Resolution No. 5527 .3 .22
RESOLUTION NO. 5527
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS,
CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING, IN PART, AND OVERRULING, IN PART, THE DECISION
OF THE CYPRESS PLANNING MANAGER REGARDING THE COMPLETENESS OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTALS FROM COTTONWOOD
CHRISTIAN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY
FINDS, RESOLVES, DETERMINES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. On or about October 30, 2000, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.
1005, pursuant to the powers vested in the City Council by virtue of the Cypress City Charter
and other relevant provisions of the general law of the State of California. Such urgency
ordinance has, by Ordinance No. 1006 and by Ordinance No. 1015, been extended, again
pursuant to the powers conferred upon the City Council by the Cypress City Charter and other
relevant previsions of the general law of the State of California.
2. Pursuant to such ordinance(s), the City Council has adopted a "moratorium" on
the approval of "any discretionary land use development entitlements, zoning variances, general
plan amendments, specific plan amendments, or other discretionary land use permits within the
geographic boundaries of the Los Alamitos Race Track and Golf Course Redevelopment Project,
pending completion of studies, general plan amendments, specific plan amendments, project area
amendments, or related planning and zoning ordinances (or amendments thereto) for the
establishment of a master planned town center. . . ." In establishing a "moratorium" pending
study and development of a "master planned town center," the City Council established two
exceptions thereto which are set forth in Ordinance No. 1005.
3. Specifically relevant to the pending Conditional Use Permit submittals by
Cottonwood Christian Center, Ordinance No. 1005 exempted from the effect of the
"moratorium" any "application for discretionary land use development entitlements, zoning
variances, general plan amendments, specific plan amendments, or other discretionary land use
permits, where such application has been deemed complete by City staff prior to the effective
date of this Urgency Ordinance . . . ."
4. On or about October 6, 2000, Cottonwood Christian Center submitted documents,
which it considered to be an application for a Conditional Use Permit with respect to some 17.9
acres of real property located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Walker Street within
the Los Alamitos Race Track and Golf Course Redevelopment Project Area. Such submittals
were deemed incomplete by the Cypress Planning Manager on October 26, 2000, pursuant to the
authority of staff under the City Charter, the Zoning Ordinance, and Government Code § 65943.
5. The submittals of Cottonwood Christian Center seek the granting of a
discretionary land use entitlement, commonly known as a Conditional Use Permit. Accordingly,
the issue presented in this appeal is to determine whether the submittals from Cottonwood
Christian Center constituted a complete application for a discretionary land use entitlement under
the City Charter, the City Zoning Ordinance, Government Code §§ 65940 et seq., and either (or
both) of the exceptions contained in Ordinance No. 1005.
6. The City's Planning Manager determined that such submittals were incomplete
for the reasons set forth in his October 26, 2000 letter to Mr. Mel Malkoff, Cottonwood Christian
Center's consultant in connection with its Conditional Use Permit application.
7. On November 16, 2000, legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center formally
appealed to this City Council the determination of the Cypress Planning Manager. Pursuant to a
series of written requests from legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center, consideration of
that appeal by this City Council was continued until Monday, January 14, 2002.
8. On that date, the City Council conducted a public hearing, advertised pursuant to
Government Code § 65009, in the manner prescribed by law, on the appeal of Cottonwood
Christian Center of the determination of the City's Planning Manager. In connection with that
appeal, the City Council has received and hereby makes a part of the record the staff report (and
attachments), dated January 14, 2002, and a letter brief (and attachments), dated January 11,
2002, from legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center setting forth the grounds and reasons
IRV#18412 vl
323
upon which it is argued that the decision of the Cypress Planning Manager should be overruled
by this City Council.
9. In addition, at the public testimony portion of the public hearing, the City Council
heard and considered the testimony of interested witnesses in favor of and in opposition to the
appeal of Cottonwood Christian Center. Legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center was
afforded an opportunity to make an oral presentation to the City Council at the commencement
of and at the conclusion of the public testimony portion of the public hearing on this appeal.
10. Following the closing of the public testimony portion of the appeal hearing, the
City Attorney requested that this City Council continue its deliberations and determination on the
merits of the appeal, pending his review of the January 11, 2002, letter brief submitted by legal
counsel on behalf of Cottonwood Christian Center.
