Several Cypress citizens suggested Monday that the Cypress City Council is working to fulfill its own grand ambitions rather than the will of citizens they were elected to serve.
Already embroiled in a controversy over their subjective “selection” process for a vacant Council seat, which has led to the intervention by an outside attorney, a swirling controversy over Lexington Park has prompted a growing lack of trust in their governance, some citizens suggested Monday.

The Cypress City Council on Monday heard from several residents who claim the city continues to lose trust of residents, suggesting specifically that the city ignored input from residents over its newest park under development and instead, built a sports park that will eventually see play by organized leagues.

More specifically, they claim the park, as being constructed, violates the “donation agreement” with Los Al Race Course, who donated nine acres to the city for a park, and subsequently, the “Measure A” approved by voters in 2018 to approve the construction of the park.

The city claims the land donation is worth $10 million and they have loaned the Cypress Recreation and Parks District approximately $12 million to build the park.
From Mayor Jon Peat’s perspective however, the new Lexington Park has “state of the art capability, and he said, “what’s being developed for Lexington Park” includes outdoor amenities “that the city doesn’t already have.”

“It’s going to be a tremendous addition the community,” said Peat at Monday’s meeting. The mayor’s comments came after he recently toured the park, which is still under construction, but is nearing completion.

Peat said he recently toured the park with a representative of Friday Night Lights, a flag football organization, “and they’re [FNL] just so excited to have an amenity like this that will allow them to enjoy sports in our community.”

He says the city already provides softball fields, baseball fields, “and now we’ll be able to offer the fields for our football, soccer and Lacrosse players.”

Peat again thanked Los Alamitos Racetrack for the donation of land on which the park is being built. “I look forward to the grand opening,” said Peat, suggesting Lexington Park would be a great asset to the city “for years to come.”

Mayor Pro-tem Paulo Morales, who toured the park with Peat, partly echoed the mayor’s comments, but also added they met with a group of residents during or after the tour who had serious questions about the park, and its development process.

“If I may add, Mayor, also, you know, there were fellow residents that also came by as well and expressed their concerns” while they toured the park, said Morales.

Morales said he and Council member Anne Hertz met with the concerned citizens. “We made it very clear to them,” said Morales, “that we [Cypress] have a tremendous staff … that always takes the time to respond to concerns and address them.”

Any of their concerns, now, or in the future, would be taken seriously by city staff, he assured them.

Many of those citizens spoke to the Council during oral communications and suggested it was the specific lack of listening that drove them to comment.

Saying they spoke on behalf of citizens who are “losing trust” in their local government, they claim the city ignored the will of the people expressed during public planning meetings over the past few months and instead, built what a select few wanted.

“It’s a $10 million gift to organized soccer paid for by Cypress residents,” said frustrated resident Edwin Kraemer, who lives near the new park.

He suggested Lexington Park is a commercial sports park, not useful for the seniors who populate the area, or average citizens.

“I think [the plan] was the brainchild and vision of a couple of council members, maybe the city management, and a few people from organized soccer that have pushed it through,” he said.

“This is not what the community asked for,” he told the Council.

Cypress resident Anthony Uy had similar comments. “I just want you guys to understand how we got here and why … we felt like we needed to do something so drastic.”
Uy, and others, are conducting a gofundme campaign to raise a legal fund to file a lawsuit against the city for issues related to the park. They too claim the city has gone rogue in constructing Lexington Park, which will pave the way for future organized sports rather than be a relaxed area for residents.

Uy said he “never saw” a council member at those public hearings and “I assumed City Manager Peter Grant was communicating to the City Council.”
“We lost the city,” as a resource, said Uy.

Uy, and others, expressed disgust that the city had uprooted some “legacy trees” where the park now stands.

At the hearings, said Uy, people universally expressed concern about saving some older trees on the site. “But when the park started construction, the 50-year-old trees were the first thing to go” he said.

“People were asking for things that benefitted the entire community,” said Uy, implying that most of these demands were not met. “And so that’s how we lost trust,” he said.
“The only concession that came out of those meetings was to take one of the synthetic fields and make it a natural turf,” he noted.

Uy said citizens have donated more than $4,000 “from their own pockets,” to fund a legal defense fund for the park. He said that is a statement that citizens are losing confidence in their own influence with city officials.

“I think you guys really need to understand what that is [donations to a park legal defense fund], it is a declaration of people who are losing influence,” said Uy.

Malina Nagpal, who has a Ph.D. in organizational psychology, was blunter. She was among the candidates not selected by the Council in the “selection process” that the Council used to fill the Council seat vacated by former council member Stacy Berry.

