Despite pleas from some residents for more time to discuss what happens with the open space now occupied by the Los Alamitos Racecourse, the Cypress City Council voted 3-1-1 to approve a development agreement and an Environmental Impact Review that a law firm claimed is flawed.
Mayor Pro-Tem Dr. Kyle Chang, along with Council members David Burke and Bonnie Peat voted in favor of a package of measures that, in essence, would authorize the owners of the Los Alamitos Racecourse to begin slicing up the property and selling to developers to satisfy the city’s commitment to the state to provide new residential housing.
City Council member Rachel Strong voted against the measure while Mayor Leo Medrano was advised by the City’s legal advisor to recuse himself from the proceedings because of a rental agreement he has on the property in question, which the state considers a “fiduciary interest.”
Many residents openly questioned the Council’s rush to approve a development agreement that binds the city for the next 15 years because there is no established timetable for when the long-celebrated horse racing venue will cease operations.
Despite the opposition, a significant number of residents testified in favor of the plan, including younger residents like Zachary Harper, who told the Council he and younger voters like him want “the chance to stay in Cypress.”
“Please do what is right and approve the Environmental Impact Report,” he asked.
Leanne Osteen also favored the plan, emphasizing the need for parks, roads and commercial space in the city. “This plan isn’t perfect,” she said, “but that is up to developers to fix and the city to partner with. Please vote ‘yes,’” she said.
Colin Edwards said the city has a “unique opportunity to shape the future of this property,” urging the Council to “look past the noise” and approve the “once in a generation” project.
Under the plan approved by the Council at their Aug. 25 meeting, the developer (Los Alamitos Racecourse) will have the right to construct 1,791 residences, 440,000 square feet of commercial space and approximately 20 acres of parkland.
Others, however, pleaded with the Council to think further into the future before filling this 134-acre parcel with residential homes, streets and commercial buildings.
Chase Preciado, of the NorCal environmental law firm of Lozeau Drury, spoke by phone on behalf of its client SAFER (Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility) and said the EIR “fails to require feasible mitigation” of vehicle impacts and could lead to future exposure to toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde.
Moreover, the law firm suggested the city’s EIR overlooked the most feasible plan to preserve the historic nature of the site.
“The EIR identifies the historic preservation alternative as environmentally superior,” she said, “because it would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable historic resources impact. Yet, the city does not adopt that alternative, and the EIR provides no evidence to support its infeasibility,” Preciado said.
One resident, Tom Nockel, echoed the concern and pleaded with the Council to keep the historic structures on the site to create a true Town Center for residents.
“Tonight, we’re considering a plan that would eventually demolish a historic resource eligible for both the national and California registers and replace it with 1,791 housing units. The city’s own EIR offers another possibility: historic preservation alternative number three,” he said.
“That alternative would provide 1,400 housing units, the same 440,000 square feet of commercial development, while preserving the historic tract, chute, and grandstand area as an approximately 4,700-seat outdoor performance venue that could finally give Cypress what we’ve been talking about for more than 20 years-a town center destination, something unique to our city, surrounded by restaurants, shops, and gathering spaces,” he said.
“And what is the residential difference?” he rhetorically asked. “Only 391 housing units.”
Marcella Adenzi echoed her concern, saying the plan as proposed would result in “losing the Cypress culture” with increased traffic and more housing.
In response to a question from Burke, City Attorney Bill Wynder said approving a vesting tract map now does not surrender any future council oversight.
“The map vests the developer’s right to propose future development under current regulatory authority, but the council retains full discretionary authority to conduct future public hearings, take testimony and decide what/when things are built,” said Wynder.
However, he said once approved, the city “cannot later change zoning to impair the vested rights,” but all current review authority remains, the city attorney said.
“I’ll make the motion to certify the Environmental Impact Report,” said Chang, “and introduce an ordinance approving a development agreement with these new changes.”
“With these changes to the development agreement, we’ve ensured that you’ll be able to walk and bike to all three parks in the area and also the existing retail areas,” he said.
“I do think we are getting benefits for the city by going through this process now,” said Burke, “to lock in some future guarantees about future infrastructure, some requirements about how it pays for what, what it is going to look like that I don’t know that a future Council will necessarily get if these projects come to them one by one,” said Burke.
“Once an applicant comes forward with an EIR application,” said Burke, “the city is compelled with deadlines to respond to it.”
Bonnie Peat, who has consistently expressed support for the development of the racetrack parcel, said the development agreement sets a marker for the future.
“I’m in support of this; it sets a great foundation, helps us set up how the structure is going to look and to make sure we have adequate green space and walking paths,” said Peat.
“From an economic growth standpoint, it does create a potential for commercial expansion for shops, restaurants and, as a town center, even though we had to make some changes in the zoning, I like that it is still there,” she said.
Rachel Strong Carnahan, the newest member of the Council, was the lone dissenting vote, saying “there is still some disagreement about the town center.”
“There is a very big difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law,” said Strong, “so I can understand why some residents feel misled by that.”
“It could have been guaranteed at some point in the past, but if you read the fine print, it wasn’t,” said Strong, who expressed hope that the city “can still deliver” what seems promised in spirit: a town center or common area that residents have been asking for “to preserve the community’s way of life.”