11. The deliberations of the City Council were scheduled for the regular meeting of
January 28, 2002. However, beginning at or about 4:45 p.m. on that date, legal counsel for
Cottonwood Christian Center "faxed" a series of four (4) separate letters to the City Council,
which could not be copied and distributed until after the Council Study Session had begun.
12. Because these letters related, in part, to two items on the January 28, 2002 agenda
(one of which related to the Council's deliberations on this appeal), and because they were
distributed past the time for the commencement of the first of the City Council sessions of that
evening, the City Attorney again requested time to consider a second letter brief and the new
and/or additional legal argument(s) raised therein (which letter brief we also make a part of the
record in these proceedings).
13. The City Council, having heard and considered the appeal of Cottonwood
Christian Center, the staff report and attachments submitted by City staff, the two (2) letter briefs
and attachments submitted by legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center, having weighed
and considered the testimony of the witnesses both for and against the appeal, and having been
advised by the City Attorney, now makes the following findings on the appeal of Cottonwood
Christian Center as follows:
a. The City Council finds and determines that the chronology of events as set
forth in the staff report of the City's Planning Manager, dated January 14, 2002, is true,
correct, and accurate, and that the same is neither incomplete nor is it misleading as
alleged by legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center. Nothing contained in the
January 28, 2002 letter brief identifies, in a single specific respect, the error, inaccuracy,
or misleading nature of the factual events recited in staffs' report.
b. The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recital
paragraphs numbers 1 through 12, inclusive, are true, correct, and accurate.
c. The City Council has considered both letter briefs filed by legal counsel
on behalf of Cottonwood Christian Center as well as the various grounds asserted therein
on which it is urged that the decision of the Cypress Planning Manager is in error.
d. Specifically, the City Council has considered the argument advanced by
legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center that the Cypress Municipal Code, at
Section 35.13, mandates only completion of a design review process prior to the issuance
of a building permit. The City Council determines that nothing contained in Section
35.13 of the Municipal Code prevents the establishment of a process of preliminary
project and/or design review.
e. Preliminary Project Review is an internal process that has been used by
the Community Development Department for a number of years. This internal process
(originally called Preliminary Design Review) was developed in the mid-1990's. The
process, in its current form, was an outgrowth of the Development Services Program Plan
reviewed with and approved by the City Council in October, 1998, whereby the City
Council directed the development of a streamlining of City processes, the purpose of
which was to reduce turnaround times and cost, and to formalize existing City practices
and procedures so as to make the processing of projects and/or entitlements more cost
efficient, less time consuming, and more interactive between City staff and various
applicants.
f. Exhibit "E" to the Staff Report demonstrates that, almost without
exception, all major projects processed by City staff, especially major projects involving
2
324
discretionary land use approvals, have undergone this preliminary project review or
preliminary design review process. As previously noted, the purpose of this process is
not to impose additional burdens on a project applicant but, rather, to assist the project
applicant in focusing its time, efforts, and resources, in submitting project applications
and/or applications for discretionary land use entitlements in such a manner as to speed
their formal processing and ultimate submittal to the planning agency for consideration
and possible action.
g. The City Council acknowledges that, while this preliminary plan review or
preliminary design review process has been a long standing administrative practice
within the Community Development Department, which practice was reviewed with and
approved by the City Council, there is no formal resolution or municipal ordinance,
which mandates that a project applicant or applicant for a discretionary land use
entitlement must participate in such process as a condition preceedent to consideration
and processing of an application by City staff. The City Council further acknowledges
that nothing in Government Code § 65940 mandates that an administrative practice be
embodied in a formal resolution or ordinance.
h. This lack of a formal City Council resolution or ordinance could be argued
to vest discretion in a project applicant or an applicant for a discretionary land use
entitlement to forego preliminary project (or design) review in favor of staff processing
and consideration of an application. An applicant who elects to forego such preliminary
review must recognize that during staff review, processing, and consideration of an
application, further submittals, revised submittals, corrected submittals, and additional
information and related materials may be required at additional cost to an applicant
and/or delay in staff processing.
i. Cottonwood Christian Center has also argued that its Conditional Use
Permit submittals should not be deemed incomplete for lack of inclusion of an
application for amendment to the Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan.
In a letter sent by the former-Director of the Community Development Department, Ms.
Alice Angus, to legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center, which letter is dated June
4, 1999, and which date is prior to the Cottonwood Christian Center's purchase of the
17.9 acres of real property in question, staff put Cottonwood Christian Center on specific
notice that the "site that you are interested in is designated as Professional Office in the
[Cypress Business & Professional Center] Specific Plan. The stated purpose and intent of
this land use designation is to accommodate the development of professional and
administrative offices . . . within the Specific Plan area. . . . While a church could be
considered subject to a Conditional Use Permit, it is unlikely that a church would be
found consistent with the goals and objectives of the [Los Alamitos Race Track & Golf
Course] Redevelopment Plan and/or Specific Plan that govern this area. Therefore, as we
discussed, consideration of a church use would require an amendment to the goals,
objectives and policies of the Specific Plan." (Emphasis added.)
j. Cottonwood Christian Center does not dispute the existence of this letter,
attached as Exhibit "D" to the Staff Report. Legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian
Center argued that the City's former Community Development Director did not specify
when such a specific plan amendment would need to be submitted for consideration, and
in his letter brief legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center further argues that the
submittals for a Conditional Use Permit do not conflict with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Cypress Business &Professional Center Specific Plan.
k. In its January 28, 2002 letter brief, Cottonwood Christian Center argues
that any action of the City Council, other than an unconditional overruling of the Cypress
Planning Manager, in every respect, is a violation of federal and state law. This argument
fails because statutory and case law makes clear that a decision to deem an application as
complete or incomplete for purposes of further staff processing and recommendation to
the planning agency is not a land use or zoning decision which imposes a substantial
burden on the exercise of a constitutionally or statutorily protected right under federal or
state law.
1. In its January 28, 2002 letter brief, Cottonwood Christian Center argues
that any finding that its application is complete under Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1005
(and following ordinances) is beyond the scope of the appeal hearing, and raises issues
upon which it has been denied a right to provide testimony and/or legal argument. This
argument fails because the letter brief submitted by legal counsel for Cottonwood
3
325
Christian Center, on January 11, 2002, specifically addressed legal and factual issues
relating to the moratorium, and its applicapability to the Conditional Use Permit
submittals, and Cottonwood Christian Center, and its legal counsel, were afforded two
opportunities to address the City Council on any issues deemed appropriate to the merits
of the appeal. (See, 11 January 2002 letter brief, pp. 4 — 6, under headings "An
Amendment to the Specific Plan is Not Required," and "The Moratorium and the
Moratorium Extensions.")
m. In its January 28, 2002 letter brief, Cottonwood Christian Center argues
that Paragraph No. 3, infra, of this Resolution "essentially makes a finding that a church,
such as the proposed Cottonwood Christian Center Project, is inconsistent with the
Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan and the Los Alamitos Race Tract
and Golf Course Redevelopment Plan." This argument fails because Paragraph Nos. 4
and 9, infra, of this Resolution specifically affords Cottonwood Christian Center, at the
public hearing on its Conditional Use Permit Application, the opportunity to present any
justification(s) and/or argument(s) it deems appropriate why no such amendment is
necessary.
n. In its January 28, 2002 letter brief, Cottonwood Christian Center argues
that this resolution "is also essentially a denial of Cottonwood's CUP Application without
consideration thereof . . . ." This argument fails because this Resolution specifically
directs City staff to process the Cottonwood submittals so as to prepare for and bring the
Conditional Use Permit application on for public hearing and consideration by the
planning agency. Accordingly, the Resolution enables the Cottonwood submittals to be
considered and potentially acted upon on the merits.
o. Again, in the January 28, 2002 letter brief, legal counsel failed to identify,
in any specific or meaningful manner or instance, how this Resolution constitutes a denial
of any application. To the contrary, this Resolution facilitates the ultimate consideration
of the Conditional Use Permit submittals on the merits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cypress,
California, does hereby rule on the appeal of Cottonwood Christian Center seeking to overturn
the decision of the Cypress Planning Manger regarding the completeness of its submittals in
connection with an application for a Conditional Use Permit as follows:
1. The City Council sustains the determination of the Cypress Planning Manager
that preliminary design review and/or preliminary project review have been and are City Council
approved administrative practices of the Community Development Department of the City of
Cypress, which practices are and have been intended to assist a project applicant or applicant for
a discretionary land use entitlement in preparing for and avoiding expense, delay, and
inconvenience associated with the formal submittal, consideration, and submission to the
planning agency of project or discretionary land use entitlement applications.
