Members of Cypress City Council are expected to give another update regarding the city yard dumping as unfavorable media attention pressurized the dais to announce initial changes and proposals during the city’s last August 22nd meeting.

“It shouldn’t take a KTLA news video for you to finally make adjustments to something that residents have been constantly complaining about,“ said resident Katie Shapiro.

After being spotlighted for their disruptive trash dumping across print and television platforms, city officials were cowed into providing a swift response and action plan for residents who claim ill effects from living by the city yard—a site the city has arguably allowed for Valley Vista to store and transfer waste from.

Airing out in the days leading up to the August council meeting, residents near the yard reported that the increasing disposal activity has brought odor, debris, vermin, noise, and health problems to the neighborhood over the years.

However, Cypress Mayor Paulo Morales made a motion to debunk and provide feedback on the reports, as he requested to move the issue to the top of the meeting before public comment could begin.

“Some may want to speak on what was seen on the news Friday afternoon. I could tell you many, many things about its inaccuracy, but I want to defer to Public Works Director Doug Dancs to provide some information to shed light on this particular topic,” said Mayor Morales.

The city’s initial statement focused on clarifying what type of trash disposal occurs at the maintenance yard, how issues have previously been addressed, and minor adjustments to alleviate concern for residents in the direct impact zone.

Although seen as a step in the right direction for the residents on Grindlay St.—who are used to little to no council attention on the issue at all—others remain wary that it’s just a damage control band-aid tactic.

“Don’t put a band-aid on it, fix the problem, remove the dumping,” said Cypress school board candidate Troy Tanaka.

However, according to the city, dumping has been a procedural use of the facility for over 45 years. In addition, despite the absence of trash disposal from the city codes authorized land usage list, the city claims it as an accessory usage of the public works maintenance yard.

In this instance, unlike residential trash, which gets hauled to the landfill immediately, city waste is stored at the maintenance yard until the allocated bins are full.

City waste includes trash picked up from public facilities such as parks, street sweeping, landscaping operations, and garbage found in the right of way. Once full, Valley Vista comes in during the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. to haul off to the proper landfill site approximately twice a week.

Saving VVS repetitive trips to and from the landfill, the bins used to store city trash are two ten-foot 40 cubic yard containers located at the west side of the yard—the area that directly borders residential homes on Grindlay St, critics allege.

Up until this point, VVS has been backing their garbage trucks up on a ramp to dispense waste directly into the west side bins, as opposed to using an overthrow method seen in other city yards.

Reportedly utilized in higher frequency over the past two years, VVS ramp activity creates significant noise and house vibrations for people nearby, the neighbors say.

Now, in hopes to mitigate growing concern, the city announced in their statement that they will cut back on ramp activity by eliminating street sweeping and construction material.
Therefore, only regular city trash and items picked up in the right of way will be allowed to be dumped via ramps in the west side bins.

Additionally, Dancs and other city officials confirmed that they would undergo an interim screening project, intended to shield visibility and debris from the ramp activity.

“We can look at the ramp and see if there’s a way we can go ahead and put some type of fence screening [or] some other kind of thing out there. We’re going to put our heads together and then we’re gonna bring that forward to the city council for the next meeting with what we come up with,” said Dancs.

Residents, however, were quick to critique the suggested screening improvement.
“You would only raise up a curtain if you’re trying to protect from whatever unwanted activity,” Said Hellen Lee, who is running for a city council seat in the fall.

For residents nearby the site, the preference is for no dumping at all. Despite a privacy screening adjustment, the location, usage, and buildup of trash remain the source of concern for citizens.

“The neighbors have honest concerns about vermin, rats, cockroaches, etcetera. How would you like this thing was next to your home,” said Tanaka?

While intended to address confusion and offer adjustments, residents chalked the statement up as a predictable dance around the real questions and issues at play within Cypress local government.

As Dancs wrapped up his statement, questions and suggestions from Council member Frances Marquez appeared to be the only one aligned with the interests of affected residents.

“I was just curious. Is there any other option to dump that trash at another site? I’m just wondering why we even dump trash there at all,” said Councilmember Marquez, who suggested that the city should find an alternative site.

According to Dancs, a separate facility would have to be made to accommodate city waste, whether it’s on the city’s or VVS’s property.

Having the option of an alternative location, confusion remains on why the city still uses the Public Works Yard to host the transfer station—despite years of significant pushback from their residents, not only about the transfer site, but the Valley Vista franchise as a whole.

While the Council statement succeeded in providing residents with knowledge of the yard’s history, functions, and improvement plans, it failed to provide justification for the “nuisance to residents, families, children, elderly, even elderly who are on oxygen,” that it has caused, said Lee.

“You know, obviously I’m not a city employee. I don’t know what those are for. But I believe somebody asked that question. And it was only half answered. We didn’t get a full explanation of that,” said Carolyn Balagot, during public comment.

Although the city claims it is normal use for the facility, resident dissatisfaction in the proceeding oral comment section makes apparent that the issue extends deeper than educating citizens on the inner workings of The Cypress Maintenance Yard.

Moreso, feeding into an already exhaustive feud relating to the city’s dealings with Valley Vista Trash Company, residents believe the timing contributes to an overall lack of integrity within the city’s response.

“The thing going on at the city yard has been happening to my understanding for the past 10 or something years, and it shouldn’t take a KTLA news video for you to finally make adjustments to something that residents have been consistently complaining about,” said Shapiro.

As more residents learn about the battle citizens on Grindlay St. have had trying to get the matter addressed, Shapiro believes the delay of action exemplifies concurrent flaws within Cypress leadership.

“And the fact that you’ve been woefully unresponsive is kind of indicative of what Cypress’s leadership’s M.O. is up until this point,” she said.

Although a wavering faith remains amongst residents who hope to get the dumping stopped altogether, the motion to bring the matter up and propose any changes at all, showcases the effectiveness in using collaborative community involvement to yield tangible results.

Until further feedback and guidance from the city is announced, the residents of Grindlay will continue to work together to bring the change they want to see in their neighborhood and Cypress as a whole.