3 which are already presented in the General Plan and Draft EIR. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important the Public Utilities Code,we ooks of General Plans are among the mandatory referrals to the ALUC forward to receiving your official submittal for the Commission's nevi weeks of as your General l Planue endment. for Consistency with the AELUP. Please allow approximately agendizing of your General Plan Update. Please contact me at your discretion at(949)252-5170 if you desire any additional details regarding the ALUC current-year meeting schedule. Sincerely, . t. • 40 Joan S. Golding Executive Officer JSG:AB:st Attachments: AELUP Noise Impaact FAR Part aap 77 Information Alamitos . AELUP Appendix B — a • 5. 4 ■---iiinzma I�. rsz.rm- �,:-.,1�,, ,aGisca� F ®� 7 _/�E'^��--- . •1 a -- �r s s /gyp ,r= RD nr h1■ S l Rk-G..� .j tFrroF'-�l4l4 a!f • dam �. }� r w '� rr^'n�1A ii11 f l �YG5 4 1p I ,r . gg W �I :s . 9 AV .�+n1---F°__o 1o� • ., 7'.•_5 ar slpl r y rS I _, ERill F' .01 n lAan all I ��.>!��1�� z = ::, 1.• •I•I;k•g,'1.T.'•. S J• INRAEY K AY gal RI.rpm= pz., I SIi Cp RR DIIr AY liq A !pit I..IMIM ri. �F�u j � 8 ``•e._41 ii,t tI1 ! 1=g._ - .411M11111- IG1TElLA � 41- '46. IASI C rte, z IA+w w wm _ rl K/ 1` _lice ur �i f m S[ . r: w w n" a i I 1.*�,•.` _i WAWA. I —ArI?_u�!LI�� rm�;... ' i. 'I,� rrM .,�n_.��,1,�C� ��3 i II , F/ _ ' !� �119,111.11LY•1•4;1;:247 ` r�tfa w ll.tL�' -Lll�=-.� �li i ,\'4f+ T' M A 1V storm r ' .I..w..!•t,' '♦ 7t ° g' , / •z;'. .wwww I At 31 Cat. ��.,"L�..t---'-! 'y P :k ;R( ' ' 4604;41511K ti,„ 4431 12 P P 1:X...ii..i.. PIP'IS 'pp..'" . .. .,31.1 Aqi i r 6 14 iPp:44 14pill= 5 I' ffl !I, r ED FORCES R a ERVf CENTER w �•''u'A t' ra 11= + to ir I a• .I �l A R1iA 2 [ li milt Iiii kg,: ., 1 owl[w t" •m p ❑O" •F� ,w ► ■C�C7[ilJtl:t •1 3 .., i Pi Allii ill ..1r1=1111• • '° mPIh_ .r 4111.. _ 155 • ��.r���i f�//1 3 .• ��I I 411 T Is', iV wIr.rO.O.Iw 11i!� ` 1.11.+.'+�i K I �'/sF; � �slral.sw -- uaa S O ` r © ~�?~ _f®� t, --- N :ig ��1 +' •t+*�,a3� �iG• Ar yl � � i-3 • 3 $ ' ) - . q-„,.('y'ti• .� ..„R Ar A r , -T7 - F737111111c�iiiii„© ` ' 1 3 1 .Mp� ..5 : Y •,�� ,�i`� RAY r- �� ;\ • 7 •� :401P lEzie ��t %•p, � ,� ".' �..'i.1'Z•.S-1 .Lam-' u� �l'� a � 0 �I . �r,,GO _ .clump' -�..-___. �L. .. • 27_ �'� t. - r� —.----1----, -- 435—A IEGO FRNY ;.. �"��/i'f�� 7 ” I r v "`` ' b ..•��.' y s[[ q xE q 1.w t.u.,a �'j�tw„,,,dq5 «' �'r � (! RD n 3 (Iw.w Yrlf w Ml w I w.mem 'j k l�L'7 1�, 4•MEY t..w,m w 1 uora r wurR R 4,11>01•rS i.M ws �...r. -..:,. .\4i i d F``"A.. , / RD . • ::. US NAY w.iiv i t a .�.a w w•+r.°Iau w t w.w,s (, ?n: . /, ..r.w w /t�w rill,.r a M•. 00•16%e / r AVAPONS T1ON un.w ( ,,H sor 1 ? hi'7' VI'. f:..A• •% w wIw w w . \ a Frj C■ p W MIAM 11 I II"nip p� ■ r - -- _ _ . _ - f-. i r R ,: 55 APPENDIX B (Information in this appendix is provided as a reference source to assist the users of the AELUP.) At.Al SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77—"OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE" I in FAR Part 77 as The Airport Land Use Commission has adopte The following des ribe the scope of that Istandards for development in and around airports. document: I (a) Establishes standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace; (b) Sets forth the requirements for notice to the Administrator of certain proposed construction or alteration; (c) Provides for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation to determine their feffect on the safe and efficient use of airspace; (d) Provides for public hearings on the hazardous effect of proposed construction or alteration on air navigation; and (e) Provides for the establishment of antenna farm areas. ' this appendix are samples of the appropriate FAA Forms, 7460-1 and 7480-1,for the Included in ppe proper filing of proposed projects with the FAA Regional Office. • If you would like to obtain a copy,please contact one of the following: 1 U.S. Government Bookstore Arco Plaza, C Level 1 505 South Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213)239-9844 1 Federal Aviation Administration Public Affairs I P. O. Box 92007 WPC Los Angeles, CA 90009 (310) 725-3500 I I `. 5 Please Type or Print on This Form Form Approved OMB NO.2120-00 DO NOT REMOVE CARBONS YPe Aeronautical Study Number Notice of Proposed usocoomeadlromoor men Construction or Alteration 'iNatu°�onAdiniropo. 2.Complete Description of Structure 1. Nature of Proposal C.wont Schedule Dates Please describe.on a separate sheet of paper it necessary. B Class the Pry construction or anerabon. 0 New Construction ❑Temp rte*t rYnd A.For proposals involving transmitting Mons•include yam„* ❑Temporary(Duration rttortats) End effective radiated power(ERP)and assigned frequency o *If Mention,provide previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number.if available: all proposed or modified transmitters on the structure.