2. The City Council acknowledges there is no formal resolution or municipal
ordinance which mandates an applicant's participation in preliminary design review or
preliminary project review, such that an applicant for a project and/or for a discretionary land use
entitlement may argue its entitlement to proceed to formal application submittal and review,
recognizing that staff processing, consideration, and forwarding to the planning agency, may
require additional, corrected, revised, or modified submittals, as staff, in its professional
judgment, deems necessary for such application to be ready for consideration and action by the
planning agency.
3. The City Council further sustains the decision of the Cypress Planning Manager
that the submittals of Cottonwood Christian Center for a Conditional Use Permit warranted a
request or application to amend the Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan and
the Los Alamitos Race Track & Golf Course Redevelopment Plan, and that staff put Cottonwood
Christian Center on notice of the need for an amendment even before Cottonwood Christian
Center purchased an ownership interest in the 17.9 acres of real property in question.
4. The City Council acknowledges that the June 4, 1999 letter from Ms. Alice Angus
to legal counsel for Cottonwood Christian Center did not specify that such an amendment would
have to be submitted concurrently with other submittals for a Conditional Use Permit
application. The City Council further acknowledges that Cottonwood Christian Center disputes
the need to submit such an application or amendment at all, and the City Council, acting as the
planning agency, hereby determines to await the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit
4
326
submittals to allow Cottonwood Christian Center and its consultant(s) or legal counsel to specify
the reason(s) for this position.
5. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing findings set forth in this resolution, the City
Council hereby overrules the determination of the Cypress Planning Manager in so far as the
City Council hereby deems the submittals of Cottonwood Christian Center of October 6, 2000, to
be a complete application for a discretionary land use entitlement within the meaning of the City
Charter, Municipal Code § 35.77, and Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1005.
6. Staff is hereby directed to undertake its customary independent and professional
review of the Conditional Use Permit application in the manner required by Division 7 of the ri
Cypress Zoning Ordinance, Section 35.77 et seq., the provisions of the Cypress City Charter, the
requirements of Government Code §§ 65940 et seq., and consistent with existing City
administrative processes for the preparation of the environmental documentation mandated by
the California Environmental Quality Act.
7. In deeming the Conditional Use Permit application of Cottonwood Christian
Center to be complete for purposes of staff conducting its independent review, processing, and
preparation for submittal of the same to the planning agency, the City Council specifically notes
that such application shall not be deemed complete for purposes of complying with the Permit
Streamlining Act, Government Codes §§ 65950 et seq., until after completion of the
environmental review mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act.
8. In deeming the Conditional Use Permit application of Cottonwood Christian
Center to be complete for purposes of staff independent review, processing, and preparation for
submittal of the same to the planning agency, the City Council specifically notes that such
application shall not be deemed complete for purposes of complying with Section 35.13 of the
Cypress Municipal Code until completion of the environmental review mandated by the
California Environmental Quality Act.
9. Because Cottonwood Christian Center asserts it need not submit any amendment
to the relevant goals and objectives sections of either the Cypress Business & Professional
Center Specific Plan or the Los Alamitos Race Track & Golf Course Redevelopment Plan, the
City Council, acting as the planning agency, hereby reserves to the public hearing on the
Conditional Use Permit the determination as to all required findings necessary to the issuance of
a Conditional Use Permit. City staff shall not delay its review and processing of the Conditional
Use Permit application submittals of Cottonwood Christian Center even if no such application is
submitted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular
meeting held on the 11`h day of February, 2002.
S.
MAYOR PRO TEM OF T TY OF
CYPRESS
ATTEST:
• \ ,' AA-UT
I Y CLERK OF T CITY OF CYPRESS
5
327
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 11th day of February, 2002, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Keenan, McGill, Piercy, and McCoy
NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sondhi
Mayor Sondhi did not participate in this action due to her ownership of property in
proximity to the project area.
TY CLERK OF T 1: CITY OF CYPRESS
6