Resolution No. 6543172
RESOLUTION NO. 6543
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
CONDITIONALLY DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3034,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITH AUTHORIZATION FOR THE APPLICANT
TO RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 120 DAYS WITH A
REVISED PROJECT ADDRESSING PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND WELFARE CONCERNS
WHEREAS, the applicant filed for an application for a conditional use permit in
accordance with the provisions of Section 4.19.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Cypress to allow the construction of 66 two and three -story residential condominium units on
the property located at 5300 and 5400 Orange Avenue within the OP /CC Office Professional
Civic Center Overlay Combining Zone; and
WHEREAS, no three -story residential developments currently exist along the Orange
Avenue corridor which extends from Bloomfield Street to Valley View Street; and
WHEREAS, the project proposes to demolish existing three -story commercial buildings
and build three -story residential uses, and
WHEREAS, legitimate concerns have been raised regarding design, neighborhood
compatibility and other public health, safety, and welfare concerns for the project as proposed;
and
WHEREAS, the city has the police power to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of its residents in conjunction with land use regulations (see Cypress Municipal Code
(CMC), Appendix I, §4.19.070(B)); and
WHEREAS, the city's regulations applicable to development and new land uses in the
commercial zoning districts include achieving compatibility with surrounding uses, as well as
minimizing excessive noise, unsightliness, and other objectionable influences (see CMC App.
I, §2.06.010(D)); and
WHEREAS, another purpose of the city's regulations is to promote high standards of
site planning, architectural, and landscape design for developments within the city (see CMC
App. I, §2.06.010(E)); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authority to require revisions t� the project to address
issues of design and other issues of neighborhood compatibility (see CMC App. I,
§ §4.19.060(E), 4.19.070(C)(3)); and
WHEREAS, the city may deny a conditional use permit if the proposed location oy{ the
conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained wisl be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity (see CMC App. I, §§4.19.060(E)(2)); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress considered all evidence presented
by the applicant, city staff, and other interested parties at a public hearing held on January 11,
2016, with respect thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Permit Streamlining Act requires the city to take action on the
application for a conditional use permit within a certain period of time or the project may be
deemed approved; and
WHEREAS, based on the evidence in the record, including the General Plan and
Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Cypress cannot make the findings to approve
the conditional use permit as currently proposed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cypress desires to conditionally deny the
application for Conditional Use Permit No. 3034 as currently proposed, without prejudice, but
to conditionally do so in a manner that will allow the applicant to present a revised project
addressing design, neighborhood compatibility and other issues for reconsideration for
approval by the City Council within 120 days.
173
NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA,
does hereby FIND, RESOLVE, DETERMINE, and ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council finds consideration of design and neighborhood compatibility
of a proposed project is not limited to a determination of whether the applicant has complied
with zoning ordinances and building codes. Concern for neighborhood aesthetics has long
been justified as a legitimate governmental objective to deny approval, including housing that
would increase traffic, cause parking problems, or otherwise have a negative effect on the
neighborhood. (See Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Commission (1989) 209
Cal.App.3d 732.) Similarly the massing /sizing of a structure can be a potential basis for
denying a use permit. Courts have upheld denial of a permit for a three -story residence
because it would impair the view of the neighboring property owners, and would have a
towering effect. (See id., [City could properly disapprove a permit based on the a proposed
residence being "not in character" and "significantly more massive and of a larger scale than
adjoining dwellings "]; Saad v. City of Berkely (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1216) The City
Council finds denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 3034 is warranted as it substantially
advances a legitimate governmental interest related to public health, safety or welfare and is
supported by substantial evidence, including the following separate grounds both collectively
and individually:
a. Height of Structures and Towering Effect: The three -story height of the
proposed 66 unit condominium project exceeds the height of the adjacent
residential units located along the Orange Avenue corridor, which extends from
Bloomfield Street to Valley View Street. No three -story residential
developments exist along the Orange Avenue corridor. Additionally, the three -
story portions of the buildings exceed the heights of the adjacent commercial
and residential buildings. The proposed structures are significantly more
massive and of a larger scale than adjoining dwellings. Each of these would
impair the view of the neighboring property owners, and would have a towering
effect on all sides of the proposed site including the Orange Avenue corridor.
b. Character of the Area: The project as proposed would prove detrimental to the
character of the uses or structures already established in the area. New three -
story structures located close to existing single - family residences with only one
or two- stories, as well as displacement of commercial uses along the existing
commercial corridor will change the character of the area.
c. Noise: Noise considerations in a city's review of a project are distinct from
considerations governing CEQA review of a project's noise impacts. Here, the
proposed project does not adequately address increased noise impacts on
adjacent properties caused by the change in use from commercial office to
residential use. For example, commercial office space is primarily utilized
during business hours, while residences experience peak usage before /after
business hours. As a result, the project's proposal to remove existing
commercial office uses and replace them with higher- density residential uses
will result in more noise generated before /after business hours — during the time
the existing residences are most likely to be using their backyards or otherwise
occupying their residences. Additionally, the placement of the parking lot next
to the existing residential uses will result in increased vehicular traffic and
associated foot traffic to and from vehicles during non - business hours, resulting
in additional noise impacts. Reduction in height of the proposed structures, or
additional setback from the existing residences, would help address this issue.
d. Inharmonious and Incompatible: The proposed height, massing, character,
traffic, etc., of the proposed 66 unit project is inharmonious and incompatible
with the surrounding area, including both residential and commercial uses, as
well as the view along the Orange Avenue corridor, which extends from
Bloomfield Street to Valley View Street.
2. As a separate and additional ground for denial, the City Council finds the
proposed project is inconsistent with the following goals, objectives and policies of the city's
General Plan, for all the reasons set forth in Section 1, both collectively and individually:
a. "The goals and polices are designed to encourage ...Compatible and
Complementary Development ...[and] High Quality Urban Design...." (General
Plan, p. LU -32.)
b. "Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses..."
(General Plan Goal LU -2.)
174
c. "Where residential /commercial mixed use is permitted, ensure compatible
integration of adjacent uses to minimize conflicts." (General Plan Policy LU-
2.2.)
d. "Mitigate ... unacceptable levels of noise ... which affect residential areas and
sensitive receptors, where feasible." (General Plan Policy LU -2.4.)
e. "Improve urban design in Cypress to ensure that development is both
architecturally and functionally compatible and to create identifiable
neighborhoods, commercial and business park districts." (General Plan Goal
LU-4.)
f. "Encourage development projects to utilize high quality design for architecture
and site planning through the city's design review process." (General Plan
Policy LU -4:2.)
"Preserve Cypress' low density residential neighborhoods through enforcement
of land use and property development standards to create a harmonious
blending of buildings and landscape." (General Plan Policy LU -4:4.)
h. "Improve the quality of Cypress' multi - family neighborhoods through a)
improved buffers between multi - family residences, and commercial and
business park uses; b) provision of usable private and common open space in
multi - family projects; c) increased code enforcement; and d) improved site,
building and landscape design." (General Plan Policy LU -4:5.)
i. "Promote visually pleasing landscaped corridors and a sense of spaciousness
throughout the community." (General Plan Policy COSR -8:2.)
"Encourage the development of aesthetic streetscapes to promote a positive
city image and provide visual relief." (General Plan Policy CIR -1:6.)
k. "Enhance the sidewalk environment to encourage pedestrian activities through
streetscape and transit enhancement programs." (General Plan Policy CIR-
2.8.)
I. "Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions." (General
Plan Policy N -2.)
m. "Require noise - reduction techniques in site planning, architectural design, and
construction where noise reduction is necessary." (General Plan Policy N -2:4.)
n. "Discourage and, if necessary, prohibit the exposure of noise - sensitive land
uses to noisy environments." (General Plan Policy N -2:5.)
o. "Where possible, resolving existing and potential conflicts between various
noise sources and other human activities." (General Plan Policy N -5:3.)
g.
J•
3. As a separate and additional ground for denial, the City Council finds the
proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated
or maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity for all the reasons set forth in Section 1
and 2, both collectively and individually. (Cypress Municipal Code, Appendix I, section
4.19.070(E)(2).)
4. As a separate and additional ground for denial, the City Council finds the
proposed conditional use will not comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance, including Cypress Municipal Code, Appendix I, section 4.19.070 (CUPs) and
4.19.060 (design /neighborhood compatibility requirements), and including all the reasons set
forth in Section 1, both collectively and individually.
5. As a separate and additional ground that would warrant denial of the project, the
City Council finds the project as proposed would not qualify for a Class 32 [Infill Development
Projects] Categorical Exemption set forth in Categorical Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
section 15332. Specifically, the project as proposed would not be consistent with the
applicable general plan polices as set forth in Section 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Cypress does hereby conditionally deny Conditional Use Permit No. 3034, without prejudice,
subject to the following condition:
175
1. If the Applicant wishes the City Council to reconsider its conditional denial, the
applicant shall submit a revised project to the Director of the Community Development for the
project within 120 days of the conditional denial, and the Director shall have the matter set for
hearing before the City Council for consideration of approval. The revised project should be
more compatible with the neighborhood, including addressing massing and building height
issues to reduce a towering effect, the impairment to views and privacy of adjacent
residential uses, noise impacts on adjacent issues, and the other issues articulated in the
findings to this Resolution. Potential approaches could include reduction of proposed .
building design to Tess than three - stories and /or adjustments to setbacks as appropriate.
No additional fee shall be charged to the Applicant for the revised project, the revised,
application shall be considered to be part of the original application for Conditional Use.
Permit No. 3034 in all regards, and if timely submitted the Applicant will be entitled to have
the City Council reconsider its conditional denial and review the revised project for approval.
Any challenge to this Resolution, and the findings set forth therein, must be filed within
the 90 day statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure 1094.6.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress, at a regular
meeting held on the 11th day of January, 2016.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
AI _
MAY S R OF THE CIT OF CYPRESS
I, DENISE BASHAM, 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 January, 2016, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Berry, Johnson and Yarc
NOES: 2 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Peat and Morales
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
At4,i'
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS