Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. so so Thank you.

so so

I should have just pre-recorded it. All right, here we go. Good evening to everyone. I'D LIKE TO OFFICIALLY CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 4TH, 2026, AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT. VICE CHAIR GRABLE, WILL YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?

IT WOULD BE MY PLEASURE. SO IF EVERYONE WOULD PLEASE RISE AND PUT THEIR HANDS OVER THEIR HEART AND JOIN ME WITH MAKING A PLEDGE TO THE GREATEST NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THIS PLANET. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Vice Chair Grable. At this time, members of the public may address the Commission regarding matters not on the agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Comments have been limited to three minutes per person. If you would like to make a comment, please fill out a speaker card and submit it to the Commission Secretary. The speaker cards are available at the agenda review table by the entrance. Madam Commission Secretary, have we received any speaker cards for non-agendized items?

I have not received any for non-agendized items.

All right. Perfect. Thank you. This is the time for the commission to consider matters listed under the consent calendar. Have we received any comments from members of the public on the consent calendar?

None received.

All right. Do any commissioners wish to discuss this item or is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second. All right. Let's vote.

motion passes unanimously that's great all right i will now open the public hearing for item two and director gail ackerman will introduce this item yes good evening commissioners uh this item is a site development permit and environmental impact report for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a new industrial building located at 26 200 enterprise way This evening, Jennifer Mansour is here for the staff report.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. This item before you tonight is a request for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new industrial building on Enterprise Way. The project site is located in the existing industrial area in the Pacific Commerce Center planned community, and I'm just going to provide a brief history of this area. In the 1940s, the federal government established the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. The aircraft departure path from one of the runways at the station crossed directly across Lake Forest. Due to safety concerns and extreme noise levels, the land directly under the flight path, shown on yellow on this graphic, was restricted to non-residential uses such as agriculture, open space, industrial uses, and offices. In 1987, the County of Orange approved the Pacific Commerce Center planned community, most of which is in this restricted area, which included three different industrial zoning districts and an open space district. The closure of the Marine Station was announced in 1993 and a plan to redevelop the base property with residential and open space uses was approved by the city of Irvine in 2002. This allowed for the reconsideration of the remaining vacant land in Lake Forest, which was no longer constrained by the former flight path. The city studied land use changes through the Opportunity Study and ultimately approved nine new residential neighborhoods within this industrial area. The last residential development approved was the Meadows Residential Community, which I'll refer to as the Meadows in this presentation, which is just northeast of the project site. In 2020, Lake Forest City Council certified an environmental impact report and approved entitlements for the residential project. The project site is located in the existing industrial area on the southeast corner of Dimension Drive and Bake. This industrial area is accessed via the private street, Enterprise Way, and a driveway on Bake Parkway. In the 1990s and 2000s, the parcels adjacent to Enterprise Way were developed and included reciprocal access between some of the parcels, as shown with the dashed lines. There is no direct vehicular access from this industrial area to the adjacent meadows. This proposed project is a site development permit and related EIR for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new industrial building. The site currently has a general class general plan land use designation of light industrial and the zoning of the site is light industrial in the Pacific commerce center plan community. The proposed project is designed to accommodate a mix of permitted light industrial uses, including office manufacturing and warehouse, however, a specific tenant has not been identified, which is typical for this type of development. Vehicular access to the project site would continue to be provided via two existing driveways on Enterprise Way and the existing shared drive aisle at the north corner of the site. Generally, the main drive aisle and parking stalls are designed around the building. The southwest side of the building includes a gated truck loading area comprised of 23 truck doors that are elevated off the ground to allow trucks to be loaded or unloaded directly into the building. The truck loading area includes a 16-foot tall wall on the east side of the area to minimize noise impacts from trucks in the loading area. The project also includes two trash enclosures and an enclosed pump room for fire sprinkler equipment. Landscaping and mature trees are present around the perimeter of the site. The project proposes to maintain the existing perimeter landscaping, including many mature trees. New trees are proposed where there's a gap in the trees in the perimeter landscaping, and five new trees are proposed in the area directly adjacent to the meadows, which is circled in red on your screen. New landscaping is also proposed in the landscape area between the driveways on Enterprise Way and around the proposed building. The Prose building is a maximum of 35 feet tall and would be constructed of tilt-up concrete panels. The building is proposed to be painted different shades of gray with a blue accent color. The truck doors would be painted to match the building and are not readily visible from the surrounding streets nor the residential properties. The project also includes five off-site intersection improvements. The location of these intersection improvements are shown on the screen. These improvements will enhance public safety and facilitate large truck turning movements for both the project and the existing truck traffic. A condition of approval has been recommended requiring the improvements to be constructed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building. The project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the general plan light industrial land use designation and the goals and policies in the city's general plan. The site's light industrial zoning is intended to provide for a broad range of industrial uses. Pursuant to the zoning code, the proposed office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses are considered permitted uses. The project as condition is also consistent with all development standards and regulations in the zoning code, including the facility design requirements, which include transportation demand management strategies. These requirements include carpool and vanpool parking stalls, bicycle parking, showers and locker facilities, and a new bus shelter for the existing bus stop located at Dimension and Commerce Center. Lastly, the city's building official and the Orange County Fire Authority, or CFA, provided preliminary review of these plans. A full review of the project's compliance with state building code will occur during the review of the plans for building permit issuance. OCFA has recommended several conditions of approval, providing for code compliance and fire safety. Additionally, OCFA has review processes for future tenants of the building, including but not limited to storage or operations with hazardous materials, high piled storage and battery systems. The project is surrounded by the existing industrial area with the meadows located northeast of the project. The building has been designed to be consistent with the type, scale, and architecture of the surrounding industrial development. As I previously mentioned, the meadows was approved by the city council in 2020. The EIR and area plan for the meadows recognized the proximity of the adjacent industrial properties and included a block wall and landscape buffers between the uses. as shown on the graphic the landscape buffer between the uses is on three different properties the areas shown in green are the landscape areas at the site this project will maintain the block wall and landscape buffers that separate the site from the meadows additionally the project will enhance the landscaping including adding trees along the corner adjacent to the meadows this new landscaping will further reduce the visibility of the site from the residences As I mentioned, this project is in compliance with all zoning code requirements, and there is no minimum building setback required from adjacent properties. However, the applicant has proposed the building to be set back approximately 150 to 160 feet from the residential property lines. Furthermore, the project is designed so the truck doors and loading areas of the proposed building are oriented southeast, are located 200 feet away from the nearest residential property line, and would not be readily visible from the residences. Lastly, the EIR for this project included technical studies and analysis that concluded there were no significant impacts to the surrounding area related to noise, vibration, local traffic impacts, health risks, and lighting. This project included the preparation of an environmental impact report, also known as the EIR, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. The purpose of the EIR is to disclose environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures, evaluate project alternatives, and inform decision makers and the public. CEQA is a disclosure law and not a mandate to approve or deny a project. Pursuant to CEQA, the city as lead agency oversees the preparation of the EIR, manages the public review process, and ensures that the EIR identifies impacts and mitigation. In this case, the Planning Commission will be the decision-making body responsible for considering the certification of the EIR and adoption of the required findings. For this project, the City has contracted LSA as the environmental consultant who prepared the EIR. In 2023, the city oversaw the preparation of an initial study and mitigated negative declaration for this project. However, based on public comments received during the public review period, the city required a higher level of review. And in March of 2024, a notice of preparation was issued for an EIR. The city conducted the public scoping process, including agency consultation and public meetings to identify environmental issues for analysis. In July of 2025, the draft EIR was released for public review. The draft EIR was prepared using technical studies prepared by the city's environmental consultant and public input to evaluate a full range of environmental topics. The draft EIR identified several key areas of concern raised during the environmental public review process. These issues were analyzed, and where feasible, mitigation measures were incorporated into the project to reduce impacts. Mitigation measures were identified that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels in areas such as air quality geology and tribal cultural resources. However, the EIR determined that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in two areas vehicle miles traveled or VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. VMT is a primary metric used to evaluate transportation impacts in CEQA. VMT looks at impacts to the regional roadway network. The VMT analysis does not take into, the project's VMT exceeds the city's thresholds primarily due to the nature of employment uses and associated employment chip generation. The VMT analysis does not take into consideration the previous VMT generated by the existing building because the building is vacant. However, it should be noted that the existing building, when occupied, would potentially generate more employees than the proposed building. Mitigation measures have been added to this project to reduce VMT that include the installation of new bicycle lanes on Commerce Center Drive that would connect the proposed site to bike lanes on Alton Parkway, which eventually connect to the Irvine Transportation Center. Additionally, a measure was included requiring the installation of lighting along the on-site pathway leading to the existing bus stops. These mitigation measures encourage alternate forms of transportation, including bikes, OCTA buses, and the MetroLink. However, these measures do not reduce the project's VMT impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would result in a project and cumulative significant and unavoidable VMT impact. There are two CEQA thresholds related to greenhouse gases. Based on these thresholds, there would be a significant impact if greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project would have a significant impact on the environment based on CEQA thresholds or if the project conflicts with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas. The EIR analyzed the project's impact related to greenhouse gas emissions and determined that the emissions were below the thresholds. However, because the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to VMT, the proposed project would not contribute its fair share of emission reductions required to support Senate Bill 743 and the state's 2022 scoping plan. as a result the project would conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions which is considered a project and cumulative significant and unavoidable impact as documented in the eir in may the city released the final eir the final eir includes responses to all 122 comments received clarifications to the analysis revisions to the eir and an added mitigation measure Under CEQA, when a project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, the Planning Commission must consider findings that document that the lead agency's conclusions regarding each impact and the feasibility of mitigation. Additionally, the Planning Commission will also have to consider a statement of overriding considerations. This is a written determination that the project's economic, legal, social, and technological benefits outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts. In the last 15 years, the city has approved five EIRs, all of which included a statement of overriding considerations as shown on the table. Based on staff's analysis of the project, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt two resolutions provided with the agenda report. The first resolution is related to the EIR, and it includes the adoption of the required findings of fact, the adoption of the statement of overriding considerations, certification of the EIR, adoption of the mitigation and monitoring reporting program, and direction to staff to prepare, execute, and file a notice of determination. The second resolution will approve the site development permit with the staff recommended conditions of approval. The Planning Commission has received written comments from the public on this project. Some of these comments were provided in the agenda report, and the rest of the comments have been provided to you at the dais tonight. Next, I'm going to have the City CEQA attorney, Alicia Winterswike, provide some additional information based on these comments.

