Loading...
Minutes 76-08-28MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CYPRESS CITY COUNCIL HE LD August 28, 1976 The adjourned regular meeting of the Cypress City Council was called to order at 9:10 a.m. on Saturday, August 28, 1976 in the Cypress City Council Chambers, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Mayor Alice MacLain presiding. PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmen Harvey, Hudson, Sonju & MacLain Councilman Lacayo Also present were City Manager/City Clerk Darrell Essex, City Attorney John Murphy, and the following City staff members: Bryant, Powell and Schatzeder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge to the flag was led by Mr. Martin Benson of The Register. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Hearing no objections, the Mayor ordered the following Ordinance read by title only, title as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 581 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 22 TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS RELATING TO SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL. It was moved by Councilman Hudson and seconded by Councilman Harvey to adopt Ordinance No. 581. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEN: Harvey, NOES: 1 COUNCILMEN: Sonju ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEN: Lacayo Hudson & MacLain CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76-1 - ARLAN PROPERTY: Mayor MacLain reopened the public hearing which was continued from August 27 and announced the Council would adjourn the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Councilman Harvey made the following statement for the record: "The development plan that was approved by the City Planning Commission is not the owner's plan and it is not the City's plan. It is the culmination of months of public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Exhaus- tive studies have been made and extensive public testimony has been received from professionals and lay people alike reflecting upon the ramifications of such diverse subjects as the Naval Air Station, schools, tax base, land use compat- ibility, degree of economic benefits to the City, absorbtion rates, soil conditions, utilities, noise and other vital factors impacting our community. The environmental impact report addressed these issues in depth and related their impact upon our City and the effects upon the preservation of our quality of life. The independent report was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by an impartial, objective citizens' committee, it was approved by the Chamber of Commerce, it was unanimously accepted and approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council after public hearings and it was found to be adequate in the analysis of the environmental impact of various types of development in our City. The original plan as submitted by the owner was thoroughly studied by the Planning Commission and staff, resulting in City Council Minutes August 28, 1976 a compromised version providing for a substantial reduction in residential use and with a corresponding increase in commercial and industrial uses, yet still preserving the viable economic integrity of the development. I would like to reiterate my statement of yesterday concerning a statement made by the owner. If, in fact, the owner does intend to place this property in an agricultural preserve as he publicly stated, it would, in my opinion, have a devastating impact on the current and future tax base of the City by substantially reducing the existing and potential revenues necessitating future property tax increases to compensate for such losses. Placing the Arlan property in an agricul- tural preserve, in my opinion, would support those special interest groups advocating expanded use of the Naval Air Station. Approximately two years ago, a group of interested citizens circulated a petition advocating a popular vote on matters affecting the rezoning of all or a portion of indus- trial property to residential. Their interests and their tenacity was rewarded upon the adoption of an ordinance by the City Council providing for a vote of the people in such zoning matters. In the interest of and the duty to the approx- imately 4,000 registered voters that signed the petition, we must, in my opinion, provide them with every opportunity to make a determination on this important issue. Being a presi- dential election year, November 2 will result in a much higher turnout of voters and, thus, a more accurate mirror of the feelings and attitudes of our citizens. Therefore, Madame Mayor, I move to close the public hearing and that the citi- zens of our City be given the opportunity to accept or reject the General Plan Amendment designated as Plan D by placing this matter on the ballot. Secondly, that the City Attorney draft an agreement providing adequate safeguards to guarantee commercial and industrial development as reflecting the phasing program recommended to this Council including, but not limited to, the filing of subdivision maps for Phases I and II, posting of performance and other bonds, providing the City with maximum benefits, opportunities and safeguards in the event the owners do not fulfill their obligations to our citizens. Madame Mayor, I urge the Council to respect the right of the people to make a decision on this most important issue. I urge the Council to let the will of the people be expressed. I urge the Council to let the vote of the people determine the destiny of this City. I further urge the Council to adopt this motion on behalf of the people by unanimous consent." Councilwoman Sonju seconded the motion. Councilman Hudson stated that, although he supports the measure going before the voters, he will oppose the motion because he is not in favor of the development plan. The City Manager stated for the record that today is the final deadline in order to request consolidation of this matter on the November 2 ballot. The City Attorney advised that discussion regarding the time schedule should be held in Executive Session. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mayor MacLain called an Executive Session at 9:25 a.m. for matters of litigation. The meeting was called back to order at 9:47 a.m. with Councilman Lacayo absent. City Council Minutes August 28, 1976 A substitute motion was moved by Councilwoman Sonju and sec- onded by Mayor MacLain to continue the public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment #76-1, Arlan Property, to the November 8, 1976 Council meeting and proceed with the election proceedings initiated on August 19, 1976. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEN: Sonju and MacLain NOES: 1 COUNCILMEN: Harvey ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEN: Lacayo ABSTAINING: 1 COUNCILMEN: Hudson It was moved by Councilwoman Sonju and seconded by Mayor MacLain to adopt the following Resolution by title only, title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 1758 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 2, 1976 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB- MITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY A PROPOSITION RELATING TO A GENERAL PLAN AMEND- MENT AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE. Councilman Hudson requested that he be allowed to write negative argument for the ballot measure. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEN: Sonju and MacLain NOES: 1 COUNCILMEN: Harvey ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEN: Lacayo ABSTAINING: 1 COUNCILMEN: Hudson the It was moved by Councilwoman Sonju and seconded by Councilman Harvey to adopt the following Resolution by title only, title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 1759 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIAw AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS CON- CERNING A CITY MEASURE. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll AYES: 4 COUNCILMEN: Harvey, MacLain NOES: 0 COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEN: Lacayo call vote: Hudson, Sonju and It was moved by Councilwoman Sonju and seconded by Councilman Hudson to adopt the following Resolution by title only, title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 1760 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. City Council Minutes August 28, 1976 The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEN: Harvey, MacLain NOES: 0 COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEN: Lacayo Hudson, Sonju and The City Manager announced that the deadline for filing written arguments is September 1, 1976. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Councilman Harvey, seconded by Councilwoman Sonju and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 a.m. 433 MAYOR OF THE /CITY OF CYPRESS ATTEST: C~TY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS