Loading...
Minutes 87-04-06 ~~1l: 1 \J I.. MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CYPRESS CITY COUNCIL HELD April 6, 1987 Mayor Kanel called the adjourned regular meeting of the Cypress City Council to order at 6:45 p.m. on Monday, April 6, 1987, in the Assembly Room of the Cypress Community Center, 5700 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California. PRESENT: Councilmembers Arnold, Davis, Mullen & Kanel ABSENT: Councilman Coronado Also present were City Manager/City Clerk Darrell Essex, City Attorney Mark Huebsch, Planning Director Chris Eynon, and Public Works Director Robert Beardsley. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No Oral Communications were presented. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION COMMENDING AND SUPPORTING THE CASA YOUTH SHELTER REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A "SAFE PLACE" NETWORK IN NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES: Mr. Essex presented a report dated April 3 indicating that the Casa Youth Shelter is initiating a new project called "Safe Place" which will establish various safe place locations within the neighboring communities where youth in need may be able to seek temporary shelter. He requested that the Council adopt the Resolution commending and supporting the program. It was moved by Councilman Mullen, seconded by Councilman Davis and unanimously carried to adopt the Resolution by title only, title as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 3221 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS COMMENDING AND SUPPORTING THE CASA YOUTH SHELTER IN THEIR EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH A "SAFE PLACE" NETWORK IN THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES TO AID RUNAWAYS AND YOUTH IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE. CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF FINANCING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CYPRESS BUSINESS PARK: The following persons were present: Traffic Commissioner Elsie Carruthers, Adrienne Brooks of the Orange County Transportation Commission, Merle Pautsch of McDonnell Douglas Realty, Ken Schureman of Overton, Moore & Associates and counsel Steve Christy, Carl Robertson of Warland Investments and traffic consultant H. William Dickson of Kimmel & Associates, and BDI representatives Herman Basmaciyan and Al Hollinden. Mr. Essex stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss adoption of a plan for the Business Park including an ordinance that would set forth certain improvements and fees based on the City's transportation studies. Based on the Council's previous questions regarding the improvements required and resulting fees, the Public Works staff prepared a new set of capital improvement estimates. The Planning Director also submitted a report addressing the issue of a floor area ratio as a means to limit the amount of development that occurs and offset the fees. Mr. Essex suggested that the two reports be discussed with the property owners. Mr. Schureman of Overton, Moore & Associates distributed a traffic report prepared for them by Justin Farmer Transportation Engineers. Mr. Robertson stated that he reviewed the history relating to the initiation of the $ .41 fee which was developed in connection with Larry Harvey's specific plan to pay for anticipated mitigation measures needed for full build-out of the existing Cypress Business Park and Hollywood Park development. Mr. Robertson stated that in discussing the current fee with other developers, it seems clear that about $ .30-32 of the fee relates to mitigating measures for the existing Business Park, and the remainder of the fee relates to the additional impact caused by Hollywood Park's property. Mr. Robertson stated that the City's analysis which includes the Hollywood Park specific plan and flyover proposal should be revised to address the true facts. He suggested that the City's traffic consultant analyze how the Hollywood Park development will impact the existing infrastructure and the fees. Mr. Robertson stated 365 . j City Council Minutes April 6, 1987 that Warland, McDonnell Douglas and others have spent a considerable amount on the existing infrastructure, and if and when the race track property is developed, Hollywood Park should share the burden caused by their development. Mr. Robertson felt that staff's proposed capital improvements should reflect the increased burden of the race track development, and Hollywood Park should pay for that burden, and the other property owners shoUld receive a credit for the improvements they have already made. Mr. Robertson stated that there are subsidiary issues such as whether any portion of the mitigating measures should be paid through the General Fund. He suggested that when Hollywood Park develops their property they pay the incremental cost for current and future infrastructure, and that retail developers pay a fair share of the fees since he felt that retail generates more traffic than non-retail. Mr. Robertson stated that there was no market for the retail stores until the Business Park brought the demand. Councilman Mullen noted that a substantial dedication of land will be needed at the southwest corner of Katella and Valley View and asked if the cost would be borne by one property owner or equally shared by all who benefit. Staff indicated that each property owner would pay for normal improvements associated with their development, but the costs . of any extraordinary improvements such as the capital improvements for traffic mitigation would be spread over the benefit area. Mayor Kanel stated that there were serious discussions regarding the sale of the race track property and asked how the fees will be impacted by that development. Staff indicated that their analysis must consider the ultimate ' .~ potential development of the track property. ~ ~ Mr. Robertson stated that he is not concerned about paying the fee as long as it is justified ,\; by the facts, and an analysis of the facts has not been made yet. He stated that he does not oppose the race track development but it will significantly impact the existing Business Park : infrastructure, and Hollywood Park should pay for the incremental burden. He stated that he :' ': expects to pay his fair share but not for the race track development. Mr. Robertson stated .,' ',.'," that the City requires retail development at the corner of Valley View and Katella, and the City may want to consider placing retail at the periphery of the Business Park rather than at " , the center because of the retail traffic impacts. Mr. Pautsch stated that McDonnell Douglas widened the north side of Katella from Valley View to Walker and installed storm drain and sewer improvements when they developed their " property. He stated that he did not know the level of service at Valley View and Katella, but " in driving by the intersection at peak hours he did not notice much of a congestion problem. ,1.' He asked if the staff was premature in deciding what needs to be done at this time and whether $4 million needs to be spent on the intersection. Mr. Pautsch stated that he believes .:~', " in pre-planning and paying for the difficulties business creates, but he was unsure whether it I was totally justified to be charged the costs for development when they have already paid their portion. Mr. Pautsch indicated that he generally supported Mr. Robertson's position but he did not agree with all points. "', Mr. Robertson asked what would happen if the City did not proceed with improvements after the funds were accumulated. Staff reported that there is a provision for refunding monies that are not spent. They indicated that the intent of the program is to deal fairly with each . I ~ parcel and they would not recommend a cap on the reserve funds. Mr. Schureman, Vice President of Special Projects for Overton, Moore & Associates, stated that the City cannot have an attractive Business Park unless people can get to it easily, and they are interested in a solution to the traffic problem but are concerned with its fairness and who pays for what. Mr. Schureman reviewed the findings in their traffic consultant's report. He indicated that the estimated cost for mitigation measures for the existing Business Park is less than $1 million, but the Farmer study contained different assumptions than the City's traffic report. Mr. Christy felt that the traffic assumptions should be based on the existing Business Park. He stated that level of service E is not gridlock but means traffic must wait for the second light before proceeding, and E is a reasonable traffic flow. He stated that the big difference in the Farmer report is that it does not include right-of-way costs. He requested that the Council review the report. Mr. Basmaciyan stated that his study assumptions generally agree with those in the Farmer report except for the exclusion of the race track development and difference in number of intersections which require mitigation measures. He indicated that BDI's study assumes a high level of TSM which should substantially reduce the expected traffic levels. lVfr. Basmaciyan suggested that the City collect fees for improvements they may ultimately want. He stated that the City must decide whether to,exempt retail from the fee structure but he noted that the amount of retail development is small, being about 450,000 square feet out of the total 10 million in the Business Park. -2- 366 .. City Council Minutes April 6, 1987 The Planning Director indicated that staff is considering the adoption of the uniform floor area ratio because developers have been submitting EIRs with levels higher than what they are developing. She stated that developers may favor the approach of reducing the level of the assumed build-out. ADJOURNMENT: The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to Monday, April 13, at 7:00 a.m., in the Administrative Conference Room, West Wing of the Cypress fli;".'~ City Hall, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress. YPRESS ATTEST: L2.~~ CITY CLE~ HE C Y OF CYPRESS - - -3-