Thank you, Chair Stannard and members of the Planning Commission, Alicia Wintersweig with Bess Besting-Krieger here tonight. As Jennifer Manser mentioned, I am here to advise and answer any questions on the CEQA process that the city undertook in connection with this site development plan project. Specifically at this point, I wanted to speak to the late comments that came in after the close of the official public comment period on the draft EIR. So as you know, and as Jennifer just summarized very well, there is an official 45-day review period on a draft environmental impact report. Ours was slightly longer here. But the public does have the opportunity to provide public comment on a matter that is pending before you within your jurisdiction up until the close of a public hearing. So in instances like this where we have comments that float in after the official public comment period, we do like to provide a written response to those comments when time allows for us to do that so that the public is aware that we are thinking critically about the comments that they are making and responding to the comments with evidence and information in the record. So here in the final EIR, the final EIR that was posted on the website contained written responses to all comments that we had received up until the time that the final EIR was released. Once that final EIR was posted on the city's website and the public became aware of tonight's hearing, of course, additional comments came in. So between that time and yesterday, Wednesday, June the 3rd at noon, We continued to collect those written comments and LSA assisted with preparing written responses to those comments in memo format. So you do have a copy of that memo at the dais tonight for the public's benefit. I will mention that there is also a copy posted on the project webpage, on the agenda webpage for tonight's meeting, as well as available at the back of the room in case you're interested to see those written responses. In large part, the comments that were submitted between the time when the FEIR was posted on the city's website and yesterday were issues that had already been raised in the final environmental impact report, but there may have been just one little nuance that came up that we felt needed to be addressed. And in that case, there is a written response provided to that nuance to the extent that we identified it. After yesterday at noon, up until today at 5 p.m., we continued to receive written comments. And unfortunately, just given the time that it takes to draft a written response, post it to the website, get everything reproduced, we don't have a written response to any written comments that were submitted to the city after 12 pm yesterday but we do have responses prepared um for new issues that came up in those comment letters and there are only a couple of of points that i would like to highlight for your consideration tonight again apologies that we didn't have time to you know draft these up for your your consideration in advance but given the time this is the best we can do so with respect to um With respect to the truck route and the proximity of the project site to the residences in the Meadows community, we did receive additional comments over the last 24 hours that speak to the noise that trucks will cause when they are traveling through that drive aisle that is on the backside of the project site. So a couple of facts to bring to bear in response to those concerns. Enterprise Way is the only adjacent roadway to the project site. So that's something that's important to keep in mind as you deliberate over the project. There are no public roadways adjacent to the residences or the dock doors. The dock doors were specifically cited to be oriented on the side of the building not facing residences. The only trucks that would pass the residences would be those that have entered the site via Enterprise Way and traveling through the site circulation system toward the dock doors. So while on-site circulation system is less than 200 feet from residences in certain locations, as Jennifer showed on one of her slides during her presentation, the truck activity in those locations would be limited to driving between the ingress and egress points on the site and the dock doors. It's important to keep in mind that noise generating activities in the loading area would be more than 200 feet away from the residences and is buffered by a noise wall, vegetation, and a slope. So that is for all of those reasons the responses to comments with respect to the orientation of the dock doors and the distances between the dock doors and activity that will occur there and the residences was the appropriate measuring stick to use when we were looking at noise impacts to those sensitive receptors in that area. the distance between the closest project driveway and the nearest residence is 577 feet and the distance between the loading docks and the nearest residence is 328 feet one final point um on the trucks moving in that specific area in addition to raising questions about the distances and whether the distances that were reported in the final eir were consistent commenters were questioning um the the noise levels that would be generated by a truck that is passing through the drive aisle on the backside of the site. And we just wanted to point out here that noise levels generated by delivery trucks arriving to and departing from the project site are assumed to be 76.3 DBA at 20 feet. so noise associated with these movements include truck engine noise air brakes backup alarms while the truck is backing into docks the noise levels would occur for a short period of time less than five minutes and at a distance of 50 feet noise generated from a heavy truck movement to the loading docks during the day, which would be approximately 15 trucks per hour during daytime hours, would generate a noise level of 61 dBA. Similar travel paths used during the nighttime hours where we assumed four trucks would move through that back drive aisle would generate a noise level of 55 DBA during the night. So that is an issue that we saw repeatedly come up in these last few comment letters that came in yesterday to today. So pointing out that noise that would be generated at night would be 55 DBA. So generally we know with noise, there's a doubling of distance by six DBA. And so peak noise levels would be 55 DBA and 49 DBA at 100 feet from the nearest residences during the daytime and nighttime hours respectively. Beyond that, we did want to mention. Okay.

Okay, we did want to mention. Yes, that's okay. Can you please define what we're calling that back aisle and where it starts, where it finishes, please, Jennifer?

The northeast drive aisle. So if you're looking at the proposed site plan here up on the screen, it would be the drive aisle with the number two and the circle around it.

Oh, I'm not on. And it extends to the two here and it extends how far? The drive aisle?

It extends all the way around. So a truck could move all the way around the site.

Right. But can a truck go past? And I don't want to interrupt, but I... Sure, yeah. Where the arrow is on the right-hand side at the top, is that that whole drive aisle there?

Oh, I see the question. There's...

I believe it technically can, but the way that it's situated, they said that trucks probably wouldn't use that area because of the truck templates and such that it doesn't make sense for them to go out that way. It makes more sense for them to turn around to Enterprise Way.

And that would be the egress from the back, is that correct, at least as it's proposed, to leave the docks and then go around to the, what I'm assuming...

If a warehouse of this size with potential 24-hour, seven-days operations were proposed directly behind your own home or less than 100 meters from where your family lives, would you support it? And if this project is approved, who will be responsible if there is a fire, high-material incident, or other industrial emergency that affect nearby residents? What guarantees can the city provide to protect our families and our homes? We are not opposite to economy development. However, development must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and there must be placed an unfair burden on residents. I respectfully urging the city to reject this proposal and to require a location

Thank you very much.

Lin Zhu.

Madam Commission Secretary, may I ask you a favor? Yes. Can you please make just a general announcement to the speakers at one time as to the timing of the lights so that they know how much time they have left

Yes, so when the light is green, you have two minutes, and when the light turns yellow, you have, I'm sorry, you have two and a half minutes when the light is green, and when it turns yellow, you have about 30 seconds to wrap up your comment. So when it turns red, that's when your time will end, and the microphone automatically does go off.

I hope that helps. Thank you very much.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioner, and my fellow resident. My name is Lin Zhu. I'm here tonight to oppose the proposed warehouse project adjacent to our community. This project is not simply about the buildings. It's about the future of our neighborhood, our families, and the quality of life of residents we have invested for a decade. First, the project will bring significant increase in the traffic to road that are already heavily congested. Thousands of residents use the road every day to commute to work, take children to school, to access local business. Adding a large number of commercial trucks will increase the travel time, create additional safety concerns, and place greater strain on the infrastructure that's already struggling to keep up with existing demand. Second, the project will introduce continuous noise impact, traffic loading operations, backup alarms, and warehouse activities can occur throughout the day and night. Family who close to live in the community did not choose to live to a major industrial project like this. Dresden deserve a peaceful neighborhood where children can play, student can study, and the family can enjoy their homes without the constant industrial noise. There is a serious concern regarding the air quality in the public house. Increase the diesel trucks traffic means increasing emissions. Those emissions does not stay within the warehouse property lands. They affect homes, schools, parks, and people who lives. As a community, we should working towards clean years, not introducing new source of pollution directly adjacent to resident neighborhood. Most importantly, the project would permanently change the character of our community. Once industrial warehouses are built, their impact will remain for generations. Future residents will inherit this consequence for decades. The city's vision of Lake Forest will be known for its responsibility, commitment to public health and safety, sensitivity to the quality of life and the conservation, fiscal responsibility and the promotion of cooperation and respect among residents, business, and the government. I respectfully ask the members, how does placing a massive industrial warehouse next to established recent community align with the Lake Forest vision? It's not simply a land use decision, it's a statement about what kind of city we want to be and the legacy you decide today will last for generations. So I urge the committee to protect health, safety, and quality of life, and reject this project. Thank you for your attention.

Our next speaker is Shelley Wang, followed by William Wang, followed by Sharon Hu. Shelley Wang. William Wang? Okay, if Shelly is here. Oh, Shelly Wang? Okay, we do have an interpreter. If you will approach the podium, we'll have an interpreter for you. Okay, our interpreter will join you at the podium.

Before we start, Madam Commission Secretary, would it be possible to call up the next person when the speaker is walking away? I think that will save us some time. Thank you so much.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Sherry, and I am a community member here at Meadows.

I am standing before you here today, not only as a citizen of the community, but as a permanent part of this community, and I am here to express my concerns in regard to the project.

When I first heard the name Lego Forest, I was deeply attracted to it, because the name itself has a sense of tranquility and beauty. When I was looking for a city that could last for a long time, I chose to come here without hesitation.

When I first heard about the Lake Forest community, I fell in love with it because of its serenity and its calmness. And that's what got me to fall in love with this community in the first place. After moving into Metals, my family thought I made the right decision because it is indeed serene, friendly, and is a very approachable community. When I first heard that this space will be converted into an office slash warehouse, I was completely in shock and I cannot believe what I heard.

如果这个项目获批,我们将面临持续不断的大型卡车交通、 噪音、夜间灯光以及空气的污染, 我们的社区就不再是当时吸引我们来到的那个美好的社区。

Once completed, there will be truck coming in and out nonstop, and there will be greenhouse gases and all these environmental impacts contributing to our community nonstop.

更加担忧的是,根据这宗环境报告的FINAL EIR, 该项目本身就承认它会带来显著的且不可避免的交通和温室气体的排放。 换句话说,即使采取了缓解措施, 这些影响依然无法被消除。

According to their own EIR reports, this is where I really have a problem with it, is that the traffic and as well as the environmental impact is being admitted by the developers themselves that as irrevocable and unavoidable.

如果連項目自己的環境文件都承認這些影響無法避免, 那我們必須認真思考一個問題, 為什麼這樣一個大型工業倉儲項目一定要被放置在距離現在的住宅如此近的地方?

If the developers themselves admitted to such doings, then we must ask ourselves, how can we allow such a project to appear so close to our own communities?

今晚讨论的已经不仅仅是一个开发项目, 这是在决定我们希望森林湖将来将成为什么样的城市, 是想继续保持一个以家庭和社区为中心的移居城市, 还是允许大型的工业物流设施, 逐渐侵入我们已经成熟的住宅社区,

This is not only a discussion about a project. This is a discussion about what kind of city we wish to be. Is it a family-oriented city, or is it a city catering to industrial projects like this one?

I would like to ask all of you to think about this. If this is the area you live in, if this is the road your children go to school every day, if this is the air your family needs to breathe every day, are you as worried as I am?

I'm sorry, just allow me to speak into this mic instead. If you were a community member of this community and your children will have to go through these very routes every single day, these are the very air that your family breathes, will you feel as concerned as we would for this project?

I'm not against developments.

I understand the importance of such projects, and I understand the importance of creating jobs.

However, as a proper city project should be, we should not

sacrifice the quality of life for the citizens. Economic welfare should not be above the quality of life for the citizens.

今天我懇請各位委員在做出決定的時候, 不僅考慮這個項目能夠帶來什麼, 更要考慮它會給現有的居民讓他們失去什麼。

I ask that the community members to think of not only what the project brings, but also what the community members will sacrifice in order to build this project. Please protect the serenity, the friendliness of this community, and therefore I am against this project and please do not approve this project. Thank you very much for your time.

William Wong, followed by Sharon Hu.

Good evening, honorable chair and commissioners. My name is William Wong. As a resident, I cannot dissect the technical details in just three minutes. Instead, I would like to share my perspective based on common sense and interest of our people who live in Lake Forest. First, the most opposition is not to industrial zoning or redevelopment. Our concern is specifically about a warehouse, a larger facility with 23 truckloading dogs initially and up to 48 in the future. Common Sense tells us that injection of dozens of heavy dark drugs into our community will inevitably increase traffic, noise, light and air pollution. Residents are not asking for anything extraordinary They simply wanted the impact of surrounding industrial activities to remain at a current level and not become worse. Second, I believe warehouse projects conflicts with the spirit of the Lake Forest general plan. Our general plan explicitly set forth our city's guiding principles, a strong sense of community, a high quality of life, and a focus on the future. It dictates that any new development must steer our city towards a cleaner, quieter, and healthier tomorrow. A truck-intensive warehouse does the exact opposite. Some may argue that they can find few sentences in old documents to justify the project. Even if that is true, in public policy, as in law, An action may appear to comply with the literal text of the rule but still challenge it or reject it because it violates the spirit and the purpose behind the rule. Finally, I ask the Commission to exercise leadership and the long-term version. Public expectations for a clean, safe and healthy neighborhood continue to rise. Communities across California are striving to improve environmental quality and protect the residents from the impact of industrial activity. Planning decisions should not be driven by short-term economic gains. They should be evaluated through the lens of future standards. The decision before you is about more than a warehouse. It is about a decision of Lake Forest. It is about the direction of Lake Forest and what kind of community we want to leave for our children and future residents. For reasons, I respectfully urge the commission to reject this proposal.

Thank you. Sharon Hu, followed by Fanren Zeng.

Good evening. My name is Sharon Hu. I'm not a professional speaker. I'm simply a retired resident who loves this community and wants to protect the peace, the place my husband and I choose as our forever home. Two years ago after retiring, We moved from San Jose to Lake Forest. We purchased a home in the Meadows community and choose to spend our retirement years here because of peaceful, environmental, beautiful neighborhoods and a strong sense of community. Every day we walk our dog, exercise with our neighbors, and enjoy the quiet lifestyle that Lake Forest offers. This is the place we applaud called home. When I moved here, I never imagined that one day I would need to stand a protest or stand before the planning community to speak out in order to protect the environment and the quality of life of our community. Building a large warehouse operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and allowing manufacturing activity directed adjacent to residential neighborhoods would be a harmful decision. The increased truck traffic, congestion, noisy, and air pollution would have a significant impact on the daily living and health of nearby residents. In addition, such a development could negatively affect the property value and leads to higher homeowners insurance cost, creating a long-term consequences for families who have invested their lifetime savings in this community. As you consider this proposal, I respectfully ask that you place the interests of residents above the short-term economic gains. The purpose of city planning should be to improve the quality of life for the people who live there, not to compromise it. The recent chemical leaking incident in Garden Grove should be served as a warning that industrial activities can bring risk that community must take seriously. We should do everything possible to prevent a similar situation from happening in Lake Forest. Please remember.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Fanyuan Zhang, and he has requested an interpreter, so you will get an additional three minutes for the translation.

Dear members of the commission and council, good afternoon. I am a resident of Lake Forest, the Meadows, and I am here today on behalf of our community to formally express our opposition to the proposed industrial warehouse project.

First and foremost, I must here state my statement of opposition. We oppose the approval of this project. This is not a rejection of the industrial use land use in principle.

It is because this project has substantive deficiencies across multiple critical dimensions, including zoning compliance, traffic capacity, environmental impact, and evidentiary completeness. It does not yet meet the conditions required for approval.

规划不一致。 开发商声称该地块属于工业小区, 但当前项目的实际运用能力已经远超工业范围的整个强度。 该项目涉及办公、 China China China China

Oppositions regarding zoning inconsistency. While the developer claims the site is zoned for industrial use, the actual operation scope of this project far exceeds the intensity anticipated under standard industrial zoning. The project involves a mixed combination of office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses. In particular, the manufacturing designation suggests that the potential future introduction of industrial processing heavy equipment and higher pollution lows creating a clear conflict with the existing residential zoning characteristics of the surrounding communities. We asked the Planning Commission to reassess whether this project is consistent with the current zoning ordinance and to clearly define the permitted scope of uses.

交通系統不具備存在能力 開發商交通評估存在嚴重的低谷 假設卡車的代數時間為15分鐘而實際情況可能超過30分鐘卡車進出距離住在不足100英尺而開發商說已經超過200英尺加州運輸區已經嚴格要求去彌補整個維度 君主 卡拉迪納等相關交通數據但開發商不曾在研究範圍內拒絕 regardless of the requirements of the traffic department, it has a programming defect itself. Before the complete application of traffic data, this project does not have the required conditions.

The developer's traffic studies contain serious underestimates. The reports assume truck idling time of only 15 minutes, when actual conditions may exceed 30. Truck ingress and ingress routes are less than 100 feet from residential walls, now the 200 feet claimed by the developer. Caltrain has formally requested supplemental traffic and bicycle lane data to Mention Road, Monarch Road, and Catalina Road, but the developer has refused to provide it. citing it is as outside the study scope. Disregarding the explicit request of the Responsible Transportation Authority is itself procedural deficiency. This project should not be approved until complete traffic data is submitted and independently reviewed.

Yes, the environment and living quality have been damaged for a long time. After the project is completed, the residents will face a continuous impact of a long period of four years, causing pollution, You can catch a doctor to teach you how to do this. That's that's awesome. So yeah, you get us. I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I don't believe it.

Long-term environmental and quality of life harm. Once built, residents will face decades of ongoing impacts. Noise pollution, 24-hour operations, truck backup alarms, and engine idling with nighttime noise projected to exceed 50 decibels will seriously disrupt sleep and health.

Air pollution, heavy diesel truck traffic will directly affect the respiratory health of children and elderly residents. Thank you.

The speaker wished to express strong OPPOSITION TOWARDS THE PROJECT AND END OF STATEMENT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. RUIN Z FOLLOWED BY LINDA GU AND AN INTERPRETER WAS REQUESTED FOR BOTH THESE SPEAKERS SO WE'LL ALLOW SIX MINUTES FOR EACH SPEAKER TO ALLOW FOR THE TRANSLATION. So it's Guwen Z followed by Linda Gu.

One of the critical issues concerning the planned enterprise warehouse project is the friction where city change and agriculture or nearby parcel into a massive residential community like the Meadow. without updating the adjacent industrial zoning is the widespread issue known in city planning as a zoning incompatibility or buffer failure. Historically, cities across the United States used traditional zoning, which kept the use completely separate. However, as the demand for logistics center search and city rapidly rapidly approved a new housing development many municipal municipality were forced to pass good neighbor ordinance mandatory downsizing a down zoning or specific industrial buffer law to correct the exact situation uh there are a couple of examples over here uh i incorporate the los angeles counties california the green zone ordinance the problem Decade of residential expansion pushed the new housing development directly against older light industrial and manufacturing parcels. The sensible correction in 2022 LA County enacted a green zone ordinance. It mandate in strict 500 foot protective buffer radius. Whenever a industrial zone sits next to a sensitive zone used such as a residential neighborhood. The buffer rule Any industrial facility operating within the 500-foot buffer is stripped off the by-right building privilege. They are subject to a mandatory conditional use permit, CUP. Severe building height caps, heavy tree landscaping screen, and a legal ban on heavy trucking operation between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. Another example is in Riverside, San Bernardino, County, California. Oh, I'm out of time. Okay. The above example applied to Lake Forest argument. The land use law residents, residents of the Meadow, the adjacent affordable senior living community and Baker Ranch example, et cetera, can argue that the city's past approval of the Toll Brothers residential master plan created a changed condition on the ground, on that ground. Because the city changed the agricultural nursery into a residential zone, the original light industrial designation of the Panasonic sites is no longer compatible with the surrounding. I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council deny the project or enforce a massive physical buffer setback, like a 500 or 1,000 feet from the property line of the meadow and any other adjacent

Thank you.

Linda Gu, followed by Sakini. Did you need an interpreter?

No, no need. Thank you. Dear honorable commissioners, I'm here to express my profound opposition to the proposed Enterprise Way warehouse development. This project represents a catastrophic zoning failure and introduces an unacceptable, unmitigated threat to the health, safety, and quality of life of thousands of local residents, including the seniors at the affordable housing complex within the Meadows and the families in the Lake Baker Range community. The final environment impact report fails to adequate adequately address a critical dimension of public safety, a complete lack of tenant transparency regarding hazard materials. A grave unmitigated flaw in this project is that it is to be built speculatively providing zero transparency or legal assurance regarding who the future tenant will be or what toxic volatile or dangerous materials will be handled, stored, or processed on site. This lack of foresight is terrifying in light of the May 2026 chemical crisis at the GKN Aerospace Facility in Garden Grove. Right here in Orange County, a single failure valve on a 34,000 gallon industrial tank, trickled an uncontrollable exothermic reaction. This forced the emergency evacuation of nearly 50,000 Orange County residents, displaced families over Memorial Day weekend, and required a massive multi-agency Hazmat response. If a similar chemical stabilization crisis, toxic leak or explosion hazard occurs at the Enterprise Way facility, thousands of seniors and the residents in the meadows, including the affordable senior living apartments and the Baker Ranch would have only minute to evacuate. The FERR does not account for the logistical impossibility of rapidly evacuating an adjacent mobility impaired senior community in the event of an industrial hazard disaster. The city cannot safely approve.

