[ PRESENTATIONS Proclamation in Honor of the City of Cypress 70th Anniversary and the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence Recognition of Outgoing Commissioners Oath of Office for Incoming Commissioners Receive the Project Achievement Award for Arnold Cypress Park from Robert Echavarria, Griffin Structures Presentation of the CHP 10851 Award to Cypress Officer Seth Ramsey from Chief Lauderback E-Bike Legislation Update from Connor Medina, Regional Public Affairs Manager, Cal Cities]

PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE WELL FOR THIS EVENING'S PRESENTATION. THE FIRST PROCLAMATION IS RECOGNIZING THE 250TH SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CITY'S 70TH ANNIVERSARY.

THANK YOU. WELL, I JUST WANTED TO SAY WELCOME TO EVERYBODY HERE. I'M DELIGHTED THAT WE'RE TAKING THIS MOMENT TO PAUSE AND REFLECT ON OUR WONDERFUL COUNTRY AND OUR WONDERFUL CITY. I'M VERY HONORED TO SERVE THE CITY OF CYPRUS, AND I APPRECIATE THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE THAT YOU'VE ALL PUT IN ME, ALLOWING ME TO DO SO.

AND I'M REALLY GRATEFUL TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT TONIGHT. SO THANK YOU.

[00:05:01]

AMERICA AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CYPRUS. DOWN HERE. IN. AT THIS TIME, WE'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE TWO OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HENKE AND COMMISSIONER KRISTIN JACKSON. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE HERE RIGHT NOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT HOW INCREDIBLE THEY WERE AS COMMISSIONERS, AND THEY STILL ARE, AND HOW INCREDIBLY ACTIVELY INVOLVED THEY ARE IN IN OUR COMMUNITY, IN SO MANY DIFFERENT FACETS, WHETHER IT'S THE KIWANIS CLUB OR WORKING WITH YOUTH SPORTS, OR WHETHER IT'S CONTRIBUTING AND BEING FINANCIAL SPONSORS OF THE VARIOUS EVENTS, THEY'RE BOTH INCREDIBLE COMMISSIONERS, AND THEY WILL BE MISSED. GREAT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED TO WITH THE SWEARING IN OF THE CITY'S NEWLY APPOINTED INCOMING COMMISSIONER, CHERYL BENTZ, SERVING ON THE SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION AND BEING SWORN IN. YEAH. LET'S GIVE HER A HAND. YEAH. THANK YOU. AND BEING SWORN IN FOR A SECOND TERM IS JEFFREY DRONKERS RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION.

CLAUDIA NASARE, SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION. AND CATHERINE YOUNGERMAN, TRAFFIC COMMISSION COMMISSIONER, PLEASE COME DOWN HERE.

WE CAN JUST COME UP.

OKAY.

JUST WANT TO LINE UP. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND REPEAT AFTER ME. I STATE YOUR NAME. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE, TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY. I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION. PURPOSE OF EVASION. AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES. DISCHARGE THE DUTIES UPON WHICH I'M ABOUT TO ENTER. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS.

CONGRATULATIONS. THANKS. CONTINUE TO STAND UP HERE. WE'D LIKE TO INVITE YOUR FAMILIES.

IF YOU HAVE ANYONE TO, PLEASE COME UP SO WE CAN GET A PHOTO OPS. COME ON. MY FAMILY MEMBERS, FAMILY, FRIENDS, ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO BE IN THE PICTURE? CONGRATULATIONS. PLEASE COME ON IN. COME ON. MY NEW SON IN LAW. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO. DO YOU WANT ME TO TAKE ANY PICTURES? YEAH.

[00:11:03]

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS WE WOULD LIKE TO INVITE ROBERT ECHEVARRIA OF GRIFFIN STRUCTURES TO PRESENT A PROJECT ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR ARNOLD CYPRESS PARK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. OH. DID YOU WANT A PICTURE FIRST OR. OKAY, LET ME HAVE A PICTURE. FIRST. PICTURE FIRST. OKAY, I'LL SAY A FEW WORDS, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT THERE SO YOU CAN. OKAY. I PROMISE I'LL KEEP THIS UNDER TEN MINUTES. I KNOW YOU GUYS GOT A LONG NIGHT. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, IT IS MY PRIVILEGE TO PRESENT THE CITY OF CYPRESS. THIS PRESTIGIOUS AWARD FROM THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA FOR THE SUCCESSFUL DELIVERY OF ARNOLD CYPRESS PARK RENOVATION. THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, OR CMAA IS THE NATION'S LEADING PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO ADVANCING THE PRACTICE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. ITS ANNUAL PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS AWARDS RECOGNIZE AND DEMONSTRATE THE EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP, INNOVATION, TEAMWORK AND SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES, MAKING THIS RECOGNITION A SIGNIFICANT HONOR WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. THIS AWARD REPRESENTS MUCH MORE THAN THE EXCELLENCE IN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. IT RECOGNIZES OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP, COLLABORATION, INNOVATION, AND A SHARED COMMITMENT TO SERVING THE COMMUNITY. ARNOLD CYPRESS PARK HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF CYPRESS FOR GENERATIONS.

THROUGH THE VISION AND COMMITMENT OF CITY COUNCIL, DEDICATED CITY STAFF AND THE OUTSTANDING TEAM OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS, THAT VISION BECAME A REALITY.

PROJECTS OF THIS MAGNITUDE DO NOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE. THEY REQUIRE CAREFUL PLANNING, SOUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND COUNTLESS COUNTLESS HOURS OF TEAMWORK.

THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA RECOGNIZED ARNOLD CYPRESS PARK BECAUSE IT EXEMPLIFIES THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF PROJECT DELIVERY, FROM PLANNING AND DESIGN THROUGH CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS AWARD BELONGS TO THE RESIDENTS OF CYPRESS. EVERY CHILD WHO PLAYS ON THOSE FIELDS, EVERY FAMILY GATHERING, EVERY PICKLEBALL MATCH, EVERY COMMUNITY EVENT, AND EVERY WALK THROUGH THE PARK IS A REMINDER THAT INVESTING IN PUBLIC SPACES IS TRULY AN INVESTMENT IN PEOPLE. ON BEHALF OF GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, CONGRATULATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL AND EVERY PARTNER WHO HELPED MAKE ARNOLD CYPRESS PARK AN AWARD WINNING SUCCESS. THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS ON THIS WELL-DESERVED AWARD.

THANK YOU.

NEXT, WE'D LIKE TO INVITE THE CHIEF OF POLICE FORWARD TO THE PODIUM TO PRESENT OFFICER SETH RAMSEY, THE CHP, 10851 AWARD.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COUNCIL. I HAVE THE DISTINCT PRIVILEGE AND

[00:15:03]

ABSOLUTELY AN HONOR TO BE PRESENTING THIS AWARD TO OFFICER SETH RAMSEY TONIGHT.

THIS AWARD SHOWS HIS DEDICATION TO THE RECOVERY OF STOLEN VEHICLES, WHICH IS A. I WOULD SAY IT AFFECTS ALL OF US. IT AFFECTS OUR INSURANCE RATES. IT AFFECTS THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD THEIR VEHICLES STOLEN. IT'S PROPERTY. IT'S THINGS PEOPLE WORK HARD FOR. IT'S THINGS PEOPLE TAKE PRIDE IN. AND SOMEONE COMES ALONG AND TAKES IT. AND IT TAKES A VERY UNIQUE OFFICER TO KNOW HOW TO FISH THOSE OUT, FIND THEM AND HOLD THOSE ACCOUNTABLE WHO ARE IN POSSESSION OF THOSE CARS. AND TONIGHT, OFFICER SETH RAMSEY IS RECEIVING HIS SECOND AWARD FROM THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALONG WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL. THE VEHICLE THEFT RECOVERY. AND EARLIER THIS YEAR IN ORANGE COUNTY, THE AUTO THE ORANGE COUNTY AUTO THEFT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TRIPLE A HOLD AN AWARD CEREMONY RECOGNIZING THOSE OFFICERS IN ORANGE COUNTY WHO ARE THE TOP AUTO THEFT RECOVERY OFFICERS FOR EACH CITY.

AND OFFICER RAMSEY HAS RECEIVED THAT HONOR FOUR YEARS IN A ROW NOW. LAST YEAR, HE WAS THE THIRD HIGHEST AUTO THEFT RECOVERY OFFICER, AND THIS YEAR HE WAS THE FOURTH HIGHEST AUTO RECOVERY OFFICER IN ORANGE COUNTY. SO THAT'S AN AMAZING FEAT. BUT LET ME READ YOU SOME OF HIS STATS WHILE HE'S RECEIVING THIS AWARD TONIGHT FROM THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL. 36 RECOVERED STOLEN VEHICLES. EIGHT OF THOSE VEHICLES WERE WHAT WE CALL A ROLLING STOLEN. THEY WERE BEING DRIVEN BY SOMEBODY AT THE TIME THEY WERE DISCOVERED STOLEN. A HIGH RISK TRAFFIC STOP WAS MADE. AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE PLACED UNDER ARREST AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR BEING IN POSSESSION OF THAT CAR. 28 ABANDONED STOLEN VEHICLES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, WHETHER THEY'RE LEFT IN A PARKING LOT PARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, AND SOMEBODY RAN AWAY FROM IT. BUT HE RECOVERED 28. THE TOTAL VALUE OF ALL OF THOSE RECOVERIES, $532,000. WOW. SO TONIGHT IS MY HONOR TO RECOGNIZE OFFICER RAMSEY AND PRESENT HIM WITH THE COVETED TEN 851 SECOND PEN AWARD THAT HE CAN WEAR ON HIS UNIFORM FOR THIS YEAR, OR PUT IT IN A SHADOW BOX, OR JUST HOLD ON TO IT AND DO WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH IT. SO, SETH, CONGRATULATIONS. AND THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU AND MY ADMIN AND MY COWORKERS, WHO I'M SURE ARE TIRED OF HEARING ME TALK ABOUT STOLEN VEHICLES ALL THE TIME. BUT I'M VERY THANKFUL TO WORK IN THIS CITY THAT SUPPORTS ME TO PURSUE MY PASSION. SO THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. SO.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

AND LASTLY, CONNOR MEDINA, REGIONAL MANAGER OF CAL CITIES, IS HERE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ON E-BIKE LEGISLATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR MEDRANO AND HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CONNOR MEDINA. I AM THE REGIONAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER FOR YOUR ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES OR CAL CITIES. WE ARE AN ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE STATE'S 483 CITIES, INCLUDING, PROUDLY, THE CITY OF CYPRESS. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THE LATEST

[00:20:01]

DEVELOPMENTS IN E-BIKE POLICY AND LEGISLATION AT THE STATE LEVEL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED BY OUR MEMBERSHIP UP AND DOWN THE STATE, INCLUDING IN ORANGE COUNTY, BUT ALSO ALL OVER THE PLACE THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED REGARDING E-BIKE SAFETY. AND THE SAFETY IS THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE THAT WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON. THE STATE IS ALSO LOOKING AT THIS FROM A LEGISLATIVE LENS, AND THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THE STATE HAS PRIMARILY ADOPTED HAS BEEN THAT THEY WANT THIS MOBILITY OPTION TO BE AVAILABLE. THEY POINT TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM FEWER CARS BEING ON THE ROAD, BUT ALSO THE BALANCE OF MAKING SURE THAT THESE VEHICLES ARE AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE AND OPERATING AS SAFELY AS POSSIBLE. E-BIKES ARE HERE TO STAY. HOW DO WE ENSURE SAFETY? WE ARE NOT STRANGERS TO THIS ISSUE, BUT OUR POLICY PLATFORM NEEDED TO BE UPDATED AND EXTENDED TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THE LATITUDE TO ENGAGE ON THE DOZEN PLUS BILLS THAT WERE INTRODUCED THIS YEAR RELATED TO E-BIKE SAFETY, INCLUDING BILLS I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT SHORTLY THAT WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF. AND TO THAT END, WE HELD A SURVEY OF OUR ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP. WE DID A WEBINAR ANALYZING BEST PRACTICES ALREADY IN PLACE IN DIFFERENT CITIES. OUR TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE, WHICH CITY MANAGER DELONG SERVES ON, HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE. SO WE REALLY HAVE CONSULTED OUR MEMBERSHIP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE APPROACHING THIS ISSUE AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE BIGGEST ISSUES THAT ARE TOP OF MIND ACROSS DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS. ONE THING I REALLY WANTED TO EMPHASIZE IS HOW ACTIVE ORANGE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY HAS BEEN IN THIS SPACE. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT FOR SOME OF THE BILLS I'M TALKING ABOUT, THE AUTHORS ARE FROM ORANGE COUNTY. IT'S DEFINITELY IS A HOTBED FOR THIS ISSUE, THOUGH WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT ALONE. THIS IS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO I JUST WANT TO REWIND A LITTLE BIT BACK TO 2025. WE SUPPORTED TWO BILLS THAT OR YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE STARTING TO CHIP AWAY SOME MORE COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS TO MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE MORE SAFETY MEASURES IN PLACE. BABY STEPS HERE. BUT ASSEMBLYWOMAN LAURIE DAVIES, WHO REPRESENTS SOUTH COUNTY, INTRODUCED AB 544 AND 545, REQUIRING RED REFLECTORS ON E-BIKES AT ALL TIMES OF THE DAY AND CRACKING DOWN ON APPS THAT CLAIM AND SUCCESSFULLY DO SOMETIMES ALLOW YOU TO HACK INTO YOUR E-BIKE AND INCREASE THE SPEED BEYOND OF WHAT THAT SPEED THE MANUFACTURER TOLD YOU IS THE MAXIMUM SPEED FOR THAT BIKE. SO, YOU KNOW, BABY STEPS HERE, BUT THIS IS THE FRAMEWORK OF SOME OF THE BILLS THAT WERE INTRODUCED LAST YEAR THAT WERE SIGNED INTO LAW. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN THIS YEAR, WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN ONE OF THE BILLS INTRODUCED SIGNED INTO LAW, ASSEMBLYMEMBER DIXON, WHO REPRESENTS COASTAL ORANGE COUNTY, HER BILL AB 1614. AGAIN, A COMMON SENSE FIX. THERE IS A LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWED A PIGGYBACKING, WHICH IS SOMEBODY RIDING ON AN E-BIKE BUT ON THE SEAT, BUT ON THE BACK OF THE BIKE, STANDING UP, ALLOWING THAT ON BIKE TRAILS AND BIKE PATHS. SO MAKING SURE THAT THAT IS PROHIBITED AND FIXING THAT LOOPHOLE WAS IMPORTANT AND WAS SIGNED INTO LAW THIS YEAR WITH AN URGENCY CLAUSE, MEANING THAT AS SOON AS IT WAS SIGNED ON JUNE 30TH, IT TOOK EFFECT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO THE BILLS THAT ARE STILL MOVING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. THESE ARE IN THE FISCAL COMMITTEES FOR FOR THESE THREE NEXT BILLS WHERE THE PRICE TAG CAN CAUSE A BILL TO STALL. BUT WE ARE OPTIMISTIC THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE ADVANCING, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS AB 1569, AGAIN FROM MEMBER DAVIES, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A STATEWIDE E-BIKE SAFETY TRAINING COURSE SPECIFICALLY FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLERS. LOOKING AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ALREADY HAVE SIMILAR TRAININGS IN PLACE, MODELING AFTER WHAT'S WORKING IN THOSE DISTRICTS. BUT THIS IS A BILL THAT CAL CITIES IS SUPPORTIVE OF. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND NOW WE GET TO TWO OF THE MOST NUANCED BILLS THAT WERE INTRODUCED THIS YEAR. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT WALL OF TEXT THERE, THIS BILL IS TRYING TO DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. IT'S AB TWO, THREE, FOUR, SIX FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER LORI WILSON, WHO REPRESENTS SAN DIEGO. THIS BILL DOES A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS, SO IT CLARIFIES LOCAL AUTHORITY AND SETTING A 15 TO 20 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT ON BIKE PATHS AND TRAILS. IT ALSO SETS A STATEWIDE TEN MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT ON SIDEWALKS.

AND IN ADDITION TO THE SPEED LIMITS, IT IS ALSO AIMING TO ENSURE THAT SELLERS OF E-BIKES ARE ACCURATELY INFORMING CONSUMERS ABOUT WHAT THE E-BIKE THEY'RE SELLING IS RIGHT, IT'S MAXIMUM SPEED, WHAT CLASSIFICATION IT IS, AND MORE INFORMATION. AND THE E-BIKE MARKETPLACE WE'VE SEEN CAN BE AN EXTREMELY CONFUSING PLACE FOR CONSUMERS, WHERE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT BIKES THAT ARE BEING MARKETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCURATE.

AND WHEN ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S A PARENT PURCHASING AN E-BIKE FOR THEIR CHILD, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT INFORMATION IS, IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCURATE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND LASTLY, SB 1167 FROM SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR WHO REPRESENTS SOUTH COUNTY AS WELL. IT SIMILARLY IS SEEKING TO LIMIT MISLEADING ADVERTISING PRACTICES BY PROHIBITING SELLERS FROM MARKETING HIGHER POWERED, FASTER VEHICLES AS E-BIKES. THE DEFINITION OF E-BIKE IS IN NEED

[00:25:05]

OF SOME UPDATING AND CLARIFICATION. AND SPECIFICALLY IN THIS BILL, IT WOULD BE VEHICLE IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED AN E-BIKE AFTER EXCEEDING THAT 28 MILE PER HOUR MAXIMUM, AND IN A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE ACCIDENTS THAT YOU SEE IN THE NEWS AND EVEN IN THE DATA ABOUT E-BIKE INJURIES, IT'S INVOLVING VEHICLES THAT ARE GOING BEYOND THIS 28 MILE PER HOUR LIMIT.

AND THERE'S A SUPPLEMENTAL POWERPOINT THAT I ATTACHED AND PROVIDED TO THIS COUNCIL.

THAT'S FROM A RESEARCHER NAMED DOCTOR FANG AT SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY. AND HE REALLY GOES INTO THE WEEDS ON THIS. THERE'S A STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN THE BAY AREA LOOKING AT 19 DIFFERENT MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS. AND WHEN THEY WERE OBSERVING THE E-BIKES THAT THE KIDS WERE USING TO GET TO SCHOOL, ONLY 12% WERE CLEARLY LEGAL E-BIKES THAT WERE BEING USED. YOU KNOW, WITH THAT RESTRICTION OF THE MAXIMUM SPEED THAT THEY CAN REACH. SO THIS IS AN ISSUE, REALLY, OF MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MARKETING AND SELLING E-BIKES WITH THE ACCURATE INFORMATION. AND BECAUSE OF THIS CONFUSING MARKETPLACE, SB 1167 SEEKS TO ENFORCE MORE TRANSPARENCY FOR SELLERS TO TO LIMIT BIKES FROM EXCEEDING THAT 20 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT, AND TO PENALIZE THOSE WHO ARE PUTTING FAKE LABELS ON THESE VEHICLES TO MAKE THEM APPEAR TO BE A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR RAISING THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. CAL CITIES IS WORKING DILIGENTLY ON THIS LEGISLATION.

THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE NEXT YEAR. I THINK THIS IS REALLY THE START OF MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE USING THIS NEWER TECHNOLOGY IN THE SAFEST POSSIBLE WAY, AND LIMITING ANY UNFORTUNATE INCIDENTS THAT ARISE WHEN THERE'S BIKES GOING FASTER THAN WE THINK THEY CAN GO ON OUR ROADS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MEDINA. WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COME DOWN AND SPEAK WITH US. THIS IS A HOTBED TOPIC FOR ORANGE COUNTY AND ALSO IN CYPRUS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE AS A COUNCIL, HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT TRYING TO PASS A NEW CITY ORDINANCE, BUT WE NEVER WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET. SO I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE STATE LEVEL AND WHETHER WE CAN EXPECT THOSE CHANGES ANYTIME SOON. ONE WAS RAISING THE AGE LIMIT FOR CLASS TWO E-BIKES. THESE ARE THE E-BIKES THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY PEDAL TO GET UP TO 20MPH. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. MAYOR PRO TEM, IN TERMS OF THE AGE LIMIT, THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS. NO LEGISLATION HAS ADVANCED IN TERMS OF HAVING AN AGE LIMIT FOR A CLASS THREE E-BIKE THAT CAN REACH THAT 28 MILE PER HOUR SPEED, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE 16 OR OLDER TO LEGALLY BE RIDING ONE. THERE IS NO AGE LIMIT FOR THE CLASS ONE OR CLASS TWO, WHICH IS 20MPH OR LESS. THERE IS ALSO CONVERSATIONS. ONE OF THE THE LAURIE DAVIES BILL A, B, A, B 20. I'M SORRY, A B 1569, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT BILL ORIGINALLY HAD A COMPONENT WHERE YOU WOULD NEED TO TAKE THAT CLASS, THE E-BIKE TRAINING CLASS THAT WOULD BE OFFERED STATEWIDE IN ORDER TO PARK YOUR BIKE ON A SCHOOL CAMPUS. SO NOT AN AGE LIMIT, BUT A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THAT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE STUDENTS THAT WAS AMENDED OUT OF THE BILL IN COMMITTEE. SO THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN TERMS OF EXPRESSING, YOU KNOW, WHY THOSE SORTS OF REQUIREMENTS MIGHT BE NEEDED. BUT NO, NO MOVEMENT AT THIS TIME ON THAT. HOW ABOUT A MOVEMENT TO I THINK THERE'S PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY A REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE FOR E-BIKES. DID THAT GET ANY MOVEMENT ON THAT ONE THAT HAS NOT. AND THERE STILL IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR THAT FOR, FOR E-BIKES WHEN YOU GET TO THE FASTER VEHICLES. YES. THERE WAS A BILL FROM SENATOR CHOI THAT DIED EARLIER THIS YEAR WHO REPRESENTS A LOT OF CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY, IRVINE, THAT WOULD ESTABLISH A PILOT PROGRAM TO REQUIRE LICENSE PLATES ON E-BIKES. BUT THAT BILL FAILED IN COMMITTEE. OKAY. SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE, AND I'VE SEEN SOME OTHER CITIES AROUND US PASSES THE THE SPEED LIMIT FOR E-BIKES, THAT'S DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE AND ALSO TO REGULATE BECAUSE A LOT OF E-BIKES DON'T HAVE A SPEEDOMETER ON THEM. SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING 5 OR 10MPH. WHAT'S THE STATE'S PLAN FOR IF A B 2346 DOES GET PASSED? WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR ENFORCING THAT? BUT ALSO GIVING THE A RIDER AN OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, SEE HOW FAST THEY'RE GOING? I THINK THAT AB 2346 WOULD BE NECESSARY TO GET SOME OF THE GOOD CHANGES THROUGH. IF NOT, THEN CITIES ARE AGAIN, KIND OF IN A LIMBO AS TO WHAT THEY'RE ABLE TO DO. PART OF AB 2346 WOULD BE REQUIRING THOSE SPEEDOMETERS ON THOSE CLASS TWO BIKES THAT CAN REACH UP TO 20MPH. SO THAT WOULD HELP GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT SPEED YOU'RE GOING. SO THAT IS A COMPONENT OF THAT BILL THAT HASN'T BEEN AMENDED OUT SO FAR. AND WE'RE ASKING THAT THE STATE THAT THE LEGISLATURE KEEP THAT COMPONENT IN. OKAY. HOW ABOUT E-BIKES ON SIDEWALKS? WHAT'S YOUR WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE? YOU KNOW, LOCAL AUTHORITY TO, TO VARIES, YOU

[00:30:04]

KNOW, DIFFERENT CITIES ARE APPROACHING IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS. AND I'M HAPPY TO, AFTER THIS MEETING, CONNECT THE COUNCIL WITH, WITH OTHER CITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE APPROACHED THIS AND MIGHT HAVE IDEAS THAT THEY CAN SHARE. YEAH. BUT THE LEGISLATION FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER WILSON, AGAIN, HAS THAT TEN MILE PER HOUR LIMIT ON THE SIDEWALKS. AND THAT'S A STATEWIDE ENFORCEMENT. RIGHT. SO I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT CITIES CURRENTLY HAVE COMPLETELY CLARIFIED AUTHORITY ON ESTABLISHING THAT THEMSELVES, ALTHOUGH I THINK SOME CITIES HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT. BUT THE THE AUTHORITY UNDER STATUTE IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR. AND THAT BILL CLARIFIES THAT THAT IS THE SPEED LIMIT FOR THE STATE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE, YOU HAVE FOUR. THANK YOU. CONNOR, ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANTED YOU HERE IS THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT COMES UP A LOT FROM RESIDENTS. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE UPDATE ON WHAT SOME OF THE BILLS BEING CONSIDERED ARE, BECAUSE AS WE CONSIDER ACTIONS HERE IN CYPRUS, WE DON'T WANT TO CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE IN CONFLICT WITH A STATE LAW THAT COULD PASS THE NEXT DAY OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. I DID WANT TO LET OUR RESIDENTS KNOW WE ALREADY DO THE EDUCATION AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL HERE IN CYPRUS, SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF WHERE THE STATE IS ON THAT, WHICH IS FANTASTIC. BUT MY MY MAIN QUESTION IS, AS MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG ALLUDED, A NUMBER OF CITIES HAVE PASSED ORDINANCES WHETHER IT'S TOUGHER, TOUGHER PENALTIES OR SPEED LIMITS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE HAS CAL CITIES OR ANY RESEARCH YOU'VE SEEN CONCLUDED. WHAT'S BEEN PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE IN ACTUALLY CHANGING THE BEHAVIOR? OR ARE WE AT THE STAGE WHERE IT'S JUST A BIG EXPERIMENT AND CITIES ARE TRYING DIFFERENT THINGS, AND WE DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE ACTIONS ARE AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. I THINK WE'RE STILL IN A NASCENT PERIOD WHERE DIFFERENT CITIES ARE TRYING DIFFERENT THINGS. YOU KNOW, FROM CAL CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE SUPPORTING IS NOT PREEMPTING IDEAS THAT SOME CITIES HAVE THAT THAT MIGHT BE GOING A LITTLE FURTHER. AND DIFFERENT CITIES, DIFFERENT APPROACHES. I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE IF THERE IS DATA ON THOSE PARTICULAR. THERE'S DATA ON THE INCIDENT RATES INVOLVING E-BIKES AND DIFFERENT ACCIDENTS IN DIFFERENT AREAS. THE SUPPLEMENTARY POWERPOINT FROM DOCTOR FANG MIGHT HAVE SOME TABLES THAT PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON A MORE REGIONAL LEVEL, BUT I CAN DO SOME DIGGING AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY DATA THAT SHOWS THAT THE ORDINANCES HAVE HAD AN EFFECT AND GET BACK TO YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE THE INCLUSION OF THE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH. THAT'S SOMETHING I'D BE CURIOUS TO TAKE A DEEPER LOOK AT. SO THANKS FOR PROVIDING THAT. AND THAT'S THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. GREAT. SEEING. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. I WANT TO SAY ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MEDINA, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND YOUR TIME COMING OUT TO SPEAK WITH US. THANK YOU. CHEERS. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON

[ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON AGENDA ITEMS This portion of the meeting is set aside for public comments regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Comments on non-agenda items will be heard at this time. Comments related to a specific agenda item will be heard following the staff report for that item and prior to the City Council action, unless the speaker prefers to make the comment during the general public comment period. The City Council cannot discuss or take action on matters not on the agenda for this meeting, but Council members may provide brief responses. 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 or City Clerk to call on you to address the City Council virtually. Speakers providing in-person comments will be called first. Time allotted for public comment (subject to change by the presiding officer). General Public Comment (not on agenda): 3 minutes Consent Calendar (any or all items): 3 minutes Agenda Items (not on consent calendar): 3 minutes per item]

AGENDA ITEMS. THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS SET ASIDE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING ANY MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMENTS ON NON AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE HEARD AT THIS TIME. COMMENTS RELATED TO A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM WILL BE HEARD FOLLOWING THE STAFF REPORT FOR THAT ITEM AND PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION, UNLESS THE SPEAKER PREFERS TO MAKE THE COMMENT. DURING THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT DISCUSS NOR TAKE ACTION ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING, BUT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY PROVIDE BRIEF RESPONSES. 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 OR CITY CLERK TO CALL ON YOU TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL VIRTUALLY. SPEAKERS PROVIDING IN-PERSON COMMENTS WILL BE CALLED FIRST. TIME ALLOTTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS IS THREE MINUTES. PLEASE NOTE ITEMS NUMBER TEN AND 11 WILL BE DONE LATER DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD. I SAY AGAIN, ITEMS NUMBER TEN AND 11 WILL BE DONE LATER DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD. NOW I WILL CALL THE SPEAKERS UP ONE AT A TIME.

