Nov 18, 2024 City Council Special

MODE. WELL, GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY, AND THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THIS SPECIAL MEETING.

[00:00:09]

COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER MALLORY. COUNCIL MEMBER. MARQUEZ. HERE. MAYOR PRO TEM PETE HERE. MAYOR. MINIKUS HERE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S JUMP RIGHT INTO. LET'S SEE HERE.

PUBLIC HEARING AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. OKAY. THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON

[ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON AGENDA ITEMS (Three minutes per speaker. The City Council may adjust the time allotted per speaker.) The public may address the City Council on agenda items prior to any action taken. Although Council Members may provide brief responses, the City Council may not engage in a discussion with members of the public during the meeting. Please complete a Speaker's Card to address the City Council in-person. Please follow the instructions at the end of the agenda and wait for the Mayor/City Clerk to call on you to address the City Council virtually. Speakers providing in-person comments will be called first. Members of the public are encouraged to communicate with the City Council via email at adm@cypressca.org or by calling 714-229-6699.]

SORRY ABOUT THAT NEW TECHNOLOGY. NO WORRIES. GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING. PAUL COKINOS, LONG TIME RESIDENT OF CYPRESS, ATTENDEE OF MANY OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS YEAR TO DATE. TALKING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM, NUMBER FOUR. AND INITIALLY I HAVE TO JUST ASK WHY? WHY WOULD ANY OF YOU PROVIDE OR LOSE. CERTAIN RIGHT YOU HAVE TO THE CONTROL OF THE CITY MANAGER IN CASE YOU EVER FELT LIKE YOU NEEDED TO PROTECT YOURSELF IN LITIGATION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANY OF YOU WOULD, WOULD, WOULD FORFEIT THAT. AND ESPECIALLY AS IT LOOKS LIKE NOW, CHANGES AFOOT IN THE CITY COUNCIL FOR 2025, HISTORIC MAJORITY MAY BE NO MORE. WE WILL KNOW HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO. UNLESS THERE ARE PLANS THAT WE DON'T KNOW TO CONTINUE THE WEAPONIZATION OF LITIGATION AGAINST ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL. I STILL, I FIND IT ASTOUNDING TO THIS DAY THAT IT'S NOT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD WHO PAID FOR OR INSTIGATED THE LITIGATION FROM FORTAS LLP IN THE FIRST PLACE. I WOULD THINK WE WOULD ALL WANT TO KNOW THAT. I KNOW I WANT TO KNOW IT. I'M GUESSING THAT THERE ARE PARTIES THAT DO KNOW IT, BUT THEY'VE REMAINED SILENT UP TO THIS POINT. SO THAT I THINK, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. SO IT MAY BE THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW.

I THINK IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST TO KNOW. IF YOU DO KNOW, TO SHARE IT. I THINK THAT THE WHOLE THING. CREATES MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS. AND LASTLY, WHY NOW AGAIN, IT WOULD APPEAR BASED ON ELECTION RESULTS SO FAR, THAT THE HISTORIC VOTING BLOC THAT I'VE CALLED OR THAT I'VE REFERRED TO AS A CABAL IS PROBABLY NO MORE AS WE GO INTO 2025. SO WHY NOW? WHY DO IT IN A LAME DUCK MOVE? WHY NOT JUST WAIT FOR THE NEW COUNCIL TO TAKE THIS PIECE OF BUSINESS UP AND DECIDE FROM THERE? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. SPECIAL. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ON PHONE OR ONLINE COMMENTS, DO WE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MISS HOLCOMB, YOU'RE YOU CAN ADDRESS IT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. OKAY, MOVING

[ CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be approved with one motion unless a Council Member requests separate action on a specific item. Council Members voting no or abstaining on a Consent Calendar item may do so without removing the item from the Consent Calendar.]

[00:05:07]

OR DO WE JUST WANT TO MOTION FOR THEM? OH, THERE'S THE TWO THAT THE THRESHOLD PURCHASING THRESHOLD. YEAH. GO AHEAD SIR. YEAH. SO WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING. I THINK THE AGENDA ITEM AND ORDINANCE LARGELY REFLECTS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH WAS ENHANCING THE PURCHASING POWER SINCE IT HADN'T BEEN UPDATED FOR QUITE A WHILE. BUT CAPPING IT AT $100,000 TOTAL VALUE OF THE CONTRACT TO ENSURE THAT IT DOESN'T. THE PURCHASING POWER DOESN'T GO UP MORE THAN INTENDED. SO I THINK THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. AND THEN I APPRECIATE THAT. WE ALSO ADDED IN THE AGENDA THE POINT ABOUT THE RECORD OF THE CONTRACTS BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL AND ONLINE TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. SO I THINK THAT'S AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED LAST TIME. SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER.

COUNCILWOMAN MARQUEZ WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE SAME ITEM. SINCE THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP, I THINK THIS ITEM SHOULD BE POSTPONED FOR THE NEW MEMBERS TO BE A PART OF THE DISCUSSION AND INFORMED ABOUT IT. I KNOW WHEN I WAS A NEW MEMBER, I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE LEVELS, AND SO I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT THEY ARE EDUCATED ABOUT IT. THE NEW MEMBERS. AND SINCE THERE'S A FOCUS ON EFFICIENCY, I THINK OF GREATER IMPORTANCE IS TO FOCUS ON ETHICS AND CONTRACT COMPLIANCE, ESPECIALLY SINCE SOME MEMBERS HAVE REFUSED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM VOTING WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THIS SHOULD BE PART OF THE STRIP. ALL OF THIS PROCESS TOGETHER SHOULD BE PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OBJECTIVE TO INCLUDE CONTRACT COMPLIANCE. AS I HAD MENTIONED IN THE LAST MEETING, ANY BUSINESS SEEKING TO DO WORK FOR THE CITY SHOULD FILL OUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM. THE COMPLIANCE MANAGER SHOULD ALSO FILL OUT THE FORM ALONG WITH ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS ON THE TEAM. COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD CONFLICT OUT AS WELL. I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU CANNOT CONFLICT OUT, YOU CANNOT BE A PART OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. WE NEED THESE GUARDRAILS IN PLACE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHAT WE'VE SEEN AT THE COUNTY LEVEL AND IN OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN OTHER CITIES. THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT EVEN APPLICANTS ARE TREATED FAIRLY IN THE CONTRACTING PROCESS. AGAIN, THE ITEM SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND I THINK THIS COUNCIL HAS GIVEN MANAGEMENT TOO MUCH POWER AND I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS ITEM. THANK YOU FOR THAT. MAYOR PRO TEM. YES. SO I SUPPORT THIS ITEM AND I WANT TO MOVE IT. BUT JUST AS A GENERAL COMMENT, WE ARE ADDING SOME OF THE PURCHASING REVIEW TO THE STRATEGIC SESSION. SO WE'RE NOT LETTING IT GO AND DOING IT RIGHT NOW. BUT WE DECIDED TO DO PUT FURTHER THOUGHT INTO THE REVIEW, INTO WHAT MAKES SENSE TO CHANGE. WHAT I'LL CALL IT TYPE OF DOCUMENT. SHOULD WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR OUR VENDORS TO AVOID YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AWARE THAT THERE'S NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE HANDLED, BUT IT SHOULD BE HANDLED MORE STRATEGICALLY THAN JUST PUTTING IN AS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA. AND SO WITH THAT, I WANT TO MOVE THE CONSENT ITEMS ONE AND TWO FOR APPROVAL. CAN I GET A SECOND PLEASE? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND WE HAVE TO DO A VOICE VOTE. VOICE VOTE. YES. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MALLORY. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MARQUEZ. NO. MAYOR PRO TEM. PETE. YES. MAYOR. MINIKUS. YES. THAT MOTION CARRIES WITH FOUR YES VOTES AND ONE NO VOTE BY COUNCIL MEMBER MARQUEZ. OKAY, WE WILL MOVE INTO

[3. Approve a Specific Plan Amendment and Site Plan Review, and Certify an Environmental Impact Report for a Light Industrial/Warehouse Building at 5665 Plaza Drive Prepared by: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director Recommendation: 1. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending the McDonnell Center Specific Plan; and 2. Adopt a Resolution approving a Site Plan Review for the 5665 Plaza Dr. project; and 3. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, approving the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.]

[00:10:09]

ALL RIGHT. MISS VELASCO, GREAT TO SEE YOU BACK WITH A SMILE ON YOUR FACE. AND THANK YOU. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR ACCOMMODATING THIS SCHEDULE. SO THIS EVENING, I'M GOING TO PRESENT THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF 5665 PLAZA DRIVE. THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING CONSISTS OF THREE REQUESTS. THE FIRST IS A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO PERMIT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE SECOND IS A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AT THE SITE, AND THE THIRD IS TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, WHICH WAS PREPARED TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE MCDONNELL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN.

THE INTENT OF THIS SPECIFIC PLAN IS TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE A COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ACROSS THE SPECIFIC PLAN. 72 ACRES AND TO ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TENANTS. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A 150,626 SQUARE FOOT, FIVE STORY, VACANT OFFICE BUILDING. GOODMAN INDUSTRIAL HAS APPLIED TO REDEVELOP THE EIGHT AND A HALF ACRE PARCEL WITH A 191,394 SQUARE FOOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE 25 DOCK SIDE LOADING DOORS, AND THE SITE WILL HAVE 26. PART, 206 PARKING SPACES AND LANDSCAPING. THROUGHOUT. THE APPLICATION FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE MEETS THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. THIS EVENING. THE NEXT TWO SLIDES WILL DEPICT IMAGES OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IS ACCESSED ENTIRELY FROM PLAZA DRIVE AND LOCATED NORTH OF KATELLA AVENUE AND WEST OF VALLEY VIEW, BOTH OF WHICH ARE MAJOR ARTERIALS OF THE CITY. THE SITE IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY OTHER BUSINESS PARK USES AND PARKING AREAS. HERE'S THE STREET VIEW OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE. THE SITE IS FULLY DEVELOPED WITH THE FIVE STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND ITS ASSOCIATED PARKING. THIS WOULD BE DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. ON THE SCREEN NOW IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THE 190 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT BUILDING IS CENTERED ON THE PROPERTY. THE 25 DOCK HIGH LOADING DOORS ARE ORIENTED TO THE WEST, AND WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SURFACE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING SURROUND THE BUILDING. THIS IMAGE. THIS IMAGE REPRESENTS THE FRONT FACADE FACING PLAZA DRIVE. THE BUILDING HAS A PROMINENT PRIMARY ENTRANCE AND FEATURES INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT, CANOPIES AND GLASS. THIS SLIDE FURTHER DEPICTS THE PROJECT'S PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. THE NEW BUILDING WILL CONSIST OF A MIXTURE OF GLASS AND STUCCO WITH A NEUTRAL COLOR PALETTE. IT WILL ALSO BE SURROUNDED BY NEW DECORATIVE AND WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING. AS DETAILED IN THIS SLIDE AND IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PROJECT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING PARKING LOT COVERAGE, SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPING. THE NEW BUILDING MEETS THE MCDONNELL CENTER SPECIFIC PLANS, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND WILL ALSO BE LEED CERTIFIED. LEED STANDS FOR LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, AND IT'S THE MOST WIDELY RECOGNIZED GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM TO BE LEED SILVER CERTIFIED. A BUILDING HAS TO BE SUSTAINABLE AND HAVE SUCH FEATURES AS CARBON REDUCTION, CONSTRUCTION, SOLAR READY AND EV CHARGERS FOR EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS. THIS LEED CERTIFICATION WAS VOLUNTARILY TAKEN ON BY THE

[00:15:03]

AND WHAT DDC IS, IT'S THE PROCESS OF REPEATEDLY DROPPING A TEN TON WEIGHT FROM A HEIGHT OF ABOUT 60FT IN THE AIR. SO AS I'M SURE THE COUNCIL'S HEARD MANY TIMES, CYPRUS HAS A RELATIVELY

[00:20:02]

IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE BUSINESS PARKS BY REDEVELOPING AN OBSOLETE OFFICE BUILDING AND PROVIDES SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES WITH THE SITE'S REDEVELOPMENT. SO IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MCDONNELL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, APPROVE THE SITE PLAN, REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING, AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALICIA. AT THIS TIME, DO ANY OF MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING DIRECTOR? COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. YEAH. THANK YOU, MRS. VELASCO. SO, ONE THING I WANTED TO TOUCH ON, RIGHT. THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OR YOU YOU TALKED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF WHETHER THESE SITES COULD BE USED FOR LOGISTICS AT ANY POINT. AND I KNOW WE HAVE THE CONDITION 2.9 THAT SAYS THIRD PARTY LOGISTICS ARE PROHIBITED. IS THAT THE ONLY KIND OF LOGISTICS OR IS THERE LIKE FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS? THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED, OR HOW HOW DOES THAT WORK? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? RIGHT, SURE. SO FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS WOULD GENERALLY BE CONSIDERED THE DISTRIBUTION OF A MANUFACTURER'S OWN PRODUCTS. RIGHT. THIRD PARTY IS WHEN AN ENTITY WHO DOES NOT MANUFACTURE THOSE PRODUCTS ARE SHIPPING AND FULFILLING ORDERS FOR A DIFFERENT COMPANY. RIGHT. SO COMPANY A FULFILLS PRODUCTS FOR COMPANY C, BUT DISTRIBUTION OR WHAT YOU WOULD MAYBE CALL FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS ARE THE FULFILLMENT OF YOUR OWN ORDERS.

RIGHT? YOU MANUFACTURE THIS WIDGET AND YOU SHIP YOUR WIDGET THAT IS CURRENTLY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT. IN THIS SPECIFIC PLAN. THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PERMIT REQUIREMENT. SO IF A WIDGET MANUFACTURER CAME AND THEY WANTED TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR WIDGETS, THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A CUP. OKAY. AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD A WORKSHOP, I BELIEVE, ABOUT MODERNIZING THE SPECIFIC PLAN AT SOME POINT WAS THAT PORTION THAT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTION, OR I GUESS WE CALL FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS, MAYBE IMPROPERLY, BUT DISTRIBUTION, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE DRAFT OF THE UPDATED SPECIFIC PLAN AS WELL. OR WOULD THAT CHANGE? YES, IT IS CONSISTENT. THERE'S NO PLAN, NO INTENT TO CHANGE THAT IN THAT OF COURSE, WILL COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IN A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING. IN FACT, TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE WAY OUR CODE WORKS NOW IS IT LISTS PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES. IT DOESN'T LIST THINGS THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT LIST WOULD THEORETICALLY BE ALMOST INFINITE IN THE MODERNIZATION. WE WILL BE RECOMMENDING THAT LOGISTICS BE IDENTIFIED AS A SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED USE. SO AND THEN DISTRIBUTION AS A CONDITIONAL NO CHANGE TO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

[00:25:06]

WE NOTIFY LOS ALAMITOS OF THE EIR. THEY ARE AWARE OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY. THEY REVIEWED IT.

WE HAD A CALL. THEY DIDN'T HAVE CONCERNS. OKAY. THE EIR IS ALL GOOD. THE OTHER THING IS THE COMPACTING THE SOIL. YOU KNOW, I PERSONALLY FELT THE VIBRATION IN THE OTHER ONE. NOT BECAUSE AT MY HOME BUT WHEN I WAS IN A BUILDING. SO LET ME CLARIFY. AND I KNOW HOW FROM A SURROUNDING BUILDINGS THAT CAN BE JUST A VERY ANNOYING. THERE'S ALSO I THINK IT'S LIKE MACHINE THAT I WOULD SAY HAS EQUIPMENT THAT HAS CALIBRATION IS HAVE WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM

[00:30:08]

SO STARTING AT 2 P.M, LTP IS GENERALLY OPEN FROM 5 A.M. TO 2 P.M, SO THEY WOULD MAYBE DO THE DDC 2 TO 9 OR 10 P.M. WE'RE GOING IF THE PROJECT IS APPROVED, THERE WILL BE A PLAN DEVELOPED AND WITH COMMUNICATION WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, WORK OUT THE BEST MITIGATION MEASURES AND APPROACH TO THE DDC. OKAY, ALL RIGHT. SO I'M JUST AWARE. SO LTP, AT LEAST IF THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON THERE WOULD BE MAYBE MORE SENSITIVE TO SOME OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT FOR THEMSELVES. NOT JUST THE NOISE BUT ALSO THE EQUIPMENT. RIGHT. AND THE APPLICANT COULD PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL. OKAY, PERFECT. THAT'S THE END OF MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE THOROUGH PRESENTATION. JUST A COUPLE OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OR HOW WE REFER TO A USE OF A BUILDING. THE USE OF THE BUILDING. IS REALLY DEPENDENT ON THE TENANT. THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. AND SO AN OFFICE BUILDING. SO THE KINDS OF BUILDINGS, OFFICE BUILDING, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SLASH WAREHOUS. BUILDING THAT'S I GUESS IT COULD BE OFFICE OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE WHERE THEY DRIVE TO DELIVER THEIR OWN PRODUCTS AND THEN LOGISTICS, REGARDLESS OF THE KIND OF TENANT THAT GOES IN THERE, DO THEY HAVE TO GET A CUP OR ARE THERE ANY THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT DON'T REQUIRE A CUP? YES.

SO A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURER LIKE LTP, THEY WOULD NOT REQUIRE A CUP. THEY'RE A MANUFACTURER, A RESEARCH AND DESIGN DOES NOT REQUIRE A CUP. OFFICE USES DO NOT REQUIRE A CU.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE EXPECTED IMPACT WAS WITHIN THE DESIGN OF THE BUSINESS PARK. THE BUSINESS PARK OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT BUSINESS PARK WAS DESIGNED FOR INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES. RIGHT. IT WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT TO ENCOURAGE THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHY THERE ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS. AND AS LONG AS YOU FALL INTO THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, YOU'RE PERMITTED TO OPERATE. AND WITH THE EIR, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF KIND OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE EIR. I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK THAT THE EIR WAS CUMULATIVE. I'M HEARING FROM OUR ATTORNEY AND FROM YOU THAT AND FROM I THINK TONIGHT THAT THE EIR IS ASSESSING THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND. I WAS REALLY INTERESTED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD. AND ALSO JUST THE SUMMARY TONIGHT OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT. SO GOING FROM THE OFFICE BUILDING. SO THE OFFICE BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT 1500 CAR TRIPS A DAY OKAY. AND IT WAS THAT AT FULL TENANCY. RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE THE PROJECTED TRAFFIC IMPACTS AT FULL TENANCY. OKAY. AND THEN. THE 406 CARS WHICH IS OVER A THOUSAND LESS IS RESULT OF MOVING FROM AN OFFICE BUILDING TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. AND THEN CAN YOU

[00:35:01]