“I’m hoping that you all are listening, and really listening to the residents that have lost their confidence in our city council,” she said. “To say that they have lost trust in their governance structure is huge.”

She referred to outside attorney Kevin Shenkman’s letter that claims the city is so out of touch that they need to demand single member districts. “Those are the kinds of things that are the last resort for the city residents,” she said, “is to go to outside counsel to get help because our internal governance structure failed us over and over again.”

“I have lived in the city for the past 30 almost 31 years. And I have never seen this type of distrust in our government. Please trust our residents who have a stake here with our children, our grandchildren, and our grandparents, who live here; your grandchildren, grandparents who live here,” said Nagpal.

“Rather than the city staff, you need to reach out to the residents. I know I’m hearing people saying thank you, thank you for your service, and all of that, I apologize…and I don’t apologize, but right now, I am not thankful because you are not listening. That’s all I have.”

Facing a lawsuit from a Malibu attorney who claims their at-large city council districts violate the California Voting Rights Act, the city of Cypress has yet to issue public comments on a future course of action.

At their Sept. 27 meeting, however, the Council did have the item on a closed session agenda, however legal counsel Fred Galante reported that “there had not been a quorum” just at the time the Council was to discuss the matter, so it was not discussed.

However, the council said another matter, an “organics recycling program” had been “so exciting,” that their regular meeting was delayed as the council did have a quorum to discuss. Galante provided no further specificity about who was missing. It takes only three members for a quorum.

The city council convened the closed session, said Galante, without discussing the first item on the closed session agenda.

“There had not been a quorum to hold that discussion. The item was entitled “conference with legal counsel” to discuss “anticipated litigation,” which Galante said was listed as “one potential case” with “significant exposure to litigation.”

At their Oct. 11 meeting, Galante reported on the closed session, saying again it was “anticipated litigation under the heading of significant exposure to litigation.”

He reported the “matter is a claim of a California Voting Rights violation from Southwest Voter Education Project.” Galante conceded only that the city “received a briefing that the threat of litigation [exists] and there was no reportable action.”

In a letter to the City of Cypress dated Sept. 17, Malibu attorney Kevin Shenkman informed the Cypress Council that “voting within the City is racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and, therefore, the City’s at-large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (“CVRA”).”

“The CVRA disfavors the use of so-called ·’at-large’’ voting – an election method that permits voters of an entire jurisdiction to elect candidates to each open seat,” said Shenkman in the four-page letter, “because they often result in vote dilution.”

“The (Cypress) City Council’s recent difficulty with adopting even a resolution acknowledging the Asian American community and encouraging their participation in the City, and then its blanket refusal to show support for another minority community (LGBTQ), is also telling,” said Shenkman’s letter.

“Based upon recent data from the American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Department, Asians comprise 35.2% of the City’s population of 49,006. The current complete absence of Asian representation on the City’s governing board is revealing,” claims Shenkman’s letter.

The attorney’s letter also cites examples of communities wasting “millions” of dollars fighting in court, suggesting his firm has never lost a case of this type and predicts they won’t lose this one, if tested.

To establish a CVRA violation, Shenkman said “a plaintiff must generally show that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision.”

“Given the racially polarized elections for Cypress’ city council elections, we urge the city to voluntarily change its at-large system of electing its city council. Otherwise, on behalf of residents within the jurisdiction, we will be forced to seek judicial relief,” said Shenkman in the correspondence.

According to the terms of the letter, the Cypress Council must decide by Nov. 7 to fight the lawsuit in court, for which taxpayers will foot the bill, or simply negotiate a process that will satisfy potential CVRA violation, which could mean an end to at-large districts in the city.

Nevertheless, Galante said at the council’s most recent meeting that due to a lack of a quorum, there was “no reportable action” on the matter and the council was expected to go into closed session this past Monday to discuss it.

In other action Sept. 27, the Cypress Council:
• Received thanks from a representative of the Second Harvest Food Bank in Irvine, for their support of the OC Hunger Alliance. About 250,000 OC residents “are relying on food banks for their sustenance” they were told. The council recognized hunger action month.
• Heard Chief of Police Mark Lauderback introducing new officers that joined the force during COVID but were never properly introduced to the city, including Officer Christopher Reihanifam, the force’s newest officer, and “Bono” the new Belgium Shepherd, the department’s new police dog, and his handler, Officer Mermer. “He came over to us from the Netherlands. He understands Dutch and speaks dog,” Mermer said.