Loading...
Minutes 1976-04-22MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION HELD April 22, 1976 The adjourned regular meeting of the Cypress Planning Commis- sion was called to order at,7:35 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, 1976 in the Cypress City Council Chambers, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Dennis Hart presiding. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Greenwood, Mullen, Van Allen, Walsh and Hart None Also present were Planning Director Brian Hawley, Public Works Director Art Schatzeder, and Deputy City Attorney Roger Grable. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge to the flag was led by Commissioner Van Allen. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Hart asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in regard to any matter not on the agenda. No one wished to speak. PUBLIC HEARING RE: AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN #76 -1: Chairman Hart announced that this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment #76 -1 for the Arlan property. He asked for the staff's report. The Planning Director reported that this hearing had been continued from two previous meetings and at the last hearing on April 1 the Commission requested that an additional analysis be made by the consultants for a land use mix which differs from the mix proposed by the applicant and Administrative Coordinating Team. The Planning Director transmitted to the Commission a report from the consultant entitled "Responses to Comments and Revised Summary of Draft EIR on Arlan Property" and information on the analysis of the Commission's suggested land use mix. Commissioner Walsh stated she was absent from the April 1 meeting due to a death in the family but that she listened to the tapes and was familiar with the contents of that meeting. The Planning Director presented a slide and described the Commission's suggested land use mix. The Commission suggested that Area II, including the Baroldi property, (townhouses and apartments) be designated for a mix of commercial and indus- trial; that Area VI (agricultural transition) be designated for residential with some commercial along arterial streets - the staff suggested a five acre retail commercial designation for the northwest corner of Knott and Katella; and that Area XI (townhouses) be designated for industrial with some commercial along the arterial street -the staff suggested that a two acre parcel at the northwest corner of Orangewood and Valley View be designated for retail commercial. Valley View Street basically separates industrial development on the west side and industrial /commercial, retail commercial and residential on the east side. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1976 Mr. Kaleb Nelson of Envista stated the "Responses to Comments and Revised Summary of Draft EIR" report would be included in the final EIR and that this document is available for review in the Planning Department. He reported the mix suggested by the Planning Commission was designated Alternate D. Mr. Nelson summarized aspects of the economical impacts of the three alternatives: A (applicant's plan), B (all industrial plan) and D. He stated net revenues to the City from the three alternatives were as follows: Plan A at ultimate build -out (about 10 years) would generate $540,000/ year; Plan B at ultimate build -out (24 years) would generate $773,000/ year; Plan D at ultimate build -out (12 years) would generate $727,000/ year. The tax bill for a $50,000 home for the three alternatives would be as follows: (approximate figures) Plan A - the tax bill would be $1,093 Plan B - the tax bill would be $1,084 Plan D - the tax bill would be $1,084 No development plan - the tax bill would be $1,130 Mr. Mark Northcross of Envista explained the computer printouts contained in the report which compared environmental impacts of Plans A, B and D. Chairman Hart declared the hearing open and asked for speakers. Mr. Joe Hardcastle, 4588 Blanca Drive, Cypress, disagreed that commercial development (shopping centers) would increase air pollution. He felt that driving farther to shop produces more pollution than driving a less distance within the City. Mr. Irving Goldberg, 9881 Via Linda, Cypress, inquired about the type of industrial development proposed and how the City could guarantee that industrial development takes place. The Planning Director explained the staff's five point program for implementation of a development plan and reported that the applicant had hired two persons with extensive exper- ience in commercial /industrial development to promote develop- ment. Mr. Alex Bell, 9461 Grindlay, Cypress, reported he is a member of the Chamber of Commerce's Arlan Study Committee and that they felt Plan D, from an economic standpoint, is a better plan than A or B since the City can receive the same amount of revenue as Plan B in half the time. The Committee's main concern was how to assure there will be industrial development. The Planning Director explained the staff's recommendation for a phasing program which would require that all portions of a phase be satisfied before the applicant proceeds with the next phase of development. He again summarized the five guarantees recommended by the Administrative Coordinating Team. 2. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1976 Mr. Bell asked that the Commission consider a hypothetical situation regarding development of Area 9 which is proposed for 12 commercial acres and 19 acres of patio homes. He indi- cated this area is one of the closest to Los Alamitos Air Station and residential development here would set a precedent for other residential development in close proximity to the Air Station. Mr. Bell pointed out that Area 9 is proposed for development in Phase 1, and the area would generate about 200 residents based on 10 to 12 units per acre. He felt these potential residents may strongly object to proposed industry nearby which might result in a reduction of industrial acres or elimination of all industrial acres proposed. Mr. Bell stated the committee recommended that when residential con- struction begins in Phase 1, it be simultaneous with completion of all off -site improvements for the industrial portions of development in order to guarantee industrial development. The committee felt there is a great demand for and no reason to delay industrial development via the phasing program. Mr. Karl Mazzeo, 9949 Madrid Circle, Cypress, asked if the consultants considered the effect of Proposition 15 in the EIR and if other energy sources were addressed. He felt the project objectives stated in the EIR did not reflect the best interests of Cypress residents or that the EIR substantiated the "symbiotic relationship" between residential and industrial/ commercial development. Mr. Mazzeo criticized portions of the EIR dealing with noise impacts and felt the EIR was inadequate by not addressing the noise impact of the possibility of jet activity at Los Alamitos Air Station. He felt the reference to several noise studies made it difficult for the reader to determine what criteria to use to evaluate the noise impact and that the consultant should have used commonly accepted criteria, such as the HUD standards, to evaluate noise impact. He felt the noise contours around Los Alamitos Air Station were optimistic and that the crash hazard zones should have been dealt with as a separate issue. He also felt the section on vegetation was inadequate. Mr. Howard Rowen, 5831 Shirl Street, Cypress, felt there was a discrepancy in revenue projections and absorbtion rates in the EIR for the Arlan property and the EIR for the Nike prop- erty which is contiguous. He stated the EIR did not state how much revenue would be generated by the three plans to the school district. Mr. Rowen discussed the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Los Alamitos Air Station and stated its adoption was based on 40,000 air operations per year while the original EIR for the Air Station allowed for 160,000 operations per year. Mr. Northcross referred him to the January 21, 1976 letter from the Airport Land Use Commission (contained in "Responses to Comments" report) which states the noise contours appearing in the adopted AELUP for Los Alamitos Air Station result from a projected and authorized operational level of 144,000 heli- copter flights. Mr. Rowen felt that since the original EIR contained projections for fixed wing aircraft the decision to do another EIR would be a political and not legal one. He agreed that a change to joint use would probably require a new EIR. Mr. E. A. Dilley, 5132 Canterbury, Cypress, asked if the EIR addressed the impact of development on schools and the cost for new buses. He recommended that the developer be required to pay for one or both of the buses required to bus children 3. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1976 generated by development of the Arlan property and that the developer provide four relocatable classrooms. He felt serious consideration should be given to the impact of Prop- osition 15 on the property. Mr. Joe Hardcastle, 4588 Blanca Drive, Cypress, stated the EIR did not address the impact of development on the Garden Grove School District and he felt the student generation figures in the EIR were low. He felt students generated by develop- ment will significantly affect the tax bill and that this was not adequately addressed in the EIR. Mr. E.A. Dilley, 5132 Canterbury, Cypress, discussed the student generation factor and compared the Arlan property with other areas of the City. He felt adult apartments have a tendency to become family apartments in a few years and that students from apartment development would have a severe impact on schools. He felt many residents will object if redistricting occurs and that the cost for bussing will be a long -term expense to the City. Mr. Mazzeo, 9949 Madrid Circle, Cypress, recommended that an analysis be made of a possible joint military /civilian use of Los Alamitos Air Station and of the pre -1973 jet operation level of activity. He felt the same situation which occurred around LAX could occur in Cypress where, in a recent lawsuit, judgements were awarded to homeowners whose homes were built after the airport was in existence. Commissioner Mullen stated that in the case of LAX, judgements were awarded because of an increase in operations and the expansion of runways. Commissioners Walsh and Mullen stated they did not have an opportunity to read the "Responses to Comments and Revised Summary of Draft EIR" report and other materials submitted by the consultant and recommended a continuance of the hearing. Commissioner Van Allen agreed with a continuance and requested a copy of Resolution #1584, suggesting that the Commission review the guidelines for considering an EIR. He suggested that the consultants provide a cross reference for all of their reports. Chairman Hart stated he realized this is a general EIR for the entire project and that a specific EIR will be submitted for the development plan. He agreed to continue the hearing and suggested that the Planning Director draft a set of conditions which might be applicable to any development plan. Commissioner Van Allen stated that Plan D should not be considered as the Planning Commission's alternative to the applicant's plan or the plan which the Commission supports. He stated the idea for Plan D was to be able to compare it with the three alternatives to determine what factors would change with different land use mixes. The Planning Director stated that conditions of approval would not be attached to an amendment of the General Plan. He stated the Commission could make suggestions for consid- eration of an implementation program which could be incor- porated into the amendment. Specific conditions of approval would be applied at the time of consideration of subdivision maps, development plans and zone changes. It was moved by Commissioner Walsh, seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and unanimously carried to continue the hearing regarding Amendment to the General Plan #76 -1 to May 13, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. 4. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1976 ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Hart adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. ATTEST: 7C ETARY CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEC THE PLANNING COMMISSION 5.