Thank you very much.

Sakini, followed by Angela Zing.

Good evening, planning commissar. My name is Sachin, and I'm speaking tonight not only for homeowner, but also as a board member representing many families and residents who are extremely concerned about this project. First, I want to say clearly we love this city. Many of choose the lake forest because it was known as a safe, family oriented community with neighborhood where people could raise children, walk outside safely, and enjoy good quality of life. We invest our life savings here because we trusted the city would continue protecting homeowner and residents. But tonight, many residents feel abandoned. This proposed industrial warehouse project is exactly the kind of development the homeowner fear. Massive industrial expanses pushed closer to residential communities while residents are left dealing with the consequences. These projects include 165 803 sq ft industrial buildings, truck loading operations, warehouse activity and significant truck traffic. Even the future trend is unknown today. Residents already know what comes with a project like this. Noise, pollution, traffic congestion, safety risk, and decelerating quality of life. The city talks about mitigation measures and intersection improvement, but homeowners are asking a simple question. Who is protecting the resident? Because from where we stand, it feels like developers always have representations, lawyer, consultant, traffic engineers, and city support, while homeowners are expected to accept whatever impact comes into our neighborhood. We keep hearing from economic benefits, but what about the families who already live here? What about the children who will breathe more pollution? What about the increased truck traffic near homes and schools? What about the residents who purchase the homes and believe this city would be prioritizing residential protections over industrial expansion? Approving projects like this without stronger protections sends the message that homeowner concerns come second. We are not against the growth. We are not against the business. But the growth without the balance destroys the reasons people won't live in this city in the first place. I urge to planning commissioner to slow this process down, damage stronger protections, require meaningful accountability, and truly listen to the residents who will live with the consequences longer after the developer are gone. Please remember, homeowner are not temporary stakeholder. We are the community. We pay tax here, raise family here, volunteer here, invest in the city for the long term We deserve to be protected.

Thank you.

Angela Zing followed by Aria Virgopia. Okay, Aria, Angela Zing is no longer here. So Aria Virgopia.

Good evening chair, commissioners and the city staff. My name is Aria Vagopia and I'm a resident of the Meadows community. Thank you for the opportunities to speak tonight. I respectfully asked to ask her the planning commission to reject the IPT enterprise business center project. Lake Forest did not become one of Orange County's most desirable cities by accident. by accident. It became what is today because generations of city leaders made thoughtful decisions that prioritize the families, neighborhoods, schools, safety and quality of life. Every land use decision shapes the future of our city. Some decisions are routine, others become defining moments. And I believe tonight is one of those moments. The question before you is not simply whether this project meets technical requirements. The larger question is what kind of city do we want Lake Forest to become? I do not believe this project represents the highest and best use of this property. The proposed development would place the warehouse industrial and the logistics-related activities immediately next to established high-quality residential neighborhoods. While these uses may generate some economic activity, they provide limited value to nearby residents and do little to enhance the quality of the life that has made Lake Forest such a desirable place to live. Land near residential communities is valuable and limited. Once it is converted to warehouse and industrial use, that opportunity may be lost for generations. This site could instead support uses that directly serve our community. educational programs, health care services, professional offices, innovation-oriented businesses, community facilities or other developments that create lasting value for residents and strengthen the future of our city. I'm also concerned about the long-term impact on nearby neighborhoods. Many families invested their life savings to purchase homes near this area because they believed they were joining a safe, healthy, and peaceful community. Warehouse operations, truck traffic, loading activities, noise, and emissions were inevitably affected the character of this neighborhood for decades to come. But ultimately, this decision is about something larger than traffic noises. Every city faces defining moments when leaders must decide not only what can be built, but what should be built. Years from now, residents may not remember the details of this hearing, and they may never know our names, but they will live with the consequences of the decision.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. May I make a correction to the timer and the light? I want to read a statement about that. When you come to the podium, the light will be green and you'll have two minutes. When the light changes from green to yellow, speakers actually will have one minute, not 30 seconds, to conclude their comment. And then when the light turns red is when your time has expired. So you do have three minutes, but if you want to kind of gauge where you're at when the light turns yellow, just know you have about one minute left. Our next speaker is Jim Chao, followed by Vivian Zhao.

Just a reminder, if you hear your name, please come up and line up behind the current speaker. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jim Zhao. Hi. Dear Chairman, Vice Chairman, and all commissioners, I come here, I wanted to speak my comment on the, there's an earlier presentation talking about noise level. I just checked as a background, I just checked the GDP I just checked the chat GDP, and here is the noise level we are talking about. For the regular box fan, the noise level is 60 to 70 dBA. For the hairdryer, the noise level it's 75 to 90 dBA. For the gas lawnmower, the noise level is 85 to 95 dBA. And in the presentation earlier, talking about the truck noise level is 49 dBA to 50-some dBA. It's incredible. I'm an engineer. I'm a retired engineer. I have a PhD degree in electrical engineering and I think When you're talking about such a low level of the noise level, you must be talking about something like the truck is kind of idling drive by the parking lot. It is not considered when you have a break or when you back up or when you speed up, the engine rolling through the parking lot. The noise level must be much higher and create a lot of the pollution. So I respectfully ask you guys to disapprove the project. Thank you.

Vivian Zhao followed by Sophia Zhu.

Honorable Planning Commissioners, good evening. My name is Vivian Zhao and I'm a resident of Meadows Community. I am here tonight to express my strong opposition to the proposed IPT Business Center warehouse project. Our area continues to grow with new residential communities. The land where Our neighborhoods now stand with one's agriculture and was intentionally planned for housing and family living. I don't know what's going on here. However, the property directly next to our community has long operated as an office building, not as a large industrial warehouse facility or even a manufacturer facility. And when families purchased homes here, raised children here, and invested in this community, they expected to live next to an office building, not next to a 24-hour warehouse operation. Now, while new homes continue to be built in this area, this project proposed converting an office campus into a large warehouse complex. This is not just a change in buildings. It is a major increase in land use intensity and a major change to the character of our community. If the city continues approve new residential neighborhoods while allowing office properties next to those neighborhoods to become high intensity warehouse facilities or even manufacturers, it creates a clear conflicts in planning directions. This is not just a building project. It is about the future of our community, our families, and quality of life of the residents that invested in decades. As far as I know, the nearby community like Baker Ranch is built up 20 years ago. First, the project will significantly increase truck traffic. That's everybody know. And also, I don't want to repeat those. And those are daily, hourly, 24 hour by seven. And this project create ongoing noise impact, of course. And I mean, by talking about 24 hour, that means 24 hour.

Thank you very much. Sorry.

Sophia Zhu followed by Tiger Zing. Okay, Sophia Zhu is no longer here, so we will go to Tiger Zing followed by Darren Shard.

Good evening. My name is Tiger and I live in the Meadows community. I speak here tonight because my family's safety, health, and peace of mind are in jeopardy under the proposed development projects on Enterprise Way. Growing up in the busiest part of Shanghai, China, our family knew exactly what it felt like to live in a city with unrestricted industrialism. I remember the dull morning sky, the silence from the lack of birds, the constant roar of truck engines in the street, and the unbearable traffic. Moving to America from that environment made it easy for us to fall in love with the tranquility of Lake Forest with its beautiful neighborhoods and clear roads. However, the proposed IPT Enterprise Business Center project would erase these qualities from our city. They will bring trucks, noise, and pollution in our daily lives. In a time where many are facing more stress than ever, This plan aims to take away the one place where we should always find peace, our homes. Passing this plan means turning our sanctuary into a shipping yard. I urge you to reject this project and keep Lake Forest the place we are proud to call home. Thank you.

Darren Shard, followed by Yuna Lee.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission and neighbors. My name is Darren Chard, and I'm standing here tonight speaking on behalf of our HOA community. We are standing here today because the final Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, for the purpose of a warehouse project adjacent to our homes leaves far too many critical questions unanswered. This massive industrial project is being built directly on top of established residential areas, including the meadows, residential neighborhood, and nearby senior housing. We are not just asking about abstract numbers on a page. We are talking about real-world livability of our neighborhood. We have several severe unresolved concerns that make this project in its current form entirely unacceptable. First, we are being asked to sign a blank check, as mentioned earlier. The city acknowledges that future tenants of these warehouses are completely unknown. Yet the EIR relies on guesswork, assuming best-case scenarios for truck volumes, operational intensity, and emissions, without knowing who will actually be a tenant in these buildings. Second, the EIR itself admits there will be significant and unavoidable impacts regarding the vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Also, they're like sharks circling a shark tank. We're going to be surrounded by semi-trucks 24-7 at intersections that will need to be improved or else deaths will occur. That's a guarantee. Even with the proposed mitigations, these impacts remain severe. keep our families and we shouldn't have to have our families bear the burden of environmental degradation for a project that the South Coast Air Quality Management District has already criticized for using flawed, unrealistic truck idling assumptions. Therefore, this project will permanently shatter our peace and quiet. The reality of the high intensity warehouse operations means round the clock noise, breaking trailer impacts, breaking alarms, heavy traffic happening just feet from where our children sleep and seniors rest. While perhaps most disappointing is the environmentally superior alternative existed, a reduced project alternative was identified, one that would have lessened the blow to our neighborhood. but is rejected purely for economic reasons. And today, we see two polarized sides to this event, this question of building. We see people who take profit and people who will suffer from it. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Yuna Lee, followed by Harrison Jeong.

Good evening, members of Planning Commission. My name is Yuna Lee, and I'm a 16-year-old high school student who lives in Lake Forest. I know there will be discussions tonight about environmental reports, zoning laws, and economic benefits. Those things are important, but I want to speak from a different perspective, the perspective of someone who will actually grow up with the consequences of this decision. When I think about my community, I don't think about industrial zones on a map. I think about the neighborhoods where families walk their dogs after dinner, where children ride their bikes, and where students like me go on walks to clear our minds after school, and where seniors should be able to enjoy a peaceful retirement. The proposed warehouse development would place massive industrial facilities directly next to residential neighborhoods. That raises serious concerns about increased truck traffic, noise, air pollution, and overall quality of life. What concerns me most is that many of the long-term impacts remain uncertain. We still do not know who the future tenants will be and exactly how these warehouses will operate. Yet residents are being asked to accept the risks now and accept the consequences later. As a student, I spent a lot of time thinking about the future. We are constantly told that our generation should care about sustainability, public health, and responsible planning. If that is true, then we should not approve projects that create significant environmental and community impacts without fully addressing those concerns first. This is not about being against economic development. Growth is important, jobs are important, but growth should not come at the expense of the people who already live there. A successful city is not measured only by how much development it can attract. It is measured by how well it protects the health, safety, and quality of life of its residents. I respectfully ask the Commission to put our community first. Carefully reconsider this project, require stronger protections for nearby neighborhoods, and ensure that the voices of residents are not overshadowed by the interests of large industrial developers. The decisions made today will affect Lake Forest for decades. My generation will inherit these decisions. Please make sure there are ones we can be proud of. Thank you for your time.