FIRST, SPEAKING ON ITEM NUMBER 13 IS GRISELLE VAZQUEZ, FOLLOWED BY BROOKE. ITEM NUMBER 13. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS KRYSTLE VAZQUEZ AND I OVERSEE CLIENT SERVICES AT VALLEY VISTA SERVICES. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK CITY STAFF AND CITY GREEN FOR ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT WENT INTO OUR PERFORMANCE REVIEW. THIS WAS A VERY THOROUGH REVIEW THAT TOOK SEVERAL MONTHS AND REALLY LOOKED CLOSELY AT OUR OPERATIONS, COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, AND FINANCIAL RECORDS. WE REALLY APPRECIATED THE

[00:35:03]

OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE WE CAN CONTINUE TO IMPROVE. WE ALSO TRULY ENJOY BEING PART OF YOUR COMMUNITY. ONE OF OUR FAVORITE PERKS IS PARTICIPATING IN THE CITY'S EVENTS. YOUR SALUTE TO AMERICA 4TH OF JULY SHOW WAS FANTASTIC AND OUR STAFF REALLY ENJOYED IT, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT AMENDMENT FIVE IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY. THE COMMUNITY SPOKE AND WE LISTENED TOGETHER WITH THE CITY, WITH CITY STAFF. WE WORKED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BULKY ITEM SERVICES TO CYPRESS RESIDENTS. I HOPE THAT THE CITY AND THE RESIDENTS KNOW THAT WE TRULY VALUE AND HONOR OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH CYPRESS, AND WE LOOK FORWARD. WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY WITH OUR COMMITMENT TO KEEP IT CLEAN, GREEN, AND THRIVING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT IS BROOKE ON ITEM NUMBER 13. HI. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. I WANTED TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 13. I THINK IT'S 13 THE TRASH CONTRACT. AND JUST SAY FIRST THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBER PEAT FOR PUTTING THE ITEM FORWARD. IT SEEMS LIKE FOREVER. A YEAR OR SO AGO. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME FOR AN AUDIT.

I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME, QUITE A BIT OF CONTROVERSY AROUND THE TRASH CONTRACT. AND THEN TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, NICK, AND HIS TEAM FOR GETTING EVERYTHING SORTED OUT. THE AMENDMENT LOOKS GREAT AND IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF LOOSE ENDS WERE TIED UP, SO I WAS REALLY GLAD TO SEE THAT, AND I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THEY HAD OVER 90% COMPLIANCE ON ALL THE COMPONENTS. I WAS A LITTLE SHOCKED THAT THERE WAS SO LOW.

I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE PRETTY HUGE. AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT WE JUST DID OUR FIRST BULKY ITEM PICK UP PICK UP AFTER ALL THESE YEARS AT THE END OF JUNE. IT WAS A EASY PROCESS AND IT WENT SMOOTHLY. SO GREAT JOB, GREAT JOB. THE AMENDMENTS. GOOD. I'M GLAD THAT THAT'S THAT'S DONE NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. NOW, I'D LIKE TO INVITE ED KRAMER UP TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NUMBER TWO, THREE, SIX AND 12. AND I NOTE HERE YOU DO HAVE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 11, AND THAT CAN BE DONE LATER ON DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD. RIGHT. I CAN GET THESE THESE OTHERS OUT. THANK YOU COUNCIL AND AND MAYOR, THANKS FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. I'M ED KRAMER, I LIVE IN CYPRESS. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON TWO AND 12, THREE AND SIX. SO FIREWORKS. GREAT TO SEE THAT ON THE AGENDA. IT'S A HUGE DEAL WITH MY DOG'S DOG FOR 20 YEARS. THE DOGS HATE HIM. PEOPLE BLOWING UP ILLEGAL FIREWORKS. IF IT FLIES OR EXPLODES, IT'S ILLEGAL. WE PAY HALF OUR CITY BUDGET FOR POLICE. HOW THEY GO ON ALL THROUGH JULY.

I CAN'T BELIEVE I HAVE TWO DINGS AGAINST OUR POLICE. ONE IS THE FIREWORKS THAT GO ON ALL THE WAY THROUGH JULY, AND TWO IS WE NEED SOFT RESPONSE, PSYCHOLOGICAL PEOPLE THAT CAN SHOW UP, NOT JUST GUYS WITH GUNS. WE NEED SOFT RESPONSE TEAM. AND I HEARD THAT WAS ONCE IN THE WORKS COLLABORATION WITH ANOTHER CITY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE EVER GOT IT. THE FIREWORKS.

BIG DEAL. THANK YOU. THE DRONES. I'D LIKE TO SEE A PLAN FOR HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE USED. I ALSO WANT TO HAVE ASKED A COUPLE TIMES FOR A PLAN ON THE CAMERAS. I WANT TO SEE WHERE THE CAMERA DATA IS GOING, HOW THEY'RE USING IT. AND SAME THING WITH THE DRONES, HOW THEY'RE USING ANY DATA, THE COLLECTING. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT, AND I'M. SIX KUDOS FOR THE PARK PLAYGROUND PLANNING PARK PLAYGROUNDS. WONDERFUL. THANK YOU FOR GETTING THAT ON THE AGENDA. GREAT. I'LL SEE YOU BACK ON ON NUMBER 11. THANKS.

THANK YOU. I CURRENTLY HAVE NO FURTHER CARDS. CITY CLERK IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE? NO. MR. MAYOR. OKAY, SO NOW THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS CLOSED. AS I STATED EARLIER, ITEMS NUMBER TEN AND 11 WILL YOU WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THOSE LATER DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD. NOW. AND NOW WE'LL PROCEED TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ALL MATTERS

[ CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS 1-9) 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.]

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. I SEE

[00:40:01]

MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG HAS REQUESTED THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO PULL ITEM ONE. I HAVE A SMALL CLARIFICATION FOR ONE OF THE MINUTES. COUNCILMEMBER BURKE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. I'M NOT GOING TO PULL AN ITEM, BUT I DID WANT TO GIVE CHIEF LAUTERBACH AN OPPORTUNITY. I THINK IT'S EXCITING THAT WE'RE GETTING THE DRONES PURCHASED AND ACCEPTING THE DONATION, BUT CAN YOU MAYBE JUST BRIEFLY TOUCH ON HOW WE, THE DEPARTMENT, CAN POTENTIALLY UTILIZE THE DRONES? YES. OUR DRONES ARE PRIMARILY GOING TO BE USED FOR PATROLLING THE BUSINESS PARK AT NIGHT, WHICH MAKES IT A LOT, WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR OFFICERS TO GET BEHIND THE FENCES OF THE LOCKED BUSINESSES TO COME IN AT A SAFE DISTANCE.

WHETHER THERE'S A CRIME IN PROGRESS OR SOMEBODY MIGHT BE DUMPING A STOLEN CAR BACK THERE IN THE IN THE BUSINESS, PARKS GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PATROL, TO PATROL FROM THE SKY AND LOOK AT THE ROOFS OF OUR BUSINESSES, THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ALL THAT OFTEN, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN WHERE SOMEBODY WILL BREAK IN THROUGH CUTTING A HOLE IN A ROOF OR MAKING ACCESS FROM ONE BUSINESS TO ANOTHER VIA THE ROOF. WE'LL ALSO HELP US WITH OUR OFFICERS WHEN THEY ARE CHASING A SUSPECT AND THAT SUSPECT, WE LOSE THEM. WE CAN SET UP A PERIMETER AND DO A YARD TO YARD SEARCH WITHOUT HAVING TO PHYSICALLY ENTER THAT BACKYARD, PUTTING OUR OFFICERS AT GREATER RISK THAN THEY ALREADY ARE AT. NOT ONLY THAT, WE WILL BE ABLE TO USE THEM DURING OUR SALUTE TO AMERICA. WE'LL BE ABLE TO USE THEM DURING OUR FIVE K TEN K RUN, AS WELL AS OUR EVENTS FOR CELEBRATING CYPRUS IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AND SEPTEMBER. THOSE HAVE COME IN HANDY WITH OUR PARTNERING AGENCIES. WHEN LOOKING FOR MISSING CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY NOT ONLY JUST CHILDREN, BUT MISSING ADULTS AS WELL. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING IN FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS THAT ARE HARD TO ACCESS BECAUSE OF FENCES OR BECAUSE OF THE ROCKS THAT ARE THERE, OR JUST BECAUSE OF THE SHEER DEPTH OF THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL. SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE USED IN ALL KINDS OF WAYS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY CAN ALSO BE USED WITH INVESTIGATIONS AT FATAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, WITH MARKING. INSTEAD OF SHUTTING A STREET DOWN FOR 4 TO 6 HOURS. THE DRONES HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF DOCUMENTING ALL THAT EVIDENCE WITHIN A SHORTER AMOUNT OF TIME, SOMETIMES LESS THAN AN HOUR, WHICH PROVIDES A A LESSER INCONVENIENCE TO THOSE TRAVELING ON THE ROADS WHEN THE ROADS ARE CLOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. AND I BELIEVE, AS WE DISCUSSED LAST MEETING, THEY CAN ALSO BE USED FOR ILLEGAL FIREWORKS ENFORCEMENT AS WELL, BECAUSE IT HELPS TO KIND OF CATCH SOMEBODY ON VIDEO RATHER THAN HAVING TO WAIT FOR AN OFFICER TO, TO ARRIVE AT THE SCENE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE INFORMATION. THANK YOU. SEEING NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR SPEAKERS, ITEM NUMBER ONE HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. NORMALLY THAT WOULD THEN BE DISCUSSED LATER ON, BUT DID YOU WANT DISCUSS LATER ON OR DID YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT BRIEFLY? SURE. OKAY, I'LL MAKE IT REALLY QUICK. OKAY, SO HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, THAT'S FINE TO DO THAT PROCEDURE. OKAY. VERY WELL. DO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? JUNE 23RD, 2026. THE REGULAR MEETING ITEM 15. THAT'S THE THE LIST OF COMMISSIONERS AND THEIR BACKUPS.

I BELIEVE THAT WE HAD PRIMARY BACKUPS FOR EACH OF THE COMMISSIONS. SO OFTEN PONDER SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY BACKUP FOR THE RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES. ANTHONY ADAMS IS THE PRIMARY BACKUP FOR SENIOR COMMISSION AND IS THE PRIMARY BACKUP FOR TRAFFIC, SO THAT'S NOT LISTED THERE. I'M I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE DID A RANKING SYSTEM. DID WE DO A RANKING FOR THEM TOO, ABOUT WHO WOULD GO FIRST IN CASE SOMEBODY WAS WAS NOT ABLE PRIMARY BACKUP WAS NOT ABLE TO DO IT I CAN'T REMEMBER I HAVE TO NOTES HERE. IT WAS ON THAT SHEET OF PAPER THAT WE ALL SIGNED. I DON'T REMEMBER, MR. MAYOR. I DON'T HAVE THAT SHEET WITH ME. BUT I DO RECALL THERE WEREN'T ANY RANKINGS, BUT THERE WERE FOUR ALTERNATES, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO FOR RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION, ONE FOR SENIOR SERVICES AND ONE FOR TRAFFIC. OKAY. IT'S MY RECOLLECTION THAT ANTHONY ADAMS WAS FOR RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GREAT. SO BUT I WILL MAKE SURE TO DELINEATE WHICH ALTERNATE IS TO SERVE ON WHICH COMMISSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THEN I'LL MAKE I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SORRY. I WAS GOING TO SAY JUST TO CLARIFY BEFORE WE PROCEED.

SO ITEM NUMBER ONE IS NO LONGER PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. AND WE WILL BE VOTING ON ALL ITEMS NUMBER ONE THROUGH NINE DURING THIS VOTE. AND AT THIS TIME, I, I'D LIKE TO

[00:45:01]

ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM, AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS ONE THROUGH NINE. AND IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. VERY WELL. PLEASE VOTE. I NEED ONE MORE VOTE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[10. Public Hearing to Renew the Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for FY 2026-27 Prepared by: Nick Mangkalakiri, Director of Public Works Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution renewing Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for FY 2026-27, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.]

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER TEN. PUBLIC HEARING. NUMBER TEN FOR THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PRIOR TO ANY ACTION BEING TAKEN. PLEASE COMPLETE SPEAKER CARD TO PARTICIPATE IN SPEAK IN PERSON. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED FIRST, FOLLOWED BY THOSE JOINING VIRTUALLY. THE MAYOR CITY CLERK MAY WILL CALL ON YOU TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL. ALL SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS. COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD DISCLOSE COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANYONE RELEVANT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUBLIC HEARING. ITEM NUMBER TEN. CITY MANAGER. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? YES, MAYOR. FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, NICK MCGILLICUDDY, AND HIS CONSULTANTS AND TEAM WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A TWO PART REPORT. YOU WILL BOTH BE HEARING THE FINDINGS FROM THE AUDIT OF OUR WASTE HAULER. AND OH, I'M SORRY, THIS IS FOR OUR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, FOR YOUR CORPORATE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. SO NICK AND OUR CITY AND ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DANIEL CO WILL HAVE THAT REPORT FOR YOU. MY APOLOGIES. THANK YOU SHANNON. SO OUR CITY ENGINEER, DANIEL COLBY PRESENTING THIS ITEM. GOOD EVENING MAYOR CITY COUNCIL. SO EVERY YEAR THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE FOR THE STAUNTON CHANNEL BERM THAT WAS FORMED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGO. THIS DISTRICT PROVIDES ONGOING MAINTENANCE FOR LANDSCAPE BERM, WHICH ACTS AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE BUSINESSES TO THE NORTH AND THE RESIDENTS TO THE SOUTH OF THE STAUNTON CHANNEL, THERE ARE 19 PARCELS OWNED BY FOUR PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THEY PAID ASSESSMENT ON A PER ACRE BASIS. SO EVERY YEAR WE LOOK AT THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX OR CPI, AND WE ADJUST THAT ASSESSMENT FEE BASED ON THAT. AND FOR THIS UPCOMING YEAR IT WILL BE ABOUT $109,000 TOTAL. SO BY ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION, THE CITY COUNCIL RENEWS THE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2627. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS WE STATED BEFORE, SPEAKER, PROVIDING IN-PERSON COMMENTS WILL BE CALLED FIRST, IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW, COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD DISCLOSE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH INDIVIDUALS RELEVANT TO A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AT THIS TIME. I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. CITY CLERK IS THERE ANYONE ANY COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER TEN? I BELIEVE NOT, BUT I JUST WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK ON ITEM TEN. OKAY. NUMBER TEN.

VERY WELL THEN. GREAT. DISCUSSION. YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO TO DELIBERATIONS. SO SEEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND NOW WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR INTERNAL DELIBERATION AMONGST THE CITY COUNCIL. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY DISCUSSION? VERY WELL THEN, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER TEN TO RENEW THE CYPRESS CORPORATE CENTER LANDSCAPE. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ONE. AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. AND THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, WE'RE

[11. Public Hearing to Consider Los Alamitos Race Course Specific Plan 3.0 Buildout Prepared by: Alicia Velasco, Community Development Director Recommendation: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, and approving Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. Adopt the attached Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19247; and 3. Introduce for first reading of an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement by title only and waive further reading.]

GOING TO MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11. I JUST NEED TO LET THE COUNTY COUNCIL BE AWARE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BEING AWARE, THE MAYOR WILL NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11. HE LIVES LITERALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROJECT PROPERTY. AND FOR THAT REASON, THE MAYOR PRO TEM WILL BE CONDUCTING THIS HEARING. I'LL INVITE THE MAYOR TO SURRENDER THE DAIS AND LEAVE THE COUNCIL CHAMBER DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

[00:50:15]

ALRIGHTY. LET'S GET DOWN TO BUSINESS. CITY MANAGER DILLON, DO YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT FOR US? MAYOR PRO TEM TONIGHT? WE DO. BEFORE I TURN THINGS OVER TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR VELASCO, AS THE NEW KID HERE, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF SET THE STAGE FOR WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING TONIGHT AND CLARIFY FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND VISITORS OF INTEREST. THE CITY RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FROM A PROPERTY OWNER. STAFF IS OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT AND TO REVIEW A COMPLETED APPLICATION. THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL ARE NOT REQUIRING THE RACECOURSE TO CLOSE DOWN. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A TIMELINE FOR IF OR WHEN THOSE OPERATIONS WOULD EVENTUALLY WIND DOWN THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ZONING THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT CONTROLS THE PROPERTY. USE THE. TONIGHT. ACTUALLY, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN'T CHANGE THE ZONING THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE BY THE SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED BY VOTERS IN 2024. SO THE NUMBER OF UNITS, THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. THAT IS NOT UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS DELIBERATED, CONSIDERED BY THE VOTERS, WAS THE SUBJECT OF MEETINGS AND HEARINGS AND THINGS. THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADJUST THAT TONIGHT. AND SO THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION OR THE QUESTION.

THE CITY AND ITS CONSULTANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PRESENT TO YOU AN ANALYSIS OF WHETHER THE APPLICATION THAT WE RECEIVED DOES OR DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING AND THE GENERAL PLAN AND STATE LAW. AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS AND DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THAT GETS EVALUATED. AND ALICIA IS GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT FOR YOU. BUT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT IS AND ISN'T SORT OF UNDER THE PURVIEW. AND IN QUESTION TONIGHT, AND AGAIN, THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL, THOSE ARE BOTH NOT OPTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS ABLE TO DELIBERATE AT ALL THIS EVENING. SO WITH ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, COMMUNITY DIRECTOR, OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR VELASCO AND HER TEAM HAVE A WHOLE PRESENTATION FOR US TONIGHT. YES. THANK SORRY. I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN TONIGHT SO I CAN BE WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS TEAM. BUT THANK YOU, SHANNON, AND GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM CITY COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BEHIND ME. AS SHANNON MENTIONED, I'M GOING TO PRESENT THE CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMON SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0 BUILD OUT PROJECT. AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT WILL BE LONGER THAN TEN MINUTES. SO I'M SORRY, IT'S A BIT TECHNICAL, SO.

SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME. THE PROJECT DOES INCLUDE THREE REQUESTS FROM THE APPLICANT.

THE FIRST IS TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THIS INCLUDES ADOPTING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. SECOND IS TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACK MAP 19, 247. AND THIRD, INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE. I'LL WALK THROUGH EACH OF THESE ITEMS IN THE PRESENTATION. AS SHANNON MENTIONED, THE PROJECT WAS INITIATED BY THE LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE. THE PROJECT AREA INCLUDES 150 ACRES WITH APPROXIMATELY 130 BUILDABLE ACRES. THE SITE IS BOUNDED BY KATELLA AVENUE, LEXINGTON DRIVE, WALKER STREET AND CERRITOS AVENUE. THE REQUEST BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT DOES NOT APPROVE ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE REQUEST ESTABLISHES THE LONG TERM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE PHASE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACK MAP SUBDIVIDES THE PROJECT AREA INTO 14 PARCELS. THIS MAP ESTABLISHES THE PARCEL FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE PHASE DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN. IT ALSO SECURES REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS THE MOODY STREET AND VESSEL CIRCLE EXTENSION. AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. FUTURE DEVELOPERS WILL SUBMIT ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS AND THOSE APPLICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ALL APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE APPROVALS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT

[00:55:09]

EVALUATE UP TO 1791 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 440 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND A MINIMUM 11 ACRES OF NEW PUBLIC PARK SPACE. THE LAND USE FRAMEWORK SHOWN HERE IDENTIFIES THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, MIXED USE AND PUBLIC PARK AREAS, BUT THE SPECIFIC DESIGN OF FUTURE BUILDINGS, SITE PLANS AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS WILL RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH LATER DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. WHILE IT'S BEEN NOTED THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWS UP TO 880 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THIS EVENING OR WHAT WAS EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. SHOULD ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE EVER BE REQUESTED, FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WOULD BE REQUIRED AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THE LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED IN THE 1950S. BETWEEN 1987 AND 2017, SEVERAL MEASURES WERE PLACED ON THE BALLOT THAT IMPLEMENT IMPACTED THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR THE RACECOURSE PROPERTY. IN 2018, MEASURE A WAS APPROVED BY CYPRESS VOTERS, AND THE TC 2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN WAS ADOPTED. THAT PLAN WAS INITIATED BY LARK AND PERMITTED UP TO 1250 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 880,000FT■!S OF COMMERCIAL SPAC.

NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED AT THAT TIME BECAUSE MEASURE A WAS A VOTER INITIATIVE. BETWEEN 2018 AND 2024, LEXINGTON PARK AND BELMONT TOWNHOME COMMUNITY COMMUNITY WERE COMPLETED. THE BELMONT TOWNHOME COMMUNITY INCLUDES 135 HOMES. IN 2024, MEASURE S WAS APPROVED BY CYPRESS VOTERS. MEASURE S WAS THE FIRST CITY SPONSORED VOTER INITIATIVE. IT WAS DONE IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S STATE MANDATED HOUSING OBLIGATION, KNOWN AS RHNA, WHICH REQUIRED CYPRESS TO PLAN FOR 3936 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. MEASURE S WAS APPROVED AND THE CT CC 3.0 WAS ADOPTED. IT ADDED 676 RESIDENTIAL UNITS SPECIFICALLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS LOTS SEVEN, 11, 12 AND 13. THERE WERE NO CHANGES TO ANY OF THE OTHER PARCELS. MEASURE S DID NOT CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PUBLIC SPACE OBLIGATION OR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. BECAUSE NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WAS PREPARED FOR MEASURE A AND THE CT CC 2.0. AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOW REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, AND THAT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OR AN EIR. AN EIR IS A DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT TO THE PUBLIC. IT LOOKS AT HOW A PROJECT COULD AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT, IDENTIFIES ANY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND REQUIRES MITIGATION MEASURES OR SPECIFIC ACTIONS TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS WHERE POSSIBLE. FOR THIS PROJECT, THE EIR EVALUATED 19 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREAS. MOST IMPACTS ARE FOUND TO BE EITHER LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES. HOWEVER, THERE WERE THREE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AIR QUALITY, CULTURAL RESOURCES, AND TRANSPORTATION. THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AIR IS AIR QUALITY. SO WHICH MAKES SENSE UNDER SEQUA. AIR QUALITY IS EVALUATED ON A REGIONAL AND CUMULATIVE LEVEL. SO THIS REGION IS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S ALREADY WHAT IS CALLED NON-ATTAINMENT. SO THAT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE AIR POLLUTION LEVELS ALREADY EXCEED STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. SO BECAUSE OF THIS EXISTING CONDITION, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE REGION CONTRIBUTE TO THIS ALREADY EXISTING AIR QUALITY PROBLEM, RESULTING IN A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT. THE EIR DOES, HOWEVER, INCLUDE MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE THOSE EMISSIONS TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO INCORPORATE PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES SUCH AS ELECTRONIC APPLIANCES WHEN PRACTICABLE. EVEN WITH THOSE MEASURES, HOWEVER, THE IMPACT CANNOT BE REDUCED BELOW THE SIGNIFICANT THRESHOLDS. THE SECOND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT IS CULTURAL RESOURCES. DUE TO THEIR AGE AND HISTORY, THE RACE TRACK AND GRANDSTANDS

[01:00:05]

ARE IDENTIFIED AS ELIGIBLE LISTING IN THE NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTER AND CALIFORNIA HISTORIC REGISTER. DUE TO THIS ELIGIBILITY, THE DEMOLITION OF THE RACE TRACK AND GRANDSTANDS RESULTS IN A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL IMPACT. THE EIR INCLUDES MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH WILL REQUIRE PRESERVING HISTORICAL ITEMS, PHOTOGRAPHS AND OTHER MEMORABILIA, AND DONATING IT TO THE LOCAL LIBRARY OR ORANGE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY. THE THIRD SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IS IN TRANSPORTATION AS IT RELATES TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED OR VMT.

VMT MEASURES THE DAILY VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER PERSON PER TRIP. SO THE GOAL OF THIS METRIC IS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT THAT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF MILES PEOPLE DRIVE EACH DAY. BECAUSE THE FURTHER PEOPLE DRIVE, THE MORE VEHICLE EMISSIONS ARE PRODUCED. VMT DOES NOT MEASURE TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR DELAY AT INTERSECTIONS. VMT IS ALSO ANALYZED REGIONALLY. THIS REGION IS ORANGE COUNTY AND THE VMT IS 15 MILES PER TRIP. SO EACH TIME A PERSON TAKES A TRIP IN THEIR CAR IN ORANGE COUNTY, THEY DRIVE AN AVERAGE OF 15 MILES. THE STATE'S GOAL IS TO REDUCE VMT BY 15%. SO FOR THIS PROJECT, THE APPLICABLE THRESHOLD FOR VMT IS 13.21 VMT PER CAPITA. THE PROJECT'S VMT IS 14.58, WHICH EXCEEDS THAT THRESHOLD OF 13.21. SO WHILE THE PROJECT DOES REDUCE VMT COMPARED WITH THE COUNTY AVERAGE, IT DOES NOT REDUCE IT ENOUGH TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT AND THEREFORE IT'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. SO DURING THE DRAFT EIR PROCESS, QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE OF A 30% REDUCTION IN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD LOWER THE VMT BELOW THE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD. THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS RAN THAT MODEL, AND THE REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE REDUCED VMT FROM 14.58 TO 14.50, LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF A V M2 REDUCTION, AND STILL A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT. THE EIR DOES INCLUDE MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRING BICYCLE FACILITIES AND SAFE WALKING AND BIKING CONNECTIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT TO HELP GET THOSE VEHICLE TRIPS DOWN. THE DRAFT EIR IS CIRCULATED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR 45 DAYS, AND THE FINAL EIR RESPONDS TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THAT REVIEW PERIOD. 11 COMMENT LETTERS WERE RECEIVED, BUT THE COMMENTS DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OR REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE ANALYSIS. SO THE DRAFT EIR WAS FINALIZED. BECAUSE THE EIR IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS, CERTIFICATION REQUIRES ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IDENTIFIES THAT THE PROJECT BENEFITS SUPPORT APPROVING THE PROPOSAL DESPITE THOSE UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. SO SPECIFIC FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE BENEFITS INCLUDE FACILITATING FUTURE HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE VOTER APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN, PROVIDING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY BY REVITALIZING AND UNDERUTILIZING SITE AND DIVERSIFYING THE CITY'S HOUSING STOCK. LASTLY, THE FINAL EIR ALSO INCLUDES A MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, WHICH ENSURES THAT THE REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES ARE IMPLEMENTED IMPLEMENTED AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. THE THIRD REQUESTED ENTITLEMENT IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ESTABLISHES THE LONG TERM IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROJECT. IT HAS A 15 YEAR HORIZON AND IS INTENDED TO COORDINATE FUTURE PHASE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

THE AGREEMENT DEFINES THE TIMING AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND SECURES OBLIGATIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURES, PARKS, MAINTENANCE AND PUBLIC ACCESS.

THIS AGREEMENT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WILL NOT DEVELOP ALL AT ONCE. THIS WILL BE A MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-PHASE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENSURES THAT THE OBLIGATIONS APPLY OVER TIME AND BIND ALL FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS. ALSO, A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS THAT IT OUTLINES THE PUBLIC

[01:05:03]

IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, REGARDLESS OF FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. THIS MAP PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAJOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AREAS. KEY IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE THE MOODY STREET AND EXTENSION. THE IMPROVEMENTS TO VESSEL CIRCLE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS, FUTURE PARK AREAS AND ENTRANCE MONUMENT LOCATIONS. THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE SECURED THROUGH THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACK MAP, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THERE ARE TRAFFIC AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED WITH THE PROJECT, WHILE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT UNDER SEQUA, IT STILL HAS REAL LIFE IMPLICATIONS FOR CITY STREETS AND INTERSECTIONS.

BECAUSE OF THAT, A TRAFFIC STUDY IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY FUTURE TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. THE STUDY ANALYZED 31 INTERSECTIONS, AND WITH BOTH THE PROJECT TRAFFIC AND AMBIENT GROWTH, THERE ARE SOME TRAFFIC IDENTIFIED, TRAFFIC IMPACTS IDENTIFIED. HOWEVER, ALL STUDY INTERSECTIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITHIN ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE. THAT BEING SAID, THE PROJECT WILL BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL THE MOODY STREET EXTENSION, WIDEN AND UPGRADE VESSEL CIRCLE. INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE NEW MOODY STREET AND VESSEL CIRCLE INTERSECTION, AND ALSO UPGRADE THREE ADDITIONAL INTERSECTIONS.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE CONCEPTUAL MOODY STREET EXTENSION. THIS EXTENSION WILL BE DESIGNED TO MATCH MOODY STREET, NORTH OF CERRITOS, AND WILL EXTEND FROM CERRITOS TO KATELLA. THERE WILL BE A BIKE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION, TWO TRAVEL LANES, A LANDSCAPED MEDIAN AND ALSO A SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPED PARKWAYS ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE STREET. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS TO VESSEL CIRCLE. VESSEL CIRCLE WILL BE WIDENED.

THERE WILL BE SIDEWALKS AND PARKWAYS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, A BIKE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION, AND ONE TRAVEL LANE EACH WAY. THE PROJECT WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS AT THREE INTERSECTIONS OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA BALL ROAD AND MOODY STREET, BALL ROAD AND WALKER STREET AND CERRITOS AVENUE AND VALLEY VIEW STREET.

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES WILL ALSO BE COLLECTED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL FUND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AT THE CITY'S DISCRETION BASED UPON FUTURE TRAFFIC FLOWS. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES TWO ENTRANCE MONUMENTS. ONE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CERRITOS AVENUE AND MOODY STREET AT THE FUTURE PUBLIC PARK, AND THE OTHER IS LOCATED IN THE EXISTING MEDIAN AT KATELLA AVENUE AND MOODY STREET. THIS MONUMENT IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO FIT INTO THAT EXISTING MEDIAN TO SAVE THE PALM TREES THAT ARE AN ICONIC FEATURE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE RACETRACK. THESE MONUMENTS WILL IDENTIFY THE DEVELOPMENT AS THE COMMONS AND CREATE A UNIFIED ENTRY FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. THE SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRES 20 ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK SPACE AT FULL BUILD OUT. NINE ACRES HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED THROUGH LEXINGTON PARK. FUTURE PARK SPACE INCLUDES AN APPROXIMATELY EIGHT ACRE PARK ON LOTS FIVE AND SIX, AND A TWO ACRE FLOATING PARK THROUGHOUT SOMEWHERE ON THE SITE. SORRY AND IN APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO LEXINGTON PARK.