SO THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT. REALLY QUICK. WHAT ARE PEAK HOURS. AGAIN 7 A.M. TO 9 A.M. IN 4 P.M. TO 6 P.M. SO YES, THANK YOU. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT? AND IF YOU'RE NOT THE RIGHT PERSON TO ANSWER THIS AND JUST WE CAN WAIT TILL WE'RE AT THAT POINT. BUT THE I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE DOCK, THE DOCKS. WE HAVE 25 IN THE PROPOSED BUILDING. THE APPLICANT, THE BUILDING HAS 25 DOCK HIGH LOADING DOORS. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON DOCK HIGH LOADING DOORS, EXCEPT THAT THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. I WOULD DEFER THAT TO THE APPLICANT ON WHY THEY NEED THAT FLEXIBILITY OF THOSE DOORS, AND WHY THEY'RE LOCATED WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR STAFF. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MARQUEZ. YEA, I WAS JUST CURIOUS, LIKE, AND I DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT HEAVY TRUCKS. HOW DO YOU DEFINE HEAVY TRUCKS? WHAT WEIGHT HOW BIG ARE THEY? THEY'RE FOUR AXLE TRUCKS. CLASS EIGHT. AND HOW MANY THE TRUCKS. HOW MANY TRUCKS WILL MAKE A LEFT TURN ONTO VALLEY VIEW AND PASS CYPRESS HIGH SCHOOL PER DAY WAS ZERO BECAUSE THERE'S A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THAT THEY GO DIRECTLY TO THE 605. ALL OF EVERY TRUCK, EVERY EVERY FOUR AXLE TRUCK. RIGHT? SO LITTLE VANS CAN VANS CAN GO. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THEN THE TRUCK TRAFFIC HOURS. CAN YOU JUST TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW ARE THE HOW THE RULES ARE GOING TO BE LAID OUT IF COMPANIES WANT TO LIKE IF THEY'RE GOING DOING TRIPS DURING THE NIGHT AND STUFF AND WHAT KIND OF OVERSIGHT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS? RIGHT. SO BECAUSE THIS PROJECT IS ACCESSED BY MAJOR ARTERIALS AND IS LOCATED IN THE BUSINESS PARK, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS FOR HOURS OF OPERATION. AS I MENTIONED, LOOP STARTS AT 5 A.M. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL USERS. THEY GO IN EARLY. WE DO NOT HAVE CURRENTLY WITH THIS PROJECT PROPOSED RESTRICTING THE HOURS OF OPERATION OR THE HOURS THAT THE TRUCKS CAN TRAVEL. AND CAN YOU PROVIDE ANYTHING REGARDING THE IMPACT OF LIKE EMISSIONS ON THE HEALTH OF RESIDENTS? YES. THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS WERE EVALUATED AS PART OF THE EIR AND THE THRESHOLD FOR EVEN A HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT IS ABOUT 150 POUNDS PER DAY OF EMISSIONS.

THIS PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO DO ABOUT 9 POUNDS PER DAY, SO IT DID NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD.

THANK YOU. CAN YOU TALK TO THE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES IF SOMEBODY HAS A CUP, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE TO GO OUT TO CATELYNN AND WEST TO THE 605 FREEWAY OR 405 FREEWAY. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A COMPANY MADE A U-TURN AT ONE OF THEIR TRUCKS, MADE A U-TURN AND WENT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION? WELL, IF A TRUCK JUST MADE A U-TURN, WE WOULD GIVE THEM A WARNING. BUT IF A IF A BUSINESS WAS CONSISTENTLY NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IT ACTUALLY THE PERMIT GETS BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT PERMIT CAN BE REVOKED. OKAY. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT GOING LAST IS THAT ALL MY COLLEAGUES STEAL MY THUNDER. SO, COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE, THANK YOU. THOSE THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS. AND ALSO, MAYOR PRO TEM AND OUR DEAR FRIEND IN THE OUTFIELD, COUNCILMEMBER MALLARI. AND OF

[00:40:01]

BUT I THINK IN THE END, IT WE STUDIED IT WITH A VERY, VERY QUALIFIED CONSULTANT. AND THE RESULTS, I THINK, SHOW THAT THE PROJECT IS SMALL AND WELL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE. I THINK AS WE'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW EACH OTHER OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT AT GOODMAN, WE'RE WE'RE LONG TERM OWNERS. WE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO WHAT WE BUILD. WE CONSIDER OURSELVES AN INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY, MEANING WE PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE WORLD'S GREATEST COMPANIES. SO WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT BUILDING COMPONENTS LIKE DOCK DOORS OR LIKE CLEAR HEIGHTS OR, YOU KNOW, JUST HOW WE DESIGN THE PRODUCT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CREATE A CANVAS WHERE, YOU KNOW, ANY COMPANY CAN, WITHIN REASON, YOU KNOW, THAT MEETS MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE COMMUNITY, CAN SET UP THEIR BUSINESS THERE. AND SOME BUSINESSES MAY USE, YOU KNOW, THE DOORS ON THE NORTH END AND THEY MAY HAVE THEIR PROCESS ON THE SOUTH END OR VICE VERSA. AND BUT WE CREATE THIS ABILITY TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, FLEXIBILITY, HIGH CEILINGS, SOLAR POWER, ALL THE GREEN BUILDING ASPECTS THAT WE FIND THAT WHEN WE PUT THAT EXTRA EFFORT INTO SUSTAINABILIT, THAT TENDS TO ATTRACT SOME OF THE WORLD'S GREAT COMPANIES, BIGGER COMPANIES HAVE, YOU KNOW, GOALS FOR SUSTAINABILITY. AND THEY REALLY WANT TO SEE THAT IN THE BUILDINGS WILL GET HIGHER, HIGHER LEASE RATES BECAUSE WE'VE GONE TO THAT EFFORT. AND HERE IN CYPRUS, WE AS AS ALICIA. ALICIA MENTIONED WE'RE BUILDINGS ARE SOLAR READY. WE'LL HAVE I THINK WE HAVE 13 EV CHARGERS IN INITIAL CONSTRUCTION ON THIS BUILDING. WE ARE SHOOTING FOR LEED SILVER, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, HIGHER LEVEL THAN JUST THE BASIC. AND WE'VE ACTUALLY USED LOW EMISSION CONCRETE IN THE WALLS TO REDUCE THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. SO WE HOPE THAT AND PLAN TO BE GREAT CORPORATE CITIZENS IN IN THE CITY OF CYPRUS. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT AND WHAT WHAT'S IN STORE NEXT YEAR. AND HOPEFULLY WE GET SOME GREAT TENANTS IN IN THE TWO BUILDINGS NEXT DOOR. SO WE JUST ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TONIGHT.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT I MIGHT WEIGH IN ON, HAPPY TO DO THAT REALLY QUICK. YOU DO AGREE WITH THE CONDITIONS AND APPROVALS? YES. OKAY. SO I WENT OVER AND ACTUALLY DROVE BY YOUR SANTA FE CENTER, SANTA FE AND SANTA FE SPRINGS, AND AT THREE TIMES DURING THE DAY, MIDDAY, MORNING AND IN THE LATER AFTERNOON. AND I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE AMOUNT OF CARS IN THE PARKING LOT, THAT TRAFFIC REALLY WASN'T IMPACTED IN THAT AREA. SPECIFICALLY IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AS YOU WELL KNOW, AND SOMETIMES TRUCK TRAFFIC CAN BE DIFFICULT TO MANAGE OR NAVIGATE THROUGH THOSE AREAS. BUT I DIDN'T SEE THAT.

NOT THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, BUT I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT THOSE THREE TIMES DURING THE DAY THAT IT WASN'T OVERLY BURDENSOME ON THE FLOW OF REGULAR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AS WELL. THANK YOU. CAN YOU I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. SAID THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT. YEAH. YEAH. THAT IS A TRUE LOGISTICS CENTER BY THE WAY. YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO GO BY AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT. IT'S NOT I CAN EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE REALLY QUICK. A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, ARE THE AMOUNT OF TRUCK BAYS THAT ARE IN BOTH OF YOUR PROJECTS AT FIVE, SEVEN, FIVE, SEVEN AND FIVE SIX, FIVE, SIX. CAN YOU TOUCH ON DO THOSE ALL? DO ALL THOSE BAYS GET USED

[00:45:08]

I THINK THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, YEAH, A TRAILER COULD SIT AT A DOCK, BUT THE FACT THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE SMALLER AND THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY TRAILER STORAGE REALLY MAKES THEM UNATTRACTIVE FOR A, YOU KNOW, A HIGH VOLUME LOGISTICS GUY. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. DO ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MR. DULL? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU SIR. IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP. OH, SORRY. AND I'M SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER. THANK YOU, MR. DULL. I APPRECIATE THE OVERVIEW, THE USE YOU TALKED, YOU STARTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU HAVE IN SANTA FE SPRINGS AND WHAT'S PROPOSED HER. DID YOU WANT TO ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN TERMS OF HOW THAT OPERATES VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING? TENANTS, HOW THEY MIGHT OPERATE IN CYPRU? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK I HIT ON IT. IT'S YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE TRUE LOGISTICS BUILDINGS. MANY TIMES LOGISTICS BUILDINGS HAVE DOORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING. WE HAVE WE HAVE TWO BUILDINGS THERE THAT ONLY HAVE DOORS ON ONE SIDE. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THE DEPTH OF THE TRUCK COURT. SO A LOGISTICS COMPANY NEEDS YOU KNOW, THEY THEY'RE THEY'RE TURNING OVER VOLUME QUICKLY. THEY'RE, THEY'RE RECEIVING CONTAINERS IN FROM THE PORT OR FROM THE MANUFACTURER.

AND SO THEY NEED TO UNLOAD THAT TRUCK OR THAT TRAILER AND THEN MOVE IT AWAY FROM THE DOCK DOOR, BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE THAT WANTS TO COME IN. SO FROM AN EFFICIENCY STANDPOINT, THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE THAT TRAILER STORAGE. AND YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE WELL, MOST OF THE TIME A TRAILER WILL GET DROPPED OFF. AND THEN THAT THAT TRUCK DRIVER WOULD EITHER TAKE AN EMPTY OR HE WOULD GO BACK TO HIS HIS DEPOT. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME ABILITY TO STORE TRAILERS AND, YOU KNOW, PARK THEM IN A PARKING SPOT AND SO AS I SAID, THESE BUILDINGS ARE ARE SMALLER, GENERALLY A LOGISTICS USE IS A MUCH BIGGER BUILDING. OUR SMALLEST BUILDING IN SANTA FE SPRINGS IS I BELIEVE IT'S 330 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET, SUBSTANTIALLY BIGGER THAN THESE 200 WOULD BE ON THE LOWER END, BUT IT WOULD NEED EITHER EXCESS LAND TO PARK TRAILERS ON, OR IT WOULD NEED TRAILER STORAGE IN THE IN THE TRUCK COURT. SO THOSE THOSE ARE REALLY THE BIG, BIG DIFFERENCES. AND THEN JUST. YOU THIS PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS YOU KNOW, AN OFFICE

[00:50:05]

BUT THE DEALS DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND SO WE CONTINUE TO PROCESS THE TWO BUILDING PLAN BECAUSE WE YOU KNOW IT WAS ESSENTIALLY ALLOWED BY RIGHT. SO WE DID THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. WE DID A MITIGATED NEG DECK ON THAT PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEG DECK IS, YOU KNOW, IS A JUST A TINY BIT AWAY FROM AN EIR. SO WE DID A FULL STUDY ON THAT PROJECT AS WELL. WE HAD TOYO TIRES IN THE BUILDING. THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO EXTEND THEIR LEASE POTENTIALLY FOR ANOTHER TEN YEARS. AND SO WE MADE THE DECISION TO GO AHEAD TO REDEVELOP THE 5757. AND THEN AFTER THAT WAS APPROVED AND WE STARTED GOING, TOYOTA DECIDED TO MOVE OUT. AND THEN WE HAD TO TALK TO THE OTHER TENANTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GETTING THEM OUT. I THINK THE LAST TENANT MOVED OUT IN FEBRUARY OF 23. AND THEN AND THEN WE TALKED TO THE CITY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO REZONE AT THAT POINT SO THAT THAT WAS HOW THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WENT. AND THEN I KNOW YOU'RE NOT THE TRAFFIC EXPERT, BUT YOU'VE HAD TO BECOME ONE.

MAYBE. THE TRAFFIC FROM THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AND FROM THE ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT GENERATES TRAFFIC ON STREETS THAT HAVE A CERTAIN CATEGORIZATION. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT'S CALLED. LIKE VALLEY VIEW AND KATELLA ARE THOSE THINGS ARTERIALS. CAN YOU SAY IT AGAIN, MAJOR ARTERIALS, A MAJOR ARTERIAL. SO THE KIND OF TRAFFIC THAT'S ALLOWED ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL IS NOT ALLOWED ON A STREET LIKE MOODY OR BALL OR. BUT WHAT STREETS IN CITY OF CYPRESS ARE MAJOR ARTERIALS? SO I DEFER TO NICK. IF YOU WANT A LIST OF ALL OF THEM. I'M JUST.

BUT FOR SURE. VALLEY VIEW AND KATELLA ARE OKAY. ARE IN. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THESE IN THE FUTURE. THESE TRUCKS ARE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, IN A YEAR IN THREE YEARS AND FIVE YEARS, THE TRUCK TRAFFIC IS STILL GOING TO BE RESTRICTED TO KATELLA, WHICH IS A MAJOR ARTERIAL. AND THAT'S FOR THIS PROJECT. AND THEN THE PRIOR PROJECT WAS VALLEY VIEW. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I DON'T REMEMBER. YOU MEAN THE 5757 PLAZA PROJECT? YEAH. WHICH IS THEY DO NOT HAVE A RESTRICTION.

SO THOSE TRUCKS WOULD BE ONLY RESTRICTED TO USING TRUCK ROUTES LIKE BASICALLY ANY OTHER TRUCK TRAFFIC THROUGHOUT THE CITY. OKAY. AND HOW IS A TRUCK ROUTE DIFFERENT THAN A MAJOR ARTERIAL? AND AM I JUMPING AROUND TOO MUCH? YOU GUYS, YOU CAN. I THINK THEY'RE ONE IN THE SAME. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ABLE TO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ME IN THE MOMENT. IF YOU WANT TIME TO COME

[00:55:01]

WELCOME. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'D LIKE TO INVITE THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. AND I HAVE ONE CARD FROM MISS HOLCOMB ON BEHALF OF MORELAND. I SENT YOU ALL A BUNCH OF LETTERS, BUT I HAVEN'T MET MOST OF YOU. SO NICE TO SEE YOUR FACES. THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO OUR LETTERS OR PAY ATTENTION TO OUR LETTERS AND HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS. I WAS GOING TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE WHAT WAS IN MY LETTERS, BUT I THINK JUST BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD, THERE'S A FEW THINGS I WOULD WANT TO POINT OUT. FIRST, AS YOU MAY KNOW, MORELAND IS THE LARGEST OWNER IN THE CITY'S BUSINESS PARK, SO THEY HAVE A BIG INTEREST IN THE PARK AND KIND OF A HOLISTIC VIEW OF HOW PROJECTS MAY IMPACT THE PARK OVERALL. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THE EIR PRODUCED FOR THE SECOND PROJECT.

SO THIS IS A SINGLE BUILDING AT 5.665, THE THIRD OF A THREE BUILDING PROJECT, WHICH WE CAN SEE WAS PLANNED FOR QUITE SOME TIME. IT NEVER TREATS THAT THIRD BUILDING AS AN EXPANSION OF THE FIRST TWO, SO IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN THE SAME WAY IT WOULD IF IT HAD CONSIDERED IT AS AN EXPANSION, WHICH WE BELIEVE IT WAS. I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN MANUFACTURERS. IT CAN MEAN IT JUST MEANS COMPANIES THAT MANAGE THEIR OWN LOGISTICS. SO THAT CAN BE COMPANIES THAT BUY PRODUCTS WHOLESALE. AND SO AMAZON HAS A LOT OF FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS. WALMART, THOSE KIND OF PROJECTS.

ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THESE THREE BUILDINGS ARE 600,000FT■!S. AND 75 TOTAL DOCTORS. THAT IS NOT A SMALL PROJECT, NOT EVEN FOR GOODMAN. IT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT. IT'S SIGNIFICANT FOR THE BUSINESS PARK. AND SANTA FE SPRINGS IS ONE OF ITS LARGEST PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA. BUT EVERY SINGLE PROJECT THAT THEY HAVE IN CALIFORNIA IS ADVERTISED FOR LOGISTICS, EXCEPT FOR FOUR OF THE PROJECTS. TWO OF THOSE ARE PARKING LOTS. ONE OF THOSE IS THIS ONE, AND ONE OF THOSE IS A COMMERCIAL CENTER. SO YOU WILL SEE IF YOU COMPARE THESE WITH THOSE PROJECTS, IT'S DEFINITELY FALLS UNDER THAT SAME CATEGORY. SO WE RECOMMEND DOING A FULL EIR BECAUSE AT THIS POINT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT REALLY ARE, BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE FULL PROJECT. THINGS ARE KIND OF GETTING PIECEMEALED OUT. THE APPROVALS WERE PIECEMEAL, BUT THE PUBLIC DOES DESERVE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THIS PROJECT WILL DO. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO APPROVE IT, THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO CONDITION THE PROJECT ON NO LOGISTICS AT ALL. RIGHT? IF IT'S NOT PERMITTED, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. AND I GUESS THE LAST THING I WOULD SA. IS TO ASK YOURSELF WHY THESE APPROVALS ARE PIECEMEALED WHEN THEY KNEW THE PROJECT WOULD BE DEVELOPED AS THREE BUILDINGS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE HAS ANY FINAL COMMENTS. OH, ONE MORE CARD. OKAY. OKAY. THIS ONE? OKA.

MR. BURT, GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER BURT WITH COX, CASTLE AND NICHOLSON. I'M LAND USE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT. I JUST WANTED TO START OUT BY GENERALLY SAYING THAT NONE OF ORLEAN'S COMMENTS PRESENT ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THE 100 PLUS COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED ON THE EIR. THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WORKED CLOSELY TO COMPREHENSIVELY RESPOND TO EACH OF GARLAND'S PRIOR COMMENTS. MANY OF WHICH RELIED ON INVENTED OR MISCONSTRUED FACTS, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A SECOND. FIRST, WE'RE APPRECIATIVE OF STAFF'S VERY HARD WORK. IT WAS A VERY BIG ENDEAVOR TO RESPOND TO SUCH COMMENTS. SECOND, WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT IN THE EIR AND THAT IT PRESENTS A CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS THAT COMPLIES WITH SEQUENCE, PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE MANDATES. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE PIECEMEALING ARGUMENT, TO BE

[01:00:02]

ROILAND ASSERTS THAT THE 5757 AND 565665 PROJECT MUST BE ANALYZED TOGETHER, BECAUSE THE LATTER IS A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UNDER CEQA CASE LAW.

HOWEVER, WHAT GARLAND DOES IS IT MISCONSTRUES THE APPLICABLE LAW WHEN MAKING THAT ASSERTION. IT OMITS A KEY COMPONENT OF THE PIECEMEALING TEST FOR IMPROPER PIECEMEALING TO OCCUR. THE OMITTED COMPONENT OF A PROJECT MUST HAVE BEEN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THE 55665 PROJECT IS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF 5757, NOR VICE VERSA. 5757 CAN AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND FULLY OPERATIONAL WITHOUT THE NEED OF FIVE, FIVE, SIX, SIX, FIVE OR ANY OF ITS ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. THE TWO PROJECTS HAVE INDEPENDENT UTILITY, WHICH IS THE CRUX UNDER SIX PIECEMEALING TEST. THE FACT THAT THE TWO WAREHOUSES WAREHOUSE PROJECTS ARE ADJACENT DOES NOT MAKE THEM A SINGLE PROJECT. FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA, AND ALTHOUGH GARLAND ASSERTS THAT THERE'S CLEAR POTENTIAL THAT THE BUILDING WILL COLLECT WELL, THE BUILDINGS WILL COLLECTIVELY OPERATE AS A LOGISTICS USE.

THOSE USES ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY, AND THE CONDITION EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS THEM. ALSO, DESPITE ORLEANS ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY THAT THERE WAS NO THAT, THAT THERE WAS CERTAINTY ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS, THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AS A COMPREHENSIVE THREE BUILDING PROJECT. THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. ORLAND POINTS IN ITS LAST LETTE, WALLIN POINTS TO ARTICLES AND THAT DISCUSSED GOODMAN'S PURCHASE OF THE COLLECTIVE PARCELS. BUT IT BUT BUT ITS REFERENCE DEMONSTRATES ITS WILLINGNESS TO MISCONSTRUE THE FACTS. IT SAYS THAT THOSE ARTICLES WERE PUBLISHED SHORTLY AFTER, AFTER GOODMAN PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. IT SAYS THAT THEY'RE THAT THEY SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN INTENT TO BUILD THREE BUILDINGS. BUT I HAVE THOSE ARTICLES HERE, AND I'M QUOTING FROM THEM. IT SAYS GOODMAN IS EXPLORING WHETHER IT COULD ADAPTIVELY USE THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD HELP GET IT ONLINE FASTER, BUT IT'S ALSO EVALUATING A POSSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WITH A THREE BUILDING CAMPUS. SO AT THE TIME AND CONTINUING ON UNTIL FIVE, SEVEN, FIVE, SEVEN WAS PROPOSED, THERE WAS CERTAINLY NO INTENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE ONE PERSON ONLINE. YES. MR. MAYOR, JUST ONE SECOND. OKAY, MR. MAYOR, WE HAVE MR. EDWIN KRAMER. MR. KRAMER, GO AHEAD.

HELLO. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED BY THIS. I DIDN'T SEE A PUBLICATION ON THIS, SO I'M NOT VERY PREPARED. OTHERWISE, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE HAD CITIZENS IN. THIS IS GOING TO BE 75 TRUCK BAYS. SO YOU JUST PUT THROUGH 50 TRUCK BAYS OVER THE. APPARENTLY THE 77 PLAZA ADDRESS. AND NOW THIS ONE, THE GENTLEMAN JUST SPOKE, SAID IT'S UNDER SEQUA.

IT'S NOT IT'S THEY'RE INDEPENDENT. THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME FLOOR PLAN. THERE'S 70, 50 TRUCK BAYS PLUS 25 TRUCK BAYS. AND THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN THAT GAVE THE PRESENTATION ARGUED THAT IT'S NOT A TRUCK TERMINAL, BUT THOSE ARE CERTAINLY TRUCK BAYS. I'M LOOKING AT THE PDF RIGHT NOW. THERE'S 25 TRUCK BAYS. YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THIS ON TOP OF 50 OTHER TRUCK BAYS.

THE CITIZENS BACK. OH, I GUESS IT'S BEEN EIGHT YEARS AGO NOW. HAD A AN UPRISING OVER 178 TRUCK BAYS. PROLOGIS TRIED TO PUT IN ON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF LARK. SO IT HAD THE CITIZENS KNOWN THAT CITY WAS PLANNING ON PUTTING IN 75 TRUCK BAYS. YOU WOULD HAVE HAD 50 PEOPLE IN THAT MEETING AND I JUST WASN'T PREPARED. I YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME I TURN AROUND, THE CITY IS DOING SOMETHING ELSE. IT'S JUST YOU CAN'T NOT BE INVOLVED BECAUSE YOU DO THIS. SO FIRST OFF, YOU NEED TO DO A FULL YEAR. IF YOU'RE NOT DOING A FULL YEAR ON 75 TRUCK BAYS AND YOU CAN LAWYER IT UP AND CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT, BUT IT IS 75 TRUCK BAYS YOU'RE PUTTING IN. IT'S EVEN THE SAME COMPANY PUTTING THEM IN. IT'S GOLDMAN, RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO LOOK INTO FORCING AN EIR ON THIS. AND IF I NEED TO WE'LL HAVE A CITIZENS UPRISING. I'M PRETTY SURE I CAN

[01:05:09]

AND SO I WANT TO I WANT AN EIR AND I DON'T I DON'T WANT 75 TRUCK BAYS. THIS IS YOU SAY IT'S FOR FLEXIBILITY. WELL, THE FLEXIBILITY IS TO MAKE IT TRUCK BAYS. THOSE ARE TRUCK BAYS.

THERE'S 75 OF THEM. SO I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS. YOU BETTER DO AN EIR. AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE 75 TRUCK BAYS. THANK THANK YOU. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE CARDS OR ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE? OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'LL ASK THE CITY COUNCIL IF THEY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. CAN I ASK MISS HOLCOMB TO ANSWER A QUESTION? PERHAPS. OR IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? BUT CERTAINLY YOU COULD DO THAT. YEAH, WE COULD DO THAT.

WE'LL OPEN BACK UP THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT MRS. HOLCOMB CAN ANSWER A QUESTION. PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM. OH. THANK YOU. SO I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING YOU MENTIONED, WHICH WAS WHY NOT CONDITION THE PROJECT ON. NO LOGISTICS AT ALL. AND SO I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES. I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD ANY EAGERNESS TO HAVE A LOGISTICS FACILITY WITH HEAVY TRUCKING AND FROM THE FACT THAT THERE'S THE CONDITION WITH THE NO THIRD PARTY LOGISTICS AND THEN THE DISTRIBUTION OR FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS WOULD REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. UNDER OUR PLAN, IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE WE HAD OUR NO LOGISTICS ALLOWED BASES COVERED. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU AGREE. AND SO I WANTED TO ASK, DO YOU SEE ANY SORT OF LOGISTICS LOOPHOLE THAT COULD BE EXPLOITED OR WHAT? WHAT MAKES YOU SUGGEST WE ALTER THE CONDITION? NO THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER I YEAH, WE DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT BEING EXPLOITED. ONE IS IF WE'VE AGREED OR THE CITY'S AGREED THAT THEY DON'T WANT LOGISTICS. THREE PLUS EXCLUDED, THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO EXCLUDE ONE PL, WHICH CAN BE JUST AS HEAVY AS OF A USE AND FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE AND FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS GOING THROUGH THIS MODERNIZATION PROJECT. IT'S KIND OF HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL THE WAYS ALL THOSE THINGS CAN IMPACT VARIOUS BUILDINGS IN THE BUSINESS PARK. AND SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE COULD BE A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL OF SOME SORT THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT USE TO COME IN. SO BY CONDITIONING IT NOW AND SAYING IT CANNOT, YOU DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE THAT CONDITION CHANGED.

AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO ONE OF THE THREE BUILDINGS. THE OTHER TWO ARE NOT CONDITIONED AT ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY. WELL THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BACK UP. AND IF NO MORE COUNCIL MEMBER MUELLER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I GUESS KIND OF A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL. I HAVE I HAVE TO OPEN IT, OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BACK UP. DON'T CLOSE IT. OKAY. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT THE DOOR BEFORE CLOSED WHEN. SO I MEAN, WE'RE GETTING OPPOSITE LEGAL OPINIONS HERE ARE I MEAN, MR. GALANTE IS SAYING WE DID A FULL EIR, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT IS CORRECT? WE DIDN'T. SO CAN YOU TELL US WHY YOUR REASONING? YEAH, SURE.

I MEAN, WE WERE ADVISED BY WE'D HIRED THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS WHO ADVISED US OF THAT. AND YOU KNO, THE CASE LAW THAT PROHIBITS PIECEMEALING FOR THIS VERY REASON BECAUSE YOU'RE ONLY GETTING PART OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL PICTURE AND THE TRUE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF A FULL PROJECT ARE DIFFERENT THAN EACH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING. AND SO WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE CONSULTED WE HAVE PAUL HASTINGS LAND USE TEAM ON ON BOARD AND THEY'VE AGREED. SO WE'VE CONSULTED MANY EXPERTS WHO HAVE ADVISED US WITH THE SAME THING. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK

[01:10:08]

LOGISTICS ARE PROHIBITED IN THIS SPECIFIC PLAN. IT DOESN'T NEED THE CONDITION. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED. AND WE CAN RESPOND ONCE YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ONE SUGGESTION I WOULD MAKE, SINCE WE DID GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE OPPONENT OF THE PROJECT TO ASK IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANY FURTHER RESPONSES, I THINK THE RECORD IS CLEAR AND THE RESPONSES HAVE BEEN MADE IN WRITING, BUT CERTAINLY OFFERING THE APPLICANT THAT OPPORTUNITY IS APPROPRIATE. MR. DAHL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK UP? ARE YOU OKAY? YOU'RE OKAY. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. THANK YOU.

YEAH, I THINK, MR. VELASCO, I JUST HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING BLUNTLY. JUST LIKE LOGISTICS ARE NOT ALLOWED. AND SO AS TO THE QUESTION OF FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS, I CAN ASK YOU OR MR. GALANTE JUST TO BE CLEAR, FIRST OF ALL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, OR SHOULD THE MAYOR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? THE MAYOR CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANKS. THE HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SORRY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

SO, YEAH, I'LL JUST TRY AND BE VERY CLEAR ON THE RECORD. OUR FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS OR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FIRST PARTY LOGISTICS. WOULD THAT BE PERMITTED IN THIS BUILDING THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT? RIGHT. WE CONSIDER THAT DISTRIBUTION. AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. OKAY.

THAT'S THE CITY COUNCIL'S DISCRETION AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I WOULD JUST ADD TO THE RESPONSE THAT LISTING USES THAT AREN'T ALLOWED OR PROHIBITED OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERMITS IS NOT A TYPICAL THING YOU WOULD DO, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A VERY LONG LIST. SO PICKING AND CHOOSING WHICH WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, I THINK CREATES CONFUSION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. YOUR MUNICIPAL CODE IS CLEAR ON THAT POINT THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ACTIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, SO THERE'S NO NEED TO DUPLICATE THAT AND CREATE THE CONFUSION AND FROM MY OPINION, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER MARQUEZ, JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO, ALICIA. SO ALICIA, IN BUILDING THE FIRST TWO BUILDINGS, CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM? YES, THERE THERE IS LOGISTICS ALLOWED. NO. LOGISTICS. ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE FIRST TWO BUILDINGS. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN THE FIRST TWO BUILDINGS. OKAY. SO AT THIS TIME I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. TO APPROVE . TO INTRODUCE THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN. AND APPROVE SPR NUMBER 2024, DASH ZERO ONE AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. AND WITH THAT, I CAN READ THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY. THAT'S BEFORE THE COUNCIL. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING BEFORE THE COUNCIL, INCLUDING ALL OF THE VARIOUS APPROVALS AS AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER ONE. SUMMARY NUMBER, ROMAN NUMERAL THREE, DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND ROMAN NUMERAL SIX. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MACDONALD CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN TO REMOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT AND ALLOW INDUSTRIAL SLASH WAREHOUSING USES IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF PLANNING AREA ONE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU. CAN I GET A MOTION? SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION AND THE ORDINANCE AS DESCRIBED. THAT THAT WOULD INCLUDE APPROVING SPR NUMBER 2020 401 AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS WELL. CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU. CAN I GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. AND CAN WE GET A VOICE VOTE? YES, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER. BURKE. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER MALLORY. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MARQUEZ.

[01:15:05]

[4. Approve a Resolution Adopting Procedural Requirements as Prerequisites for Any Council Member Wishing to Retain Separate Legal Counsel to Represent Them on City-Related Matters Prepared by: Fred Galante, City Attorney Recommendation: Approve a Resolution adopting procedural requirements as prerequisites for any Council Member wishing to retain separate legal counsel to represent them on City-related matters.]

[01:20:07]

THIS ITEM APPEARED ON THE AGENDA ON THURSDAY. NONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE HAD ANY INFORMATION ABOUT IT. WE WERE NOT INFORMED. AND YOU KNOW, I SAID THEY'RE ALL ITEMS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ADDED AT THE END OF A REGULAR MEETING. I DON'T THINK THIS ITEM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TONIGHT. I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT IT WAS ADDED BY THE CITY MANAGER, AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AGENDIZED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER. THE SECOND THING I WANT TO SAY IS THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE AGENDA AS A ONE LAST WAY TO EMBARRASS MYSELF AND I WANTED TO SAY THIS IS RELATED TO THE CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT LAWSUIT I, WHICH I DID NOT SUPPORT. I SUPPORTED GOING TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS. I WANTED ASIANS AND CYPRUS TO HAVE A FAIR PROCESS TO BE ENABLED TO ELECT CANDIDATES OF CHOICE AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS MY COLLEAGUES DECIDED TO FIGHT IT AND PUT ME THROUGH A LOT FOR MY, YOU KNOW, STANCE ON THE ISSUE. I MEAN, THE MINUTE I SAID, WHICH WAY I TO SUPPORT IT, I IMMEDIATELY WAS HARASSED STARTING AT THE BEGINNING OF 2022. AND WHAT I WANTED TO SAY IS THIS ITEM, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY INTERESTING. WHEN I WAS DEPOSED FOR THIS LAWSUIT IN JULY OF 2022, THE WEEK BEFORE, I WAS NEVER TOLD THAT I HAD THE RIGHT TO MY OWN ATTORNEY. I HAD A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT THAN MY COLLEAGUES. MY COLLEAGUES DID NOT SUPPORT GOING TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS. I HAD EXPECTED OUR CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME THAT I HAD A RIGHT TO GET MY OWN COUNSEL. YOU KNOW, I HAVE ATTORNEYS IN MY FAMILY AND THEY ALL SAID TO ME, YOU CAN'T GO TO THAT DEPOSITION WITHOUT ANY REPRESENTATION. YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT. THAT WAS ON THE SATURDAY I HAD THAT DISCUSSION. THEN ON TUESDAY, I HAD A ZOOM WITH MR. GALANTE AND THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING THE CITY, AND IT WAS CLEAR TO ME DURING THE ZOOM THAT THINGS DIDN'T FEEL RIGHT, THAT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT I NEEDED TO SAY IN THE DEPOSITION. SO I CALLED A LAWYER AND MET WITH THE LAWYER AND THE LAWYER SENT AN EMAIL TO MR. GALANTE TO TELL HIM THAT HE WOULD BE PRESENT NEXT TO ME AT THAT DEPOSITION. YOU KNOW, ALL OF US AS COUNCIL MEMBERS.

YOU KNOW WE ARE MR. GALANTE'S CLIENT. AND I SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED AHEAD OF TIME HOW THIS WOULD WORK OUT. AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WAS MR. FINK DID REPRESENT ME AND MR. GALANTE DID NOT TELL HIM. YOU KNOW, IF YOU REPRESENT HER, WE'RE NOT PAYING THE BILL. I FEEL THE CITY WAS VERY UNDERHANDED AND ALLOWED EVERYTHING TO GO FORWARD, AND DECIDED NOT TO PAY THE BILL AFTERWARDS. TO THIS DAY, I HAD TO PAY MY OWN LEGAL BILL IN A LAWSUIT, WHICH I WHOLE PROCESS, WHICH I OPPOSED GOING THROUGH. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY PUT ME THROUGH IT. AND THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO EMBARRASS ME OVER THIS ISSUE. I WANTED TO SAY THE RECOMMENDATION, EXCUSE ME, I'M GOING TO HAVE A DRINK OF WATER. THE RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE THE CITY MANAGER BE PART OF THIS PROCESS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS SEEKING OUTSIDE OF COUNSEL, SEEKING OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CITY BUSINESS, VIOLATES STATE BAR RULES FOR THE CITY TO SUGGEST

[01:25:02]

THANK YOU. MAYOR. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR CITY MANAGER HAS THE RIGHT TO SET THE AGENDA FOR YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. HE HAS ASKED ME TO PREPARE THIS ITEM, AND I DID SO AT HIS REQUEST. SO THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ANY POLICY. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I HAVE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IN NO LESS THAN 2 OR 3 EMAILS TO COUNCIL MEMBER MARQUEZ'S ATTORNEY THAT SHE HAD NO RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION ON THIS ALLEGED CONFLICT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO IDENTIFIED CONFLICT OF INTEREST PER STATE LAW. HER ATTORNEY WAS. I ASKED HER ATTORNEY REPEATEDLY TO PROVIDE LEGAL AUTHORITY, WHICH I KNEW DID NOT EXIST. AND OF COURSE, HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THAT LEGAL AUTHORITY AT THE BEFORE THE DEPOSITION, I INFORMED HIM I DID NOT BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD EVER PAY ANY OF HIS LEGAL FEES. SO I ADAMANTLY DISAGREE WITH ALL OF THESE STATEMENTS, AND I KNOW MY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO ANY CITY ATTORNEY THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS RESOLUTION OR THE SUGGESTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER MARQUEZ WOULD YOU AGREE TO SEND MR. GALANTE THE LIST OF THE CITY ATTORNEYS THAT YOU SPOKE TO? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY. MAYOR PRO TEM. SO, MR. ATTORNEY, IF I STEP OVER THE LINE, PLEASE STOP ME, OKAY? PLEASE. DURING CLOSED SESSIONS, NOT GOING THROUGH DETAILS. WE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT PROTOCOL AND I WOULD SUGGEST, OKAY, NOT DISCUSSING. OKAY. SO I'LL SAY IT THEN. LET ME REPHRASE. THEN. I AGREE. WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE. I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE NOW BEFORE NEW COUNCIL COMES IN. BECAUSE OF THE EXPERIENCE AND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENED TO DATE AND I, I'VE BEEN SURPRISED ABOUT NOT HAVING SOMETHING IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS AND TO HAVE INDIVIDUALS GO OUT ON THEIR OWN AND NOT HAVE ANY, ANY INPUT TO IT AT ALL. AND I THINK IT'S VERY INAPPROPRIATE. AND SO I

[01:30:08]

SO THERE'S ALREADY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT I THINK EXIST UNDER STATE LAW. AND SO I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT AND HOW ANYTHING WE'RE CONSIDERING WOULD INTERACT WITH THAT. I'D ALSO BE CURIOUS IF ANY OTHER CITY HAS A POLICY LIKE THIS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW, TOO. YOU KNOW, I HAVE HESITATION ABOUT BEING THE FIRST CITY TO CREATE SOME NEW LEGAL POLICY, BECAUSE WHO KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT.

AND THEN AS FOR THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION ITSELF, I THINK IT'S COMPLICATED AND WOULD POSE SOME LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES IF IT CAME TO PASS. AND THERE'S TWO MAIN REASONS. ONE, IT GIVES A LOT OF AUTHORITY TO EITHER LIKE THE COUNCIL OR AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OR THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS ABOUT THINGS LIKE LITIGATION STRATEGY OR WHETHER A LITIGATION BUDGET IS APPROPRIATE. BUT IT'S NOT. YOU CAN'T ASSUME THAT ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WILL HAVE LEGAL EXPERTISE. SO I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE A STRANGE SITUATION TO HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO HAS AN ATTORNEY, BUT THEN THEY NEED WHAT, LIKE APPROVAL FROM FOUR NON ATTORNEYS TO FILE A MOTION THAT THEY WANT TO FILE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I JUST I THINK IT COULD BE TRICKY THAT WAY. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS I GUESS COUNCIL MEMBER MARQUEZ MENTIONED THIS AND I NOTICED THIS WHEN I LOOKED AT IT TOO. I'M WORRIED ABOUT HOW IT POTENTIALLY TOUCHES ON ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, BECAUSE IF YOU LET'S SAY WE DID APPROVE, A COUNCIL MEMBER HAS THEIR OWN ATTORNEY. THAT RELATIONSHIP IS SUPPOSED TO BE PRETTY PROTECTED, BUT UNDER THE RESOLUTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH THE COUNCIL, WITH THE CITY MANAGER, WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND SO SUDDENLY, WHAT'S THIS PRIVILEGED RELATIONSHIP IS EXPANDING TO 6 OR 7 PEOPLE. AND I JUST I THINK THAT'S PRETTY TRICKY. SO OVERAL, I, I THINK IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT SIMPLIFIED. AND I DRAFTED SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD VERSION. BUT IN GENERAL, I JUST THINK, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD BE DECIDING THIS RIGHT NOW. LIKE IT WASN'T ON THE PRIOR MEETING'S AGENDA. WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A LIKE A WORKSHOP ON IT TO GO INTO HOW IT INTERACTS WITH THE RELEVANT LAW. AND THEN WE DO HAVE TWO NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS COMING IN SHORTLY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE BOUND BY THIS POLICY. SO I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN IT. SO THAT'S MY TAKE. I THINK WE

[01:35:03]

[01:40:06]

SO I FELT THAT IF I WENT TO THAT DEPOSITION, I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SAY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY, THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER LOWRY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE OFTEN CREATED IN RESPONSE TO SITUATIONS. WE ARE PUT IN A SITUATION BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CHALLENGES UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING THE BASIC PREMISE THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CANNOT, SHOULD NOT, WILL NOT ENCUMBER OR OBLIGATE THE CITY TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT AUTHORIZED. RIGHT? WE DON'T GET TO, YOU KNOW, WE GET A MONTHLY STIPEND, BUT WE DON'T GET TO GO TO ANY CONFERENCE WE WANT UNLESS WE'RE PAYING FOR IT OURSELVES, UNLESS IT'S BEEN PRE-APPROVED. WE DON'T HIRE ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT US UNLESS IT'S PRE-APPROVED. LET'S SAY I WANTED ADDITIONAL CONSULT ON SOME COMPLEX ISSUE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AND I WANT TO DO THAT. I CAN'T DO THAT UNLESS THAT COMES TO THE TEAM RIGHT. I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER MARQUEZ ACTUALLY MADE THE ARGUMENT FOR PUTTING THIS PROCESS IN PLACE. BUT JUST CLARIFIES FOR ANYBODY MOVING FORWARD WHAT THAT WHAT THOSE STEPS WOULD BE IF YOU WANTED YOUR OWN LEGAL REPRESENTATION, THERE WOULDN'T BE THE CONFUSION THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT OCCURRED RIGHT THERE, WOULD BE THIS PROCESS. NOW, I DID LOOK THROUGH IT WITH THE COMMENTS OF ONE OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS. THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT GIVING THE CITY MANAGER TOO MUCH AUTHORITY TO TURN THIS DOWN. AND SO I WANTED TO ASK MR. GALANTE TO MAKE SURE I'M READING THIS RIGHT ITEM SECTION ONE C. AND SECTION. ONE D. THE WAY I READ IT IS THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS NOT THE ULTIMATE DECIDING. IT'S MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE. DID I GET ALL OF THE DATA I NEED? THAT'S CORRECT. COUNCIL MEMBER OKAY, SO WHAT KIND OF DATA WOULD SOMEBODY BE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE? BECAUSE I WOULD ASSUME YOU KNOW THAT. WHY DON'T I LET YOU ANSWER THAT? AND I WON'T GUESS. YES, IT'S ACTUALLY STATED IN SUB SECTION A AND B THE OKAY, THE REQUEST SHOULD COME WITH AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE CITY ATTORNEY IS UNABLE TO HANDLE THE

[01:45:03]

SO WE ALL KNOW THAT OUR AUTHORITY IS LIMITED. YOU KNOW, AS INDIVIDUALS, WE'RE JUST ONE OUT OF FIVE VOTES. BUT EVERYTHING IN TERMS OF PURCHASING. I MEAN, WE'VE HAD LOTS AND LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW HOW THINGS ARE PURCHASED AND HOW THEY'RE SELECTED AND HOW THEY'RE AUTHORIZED. TO ME, THIS JUST DRILLS DOWN A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE IT EASIER AND CLEARER FOR COUNCIL MEMBER WHO MIGHT FEEL LIKE THEY NEED THEIR OWN LEGAL REPRESENTATION. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE MUCH DISCLOSURE OF THE DETAILS, CERTAINLY NOT TO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL. RIGHT? NOT TO. OR WE WOULD WANT TO PROTECT THAT. WE WOULD WANT TO PROTECT THAT. INFORMATION, CONCERN, WHATEVER IT IS THAT'S DRIVING THE REQUEST. DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT VIOLATES THAT. I LIKE HAVING A WRITTEN POLICY. I MEAN, TO ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF IT IS SECTION FOUR. THE CITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF ANY LEGAL FEES FOR AN ATTORNEY RETAINED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT DOES NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND EVERYTHING ABOVE IS HOW TO DO IT. OKAY. AND IF A LET'S SAY THE COUNCIL MEMBER PUT THIS REQUEST TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY MANAGER REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IT WAS PROVIDED. AND YET IT'S STILL NOT BEING FORWARDED ON TO COUNCIL. WHAT WOULD BE THE REMEDY? THE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN CERTAINLY REQUEST THAT THE WHOLE COUNCIL CONSIDER HIS OR HER REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION AND SAY THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY'VE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND HE'S NOT PRESENTING IT TO THE COUNCIL. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I WILL ADD JUST ONE LAST POINT THAT TO THE EXTENT, LET'S SAY A REQUEST IS MADE AND THE CITY REFUSES TO EITHER PROVIDE A DEFENSE OR APPROVE LEGAL COUNSEL, STATE LAW STILL APPLIES AND A JUDGE COULD ORDER THE CITY TO REIMBURSE A PERSON'S ATTORNEY'S FEES. SO THE ULTIMATELY IT IS JUST A PROCESS TO TRY TO STREAMLINE AND PROTECT THE CITY'S FUNDS, ESSENTIALLY BY HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THAT DEFENSE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. DOES IT ALSO HELP THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TO ENSURE THAT THEIR LET'S SAY IT'S APPROVED, RIGHT. BUT IS THERE SOME SORT OF PROCESS WHERE WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE GETTING A QUALIFIED ATTORNEY IN THAT FIELD? BECAUSE I DO SEE THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT HOW TO SELECT AN ATTORNEY? BUT I DO THINK WE'RE NOT EXPERIENCED AT THAT. AND PERHAPS THEY COULD GET NOT JUST THE SUPPORT FOR THE HEY, I WANT MY OWN ATTORNEY, BUT CAN YOU HELP ME IDENTIFY SOMEBODY WHO'S AN EXPERT IN THIS PARTICULAR FIELD WHO CAN HELP ME THROUGH THIS? BECAUSE I THINK IT BENEFITS THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE FULL COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT

[01:50:08]

SOME OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN RECOMMEND SOMEBODY. OR IF THE LAWYER AT THE MEMBER ALREADY HAS SOMEBODY THAT THEY CAN USE THAT PERSON, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE EXPERTISE RATES BEST FIT AND THE CITY CAN DECIDE WHO IT IS OR, YOU KNOW, GO WITH THE PERSON THAT THEY, THE MEMBER RECOMMENDED. SO I JUST I THINK IT SHOULD BE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS YOU KNOW, ONE SECOND, I WANT TO GO BACK AND MENTION REGARDING THIS, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT LAWSUIT. YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BEING CAREFUL AND EFFICIENT WITH MONEY, WE NEVER DID AN ANALYSIS OF THE COST TO THE CITY OF WHAT WOULD IT BE? AND WE NEVER SHARED IT WITH THE PUBLIC TO FIGHT A LAWSUIT LIKE WE DID, LIKE THE MAJORITY DID. WE KNOW THAT OVER $1.5 MILLION OF CITY TAXPAYER FUNDS. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS AGENDA ITEM. IT'S NOT. AND SO I'M JUST SAYING THERE, I MEAN, THESE ARE THINGS THAT THAT SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED NEXT TIME WE HAVE AN ISSUE, COME BEFORE US. THANK YO. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. SO, LOOK, I HEAR THE CONCERN THAT WE'VE HAD THIS EXPERIENCE AND THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A REMINDER OF WHAT STATE LAW IS IN THIS REGARD. AND I AGREE, IF WE'RE IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO, IF THE GOAL IS TO EDUCATE AND INFORM COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT THIS PROCESS, WE SHOULD DO THAT. BUT WE COULD DO THAT THROUGH NEW COUNCIL MEMBER ORIENTATION. WHEN NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS SIGN ON, EXPLAIN CLEARLY WHAT THE STATE LAW IS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. THIS IS NOT JUST A REMINDER. THIS ADDS A LOT A LOT OF NEW PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND REGARDING LIKE THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION THAT I KNOW. COUNCIL MEMBER MALLORY SAID SHE DIDN'T NOTICE PRIVILEGE CONCERNS. BUT LIKE PARAGRAPH E SAYS THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS TO PROVIDE ALL THEIR LEGAL INVOICES TO THE CITY MANAGER. I BELIEVE THAT IN SOME CAPACITY OR SOME CASES HAVE HELD THAT LEGAL BILLS ARE UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, PRIVILEGED. SO HOW CAN THE COUNCIL MEMBER SHARE THEIR LEGAL BILLS WHILE NOT VIOLATING PRIVILEGE? AND IN G IT TALKS ABOUT IF THE CITY ATTORNEY DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL'S LEGAL STRATEGY, THEN THE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ASSESS IT. WELL, HOW CAN THEY SHARE THEIR