Harrison Xiong, followed by Bonnie Zeng.

Good evening, Chair and Planning Commissioners. My name is Harrison Xiong. I'm a resident of the Meadows at Lake Forest. where my family has lived for the past three and a half years. I want to make one thing very clear. I'm not against business. I'm not against the warehouse. I am against massive warehouses being built directly adjacent to residential homes. My message tonight is simple. No warehouse next to homes. Please protect our neighborhoods. The closest distance between the proposed IPD warehouse and the metal homes is approximately 85 feet, about the length of a basketball court. The proximity map clearly shows how close this warehouse will be to homes and senior housing. Please take a moment and imagine a 35 foot tall warehouse on the left side of this room and your home on the right side. where constant truck traffic, ingress and egress moving between them within 85 feet wide area. This is not a hypothetical scenario. This is the reality some Lake Forest family may soon face. Recently, my son came home from military academy. As we discussed these proposed warehouses, he began worrying about his mom, dad, and grandma. I told him to stay focused on his duty of protecting our country. But afterward, I found myself asking a simple question. Who is going to protect his family back home? That responsibility belongs to all of us. And tonight, it rests in large part with you, our commissioners. I'm very troubled that important questions remain unanswered. The future tenant is unknown. The final year of acknowledges significant and unavoidable traffic and greenhouse gas impacts and the air quality concerns raised by South Coast Air Quality Management District were never fully resolved. When important questions remain unanswered, we should choose to protect people, not warehouses. A proposed warehouse can be repurposed or relocated. An existing community cannot. I respectfully ask you to reject warehouse development immediately adjacent to homes and put people before warehouse profit. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bonnie Zong followed by Chao Wang.

Good evening, respected members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bonnie Zhang. I'm living at Meadows. I stand here today not only to speak for my own home, but also on behalf of thousands of neighboring households who are deeply concerned about our future. We are here to express our firm opposition to the proposed large-scale industrial warehouse project. We understand the cities must grow and develop. However, the development should never come at the cost of the residents' health, welfare, safety, and the fundamental quality of life. If approved, this project will bring three irreversible and damaging impacts to our community. First, it poses a serious threat to the safety of our children and the residents. A warehouse logistics facility will bring hundreds, if not thousands, of heavy-duty trucks into our neighborhood every day. The surrounding roads were originally designed for residential and office community, but now for high volumes of heavy truck traffic. Even more concerning, these routes run adjacent to our schools, parks, and everyday walking paths, forcing children, parents with strollers, seniors and workers, pedestrians to share roads with multi-ton trucks creates significant safety concerns and risks. We must not wait for tragedy to occur before questioning today's decision. Second, it will result in continuous industrial intrusion and noise disturbance. According to the project plan, the facility may operate 24-7. This means even late at night and in early morning hours, residents will be surrounded by energy noise, loading and unloading impacts, and backup alarms. For neighborhoods immediately agent to this industrial plan, this is not a temporary inconvenience, but a long-term disruption. Our homes are meant to be places of rest where families can recover and children can sleep and study in peace. Third, it will bring lasting air pollution and health risks. The recent chemical tank emergency garden growth is alarming to all the residents in Lake Forest as well. So this project may be financially beneficial to the city. However, if it's at the cost and the welfare of thousands of households surrounding it, quality for life of the residents are compromised, it should not be approved. The residents paid millions of dollars over years to move to Lake Forest, to enjoy the lake and the forest, but not a city of warehouse.

Thank you very much.

Chao Wang, followed by Weetian Zhu.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name's Chao. I'm a homeowner in the Meadows community. I have spoken at the public hearings and city council meetings multiple times since 2023 in strong opposition to this project, back when the developer tried to bypass proper scrutiny by getting it approved through a simple MND without an EIR. Tonight, I'm standing firmly to tell you that this final EIR is still obviously problematic. As I am aware, two planning commission members visited a home in our community right next to the project site a few months ago. Looking outside from a bedroom window, you were shocked by how close this manufacturing and warehouse project would actually be. It is unconscionable to approve a massive industrial facility less than 100 feet from residents' backyards, with heavy trucks operating 24-7 right outside their bedroom windows. The EIR claims all health and hazardous impacts are less than significant, while simultaneously admitting that future tenants is completely unknown. Logically, you cannot claim both. Under light industrial zoning, an unknown tenant can legally bring in highly hazardous operations, including high density lithium ion battery storage, plastic manufacturing, or chemical processing. Look at the recent massive warehouse fire in Ontario, chemical leak in Garden Grove just two weeks ago. No one can guarantee that a similar residential disaster won't happen here. Since the tenant is unidentified, the commission is obligated to evaluate the absolute worst case scenario of what could go there, not a sanitized best case guess. The EIR health risk assessment is also deeply flawed. It relies on a default assumption that heavy duty truck will only idle for 15 minutes, which is completely unrealistic for active logistics hubs. Even a minor underestimation means all residents, including our young kid and senior citizens, will be breathing in toxic air. With daily heavy truck trips forcing their way onto big parkway alongside with daily commuters, there's a total land use incompatibility. The area surrounding the meadows has flourished a lot over the past few years, attracting families moving in from different states and even different countries. Shoving a cluster of massive manufacturing plants and warehouses right in the middle of multiple major residential communities COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS THE DEVELOPMENT TREND OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST. IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THIS PROJECT, FULLY AWARE OF THIS FATAL FLAWTH AND DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION OF THE RESIDENTS IS A COMPLETE DISGARD OF PUBLIC SAFETY. SO PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS PROJECT. PLEASE PUT PLEASE DO NOT PUT DEVELOPER PROFITS OVER THE LIFE OF FAMILIES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WE TNZU FOLLOWED BY BINZU.

Good evening, Commissioner Chair and the city planning. Thank you for spending the evening. And I also want to thank the city attorney for the powerful question bring up initially. I'm going to say two messages. Make one request and leave two questions to the developers here and the city planning decision. While the EIR admits the VMT and the greenhouse gas impacts cannot be resolved. This is not a minor issue. It means the proposed project is expected to add transportation related harm that has identified mitigation measures cannot resolve to the desired level. Number two is the future tenant is unknown. But the operating risks depends heavily on these future tenants. This uncertainty matters. Different tenants may create very different impacts. My question is how can the city confidently approve the project before even know the tenants and actual traffic patterns and volumes? Also, I would thank Michael and Jordan last year visited one of the residential house, standing right on their porch facing the potential, imagine that, you know, giant tentacle monster warehouse building. My request is if you two could share the life, what's going through your mind with other three commissioners, I think that will impact. Well, thank you. Then the final, I've got two questions. Well, my number one question is, warehouse is a warehouse. Let's imagine just bring maybe AI data centers or the chip line. Lake Forest needs leave the Southern California. So the first question is really, I would ask any senior executive or board members from IPT or MA

Excuse me, sir. Can you direct your comments? Yeah.

Are they willing to live in the meadows, the senior executives and board members from IPT and MOC? That's my number one question. Number two question is also they mentioned about they build a lot of warehouse projects in Southern California and even across the globe. Do they have the data, really, they have one-fifth or 20% of warehouse projects which is 100 feet away from the residential?

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Ben Zhu followed by Zhuying Zhu.

My name is Bin Zhou. I'm speaking on behalf of many residents from the surrounding community who are deeply concerned about the proposed APT industry project. In the first, I wanted to show someone, you know, the online petition. It's upset that they stopped this project. 1,236 people to sign. So all the detail is already sent by email, sent to all of you, the member of the commission. So you should receive this one. Okay, I respectfully ask the Commission not to approve this project until a more comprehensive transportation and independent environment review has been completed. Our concerns are not about the traditional industry zone, rather they are about the reality of the modern industry project in its operation. 24 hours activity, heavy traffic, night time noise, air pollution, house impact, and the community effect of the multiple industry project located near the residential community such as the Meadows. Residents have raised the concern about the track routing management path within less than 100 feet of the residential community wall, instead of addressing the traffic routines. The development is responsible for the discussion of the distance between the loading docks and the nearby houses. There are Two different issues under legislation concern remained unanswered. The future tenants of this project remained unknown, yet the development claim that all environment risk has already been fully analyzed. If future operation, manufacture activity, chemical usage, and the storage concern are still unknown, how can the public be different? That risk assessment is truly completed. So we respectfully urging the commission before making the final decision. Thank you.

Su Ying Zhu, followed by Shu Hua Du. And do you need an interpreter?

Yeah, I read the English.

Okay, if we can have our interpreter come to the podium and you'll get an extra three minutes for the translation.

Okay, thank you. Good evening. My name is Xiuying Zhou. I'm a resident of the Meadows. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd like to respectfully express my opposition to the Purpose Warehouse project. My home is directly next to the purpose side. We are separated by only one wall. Because of this, my family would be among the residents most directly affected. My husband and I chose this home because it was quiet, safe, and felt like a special neighborhood. The homes have large yards, the streets are peaceful, and we truly hoped this would be our long-term home where we could grow older. We have spent a great deal of time and care creating our home and backyard because we believed this would be our forever home. When we first moved here, almost every home on our street are unoccupied. Neighborhoods knew each other and there was a strong sense of community. Over the years, we sadly watched neighbors leave one by one. Some homes were sold and others became renters. Some families loved this neighborhood but moved farther away within the community just to be farther from the warehouse area. Today, very few of the original home owners remain. We are deeply concerned this project will continue to change the neighbourhood we love. I'm also very concerned about the direct impact of the warehouse, truck traffic, loading and unloading noise, backup alarm, diesel exhaust, and the bright light from a possible 24-hour operation, because our home is right next to the site. These impacts would directly affect our home, our backyard, our sleep, and our daily quality of life. If this project moves forward, my husband and I may also have to consider leaving the home we planned to stay in long term. That would be heartbreaking for us. I respectfully ask you to consider this purpose. Thank you for your time.