(t t' etc.proposing the not known,give frequency band and maximum LAP) 3A Name,address,alteration.atept. ( number of individual, .and company corporation, involving overhead wire.transmission firm construction or alteratbn (Number.Street City.State.and Zrp Code) B.For proposals etc,include the size and the configuration of the wires all their supporting structures. C.Fix all proposals.include site orientation.dimensions.an construction materials of the proposed or altered stri. r, D.Optional—Describe the type of obstructiOn markrn r Telephone Number lighting system desired for your structure.The FM recommend appropriate marking and lighting for the (Area Code structure in accordance with the standards of Advisory 38. Name.address and telephone number of proponent's representative,if different than 3A.above. Circular AC 70/7460-1.Art FM marking arid lighting recommendation will reflect the minimum acceptable levy • of cortspicudy necessary to Warn pilots of the presence o • an object.However,the FAA.under certain circr>stances.wit not object to the use of a system(suc as a medium intensity flashing white light system or a du lighting system)other than the re commended standard. ( Area Code Telephone Number 4. Location Of Structure 5. Height and Elevation eo nearest roon A Elevation a site above mean A.Coordinates f i i,< y aarsd°�of secor+os. B.Nearest or Town C.he k, seaplane base sea levet. Latitude of >I [ (1).Distance to 48 (1).Distance from structure to nearest B.Height of structure including all rr point a nearest runway appunenances and longitude Ol ground or water. •I 1 Source of coordinate information above mean sea level for item 4A.above. (2).Direction t 46 i2).pweaiat from s lrucare 10 airport C.Overall height -1 (A•BI L-1 Ouad Chan ❑Suomi ❑Specify • I train*tie seise=K=damn of the eoordinz es.d blown, 4E.Describe,on a separate sheet of paper,the location of the site with respect to highways,streets.airports.map 7 Went terrain features.existing srvditres.etc.Attach a copy of a U.S.Geological Survey quadrangle turn. 0 NAD Y7 []NAD 83 ❑Other prominent minute series(or equivalent)showing the construction site.If available.attach a copy of a documented with the surveyor's certification. I FAILURE TO PROVIDE AU. REQUESTED INFORMATION MAY DELAY PROCESSING OF YOUR 9 U.S.C.O app§t5ot}perms cwt Notice is required by Pan 77 d the Federal Aviation Regulations(14 CFA Pad 771 Pursuant to Section 1101 of the Federal Aviation Act a 1954 f449 U a the Federal Aviatic W knowingly and uuitfuly violate Vie Notice roq*emends a Pad 77 are subject to a civil penalty d 51.000 per day End the notice is received.pursuant a on 1958.as..tended 449 U.S.C.app§1471(a))as well as the the f aimiml penalty)of not more than>�� last offense and not more than 32.000 or subsequent dimes.Pursuant 902(a)of the Federal Aviation Act a 1958.as amended(49 U.S.C.app§14720)). e.In addition I HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by nine are true,complete,and correct to the best of my knowled9 agree to obstruction mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking ghting standards as necessary. OaOS Typed or Prirria0 blame and TOa at Person Ring Notice I FAA wit either return this form or issue a separate acknowied9emen, FOR FAA USE ONLY I Supplemental Notice of Construction.FM Form 74E04.is rogdired any Wee tie project is abandoned.or The Proposal: 0 toes not agate a notice ea FM. 0 u least 48 hors bdore the start of caraauction. 0 is not kluged as an abandon oon under any standard d FAR Pad 77. 0 Wein five days alter the con:audit+reaches its greatest height v< Suppart Cv and would not be a hazard a mvgatiort. This dissemination mares on (a)extended,reread or marinated by the its 9 office the Federal Cosh( ) an apptic is identified as an ottttrtuction ender the ssartdards d FAR Part 77, Ibl the cmtsuuceon is subject es the foe rising a atiorief flak N trait cases to and a imtion Stepan G but would not be a hazard to navigation. to a oataaudion permit is made t a a a dye cis FCC denies d Vie ansixt mares on the dale prescribed try or deified e issuing Oa I ❑should be cosauction D marked Q lighted pet FM NOTE thr etoer�ion d the elective period of this determination be p Advisory Circular 7on4ti01.Chapters at last 15 days prior to tie ettrAtation date. will be sent to that agency. r]Obstri clen matarg and lghertg are net necessary t the strucsre is subject DIM hcensng authority d tote FCC.a copy a this determination (`lee these°°°r .....s,.et FAA; Latitude 01 1 Longitude 01 .1 • �83 Coordinates tw,e�«>�« oets in Signsare itwad . a NOTICE yr PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTL ATION 5 or atterstion requiring notice. 577.15 Cocoon or alteration not requiring notice. (a)tic e l a rr ^ who d the tollowiig No person is required b notify the Administrator for any d the blowing corstuc- co F :tt as Provided in shal5,each sponsor any and roamer ton or allerratiore presorted s i « men shall notify Administrate( (a) My object that would be shielded by existing struixes d a permanent a 'n577.17 teases d equal or 7. le My easlnrction«operation d more than 200 feet in above the ground or n congested�d a alp love.«sett height and*odd be level at is site where 4 s evident beyond at reassOnable data tat the atrtrcars so stieide.. RI Any cc sktrcbon«akarakti d greater heightthan an imaginary surface wending adversely aft t Yin air rravionabl d and upward at one d the blowing slopes (b)My arm structure d.20 feet or less in height except one that would' () 100 b 1 fa a horizontal distance d 20,000 bet horn the nearest point d the d another anierna struct<re. the nearest runway d each airport specified in subparagrach(5)d this paragraph air facility,airport visual approach or lancing aid,airmail erne°' with at least one runway more than 3200 feet n actual length.excluding heiports. (0)My device,• n on device.is a type approved ci g a Aar ,m air. (,y) 50 b 1 for a h«iz«ttah datance d 10.000 bet tram the nearest point d angn airports,the location and height t whir the nearest runway d each airport specified in subparagraph i51 d�paragraph is iced by its functional purpose. no more than 3200 feet n actual length,excluding herbals with its lo ngest runway hens:dal distance d 5.000 heel from the nearest coil( of (d)Any anstrucknoraderaticatixtekttristice is required byaryodnerFMregitaoon. the nearest landing and takeoff area d each heliport specified in subparagraph (5)d this paragraph 577.17 Form and time of n otkx. (3) Any higtwray, railroad.or other traverse way for mobile objects, of a height (a) Each Pam who is required b nobly the Ariminisaabr under 577.13(al stall wfic I a4R�sted upvrard 17 feet for an k,,,state t bghwraY.that is part d the National send one executed form set d FM Farm 7460.1.Notice d Proposed onst uc�on system d►,"cry and kderstate Fgfn+►rays where ate d �kr orAllerati0c.bthe futanager,ArTradbcDivision.FAA Regio nalOacehavingl a minimum d 17 feet vertical c5 stance.15 bet for any other public roadway.10 over the area within which the cast:moan Cr operation wi be located Copies feet«tie height d tie highest mobile object that would nerrnaly traverse the FM Form 7460-1 may be obtained from tie headquarters d tie Federal A• roaw,which avers greater,fora private road.Z3 bet for a raiided.artnoa Ayr..isG'o, n ars, s a r.,..'1s cam. • b waterway e or arty other hest m way traverse it would (b)The notice retitled Lode'§77.13(a)(1)Iti'ough(4)must be submitted at lei I e the height dthe -30 days before the earlier d the thawing dales exceed a standard d subparagraph(1)ac C21 d the «alteration is b begs (1)The dale the proposed construction (4)When requested by the FM, any uxxstrtrttion or aeration that would ben (2)The date an eppicatior for a oautr crak aeration is b be filed area(defined in the FM(ales ruts govermg irstrurhert 1 iowever,a notice 9 lo PoP°sed construction«operation that is Subject an instrument agroach b approach procedures)and available hair nation indicates t might exceed a standard the f 9 teg ys d fee Federalc7rr triicatiors Act rral!be nerd b Y d Subvert C d fns part FM at be same time the application for con is lied with the Fede (5)My construction«alteration on ary d the blowirig airports(mciudr'19 heIpor# Cormunicabons comm imio,or at any time beige that firing. (t)An alTeltihat is avalable f«Public use and is fisted in the Airport Directory (d A pm posed structure or an alteration b an esistirg strtxfse fat exceeds 2,000 Manual or in either the Alaska« Pacific vex be presumed b be a bawd fee navigate, d the crteid Aimads kdomnation feet in height above the ground d aPPwd • Khmer's Guide and Chart Supplement. and b result in an inertial trtiiaamon airspace l�M arPr under censtrnxea.flats the subjac3 d a notice«proposal on d overcoming that P Each notice subrriped underlie pertinent provisio fie wah the Federal Aviation ......,,that &ii stratioti and e�xept f«unary arports,t d Part 77 proposing a structure n excess d 2.000 feet stove 9^ �or an alteration is dearty kidcated that that a:port will be avalabie for pubic use that will make an existing structure exceed that height must main a detailed showing A M airport that is operated by an armed forced the United States directed to meeting his txrdert Only in exceptional cases.where the FM oanckrd I @)Each sponsor who proposes construction or alteration that is the subject d.a .tat a dear and carpeting showing has been made that it would net resat" notice under Paragach(a)Cl this section and is advised by an FM regional office inefficient ublzation d the airspace and would not resat in a hazard to air navig that a s mlernerdal notice is required shat submit that notice on a pre cried form will a determination d to hazard be issued. __ b be received by the FM regional office at teed 48 hours before the start d the (dl h the rye d an yin g .lie rec a construction or alteration. «pubic safety,that requires' (c) who udettakes corutnrctien Or alteration that is tie subject d meat in paragraph(b)d this section does not apply and the notice may be se Each sponsor d this section shad within 5 days after that construction by telephone,1eiegraph or our r means,with an executed FM Fang or a notice trier Paragraph(a) notice on a pre `bed_ 74604 srtxnitfed wih*n five (5) days thereafter.Outside=la'.business fours bin t tiau readies its l dice having xisc1crt a over are be sttrmdied b the nearest Fl' form b the FM regional afore having}radctiorh over the area involved,i— emergency notices by or��may (1)The wnhstrhxdion or aeration is more than 200 feet above tie surface level Fro9ht E person who is required to nobly the Adnirhistrabr by paragraph(b)«t_ d is n F:« dice advises him that stiornission d the form is required. d§77.13.or both shall send an exacted copy d FM Form 7460.2.Nonce c CA M FM regional - Actual Construction cr Aperatior.to then Air Traffic