THESE PARK AREAS ARE REQUIRED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND SECURED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FUTURE PARK SPACE IS EXTENSIVELY REGULATED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING TERMS AS IT RELATES TO THE PUBLIC PARK SPACE FOR THE LOTS FIVE SIX PARK. IT WILL BE PRIVATELY OWNED, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND MAINTAINED BY THE MASTER HOA. THE TWO ACRE FLOATING PARK MAY BE PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND ITS LOCATION MUST BE IDENTIFIED BEFORE PERMITS ARE ISSUED ON LOTS TWO, THREE, FOUR, 7 OR 13. THIS TWO ACRE PUBLIC PARK MAY BE LOCATED IN ANY ZONE. IT MAY BE STANDALONE OR MAY BE ATTACHED TO OTHER PARK SPACE.

THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE FUTURE ADDITIONS TO LEXINGTON PARK, WHICH IS CURRENTLY THE TRACKS MAINTENANCE YARD. ALSO AN IMPORTANT ITEM TO NOTE THAT TRAIL CONNECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ACROSS THE WESTERN LOTS TO MOODY STREET TO PROVIDE THAT

[01:10:02]

CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THE TOWN CENTER AND PARK AREAS. THOSE FINAL PARK DESIGNS ARE NOT BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. PARK DESIGN WILL OCCUR AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS MOVE FORWARD AND FOLLOW THE CITY'S STANDARD PARK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THIS IS ALSO OUTLINED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. PARK CONCEPTS ARE FIRST DEVELOPED WITH INPUT FROM STAFF, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC.

CONCEPTUAL PLANS WILL BE CREATED AND BROUGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

ONCE CONCEPTUAL PLANS ARE APPROVED, A PARK MASTER PLAN AND FINAL DESIGN PLANS WILL BE DEVELOPED, WHICH WILL INCLUDE ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING LANDSCAPING, AMENITIES AND OTHER DESIGN FEATURES. THOSE FINAL PLANS WILL ALSO BE BROUGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FURTHER FUTURE PROJECTS WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE PARK IMPACT FEE. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDES SEVERAL OTHER IMPORTANT LONG TERM OBLIGATIONS.

A QUESTION HAS COME UP DURING THIS PROCESS REGARDING FUTURE TRAILS AND GREENWAYS. WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, TRAILS AND GREENWAYS MUST CONNECT LOTS TWO, THREE AND FOUR TO MOODY STREET TO PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY TO THE TOWN CENTER AND PUBLIC PARK SPACE. ALSO, ALL SUCCESSOR PROPERTY OWNERS ARE OBLIGATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND THE CITY ALSO HAS APPROVAL AUTHORITY OVER FUTURE TRANSFEREES. THE OBLIGATIONS ARE LOCKED IN FOR 15 YEARS, AND THE CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS WILL CONDUCT ANNUAL REVIEWS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE. LASTLY, ALL APPLICABLE FEES WILL BE PAID AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES WERE PROVIDED THROUGH THE MAIL, POSTED NOTICES AND THE CITY WEBSITE. ADDITIONAL NOTICE WAS ALSO PROVIDED. CONSISTENT WITH THE COTTONWOOD CHURCH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, SO THAT. INCLUDE PROVIDING NOTICE TO THE NEW DUTCH HAVEN AND CARRIER ROAD TRACKS WITHIN THE CITY OF LOS LOS ALAMITOS. IN ALL, OVER 1100 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES WERE MAILED. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED HAVE BEEN PLACED AT THE CITY COUNCIL DAIS. IN CONCLUSION, THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPLEMENTS THE VOTER APPROVED CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS 3.0 SPECIFIC PLAN BY SUBDIVIDING THE LOTS FOR FUTURE PHASE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ALIGNS WITH THE ALREADY APPROVED ZONING. ALL THREE OF THE REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS ESTABLISHED LONG TERM REQUIREMENTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, PARK SPACE, AND PHASED DEVELOPMENT. THE EIR INCLUDES MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACK MAP HELP PREVENT PIECEMEAL DEVELOPMENT BY ESTABLISHING A COORDINATED. NET FRAMEWORK FOR THE FULL PROJECT AREA. THE PROJECT MEETS THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND THE CYPRESS MUNICIPAL CODE, AND IMPORTANTLY, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND PARK SPACE WILL RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THEREFORE, IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVE THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACK MAP AND INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND MYSELF AND PUBLIC WORKS AND OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAMS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALICIA. TERRIFIC JOB. IT REALLY HELPS US PLACE WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT WITHIN THE BIGGER, BIGGER PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS RACE COURSE. BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO A A PUBLIC HEARING, I WANT TO ASK IF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ALICIA BEFORE WE MOVE ON. COUNCILMEMBER, DID YOU HAVE A. I'M SO SORRY, I FORGOT TO MENTION SOMETHING. INCLUDED IN THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED TODAY, THE CITY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM AN ENTITY CALLED SAFE SAFE AIR AND IT IS A LATE COMMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. OUR OUR CONSULTANTS DID RESPOND TO THAT COMMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PROVIDED AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE THAT COMMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. AND MR. MAYOR PRO TEM, I'D ADD THAT WE'D LIKE ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN WITH THE PROJECT TO BE INCORPORATED INTO PUBLIC RECORD. GIVEN THE SIZE OF THIS PROJECT AND THE SIZE OF OUR AUDIENCE, OUR SUGGESTION TO YOU, SIR, WOULD BE TO INVITE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST AND THEN HAVE THE COUNCIL DISCUSS THEREAFTER. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE MOVE ON. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED ABOUT

[01:15:05]

THE INDOOR AIR POLLUTION AND WHAT OUR RESPONSE WAS? YES. SO THE COMMENT LETTER THAT WE WE RECEIVED TODAY STATED THAT THE CITY DID NOT ANALYZE INDOOR AIR QUALITY ON FUTURE RESIDENTS IN REGARDS TO FORMALDEHYDE. OUR CONSULTANTS RESPONSE IS THAT THE SEQUA STATUTE IS TO LOOK AT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS IT EXISTS TODAY. IT IS NOT TO LOOK AT IMPACTS ON FUTURE RESIDENTS AND THAT ISSUES LIKE FORMALDEHYDE AND BUILDING MATERIALS ARE IN OSHA RELATED AND BUILDING RELATED REQUIREMENT. AND SO THAT IS THE STANCE FROM OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ALSO WILL HAVE INFORMATION TO CHIME IN REGARDING THAT MATTER. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO, MR. CITY ATTORNEY CLARIFIED IT FOR ME. I WAS GOING TO ASK IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST, SINCE I IMAGINE OUR QUESTIONS COULD BE LENGTHY. AND I THINK WE HAVE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, OH, WE WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT. OH, WE WOULD AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO GIVE A COMMENT FIRST. REMEMBER THAT IN A PUBLIC HEARING LIKE THIS, THE APPLICANT GETS THE FIRST WORD AND THE LAST WORD. THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS FRANK. SHARON AND I DO REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY, WHICH AS YOU KNOW, IS LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE AND THE REMNANTS OF CYPRESS, FORMERLY CYPRESS GOLF CLUB. AND I'M HERE PRIMARILY TO JUST ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS, TO THANK ALL THE HARD WORK THAT WENT INTO GETTING US TO THIS POINT. OUR TEAM, WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE CITY'S TEAM TO DEVELOP THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THOSE GUYS ARE YOU GOT A TOUGH GROUP OVER THERE? I TELL YOU THAT. BUT I ALSO WANTED TO REITERATE THAT THERE'S NO PLAN FOR THE RACE COURSE. THERE'S NO PLAN FOR THE RACE COURSE TO CLOSE. WE'RE GOING TO RUN AS LONG AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. IT'S DOCTOR ALLRED'S PASSION, HIS HOBBY, HIS LOVE OF HIS LIFE. AND WE'RE GOING TO RUN QUARTER HORSES AS LONG AS WE CAN. SO THAT BEING SAID, IN 2017, 2018, WE DECIDED TO TRY TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, AND IN DOING SO, WE HELD A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS, OVER 15 COMMUNITY MEETINGS TO HEAR WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD TO SAY. SO BASICALLY, WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD TO SAY WAS THEY WANTED PRIMARILY THREE THINGS. THEY WANTED PARK SPACE. SO WE GAVE TEN ACRES OF PARK AWAY PRIOR TO THE INITIATIVE BEING VOTED ON IN JUNE. AND WE PROMISED AND SET ASIDE ANOTHER TEN ACRES. THEY ALSO WANTED DENSITY AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. SO IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WE INCORPORATED THOSE THINGS. AND LASTLY, THEY WANTED VOTER RIGHTS TO BE PROTECTED. SO THAT MEASURE D THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1987 THAT BASICALLY SAID ANY PROPERTY IN THE ZONING DISTINCTION HAD TO BE TO BE REZONED, HAD TO BE VOTED ON BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. SO WE TOOK A INITIATIVE IN JUNE OF 18, AND THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR WHAT YOU SEE IN THE ZONING, ALICIA'S MAP THAT SHE PUT UP, THAT SHOWED THE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTINCTIONS THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE PEOPLE, NOT BY CITY COUNCIL OR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP OR A PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WAS DONE BY THE PEOPLE. AND AGAIN IN 2000, 2014, NO. 2024, THE CITY'S INITIATIVE AGAIN WAS APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE. AND SO I WANTED TO I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. ALSO, AS YOU GUYS MENTIONED EARLIER, AND ALICIA'S VERY FINE PRESENTATION, THERE'S NO PROJECT PROPOSED. WE'RE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. WE'RE OBLIGATED TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AND WE'LL DO THOSE THINGS AS WE PROMISED.

AND THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO WITH THAT, AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK ALL THE HARD WORK, THE CITY STAFF, THE TIME THAT WAS PUT IN BY OUR TEAM, JUST HOURS AND HOURS TO GET TO THIS POINT, AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL VOTE FAVORABLY FOR US TONIGHT. SO THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE JACK REUBENS, OUR LAND USE ATTORNEY, WHICH WILL ADDRESS THAT LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED TODAY, IF THAT'S OKAY. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. THANKS, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M JACK REUBENS WITH THE SHEPHERD MALL AND LAW FIRM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. IT'S REALLY A PLEASURE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH YOU TONIGHT, AND WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. IF I MAY ALSO SAY, IT'S A REAL

[01:20:02]

PLEASURE TO SEE MR. WINDER IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S CHAIR, JUST AS HE WAS MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST BEGAN WORKING WITH THE RACE COURSE AND AND, AND THE CITY. SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU, MR. WINDER. YESTERDAY, AFTER BUSINESS HOURS, YOU DID RECEIVE A LETTER, AS MISS VELASCO SAID, FROM A AN ENTITY CALLED SUPPORTERS ALLIANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.

THEY'RE COMMONLY KNOWN AS SAFER. AND IN THE LETTER THEY RAISED A SINGLE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE, WHICH THEY SUBMITTED LONG AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE DRAFT EIR ENDED. IN FACT, LONG AFTER THE FINAL EIR WAS COMPLETED AND THE ONE ISSUE THEY'VE RAISED, TO PUT IT SUCCINCTLY, IS THAT THE EIR FAILED TO ANALYZE THE PROJECT'S IMPACT ON INDOOR AIR QUALITY TO FUTURE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN THE FUTURE BUILDINGS THAT WILL BE BUILT AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

I SHOULD SAY FUTURE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE CONTEXT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SAFER HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE FOR PROJECTS THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. THE PRECISE SAME ISSUE AND PROJECT AFTER PROJECT AFTER PROJECT. AND YOU MIGHT WONDER IF SAFER HAS SOME KIND OF FIXATION ON INDOOR AIR QUALITY, BUT ACTUALLY THEIR INTEREST IS TO ASSIST CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO USE SEQUA AS A BIT OF A CUDGEL TO GET DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS, TO AGREE TO PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS TO, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WHO WORK ON THE VARIOUS PROJECTS, THEY TYPICALLY DON'T WAIT UNTIL LESS THAN ONE DAY BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DO SO. AND WE'VE HAD TO SCRAMBLE SINCE. WE ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS LETTER MID-AFTERNOON TODAY. THE LETTER IS OR. THIS EFFORT IS PARTICULARLY SURPRISING AND HAS CAUSED SOME HEAD SCRATCHING HERE BECAUSE, AS MR. SHARON TOLD YOU, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BEING PROPOSED TODAY. SO TO THE EXTENT SAFER IS LOOKING FOR A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE THE CONTRACTOR FOR A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SIGN IT. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTRACTOR BECAUSE WE HAVE NO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

ALL THAT'S BEING APPROVED TONIGHT IS A VESTING, TENTATIVE TRACK MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDES A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR THE FOR THE CITY'S BENEFIT AS THE PHASE DEVELOPMENT MOVES FORWARD. AS MISS VELASCO VERY ABLY EXPLAINED TO YOU. SO WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE EVEN PURSUING THIS. BUT WHAT I WANTED TO TELL YOU ON THE MERITS OF WHAT THEY'VE SAID IS THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY ATTORNEYS AND SEQUA CONSULTANTS AND CITIES THROUGHOUT THE LAND, AND I'VE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD, AND I HOPE YOU'VE RECEIVED COPIES OF IT. OUR ONE OF OUR MANY TIMES THAT WE HAVE RESPONDED TO THESE EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS BY THE EXACT SAME CONSULTANT IN A LETTER, IN A REPORT ATTACHED TO THE EXACT SAME LETTER FROM SAFER THAT YOU RECEIVED TODAY. SO THE FIRST PART OF THE OF WHAT WE SUBMITTED IS LEGAL DEFENSE. AND THEN THE SECOND PART IS A LONG MEMORANDUM BY ONE OF THE LEADING CONSULTANTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. TECHNICAL BASIS, AND THAT MATCHES UP WITH LSA'S MEMO THAT YOU'VE ALSO BEEN PROVIDED, BECAUSE LSA HAS ALSO REPEATEDLY HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS SAME ISSUE RAISED BY SAFER ON ALL OF THESE PROJECTS. AND IF I HAD TO PUT IT IN A NUTSHELL, WHY THEIR ARGUMENT HAS NEVER SUCCEEDED AND WHY IT MAKES NO SENSE IS BECAUSE UNDER SEQUA, YOU ANALYZE THE IMPACT OF A PROJECT ON THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT. WHATEVER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE TODAY. AND OF COURSE, IT'S ALREADY SELF-EVIDENT. YOU'VE ALREADY PROBABLY LEAPED TO THE CONCLUSION. IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE ARGUING THAT THE EIR HAD TO EXAMINE PROJECT IMPACTS ON THE FUTURE ENVIRONMENT, AND THAT JUST SIMPLY IN THE MOST FOUNDATIONAL WAY IS NOT HOW SQL WORKS. SO IT'S A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT. IT'S A PRETEXT FOR A LABOR AGREEMENT. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROJECT HERE. SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, WE WOULD CERTAINLY ASK YOU TO DISREGARD IT AND PLEASE MOVE FORWARD TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE PROJECT APPROVALS. AND AGAIN, WE REALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I WANT TO REITERATE HOW ABLY YOUR STAFF HAS REPRESENTED YOU ON THIS PROJECT. THEY WERE WE HAD SOME VERY SPIRITED DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS AND THE AGREEMENTS THAT THEY EXTRACTED FROM MY CLIENT ARE SIGNIFICANT, ARE EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY. AND THEY DID YOU PROUD HERE. AND I JUST WANTED TO LET

[01:25:05]

YOU KNOW THAT. SO THANK YOU. SO, MR. MAYOR PRO TEM, WE'D ASK YOU TO ACCEPT INTO THE RECORD THE SUBMISSION FROM THE SHEPARD MULLINS FIRM, PLEASE. THANK YOU. AND MR. MR. SHARON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY. AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PRIOR TO ANY ACTION BEING TAKEN. INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO SPEAK IN PERSON ARE REQUESTED TO COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S CARD, THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER FOR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION. PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AT THE END OF THE AGENDA AND WAIT FOR THE MAYOR OR CITY CLERK TO CALL ON YOU BEFORE ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL. SPEAKERS PROVIDING IN-PERSON COMMENTS WILL BE CALLED FIRST IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW, COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD DISCLOSE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH INDIVIDUALS RELEVANT TO A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. OKAY. LET ME CHECK WITH COUNCILMEMBER BREAKFAST. I BELIEVE IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE. I SPOKE WITH MR. SHEERAN IN THE PAST, SO THAT'S MY DISCLOSURE OF SPEAKING WITH AN INDIVIDUAL RELATED TO THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. ANY ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES? AND I CAN'T SEE. YEAH, YEAH. SO I TOO HAVE TALKED TO FRANK SHARON, BUT I ALSO TALKED TO HIM AS I WAS WALKING IN TODAY. JUST CLARITY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATION THAT WE HAD GOTTEN FROM SOMEBODY. AND, AND HE ASSURED ME ON, ON WHAT THAT MEANT. SO, BUT OTHERWISE IT DIDN'T DIVULGE ANYTHING WITH REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ITSELF. THANK YOU. AND RACHEL, THANK YOU. I'VE ALSO HAD A MEETING WITH MR. SHARON AS A NEWER COUNCIL MEMBER, TO JUST UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE INS AND OUTS OF OPERATIONS AT LAHC. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I WILL BE CALLING SPEAKERS UP TO THE TO THE FRONTS. FIRST WE HAVE ED KRAMER, AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, WE HAVE BETH CULVER AND RANDI HARPER. OKAY. COUNCIL COUNCILOR MAYOR ED KRAMER, CYPRESS RESIDENT. THANKS FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. SPEAK ON NUMBER 11. SO I'M SPEAKING TO STRONGLY REQUEST A HOLD ON THE APPROVAL OF THIS EIR AS SUBMITTED. HAVE SIX ITEMS LISTED HERE. I SENT YOU THIS IN AN EMAIL. I ADDED SIX BECAUSE FORMALDEHYDE IS A KNOWN CARCINOGEN ON THE PROP 65 LIST, AND THERE'S A FLURRY OF REGULATIONS THAT THAT CONTROL EMISSION OF IT INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN 1000 HOMES, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU COULD IMPACT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WITH OFF GASSING. IT'S IN CARPET AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO IT'S NOT JUST AN OSHA ISSUE. IT'S A KNOWN CAR SITS ON THE CAST LIST. SO THAT'S KIND OF AN EXAMPLE OF HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO TRY AND DEAL WITH THE COMMUNITY. SO NUMBER ONE, THERE'S BEEN INADEQUATE COMMUNITY INVITATION FOR COMMENTS AND PARTICIPATION SENT OUT 1100 OF THOSE NOTICES.

I GOT ONE. EVERYBODY ELSE I KNOW DIDN'T GET ONE. 1100 BASICALLY IS SURROUNDED THE THE RACETRACK. THAT'S ABOUT 2% OF THE COMMUNITY, 2.2%. IF YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR TWO YEARS, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED FROM THE GET GO. THIS RIDICULOUS TO BE CERTIFYING THIS TONIGHT. NUMBER TWO, SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF ADDED TRAFFIC AND BOTTLENECKS TO THE COMMUNITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE. WE NEED MORE STUDY AND MITIGATION. THREE, THE AIR QUALITY STUDY IS INADEQUATE AFTER RECENT EMERGENCY IN GARDEN GROVE. WE KNOW SLINGSHOTTING. THESE. HOW IMPACTFUL THAT IS ON THE COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, THEY HAD 35000 GALLONS OF A REACTIVE, VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND WITH A VALVE THAT WASN'T MAINTAINED AND AGENCIES THAT WERE, WERE PUSHING IT THROUGH. INSPECTIONS FOR THE VOTERS WERE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF OR MISLED. WE GAVE UP OUR TOWN CENTER. THERE IS NO TOWN CENTER. IT'S BEEN REZONED.

NO ONE'S EVER GOING TO BUILD A TOWN CENTER THERE. YOU SHOULD NEVER SAY THAT AGAIN. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A TOWN CENTER. IT'S BEEN REZONED. NO ONE WILL EVER BUILD A TOWN CENTER THERE. THAT

[01:30:01]

NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE VOTERS. IN 2018, WE SAID WE WANTED DENSITY RESTRICTIONS AND AND A TOWN CENTER AND A PARK. WE SHOULD ADD 100 ACRE PARK OR 50 ACRE PARK FULLY BUILT OUT.

THEY THEY, THEY, THEY MADE $450 MILLION IN THAT UPZONE 175 ACRES AT A MILLION AN ACRE WORKS OUT THE UPTICK. THE UP ZONE IS FOUR TIMES. IT'S ACTUALLY SEVEN BECAUSE LASALLE HAS 7 MILLION AN ACRE. THAT MEANS 450 MILLION BUCKS. IT'S 470. BUT THEY GAVE US 20 ACRES OF PARK DIRT TO MAKE THE VOTE GO THROUGH. THEY NEEDED 400 VOTES, AND THEY GAVE US 20 ACRES OF DIRT WORTH 20 MILLION BUCKS. AND THEY GOT THEIR 400 VOTES. SO PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR THOUGHTS. NUMBER FIVE, THE FAILED CITY MANAGEMENT RAILROADED THROUGH MEASURE S.

THERE WAS NO REASONABLE INTEGRATED COMPROMISE PLAN. WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T BRING IN INDUSTRY TO CONTRIBUTE TO LARK, LARK TO TO RINA. WE DIDN'T WE HAD NO ADU ADVOCACY AT THE YAMAHA. AM I OUT OF MINUTES? OKAY, SO THAT'S IT. I THINK YOU SHOULD HOLD US OFF BECAUSE OF THE THREE SIGNIFICANT AND UNPREVENTABLE IMPACTS. I THINK THERE ARE SOME WE'RE GOING TO START OFF IN VIOLATION, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T PROVE IT. THANK YOU. UP NEXT, WE HAVE BETH CULVER.

HI. MY NAME IS BETH CULVER. AND THIS IS FUN. I WAS CONCERNED I HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS, BUT LISTENING TO HER WONDERFUL EXPLANATION, YOU KIND OF ANSWERED A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE STILL HAVE A FEW CONCERNS. AND I'M THINKING, WAS THIS REALLY NECESSARY? ALL OF THIS STUFF THAT'S GOING ON AFTER ALL THE CITIZENS DID PASS MEASURE S? SO WAS THIS SOMETHING WE'RE TRYING TO OVERRIDE IT OR GOING AGAINST THE VOTERS CHOICE? AND THEN I WAS REMINDED ABOUT THE QUOTE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE MADE BACK IN 2008 AND JULY, WHEN HE SAID, I WILL RESPECT THE DECISION THAT IS MADE BY THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT JUST KEPT RINGING IN MY EAR, BECAUSE SOMETIMES I'M TRYING TO THINK, WHO'S TRYING TO CHANGE STUFF? AND I WAS ANYWAY, I WAS CONCERNED BY THAT QUOTE. AND THEN I HAD OTHER CONCERNS THAT CAME UP AFTER LISTENING TO ALICIA THIS PRESENTATION. AND SO I'M THINKING, ARE YOU TRYING TO SNEAK IN SOME GROUNDWORK OR LAYING GROUNDWORK FOR THE CCPS 15 MINUTE CITIES? AND I SAW SOME LITTLE THINGS IN YOUR SUGGESTION THAT REMINDED ME OF THAT. AND THE REALITY THAT REALLY HITS ME IS THE DESPERATE NEED FOR THE FUTURE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. WE NEED ELECTRICITY IF WE'RE EVERYTHING IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO ELECTRICITY, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE. AND I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING ON THE SEWERS AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD ALL THESE HOUSES, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED EVEN MORE SEWERS. AND THE COMPLAINTS THAT I HEAR REMIND ME OF SOMEBODY WHO'S MOVED NEXT TO AN AIRPORT AND THEN COMPLAINS ABOUT THE PLANES ANYWAY. AND BY THE WAY, MY OTHER CONCERN IS THE MERE SUGGESTION OF PUTTING HOUSING ON THE VACANT AND THE VACANT YAMAHA SITE IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO. THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL BUSINESS AREA. LEAVE IT AS THE RESPECTABLE BUSINESS AREA. DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT PUTTING HOUSING IN THERE. THANK YOU. RANDI HARPER. AFTER. RANDI. HARPER. BROOKE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS RANDY HARPER. AS A LIFE LONG OR A LONG TIME CYPRESS RESIDENT AND RETIRED FIRE BATTALION CHIEF WHO HAS SPENT A CAREER IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND WHO HAS CALLED CYPRESS HOME FOR NEARLY THREE DECADES. I BELIEVE THAT THIS COULD BE AN INVESTMENT IN OUR CITY'S FUTURE. I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LOS ALAMITOS RACE TRACK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO THOUGHTFULLY TRANSFORM A LARGE, UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY INTO A COMMUNITY THAT PROVIDES NEW HOUSING, CREATES JOBS, ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENTS, AND GENERATES LONG TERM ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FOR OUR CITY. A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SCALE CAN HELP SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES, IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PROVIDE AMENITIES THAT BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS COULD ENJOY. AN ADDITIONAL BENEFIT IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO WELCOME NEW FAMILIES TO CYPRESS.

LIKE MANY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, CYPRESS SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS EXPERIENCED DECLINING ENROLLMENT IN RECENT YEARS. NEW HOUSING THAT ATTRACTS FAMILIES CAN HELP STABILIZE THAT STUDENT ENROLLMENT, STRENGTHEN NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS, AND SUPPORT THE LONG TERM VITALITY OF EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. STRONG SCHOOLS REMAINS ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS WHY FOLKS

[01:35:02]

CHOOSE CYPRESS TO RAISE THEIR FAMILIES. FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, REDEVELOPMENT ALSO PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A MODERN COMMUNITY WITH WELL-DESIGNED STREETS, ENHANCED LIGHTING, IMPROVED EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, AND INFRASTRUCTURE BUILT TO TODAY'S STANDARDS. THIS IMPROVEMENT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A SAFER ENVIRONMENT FOR RESIDENTS, WHILE ENSURING EMERGENCY RESPONDERS CAN CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT WE'VE ALL GROWN TO EXPECT IN SUPPORT OF WHAT OUR CITY MANAGER SAID. TONIGHT'S DECISION IS NOT WHETHER EVERY ASPECT OF THIS PROJECT IS FINALIZED, IS WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAD PROVIDED THE THOROUGH ANALYSIS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA LAW SO THAT INFORMED DECISIONS CAN BE MADE GOING FORWARD. APPROVING THE EIR ALLOWS THE PROCESS TO CONTINUE IN A TRANSPARENT AND RESPONSIBLE MANNER, AND THAT IS WHY I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOU TO APPROVE THE I THE EIR THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. BROOKE. AND THEN LORI CHRISTENSEN. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG AND COUNCIL. FIRST, I'LL DISCLOSE THAT OUR HOUSEHOLD VOTED NO ON MEASURE S AND 13,334 RESIDENTS, WHICH IS 58.82% VOTED YES. AND I FEEL THAT THAT'S VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT. CARLO AND I BOTH TOOK THE TIME TO READ THROUGH THE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF THE EIR AND ALL OF ALICIA'S AND ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS, AND HE DID A GREAT JOB. BY THE WAY, I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY LONG ROAD FOR YOU. CARLOS READ MANY EIR OVER HIS 40 YEARS WORKING FOR MUNICIPALITIES, AND HE DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUES. AND ONE OF THE FACTS OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT ANYTIME YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC ISSUES. I MEAN, THIS IS A FACT OF LIFE. LET'S BE HONEST, WE'RE ALL KIND OF NIMBYS. I THINK I SAID THAT A FEW YEARS AGO BEFORE MEASURE S CAME UP, AND I THINK NOT TO APPROVE THE PLAN REALLY WOULD OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE VOTERS, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE VERY SCARY AND FRIGHTENING AND A LOSS OF TRUST FOR OUR CITY COUNCIL. THE OTHER THING I NOTICED WITH THIS, THE VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT'S PRETTY TOUGH. WHOEVER WAS NEGOTIATING THAT DID A REALLY GOOD JOB, AND THE CITY THROUGH THAT RETAINED SOME PRETTY TIGHT CONTROL FROM WHAT I'M SEEING HERE. SO I CAN SPEAK FOR CARLO.

UNFORTUNATELY, HE COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH WHAT I'M SEEING, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'LL BE A VERY METHODICAL AND A SLOW PROCESS, AND I SUPPORT THE PEOPLE. THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS THAT VOTED YES VOTED IN FAVOR OF MEASURE S, EVEN THOUGH WE DID NOT. AND I HOPE THAT COUNCIL WILL ABIDE BY THIS AND I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES. IT WAS A GREAT, VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION. AND THE EIR, WE HAVE NO CONCERNS. IT'S LITTLE THINGS. AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT WITH A MAJORITY OF YOUR EYES, ESPECIALLY TRAFFIC. IT'S ALWAYS AN ISSUE. SO I HOPE THAT CITY COUNCIL THIS EVENING WILL VOTE TO APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT WE HAVE LORI CHRISTENSEN, FOLLOWED BY STEPHEN MOSS. HI, I'M LAURA CHRISTENSEN. I LIVE IN LOS ALAMITOS, SO OVER THE YEARS, AS PROJECTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE HERE IN CYPRESS, I HAVE BEEN AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN MANY OF THE MEETINGS, EVEN THROUGH COVID, WHEN A LOT OF OUR MEETINGS WERE ONLINE AND WE HAD TO CALL IN TO ALL THE MEETINGS. AND BACK WHEN COSTCO WAS FIRST BEING DEVELOPED AND THE SWITCH CAME BETWEEN COSTCO AND THE COTTONWOOD CHURCH, THE ER REPORT THAT WAS DONE INCLUDED A TRAFFIC STUDY AND DISCUSSING HOW MUCH INCREASED TRAFFIC THERE WOULD BE ON KATELLA BECAUSE OF THE COSTCO DEVELOPMENT AND THE OTHER SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. BUT YET, IN THIS STUDY, THERE IS NO TRAFFIC STUDY BEING DONE. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T CONSIDER THE TRAFFIC STUDY AS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE WHEN IF ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM THINKS THAT ADDING 1700 HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS NOT GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC IN OUR STREETS, THEY THEY REALLY NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE, WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, BECAUSE THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE ON THIS, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED THAT THE EIR REPORT IS NOT APPROVED. THANK YOU. STEPHEN MOSS, FOLLOWED BY GLENN BUTTON. THANK YOU. AND GOOD

[01:40:11]

EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. AS INDICATED, MY NAME IS STEPHEN MOSS, AND I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK THAT CYPRESS ALSO CONSIDER, AS PART OF THIS EIR AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORT, WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY COULD ACTUALLY AFFORD TO LIVE IN ANY OF THESE HOUSES. I'D ENCOURAGE CYPRESS TO TREAT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY NOT AS A SIDE ISSUE, BUT AS A STRATEGIC PRIORITY IN THE CITY. STRATEGIC AND HOUSING PLAN UPDATES. SPECIFICALLY TONIGHT, WHEN WE ARE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING LARK AND THE BUILD OUT OF IT, A PROJECT AREA THAT COULD EVENTUALLY ACCOMMODATE 1791 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND THIS MAYBE THIS IS THE EXACT RIGHT MOMENT TO ASK THE QUESTION, NOT ONLY HOW WE BUILD IT, BUT WHO WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY MATTERS BECAUSE A HEALTHY CITY NEEDS MORE THAN HOUSING PRODUCTION. ON PAPER. IT NEEDS PATHWAYS FOR YOUNG FAMILIES, WORKING HOUSEHOLDS AND FIRST TIME BUYERS TO ACTUALLY ENTER THE MARKET AND REMAIN IN THE COMMUNITY. IF CYPRESS WANTS LONG TERM SCHOOL STABILITY, COMMUNITY CONTINUITY AND ECONOMIC DIVERSITY, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, I BELIEVE MR. HARPER ALSO BROUGHT UP THE PROBABILITY THIS WILL BRING MORE FAMILIES INTO OUR COMMUNITY AND IMPACT THE SCHOOLS. I DON'T THINK SO THAT YOUNG FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN THAT WOULD GO INTO SCHOOLS CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY THOSE HOMES. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AFFORDABILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED TO HELP YOUNG FAMILIES, HARD WORKING PEOPLE ACTUALLY AFFORD TO LIVE IN THESE HOUSES IN HIGH COST MARKETS LIKE CYPRESS. THE PROBLEM IS NOT SIMPLY MONTHLY PAYMENT CAPACITY, BUT THE UPFRONT BARRIER OF A DOWN PAYMENT AND ENTRY COST. A PROPOSAL THAT I HAVE EMAILED TO ALL OF YOU. IS MEANT TO ADDRESS THAT THROUGH A CITY HOME OWNERSHIP CO-INVESTMENT PROGRAM IN WHICH THE CITY COULD PROVIDE PERHAPS EVEN UP TO 10% OF A PURCHASE PRICE AS A SHARED EQUITY DOWN PAYMENT AND CREATE A REVOLVING FUND STRUCTURE, THIS WOULD BE ENTIRELY SELF-SUSTAINING. I HAVE SENT A DRAFT COPY TO ALL OF YOU, TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL EMAIL ADDRESSES, AND I HOPE IT WILL AT LEAST START A DISCUSSION. BUT TONIGHT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE A BROADER CONCEPT, IF I MIGHT. AFFORDABILITY. AFFORDABILITY SHOULD BE BUILT INTO THE CITY'S HOUSING STRATEGY AT MULTIPLE LEVELS. THAT MEANS NOT ONLY EXPLORING BUYER ASSISTANCE, BUT ALSO ASKING WHETHER MAJOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS ONE SHOULD INCLUDE A MEANINGFUL AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT. THE RACE COURSE BUILD OUT IS EXPECTED TO PROCEED OVER MANY YEARS. 15, I BELIEVE, IS WHAT WAS PRESENTED. PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR THOUGHTS. I ASKED. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER TWO ACTIONS. FIRST, PLEASE INCLUDE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY EXPLICITLY IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AND SECOND, AS THIS RACE COURSE AREA MOVES TOWARDS FUTURE RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS PROJECTS, PLEASE CONSIDER REQUIRING OR NEGOTIATING THAT A PORTION OF THE HOMES BE SET ASIDE BELOW MARKET RATE OR OTHERWISE INTEGRATED INTO AN AFFORDABILITY PILOT PROGRAM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. GLENN BUTTON, FOLLOWED BY A PROPOSER. GOOD EVENING. SINCE THE TIMER IS NOT WORKING HERE, I'LL USE MY OWN STOPWATCH. GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MAYOR PRO TEM, MANY STAFF MEMBERS. THE. THE FABULOUS OCCASION THAT WE HAVE TO GATHER HERE THIS EVENING.

THIS IS THE MONTH THAT AMERICA CELEBRATES OUR 250TH BIRTHDAY. CYPRUS CELEBRATES OUR 70TH BIRTHDAY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES THAT HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE GONE BEFORE, KING GEORGE DIDN'T LISTEN TO THE COLONISTS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE RESULT WAS CATASTROPHIC IN TERMS OF ENGLAND BECOMING SMALLER. BUT THE MY ASK THIS EVENING IS THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THE RESIDENTS, THE CITIZENS, THE VOTERS WHO DID BY A

[01:45:05]

SIGNIFICANT MARGIN APPROVE MEASURE S. SO WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR THIS EVENING IS NOT TO INSTALL TANKS OR VALVES, NOT TO BUILD HOMES OR INSTALL CARPET. YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE MANY YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING IS WHAT TO DO WHEN THE RACETRACK CLOSES. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT IS. IT'S GOING TO BE MANY YEARS IN THE FUTURE. SO THIS IS YEARS, IF NOT DECADES OUT IN THE FUTURE, THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR. AND SOME OF IT MAY NEVER HAPPEN. SO AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T WANT THINGS TO BE BUILT, MAKE IT UNAFFORDABLE, RIGHT? THOSE ARE DECISIONS THAT WILL BE MADE BY DEVELOPERS. IS THERE A BUSINESS CASE TO BUILD THOSE THINGS? SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT DOES COVER THE THE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THIS MAPPING AND, AND PUTTING THE, THE VARIOUS STRUCTURE IN PLACE BY WHICH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE DONE AND THE STRETCHING OUT THE PERIOD OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE RACETRACK WILL CLOSE. SO PUTTING A 15 YEAR TIMELINE REALLY HELPS TO COVER US FOR THAT UNCERTAIN UNCERTAINTY IN THE TIMELINE. SO I, I APPLAUD EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THIS, ALICIA. FABULOUS JOB. AND ALSO OUR, OUR NEW CITY MANAGER DID A GREAT JOB AT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING THIS MORNING. SO THANK YOU ALL. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AND ABIDE BY THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS FORWARD. FOLLOWED BY MARILYN REEMS. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M PRO BOULDER RESIDENT OF CYPRUS, SPEAKING ON THIS ITEM, AND I AM URGING YOU TO APPROVE THE EIR AS STANDS AND ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS IS. I APPRECIATE THE GREAT PRESENTATION AND WHAT I REALLY APPRECIATED ABOUT THE CITY OF CYPRUS OVER THE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN LIVING. HERE IS HOW DETAILED THE STAFF ARE AND THE PEOPLE IN ADMINISTRATION AND HOW THEY FOLLOW THE PROCESS.

WELL, AND I'VE SEEN THAT OVER YEARS THAT THE TRANSPARENCY IS THERE, THE PROCESS IS DONE WELL.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY DID THE RIGHT THING. THEY PUT MEASURE S ON THE BALLOT.

AND TO SAY THAT VOTERS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR, I TOTALLY DISAGREE. THE CITY WAS VERY GOOD ON EDUCATING US ON OUR OPTIONS IN MEASURE S, AND WE THE VOTERS, 58.8% OF US SAID YES TO MEASURE US. AND WE THE VOTERS NOW EXPECT MEASURE S TO MOVE FORWARD. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS CITY IS DOING. THIS CITY IS MOVING THAT FORWARD. AND YES, SACRAMENTO HAS TOLD THIS CITY AND TOLD MANY OTHER CITIES, YOU MUST BUILD THIS MANY HOMES, OKAY? WE ONLY HAVE SO MUCH PLACE TO PUT HOMES AND BUSINESS PARKS ARE NOT FOR RESIDENTIAL. OKAY, THAT DOESN'T WORK. WE RECENTLY WENT THROUGH THE GARDEN GROVE ISSUE, THE EVACUATION AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WAS DONE WITH THAT VOTE. AND MUCH WORK HAS BEEN DONE, AS WE'VE HEARD OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO TELL US EVERYTHING. OKAY? THEY TELL US A LOT, BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT STAFF HAVE TO DO, AND WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS. BUT WE DO NOW KNOW THE EIR IS VERY WELL WRITTEN, VERY WELL. IT'S BEEN CHECKED OUT, AND WE NOW NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT THE VOTERS DECIDED. THANK YOU. MARILYN REEMS, FOLLOWED BY ARMANDO SEPULVEDA. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MARILYN REEMS, A CYPRESS RESIDENT. I MAY READ SOME OF WHAT I WROTE AND PROBABLY WILL WING SOME OF WHAT I WANT TO SAY. THERE'S FAR MORE WELL VERSED PEOPLE, I'M SURE, SITTING IN THIS ROOM. ARTICULATE IN KANG ESPECIALLY ADDRESS THE PLETHORA OF

[01:50:08]

PAPERWORK THAT'S INVOLVED IN THIS EIR REPORT. I APPRECIATE ALICIA AND YOUR PRESENTATION, AND I ACTUALLY LEARNED A NUMBER OF THINGS TONIGHT. SOME OF THEM I FOUND THE MY THE HAIR ON THE BACK OF MY NECK GOING UP BECAUSE I WANTED TO ARGUE WITH YOU IN PARTICULAR. YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT THAT WE THAT THERE'S NO PLANS TO BUILD ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. BUT THE TRUTH IS, I BELIEVE THERE ACTUALLY IS PLANS TO BUILD THINGS. THAT'S JUST WHAT I THINK WE HAVE SEEN SURROUNDING US. THE TRAFFIC, THE TRAFFIC IS THE MAJOR ISSUE FOR ME. WE LIVE MYSELF AND ACTUALLY SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER TONIGHT LIVE IN AN OVER 55 COMMUNITY OFF OF KATELLA AND ENTERPRISE, AND WE ARE AND AND WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR SIX YEARS AT LEAST.

TO DEAL WITH ACCESS ISSUES. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS IS CONTROLLING WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT INTERSECTION. I STILL WILL ASK THIS COUNCIL TO HELP US BE PROACTIVE, HELP THE RESIDENTS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S 244 HOMES IN THERE. AND THEN WE HAVE WESTMONT WITH WHATEVER RESIDENTS AND THEN THE RETAIL AREA, ALL OF THESE PEOPLE THAT COME IN AND OUT, AND WE ARE ON A DEAD END. WE ARE FORCED TO GO THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY TO GET IN AND OUT AND MAKE OUR WAY. THE IDEA OF CLOSE TO 2000 ADDITIONAL HOMES AND MORE BUSINESSES MAKES THE. IT GIVES ME CHILLS. WE CAN BARELY GET OUT AS IT IS NOW AND TO THE RESIDENT FROM LA SAL THAT SPOKE TO HER POINT. GOOD LORD, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO DOWN THE STREET TO TRADER JOE'S AND TRY AND FIND A PARKING SPOT. THE MEDICAL BUILDING THAT WAS PUT IN THERE. WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR THEATER? YOU KNOW, WE WERE TOLD WE WERE GOING TO GET A THEATER AND A BEAUTIFUL PARK TO WALK AROUND. I, I UNDERSTAND LEXINGTON PARK IS A LOVELY PLACE, BUT IT'S A SPORTS PARK. PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR THOUGHTS. OH, FINISH THEM UP. OH, GOOD GRAVY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME MAKE SURE I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING REALLY IMPORTANT THAT I NEED TO SAY. I BELIEVE YOU GUYS NEED TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE TRAFFIC. I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE TOP OF MIND. AND I STILL AM GOING TO ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER MAYBE A 30% REDUCTION THAT'S BEEN BEEN PROPOSED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH SHANNON SAID, WE CAN'T DO THAT. I SAY NEVER SAY NEVER. THANK YOU, MARILYN, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I HAVE THREE MINUTES. RIGHT. I'M GONNA USE THE TIMEKEEPER. OKAY. MY NAME IS ARMANDO SEPULVEDA. GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY MANAGER. IS IT MISS VELASCO? YOU DID AN OUTSTANDING WRITE UP BECAUSE YOU ANSWERED A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS. BUT I HAPPEN TO READ ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT IN FROM A FORMER CIVIL ENGINEER. I'M JUST A SALES LEADER, RETIRED TEACHING AT CAL STATE LONG BEACH, AND I DO SIMPLE THINGS LIKE I DRIVE OUT, I HAVE TO GO ON PRIVATE PROPERTY TO MAKE A RIGHT. AND ON ANY GIVEN AFTERNOON, BETWEEN 330 AND 530, I COUNTED AT THE. AND I WASN'T ON YOUR IMPACT, BY THE WAY, LEXINGTON AND KATELLA GOING WEST. 13 CARS LINED UP AT THE STREET LIGHT WAITING FOR IT TO CHANGE. NOW, THE ONE THING I DIDN'T READ YOUR REPORT SAY HOW. IF WE. IF THEY WERE TO BUILD 1791 HOMES, HOW MANY NEW RESIDENTS WOULD THERE BE? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE POPULATION HERE HAS DECLINED BY HALF A PERCENT YEAR OVER YEAR, FROM 49.5 TO 48 FIVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. HOW MANY MORE RESIDENTS MIGHT THIS BRING? AND CARS, LET ALONE RESIDENTS? AND WHAT IS THAT GOING TO DO TO THE TRAFFIC AND. THE AIR QUALITY? AT A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT? HAVE YOU EVER DRIVEN FROM

[01:55:03]

DOWNTOWN LA TO THE PANTAGES THEATER OR FROM THE AIRPORT TO WESTWOOD? SEVEN DAYS A WEEK? IT'S BUMPER TO BUMPER. I'VE DONE IT MANY TIMES. THAT'S WHAT KATELLA UNLESS YOU DOUBLE DECK IT OR WIDEN IT AND TAKE OUT HOMES, WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE LIKE? I WOULD ALSO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER, I READ THIS LETTER FROM THIS GENTLEMAN THAT WROTE IN THE CIVIL ENGINEER, I'M JUST A SALES LEADER. WHAT DO I KNOW? HE WROTE. HE SAID HIS REQUEST IS TO TAKE IT FROM 1791 TO 13.

SOMETHING REDUCE IT. I WAS IN THE MILITARY ARMY FOR SIX YEARS. THERE WAS A SAYING THAT I'LL CLEAN UP. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT. IF THEY DO THIS 1791 TO PUT NOT 6 POUNDS OF RICE, BUT 7 POUNDS OF RICE IN A 5 POUND BAG. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME. DO WE EVEN KNOW? HAVE WE SPECULATED HOW MANY MORE RESIDENTS WILL HAVE. AND ALL THESE IMPACT REPORTS? I HAVEN'T READ ANYTHING. MY WIFE READ IT. EVERY PAGE OF THAT 127. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND BY THE WAY, ONE LAST THING I HAVE 20S THE THE THE RESIDENTS MAY HAVE VOTED 58%. I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE SEEN THE RESULTS BROKEN DOWN BY THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND THIS AREA, VERSUS THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE OUT THERE, BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU, EVERYBODY VOTED. MOST THE MAJORITY THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA VOTED NO THREE SECONDS FASTER THAN I WAS ALLOTTED. THANK YOU. DIANA SEPULVEDA, YOU'RE NEXT. OH, DIANA. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY JOHN. PETE. SEPULVEDA. SEPULVEDA.

SEPULVEDA. MY MOTHER. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT. I AM DIANA SEPULVEDA. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC FLOW ON KATELLA CERRITOS ENTERPRISE, ADDING THIS AMOUNT OF HOMES THAT YOU ALREADY HEARD THE NUMBER JUST IT DIDN'T DISCLOSE ALL OF THE PLACES WHERE THE ROAD AND INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MADE. SO I WAS INTERESTED IN THAT. I'M ALSO VERY INTERESTED IN A TRAFFIC STUDY.

IT WAS A LITTLE OVERWHELMING TO SEE THAT THE ESTIMATED INCREASE OF 21,000 DAILY TRIPS IN THE VICINITY. OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS GOING TO POTENTIALLY WORSEN QUALITY OF LIFE, CARDIO, RESPIRATORY STATUS. I'M A RETIRED NURSE, SO I CARE A LOT ABOUT HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR PARTICULARLY. I DO LIVE IN A SENIOR COMMUNITY, BUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW. DID THE VOTERS HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT THAT BEFORE THEY VOTED IN IN 2020 FOR. IT WASN'T AVAILABLE. RIGHT. SO AND OVER AGAIN IN THAT REPORT, IT KEEPS SAYING THAT THEY YOU KNOW, THAT THERE ARE MITIGATION MEASURES MENTIONED. A COUPLE THE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. THOSE TWO WORDS CAME OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE REPORT. AND IT'S JUST LIKE, STICK YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. IT'S I SEE IT AS A WORSENING FOR THE QUALITY OF LIFE. ADDITIONALLY, THIS IS, IT MAY SEEM UNIMPORTANT TO YOU, BUT I BELIEVE WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PLANNING OF LAND AND BUILDINGS RIGHT NOW. BUT I THINK IN THE BIG PICTURE, YOU NEED TO ALSO CONCERN. THE IMPLICATIONS FOR INCREASED FIRST RESPONDER SERVICES, PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT SO THAT THERE'S A TIMELY RESPONSE FOR ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS WILL BE MAINTAINED. I DON'T THINK THE RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT ALL OF CYPRESS EXPECT THAT RESPONSE TIMES FOR PARAMEDICS IS GOING TO GO DOWN. THANK YOU. HEY JOHN. PETE, FOLLOWED BY ANN HERTZ MALLORY. GOOD EVENING. AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES IN NOVEMBER OF 2024, MEASURE S WAS PASSED BY A MARGIN OF 58 TO 41%. 77% OF THE RESIDENTS WHO WERE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE PARTICIPATED.

SO THAT WASN'T THIS WASN'T A FLUKE. WE WERE THE VOTERS WERE ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS, AND THEY OVERWHELMINGLY SAID THEY WANT THIS PROJECT PASSED. MISTER SEPULVEDA, I HAPPEN TO HAVE THE DATA HERE. THE MEASURE WAS PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY IN DISTRICTS ONE, TWO AND THREE BY MORE THAN 63% IN FAVOR OF IN EACH OF THOSE DISTRICTS. IT WAS ALSO PASSED BY A MARGIN OF 54

[02:00:05]

TO 46%. IN DISTRICT FIVE, THE ONLY DISTRICT WHERE IT DID NOT PASS WAS IN DISTRICT FOUR, AND THAT ONLY FAILED BY 186 VOTES. SO OVERWHELMINGLY, THE ENTIRE CITY OF CYPRESS VOTED IN FAVOR OF MEASURE S, AND IT WAS THE THIRD TIME WE VOTED ON THIS PLAN. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN, AND I BELIEVE IT'S TIME FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO DO YOUR JOB. YOU, MISTER MAYOR BURKE. EXCUSE ME, COUNCILMEMBER BURKE, BACK IN 2024 SAID DURING THE MEETING TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO GIVE YOU A SAY OVER THE MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND I WILL RESPECT THE DECISION THAT IS MADE BY THE COMMUNITY. THE COMMUNITY HAS MADE ITS DECISION, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL HONOR AND LIVE UP TO YOUR WORD AND RESPECT THE DECISION THAT THE VOTERS HAVE MADE. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS QUICKLY THE WHAT I'VE SEEN IN SOCIAL MEDIA SAYING THAT HOUSING DENSITY, INCREASING HOUSING DENSITY IS BAD FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE A TOWN CENTER BECAUSE OF INCREASED HOUSING DENSITY. I SAY THAT'S RUBBISH.

WHY DO I SAY THAT? BECAUSE WE HAVE A LIVING, BREATHING EXAMPLE HERE IN CYPRUS OF A PROJECT WHERE WE ADDED HOUSING, INCREASED THE DENSITY, AND IT IS WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. AND THAT'S THE SQUARE PROJECT, THE AWARD WINNING SQUARE PROJECT, WHILE SERVING ON THE CITY COUNCIL FROM 2014 TO 2022, OUR COUNCIL TWICE TRIED TO DEVELOP A PROJECT ON THE 13 ACRES, WHICH IS NOW THE SQUARE THAT INCLUDED ONLY COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL, NO RESIDENTIAL, AND TWICE WE FAILED. WE RECEIVED PROPOSALS THAT WERE COMPLETELY INADEQUATE, OFFERING AT MOST $10 MILLION FOR THE 13 ACRE PROPERTY. WHEN WHEN WE WENT BACK AT IT A THIRD TIME, AND WHEN WE ADDED HOUSING THE HOTEL AND 241 APARTMENTS, THE PRICE THAT WE GOT FOR THE PROPERTY WAS $15 MILLION. SO THE HOUSING WAS WORTH 50% MORE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROJECT TO BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS OF CYPRUS AND THE CITY. SO BY ADDING HOUSING TO THE PROJECT, WE INCREASED THE VALUE TO THE CITY. HAVING A BASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING UNITS GIVES ANY PROJECT LIKE THAT. A TOWN CENTER PROJECT WOULD HAVE A BASE OF CUSTOMERS BUILT IN ALREADY.

ALSO, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A WALKABLE TOWN CENTER, WHICH IS AN OBJECTIVE STATED IN THIS THING, YOU HAVE TO PUT RESIDENTIAL HOUSING NEAR IN PROXIMITY TO THE TOWN CENTER SO THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK THERE. LASTLY, THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNED, THERE'S NO ACCESS TO A TOWN CENTER FOR SHOPPING ALONG KATELLA OR WALKER, SO YOU HAVE TO PUT MOODY THROUGH TO PROVIDE GREATER ACCESS FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE. I WILL TO GET TO THE TOWN CENTER AND TO CREATE MORE FRONTAGE. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO YOUR JOB. YOU TOLD THE RESIDENTS THAT YOU WOULD LISTEN TO THEM. THEY'VE SPOKEN. PLEASE PASS THIS TONIGHT. AND.

GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS MANDATED THAT WE PREPARE. WE ZONE FOR 4000, JUST ROUGHLY UNDER 4000 HOUSING UNITS. THAT WAS A BIG ASK, A BIG REQUIREMENT. AND THE CITY RESPONDED WITH A HOUSING ELEMENT THAT INCLUDED PLANS FOR THAT. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES, WHERE DO YOU PUT THESE UNITS? AND WE TOOK IT TO THE VOTERS. DO YOU PUT ALL OF THOSE UNITS OR THE ALMOST ALL OF THOSE UNITS ON LINCOLN, OR DO YOU SPLIT IT UP? DO YOU ASK NEIGHBORS TO HELP NEIGHBORS AND SHARE THE BURDEN OF THE 4000 UNITS IN A VARIETY OF PLACES IN THE CITY? AND I WAS SO PROUD WHEN MEASURE S PASSED, BECAUSE TO ME, THAT WAS A GREAT INDICATOR THAT WE WERE LOOKING OUT FOR EACH OTHER. WE WEREN'T GOING TO BURY LINCOLN AVENUE WITH ALL OF THE HOUSING DENSITY.

AND THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW, 4000 UNITS, NO MATTER WHERE YOU PUT THEM IN THE CITY, IS A BURDEN. IT'S GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC. IT'S GOING TO DECREASE AIR QUALITY.

THAT'S NOT SPECIFIC OR LIMITED ONLY TO THE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE. THAT IS A REALITY OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE INCREASE HOUSING. THIS IS THE BEST EFFORT TO DISTRIBUTE THAT IMPACT IN A VARIETY OF PLACES IN THE COMMUNITY. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE TONIGHT IS THE THE, THE LARK PORTION OF IT. BUT I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING THIS ON LINCOLN AVENUE. WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING THIS IN A VARIETY OF PLACES THROUGHOUT

[02:05:05]

THE CITY. SO THIS IS THE BEST EFFORT. I THINK IT'S A REALLY EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH, ALICIA. IF I WAS SITTING ON THE DAIS, I WOULD ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE 15 YEAR AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSFEREES, AND I WOULD WANT MORE CLARITY ON THAT. SO MAYBE SOMEBODY WILL ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. THE REALITY IS WE HAVE TO GET READY FOR 4000 UNITS, AND THIS IS PART OF THAT PROCESS. SO BE CAREFUL WHO YOU VOTE FOR AT THE STATE LEVEL.

THIS IS A STATE MANDATE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO RESPOND TO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HEY, BEFORE WE CIRCLE, OH, WE HAVE SOME MORE. LET'S SEE. WE HAVE CAROLINE KRAMER FOLLOWED BY TOM MOORE.

HELLO, MY NAME IS CAROLINE KRAMER. HELLO, COUNCIL AND MAYOR PRO TEM. TODAY'S MY FIRST DAY. SPEAKING AT ANY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SO I'VE COME A LITTLE UNPREPARED AS IT WAS IMPROMPTU. SO I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO LOOK OVER THE PLAN. AND I WILL NOT BE PERSUADING YOU TO VOTE EITHER WAY. I WILL SAY, THOUGH, THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS LAND IS A INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO GROW AND CONNECT TO BUSINESS, RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC SPACE. I HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER. NOT INCREASING, BUT RECOGNIZING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION LIKE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SPACES. IN THIS PLAN MORE INCLUSIVELY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL SPACES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO RESIDENTS. I GREW UP IN CYPRUS AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO POTENTIALLY LIVE HERE. I JUST RECENTLY GRADUATED, SO I'M CONSIDERING WHERE I WANT TO LIVE, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE FOR ME, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS MY COMMUNITY BY WALKING AND BIKING AND BY MAKING SURE WE PUT THAT INTO THE PLAN. IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, I THINK OUR WILL MAKE A LOT OF PROGRESS AND BE ABLE TO HAVE A CONNECTED COMMUNITY BEYOND WHAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW, AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. JUST IMPROVING THE CONNECTEDNESS OF WALKABILITY AND BIKEABILITY, AS WELL AS THE SAFETY AND. THAT'S MY TIME AT I DIDN'T START THE CLOCK. WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY? I'M A PARKS AND REC EMPLOYEE AND I'VE LOVED WORKING THERE, AND I SPENT A LOT OF TIME AT LEXINGTON PARK AND HAVING I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PARK. SO A LOT OF THE TIME I DO WALK THERE. I'VE EXPERIENCED THAT KATELLA AVENUE TRAFFIC. AND TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE BUILD THAT LAND OUT, EVERYONE WHO LIVES THERE AND WORKS THERE IS ABLE TO CROSS THAT STREET SAFELY, AS WELL AS THE OTHER SURROUNDING AREAS. AND YEAH, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

I YIELD MY TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING. MORE. HELLO. GOOD EVENING. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE MR. MEDRANO FOR RECUSING HIMSELF TONIGHT. THAT'S THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL. SO IT'S REALLY LOVELY TO SEE. MY NAME IS TOM MOORE. I'VE LIVED IN CYPRUS FOR 60 YEARS. I UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY OF GROWTH IN CREATING HOUSING FOR YOUNGER, MIDDLE CLASS HOMEBUYERS. I'M NOT A NIMBY CITIZEN. HOWEVER, THE LARK 3.0 BUILDOUT IN ITS CURRENT FORM THREATENS TO PERMANENTLY DESTROY THE QUIET SUBURBAN HEART OF OUR CITY. MY FAMILY MOVED HERE IN 1965, AND WE LIVED OFF OF MOODY FOR 60 YEARS.

I LIVED OFF ON BERKELEY SQUARE, ON PARK AVENUE, AND THEN IN SORRENTO. NOBODY IN THIS ROOM CAN TELL ME. ONCE WE TAKE THAT TRACK AWAY, WE PUNCH MOODY THROUGH THERE. THIS CITY WILL NOT BE THE SAME. I'M HEARING THINGS TONIGHT LIKE IT'S 15 YEARS AWAY. I RECENTLY WENT TO THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB FUNCTION AT THE THE RACETRACK. THERE WAS PROBABLY 25 BIDDERS THERE. THERE WAS PROBABLY A COUPLE TABLES OTHER THAN OFFLINE BETTING, THAT THING IS CLOSE TO BEING DONE. SO LET LET'S NOT FOOL OURSELVES WHAT I'M NOT SEEING LOVELY PRESENTATION, BUT WHAT I'M NOT SAYING AND I KNOW YOU'RE VOTING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TONIGHT, BUT WHAT I'M NOT SEEING I'M SEEING, YOU KNOW, THE EASIEST WAY TO DO DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE IN CYPRUS. AFTER 60 YEARS, WE COULD FINALLY DO

[02:10:03]

SOMETHING FOR THE COMMUNITY. I'VE SEEN THE STRAWBERRY FIELDS GO, GO. I'VE SEEN, I'VE SEEN KATELLA GO. THAT'S ALL GOOD. THAT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY. BUT WHAT I'M NOT SEEING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ANYTHING FOR THE CITY AND CITIZENS. I SEE THESE PEOPLE TONIGHT TALKING ABOUT WE HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE WE VOTED. MANY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS ON WHAT ON THAT MEASURE. YES, I DIDN'T KNOW IT. I FOLLOWED I FOLLOW CURRENT INFORMATION AS MUCH AS ANYBODY, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THERE. THERE HASN'T BEEN A TRAFFIC REPORT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL I KNOW YOU'RE VOTING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, BUT EVEN THAT IS SCANT. WHERE WHERE IS THE TRAFFIC REPORT? WE DON'T SEE THAT. AND SO WHAT I DON'T SEE I DON'T SEE A TOWN CENTER. HAVE YOU BEEN TO EUROPE? YOU SEE YOU GO ANYWHERE IN ITALY OR FRANCE.

YOU SEE A PLAZA WHERE PEOPLE COME. THERE'S A BIG FOUNTAIN, THERE'S A VIOLIN PLAYER IN 15 YEARS I WANT TO DRIVE DOWN MOODY. MAYBE YOU PUT A COUPLE TRAFFIC CIRCLES THERE TO PREVENT ALL THE COMMUTERS JAMMING DOWN MOODY BOULEVARD. THAT'S GONE. OKAY. AND SO WHAT I WANT TO SEE IN THAT COMMUNITY, I WANT TO SEE WHERE'S A THEATER? I DIRECTED THEATER HERE AT OXFORD OF 20 YEARS AGO THAT THAT FACILITY IS GONE. I DON'T SEE A THEATER. I DON'T SEE A PLAZA, A PLAZA. THEY'RE PUT UNDERGROUND PARKING. MAKE SOMETHING FOR THE COMMUNITY. I, YOU KNOW, I'M DISTURBED. I SEE, YOU KNOW, I GOT TO BE FRANK. I SEE THE REPUBLICANS. I SEE JOHN PEET SITTING WITH THE DEVELOPERS. I SEE HIM SITTING WITH A LAWYER. THEY'RE COZY WITH HIM. I CAN ONLY GO IN THERE. I'M NOT I'M NOT INSINUATING. BUT ON THE SURFACE, IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD. SO THINK SERIOUSLY. 15 YEARS AGO, I WANT TO TAKE MY GRANDKID UP THERE.

I'LL BE 85 YEARS OLD, AND I WANT TO SEE A PLAZA UP THERE. OKAY? I DON'T WANT TO SEE. I SAW THE MEDIAN ON THERE OF MOODY FROM THE REPORT. YOU KNOW WHAT MOODY LOOKS RIGHT NOW? IT'S CRAPPY SUCCULENTS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE. WE'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THROUGH THERE. OKAY, SO THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT YOUR VOTE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE CIRCLE BACK TO THAT, I WANT TO CHECK IF WE HAVE ANY ONLINE. YES, MR. MAYOR, WE HAVE ONE RESIDENT WAITING TO SPEAK. THAT'S KELLY K. OKAY. AND KELLY, YOU ARE UNMUTED AND YOUR TIME BEGINS. NOW GO RIGHT AHEAD. HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. PERFECT. OKAY, SO COUPLE OF THINGS. NUMBER ONE, I WANT TO KNOW IN THAT WHOLE PRESENTATION REGARDING, I THINK IT WAS MR. VELASCO'S PRESENTATION. EXCUSE ME, KELLY, LIKE WE'RE HAVING A WE CAN HEAR YOU, BUT IT'S VERY LOW. CAN YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOUR MIC? OH, YES, OF COURSE, OF COURSE, OF COURSE. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THAT'S BETTER. ALL RIGHT. COOL. WELL, MY TIME RESTART. I LIKE TO RANT, SO. OKAY, GREAT. SO MY BIGGEST THING IS NUMBER ONE, WHEN I WAS LISTENING IN TO MRS. VELASCO'S. BREAKDOWN OF, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING, I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF RESPONSIBILITY DOES THE HOA IT WAS, IT KIND OF FELT VERY. I DON'T I DON'T EVEN KNOW. IT JUST IT WAS VERY UNCLEAR TO ME WHICH HOA OR WHATEVER, WHO, WHO'S GOING TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WHATEVER. AND AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTIONS, HOW DID YOU DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, SOME MORE FORMALDEHYDE ISSUES? YOU KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MY HAIR FLATTENED BY FORMALDEHYDE. AND I CAN NO LONGER HAVE THAT HAT THAT THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. AND. AND I THINK IT'S A LITTLE CRAPPY THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE BUILDERS OR WHATEVER, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR FORMALDEHYDE STUFF. AND THEN FURTHERMORE, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. WHAT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. WHERE IS A WHERE'S LEO MEDRANO? WHY DID HE RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THIS ENTIRE MEETING? BECAUSE, KYLE, NO OFFENSE TO KYLE. I YOU KNOW, BUT WHAT WE WHERE'S OUR MAYOR? YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD LIKE FURTHER EXPLANATION TO TO WHERE TO WHERE HE IS. AND.

[02:15:07]

ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE KYLE IS SUCH A. HE HE'S AN ADVOCATE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY HE IS SO COMPLACENT. HE'S SO OKAY WITH CERTAIN.

OBVIOUS. OBVIOUS, JUST INVALIDATIONS OF OUR PUBLIC HEALTH IN, IN OUR CITY. AND I WANT TO KNOW WHO I CAN HOLD A PUBLICLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THIS. AND THEN AND THEN. I JUST HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. AND PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR THOUGHTS. I CAN'T HEAR YOU, KYLE. CAN YOU CAN YOU READ THAT? SORRY. I'M SO SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? KELLY, YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. PLEASE CONCLUDE YOUR THOUGHT. OKAY, KYLE, I HAVE QUESTIONS. AND DAVID, I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF MY THOUGHT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE? MAYOR PRO TEM YES, WE DO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL SPEAKER THAT JUST QUEUED UP. HER NAME IS BRITTANY COOK. BRITTANY. ONE MOMENT. BRITTANY, YOU'RE UNMUTED. PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME OKAY? YES.

OKAY. SO I'VE BEEN LISTENING TONIGHT. I WASN'T SURE IF I WAS GOING TO SPEAK OR NOT. AND I JUST, I FEEL LIKE EVERYONE ON KIND OF BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE ARE MAKING REALLY GOOD POINTS. AND I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE, YOU KNOW, DOING ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST THE WILL OF THE VOTERS, REGARDLESS OF HOW I VOTED ON THIS ISSUE. I VOTED NO. I THINK THAT THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE CLEARLY THE RESIDENTS SPOKE AS TO WHERE THEY WANTED THIS HOUSING GOING. AND ANY DECISION THAT KIND OF NEGATES THAT I FEEL IS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. AND ON THE FLIP SIDE, THOUGH, I HEAR THESE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE ALSO VERY, VERY, VERY VALID AND VERY CONCERNING. AND I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, YOU KNOW, IS THERE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, CAN WE APPROVE THE EIR, KEEP US IN COMPLIANCE, KEEP US FROM, YOU KNOW, ANY KIND OF STATE ISSUE COMING DOWN AND SLAPPING OUR HAND OR WHATEVER? WELL, ALSO MAYBE DOING LIKE A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, LIKE, OH, WE'RE APPROVING THIS AND WE'RE GOING TO ADD IN X, Y, AND Z TO HELP STUDY OR MITIGATE WAYS, YOU KNOW, TO DEAL WITH THIS TRAFFIC OR THESE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. LIKE, IS THERE SOME MIDDLE GROUND WHERE YOU'RE WHERE YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, STILL MOVING FORWARD WITH WHAT WE APPROVED AND STILL ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND OBVIOUSLY KEEPING US IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE WHILE ALSO ADDRESSING OR POTENTIALLY FINDING WAYS TO ADDRESS OR DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO FIND WAYS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE OTHER CONCERNS. RIGHT. THERE'S NOT A MAGIC WAND. IT CAN'T BE PERFECT FOR EVERYBODY, BUT MAYBE THERE'S SOME SORT OF MIDDLE GROUND. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS. I JUST WANTED TO MAYBE ASK THAT QUESTION. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? THAT CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS FOR THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THE APPLICANT. MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBERS JACK RUBENS FOR THE APPLICANT. I'M JUST GOING TO RESPOND TO TWO COMMENTS OR MULTIPLE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. FIRST, THE NOTION THAT THERE WASN'T A COMMUNITY PROCESS HERE. WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT PRIOR TO THE VOTING ON BOTH MEASURE A IN 2018 ON SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0, AND THEN THE VOTE IN 2024 ON MEASURE S, IF I HAVE THAT RIGHT. AND MEASURE A, BY THE WAY, PASSED BY AN EVEN LARGER MARGIN IN 2018 AND BEFORE THE VOTE ON MEASURE A, THERE WAS ENORMOUS PUBLIC OUTREACH. WE HAD. I WAS JUST CHATTING WITH MR. SHARON. WE HAD AT LEAST 20 DIFFERENT PUBLIC MEETINGS. I ATTENDED A COUPLE WHERE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THERE WERE IN THE

[02:20:05]

HUNDREDS. WE HAD ENORMOUS CROWDS COME TO MANY OF THESE MEETINGS, AND THEY HAD LOTS OF QUESTIONS AND THEY HAD LOTS OF THINGS THEY WANTED. THEY HAD LOTS OF CONCERNS. AND WHAT YOU SEE IN SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 IN PARTICULAR IS THE RESPONSE TO THOSE VOLUMINOUS COMMENTS.

THERE'S A REASON WHY WAY OVER 60% OF THE VOTERS VOTED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0. IT WAS BECAUSE OF THAT OUTREACH. IT WAS BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS FELT HEARD. IT'S BECAUSE THERE WAS A RESPONSE TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANTED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC PARK SPACE AND HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF UNITS, AND LOTS AND LOTS OF THINGS THAT WERE ADDRESSED IN SPECIFIC PLAN 3.0. THAT WAS DONE PRIMARILY TO HELP THE CITY, AS MISS VELASCO SAYS, MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS AND YOU HAD LIMITED OPTIONS. AND AGAIN, YOU HAD A VERY SOLID MAJORITY APPROVING IT. BUT IT WAS ALL THAT OUTREACH THAT WAS DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE, EVEN BEFORE SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0, THAT LED TO BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT THAT THAT JUST CONTINUED AFTER THAT. SO WE, WE, WE TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS NOTION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH AREN'T BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, AS YOUR CITY MANAGERS TOLD YOU, MISS VELASCO TOLD YOU WEREN'T THE SUBJECT OF VERY BROAD PUBLIC OUTREACH AND INPUT. AND THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THIS NOTION THAT THERE'S NO TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE PROJECT. IN TRUTH, THERE ARE TWO TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR THE PROJECT. ONE OF THE TRAFFIC STUDIES IS THE VMT TRAFFIC STUDY. THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S DISCUSSED IN THE EIR, BECAUSE THE STATE HAS DECIDED THAT TRAFFIC IMPACTS ARE ANALYZED BASED ON VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, AS YOU HEARD. AND THAT REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE NONRESIDENTIAL VMT IMPACTS WERE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, HAD NOT HEARD TONIGHT, AND THAT THE RESIDENTIAL VMT IMPACT WAS SIGNIFICANT, WAS SOMEWHAT REDUCED WITH MITIGATION, BUT STILL REMAINED SIGNIFICANT. AND YOU ALSO HEARD THAT A REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE DOESN'T CHANGE THAT OUTCOME BASICALLY AT ALL. AND THAT'S BECAUSE VMT IS NOT BASED ON THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. IT'S BASED ON OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. THAT'S WHY WHEN MISS VELASCO SHOWED YOU HOW CLOSE THE TWO NUMBERS WERE, IT'S BECAUSE IT AND IT'S IT'S MIND BOGGLING. AND IT'S VERY TECHNICAL, BUT IT'S JUST NOT RELATED TO THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, THE THE TRAFFIC STUDY I THINK A FEW OF THE RESIDENTS WERE REFERRING TO IS THE NON CEQA ANALYSIS, THE ONE THAT DOES LOOK AT IMPACTS ON INTERSECTIONS. SO THERE IS A SECOND TRAFFIC STUDY THAT LOOKS AT EXACTLY THAT. IT IS ABOUT 2400 PAGES LONG. IT IS THE LONGEST TRAFFIC STUDY I HAVE EVER SEEN FOR ANY PROJECT I HAVE EVER WORKED ON IN OVER 40 YEARS. IT'S NOT ALL TEXT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF TEXT, A LOT OF ISSUES. YOUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND YOUR OUTSIDE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT WERE VERY DEMANDING IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WANTED. WE WENT THROUGH INNUMERABLE DRAFTS BEFORE THAT TRAFFIC STUDY WAS FINALIZED, AND THAT WAS USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE VARIOUS TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT MISS VELASCO PUT ON THE SCREEN. IT IDENTIFIED BASED ON TRAFFIC COUNTS THAT WERE DONE ON 31 INTERSECTIONS. I MIGHT ADD, AS MISS VELASCO TOLD YOU, WHERE THE PROJECT COULD HAVE PRESENT A CONCERN IN TERMS OF THE ADEQUACY OF THAT INTERSECTION. AND IN EVERY CASE WHERE THERE WAS THAT TYPE OF CONCERN, EITHER THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO DO THOSE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS OR ARE GOING TO PAY TRAFFIC FEES THAT WILL LATER BE USED AS SPECIFIC PROJECTS ARE PROPOSED TO, TO DO THOSE OTHER TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AT A NUMBER OF OTHER INTERSECTIONS. SO THERE WAS AN ENORMOUS STUDY OF THE PROJECT'S TRAFFIC IMPACTS, BOTH FROM A SEQUA AND NON SEQUEL BASIS, THAT ARE AS GOOD AS ANY I HAVE EVER SEEN FOR A PROJECT, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE FULLY AWARE OF THAT. AND WITH THAT, THANK YOU. UNLESS YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL HAVE WE'LL TAKE A SHORT BREAK ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO RESUME THE MEETING. LET'S FIRST BEGIN WITH SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE FOR ALICIA AND THE STAFF. I DON'T HAVE. I CAN'T SEE WHO'S SO. MR. MR. MAYOR PRO TEM, I WOULD ADD THAT IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO JUST WHATEVER YOU DECIDE TO DO. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR JUST FOR CITY STAFF? OKAY. LET'S BEGIN WITH CITY QUESTIONS

[02:25:03]

FOR CITY STAFF. IF YOU COULD RAISE YOUR HANDS, IF YOU WANT TO TALK. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE, I SEE YOUR HAND RAISED. YOU'VE BEEN APPOINTED TO START. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THIS IS A LOT TO DIGEST. I'VE GOT THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS.

LISTEN, JUST TO CLARIFY THINGS, THE WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT ARE THREE ITEMS. AS OUR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MENTIONED, THERE'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THERE'S A TENTATIVE TRACK MAP, AND THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AS A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS STATED, THE ZONING FOR THIS LOT. AND AS OUR CITY MANAGER CLARIFIED AT THE OUTSET, THE ZONING FOR THIS LOT WAS APPROVED THROUGH MEASURE S. SO THAT PART IS ALREADY BEEN KIND OF DECIDED BY THE VOTERS. AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS REALLY A QUESTION FOR US. WE WERE FOCUSED ON ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE THAT? THE OTHER TWO ELEMENTS, THE TRACT MAP AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WERE NOT.

THOSE ARE NEW ITEMS. THOSE WERE NOT ON THE BALLOT. THOSE WERE NOT VOTER APPROVED. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THIS ISN'T AS SIMPLE AS THE VOTERS APPROVED ALL THIS ALREADY. YOU JUST HAVE TO PUT YOUR RUBBER STAMP DOWN AND WE CAN GO HOME. THERE'S NEW THINGS IN THIS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN PARTICULAR IS SOMETHING I'M INTERESTED IN BECAUSE IT BINDS, AS MISS VELASCO SAID, HOW THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL COME IN THE PARKS, THE MAINTENANCE OF IT, THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT DOCUMENT ON ITS OWN IS A 30 SOMETHING PAGE DOCUMENT WITH APPENDICES OR INDEXES. SO I WANTED TO START WITH JUST SOME CLARIFYING THINGS AND, AND TAKING SOME OF THE RESIDENTS QUESTIONS AND GIVING A VOICE TO THEM. MISS VELASCO, CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA OF THE GENERAL TIMELINE? AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S NO CERTAINTY AS TO. THIS WILL BE BUILT WHEN. BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WILL NOT BE BUILT TOMORROW. SO WHAT'S CONTEMPLATED IN THE AGREEMENT AND WHAT'S THE PROJECTED TIMELINE FOR A POTENTIAL BUILDOUT OF THIS SITE? WELL, THE AGREEMENT IS GOOD. FOR 15 YEARS. THERE IS NO OTHER CONTEMPLATED TIMELINE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXCEPT FOR THAT IT VESTS THESE RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ALL FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THAT 15 YEAR TERM. SO THERE IS NO OTHER PHASING PLAN WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. OKAY. AND IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME THAT THE BUILDOUT WOULD BE GRADUAL REGARDLESS OF, YOU KNOW, WHEN THERE'S TURNOVER, IT WOULDN'T BE ALL UNITS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THAT. TYPICALLY THAT TAKES TIME TO PLAY OUT AS WELL. RIGHT? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. SO THE FIRST STEP IS THAT THE RACETRACK WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE.

IT WOULD IT WOULD NO LONGER BECOME OPERATIONAL. AND THEN THERE WOULD BE THE DEMOLITION AND CLEARING OF THE RACETRACK. THEN ALL THE BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED, AND THEN THE PARCELS CAN START BEING SOLD AND UTILIZED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

THAT BEING SAID, IF YOU ARE A HOUSING DEVELOPER, YOU WOULD NOT BUILD 1700 HOUSES AT ONCE, RIGHT? BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE CREATING A COMPETITION FOR YOURSELF. SO THERE WILL BE A PHASED DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES ALONG WITH MARKET FORCES. LIKE ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.

WE DO FORESEE THAT IT WILL TAKE AT LEAST THE 13 TO 15 YEARS BEFORE TOTAL BUILD OUT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS MENTIONED TRAFFIC AND SOME HIGHLIGHTED THAT. AND THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY EXPLAINED THAT WE USED TO DO TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT FOCUSED ON CONGESTION, PRIMARILY, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT A LOT OF YOU CARE ABOUT. HOW MUCH BUSIER ARE STREETS GOING TO BE NOW? WE DO. THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, WHICH YOU HIGHLIGHTED, IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT. BUT YOU ALSO SAID THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE THAT WAS VERY COMPREHENSIVE, THAT DID STUDY CONGESTION OR ANALYZE INTERSECTIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. WHERE CAN I OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. SO PREVIOUSLY LEVEL OF SERVICE, THAT IS THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES FOR A VEHICLE TO GET THROUGH AN INTERSECTION IS WHAT WAS CONSIDERED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. RIGHT. AND THEN THE STATE SAID, YOU KNOW, THE, THE NUMBER OF LIGHTS IT TAKES A PERSON TO GET THROUGH AN INTERSECTION IS ANNOYANCE, NOT

[02:30:04]

NECESSARILY AN IMPACT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT, BUT THE MILES THAT YOU DRIVE IN YOUR VEHICLE THAT PRODUCES EMISSIONS IS AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CHANGED THE METRIC TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. AND THAT'S ALSO WHY THE CITY OF CYPRESS HAD SUCH A LARGE HOUSING OBLIGATION, BECAUSE CYPRESS WAS IDENTIFIED AS A JOBS RICH AREA. AND SO THE POINT WAS TO BRING THOSE HOUSES BY THE JOBS TO REDUCE THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, WHICH WOULD LESSEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IF PEOPLE WERE NOT COMMUTING FROM OUT OF THE CITY TO COME TO WORK. RIGHT. WE HAVE WE HAVE MORE RESIDENTS, WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN THE DAYTIME IN CYPRESS AND AT NIGHTTIME. SO THAT MEANS WE HAVE COMMUTERS COMING INTO THE CITY TO WORK. SO IF THE CITY PROVIDED MORE HOUSING OPTIONS, THAT WOULD REDUCE THAT IMPACT. AND THAT'S WHY THE CITY OF CYPRESS HAD A 3900 UNIT RENA OBLIGATION. SO THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. BUT WE STILL DO A TRAFFIC STUDY. AND THAT TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN ON OUR WEBSITE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW, BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL ACTUAL PHYSICAL IMPACTS TO OUR INTERSECTIONS DUE TO TRAFFIC FLOW. AND OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS STUDY THOSE IMPACTS AND THEN DETERMINE HOW YOU CAN MITIGATE THEM BY DOING, YOU KNOW, RIGHT TURN ARROWS, YOU KNOW, OR LIKE THIS COMBO LEFT TURN ARROW WITH THE GREEN LIGHT, RIGHT? SO THERE'S LIKE SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT NICK AND DANIEL CAN GET INTO, BUT THAT LIKE FACILITATE THE TRAFFIC THROUGH INTERSECTIONS. AND THAT'S WHAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY SAYS. SO THIS PROJECT HAS TO UPGRADE AND IMPROVE ABOUT EIGHT ACTUAL TRAFFIC AND ROAD SEGMENTS. BUT THEN THERE ARE OTHER FUTURE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED THAT WILL TRIGGER AS THE PROJECT GETS BUILT OUT. RIGHT. WE DON'T WANT TO PUT LIGHTS IN INTERSECTIONS AND TURNING LANES WHEN THE TRAFFIC DOESN'T EXIST YET. RIGHT? THEN THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE AN ANNOYANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE SITTING AT A RED LIGHT AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOBODY. WE'VE WE'VE ALL HAD THAT ANNOYING EXPERIENCE. SO AS THIS IS A PHASED BUILD OUT, THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS WILL TRIGGER THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND THE WAY WE DID HAVE A RESIDENT SPEAK ABOUT LIKE, WHAT IS A, A COMPROMISE? SO A TRAFFIC IMPACTS ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS, WILL PAY TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES AND THOSE FEES WILL GO TO THE CITY. AND THEN THE CITY WILL DETERMINE THROUGH THE DIFFERENT TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT WE PREPARE, WHAT INTERSECTIONS AND WHAT ROAD SEGMENTS TO IMPROVE. THANK YOU. AND I BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY SAID THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS 2400 PAGES OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, WHICH I DON'T EXPECT RESIDENTS TO FOR THE POUR THAT OVER. DOES THAT HAVE CONCLUSIONS OR AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, OR IS THERE ANYWHERE RESIDENTS CAN KIND OF GET THE BIG PICTURE TAKEAWAYS OF WHAT THAT STUDY SAID? YES. THE IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY ARE JUST ABOUT THE FIRST 40 PAGES. AND THAT IS NO OFFENSE TO THE OTHER 25,000 OR WHATEVER. BUT YES, CAN TELL THAT REPORT WAS WRITTEN BY A LAWYER. CAN YOU? AN ENGINEERS. YES. SO AND THAT IS ON AND THAT IS ON OUR WEBSITE. AND MY CONTACT INFORMATION IS ON THE WEBSITE TOO. SO I ENCOURAGE ANY RESIDENTS TO FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO ME IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS AND I CAN POINT THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. OKAY.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO I DON'T WANT US TO BE UP HERE SELLING ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, OR PRETENDING ANYTHING. I THINK WE CAN ALL ASSUME THAT IF YOU ADD MORE RESIDENCES OR YOU ADD MORE DEVELOPMENT, IT WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC. I DO THINK YOU'VE MENTIONED THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MENTIONED IT AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION. TYPICALLY, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LEADS TO MORE TRAFFIC THAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. OR AM I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS THAT IS CORRECT. I DO HAVE RIGHT. I DO HAVE THAT HERE.

SO A RESIDENT HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE NET DAILY TRIPS ARE 21,041. OF THOSE, 11,458 ARE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 16,284 FROM THE COMMERCIAL. OKAY. AND YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE THESE TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE BEING TAKEN, SUCH AS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. SOME OF THEM, I THINK. AND IS THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR WHERE IS THAT? RIGHT. THE ONE, THE ONES THAT ARE OBLIGATED FROM THIS DEVELOPER AND THIS PROPERTY OWNER ARE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE CITY WILL COLLECT THOSE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES. SO THEN THE CITY CAN CHOOSE WHERE TO UPGRADE TRAFFIC

[02:35:06]

INTERSECTIONS AS THE CITY DETERMINES IS BEST. OKAY. AND SO WE ARE TAKING SOME MEASURES TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC. BUT I'M GOING TO ASK A REAL BLUNT QUESTION. ARE THERE OTHER MEASURES WE COULD HAVE TAKEN OR COULD BE TAKING THAT WERE NOT, OR ARE WE TAKING ALL OF THE RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES? YEAH. SO WE FOUND ABOUT THREE INTERSECTIONS WHERE IT EXCEEDED THE LEVEL OF SERVICE. AND THEY PROVIDED MITIGATIONS AT THOSE THREE INTERSECTIONS THAT BROUGHT THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE BACK TO DOWN TO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL. SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING. AND THE THE MITIGATIONS ARE ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND THEY'RE ALL LISTED THERE. AND WERE THERE ANY INTERSECTIONS THAT IT DIDN'T EXCEED THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, BUT MAYBE IT GOT REALLY CLOSE TO THAT LINE. AND ARE THERE THINGS WE COULD CONSIDER DOING THERE, OR. I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE APPROACH WE TOOK. LIKE, ARE THERE OTHER INTERSECTIONS THAT WERE IMPACTED, BUT NOT AS BADLY? YEAH. LIKE YOU SAID, WHEN YOU HAVE A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IMPACTS.

BUT YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE IMPACTS CROSS THAT THRESHOLD DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT A MITIGATION WILL GO THERE. BUT AS PART OF THE STUDY, THE THE PROJECT DID IDENTIFY OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE THERE ARE IMPACTS. SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE COLLECTING THOSE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES THAT WILL BE APPLIED TOWARDS THOSE INTERSECTIONS. OKAY. SO WE CAN WE'RE ADDRESSING SOME OF THE WE'RE DOING SOME MITIGATION MEASURES NOW, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO OTHERS IN THE FUTURE WITH FUNDS THAT COME FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.

I WANT TO TURN TO A QUESTION ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF RESIDENTS HAVE THE MAPS. PROBABLY IT'S ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA SOMEWHERE. SOME OF THE AREAS ARE ZONED FOR PURELY RESIDENTIAL. SOME OF THEM ARE ZONED FOR MIXED USE, WHICH MIXED USE COULD BE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. AND I KNOW A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO HAVE AT LEAST SOME COMMERCIAL OR PLAZA OR TOWN CENTER OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD THE COUNCIL COULD DO TO ENCOURAGE OR REQUIRE THESE MIXED USE ZONES TO INCLUDE SOME OR ALL COMMERCIAL? OR IS IT SIMPLY A MATTER OF THE FREE MARKET BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE PERSON PURCHASING THE LAND? THERE IS NOTHING THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DO THIS EVENING TO REQUIRE THE COMMERCIAL.

COMMERCIAL IS NOT REQUIRED IN THIS SPECIFIC PLAN. IT WASN'T REQUIRED IN 2.0 OR IN 3.0, SO REQUIRING COMMERCIAL WOULD NEED A VOTER APPROVED AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN. ARE THERE THINGS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DO TO ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL. I. I HAVE HEARD LIKE A PARKING REDUCTION THAT WOULD NOT USUALLY BE AN OPTION BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S NOT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. AND WE CAN'T AMEND THE SPECIFIC PLAN WITHOUT A VOTER INITIATIVE. ARE THERE MAYBE SOME FINANCIAL INCENTIVES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE TO ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL? YES. YOU KNOW, WE DID HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN THE PAST WHERE WE HAD FEE WAIVERS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO CONSIDER THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A STRATEGIC PLANNING ITEM FOR THE FUTURE.

OKAY. SO WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO REQUIRE COMMERCIAL IN THAT AREA BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN VOTED ON ALREADY AS A POTENTIAL COULD GO EITHER WAY. SO REALISTICALLY, ALL THE MIXED USE AREAS COULD BE PURELY RESIDENTIAL. THEY COULD BE OKAY. I WANT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR THINGS. SO IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EXTENSION OF MOODY STREET AND HOW IT WILL THE APPEARANCE WILL MIRROR THE EXISTING SECTIONS OF MOODY STREET THAT WE ALREADY HAVE. WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREET, THE LANDSCAPING, THE MAINTENANCE, REALLY ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? WHO BEARS THOSE COSTS? THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS, OF THE MOODY STREET AND VESSELS EXTENSION WILL BE LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE. THEY ARE PAYING FOR THE BACKBONE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC STREET. ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE STREET, THE MEDIANS, THE LANDSCAPING, THE PARKWAYS, THE SIDEWALKS,

[02:40:05]

THOSE ARE ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THEM AND ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS PART OF THAT INITIAL INFRASTRUCTURE BACKBONE. THEN ONCE THIS PROJECT IS DEVELOPED AND THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL OWNERSHIP, THERE'LL BE A MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WHO WILL PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT STREET OF THOSE STREETS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WILL BE PUBLIC STREETS, THEY WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. AND THAT REQUIREMENT IS ALSO IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY AND OBLIGATION THAT THE CITY IS GETTING AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT WHEN WE DO PROJECTS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, WE DON'T GET THESE REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT WOULD BE THE MASTER HOA.

AND THEN WE ENVISION THAT ALL OTHER STREETS WITHIN THE PLAN WILL BE PRIVATE. SO THAT SECTION OF MOODY BETWEEN CERRITOS AND KATELLA, CURRENT CYPRESS RESIDENTS WON'T PAY ANYTHING TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE OF THAT STREET. THAT PORTION, UNLESS THEY MOVE INTO LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE. YES. OKAY. RIGHT. OKAY. I WANT TO TURN TO SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PARK DISTRICT AND THE PARK ACREAGE. SO AS PART OF THIS SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH YOU HIGHLIGHTED IN OUR PRESENTATION, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, IT CALLS FOR 20 ACRES OF TOTAL PARK SPACE THAT CYPRESS RESIDENTS CAN ENJOY. HOWEVER, I ALSO KNOW BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS AND BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS, THAT THE EIGHT ACRE PARK IN. DO YOU SEE THERE AT THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN COVERING THOSE TWO LOTS? THAT PARK DOUBLES AS A STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN, CORRECT? YES. WELL, AT THIS TIME THAT IS THE PROPOSAL. OKAY. SO THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THE PARK WOULD DOUBLE AS A STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN. SO FIRST QUESTION SIMILAR WHO PAYS FOR THE AND MAINTENANCE OF THAT. THE LOTS WHICH ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT STORMWATER DETENTION WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF IT. THE MASTER HOA WILL THEN PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ENTIRE PARK. SO RIGHT NOW, AS PART OF THE THE AGREEMENT AND THE PROPOSED PLAN, WE HAVE LOTS THREE, FOUR AND SEVEN DRAINING INTO FIVE AND SIX, BUT THOSE LOTS HAVEN'T BEEN PURCHASED. WE DON'T HAVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR THOSE YET. WE'RE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THAT DRAINAGE IS GOING TO CONSIST OF AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO NEED THAT. OR OR WILL THEY DO SOME DRAINAGE ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? RIGHT. WE'RE NOT SURE. SO ONCE ONCE THOSE PROPOSALS COME FORWARD AT SOME FUTURE DATE AND WE SEE WHAT THOSE DRAINAGE IMPACTS ARE, THOSE LOTS WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE STORMWATER DETENTION. AND THEN THE CREATION OF THE PARK. OKAY. SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING THAT WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, LARGELY THE CITY ISN'T PAYING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THOSE. BUT I DO HAVE ANOTHER SERIES OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE PARK DOUBLING AS A DETENTION BASIN. WE HAVE A DETENTION BASIN PARK ALREADY IN CYPRUS. IT'S CALLED THE NATURE PARK.

IT'S ON OFF OF BALL ROAD. AND AS RESIDENTS PROBABLY KNOW, THAT PARK IS NOT VERY PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE. IT'S CLOSED OVER 90% OF THE YEAR. AND THAT'S IN PART BECAUSE THERE'S PUMP STATION OR FACILITIES FOR STORM RETENTION THERE. SO WE'RE BEING TOLD THERE'S AN EIGHT ACRE PARK ON THE MAP. BUT WHAT PORTION OF THOSE ACRES ARE GOING TO BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE? IF IT'S A STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN, ISN'T SOME OF THAT GOING TO BE DEVOTED TO THAT PURPOSE? YES, IT COULD BE. SO THAT IS WHY IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WE HAVE THE FIVE STEP PUBLIC PARK PLANNING PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY, THE CITY, THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT THOSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THAT PUBLIC SPACE ARE MET. THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRE THAT THAT IS A PUBLIC PARK SPACE. BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE STORMWATER DETENTION. SO IN OUR FIVE STEP PUBLIC PARK PLANNING PROCESS, WE REQUIRE THAT THE DEVELOPER OF THE PARK MEET WITH

[02:45:03]

THE CITY. THEY DO PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND THEY HEAR FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON WHAT ARE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THAT PARK SPACE. THEY WILL THEN HAVE TO DEVELOP CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR THAT SPACE, BRING THEM BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THEN FINAL PLANS WILL BE DRAWN AND THE PARK MASTER PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED, WHICH OUTLINES CLEARLY ALL THE AMENITIES OF HOW THE PARK WILL SERVE THE RESIDENTS, WHAT TYPE OF FEATURES WILL HAVE IF THIS STORMWATER DETENTION IS, LET'S SAY, SOME TYPE OF LAKE, WOULD WE WANT A WALKING TRAILS AND BRIDGES OVER THAT LAKE? RIGHT? WOULD WE WANT TO PUT FISH IN THE LAKE SOMETIMES? YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE. BUT THERE'LL BE THE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND THE CITY COUNCIL'S GOALS FOR THE PARK, AND THEN THAT WILL COME BACK BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AGAIN FOR FINAL APPROVAL BEFORE THE PLANS ARE MADE AND THEN THE PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THIS CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TODAY FOR US TO SAY, NO, WE WANT THIS PARK TO BE A SOCCER FIELD AND TWO PLAYGROUNDS AND WHATEVER. ON THE OTHER HAND, I DON'T THINK I FEEL ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE WITH, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, IN THE FUTURE, A COUNCIL COULD AGREE THAT 2 OR 3 ACRES OF THIS PARK WILL BE STORMWATER RETENTION, AND IT'S CHAINED OFF BY A FENCE, OR IT'S A LAKE, AND THE OTHER 5 OR 6 ACRES ARE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE. JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF A SPECIFIC PLAN SAYS 20 ACRES OF PARKLAND, I. I THINK THAT SHOULD AT LEAST BE 20 ACRES THAT OUR RESIDENTS CAN USE. AND SO I GUESS MAYBE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY OR STAFF, BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO IMPOSE A CONDITION OR CONDITIONS THAT MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OR FOOTPRINT OF THE STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN AND MAXIMIZE THE OPTIONS FOR WHAT THE CITY CAN DO WITH THAT SPACE IN THE FUTURE. BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT A FUTURE COUNCIL TO BE HAMSTRUNG BY THE QUALITY OF THE PARK OR THE SPACE THERE. SO I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF REACTIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, YOU'VE GOT A VERY DETAILED PLANNING PROCESS THAT WILL INVOLVE PUBLIC INPUT, COUNCIL OVERSIGHT. I THINK THE ONE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU CAN, IN THIS AGREEMENT, BIND A FUTURE COUNCIL TO A SPECIFIC PARK PLAN. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ESTABLISHES A PROCESS. THAT PROCESS IS PRETTY ROBUST. THAT PROCESS GIVES SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY AND CITY COUNCIL OVERSIGHT. I SUSPECT THAT'S PROBABLY ALL. THAT'S PROBABLY THE MAXIMUM LEGAL AUTHORITY YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT. WELL, I CAN SEE WHY WE COULDN'T FIND A FUTURE COUNCIL, ALTHOUGH I THINK WE COULD CONCEIVABLY GET AROUND THAT BY INSERTING A CLAUSE THAT THE FUTURE COUNCIL HAS DISCRETION TO MAYBE OVERRIDE A REQUIREMENT, I GUESS, FOR MAYBE OUR ENGINEERS. I JUST WANT TO ASK THE PRACTICAL QUESTION, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS CAN ACTUALLY USE ALL EIGHT ACRES OF THIS PARKLAND? WHAT CAN WE DO ENGINEERING WISE? OR IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO DO THAT WITH A RETENTION OR DETENTION BASIN IN A PARK? YEAH. SO THAT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THAT SPECIFIC SITE. SO THERE ARE LOCATIONS WHERE THERE ARE DETENTION BASINS THAT ARE UNDERGROUND. BUT AGAIN, THAT WILL COME AT A FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN PHASE IF THAT'S EVEN FEASIBLE. AND SO RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T DEFINITIVELY ANSWER WHETHER ALL EIGHT ACRES OF THAT WOULD BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OR MAYBE JUST SIX.

AGAIN, WITHOUT THE OUTREACH PROCESS AND DOING THE FINAL DESIGN AND THE EXPLORATORY WORK, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL AT THIS POINT. OKAY. AND SO COULD I ADD ONE OTHER LITTLE COMPLICATING FACTOR? YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW NOW TO RETAIN OUR STORMWATER ON SITE BECAUSE OUR CAPACITIES TO HANDLE STORMWATER COUNTYWIDE, STATEWIDE ARE REACHING MAXIMUM CAPACITY, NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT'S BEING DONE WITH THE SEWERS RIGHT NOW. SO IF WE WERE TO TRY TO INCLUDE A CAUSE, THAT CLAUSE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT SAID YOU MUST MAKE OF THESE ACRES X NUMBER AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS, WE COULD POTENTIALLY PUT OURSELVES IN VIOLATION OF OUR OBLIGATION TO RETAIN ON SITE OUR STORMWATER. SO IT'S GOING TO

[02:50:05]

HAVE TO HAVE, UNFORTUNATELY, SOME AMBIGUITY IN THE PROCESS. AND I THINK THE STAFF HAS DONE THE BEST THAT IT CAN DO, SHORT OF WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO DO, WHICH IS TO SAY X NUMBER OF SPACES WILL X NUMBER OF ACRES WILL ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE TO THE RESIDENTS WITHOUT RISKING A VIOLATION OF OUR OBLIGATION TO RETAIN STORMWATER ON SITE. WELL, YEAH. THANK YOU. AND I DON'T EXPECT US TO COME UP WITH A CLAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT'S CHALLENGING. AND I KNOW I'M JUST KIND OF THROWING THIS AT YOU, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE, AS I SAID, FOR MY COLLEAGUES, I'M NOT TERRIBLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROSPECT THAT OUR RESIDENTS DON'T GET THE FULL 20 ACRES OF PARK SPACE THAT IS CONTEMPLATED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. AND I WONDER IF WE COULD COME UP WITH A CLAUSE THAT FOLLOWS THE RULE. REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER RETENTION WHILE MAXIMIZING THE AVAILABILITY OF THE PARK SPACE, OR POTENTIALLY EVEN A CLAUSE THAT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE ANY ACRES IN THAT EIGHT ACRE SPACE THAT ARE NOT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE NEED TO BE MADE UP ELSEWHERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT TO GET TO THE TOTAL OF 20 ACRES. AGAIN, I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO HAVE AN ANSWER, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD AT LEAST LOOK INTO AND TRY AND FIGURE OUT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IF WE CAN? LIKE, WHAT'S THE STRONGEST WE CAN PUT IN? WE'RE HAPPY TO WORDSMITH THIS SOME MORE. WELL, I CONFESS I DID. I DID HEAR THIS CONCERN. AND SO I HAVE ALREADY DRAFTED LANGUAGE THAT THAT DOES STATE THAT THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THAT DOES STATE THAT IF ANY, IF. AND TO THE EXTENT ALL OR A PORTION OF THE LOTS FIVE SIX DETENTION BASIN IS FULLY SEPARATED BY A PHYSICAL BARRIER FROM THE REST OF THE LOTS FIVE SIX PARK, THEN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PARK SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ONE OR MORE LOCATIONS ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY, AND IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SEPARATED BASIN AREA. SO THAT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THAT I CAME UP WITH IN. THE APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO THAT LANGUAGE, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO APPROVE THAT AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND I BELIEVE, THOUGH, THAT ALSO OUR RECREATION DIRECTOR HAS SOMETHING HE WANTS TO ADD. YEAH. SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE STORMWATER RETENTION BASINS AT OUR LAST COUPLE OF PARKS THAT WE BUILT. SO MACKIE PARK, LEXINGTON PARK AND ARNOLD CYPRESS. SO WE'RE ABLE TO HELP INCORPORATE THOSE INTO THE DESIGN. SO WE'RE ALREADY DOING IT. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LOOK TO DO DURING THE OUTREACH PROCESS AS WELL. JUST TO BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE SOMETHING LIKE NATURE PARK WHERE WE'RE FENCING OFF AN AREA, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE DESIGN AND MAKE IT PART OF, OF THE ACTUAL PARK, BECAUSE IT IS A STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN, IT'S REALLY ONLY USED DURING THE RAINY SEASON AND WHEN IT IS, WHEN IT IS RAINING. SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE A LOT OF THAT. BUT REALISTICALLY, AS RECREATION AND OVERSEE SOMEONE WHO OVERSEES THE PARKS, WE WANT TO MAKE THE MOST SPACE USABLE AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE YOU, RESIDENTS. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I'VE SEEN THIS PRESENTATION OR VERSION OF IT. I'VE OBVIOUSLY SPOKEN WITH MISS VELASCO A LITTLE BIT, AND SO I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO KIND OF COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ADDRESS MY CONCERNS AND SOMETHING I'D LOVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT. SO THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S LIKE A PROMISING PATH ON THAT ONE. I HAVE A SECOND PARK RELATED QUESTION OR LINE OF INQUIRY AS WELL. SO THEN THERE'S THE FLOATING PARK. AND ARE YOU ABLE TO PUT THAT SCREEN UP OF THE COLORED MAP? SO RESIDENTS. OKAY. SO AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT MIXED USE PORTION, THAT'S WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE FLOATING PARK SPACE. AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS? MISS VELASCO RIGHT. SO THIS IS THE LOCATION THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL CT, CC 2.0 FOR THE FLOATING PARK. BUT AS SAID IN THE PRESENTATION, THE FLOATING PARK DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN THE MIXED USE TOWN CENTER AREA. IT CAN BE IN ANY ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OR COULD BE ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING PARK. IT WOULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO A LEXINGTON PARK, SO THAT WOULD ONLY LEAVE THE LOTS FIVE SIX PARK AT THIS POINT THAT. THAT IS WHAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN

[02:55:04]

OUTLINES FOR THAT FLOATING PARK. WHAT IS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS THAT THE FLOATING PARK MUST BE IDENTIFIED. I HAVE A WHOLE I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD NOW. SO BECAUSE THAT FLOATING PARK IS NOT ACTUALLY CARVED OUT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN LIKE THE OTHER PUBLIC PARK SPACES ARE, IT WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE MIXED USE OR THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AREAS. THAT HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED. SORRY, I JUST DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU WRONG. RIGHT.

SO THAT LOCATION HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS ON LOTS TWO, THREE, FOUR, 7 OR 13. SO BEFORE A PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR ANY OF THOSE LOTS, THEY WILL NEED TO HAVE A PLAN FOR WHERE THAT PUBLIC, THAT TWO ACRES OF FLOATING PARK SPACE IS GOING TO BE. AND THEN BECAUSE IT'S NOT ZONED PUBLIC SPACE, THE SUBDIVISION OF WHEREVER THAT PARK SPACE IS AT WILL COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. RIGHT? SO LET'S SAY THE TWO ACRE PARK SPACE IS ON LOT SEVEN. LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE. THEN WHEN LOT SEVEN COMES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU WOULD APPROVE THE LOCATION OF THAT PARK SPACE AS PART OF THAT SUBDIVISION. AND THEN AS ALSO IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT TWO ACRE PARK SPACE MUST ALSO FOLLOW THAT SAME PARK PLANNING PROCESS AS THE FIVE SIX PARK. OKAY, SO THAT'S HELPFUL BACKGROUND. AND I HAVE A FEW FOLLOW UPS. I NOTICED THAT THIS PARK IS DESCRIBED AS PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY OWNED, WHEREAS THE LARGER PARK WAS DESCRIBED AS PRIVATELY OWNED. WHY IS THAT? AND COULD THAT RESULT IN CYPRUS TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THAT FLOATING PARK IF IT'S PUBLICLY OWNED? WELL, THIS THIS IS A SMALLER PARK, RIGHT. AND SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO REQUIRE IT TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SURE HOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PARK WILL OCCUR AND AT WHICH LOT IT WILL IT WILL GO TO. RIGHT. BUT THE CITY WILL COLLECT SIGNIFICANT PARK IMPACT FEES WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT, WHICH WOULD FUND THAT PARK. WHEN THAT PARK IS IDENTIFIED. AND AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NEGOTIATE HOW THAT PARK WILL OPERATE, HOW IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND HOW IT WILL BE MAINTAINED WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THAT PARK. SO THE THOUGHT WAS, BECAUSE THIS IS A SMALLER PARK AND IT COULD BE TWO PARKS, LET'S SAY TWO ONE ACRE PARKS, MAYBE A PLAZA OUT AT A COMMERCIAL AREA, THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY AND NOT MAKE THAT DETERMINATION RIGHT NOW. DOES THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE ULTIMATELY GET A SAY OR TO DETERMINE WHERE THAT GOES? OR IS IT ULTIMATELY THE DEVELOPER WHO'S PURCHASED THAT TRACT? THE CITY COUNCIL DOES GET A SAY BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES ALL SUBDIVISIONS, RIGHT? AND THAT PARK WILL NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED IN A SUBDIVISION. AND SO IF IT'S NOT MEETING WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL FEELS IS THE INTENT OF PUBLIC PARK SPACE, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DENY IT. OKAY. I HAVE ANOTHER CONCERN ABOUT THE FLOATING PARK, WHICH IS YOU MENTIONED THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE A TWO ACRE PARK. IT MIGHT BE TWO ONE ACRE PARKS. MY MIND GOES, WELL, MAYBE IT WILL BE 8.25 ACRE PARKS, WHICH DOESN'T SOUND SO GOOD TO ME. IS THERE ANY CONDITION OR COULD WE POTENTIALLY IMPOSE A CONDITION TO ENSURE THAT THE PARK DOESN'T GET SLICED UP TO THE POINT THAT IT'S NOT REALLY MUCH OF A PARK OR THE PARK SPACE DOESN'T GET SLICED UP TOO MUCH? YES, THERE. SECTION 6.9 WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OUTLINES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TWO ACRE PARK SPACE. THE SPECIFIC PLAN LEAVES IT OPEN TO ENCOURAGE DESIGN FROM FUTURE BUILDERS ON HOW THIS SPACE IS DEVELOPED, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SURE HOW IT WILL BE DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME, AND WE DON'T WANT TO BIND OURSELVES. BUT IF THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT LEAST A PORTION OF THAT TWO ACRE PARK SPACE, AT LEAST A MINIMUM SIZE, WE WOULD ADD A SENTENCE TO 6.9 AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. LAST PART QUESTION YOU MENTIONED PROBABLY YOU NEVER KNOW. YOU MENTIONED THAT ONE ACRE WILL BE ADDED TO LEXINGTON PARK AS PART OF THIS. WHO WILL OWN THAT? THE CITY

[03:00:01]

WILL OWN THAT. SO THAT WILL. THE CITY OWNS LEXINGTON PARK CURRENTLY. THAT'S RIGHT. SO IT'LL JUST BE WE STILL OWN IT, BUT IT'S AN ACRE BIGGER. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I MAY HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S PLENTY FOR NOW. I WANT TO GIVE MY COLLEAGUES A CHANCE. SO THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU FOR GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING. RIGHT. DO ANY OF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCILMAN? GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS. AND I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE OVERWHELMING FOR THE PUBLIC.

THE EIR IS OBVIOUSLY A GIGANTIC DOCUMENT. ALL OF THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT ARE, ARE BIG, CONSIDERABLE DOCUMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH A LAYPERSON'S KNOWLEDGE OF THESE THINGS CAN BE REALLY CONFUSING. SO I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THE WORK THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS. I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. OBVIOUSLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A MANDATE FROM SACRAMENTO. NONE OF THIS IS UP FOR DEBATE TONIGHT. IT'S NOT OUR CHOICE WHETHER OR NOT WE BUILD, YOU KNOW, AND SUBDIVIDE THE WAY WE ARE. HOWEVER, I DO SHARE SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS CONCERN ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY HOUSING OPTIONS. OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S NOT UP FOR DEBATE TONIGHT EITHER. BUT AS THESE LOTS ARE SOLD, IF I'M IF I'M CLEAR ON THIS, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN ON USAGE. WHAT WOULD OUR ABILITY TO HAVE SOME SAY ON WHAT PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING WE WE THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE IS AFFORDABLE. LIKE AS A CITY, WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS TO CONTROL IF WE CAN, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE HOUSING THAT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE WOULD BE AFFORDABLE? BECAUSE AGAIN, THE IMPACT TO THE GREATER COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MORE KIDS TO GO TO SCHOOLS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS HINGES ON WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE WITH YOUNG FAMILIES CAN AFFORD TO MOVE INTO THE AREA. RIGHT? SO WE CANNOT REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. AGAIN, WITHOUT A VOTER APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOESN'T REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT WASN'T IN 2.0 OR 3.0. SO WE CANNOT REQUIRE IT. THAT BEING SAID, THE CITY DOES HAVE A DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE THAT DOES APPLY WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WAS A PART OF 3.0, BECAUSE THAT'S STATE LAW. SO THE CITY TRIES TO ENTICE AND ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY PROVIDING BENEFITS IF A DEVELOPER BUILDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND IN FACT, OUR LAST FOUR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS DID HAVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT IN THEM. AND THAT WAS NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE REQUIRED TO, BUT BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE INCENTIVES OF PROVIDING THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALSO, AS WE'VE LOOKED AT THE LANGUAGE FROM THE DIFFERENT MEASURES THAT HAVE PASSED REGARDING THIS, OBVIOUSLY IN MEASURE S, THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT A TOWN CENTER HAS FALLEN OUT. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS MAYBE NOT EVEN IN THERE IN MEASURE A NOT POSITIVE, BUT I HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN CENTER AND I KNOW IT'S AN ISSUE OF CONCERN. IS IT POSSIBLE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ZONING AND THE SUBDIVISIONS, IT'S NOT PROMISED THAT WE WILL GET A TOWN CENTER, BUT WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT THAT WE HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO GIVE A YAY OR NAY TO DEVELOPERS THAT MIGHT CREATE THAT IN OUR MIXED USE LOTS. SO BETWEEN 2.0, WHICH WAS MEASURE A AND 3.0, WHICH WAS MEASURE S, THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS OR LACK THEREOF. RIGHT. THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PERMITTED USES FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT IS NOT REQUIRED. SO WE CANNOT REQUIRE IT. I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE SECOND HALF OF YOUR QUESTION? IT WAS JUST BASICALLY THAT LIKE, WHAT IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO WHAT WOULD IT WHAT WOULD IT REQUIRE? RIGHT. IT WOULD REQUIRE A VOTER APPROVED AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO REQUIRE THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE. BUT COMMERCIAL SPACE IS. THIS THE SUBJECT OF ITS ENVIRONMENT? RIGHT. WE ALWAYS SAY AS PLANNERS, RETAIL FOLLOWS ROOFTOPS, RIGHT? SO THE MORE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY YOU PUT IN AN AREA, THE ACTUALLY, THE MORE CHANCE THAT YOU WILL GET THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE BECAUSE YOU DON'T JUST THINK OF WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENT, YOU DON'T SEE COMMERCIAL SPACES IN FAR FLUNG AREAS AROUND NO RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? RETAIL ALWAYS FOLLOWS THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED, AND IT NEVER GOES FIRST. SO IT'S NOT UNTIL WE START BUILDING THAT DENSITY THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT THEN THE COMMERCIAL WOULD MAYBE GET BUILT. SO MEASURE S ADDING THE 676 ADDITIONAL UNITS ACTUALLY STRENGTHENS THE ABILITY TO

[03:05:03]

MAYBE GET THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE. AND CONVERSELY, WE WOULDN'T WANT TO FORCE COMMERCIAL SPACE WHERE THAT DEMAND DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE IT WOULD PUT FURTHER STRESS ON OUR EXISTING RETAIL AND SERVICE BASED USES, RIGHT? BECAUSE NOW WE'RE CREATING MORE COMPETITION WITH THEM. WE WANT OUR COMMERCIAL SPACES TO GROW PROPORTIONATELY WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL USES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'D ALSO MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE MASTER HOA, AND I JUST WAS CURIOUS, WOULD THAT INCLUDE THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES? IF WE DO HAVE THEM, LIKE WHAT WOULD BE THEIR LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION BE IN THAT? WOULD IT BE SOMETHING LIKE ALMOST LIKE A CAM FEE? THEY, THEY EACH PAY IN A PERCENTAGE OR THEY HAVE VOTING RIGHTS. HOW DOES THAT WORK? RIGHT. YEAH, THEY, THEY PARTICIPATE IN AN HOA THE SAME AS RESIDENTIAL. IT'S BASED ON LIKE YOUR PROPORTION OF USE THAT WE SEE A MASTER HOA, BUT THEN THERE WILL BE SMALLER HOAS WHICH ARE SUBSERVIENT TO THE MASTER HOA FOR THOSE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS, RIGHT? SO IF YOU ARE IN LOT SEVEN AND YOU GUYS HAVE A POOL AND YOUR COMMUNITY CENTERS, RIGHT, LOT THREE IS NOT GOING TO WANT TO PAY FOR THAT. SO THEY'LL BE THE MASTER HOA FOR ALL THE PUBLIC SPACES AND THEN INDIVIDUAL HOAS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENTS. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. YEAH. THANK YOU. I HAVE MORE COMMENTS THAN I THINK QUESTIONS, LISA SAYING THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BUT WHO KNOWS? FIRST AND FOREMOST, ALICIA, OUTSTANDING JOB. OKAY. YOU HAVE LIVED AND BREATHED THIS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO I APPRECIATE THE THOROUGHNESS. YOUR PRESENTATION WAS REALLY WELL DONE. YOU HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM THE TEAM HERE AS WELL. AND THEN OF COURSE, TO LOS DEL REY TRACK. YOU KNOW, FRANK AND MR. RUBEN, YOU BOTH WERE INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT'S GOING ON AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PARTNERSHIP THAT THIS HAS BEEN AND HOW IT'S WORKED TOGETHER. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY LIKE THE THIRD TIME WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION ON LARK. RIGHT. AND, AND WE HAD SEVERAL COMMUNITY OUTREACHES OVER THE YEARS, AND MOST OF IT WAS DONE BEFORE MEASURE S AS WELL AS BEFORE THAT. AND IT WAS A BIG DISCUSSION BECAUSE THERE WAS ALWAYS CONCERN ABOUT JUST THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT. AND TRAFFIC IS ALWAYS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE. WHERE I SIT TODAY, I LOOK AND I SAY, YOU KNOW, THE VOTERS HAVE VOTED A COUPLE DIFFERENT TIMES. IT'S REALLY OUR JOB NOW TO IMPLEMENT WHAT THE VOTERS HAVE APPROVED. AND SO IF I LOOK AT THE EIR AND AGAIN, GREAT JOB PUTTING TOGETHER, FIRST OF ALL, ALL THE RESPONSES TO EVERYTHING THAT CAME IN, BUT AS WELL AS SOME OF THE MITIGATIONS, THINGS THAT WE CAN DO FOR MITIGATING SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THAT AROSE AS A RESULT OF THE EIR. I THINK YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB, OKAY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I KNOW THAT CAME WITH A LOT OF HELP FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

SO AS I SIT HERE, I LOOK AND I SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? OUR CITY STAFF HAS DONE A VERY NICE JOB REPRESENTING US, OKAY? REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF OUR RESIDENTS AND REPRESENTING WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR CITY. I HEARD AND I DON'T I THINK IT WAS MR. RUBEN, I THINK YOU SAID IT IS. YOU PROBABLY GAVE MORE THAN WHAT YOU GOT. OKAY, I'M INTERPRETING, BUT I KNOW WHEN WE SAT WITH ALICIA YESTERDAY, SHE MENTIONED A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT WERE HARD POINTS FOR US THAT WE JUST WOULD NOT LET GO OF. AND I APPRECIATE HER AND OUR TEAM STANDING FIRM ON SOME OF THOSE ITEMS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR US AS RESIDENTS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE MORE LOCAL CONTROL IN THIS HUGE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO COME UP. SO AND I DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THAT, IS PUTTING THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TOGETHER. AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE TO DATE IS REALLY KEEPING THE CONTROL WITHIN OUR AS MUCH AS WE CAN. OKAY, FOR THIS HUGE DEVELOPMENT. TRAFFIC IS ALWAYS A BIG ISSUE. THE TRAFFIC REPORT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA WAS ABOUT 100 PAGES. SO IT WASN'T TOO BAD, BUT IT DID. BUT IT WAS ALL THE ITEMS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT. IT HAD, YOU KNOW, THE 3 OR 4 THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED, THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO AND WHAT COULD BE IN THE FUTURE. SO AGAIN, IT WASN'T A 2000 PAGE REPORT, BUT IT WAS A WELL, I SAW A LOT OF DIAGRAMS. NONE OF IT MEANT ANYTHING TO ME OTHER THAN, OH, THAT'S A LEFT HAND TURN LANE. OKAY. BUT MY,

[03:10:02]

MY BIG THING IS I LOOK AT SOME OF THE SUCCESSFUL BUILDING THAT WE DID. AND THE SQUARE HAS BEEN AWARD WINNING. AND I REMEMBER TALKING TO PUBLIC WORKS AT ABOUT PROBABLY TEN, 15 YEARS AGO ABOUT EVERYTHING WE TRY TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY AND COULD NEVER GET IT OFF THE GROUND.

AND THERE WERE A LOT OF REASONS, RIGHT? COVID HIT. SO THEATERS WERE OUT, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, BIG, BIG STORES. WELL, NOBODY WANTED TO DO IT IF THERE WASN'T HOUSING. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT TRIED TO DO IT. AND, AND WHAT WAS THE CLINCHER? THE CLINCHER WAS THE HOTEL AND THE APARTMENTS. AND THEN WE GOT SOMETHING WE HAD BEEN TRYING FOR YEARS, WHICH IS BRINGING A TRADER JOE'S, WHICH WE ALL LOVE. SO I AGREE WITH YOU 100% THAT IF WE BUILD AND I'M NOT FOR BUILDING, YOU KNOW, A THOUSANDS OF HOME, I DON'T REALLY LIKE HAVING TO DO THAT, BUT I LIKE BEING ABLE TO CONTROL IT. I LIKE BEING ABLE TO HAVING SOME CONTROL OVER HOW WE DO THE PARKS, HOW WE DO ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL AREA. I LOVE BEING HAVING A PART OF IT. AND SO BACK TO THE, YOU KNOW, THOUSANDS OF PAGES. THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. OKAY, THIS DIDN'T COME LIGHTLY. THIS TOOK MONTHS OF PLANNING, OKAY. AND IT TOOK A LOT OF TIME TO REALLY LAY OUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO AS A CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTROL THE INTERESTS AND WE MEET WHAT OUR RESIDENTS NEED OR WANT. AFFORDABILITY. I, I'M ON BOARD FOR THAT. I'VE, I'VE HAD A COUPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH WITH STEVE MOSS ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT'S A BIGGER STRATEGIC ITEM FOR US BECAUSE AFFORDABILITY, AS YOU START. OKAY. HAVING REDUCED HOUSING COSTS, SOMEONE HAS TO BEAR THAT COST. AND IT COULD BE THE BUILDER. OKAY. BUT MORE THAN LIKELY THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE PARTICIPATION FOR THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I KNOW WHEN WE DID THE OLSON PROJECT OVER THERE, I'M GOING TO SAY A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS WE PUT INTO THAT JUST FOR FIVE AFFORDABLE. OKAY. SO IT'S IT'S IT TAKES INVESTMENT FROM THE CITY. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY NEAR AND DEAR TO OUR HEART THAT WE DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT AS WE DO THIS, HOW WE CAN HELP AFFORDABILITY AND GIVE OPTIONS THAT WOULD HELP BUILDERS, RIGHT IN THE PROCESS. DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. AND AGAIN, IT ALL DEPENDS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE THING. THE ONE THING I HEARD ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS SAY WAS THOUGHTFUL.

AND, AND I, I WOULD SAY THAT'S EXACTLY HOW I WOULD DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE DONE. IT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL IN EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE IN TERMS OF HOW WE TRY TO MEET BEST, WHAT THE RESIDENTS VOTED FOR, HOW WE TRY TO MANAGE ANY OF THE IR THINGS THAT CAME UP WITHIN OUR CONTROL, HOW DO WE MANAGE THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE, HOW DO WE FIGURE OUT THE PARKS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE OPEN SPACES AND THE WALKING AREAS AND AND ACCESSIBILITY? SO I THINK EVERYTHING AGAIN, ALICIA, YOU THE TEAM IS VERY THOUGHTFUL AND IT HAS CONSIDERED EVERYTHING, I BELIEVE, OKAY, THAT WE COULD WANT. OKAY. I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WAY I LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE I EVEN LOOKED AT THIS AND MET WITH YOU WAS, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE HAVE SOME KIND OF CONTROL? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISS MATCH OF THIS HOME IS LIKE GREEN AND BLUE. AND THIS ONE'S I MEAN, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A PLANNED COMMUNITY? AND YOU HAVE ASSURED ME THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE SAID, WHETHER YOU PRESENTED THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, AGREEMENT, I THINK INCLUDES ALL THAT. SO THAT WAS ONE THING. THE TWO IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE OPEN SPACE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUILD IN, HAVE GREAT PARKS, HAVE COMMUNITY PARKS, AS WELL AS PRIVATE PARKS FOR THE COMMUNITY AND, AND HAVE ACCESSIBILITY AND, AND THE, THE ACCESSIBILITY. I, I REALLY LIKE THAT BECAUSE IF WE WANT TO HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL OR HAVE SOMETHING IN THE CENTER, WE GOT TO HAVE ACCESSIBILITY. IT NEEDS TO BE ACCESSIBLE. OTHERWISE NO ONE'S GOING TO BE THERE. SO, SO WITH THAT, I'M A YES. OKAY. YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT I COULD EVER ASKED FOR. I KNOW IT'S NOT PERFECT, OKAY. BUT TO ME, YOU'VE MET WHAT WE WANTED WANTED TO DO. AND AS A RESULT OF MEASURE S. SO THANK YOU. AND YOU'VE GOT MY VOTE. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO SEE IF IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. OKAY. AS I REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT, I FOCUSED ON TWO KEY PRIORITIES. FIRST, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CREATING WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE AREAS. SECOND, I, I ALSO LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO ENCOURAGE MORE RETAIL SPACES IN THE TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS AREA. I'M

[03:15:05]

CONFIDENT THAT BOTH OF THESE PRIORITIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.

AND IN FACT, WITHOUT THEM, I DON'T BELIEVE WE WOULD BE FULLY REALIZING THE VISION THAT VOTERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY APPROVED THE LATEST PLAN PASSED IN 2024. IN THIS SPECIFIC PLAN, WE'VE MADE SURE THAT ALL THE LOTS SURROUNDING THE NEW PARK FIVE THAT'S GOING TO GO IN LOTS FIVE AND SIX. THANK YOU. HAVE ACCESS TO THAT NEW PARK, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OUR PARKS, THERE'S ACCESS TO ALL OUR PARKS AND ALL THE SURROUNDING LOTS, ESPECIALLY LEXINGTON PARK. SO LEXINGTON DRIVE RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO BIKEWAY THAT'S PLANNED ALONG LEXINGTON DRIVE WHERE THAT LOT KIND OF CONNECTS TO LEXINGTON DRIVE AND NORTH OF LEXINGTON PARK ON THAT SIDE. AND I, AND I, I ACTUALLY JUST ASSUMED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A BIKE PATH THAT RUNS UP AND DOWN, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT LOTS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR ALSO HAVE ARE CONNECTING TO LEXINGTON PARK. AND ALSO ALL THE PARKS ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THE FLOATING PARK, WHEREVER IT MIGHT GO. SO I HAVE A REALLY SMALL REQUEST THAT I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN CHANGE. AND IT HAS TO DO WITH ITEM LINE ITEM 11 OF THE. OF THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT. AND RIGHT NOW 11 SAYS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT TRAILS, GREENWAYS AND WALKABLE CONNECTING LOTS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR TO THE LOTS FIVE AND SIX. I JUST WANT TO INCLUDE OR EXTEND THAT TO ALSO INCLUDE LOT SEVEN, 12 AND 13. SO SO ITEM 11. THAT'S THAT'S ITEM 11 OF EXHIBIT D OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH IS PAGE D FIVE. OKAY. DO WE NICK DO YOU WANT TO NICK OR. DANIEL FIRST ADDRESS LEXINGTON. YEAH. SO THE REASON WHY LEXINGTON WOULDN'T HAVE IT PLANNED IS TO THE NORTH OF CERRITOS. THE WE DON'T HAVE THE WIDTH TO ADD BIKE LANES AND THEN WIDENING LEXINGTON WILL ONLY BE DOWN TO THE LIMIT OF THE RACETRACK. SO FURTHER SOUTH OF LEXINGTON DRIVE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE WIDTH TO ADD BIKE LANE THERE ANYWAY, SO IT WOULDN'T BE A CONNECTED BIKE LANE. YEAH, YEAH YEAH. I'M NOT ASKING THAT A BIKE LANE WOULD GO ON TOP OF LEXINGTON DRIVE, BUT THAT THERE'S JUST SOME WAY THAT A WALKWAY AND BIKE WAY FROM LIKE LOTS THREE AND FOUR COULD CONNECT TO LOTS THREE, LOTS TWO TO LEXINGTON, LEXINGTON PARK. IDEALLY, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE MAYBE A BACK ENTRANCE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE ONTO LEXINGTON DRIVE. BUT I SO MY, MY WORRY IS THAT ONCE WE HAVE, WE'VE APPROVED THIS AND WE'VE KIND OF GOT ONE BIG DEVELOPER, RIGHT? THE RACE COURSE. AND THEY'RE GOING TO SPLIT IT UP INTO DIFFERENT LOTS WITH DEVELOPERS KIND OF DOING THEIR OWN THING FOR TWO, THREE, AND FOUR, THAT THEY MIGHT CREATE A GATED COMMUNITY THAT REALLY JUST BENEFITS THEMSELVES. AND THE OTHER PLACES, YOU KNOW, THEY WON'T PLAY NICE WITH EACH OTHER. SO SOMEONE FROM RESIDENT LOT THREE OR LOT FOUR WON'T BE ABLE TO GET ONTO LOT TWO INTO LEXINGTON DRIVE WITHOUT HAVING TO KIND OF MAKE THIS CIRCUITOUS ROUTE UP CERRITOS AVENUE, CROSSING TO THE OTHER SIDE AND RIDING THE BIKE LANE ACROSS AND THEN BACK DOWN TO LEXINGTON DRIVE. IDEALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY'D BE ABLE TO MAKE IT JUST AS SAFE, MORE DIRECT PATH TO LEXINGTON DRIVE. I'M ALSO THE SAME WITH THE FLOATING PATH, THE FLOATING PARK. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE LOTS HAVE ACCESS TO THAT FLOATING PARK. AND SO INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING THE LOT FIVE AND SIX PART, I WOULD, I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY ADD THE FLOATING PARK SPACE AND ALSO THE LEXINGTON PARK TO, TO, TO THAT WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT THERE, WHICH IS THE FLOATING PARK SPACE. AND FOR THE TIMING COLUMNS, JUST ADDING LOTS SEVEN, 12 AND 13 TO LOTS TWO AND THREE FOR THAT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S A MASK THAT I'M HOPING THAT WE COULD WORK OUT WITH THE DEVELOPERS. SO LOTS TWO AND FOUR ARE ADJACENT TO CERRITOS AVENUE, RIGHT, WHICH IS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT HAS A

[03:20:04]

SIDEWALK AND A BIKE PATH RIGHT ON IT. SO THOSE LOTS HAVE CONNECTIVITY TO LEXINGTON PARK FROM CERRITOS. AND THEN ALSO, WHILE LEXINGTON DRIVE DOES NOT HAVE A BIKE BIKE LANE PER SE, IT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO LEXINGTON PARK AND HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO LEXINGTON DRIVE. SO THE SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRES ACCESS TO THE TOWN CENTER AREAS AND THE PUBLIC PARK SPACE. SO IT DOESN'T. IT? BY PROVIDING THE CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS SUCH AS CERRITOS AND MOODY, IT MEETS THAT INTENT. BUT BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HAVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OVER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN DEFINITELY NEGOTIATE THESE ITEMS WITH THAT DEVELOPER AS THESE PROJECTS COME FORWARD. SO A LOT. SEVEN ALSO HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO MOODY, WHICH CONNECTS IT TO THE PUBLIC PARK SPACE OF FIVE SIX AND ALSO THE TOWN CENTER AREA. BUT AGAIN, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE REVIEW AUTHORITY OVER ALL FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS HERE. YEAH. FOR ME, IT'S IT'S IT WOULDN'T BE IDEAL FOR A BIKER TO HAVE TO GO UP MOODY ALL THE WAY TO CERRITOS AND THEN COME BACK DOWN, YOU KNOW, LEXINGTON DRIVE TO LEXINGTON PARK. IDEALLY, NO. THERE'D JUST BE A DIRECT PATH THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THESE THESE LOTS. I, I'M HOPING THAT WE COULD JUST ASK THE DEVELOPER AND SEE IF THEY'D BE OKAY WITH IT. SO YOU, YOU ARE REQUESTING TO JUST CLARIFY THAT THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PUBLIC BICYCLE ACCESS ACROSS LOTS THREE AND TWO TO CONNECT TO LEXINGTON DRIVE THREE AND TWO. NOT CONNECTED TO LEXINGTON DRIVE, BUT CONNECT TO LEXINGTON PARK. WELL, JEFF, WOULD YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT MAYBE LIKE OTHER CONNECTIONS INTO LEXINGTON PARK, IF THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD WANT? SO RIGHT NOW WITH LEXINGTON PARK, TO BE ABLE TO GO IN THERE THE WAY IT IS DESIGNED, IF YOU'RE GOING IN FROM LOT TWO, THREE, OR EVEN FOUR, THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE ALONG CERRITOS. IF YOU'RE GOING INTO LEXINGTON PARK FROM LOT NUMBER TWO, YOU'RE ENTERING THROUGH A PARKING LOT OR THROUGH A STORAGE AREA. SO THOSE AREN'T IDEAL WAYS TO GET INTO THE PARK. SO, SO THE BEST USE WOULD EITHER BE CERRITOS OR LEXINGTON DRIVE. THANK YOU. I'LL ACTUALLY WE'LL WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS LATER. THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT FIRST. THE SECOND IS I, I'VE ALSO WAS INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF TOWN CENTER AND COMMENTS ON, YOU KNOW, THOSE LOTS 12, 13, 14, TEN, 11 ON THOSE MIXED USE FROM TALKING TO PEOPLE, IT SOUNDS LIKE. IF YOU ARE TO DEVELOP RETAIL SPACE, THAT IT'S JUST NOT VIABLE RIGHT NOW THAT. THAT IT JUST MAKES SO MUCH MORE MONEY WITH, WITH RESIDENTIAL SPACE VERSUS COMMERCIAL SPACE AND RETAIL SPACE. AND ESPECIALLY AS YOU KNOW, THE COST OF LAND INCREASES. AND SO DOES THE, THE COST OF COST OF HOMES. AND YOU'LL JUST NATURALLY JUST BE MAKING MORE MONEY. AND SO I DID WANT TO SAY THAT I DID EXPLORE WITH SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT I WAS LOOKING AT, BUT NONE OF THEM WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFIC PLANS. SOME OF THE THINGS I LOOKED AT WAS A PHASING OR SEQUENCING CONDITION THAT WOULD TIE RETAIL SPACE.

I'M SORRY, BUT THAT WOULD TIE RESIDENTIAL SPACE TO COMMERCIAL SPACE SO WE WOULDN'T ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOR MORE THAN 50% OF RESIDENTIAL SPACES, UNLESS 50% OF NONRESIDENTIAL SPACES WERE FILLED UP. SOME OTHER IDEAS I LOOKED AT WERE PARKING REDUCTION OR ELIMINATIONS FOR GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SPACE. A DENSITY BONUS TIED TO GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL. AND AGAIN, NONE OF THESE WERE WERE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. BUT I DID WANT TO JUST KIND OF MENTION IT OUT THERE JUST IN

[03:25:02]

CASE WE EVER DO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, A VOTER APPROVED AMENDMENT, A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT THESE ARE POSSIBLE IDEAS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT. AND I, I FIND IT HARD THAT TO BELIEVE THAT RETAIL WOULDN'T DO WELL IN THESE PLACES. GO JUST GO INTO TRADER JOE'S SEEING HOW BUSY IT IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST, THERE'S JUST NEVER ANY PARKING IN THOSE PLACES. SO I KNOW THAT I REALLY BELIEVE THAT ANY KIND OF RETAIL SPACES ON THOSE MIXED USE LOTS WOULD DO WELL. AND SO WE DID TALK TO THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING. A BUSINESS FEE WAIVER PROGRAM THAT'S COMING THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, BUT THIS WOULD BE AN ITEM THAT'S BEST LEFT FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AND ALICIA MENTIONED THAT BEFORE. SO IF YOU GUYS WANT TO BRING IT UP FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN, I'D BE OPEN TO THAT. BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO NOW. WE HAD ONE RESIDENT THAT ASKED ABOUT WHAT THE TIMELINE LOOKS LIKE FOR US. ALICIA, IF IT'S OKAY, CAN YOU GO OVER WHAT? HOW THIS PARCEL WILL BE BROKEN UP AND SOLD TO DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS, AND THEN KIND OF THE NEXT STEP BETWEEN THOSE DEVELOPERS AND THE CITY. I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE I DID WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE TO OUR RESIDENTS. AND ONE RESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUILDING MATERIALS THAT ARE USED FOR OUR HOMES. AND I GET IT TOO. I, I DO HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE HOMES NOW, THEY'RE JUST NOT UP TO THE SAME STANDARDS OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST. THEY'RE USING CHEAPER MATERIALS. THESE MATERIALS, THEY THEY COULD BE THEY'RE MORE LIKELY BE MADE OF PLASTIC. AND THERE IS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH, YOU KNOW, THESE MORE PLASTIC MATERIALS, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF WOOD FLOORS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE VINYL WOOD FLOORS INSTEAD OF MARBLE COUNTERS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PLASTICKY QUARTZ VINYLS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FINDING IS ACTUALLY HAZARDOUS TO OUR HEALTH, HEALTH, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY CUTTING UP THE COURTS. AND SO I DID WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT. AND ALSO THERE'S THIS IDEA OF MAKING SURE THAT OUR CONTRACTORS ARE USING A SKILLED AND TRAINED WORKFORCE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SET FORTH BY THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE, SECTION 2601 D I'M WONDERING WHEN WOULD BE THE TIME THAT THE CITY BRINGS UP THOSE KIND OF ISSUES, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE USING LOCAL AND LOCAL CONTRACTORS, LOCAL BUSINESSES TO DEVELOP THESE HOMES? THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR CYPRUS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE GETTING THE MOST OUT OF IT. AND SO JUST SEEING WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE. WILL THE MODIFICATIONS THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING IN REGARDS TO BUILDING MATERIALS, THOSE WOULD BE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO WHAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED OR NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. SO OUR HANDS ARE TIED A BIT IN REQUIRING DIFFERENT TYPE OF REQUIRING DIFFERENT TYPES OF MATERIALS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS. IF WE WERE TO GO BEYOND WHAT THE BUILDING CODE ALREADY REQUIRES. THAT BEING SAID, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN ASK WHEN A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMES FORWARD IF THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO PROVIDING THESE ITEMS AND AND COULD THEY SPEAK TO THE MATERIALS THAT THEY USE IN THEIR BUILDINGS? AND THOSE DEVELOPERS WOULD BE THE BEST ONES TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE THEY BUILD HOUSES OR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ALL THE TIME. SO THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE A PLACE AND THEY WOULD HAVE THE PLACE WHEN THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS OCCUR FOR THOSE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ITEMS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK I'M GOING TO TAKE A BREAK FROM TALKING AND THEN CIRCLE BACK TO MY COLLEAGUES. I DID WANT WE WE HAVE SUGGESTED SEVERAL CHANGES TO TO THE, THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT. SO I DID WANT TO HEAR YOU GUYS OPINION ON THIS. AND I DID WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT DAVID. YOU MENTIONED THE BASE. THE BASE BASE BASIN WATER RETENTION. THAT IS A CONCERN FOR MINE. HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN TO THE NATURE PARK? DO YOU GUYS EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS? SO WE HAVE AN EXTRA PARK IN CYPRUS. IT'S IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO RALPHS AND IT'S CLOSED OFF MAJORITY OF THE YEAR. MOST OF YOU GUYS HAVE PROBABLY DRIVEN BY IT. DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS. BUT MAYBE LIKE A FEW DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR, YOU

[03:30:06]

CAN ACTUALLY GO INSIDE THIS PARK. THAT'S, THAT'S MY WORRY FOR PARTS OF LOTS FIVE AND SIX, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A HUGE SECTION THAT'S KIND OF SECTIONED OFF WHERE YOU WON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT. AND SO MY, MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE PARK THAT WHATEVER IS ON PARK FIVE AND SIX, THAT WE DO HAVE ACCESS PUBLIC ACCESS TO IT YEAR ROUND.

FOR ME, IT DOESN'T MATTER TOO MUCH WHERE THE THE BASIN IS, IF IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BASIN, IF IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARK AND YOU CAN WALK AROUND IT, YOU KNOW, LIKE A LAKE OR IF IT'S FENCED OFF, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A PARK THAT'S ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC WHENEVER, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER THEY WANT TO GO. THANK YOU. OH, COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. WELL, GOOD COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS, EVERYBODY, I APPRECIATE IT. A FEW FOLLOW UPS. THERE'S SOME MENTION OF BIKE LANES. AND I KNOW I HAD ASKED ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOODY STREET. WE'RE ALSO, AS A COUNCIL, CONSIDERING AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT WILL LOOK AT HOW TO MAKE MORE COHESIVE BIKE LANES THROUGHOUT CYPRUS. AND WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF IS HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO DO WITH REGARDS TO BETTER, MORE COHESIVE BIKE LANES, THAT THIS MOODY STREET PROJECT IS IN LINE WITH IT, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO KIND OF FIT TOGETHER WITH WHATEVER WE DEVELOP AS THE VISION FOR THE CITY. YEAH. SO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DICTATE THAT THEY DESIGN THESE BIKE FACILITIES TO CITY STANDARDS. AND AS WE DEVELOP THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT'S BEING PLANNED HERE, WHAT OUR CITY STANDARDS ARE AND WHAT ARE THE BEST CONNECTED ROUTES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO WE DRIVE THE AND WE GUIDE THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. SO WE REALLY HAVE TOTAL CONTROL OVER THAT PLAN ITSELF. OKAY, SO YOU WOULDN'T NEED AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE DESIGNED TO THE WAY WE THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO BE, YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, CORRECT? OKAY. WELL, THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG, I THOUGHT, RAISED GOOD POINTS ABOUT ACCESS TO PARKS FROM VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO SOUND A LITTLE WEIRD WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS MAP UP THERE. YOU CAN SEE WHERE MOODY STREET IS. AND I CAN ENVISION, WELL, SOMEONE, OH, SOMEONE CAN DRIVE DOWN MOODY STREET AND ACCESS LOTS FIVE AND SIX. THAT'S THE PARK. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. HOW WOULD SOMEONE WHO LIVED AT THE CORNER AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF LOT THREE ACCESS THE PARKING LOT 5 OR 6? YES. ITEM 11 THAT COUNCIL MEMBER CHANG WAS REFERRING TO REQUIRES THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAILS AND GREENWAYS OR WALKWAYS CONNECTING LOTS TWO, THREE AND FOUR TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS TO THE MOODY STREET EXTENSION, AND THEN ALSO DISCUSSES RECIPROCAL ACCESS AGREEMENTS AND PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY TO THOSE TRAILS ACROSS THE LOTS. SO THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND THEN WHEN THOSE SUBDIVISIONS COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, WE THEY WILL HAVE TO SHOW AND WE WILL DISCUSS HOW THOSE SUBDIVISIONS COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. OKAY. AND THEN, MAYOR PRO TEM, WERE YOU ASKING OR SUGGESTING THAT WE ADD ACCESS FROM A COUPLE OTHER LOTS TO THAT PARK OR TO LEXINGTON PARK? CAN YOU REMIND ME? I, MY, MY, MY MAIN IDEA IS THAT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE RECIPROCAL ACCESS ACROSS LOTS TWO, THREE, FOUR, SEVEN, I FORGOT WHICH ONES I MENTIONED. WITH WITH ALL THE PARTS, THE SEVEN, 12 AND 13 WITH WITH ALL THE PARKS. I MEAN IT SHOULD BE THE SAME THING, RIGHT? I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE ACCESS FROM TWO THREE TO 4 TO 5 AND SIX, IT SHOULD, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RIDE YOUR BIKE THE OTHER DIRECTION. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALSO CONNECTED TO PARKS TO, YOU KNOW, THE PARK, LEXINGTON PARK, AND SAME WITH THE, THE FLOATING PARK, WHEREVER IT MIGHT GO. JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THOSE LOTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TWO, THREE, FOUR, SEVEN, 12, 13 HAVE ACCESS TO THE FLOATING PARK. TWO OKAY.

AND SO, AND MAYBE MY OTHER COLLEAGUES WANT TO SPEAK AS WELL. I GUESS WHERE MY HEAD'S AT RIGHT NOW IS IT SOUNDS, I'D BE CURIOUS TO SEE WRITTEN OPTION OF MAYBE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OR THAT MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG IS SUGGESTING. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE WRITTEN VERSION OF THE CONDITIONS I'M. I'VE SUGGESTED REGARDING THE EIGHT ACRE PARK AND MAKING SURE THAT

[03:35:02]

CITY HAS. LIKE MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG SAID, IT'S ACCESSIBLE 100% OF THE YEAR AND ANY. ANY PART THAT'S INACCESSIBLE GETS MADE UP ELSEWHERE, AND MAYBE NOT DIVIDING UP THE FLOATING PARK TOO MUCH. AND SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT I DON'T KNOW THE LOGISTICS CONTINUE THE HEARING? MY SUGGESTION IS, LET'S TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK. WE'RE GOING TO SIT DOWN WITH THE DEVELOPER'S LAWYER. ALICIA'S ALREADY PREPARED SOME SUGGESTED LANGUAGE. WE'LL PUT SOME LANGUAGE TOGETHER AND SHOW IT TO YOU ALL IN 15 MINUTES. OKAY. AND YOU HAVE YOU CAN DO THAT FOR ALL THREE OF OR HE HAD A COUPLE SUGGESTIONS. WE'LL DO. WE'LL DO OUR BEST. AND IF WE SATISFY YOU, IT'LL WORK. AND IF WE DON'T, WE'VE DONE OUR BEST. AND THAT MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS JUST BECAUSE I'M. YEAH. YOU'RE GOING TO YOU THEN ADOPT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED BY THE PROPOSED REVISED LANGUAGE. IF YOU HAVE SUPPORT FOR THAT. OKAY. WELL, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO OTHER COMMENTS. BUT YEAH, OF COURSE, I WANT TO SEE A WRITTEN VERSION OF ANY NEW CONDITIONS BEFORE I WERE TO. WELL, I KNOW ONE OF THEM. WE ALREADY HAVE. I, I HAVE WRITTEN VERSIONS OF THE CONDITIONS THAT I HAD DISCUSSED WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE PREVIOUSLY MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I DO ALSO WANT TO RAISE FOR YOUR AWARENESS THAT YOUR SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED BY VOTERS ALSO CONTEMPLATED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY IN THE PUBLIC PARK DISTRICT FROM ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. SO IF AT A FUTURE DATE WHEN A DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A PROJECT ON ONE OF THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF MOODY, IF YOU FEEL THAT THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY THAT IS ALREADY REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. IF YOU FEEL THERE'S A, A DIFFERENT, A BETTER, A MORE ROBUST CONNECTION THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE WAY LEXINGTON PARK IS LAID OUT AND THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. IF YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT THAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THE THE SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRES THAT THERE'S CONNECTIVITY. THIS IS THE CONNECTIVITY WE WANT TO SEE.

AND WE CAN WORK WITH A FUTURE DEVELOPER. IF THEIR PROPOSAL TO THE CITY IS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF STAFF, REQUIREMENTS OF COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS, AND OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS ENVISIONING FOR THAT SPACE. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. OKAY. I ALSO WANT TO FOLLOW UP BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ON A QUESTION, MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG SAID HE HAD TOSSED OUT AN IDEA ABOUT REQUIRING A MINIMAL LEVEL OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIXED USE PORTIONS, BUT HE SAID THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH I UNDERSTAND. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DOES THAT MEAN WE CAN'T DO IT, OR DOES THAT MEAN IT'S INCONSISTENT? BUT WE COULD DO IT MEANS YOU CAN'T DO IT. YOU CAN INCENTIVIZE IT. EXACTLY. YOU CAN YOU CAN ENCOURAGE IT, YOU CAN FACILITATE IT, BUT YOU CAN'T MANDATE IT. EXACTLY. THERE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS. AND, AND I AND ANOTHER COMMENT THAT COUNCILMEMBER CHANG MADE WAS THAT ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD BE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. RIGHT. AND SO THAT RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE VALUES ARE HIGHER THAN COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE VALUES. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. BUT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, IT DOESN'T SAY IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

IT CAN BE MIXED USE. SO THERE WOULD BE NOTHING PRECLUDING THAT. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SAME PARCEL, WHEREBY INCREASING THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY, IF THAT COMMERCIAL DEMAND IS THERE. SO IT'S NOT AN EITHER OR. IT COULD DEFINITELY BE BOTH. AND AND SO IF THE THE PROPERTY VALUE COULD STILL INCREASE WITH THAT COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT POINT. MY SECOND POINT IS THAT IF A CITY WERE TO MANDATE A COMMERCIAL AS A REQUIREMENT TO HOUSING, THEN WE CAN NO LONGER INCLUDE THAT AS A HOUSING ELEMENT SITE. SO WE WOULD LOSE THAT. WE COULD STILL ALLOW HOUSING THERE, BUT WE CAN'T INCLUDE IT TOWARDS OUR ARENA OBLIGATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I'M OPEN TO HEARING MORE FROM MY COLLEAGUES. BUT YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT IS I'D LIKE TO SEE THESE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANYTHING. ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY COMMENTS? WELL, I HAVE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS. ONE IS I'M GOING TO GO OFF OF SOMETHING YOU SAID, ALICIA, REGARDING COMMERCIAL, I DON'T THINK WE

[03:40:04]

WANT TO TIE THE HANDS OF SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE ENVIRONMENT'S GOING TO BE IN TEN YEARS. AND SO IF WE WANT TO MANDATE THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE COMMERCIAL, I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE IN TEN YEARS.

COMMERCIAL MAY BE THE PLACE TO BE. OKAY. WE HAVE NO IDEA. WE'VE SEEN WHAT'S HAPPENED IN OUR OWN WORLD RECENTLY. SO I'M NOT I'M NOT FOR DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE 440 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. AND I THINK THAT'S GOOD. AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN DO INCENTIVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ONE. TWO IS TO FURTHER LINK AND REALLY MODIFY POTENTIALLY HOW WE ACCESS LEXINGTON. I THINK WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT THAT, THAT THAT PARK WAS REALLY I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO DEVELOP THE STRUCTURE WHERE NOW WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING IN THE BACK SO THAT WE CAN GET ACCESS FROM THIS WAY. I THINK IT'S RIGHT DOWN. THERE'S A BIKE LANE ON CERRITOS. IT'S EASY, ACCESSIBLE. I, I JUST DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO TRY TO MESS TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO I GET ACCESS FROM THE BACK? I, I THINK THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THE ESTHETIC OF THE PARK. NOW YOU STILL HAVE THAT ONE LITTLE ONE TRIANGLE.

OKAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I ASSUMED IT WOULD BE MORE PLAYGROUND AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD WENT, BUT I, I THINK YOU NEED TO THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT, WELL, I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT'S UNNECESSARY. I THINK IT'S RIGHT THERE OFF OF CERRITOS, WHICH IS VERY ACCESSIBLE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. SO WHAT'S THE PLEASURE, COUNCILMEMBER? YOU GOT SOME LANGUAGE WE CAN GIVE YOU RIGHT NOW WITH RESPECT TO MAKING SURE THAT YOU HAVE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACRES OF PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARK, IF IT CAN'T BE WHERE THE DETENTION AREA IS, IT WILL BE SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE CAN SHOW THAT LANGUAGE TO YOU RIGHT NOW. WHAT? WHAT ELSE? THE LANGUAGE THAT I PREPARED AND THE APPLICANT AGREED TO REGARDING THE TWO ACRE FLOATING PARK. OH, THERE IT IS. YES. OH, NICE IS IT? HOW CONVENIENT. WELL, I'LL GIVE A INITIAL REACTION AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG WANTS TO SEE LANGUAGE FOR ANY OF THE CONDITIONS HE'S SUGGESTING. SO I THINK THE TWO ACRE FLOATING PARK SPACE, ONE PARK. I FEEL LIKE THAT ADDRESSES MY CONCERN ABOUT IT GETTING CHOPPED UP TOO MUCH. SO I THINK THAT'S GOOD. I LIKE THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF THE 561. I'M A LITTLE HESITANT ABOUT THE. WELL, FIRST, I MIGHT LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING THAT MAYOR PRO TEM SAID. MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG SUGGESTED THAT IT HAS TO BE ACCESSIBLE 100% OF THE YEAR, OR WHATEVER IT WOULD BE TO SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO BE CLOSED A LOT, RIGHT? IT'S GOING TO BE A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARK ALL THE TIME, NOT FOR JUST SOME SOME TIMES OF THE YEAR, BUT ALSO I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THIS PHYSICAL BARRIER SEPARATED BY PHYSICAL BARRIER FROM THE REST OF THE PARK. THEORETICALLY, I THINK THAT MEANS THE ENTIRE PARK COULD BE EIGHT ACRES OF WATER, AND AS LONG AS IT'S NOT SEPARATED BY A PHYSICAL BARRIER, THAT WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA. IN MY OPINION. IF YOU CAN'T WALK ON IT, IT'S NOT. I'D LIKE SOME PROTECTION, I GUESS, AGAINST IT JUST BEING A POND. SO I'D LIKE IT TO BE PHYSICAL SPACE THAT RESIDENTS CAN WALK ON SAFELY. SO ANY WATER FEATURE IN THE PARK WOULD NOT COUNT AS PARK SPACE. I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANY WATER FEATURE, BUT AGAIN, I'M SORRY, I'M AN ATTORNEY BASED ON THIS LANGUAGE. IT COULD BE AN EIGHT ACRE POOL OF WATER. SO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BETTER THAN THAT. HOW DO YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT CONTINUING THIS ITEM TO ANOTHER DAY? I'D SAY LET'S GET IT DONE. ALL PEOPLE HERE, LET'S MOVE. CAN I MAY I CLARIFY SOMETHING? THANK YOU. I THINK IN ESSENCE, THAT'S WHAT THIS LANGUAGE IS SAYING. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, ALICIA, THAT IN THE EVENT THAT IT WOULD BE THERE WOULD BE A PHYSICAL BARRIER AND X AMOUNT OF THAT PROPERTY IS NOT USABLE AS A PARK, THEN WE WOULD FIND A WAY TO CARVE OUT ADDITIONAL PARK SPACE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE'RE USING FOR THE CATCH BASIN. ISN'T THAT IF IT'S NOT RIGHT,

[03:45:06]

IF IT'S NOT A USABLE RIGHT OR PUBLIC AMENITY DETENTION SPACE, WE WOULD NEED, THEY WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE PARK SPACE IN ANOTHER AREA TO CREATE THE 20 ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK SPACE, WHICH IS REQUIRED. RIGHT? SO WHAT ABOUT WHAT ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF TAKING THAT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PARK SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ONE OR MORE LOCATIONS ON THE PROPERTY IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SEPARATE BASIN AREA, AND SHALL BE OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON A YEAR ROUND BASIS. DOES THAT SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM? DOES THAT ACCEPT THAT ADDS CONDITION? WHAT? WHAT? WHEN YOU SAY PROPERTY, WHAT DOES PROPERTY MEAN SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE. THE THE WELL IS PROPERTY DEFINED TERM IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT YOU'VE CAPITALIZED IT. SO HOW DOES PROPERTY DEFINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THE 165 ACRES OR WHATEVER IT IS. AND THEN I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO GET THE RECREATION DIRECTOR'S OPINION ON ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS WHAT IS THE WHAT DO YOU CALL IT WHERE YOU'RE LIKE DESIGNING LIKE THE PARK AND LIKE ALL THE STUFF IT DOES. SORRY. LIKE, LIKE THE, THE PROGRAMING, THE PROGRAMING OF THE PARK. RIGHT. USUALLY WE, WE DO PROGRAMING OF PARKS AND WHEN IT'S ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THAT PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS, RIGHT? BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE ALL OUR PARKS, I GOT MY BRAIN BACK. I DON'T BELIEVE ALL OUR PARKS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ALL THE TIME. RIGHT? SO WE DO THE PROGRAMING PROCESS AND I'LL HAND IT OVER AS PART OF THAT PUBLIC INPUT AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER APPROVAL PROCESS. SO I'D LIKE TO GET HIS INPUT BEFORE WE DISCUSS THAT. YEAH.

SO IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, MOST OF OUR PARKS CLOSE ARE CLOSED FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, UNLESS THERE'S FIELD LIGHTS. SO THESE PARKS WOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME GUIDELINES AS THE REST. AS FAR AS PARK PROGRAMING, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO BE DETERMINED ONCE WE DO THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL DESIGN OF THE PARKS WILL LOOK LIKE, WHAT CAN WE COME UP WITH? ANYTHING THAT GETS US TO THE PLACE WHERE IT'S NOT CLOSED? A LOT LIKE THE NATURE PARK? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO AVOID. I THINK THAT THAT IS THE. AND TRULY IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS FIVE STEP PARK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SO THAT YOU, AS A COUNCIL AND STAFF WHO WANTS MORE PARK SPACE TO PROGRAM AND PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITY ITSELF, CAN PROVIDE ALL OF THAT INPUT TO THE PROCESS, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYONE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WANTS A PUBLIC PARK THAT THEY CAN'T USE, AND SO CERTAINLY THERE COULD BE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO MIGHT BE WILLING TO SAY, HAVE AT IT. GO AHEAD, MAKE AN EIGHT ACRE POND.

BUT I GIVEN THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC INPUT AND STAFF INTERFACE ON THE INITIAL CONCEPT DESIGNS AND THEN THE PUBLIC OUTREACH, AND THEN THE RETURN TO CITY COUNCIL WITH CONCEPT PLANS AND THEN FINAL PLANS FOR THE PARK. IT WOULD SEEM UNLIKELY THAT WE COULD BE IN A POSITION WHERE THE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS AND STAFF CONSENSUS WOULD BE EIGHT ACRES OF WATER. I HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN PARK DEVELOPMENT AROUND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, WHERE WHEN THERE IS STORMWATER DETENTION, IT'S IN BIG CONCRETE BUNKERS UNDERGROUND. SOMETIMES THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO DO BIOSWALES AND OTHER STORMWATER DETENTION IN SMALL AREAS, IN MULTIPLE PLACES AROUND A PARK WHERE YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE DETENTION IS HAPPENING FOR STORMWATER. BUT WE'VE GOT CREATIVE DESIGNERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND THINGS WHO CAN HELP US TO SATISFY THOSE STORMWATER RETENTION AND DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS. SO I THINK THAT THE THE BUILDING END OF THIS RIGOROUS FIVE STEP PROCESS THAT REQUIRES SO MUCH INPUT IS, IS ESSENTIALLY HOW THE COUNCIL TODAY IS HELPING THE COMMUNITY AND STAFF AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF TOMORROW TO HOLD THE DEVELOPERS ACCOUNTABLE TO MAKING AN ACTUAL PUBLIC PARK, NOT A FENCED OFF POND THAT NOBODY GETS TO USE. I WOULD ALSO ADD, YOU REMINDED ME OF SOMETHING LIKE I HAD MENTIONED BEFORE, EVERY RESIDENTIAL UNIT PAYS A PARK IMPACT FEE. THE CURRENT IMPACT FEE IS $23,400, RIGHT? SO WHEN THE DEVELOPERS OF LOTS THREE, FOUR, AND SEVEN COME TO THE

[03:50:09]

CITY, TO THE CITY TO BUILD THEIR UNITS, THAT IS A $14 MILLION PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE. THAT'S WHAT THOSE UNITS EQUATE TO. SO THEY WILL HAVE THAT THAT $14 MILLION THAT THEY WOULD OWE TO THE CITY THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO USE TO NEGOTIATE ALSO TO DEVELOP THE TYPE OF PARK THAT THE CITY WANTS TO SEE. BECAUSE IF THE CITY REJECTS OR SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT DOESN'T MEET ALL THE AMENITIES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THAT PARK, YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO PAY THAT FULL PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE OF $14 MILLION. SO THERE IS THOSE IMPACT FEES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO NEGOTIATE TO ALSO ENSURE THAT THEY GET THE PARK THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE. IN ADDITION TO THIS PROCESS. AND THAT'S THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR JUST LOTS THREE, FOUR AND SEVEN. WERE YOU ALL STILL THINKING ABOUT ADDING ATTORNEY WINDER'S LANGUAGE TO THE END OF PARK FIVE AND SIX SO THAT THERE'S NO INSTALLED PORTION? WELL, I GUESS WE'D NEED TO MODIFY THAT LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PARK OPERATING RULES. SO AT THE END OF SEPARATE SEPARATED BASIN AREA COMMA, WHICH WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, PASSIVE OR ACTIVE, CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CITY PARK RULES AND REGULATIONS. DOES THAT WORK? I'M WINGING IT HERE. I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ROOM. YEAH, IT'S HARD TO IT'S HARD TO DETERMINE WHAT WORKS IF WE DON'T HAVE A PHYSICAL COPY.

AND YEAH, MY HANG UP IS SOMETHING COULD BE INACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, EVEN IF IT'S NOT SEPARATED BY A PHYSICAL BARRIER. SO THAT'S WHY I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT. I'D RATHER, YEAH, RATHER COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE A LITTLE MORE ALONG THE LINES OF PUBLICLY INACCESSIBLE OR NOT SAFELY ACCESSIBLE THAN FULLY SEPARATED BY A PHYSICAL BARRIER.

OR INSTEAD OF THAT, TO THE EXTENT ALL OR A PORTION OF THE LOTS FIVE SIX DETENTION BASIN IS NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, BOTH PASSIVE AND ACTIVE SPACES. I MEAN, WE COULD CONSIDER A POND FEATURE, A PASSIVE SPACE, A PASSIVE RECREATIONAL SPACE. SO MOVE THAT MOVE A PORTION OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED IN TO THE IN REMOVE THE SEPARATED BY PHYSICAL BARRIER, BUT SAY UTILIZED FOR PASSIVE OR ACTIVE RECREATIONAL SPACE. WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT IT TO JUST SAY ACTIVE? WHY DON'T WE WANT IT TO ALL BE USABLE FOR ACTIVE SPACE? I'M GOING TO KICK THIS TO DIRECTOR DRAPER BECAUSE THESE ARE VERY SPECIFIC PARKS DEFINITIONS. YEAH. SO WE LOOK AT PARKS IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE, THERE'S ACTIVE PARK SITES, WHICH ARE MORE YOUR ATHLETIC FIELDS. AND THEN THERE'S PASSIVE PARK SITES, WHICH IS JUST KIND OF LIKE THE GREEN OPEN SPACE. OR EVEN YOU CAN CONSIDER THE POND OVER AT WILLOW, A PASSIVE SPACE. SO IT'S NOT, IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ACTIVE ELEMENT TO IT. AND THERE'S NO WAY WE COULD SORT OF LIMIT THE. OKAY, YEAH, I'M THINKING ABOUT IT, BUT. I'M OKAY WITH PASSIVE SPACE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A SMALL POND THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO WALK AROUND. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GIVE A CHANCE TO, FOR THEM TO ADD IN THE ADDITIONAL SUGGESTED LANGUAGE, TAKE A BREAK AND THEN LOOK AT THAT. CAN CAN YOU TYPE IT IN RIGHT ON THE SCREEN? COOL. OKAY, I DID, FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE TECHNOLOGICALLY CHALLENGED, THIS IS IMPRESSIVE. AND FOR LEXINGTON PARK, I, THEY'RE RIGHT THERE. I DID WANT TO JUST ASK IF WE COULD INCLUDE ACCESS TO LEXINGTON PARK FROM TWO, THREE AND FOUR. OKAY. SO ACCESS LET ME. OKAY. ACCESS TO LEXINGTON PARK FROM LOTS TWO, THREE AND FOUR. BUT THAT COULD INCLUDE CONNECTIVITY TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, RIGHT WHERE LIKE LEXINGTON DRIVE OR CERRITOS,

[03:55:07]

RIGHT. AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRING CHANGES TO THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LEXINGTON PARK TO ACCOMMODATE THAT ACCESS. MY WORRY IS THAT EVEN RIGHT NOW, I DON'T I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE BIKING ON CERRITOS AVENUE. I, I WOULDN'T WANT MY KIDS TO BIKE ON CERRITOS AVENUE IF THAT'S THE ONLY WAY FOR THEM TO GET TO LEXINGTON PARK FROM AREAS THREE AND FOUR, I WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T JUST I JUST WOULDN'T LET THEM BIKE IF THAT WAS THE CASE. SAME WITH WALKWAYS. YOU KNOW, IDEALLY THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF WALKWAY FROM THREE TO 4 TO 2 WITHOUT GETTING ONTO THAT MAIN STREET. IF IT'S A LOCAL STREET, I THINK THAT'D BE FINE. BUT MAYOR PRO TEM, I DID JUST CONFER WITH OUR DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION, BECAUSE I'M NOT COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH THE DESIGN OF LEXINGTON PARK. I DID WALK IT, BUT I'VE NEVER PLAYED PICKLEBALL THERE, AND I'VE DEFINITELY NEVER TRIED TO TO CUT THROUGH THE RACECOURSE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GET TO THE PARK FROM THE EAST SIDE. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AN ELEMENT WHERE I WOULD LIKE OUR TEAM. WHEN A FUTURE DEVELOPER MAKES THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL, I'D LIKE OUR TEAM TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO HELP US RECONFIGURE THE PARKING LOT THAT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT PARK IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. SURE. THAT THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL. BUT RIGHT NOW, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WILL BE EITHER RIGHT INTO THE SPORTS COURTS OR INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY. SO AS I SAID, WHEN A FUTURE DEVELOPER IS DESIGNING WHAT THE HOUSING WOULD LOOK LIKE, THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, I THINK THAT'S ALL THE SAME PARCEL PROPERTY THAT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO BOTH THE EASTERN BOUNDARY AND THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF LEXINGTON PARK. WE WOULD LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THAT DEVELOPER AND DETERMINE IF WE CAN PROVIDE INTERIOR, PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE ACCESS. BUT JUST RIGHT NOW, AS CONSTRUCTED, THERE IS A BLOCK WALL AND A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT SEPARATES THE LOT ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE. SO AGAIN, CONSTRUCTION WOULD NEED TO BE UNDERTAKEN. THAT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. AND WE WOULD ALSO WANT TO UNDERSTAND TO WHAT EXTENT THE DEVELOPER COULD PROPOSE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS THAT ARE SAFE ACROSS THAT PARKING LOT, JUST THE WAY THE PARK IS PROGRAMED AND CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW, A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM THE SOUTH AND FROM THE EAST WOULD REQUIRE A REDESIGN TO MAKE SURE WE CAN DO THAT SAFELY. AND I HESITATE TO ASK OUR FUTURE STAFF TO UNDERTAKE THAT KIND OF A PROJECT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT COSTS AND WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE, AND HOW WE DON'T LOSE THINGS THAT WE WANT, LIKE THE SPORTS COURTS OR PARKING. SO IF THERE IS THE THE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND WORK WITH A POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPER, ENSURE THAT WE ARE REALLY MAXIMIZING WHAT'S ALREADY IN YOUR SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS TO THE DESTINATIONS IN THESE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS? WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT AND BRING THAT TO YOU. AND AGAIN, THAT IS THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO SAY THAT THE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS THAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER IS INSUFFICIENT. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY GET TO REDO WHAT THEIR PROPOSALS ARE AS THE PARK IS CONSTRUCTED. NOW, THOUGH, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM THE SOUTH AND THE WEST WOULD BE A BIG CHALLENGE THAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO OBLIGATE OUR STAFF TO AT THIS POINT. SO BOTTOM LINE, OUR HOPE IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE YOUR FUTURE STAFF THE ABILITY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. IT'LL BE TOUGH TO MANDATE IT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS REVISED PARK LANGUAGE FIVE SIX AND SEE IF THAT WORKS FOR YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS. OKAY. CAN YOU SEE THAT, MR. RUBIN? COME UP CLOSE. OKAY. SO OOPS, I CAN'T CLICK ON IT TO HIGHLIGHT IT. YOU CAN. THE NEW TEXT IS IN BLUE. YOU CAN COME THROUGH. OKAY, OKAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY LAWYERS IT TAKES TO WRITE A PROVISION IN A MUNICIPAL CODE IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND THREE

[04:00:07]

LAWYERS. SO MY TWO QUESTIONS ARE. WHEN IT SAYS THEN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PARK SHALL BE PROVIDED, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE PARK, THE EIGHT ACRE PARK THAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED WOULD BE ADDED TO, OR THAT THERE WOULD BE A NEW PARK SPACE SOMEWHERE ELSE? THE WAY I READ THIS PROVISION, IT COULD BE EITHER IT COULD BE ADDED TO SO THAT IT WOULD HAVE THE EIGHT ACRES OF PARK SPACE, OR IT COULD BE ADDED TO THE FLOATING PARK SPACE. I AGREE RIGHT? AND AGAIN, PROPERTY MEANS THE ENTIRE TRACT MAP OR JUST I. SORRY. YES. SO THE DEFINITION OF PROPERTY IS THE 134 ACRES CONTROLLED BY THE SPECIFIC PLAN, RIGHT. THE TENTATIVE TRACK MAP AREA IS LARGER BECAUSE IT INCLUDES AREAS THAT WILL BE PART OF A PROPERTY TRANSFER FOR SEA COAST GRACE CHURCH. SO THE PROPERTY IS THE ENTIRE 134 ACRES OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA.

DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU, COUNCIL? I'M IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING THIS ANOTHER DAY. I'M. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO READ IT IN AND UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND IT LIKE I SHOULD. CAN I ASK? I GUESS THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IS, IS THERE ANY. WELL, I KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE HERE FOR THIS ITEM. I KNOW THAT STAFF HAVE WORKED HARD ON THIS ITEM. I UNDERSTAND THE INHERENT APPEAL OF GETTING IT DONE. ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M NOT SUPER THRILLED ABOUT THE IDEA OF SHOTGUNNING LEGAL LANGUAGE AND DECIDING IT AT 10:15 P.M. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE AGENDA ITEMS TO GO.

SO IS THERE ANY URGENCY TO LEGALLY COMPLETE THIS ITEM TONIGHT OR APPROVE IT TONIGHT, OR IS THERE ANY REASON IT COULDN'T BE APPROVED AT A FUTURE MEETING? STAFF SAYS OTHERWISE? I DON'T THINK SO. THIS THIS ITEM CAN BE CONTINUED. BUT THE COUNCIL, IF YOU COULD PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON WHAT EXACT AMENDMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO WHEN THE ITEM COMES BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, WE CAN FOCUS ON THOSE ITEMS. WELL, I KNOW I RAISED MINE AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING ON IT ON THE FLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG, IF YOU HAD OTHER LIKE DRAFTS OF POTENTIAL CONDITIONS THAT YOU WANTED US TO COME BACK FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AS WELL. NO, NOT RIGHT NOW. BUT THERE WERE QUITE A FEW OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY OUR RESIDENTS THAT I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF WE'VE GIVEN ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY PROCESS THOSE. AND IT AND ANOTHER COMPLAINT IS THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE ENOUGH OUTREACH WHEN IT COMES TO THIS. YOU KNOW, WE JUST GOT SO MANY EMAILS. AND LAST MINUTE, I THINK PEOPLE AREN'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, PAYING ATTENTION UNTIL THEY UNTIL THE REALLY LAST MINUTE. AND SO I, I, I WOULDN'T MIND IF WE SPENT A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BEING ABLE TO TALK TO RESIDENTS ABOUT WHAT WE'RE PASSING TODAY. TO, TO RELATED ISSUES. IF, IF THE COUNCIL IS OF A MIND TO CONTINUE THE ITEM, UNLESS YOU CONTINUE IT TO A DATE, CERTAIN, WE WILL HAVE TO RE NOTICE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO THROUGH A NEW NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AS WELL. YEAH, I'M I'M OPEN TO THAT. I'M CURIOUS, COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON CARNAHAN, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS. I MEAN, ON THE ONE HAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE SENT OUT THE LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICES, AND RESIDENTS HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT TONIGHT. REALISTICALLY, THOUGH, I FEEL LIKE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS AND WHAT'S GOING ON HAS BEEN THIS MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION THEY SAW, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK IT WOULD HURT TO ALLOW RESIDENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO, REVIEW THE INFORMATION, REACH OUT TO US.

IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK, MAYBE THEY WON'T. BUT AGAIN, JUST I KNOW WE SATISFIED THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT I THINK IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE TO WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING DISCUSSED AND DECIDED. SO THAT'S I'M OPEN TO CONTINUING IT, IF THAT'S THE

[04:05:06]

WILL OF THE GROUP. SOUNDS LIKE IT'S TIME FOR A MOTION. OKAY, I'LL TAKE ANY MOTIONS RIGHT NOW.

SO JUST SO THAT I'M CLEAR, WOULD THIS INVOLVE CREATING A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION AND CREATE A VERY SPECIFIC TIME TO DO SO IN ORDER TO, IN ORDER TO, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO RE NOTICE THE PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT, THEN WE WOULD WANT TO CONTINUE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN AND LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE WOULD REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, LEAVE IT OPEN AND CONTINUE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN. OR YOU CAN JUST SAY, WE WANT TO CONTINUE THIS AND WE'LL NOTICE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING DATE IS AUGUST 25TH. TIME FOR A MOTION. OH, GOOD. I'M RAISING MY HAND. I'M I'M OKAY WITH DOING THAT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION ON OUR MEETING. AT OUR MEETING ON AUGUST THE DID WE SAY 25TH TO IN ORDER IN ORDER TO GIVE US ADEQUATE TIME TO INTERACT WITH THE PUBLIC AND TO REALLY COMB THROUGH THIS INFORMATION AND MAKE SURE WE'RE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. I'LL JUST MAKE A GENERAL COMMENT. I'M GOING TO SAY NO, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF TIME IN THE LAST TWO YEARS TO TALK TO THE COMMUNITY. SO I'M JUST GOING TO I'M GOING TO.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT MOTION PASSES WITH THREE YES VOTES FROM MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG, COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE AND COUNCIL MEMBER STRONG CARNAHAN.

ONE NO VOTE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER PETE AND A RECUSAL FROM MAYOR MEDRANO. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A SH GOOD EVENING. IF EVERYONE CAN, PLEASE TAKE THEIR SEATS SO WE CAN PROCEED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL MOVE ON TO. OH, WAIT. I THINK SHE'S OUT TALKING TO THE APPLICANT. WE'RE FINE. VERY WELL. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12. NEW BUSINESS

[12. First Reading of an Ordinance Correcting and Amending Section 17-53 and 17-54 of the Municipal Code Related to Penalties for Violation and Civil Remedies for the Illegal Discharge of Fireworks Prepared by: William Wynder, City Attorney Recommendation: Introduce for first reading an ordinance correcting and amending Section 17-53 and 17-54 of the Cypress Municipal Code related to penalties for violation and civil remedies for the illegal discharge of fireworks.]

ITEM FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE CORRECTING AND AMENDING SECTION 17-53 AND 17-54 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND CIVIL REMEDIES FOR THE ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS. CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE PROVIDE A STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, UNLIKE THE LAST REPORT, THIS STAFF REPORT IS GOING TO BE SHORT. AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CRAFTING A NEW AND ENHANCED PENALTY PROVISION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, EAGLE I, MAYOR PRO TEM NOTED THAT SECTION 1753 AND 1754 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH ARE OBVIOUS PENALTY PROVISIONS RELATED TO FIREWORKS, REFERENCED THE WRONG MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO ENFORCE. THIS ORDINANCE CORRECTS THOSE TWO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, AND WE URGE THE COUNCIL'S INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CITY ATTORNEY. WE WILL NOW OPEN IT UP TO THE COUNCIL FOR ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. SEEING NO QUESTIONS. WE'LL CLOSE OUR QUESTIONING. OKAY. SEEING NO QUESTIONS. I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 12. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. PLEASE VOTE. MR. MAYOR, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[13. Solid Waste Franchise Agreement Performance Review and Amendment Prepared by: Nick Mangkalakiri, Director of Public Works Recommendation: 1. Receive and file the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement Performance Review; and 2. Approve the Fifth Amendment to the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement between the City of Cypress and Valley Vista Services, Inc.]

[04:10:03]

THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 13, SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND AMENDMENT CITY MANAGER. IF YOU CAN, PLEASE PROVIDE A REPORT ITEM. SURE. THIS IS THE ONE I WAS TRYING TO INTRODUCE BEFORE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MIXING EVERYONE UP. SO DIRECTOR MIKULAK WILL HAVE THAT REPORT FOR YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

CITY COUNCIL, AND THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO STUCK AROUND FOR THIS. AS YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST. SO THIS PRESENTATION IS ACTUALLY TWO PARTS. THE FIRST PART COVERS THE SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE REVIEW. AND THE SECOND PART IS THE FRANCHISE AMENDMENT. SO BEFORE I DO INVITE UP OUR THE CONSULTANT WHO PERFORM THE REVIEW, I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE A QUICK OVERVIEW. SO THE CITY ENTERED. SORRY, JUST A MINUTE. YOU MAY BE UNPLUGGED AND PULLED BACK DOWN. I'M JUST GETTING THE CITY SEAL FROM THE. COME ON, TRY THAT. YOU DON'T HAVE ONE OVER THERE. OH, OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE USING THE BARCODE. THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THE CITY ENTERED INTO THE EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH VALLEY VISTA BACK IN 2014. THE AGREEMENT HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED FOUR TIMES AND NOW EXPIRES IN 2037. NOW, ROUGHLY HALFWAY THROUGH THE AGREEMENT, ONE OF CITY COUNCIL'S STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES WAS TO PERFORM A THIRD PARTY REVIEW OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. LAST JULY, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND AWARDED A CONTRACT IN NOVEMBER TO CITY GREEN CONSULTING. AND SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO INVITE UP MR. MICHAEL BAILEY WITH CITY GREEN CONSULTING TO REVIEW TO PRESENT HIS FINDINGS. AND THEN AT THE CONCLUSION OF HIS PRESENTATION, WE CAN TAKE QUESTIONS. AND THEN I WILL DIVE INTO THE SECOND PART OF THE PRESENTATION, WHICH IS THE FRANCHISE AMENDMENT. ALL RIGHT. THANKS, NICK. HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL STAFF. MIKE BAILEY. I'M THE REVIEWER AND ALSO THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. AND I WILL BE BRIEF THIS EVENING. I'LL ALSO PROVIDE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL AND THEN BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. AGAIN, THIS IS KIND OF WHAT I'M GOING TO COVER. IN BRIEF, WE BASICALLY REVIEWED YOUR AGREEMENT, CAME UP WITH 44 ITEMS OR COMBINED ITEMS THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS OUR REVIEW AND REALLY TELL YOU HOW GOOD A JOB VALLEY VISTA DID COMPLYING DURING 2022, 2023, AND 2024. SO THE AREA OF CLARIFICATION, AS YOU CAN SEE, VERY GOOD NUMBERS, WE ONLY FOUND FOUR NON-COMPLIANT AREAS. THAT'S 91%. THE CLARIFICATION IS THAT I'M OLD SCHOOL. YOU CAN PROBABLY TELL BY LOOKING AT ME AND A IS 93 OR 94% AND A MINUS IS 91. AND THAT'S GOOD. SATISFACTORY IS A B, SATISFACTORY IS NOT A C. I BROUGHT A COUPLE OF THOSE HOME AND MY FOLKS MADE THAT CLEAR. THE REASON I ADDED THE VERY GOOD IS TWO OF THE NON-COMPLIANT ISSUES WERE RESOLVED. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE SCALE OF THE DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT WE REVIEWED, THE BIG ONES, THEY WERE ABOVE AVERAGE OR EXCELLENT ON. SO I THOUGHT, I KNOW THE MATH SAYS VERY GOOD, BUT THE RESULTS SAY AN A, SO, YOU KNOW, I GAVE THEM THAT. AND HERE'S THE ACTUAL AREAS OF REVIEW FINANCIAL INCLUDED ANYTHING DOLLAR WISE. SO IF THEY'RE PAYING IT TO YOU OR THEY'RE PROVIDING IT TO YOU AS A FREE SERVICE, THAT'S WHAT FELL INTO FINANCIAL. THE OTHERS ARE PRETTY CLEAR. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY DID REALLY A WONDERFUL JOB WITH THAT. AND AGAIN. LET ME GET TO THE NEXT ITEM BECAUSE I THINK THAT PROVIDES SOME CLARITY. SO AS FAR AS ACCURACY OF RATES AND PAYMENTS, YOU REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF RATES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE ACCURATE. THEY DO THAT EVERY MONTH. SO THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND.