Minutes 1976-05-13MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD
May 13, 1976
The adjourned regular meeting of the Cypress Planning
Commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. on Thursday,
May 13, 1976 in the Cypress City Council Chambers, 5275
Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Gerald Mullen
presiding.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Greenwood, Hart, Van Allen,
Walsh and Mullen
None
Also present were Brian Hawley, Planning Director, Art
Schatzeder, Public Works Director, and Roger Grable, Deputy
City Attorney.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Van Allen led the pledge
of allegiance to the flag.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL
PLAN NO. 76 -1 - ARLAN PROPERTY: Chairman Mullen announced
that this was the time and place for the continuation of the
public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the City
of Cypress General Plan by the adoption of a proposed Master
Plan of Development which would provide for the establishment
of various land uses in the area generally bounded by Knott
Avenue on the east, the Stanton Storm Channel on the south,
Walker Street on the west and Cerritos Avenue and the Southern
Pacific Railroad right -of -way on the north. This proposal
is to change the current designation to provide for the estab-
lishment of industrial, commercial, residential of various
densities and public and semi - public uses. As a prerequisite
and in conjunction with this hearing, a public hearing will
be held to review the adequacy of the Environmental Impact
Report prepared for this proposal. Chairman Mullen asked
for the staff's report.
The Planning Director stated this was the fourth hearing on
the proposed amendment and EIR and he summarized all of the
materials previously transmitted to the Planning Commission
on this subject which included the consultant's analysis of
Plan D, the land use mix suggested by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kaleb Nelson of Envista reported he had no further infor-
mation to transmit to the Commission.
Chairman Mullen asked if anyone wished to speak in regard
to the proposed amendment or EIR.
Mr. Ken Hulse, 5158 Cumberland Drive, Cypress, read a prepared
statement which he presented to the Commission which pointed
out a discrepancy between the benefits derived from a devel-
opment plan based on the phasing program suggested by the
applicant and the phasing program presented by Williams,
Kuebelbeck & Associates, the economic consultant. (The
statement is on file in the Planning Department.) Mr. Hulse
indicated that the applicant proposed to develop 45 gross
(38 net) industrial acres in Phase I (the first through sixth
years) while Williams, Kuebelbeck & Associates bases their
economic analysis on the assumption that 143 gross (120 net)
industrial acres can be absorbed in the six year period.
(The difference between gross and net figures is that 16%
of the gross figure is reduced for streets.) Mr. Hulse stated
Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1976
143 gross acres of industrial development cannot be absorbed
in six years if only 45 gross acres will be developed. He
pointed out the resulting differences in assessed value of
developed industrial property and in the City tax rate. Mr.
Hulse recommended that the Planning Commission separate
the public hearing and take action on the acceptability of
the EIR and a separate action regarding a recommendation on
the land use plan.
The Planning Director stated that Mr. Hulse's analysis points
out the difference between the applicant's and staff's phasing
programs and the reasons why the staff recommends that most
of the industrial acres be developed in the first two phases.
Mr. Howard Rowen, 5831 Shirl Street, Cypress, suggested that
the consultant prepare an analysis of a development plan con-
sisting of a commercial and industrial land use mix and a plan
which would provide the greatest economic benefit to the City.
Commissioner Van Allen asked if any speakers wished to identify
deficient areas in the EIR which do not meet requirements of
any portion of Resolution #1584.
Mr. Ken Hulse, 5158 Cumberland, Cypress, stated there has been
sufficient discussion at past meetings for the Commission to
be able to consider the adequacy of the EIR at this time.
Chairman Mullen closed the hearing relating to the environmental
impact report for the Arlan property.
It was moved by Commissioner Hart and seconded by Commissioner
Greenwood to recommend that the City Council make the finding
that the draft environmental impact report for the Arlan prop-
erty is adequate and meets the regulations required by law.
The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Greenwood, Hart, Van Allen,
Walsh and Mullen
None
None
Chairman Mullen announced that the public hearing was still open
regarding the amendment to the General Plan for the Arlan
property and asked if anyone wished to speak in support. No
one wished to speak in support. He asked if anyone wished to
speak in opposition.
Mr. Ken Hulse, 5158 Cumberland Drive, Cypress, presented a
written report regarding his proposal for a commercial and
industrial land use mix which he entitled Plan "H." Included
in the report was a suggested phasing program and an economic
analysis of Plan H. (All materials are on file in the Planning
Department.) Mr. Hulse described details of the types and
locations of uses, the phasing program, and economic benefits
of Plan H. He asked that the Commission consider Plan H with
the other alternative plans and that the economic consultant
prepare an analysis of Plan H.
Mr. Howard Rowen, 5831 Shirl Street, Cypress, president of the
Cypress Citizens' Association, reported the CCA adopted a
resolution which supports as much commercial development on
the Arlan property which traffic can bear and opposes any
residential use on the Arlan property. He felt the staff
and consultant agreed that Plan A is not the most beneficial
for the City, that Plan B is the highest revenue producer,
that Plan C is unrealistic and that Plan D differs only
slightly from the applicant's proposal. He suggested that
2.
Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1976
the Commission analyze a plan of commercial and industrial
use and that the consultant advise the City on a plan which
would bring the greatest long -range benefit to the City.
Mr. Rowen pointed out that recent industrial development in
Garden Grove and Los Alamitos has encroached around the City
of Cypress and he reported that industrial development adja-
cent to residential development exists compatibly in the
City of Cerritos.
Commissioner Van Allen pointed out that Plan D was not a
proposed development plan of the Planning Commission but
was suggested only for comparison purposes with the other
alternatives.
The Planning Director suggested that if the Commission finds
the applicant's proposal unacceptable that they suggest a
land use mix to the developer and City Council. He advised
that if the Commission wishes to consider Plan H (mix of
commercial and industrial use only), a General Plan amendment
would be unnecessary since the Commission could adopt a
zone classification for the property which incorporates a
wide range of industrial and commercial uses.
Commissioner Hart felt the economic impact should not be the
only consideration of a proposed plan and integration of the
development plan into the City should be considered along with
its feasibility. He felt a delay may result in loosing a
portion of the property for a regional park or to the Navy.
He pointed out the example of the wedge property where the
residents tried to hold out for industrial or commercial
development. He did not feel all industrial and commercial
use could be absorbed on the property and noted there will
be competition from the City of Garden Grove. He suggested
a compromise plan which maximizes as much commercial and
industrial use as the traffic will bear and that the Commission
take a hard stand on the phasing program. Commissioners
Walsh and Van Allen felt more study should be given to the
alternative plans before taking action at this time.
It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen and seconded by Com-
missioner Walsh to find that Plan A (the developer's proposal)
is unacceptable.
Commissioner Van Allen stated he could not approve a plan in
which all areas were not identified, specifically, no designa-
tion was given to Area 6 (agricultural transition). Commis-
sioner Walsh stated the plan did not represent the highest
and best use of the property. The motion unanimously carried
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Greenwood, Hart, Van Allen,
Walsh and Mullen
None
None
In considering Plan B (all industrial use) Commissioner Walsh
agreed that Plan B would provide the greatest economic benefit
but felt all industrial use could not be absorbed and it would
be an unrealistic and impractical plan. Commissioner Green-
wood felt Plan B was unfeasible and may only serve special
interest groups.
It was moved by Commissioner Greenwood and seconded by Com-
missioner Walsh to deny Plan B.
Commissioner Van Allen felt the motion was inappropriate
since the Commission was asked to evaluate Plan A and was
not required to take action on the alternative plans.
3.
Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1976
Chairman Mullen stated he favored all industrial development
and this action to deny Plan B may be taken out of context
in the future and be misunderstood. He did not feel it was
an alternative that was likely to be accepted by the property
owner.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
2 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Greenwood, Hart and Walsh
Van Allen and Mullen
None
It was moved by Commissioner Hart and seconded by Commissioner
Walsh to deny Plan C (a plan of no development). The motion
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Greenwood, Hart, Walsh and
Mullen
1 COMMISSIONERS: Van Allen
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Commissioner Van Allen stated he voted no on the basis that
it was an improper motion as was the previous motion.
RECESS: Chairman Mullen called a recess at 10:00 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 10:10 p.m. with all
Commissioners present.
Commissioner Hart asked that the Planning Director summarize
the changes to Plan A which were suggested by the Planning
Commission, which resulted in Plan D. The Planning Director
outlined the changes to the applicant's land use mix which
involved Areas 2, 6 and 11.
Commissioner Hart supported Plan D and felt it was the most
appropriate plan presented and was a workable plan. Commis-
sioner Greenwood felt Plan D was acceptable and recommended
strong guarantees to ensure that industrial or commercial
development precedes residential development. Commissioner
Walsh stated Plan D was unacceptable because the ratio of
residential to commercial and industrial acres was too high.
She recommended more commercial and industrial use with minimal
residential use.
Chairman Mullen expressed concern over Area 9 which proposed
19 acres of patio homes because of its close proximity to the
airfield approach and Commissioner Van Allen agreed with this
concern. Chairman Mullen suggested that Area 9 be given an
industrial designation and that an equal amount of acreage
in Area I be designated residential. Discussion was held
regarding impacts of this proposal.
It was moved by Commissioner Hart and seconded by Commissioner
Greenwood to approve Plan D with the condition that Area 9
be changed from a residential and commercial designation to
an industrial /commercial designation.
Commissioner Van Allen supported a continuance of the hearing
in order to get some input from the property owner /developer
regarding the Commission's proposed modifications to his
proposal.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Greenwood, Hart and Mullen
2 COMMISSIONERS: Van Allen and Walsh
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4.
Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1976
Commissioner Hart requested that the Planning Director
draft a set of conditions which outline phasing requirements
in detail in order to provide strong assurances that indus-
trial development takes place before residential development.
The Commission requested that the Planning Director contact
the property owner /developer to receive input on the Commission's
suggested development plan.
The Commission continued the hearing on the General Plan
Amendment for the Arlan property to the June 3 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Mullen adjourned the meeting at
11:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEC ETARY F THE PLANNING COMMISSION