Division.FM I ,„ Office having j riscfctron over the area ADDRESSES OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES • Neatens PPedao� Greet wt,ate,sa,L.oft.MN.w New 1�. HI,CA, ,AZ, M' (neat haloes Regional 414.I New Cr.M of office WeTra C D�Regional Office ce Sourhem Regional ace Air Traffic Division.AGL-530 Air Traffic Division.ANE-630 15000 Traffic a ivniB.Boulevard 0 2300 East Devon Avenue 12 New t nglandp1803 tic 15000 Aviation 9 2fevard 33440T0�Norman Berry� Des Plaines.IL 60018 MA T l.310- 9-165. Tel 312.694.7568 Tel 617-73.7143 Mai East Point.GA 30344 ion Tel Address 365• MTl TeL 7646 Sou t. u WY,Yn DC,MD,DE,NJ Hy, A.O.Box Federal Aviation Adrra stration Southwest R Office Easton Regional Office • P.O.Boot 92007 Air Traffic Motional AEA-530 L o Angeles.postal 90009 m Regional ASO- Air Traffic Division.ASW-530 Air international ffic Di o .AEA Los Angeles.CA 90009 M Traffic Division.AS0 rh30 4400 Blue Mond Road AirPort AfKlaen � P Fort Worth. 76193 Jamaica.NY 11430�� Atlanta.GA 3=0 TeL StT-624 Tel T18 6b3-1228 _ llorthvrest Mou teri Reston Mai Address Fax Tt8-.53-1228 Alaskan Recjonal Office WA,Opt MT,ID,WY,tfT,CO Deportees*Cl Transporation Air We Division.A a ML-530 Northwest Mou lain Regional Office Federal Aviation Administration ?22 crag 7th Avenue Fort Watt.TX 76193-0530 Anchorage.AK 99513 Air Traffic Division.ANM-530 Tel 907-271.5893 1601 Lind Avenue.SW Central Region lAaling Address; Renton.WA 98055-4056 NE.IA,MO,KS Federal Aviation AO Tel. 590 Alaskan Regional Fat Z 06-227-1530 Central Regional Office Air Traffic Division.ACE-530 Air Italic Division er ML-530 601 East 12th Street 222 West 7th Avenue,Boa 14 Kansas Cigr,MO 64106 Anchorage,AK 99513-7587 Tel 616-4263408 ,. 'y I ;:t' • 5 8 Form Approved OMB No.2120 4 US Depoolorc' al"tio-o AREA PROPOSAL NOTICE OF LANDING P NAME OF PROPONENT,INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION ❑ Establishment or Activation ❑ Airport ❑Ultraltght Flightix ❑ Alteration • ❑ Heliport ❑ Seaplane Base OF .RESS(No..Street.City.State,Zip Code) ❑ Deactivation or Abandonment ❑ Other(Specify) ❑ Change of Status A Location of Landing Area 1. NEAREST CITY OR TOWN 2. COUNTY 3. STATE 4.DISTANCE AND DIREC11 TO NEAREST CITY OR TO1 Miles Direction IS. NAME OF LANDING AREA 6. LATITUDE 7. LONGITUDE ,r 8. ELEVATION 01 'I ..� 0I I B. purpose Construction Dates Type Use Type Ownership If Change of Status or Alteration.Describe Change. To Begin/Began 1 Est.Corr lo ❑ Public ❑ Public ❑ Private ❑ Private I ❑ Personal A Existing(If any) Proposed •• a A5 Above D. Landing Area Data J Direction Distance 1. - - Rwy#1 Rwy 82 Rwy 83 Rwy Rwy R C. Other Landing Areas Landing landing a Magnetic Bearing of Runways)or Area Area a Y Sealane(S) , 0 0 a L Length of Runway(s)or Sealane(s)in Feet Ic c Width of Runway(s)or Sealane(s)in Feet 0 7..4.- Type of Runway Surface . I .Concrete.Asphalt. Turf,Etc.) • 2. Dimensions of Landing and Takeoff Area in Feet I r Dimensions of Touchdown Area in Feet 0 G. co Magnetic Direction of Ingress/Egress I E. Obstructions Direction Distance Routes I4091,1 1 from from Type of Surface Type i°0. (Turf,rooftop.etc.)�.. 3. Description of Lighting(If any) 1Direction of Prevailing AU . F. Operational Data 1. Estimated or Actual Number Based Aircraft — Airport. t+wrrdf/� Vrwefr� ' w I t . -I WwrZOOa1. MOW One Moo a. Sig1►f aPln MOW• Grew • I Average Number Monthly Landings G. Noise Considerations Direction Distance f'r...wfr.1� from from r...ra fa o ,;,,sc+owe s Yra i1ao�e►baw ~ II Identification ii°°"'V-) wnw 't7 Landing Landing Area Area \. \ \All I.' tnlLrom TvooO�oo t'rdu Prop 3. Are IFR Operations Anticipated Years Type Navaid ❑ No ❑ Yes Within H. Application for Airport Licensing ❑ � II ❑ Has Been Made ❑ Not Required ❑Will Be Made ❑ State ❑ Municipal Authors+ ERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that all of the above statements made by me are two and complete to the best of my knowledge. name.title,(and address if different than above)of person filing this notice— Signature(In ink) type Or Print Date of Signature Telephone No.(Precede with area 0 ..rw,,....r......-✓...,. . ....- •..,...•....ocence DRFvIOUS EDITION i . 59 INSTRUCTIONS L NOTICE OF LANDING AREA PROPOSAL (Use Back of This Sheet as Worksheet) As Used Herein,The Term"Airport"Means Any Landing Area such as Airport,Heliport,Seaplane Base,Ultralight Flightpark,or Balloonport. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 157 requires tha t each person who intends to do any of the following shall notify the Administrator 1. Construct or otherwise establish a new airport or activate an airport. 2. Construct,realign,atter or activate any runway, landing strip or associated taxiway. 