[01:55:01]

THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD BE HAVING FOLLOWED A PROCESS AND HAVING RECEIVED APPROVAL AND AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, SECURING SEPARATE LEGAL COUNSEL. THAT IS NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT SORT OF BRANCH OF HOW STATE LAW WORKS, BECAUSE STATE LAW LARGELY FOCUSES ON THE CITY PROVIDING DEFENSE AND REPRESENTATION TO A COUNCIL MEMBER, NOT A COUNCIL MEMBER. CHOOSING A DIFFERENT ENTITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, WHICH HAPPENED HERE TWICE WITHOUT NOT ONLY THE CITY NOT BEING ASKED, BUT THE CITY NOT BEING AWARE OF IT UNTIL IT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED. COUNCIL MEMBER MARQUEZ. WELL, I JUST I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THE POLICY RUNS AFOUL OF STATE BAR RULES. IT IS AN OBLIGATION OF LAWYERS TO FIGURE IT OUT, NOT THE CITY MANAGER. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. JUST TWO THINGS. SO ONE, I GUESS MAYBE I'M CONFUSED. I WAS NOT I DON'T THINK THE CITY HAS PAID SOMEONE SEPARATE LEGAL COUNSEL $200,000 OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I DIDN'T I DON'T THINK THAT'S HAPPENED. AND THEN IF ALL WE'RE REALLY IF THIS IS REALLY JUST ABOUT A PROCESS FOR APPROVAL AND IT DOESN'T INVOLVE ONGOING OVERSIGHT AND QUESTIONS ABOUT PRIVILEGE, I DRAFTED SOMETHING THAT IS A LOT SHORTER AND KIND OF JUST FOCUSES ON, YEAH, IF YOU WANT YOUR OWN ATTORNEY, YOU HAVE TO ASK THE CITY FIRST. AND THEN

[02:00:06]

[02:05:02]

IT'S NOT ONE THAT I'VE EVER ENCOUNTERED. THE NEED FOR ANYWHERE BEFORE I CAME TO CYPRUS. IT'S ONE I HAVE A HARD TIME ANTICIPATING THE NEED FOR GOING FORWARD. BUT YOU MADE THE POINT EARLIER. WE'VE HAD THIS INCIDENT HAPPEN TWICE. COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SPOKEN TO BOTH ME AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT WANTING A PROCESS TO PROVIDE STRUCTURE FOR DECISION MAKING AROUND IT, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS RESOLUTION WOULD OFFER. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MARQUEZ, I'M ONLY AWARE OF THE ONE SITUATION THAT I'VE DEALT WITH AND I HAVEN'T COST THE CITY ANYTHING.

I PAID, I PAID MY BILL. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POINT. THE ALLEGATION ABOUT $200,000 IS FALSE, MR. GRANT, AND THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY. AND I WAS THE ONE WHO SAID, LET'S JUST MOVE FORWARD AND GO TO DISTRICTS AND NOT FIGHT THIS TO SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS. SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT I WAS THINKING OF THE RESIDENTS AND PROTECTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS WITH MY DECISIONS. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR. I MOVE THE ITEM. CAN I GET A SECOND? NO SECOND. IF, MR. MAYOR, I'M I'M ABOUT PROCESS, I ABSOLUTELY AM. I LIKE THE I LIKE THE PROCESS. I LIKE WHAT THEY PUT TOGETHER. WHAT HAS COME OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION THIS EVENING IS, IS ENFORCING THE PROCESS. OKAY. I'LL JUST SAY IT THAT WAY. ENFORCING THE PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THAT EACH MEMBER IS AWARE OF WHAT THE PROCESS IS AND THEN APPLY IT. AND I'LL BE ONE TO SAY, I HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN SAYING, HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN? THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. SO I LIKE AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THE PROCESS TOGETHER. BUT I'M I'M INCLINED TO REALLY PUT IT TO A POINT WHERE YOU HAVE A STATE LAW, YOU HAVE MAYBE A SPECIFIC THINGS OF STEPS THAT A PERSON MUST DO, AND THEN WE HAVE TO APPLY IT. AND I DON'T PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK WE'VE APPLIED IT AND JUST SAID NO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCESS. WHEN I SAY WE THE INDIVIDUAL DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCESS. SO WE'RE IN A DEFENSE MODE. SO MY THING IS LET'S BE PROACTIVE. LET'S GET IT OUT UP FRONT. I'M HOPING WE NEVER HAVE TO USE IT, BUT HELP COUNCIL MEMBERS UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS, WHAT HAPPENS, HOW IT HAPPENS, AND HAVE THEM SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE. PERIOD. AND IF ANYTHING COMES IN, YOU JUST SAY NO. OKAY, SO I'M SORRY. I'M USUALLY I'D LIKE THE PROCESS. AND I SAID IT VERY WELL UP FRONT. I'D LIKE THE PROCESS. BUT TONIGHT'S

[02:10:02]

AND THEN I WOULD SAY, HAVE EACH OF US SIGN IT. OKAY. FROM A STANDPOINT OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE PROCESS IS SO THAT WE DON'T WE DON'T ASK THE QUESTION THAT MANY OF US ASK IS, HOW DID WE GET HERE? WE'LL DO OKAY. IT WAS SORRY THE INCLUDING IT IN THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBER ORIENTATION IS SIMPLE AND PROBABLY SOMETHING FRED ALREADY TALKS ABOUT, REQUIRING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SIGN AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THAT THEY RECEIVED OR AWARE OF THE INFORMATION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT EITHER HE OR I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO. THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DIRECTION YOU GIVE. YOU COULD MAKE IT A MOTION THIS EVENING OR JUST SAY, MAKE SURE THIS IS PART OF THE TRAINING.

BUT IF THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY'VE BEEN INFORMED OF THE PROCESS FOR ASKING FOR INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE AND OR SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE, THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE COUNCIL DIRECTION. OKAY. SO MAYBE AND I HEARD WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO I'LL JUST SAY IT THIS WAY. I THINK WE'VE HEARD IT STRAIGHT OUT. I MEAN WE COULD WE CALL THIS MEETING AND PULL IT UP AND WE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID AND HOW IT'S SAID. I THINK DURING THE ORIENTATION, AS WE BRING NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS ON, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING THINGS.

MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING THINGS A BIT MORE ROBUST IN THE PROCESS OF YES, WE WENT THROUGH THIS AND YES, I WAS, I GOT HR AND YES, I DID THIS. SO THERE'S NOT A, YOU KNOW, SO THEY CAN KIND OF HAVE THEIR LITTLE PASSPORT THAT THEY GO THROUGH. AND THEY SAID, YES, I'VE DONE THIS. I THINK THIS SHOULD MAYBE BE ADDED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE LEGAL PART.

OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO NEW MEMBERS THAT PROBABLY ARE GOING TO COME IN VERY GREEN.

OKAY. THAT WON'T HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER. SO I THINK ADDING THIS SOMEHOW TO THAT DISCUSSION OR GUIDANCE FOR THEM TO READ UP IS VERY APPROPRIATE. I ACTUALLY BELIEVE I INCLUDE IT IN THE NOTEBOOK THAT I GIVE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT JOG MY MEMORY. MR. CITY MANAGER DIDN'T WASN'T THERE ALREADY SOME APPROVAL THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD TO SIGN AFTER THE ORIENTATION? NO. OKAY. BUT I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING WE DID TALK, RIGHT? YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT TO IMPLEMENT IT, BUT WE DID TALK ABOUT IT. YEAH. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE TRACK BUT NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY CLERK OR THE, THE CITY MANAGER CAN REQUIRE A COUNCIL MEMBER TO DO ABSENT YOUR DIRECTION. SO DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE THAT'S NOT AGENDIZED TONIGHT IF YOU WANT TO DO IT MORE BROADLY RIGHT. YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT BEYOND JUST THE. LEGAL REPRESENTATION ISSUE. YEAH. NO I, I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. BUT AS YOU SAID, I THINK WE CAN WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE THE MOTION AT A AND WHEN WE AGENDIZE IT FOR A FUTURE MEETIN.

OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER MARQUEZ. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY I HOPE THAT IN THE WITH THE NEW MEMBERS THAT EVERYONE IS TREATED FAIRLY AND NOT IN AN ADVERSARIAL MANNER. WE GOT HERE BECAUSE A MEMBER WAS TREATED IN AN ADVERSARIAL MANNER. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE NO ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AT THIS TIME. WE'RE

[ CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 Title: City Manager]

I'M HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE THE CLOSED SESSION ITEM. THANK YOU. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS A SINGLE ITEM LISTED ON THE CLOSED SESSION PORTION OF THE AGENDA, SPECIFICALLY, PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TITLED CITY MANAGER. THAT CONCLUDES THE REPORT. THANK YOU, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, AND I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING. THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, DECEMBER NINTH, 2024, BEGINNING AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE EXECUTIVE BOARDROOM. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.