3. Deactivate,discontinue using or abandon an airport,runway,landing strip or associated taxiway for a period of one year or more. 4. Change the status of an airport from personal use(exclusive use by the owner),or private use(use by the owner or other persons authorized by the owner)to an airport open to the public. The notice required shall be made by submitting this form in triplicate to the nearest Federal Aviation Administration's Airports District Office or Regional Office. Section 901 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,as amended,provides that any person who violates a rule,regulation or order issued under Title III of this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed$1,000 for each violation. I General Instructions 1. For any project falling in categories 1,2 or 4 above,complete the type of ownership is"private." If necessary,use a separate all appropriate sections.if the project is.or will be,associated sheet of paper to describe changes or alterations. with a personal or private-use airport located more than 5 Section C—Airport or seaplane base: UstVFRairportsarldheliports nautical miles from any airport open to the public and more within 5NM,and IFR airports within 20NM.Heliports: List VFR than 20NM from an IFR airport (an airport for which an airports and heliports within 3NM and IFR airports within 10NM. instrument approach procedure has been authorized) only Section D—Attach U.S.Geological Survey quadrangle map or sections A,B,D,F and I need be filled out. equivalent. Plot locations of facility to the nearest second.j 2. For deactivation or abandonment (category 3 above), runway alignments,associated taxiways or sealane alignments. • complete sections A and I only. When appropriate,use city map for heliports. 3. Express all bearings as magnetic and mileages as nautical. Section'E—List and plot on quadrangle map or equivalent any 4. Please Print or Type All Items and Be Sure All Copies are obstructions.Airport or seaplane base: Within 3NM radius for Legible. VFR airports and with 5NM for IFR airports.Heliports: Within 5,000 feet of the perimeter of the heliport landing and takeoff Section A—Self-explanatory. ate, Section B-11 the type of use is to be by the owner only,check Section F—Self-explanatory. "personal" If also used by persons authorized by the owner, G—Ust schools.churches and residential commurlitie: check "private" If the airport is open to the public, check within a 2NM radius for airports and within a 1NM for heliports. "public." If the airport is owned by a state or state agency; a ���If-explanatory. municipality or other political subdivision; or a tax supported organization,check"public"ownership.Otherwise indicate that NOTE: Additional copies of FAA Form 7480-1 may be obtained from the nearest FAA Airports District Office or Regional Office. Notification to the FAA does not waive the requirements of any other government agency. ADDRESSES OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES Region Central Region I I KY.114.NC.RSC.GA.AL,MS,FLVL PRI Alaskan Regional Office Central Regional Office western—Pacific Regional Mace Southern Regional Office 701"C" Division AAL-600 ..Airports Division ACE-600 15000 Airports Division 34 Norman BCrY 601 East 12th Sweet Drive Street 99513 City.l O 64106 .CA� Fast Point GA 30344 Anchorage.Mail • Tel.816-374-5278 Mail Address: Mail Address 701"C"Street Box 14 - AWP-600 P.O.Box 20636 AK 99513 P.O.Box 92007 Atlanta.GA 30320 T 1.6438 Loa Postal Center Tel.404-763-7288 Tel.213536-6182 . 1 INorttswest .Mountain. CO • I 'Eastern DC.ND,DE,NJ I I KR,AR.LA Nothwest Mountain Regional Office Eastern Regional Office Southwest Regional Office Airports Division ANM-600 Airports Division AEA-600 Airports Division ASW-600 17900 Pacific Hwy.South JFK International Airpon 4400 Blue Mound Road • C-68966 Federal Building Fort Worth.TX 76101 Seattle,WA 98168 Jamaica.NY 11430 Mail Address Tel,206-431-2600 Tel.212-917-1239 P.O.Box 1689 Fort Worth.TX 76101 Tel.817-877-2600 rarest tom.M M1.SD.UL.OH,MN.IN 1 I MA,t RI,CT,ME I Great lAirports�Diviisior -600 Airports Orvison�ANE-6 2X0 East Devon Avenue 12 New England Executive.Park Des Plaines,It.60318 Burlington MA 01803 Tel.3124-7458 TeL 617-273-1235 1f . .60 • Cypress General Plan EIR C. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOAN S. GOLDING, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY, DATED MARCH 8,2001. C1. No environmental issues are raised;therefore,no response is necessary. C2. In this comment, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has noted the name change for the Army Airfield at Los Alamitos. The facility recently changed the name from Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos to Joint Forces Training Center (JTFC), Los Alamitos. The Joint Forces Training Center, Los Alamitos was the name for the Army Airfield used throughout the General Plan and General Plan EIR. The ALUC's Airport Environs an Use Plan (AELUP), dated November 16, 1995, refers to the facility as the Armed Forces Reserve Center. The Cypress General Plan and General Plan EIR is more current than the AELUP and uses the latest name for the Army Airfield. C3. The information regarding recent airfield operations will be added to the text on pages 4.5-6 and 4.5-7, which is part of the Environmental Setting section of Section 4,5, Noise, of the Draft EIR. The text on pages 4.5-6 and 4.5-7 will be modified to read as follows: Aircraft Operations. The Joint Forces Training Center (JFTC) Los Alamitos Airfield is situated along the southern boundary of the City and is the only airport within the vicinity of Cypress. The Airfield is primarily a helicopter training base. Approximately 91 percent of total operations are by helicopters, with the remainder being light twin-engine fixed-wine aircraft and occasional o•erragtions b transient milita and civil sue sort aircraft. -= ,,, , 'W; 4,� I;�a ' � r : �;w"-, �, , ,,,,,, ,,, _,, Yr ��,- ,� ref , a i�X�����:��-�i �I�i`y°�ar, I� ,��r > =�iEs�����i�=1��, �1Fi rl .�� � ��'_ i'C1it Land uses within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) include residential, vacant, agricultural, and business park uses. Exhibit 4.5-1, Joint Forces Training Center (JFTC) Los Alamitos Airfield Impact Zones, also shows the noise contours for the JFTC Los Alamitos Airfield, which extend over the C 'ress Business Park}} and aresidential nei.hborhood on the Ci 's eastern horde fi d, v r v t+F.n ✓'a'u��aF ''.4.:',1...`,g)', 1,a..;` i,t- .It:�9 l .`.[S'r 0' .1".fi.r;*i, „", F +Ilti, 5:Pii4100/1:4°17,440111lillgT C.t.1 f.: -, : oft m .q €C;.'`;:c;;‘,,a.a.s t�tir�.i l"1 a� The comment regarding recent airfield operations does not change the impact analysis and mitigation measures included on pages 4.5-23 and 4.5-24 of the Draft EIR. C4. Exhibit 4.5-1, Joint Forces Training Center (JFTC) Los Alamitos Airfield Impact Zones, will be revised to reflect the map provided by the ALUC. The revised exhibit will be included in the Final EIR. C5. No environmental issues are raised in this comment;therefore, no response is necessary. However, it is worth noting that the City of Cypress has a copy of the AELUP, including Appendix B, on file at the Community Development Department and available to the public. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) forms attached to the ALUC's comment letter will become part of the Final EIR, which also be on file at the Community Development Department and available to the public. FINAL 12-15 Comments and Responses R L. i .uu D 61 MAR 13 2001 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA — ,-7 4 March 12, 2001 Mr.Ted J. Commerdinger,AICP Planning Manager . City of Cypress '' Community Development Department kSSOCIATION of 5275 Orange Avenue 3OVERNMENTS Cypress, CA 90630 Main Office RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of 818 West Seventh Street Cypress 2001 General Plan Update-SCAG No.1 20010072 12th Floor Los Angeles,California Dear Mr. Commerdinger. 90017-3435 Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Cypress 2001 General Plan Update to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide t(213)236.1800 clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other 1(213)236-1825 agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. www.scag.ca.gov It is recognized that the proposed Project considers an update of the City of Cypress General Plan. The proposed update would supersede the existing 1993 General Plan Officers:•President:Mayor Pro Tent Ron Bates, City or Los Alamitos Second President and based proposed community's vision Cypress expresses community's Councllmcmbcr Hal Bernson, Los Angeles • Immediate Past President: Supervisor Zer long—t erm goals. The update includes revisions to nine general plan elements. Yaroslaysky,Los Angeles County imperial CounryCentr guiper,imperiil County• SCAG staff has evaluated the Draft EIR for consistency with the Regional Los g les o Centro Lon Angeles Worry:Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. Comprehensive Plan and Guide. The Draft EIR, in Sections 4.1 (Land Use) includes a Loa Angeles County•Zee Yamosla+sky,Los Angeles discussion on the proposed Projects' consistency with SCAG policies and applicable County • ElI"n An`ari' Diamond Bar • Bob• regional plans, which were outlined in our June 13, 2000 letter on the Notice of Bartlett,Monrovia • Bruce Barrows.Cerritos George Bass.Bell•Hal Bunson,Los Angela• Chris Christiansen, Covina • Robert Bruesch, Preparation (NOP)for this Draft EIR. Rosemead• Laura Chick, Los Angeles • Gene Daniels,Paramount•Jo Anne Ducy.Santa Cluita- Ferraro,Los Angela•Michael Fcuu.La The Draft EIR cited SCAG policies and addressed the manner in which the proposed ,I<s • Ruth Gilanter, Los Angeles • Ray supportive of applicable ancillary amen,Long leach•Dee Hardison,Torrance• Project is consistent with applicable core policies and e Hernandez,Los Angeles•Nate Holden,Los .ks•Lawrence Lhkky,Inglewood •Leith policies. Table 4.1-2 (General Plan Update Consistency with SCAG's Regional Angelehy, Downey • Clod. Burbank skn. Loa Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies) incorporated a side-by-side comparison of Angeles • Stacey Murphy. Burban • Pam O'Connor.Angeles Ana Monica • Nick s•Pachao, Los SCAG policies with a discussion of the consistency or support of the applicable policies Angela•Ala Park It Loa Angeles•Beatrice Pros. Pico Rivera•Mar►Ridley-TLomas.LOS Angeles• with the proposed Project. This approach to discussing consistency or support f information Rkhard Riordan,Los Angela•Laren Rosenthal, aatetmemt • Maadoe Shaw.Campos • Rudy .. policies.:is.commendable .8nd we appreciate your` efforts. "Based on'a Svainkh,Los Angeles•Paul Talbot.Alhambra• Sidney Tyler.Jr.,Pasadena•Joel Wachs,Los Angela provided in the Draft EIR, we have no further comments. A description of the proposed •Riot Walters. Angela•Dennis Washburn, Project was published in the February 15, 2001 Intergovernmental Review Report for Calabasas•Rob Webb.Long Beach Orange County:Chula Smith,Orange County• public review and comment. Rau Bata,Los Alamitos•Ralph Bauer,Huntington • Beach•Art Brown.Buena Park•Elizabeth Cowan. Cosa Mau•CUhryn rtY.'"4.Lgmu Niguel• • If you have any questions, please contact me at(213)236-1867. Thank you. Mchud Dixon,Lake Forest•Alu Duke,L Palma• Shirley McCracken,Anahebn•Bra Awry.Batt Riverside County:Bob Buts,Riverside County• Slncef' y, . Rao l• Andre. Pog.. COMM•Greg Rids,Cathedral Roberts. a s. • .. Coy •Andres Page. C • Roo Ror Temecula•Charles White.Macs Valley / . r� San Bernardino County: Jon Mikels, San Bernardino County • Bill Alexander. Rancho Cucamonga Jim Bagky..,wentynine Paims•David JEFFR �. .SMITH,AICP 6hkmuu,Fontana•Lec Arm Garda,Grand Terrace • •Gyms Norton-Perry:Chino Hills•Judith Vallm, Senior -nnef • San Bernardino Ventura County:Judy Mikeh,Ventura County• Intergovernmental Review Donna De Paola.San Buenaventura•Glen Bacons. Semi Valley•Toni Young.Port Hueneme Riverside County Transportation Commission: • Robin Lowe.Hemet Ventura County TYanaporution Comm1sslon: Bill Davis.Simi Volky Prmied on Recyckd h 119.1/13/01 IIt' 6 Cypress General Plan ER D. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JEFFREY M. SMITH, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER, , INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, DATED MARCH 12,2001. No environmental issues are raised;therefore, no response is necessary. A • FINAL 1 2-1 7 Comments and Responses • - 6 3 O'.'HEIM c,l CITY OF ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA Planning Department 4 � b E IS') 1fr.c' .ri 11.1.{ L March 21, 2001 Ted J. Commerdinger, Planning Manager City of Cypress Community Development Department 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report—"2001 Cypress General Plan Update" Dear Mr. Commerdinger: t. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment documenland aove-referenc noe cod dmmentsnat Anaheim City staff has reviewed the above mentioned this time. Please forward any subsequent public notices and/or environmental documents regarding this project to my attention at the address listed below. If you have any questions regarding this response, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 765-5139, Extension 5750. Sincerely, Joseph W. Wright, 4AssoiateP •nner • jwrigh.cnviro/cypress/cypress2 200 South Anaheim Boulevard P.O.Box 3222,Anaheim,California 92803 • (714)765-5139 • www.anaheim.net DRUG IS USE {FE ABUSE • • • • • 3, H64 . . .:gpress General Plan£IR E. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JOSEPH W. WRIGHT, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, CITY OF ANAHEIM, DATED MARCH 21, 2001. No environmental issues are raised;therefore, no response is necessary. • FINAL. 12-19 Comments and Responses 714 229 0154 �, .APR-02-2001 12:53 GRAY DAVIS.Govrr STATE OF CAUFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATIOI D HOUSING AGENCY e DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ` --, AERONAUTICS PROGRAM M.S.#40 ` ° J 1120 N STREET-ROOM 3300 befila ((( P.O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 (916)654-4959 FAX (916)653-9531 March 27, 2001 Mr.Ted Commerdinger, Planning Manager City of Cypress 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Dear Mr. Commerdinger: Re: City of Cypress Draft EIR for the General Plan Update:SCH#2000061007 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Aeronautics Program has reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. , it A portion of the City of Cypress is located adjacent to the Joint Forces Training Center (ETC) K/ Los Alamitos. We concur with the "Aircraft Overflight" ,'OA E21) weesuggest�that the following of the draft EIR. For the City Condition of App language be added, "A Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) may be , required by the FAA in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77." We have enclosed a copy of the Form 7460-1 for your information. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Please call me at 916/654-5314 if you have any questions regarding our comments. Sincerely, CQ SANDY Environmental Planner Enclosure • RECEIVED APR - ? 2001 C : State Clearinghouse cypress , Dane Om opmerd Aep TOTAL P.02 >rf 66 £.R :gpress General Plan F. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SANDY HESNARD, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AERONAUTICS PROGRAM, DATED MARCH 27, 2001. Fl. The City of Cypress' condition of approval will be modified to include the suggested language. COA-E21, which appears on pages 2-39 and 4.10-14 of the Draft EIR will be modified to read as follows: COA-E21 The developer shall comply with all requirements of the FAA should any portions of the development encroach within 100 to 1 imaginary surface surrounding the JFTC Los Alamitos. Encroachment within the 50 to 1 as'roach surface will resuire a.'royal b the FAA. "'Noir,. 'g1Alr`tt,- a,r,> e,04, 7)i4 ,P�1:: »6{-�(= "la(gg1 4:%1.r"Pj FINAL 12-21 Comments and Responses • • • ' . MHK–Sb–cb 11 10:54 rig ul.�-,Lfiii:VU ___ DAMS,..— Gowen STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION';; DISTRICT 12 3337 Michelson Drive Suite CN 3U0 Irvine,CA.92612-1699 FAX AND MAIL March 28, 2001 Mr. Ted Commerdinger, AICP File: 1GR/CEQA SCH#: 2000061007 City of Cypress Log#: 745a Planning Department 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Subject: City of Cypress—General Plan Update Dear Mr, Commerdinger, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. The project site is located citywide in the community of Cypress in the County of Orange. It is bordered by the cities of La Palma, Buena Park, Anaheim, Stanton, Garden Grove, Los Alamitos, Long Beach, Hawaiian Gardens, Lakewood, and Cerritos. The city is approximately 4,237 acres in size. The project consists of evaluating potential environmental impacts resulting from the following revisions to the City's General Plan, including but not limited to: Update of the City's Land Use database, Update of the City's Traffic Model, Revision to the General Plan noise and air quality data based upon the new traffic model runs, Deletion of redundant and/or completed goals dap�nf policies, Revisions to maps, figures, text, charts, and tables to reflect updated Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has reviewed the General Plan Update EIR dated January 29, 2001 and has the following comments: • As a shaper of quality of life for its residents, the City of Cypress has a unique responsibility to manage the remainder of its new housing development and its older residential redevelopment in a manner that utilizes the latest techniques in regional and local community planning. These techniques include 'livable communities' concepts which pedestrian accentuation and safety, transit villages, equity housing and promotion of alternative modes of transportation. The City does reflect this type of thinking in its Land Use, Transportation/ Circulation and Air Quality. On the whole, we find this planning document refreshing in its unblinking look at the real issues that face our county and the promotion of real solutions to resolve al Plan Update date don't see affect our sitepacts directly associated with this Gene p facilities. l • CIR-1.3 Should also be reflected under the Housing Element to be consistent. I ?Z. r • 6 MAR-30-2001 10:54 714 22J 0154 March 28, 2001 Page 2 • CIR-1-6 Should also be included under the and possibly OCTA are programs being studied through OCCO G and SLAG s of funding, incentives which would promote, occasionally through various type for achieving the type of livable community you propose under ClR-1.3. • Vie of the policy to promote alternative modes of transportation in We approve � v particular light rail options under LU-19. 2rait and t either ontortnear planned land-use option for a possible passenger Lincoln Avenue close to Valley View Street. (LU-13.5) r • We are very willing to work with the City to achieve note that the alsnoral Plan transportation and other interrelated elements.efforts which involve other states 'Participate in transportation planning governmental agencies,..." ( C1R-1.2) which we would assume means early Caltrans coordination and involvement in project and program development In elements where circulation and transportation issues are authority over certain include acknowledgement that Caltrans has regulatory State types of development that may directly (or indirectly) p Transportation Facilities. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and facilities.ote future ure a el questions ons which need potentially please do not hesitate to call Maureen you Harake at(949) 724- or need to contact us, p 2086. S' car ly, - 1111-, , , i , Robert F. Josep , C ref Transportation Planning Branch B Cc: Terry Roberts, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning Leslie Manderscheid, Environmental Planning Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations Roger Kao, Hydrology Luisa Easter, Transportation Planning - Rail TOTAL P.04 Cypress General Plan EIR 6 9 G. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ROBERT F. JOSEPH, CHIEF, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH B, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 12, DATED MARCH 28, 2001. G1. No environmental issues are raised;therefore no response is necessary. G2. The City acknowledges Caltrans' comment regarding the circulation policy; however this comment raises no environmental issues. As noted in Section 3.0, Project Description,of the Draft EIR, one of the City's objectives for the General Plan Update was to delete redundant and/or completed goals and policies. The City of Cypress has achieved that objective and does not intend to restate the same policy in several elements. In addition, Policy CIR-1.3 pertains mainly to circulation and the reduction of trip lengths. G3. Refer to Response G2. As with Policy CIR-1.3, Policy CIR-1.5 specifically relates to plans and programs related to Circulation Element. G4. The City acknowledges Caltrans' comment regarding the circulation policy; however this comment raises no environmental issues. G5. The City acknowledges Caltrans' comment regarding the circulation policy; however this comment raises no environmental issues. The City also acknowledges that Caltrans has regulatory authority over certain types of development that may directly or indirectly impact State Transportation facilities, and would coordinate with Caltrans, as appropriate. • Comments and Responses 12-24 FINAL •