Shu Hua Du followed by Ziyu Kai. And did you need an interpreter? Okay, we'll have an interpreter.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am a resident of Lake Forest in Burnwood.

Dear honorable committee members, distinguished guests, good evening. I am a resident of 321 Burwood Lake Forest.

我的住宅于本次规划新建的仓库地块仅有一墙之隔,是受该项目影响最直接的住户之一。

My house and this development project has only one wall between them. I am one of the most affected resident in the area.

三年前我们选择定居在Lake Forest, 选择这片社区是因为向往这里安宁祥和的居住环境。

Many years ago, we chose this place in Lake Forest for its harmonious, quiet, friendly living environment.

We put our heart and soul into this home, we made up everything ourselves, and we clean out the yard using our own two hands. We hoped to live out a harmonious and peaceful life here in this community with our families.

It's a home that we put everything in and it's somewhere we wish to stay for as long as we could.

When we heard about the massive warehouse development project, our hearts were filled with fear and concerns. First of all, the noise of day after day and traffic disturbances, large trucks and trucks coming and going without interruption, the sound of the engine, the sound of the traffic alarm, will disturb our lives day and night.

To start, there is the constant day after day's noise and traffic concerns. Large trucks coming in and out of the project, the deafening sound of the engines and the backup alarm will absolutely wreck our everyday lives.

It will completely destroy our peaceful lives before.

Whereas the roads nearby were to service its people in the community as before, afterwards, after the development project, massive amounts of trucks will go in and out of this project. For the elderlies and the children nearby, their safety cannot be guaranteed.

And the most difficult thing for us to do is the major safety risk. There is no safe space in the warehouse. If the warehouse stores dangerous chemicals in the future, once an accident, fire, explosion, toxic material leakage and other accidents occur, it will be the first time to intercept our accommodation. It threatens the safety of the whole family and the entire community's life and property. The distance between the walls and the walls cannot accommodate any accident.

What's the most concerning is that we are feet away from an absolute threat to our safety. There is no buffer zone between the residential areas and the development project. In the future, if the storehouses were to use for dangerous substances, chemicals, explosives and there were to be an accident we are only one wall away and we will be the first ones to be affected by the accident we cannot tolerate any and all risks

我们只是平凡的居民,所求从不多,不过是一份居家的安全与人身的安全。 安宁,我们深爱现在的生活,舍不得这个亲手打造的家,更不愿朝夕生活在危险与喧嚣之中。

We are but ordinary residences. We never demanded much. It's just a peace of mind and safety for our families. We cannot see to the homes that we've put our heart and soul into to be destroyed by the constant noise and danger.

Thank you.

At this point, I would like for the honorable members of the committee to reconsider our fears and our concerns to protect the quality of life and the safety of this residential area. Please oppose to the warehouses development project. Please protect our home, protect Lake Forest, and please be opposed to the project. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Ziayu Cai, followed by David Sun.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Lucy, and I am a high school student living in Lake Forest. I am not an engineer, a lawyer, or an environmental consultant. I am simply one of the younger generation who will be affected by the decision you make tonight. When this project is discussed, There is a lot of conversation about traffic studies, air quality reports, and mitigation measures. Those topics are important, but for students like me, this project is also about something very simple. It is about the community which we live in. It is about the air we breathe and the streets we walk and the neighborhoods where we spend our childhood. Adults often say that younger people are the future. If that is true, the future is represented in this room tonight. Students like me will live with the consequences of this decision for many years. Developers may complete this project and move on, but impact of this project will remain in our community long after that. That is why I hope the commissioner will carefully consider not only the economical benefit of this project, but also its longer term impact on the families and students we call Lake Forest Home. Tonight's decision is not only about a warehouse, it is also about the kind of community Lake Forest will be for the next generation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

David Sun followed by Tom Kazarian. David Sun. Okay, we'll go back to that person. Tom Kazarian, followed by Wee Dong Zhao.

Good evening, commissioners. Appreciate the time. My name is Tom Kazarian, a local South Orange County resident, husband to a family that has had multiple businesses. in the area, and I just want to appreciate your first comments about property rights and the ability for property rights to, when there's zoning issues adjacent, that there's mitigations in place and appreciate the presentation from staff and the applicant as they ironed out and laid out the mitigants associated with the combination of the two properties. I encourage you to support this project, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Wee Dong Zhao, followed by Diana Lees. Oh, and did you need an interpreter? Okay, we'll give you an extra three minutes for the translation.

Hello, everyone. My name is Wee Dong Zhao. I live in Meadows.

你这个warehouse就150英尺的距离。 Dear Honorable Committee Members, Hello, my name is Victor Lee Dong Chao. I am living in Meadows Redwood Burwood, less than 150 feet from the warehouse. 今天晚上我站在这里,以沙哑的声音恳请各位否决这个 在我們駐紮區牆外建設這個倉庫的議案。 I am standing here today to allow everyone to reconsider the development plans as we've proposed about the warehouse.

我曾經是一位癌症病人,所以我非常清楚健康和安全,安靜的環境對一個家庭意味著什麼。

I am a cancer survivor, so I am very vividly clear about the quietness of the environment and what does it mean for a family.

而且在我的家里,我的小儿子还是一个特殊儿童, 他对声音和气味极其敏感, 甚至家里有吸尘界声音,他都会很紧张地捂着耳朵很焦虑。

In my family, there's also a special need kid. He is very sensitive to noise and smells. He's even afraid of the sound coming from the vacuum cleaners. When he hears it, he would feel scared.

当初我们耗尽一生的积蓄买房子时, 特意选择了包屋最里面靠围墙最边边的一排房子。 Because of this, we waited for a year and a half. We thought this was a peaceful and quiet office. It was the quietest, safest and most suitable place for children to grow up.

When we first decided to buy the house, when we poured all of our savings into that house, we chose a very interior place right next to the wall to be away from all the noise. Because of that, we waited a year and a half. We thought that would be the safest, quietest, and the best place for our kids to grow.

Why?

Not after three months did we hear the news that there will be a big mega warehouse right next to our home. Why?

Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan

Why would you plan this in the first place? Why would you allow for such a development to exist when there are innocent buyers such as myself with families to withstand the responsibility and the consequences of such a warehouse?

我的喉嚨做過手術 所以聲音有點嘶啞 所以有點嘶啞 當我憤怒和緊張聲音有點大 我並不是不尊重你們 而是我感到很憤怒 很不好意思

I have surgeries done on my throat, so please forgive me if my tone of voice reflects that of an angry person. I'm really trying to be respectful here, so please forgive me.

而這個EIR報告已經承認, 這個項目確實會造成重大不可避免的環境影響, 包括空氣、交通等等這些, 我就不再重複了。 但是我認為, As an ordinary resident, as a resident who has such a good impression of Shining Lake, I sincerely hope that the city government and all the committee members will not only consider the economic factors, but also consider the safety of the living conditions and the safety of life and property of the residents.

And the EIR has already admitted to the irreversible and irreplaceable effect of the warehouse being there. Now, I won't repeat all the factors that was included in the EIR since it's already been mentioned. But please, the committee members here today, please think about this. Make sure that you consider not only the economical benefits, but the sacrifices that our innocent bystanders have to make in order for this development project to happen. So please reconsider this project.

The reason why I moved to Lake Fort Worth is because the city planning environment of Lake Fort Worth attracted me.

The reason why I moved to Lake Forest in the first place is because it's a serene environment. That's what attracted me here in the first place. Thank you.

Diana Lees followed by Jimmy Elrod.

Good evening. My name's Diana Lees coming from the Meadow community. I'm here tonight to strongly oppose the proposed warehouse. Actually, it's only today that I got to know it is a manufacturer. Development adjacent to our neighborhoods. From the beginning, this was the wrong project in the wrong location. Why the wrong project? because this is not a small commercial building. It is a 35 foot tall industrial manufactured warehouse with the first one with 23 loading docks operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will bring 70 foot long, 16 wheels, semi-truck trailer in and out on the residential street. will bring traffic noise diesel emissions and air pollution into the heart of our community why the wrong location because this warehouse would sit among lake forest largest residential communities including baker ranch 10,000 residents, the Meadows over 3,500, Serrano Summit over 1,500. This is not an industrial district. This is where family lives, children play, and neighbors build their lives. Recent events remind us why industrial risks matter. A chemical leak in Garden Grove forced the evacuation of thousands of residents. An explosion at a paper packaging mill in Washington state claimed 11 lives. California government is going to issue a ban on courts countertop fabrication because its material particles have caused 586 lung cancer patients. While no one can predict a specific incident, these events remind us that industrial operations that carry risks should be kept as far away from homes as possible. No one can predict this warehouse setup could become a second garden growth chemical leaking. No one can guarantee its operation if the particles and the chemicals will not explode and will not increase the rate of cancer patients and incurable diseases. But one thing is for sure, this warehouse in a condensed residential community carries

Thank you very much. Ma'am? Ma'am, excuse me. I'm sorry, but your time is up. No, no more minute. Ma'am, I'm sorry. I can't give you another minute. It would be unfair. Thank you so much for your comments.

Jimmy Elrod, followed by Jesse Torres.

State's Regional Council of Carpenters. Our regional council represents tens of thousands of highly skilled men and women including residents right here in the beautiful city of Lake Forest. I'm speaking tonight in strong support of the IPT enterprise business and our project. This project represents a major investment in the city but most importantly it represents good paying local jobs. I'm proud to share that the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters has reached an agreement with the developer. This partnership guarantees that the project will utilize highly skilled and trade local labor by partnering with local labor. The developer ensures this project directly benefits the community. It means local construction workers will earn family supporting wages. secure health care, good benefits, and a safe working environment. And with respect to the residents opposed to the project, the developer has proven its commitment to being a responsible corporate partner by investing directly in the local workforce and in the community. So on behalf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, urge the Planning Commission to vote yes and approve this project. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Jesse Torres followed by Liping Wang.

All right, good evening, Chairman and member of the Planning Commission. My name is Jesse Torres. I am a local resident and proud bank file member of the Carpenter Union. I'm here tonight to ask you to vote yes on the IPT Enterprise Business Center project. For my fellow union carpenters and me, this project is about one thing, the opportunity to earn a good living close to home. Our council has reached an agreement with the developer. This means highly trained local workers will build this project. When you approve such a project, you support local working families. It means we get good family supporting wages to pay our bills, strong healthcare to protect and care for our families, and safe job sites so we can return home safely every day. As a carpenter, I know the pride that goes into building in our community. This project replaces a vacant building with a modern facility using the best trained workforce in the region. The developer is doing the right thing by investing in local workers. I ask you to do the right thing by working with families and vote yes to approve these projects. Thank you for your time. Have a good night. Thank you.

LIPING WEN, FOLLOWED BY CONNIE DING.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIRS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LIPING WEN, AND I'M HERE, I'M A RESIDENT OF THE MEADOWS, AND I'M HERE TONIGHT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE REGARDING THE IPT ENTERPRISE BUSINESS CENTER. They are trying to blush off our concerns with complicated technical language, but it clearly has obvious, it clearly has dangerous flaws. They completely failed to evaluate commutative impacts. There are three industry projects proposed for that area that develop only has refused to present a combined data model show the true compounding impact of the truck traffic noise and the toxic emissions surrounding our neighborhood. They even flatly rejected the car transit expert recommendations to expand the traffic assessments to a nearby area, like Dimension Drive, Monarch, and Catalina, declaring them outside the study's scope. That is not a comprehensive review. That is a willful blindness. Just last week in Garden Globe, we saw the terrible reality of what happened where the industry operations are mixed blindly next to the homes, forcing 50,000 people to evacuate due to an unstable chemical tank. The IPT project explicitly leaves the door open for heavy manufacturing and the complex Machinery, not just clean warehouse. We don't know what they store in that warehouse. Is chemical, explosive stuff? We don't know. We're really concerned about that. We urge the community member and the chair to look past these corporation loopholes. Protect our families. and rejected this project. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Connie Ding, followed by Manuel Darz. And did you need an interpreter? No. No.

Honorable Planning Honorable Planning Commissioners, my name is Connie Ding. I am a resident of the Meadows community. The EIR concludes that even the reduced 25% alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Despite this, the applicant continues to pursue the original project design. This raises a core concern. If impacts remain significant even after reduction, is this level of industry activity appropriate so close to existing homes? Second, several regulatory agencies raised technical concerns that were not fully resolved. AQMD identified issues in the air quality molding and cauldrons requested additional transportation analysis. These concerns were not fully incorporated into the final EIR, leaving questions about whether the environmental review is complete and reliable. Third, the truck trip analysis relies on industrial average rather than enforceable limits. There are no binding capes. On total truck trips, peak hour activity on nighttime operations. As a result, actual impacts may greatly exceed the EIR exemptions. Fourth, the impact of tracks extends beyond loading docks. Residents will experience ongoing effects including circulation, queuing, idling, backup alarms, fog leave activity, and nighttime operations. These are continuous operational impacts affecting daily residential life. Finally, this project is not isolated. Combined with the nearby western RICO development, cumulative impacts on traffic, air quality, noise, and the public health will be significantly greater for the Meadows community. Approving the project without enforceable limits transfers future risks and uncertainty to residents. I respectively request that commission consider legally binding conditions including limits on truck trips, restrictions on nighttime operations and enforceable operational controls. Without these safeguards, The analysis remains based on assumptions rather than real world operations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Manuel Daz, followed by Sanchita Daz. Manuel Diaz. Sanchita Daz. Erin Cai, followed by Mei Cai. Aaron Cai, C-A-I. Mei Cai. Okay, we'll have an interpreter for you, so you'll get twice the allotted time, so we'll give you six minutes.

Honorable members of the committee, my name is May. I am a member of the metals community. Throughout my careers, I've always been involved with management work, especially with the environmental impact reports, such as this one.

I am painfully aware of the long-term impact that warehouse such as this one will have on its immediate surroundings. To start, I am not against developing businesses.

I understand the need to create value with this land.

With the current supply and demand curves, I completely understand the need to develop such a piece of project. That's why I believe today's question should be a matter of how rather than whether or not to do it. Because the immediate surrounding land had already been flipped upside down in terms of development.

This piece of land used to be open land, agricultural use land, or even industrial land.

But today, this is one of the key residential areas of Lake Forest. The meadows, the back ranch,

Metals along with other residential development contained a mass number of residential families.

They've spent their life savings into this house to raise their kids here and to settle down here. Since the city has already marked this place as a residential area, we should no longer apply the old standards of industrial development to today's world. As someone in the industry, I must tell you that these effects are cumulative and not done by one or two projects. Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. We just doubled the time. I did. I missed it.

Trucks, light pollutions, noise pollutions, environmental impacts, all of these factors will contribute to the damage in livelihoods of the surrounding residential areas.

Traffic is also a concern. Big Parkway enterprise was already serving the community in a very significant way. This was not designed for the industrial use that is planned in the project.

More importantly, we need to think about what kind of a city that Lake Forest is to become.

When you hear Lake Forest, you think about nature and you think about family.

For years, this city had dedicated itself to form the image of a residentially and family-friendly community to help families thrive.

We're not an undeveloped area that needs to rely on industrial growth to prop up our communities.

We're in one of the most innovative and economically strong areas in the entire world, Southern California.

Our core competitiveness doesn't come from warehouses. It comes from the people living in it who are willing to drive the economy. To put an industrial warehouse in an area that prides itself on quality residences will hurt not only the immediate environment but also taxation and housing prices in the future. A city's success should not base itself on short-term gains, but to base itself on the stakeholders who have put their life savings into this piece of land. Thank you very much.

Chris Dankas, followed by Jin Yi Sun.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Chris Dankas. I'm a proud member of UA Local 582 representing the plumbers and pipefitters. We're here today to support the IPT Enterprise Business Center and to ask you to say yes when voting today. It is estimated that this project will create 150 to 200 construction jobs and 50 to 100 full-time long-term jobs. And this developer has chosen to support the local economy by hiring from local skilled workforce. Our men and women will build this project that will have the superior water efficiency and will be utilizing reclaimed water. All of this together means that our members have guarantees that our children, our families will be taken care of, have medical benefits, and a prosperous life ahead of them, all while creating the highest quality project possible. The community's basic economic needs will be supported, and members of Local 582 stand behind this project, and we ask that you guys say yes today. Thank you for your time.

Jinyi Sun, followed by Jian Wei.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ginny Sun and I'm also a resident at the Meadows. I'm here today to oppose the approval of the IPT project. My experiences as a law student right now and a current law clerk at the OC public defender's office has taught me something very important. And that is when decision makers have the power over people's lives, the question is not only can we legally do this, The question must also be who will carry the burden if we were wrong. So tonight I'm asking you to think carefully about that burden. First I want to say that I stand with the heartfelt concerns already expressed by my fellow residents and I share their concerns about everything that they mentioned. But rather than repeating every concern in detail I want to focus on the decision before you and your responsibility that come with it. This is not just a technical land use vote. This is a judgment call about whether the city should place a larger industrial project next to the homes of the people who already live here. I understand that the city has planning documents, technical reports, and legal standard that it has to consider. But I'm asking you not to let the technical compliance replace common sense. A project can fit inside the zoning label, and still be wrong for the people who live next to it. So tonight I respectfully ask you do not approve this project as proposed. Do not certify a plan that leaves this much uncertainty this much cumulative impact as mentioned before and this much burden on the community that sits behind me. At the bare minimum require a revised and complete review. actual and enforceable limits on the operations stronger protection and less unpredictability for the nearby residents and a real alternative that is compatible with the house already there lastly i want to respectfully remind you commissioners please do not allow the city to simply rely on a legal jargon like overriding considerations to override the lives of the people who trust the city to protect them. And please protect Lake Forest, not just as a place for project, but also as a place for people. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jian Wei, followed by Randy Wetmore.

Uh, good evening commissioners. My name is Jane way and I live in the Meadows community in Lake forest near the proposed warehouse project. I'm here tonight because many residents are deeply concerned about converting this office property into a 24 hour warehouse. and light industry operation so close to homes and families. This proposal includes up to 50-ish truck loading docks operating day and night less than 100 meters from a residential community. This is not a minor change in land use. An office building typically has daytime commuter traffic, a warehouse, can operate continuously with free movement around the clock. It is a fundamental transformation of the environment we live in every day. I did a Google search on what's the definition of light industrial operations. It says, light industrial operations generally means business activities that are supposed to have lower impacts than heavy manufacturing. Typical examples include warehousing and distribution, logistics and fulfillment centers, packaging and assembly, printing shops, food processing, contractor yards, research labs, small manufacturing, and e-commerce shipping hubs. The problem is the term often focus on what happens inside the building, not necessarily the external impacts on nearby residents. A warehouse with 50-ish loading docks can technically qualify as light industrial, even if it creates continuous truck traffic, diesel emissions, backup alarms, overnight loading operations, vibrations and noise, bright lightnings, traffic conjectures. So light industrial does not automatically mean low impact. Future tenant uncertainty is another major concern. Upon approval for warehouse light industry use, future tenants may change over time. Residents can often initially hear, oh, it will be quiet. But after entitlement approval, the actual tenants could later include regional distribution hubs, cold storage operations, last mile delivery centers. Those can significantly intensify the operations beyond what residents initially expected. There's also the border issue of compatibility. Residents choose to live in this community expecting a reasonable buffer between residential neighborhoods and heavy commercial logistic activity. An office building and a 24 hour warehouse are not equivalent to use. The impact on surrounding homes, property values, the quality of life.

Thank you very much.

Randy wet more followed by Alex wing.

Good evening commissioners Randy wet more iron workers local for 16. I'm here in support of this project. This is you know not going to be around Bush everyone here that's in sports and say the same thing. This is actually going to put members to work. We've built similar projects to this. I think. 99, I think I actually built this one, this originally. So we're just replacing something that we've already built once with something bigger, better, more modern. Not only is it we're gonna be building that, it's gonna give opportunity for residents to work locally too. So I urge your support on this and say yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alex Wang, followed by Kathy Liu. Alex Wang. All right, Kathy Liu, followed by Ella Zing.

Already started? Yes. Good evening, Chair and the Planning Commissioners. My name's Alex. I'm a taxpayer, a voter, and a Lake Forest resident. I'm here to respectfully ask you to reject this warehouse project. In this ERR, the applicant didn't specify who's the tenant and how this warehouse will be used. Therefore, all of the data on impacts are based on assumptions. However, I have firsthand data on noise. In 2020, during the pandemic, I moved to a community 400 feet away from the nursery where seven heavy trucks were operating during the day. Engine noise, back home alarms created this never ending cycle of noise, very similar to the warehouse scenario. My neighbors described the operations as endless earthquakes. I was then diagnosed of neurological diseases. I will not go over the medical terminologies. To put it simple, I can't feel the sound waves. You heard me right. I gained a superpower from noise pollution. I have to live it forever. As disclosed in the ERR, the massive large-scale project will bring even more traffic, more noise, more pollution, more risk. I heard this gentleman representing the applicant that they will attract higher-end tenants. I will ask a simple question. Is higher-end or high-tech equivalent to safety? We recently saw what happened in Garden Grove. It is an aerospace manufacturing facility. Is it high-end enough? Yet the chemical leak forced the evacuation of entire neighborhoods. The impacts are not theoretical. They are real. The developer is making an investment here. We are building our lives here. They do not leave here, we do. They do not sleep here, we do. They do not raise families here, we do. If this project succeeds, they profit. If this project harms the community, we pay the price. We live with the traffic. We live with the noise. We live with the pollution. We live with the consequences, not them. This is not a fair deal. If I may ask you one question. If the warehouse were built next to your home, would you accept it? If not, why should we? Please. Please. Sorry, I have a medical condition. I ask you respectfully to reject this development permit.

Deny the certification of the EIR. Thank you.

Kathy Liu, followed by Ella Zeng.

I'm not here tonight as an expert or a lobbyist. I'm here as a member of a family that lives in this neighborhood, in a home that sits just one wall away from where this warehouse will be built. I want to tell you why we chose this poem in the first place. We have elderly family members who need peace and quiet. So we looked for somewhere calm. We chose this row of houses for one specific reason. There were no neighbors behind us. The community was beautiful, the air was clean, and felt like the kind of place where our family could finally rest. Now, inside of peace, my family lives with worry. Worry about the air we breathe, worry about the traffic and safety on our streets, and worry about the noise. What constant noise would do to our minds and our health? And I think about what just happened days ago. Right here in Orange County, tens of thousands of neighbors were forced from their homes as crews fought to keep a chemical tank from exploding in what officials called one of the worst chemical incidents in the state's history. I watched and I thought, that could be us. Because when a warehouse is just one wall from our bedrooms, a fire or chemical release stops being a story on the news. It becomes a thing in our backyard. And if it happens, we will have seconds, not minutes. Commissioners, no one is asking the cities to stop growing We are asking you not to grow at the expense of the families who already live here A warehouse belongs in a real industrial corridor not placed against the wall of an occupied home where elderly people are trying to rest So I respectfully ask you tonight to reject this project Once a neighborhood like ours is changed it cannot be changed back Please stand with the families who live here. Thank you very much.

Ella Zhang, followed by Kai Mark Zong.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ella and I'm a resident of this community. I strongly oppose this warehouse project. Our neighborhood is designed for families, schools, and local residents, not for a constant flow of heavy truck traffic. More warehouses will bring more congestion, more noise, and greater safety risk for children, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles. Many of us chose to live here because this is a residential community. We invested our savings and built our lives here with the expectation that the city would protect that visitor, that vision. So this project may benefit developers, but the long-term impacts will be felt by the people who actually live here every day. I respectfully ask the commission to put residents first and reject this project, and thank you.

Thank you.

Kai Mark Zong followed by Aaron Kai.

Good evening everyone. Right now it's 9.39 p.m. and it's my daughter's sleep time. Now imagine if you approve this project, this is going to be what you'll be getting. Sorry, my phone is not playing or this is not. Anyway, this is the noise that happens at night right now from a very far distance and I can still hear it very clearly. Imagine that this noise is amplified by 30 times, 40 times, even 100 times, the whole family will be woken up. So I'm telling you, this is a very bad project. It's a very, very bad project. They want to call it redevelopment? Absolutely no. This is big money bullying families and children. And let's be clear about who is asking for approval. Mark Logistics? Well, who is behind them? Eris. Violation Tracker lists Ares Management and companies currently under its parent umbrella with 89 penalty records, totaling about almost $30 million since 2000. Those records include wage and hour violations, workplace safety violations, environmental violations, hazardous waste violations, air pollution violations, consumer protection violations, and most importantly, false claim matters. Now this is not some harmless local neighbor or your mom and pop shop. This is big institutional money asking Lake Forest for entitlement money. And I can even, they are touting long-term plan with the community and outreach of the community. But what I see is a property listing by Cushman and Wakefield on the internet touting a brand new 2027 built 190,000 square feet warehouse being listed for sale. What is that? What kind of long-term plan is that on Enterprise Way? Really? Really? That's the long-term plan? Commissioner Fonte and Lewton, you have both been here for many, many years. You are part of Lake Forest's glory history. So please do not destroy your heart-built legacy. Commissioner Standard, Grable, and Wheelwork, the future of Lake Worth is also in your hands. So please do not destroy our future and the next generation. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Aaron Kai followed by Jason Baez.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Aaron. I'm a resident of the Meadows. I'm not here tonight. because I oppose the business or development. I'm here because I care deeply about the future of the community, my family call home. The question before the commission tonight is not whether development should happen. The question is that whether this particular project reflects the character and vision of Lake Forest. My opinion, it does not. A warehouse may be good for business, but it does not belong in the heart of the family-oriented community. What this project brings is more truck traffic, more noise, more air pollution, and more pressure of potential security risks on the surrounding residential communities. I understand that economic development is important. I understand that the city needs jobs and revenue, but good planning is not about choosing short-term revenue over long-term prosperity. The project may generate some tax revenue, but Lake Forest's strongest economic foundation is its high-quality residential community.

may respond after the problem occurs, but they do not answer the planning question before you tonight. Should this broad industrial warehouse manufacturing entitlement be approved immediately next to homes? The question before you is not only whether future tenants can comply with the minimal regulations. The question is whether the city should approve a broad industrial entitlement immediately next to residential homes when the future tenants are still unknown and the hazardous material storage or use has not been ruled out. Regulatory compliance is a floor. It is not a replacement of project-specific enforceable conditions. A warehouse or industrial project next to homes creates a different level of risk than the same project rotated away from homes. The risk may be low probability-wise, but the consequence can be extremely serious. when the facility is so close to homes, children, and the seniors. We are not saying that accidents are guaranteed to happen. We are just saying the risk is reasonably foreseeable. That is not speculation. That is a project.

Thank you very much.

Lu Lin.

Good evening, my name's Lu Ling. I have been living in Lake Forest for over 10 years. First at Baker Ranch, now in Meadows. I'm a housewife. My life is very simple. Have a good night's sleep and wake up to doing my houseworks, waiting my son and my husband safely come back home for dinner. I respectfully to ask you consider to reject this proposed warehouse project because I live in the street next to the future warehouse and I'm ask myself, If this warehouse built, could I have a full night's sleep with this 24 hours operation warehouse? And the next morning when I wake up, I like open my door and open my window, sorry, to have a fresh air. Could I continue open my window for fresh air because of pollution? And so I worried my son and my husband are safe on the way to work, on the way to school, and back to home because the traffic. And you, I'm sure, are wife, mom, and husband. For you as husband, do you want your wife worry about you, worry about your son? As a simple housewife, I'm respectful to ask you to reject this project. I saw many construction workers stand up to speak, to build this project, to support, TO CREATE A JOB TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILY. I UNDERSTAND. BUT THEY BUILD A FUTURE PROJECT ON A PROPER LOCATION, NOT NEXT TO THE RESIDENCE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO RECALL THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT ANSWER EARLIER JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT HERE. DAVID'S SON. SANCHITA DAS. Manuel Das, Mawal Dars. That concludes public comment.

Thank you very much. Do any members of the commission have any questions or comments for discussion? Commissioner Fuentes? Oh, he spoke.

Respond back to rebuttal. He has a right to rebuttal.

sure would you like to come up and speak or now or would you like to have the questions whatever you prefer yeah i just have one comment i'd like to clarify for the record one gentleman mentioned cushman had our building listed for sale that is not in fact our property so i'd like to clarify that thank you perfect thank you commissioner fuentes

okay well thank you very much everybody for showing up tonight and sharing um i have a question regarding noise um i'm so sorry excuse me chair i just want to make sure that you close the public hearing thank you can we close the public hearing please okay

No, I do it. Sorry.

Before you close, am I able to speak once more?

You'll have the opportunity to speak. Again, I'm sure when you're up here, if questions are asked of you. Thank you. Thank you.

So I'm two.

spent a lot of savings to buy my home, and my backyard faces an intersection, and over the years, our city has grown, and in fact, the Meadows is a part of that growth, and thousands of residents have come after I purchased my home. The Sounds to me like you're the developer is proposing to build a 16-foot wall When the traffic grew by my home, nobody built me a wall. I had to build my own. I started with a split rail fence, and I now have a six foot block wall. But it mitigates some of the noise, but not all. But I bought the house, I raised my children in the house, and I love my house. And I have just figured out how to deal with the noise. i i have learned during this process that there's a legal term and it's called it says i came to the nuisance in other words i bought a home with an intersection in my backyard which would be called the nuisance and i came to it it didn't come to me and i i liken maybe what you did when you bought at the meadows is you too came to a nuisance just like I did. And nobody's coming to my rescue and I think that we have to remember that the my noise has grown and maybe there's industrial projects that you're next to that are gonna change. So with that, I would just like to ask the developer what they are doing to mitigate noise on this project away from the Meadows project, the development.

And Chair Stannard. Yes. If I may, on a procedural matter, this is published on our agenda that the procedure is accept public testimony, then commission comments and questions, and then close the public hearing.

So I just want to clarify that these comments that the comments and even able to store hazardous materials on site. So certainly want to emphasize that is not something we would support even if it were permitted. That's a liability from our standpoint as a landlord.

Okay, I may have additional questions if you don't mind, but maybe send it back.

Sure.

Commissioner Villawalk, do you have questions for the applicant? Yeah, I do, actually. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for everyone coming today. I really appreciate it. We sat up here and listened for the three comments. We've read the comments before us, and I just have a few questions for staff, and I'll keep it brief. Your name's Chris, right? Did I write that down? Okay, good. I heard a lot of names today, so I appreciate that. Can you talk specifically about the traffic signal improvements? I'm aware of the curbs potentially coming in to assist the trucks going, but I'm curious to see what improvements would be done to the traffic signals that the city hasn't already done.

So we're putting in new fiber connectivity. We're expanding some lane turning radii to allow for cleaner truck signaling, restriping and resignalization where we're reprogramming some of those signals. So that's at the five separate intersections.

On a separate note, is there a chance that the tenant that could possibly come to this location would be a point of sale?

I do not believe it would ever be a point of sale. I mean, you're talking about fulfillment. And while I realize that would be great for the city, this building isn't designed for fulfillment. That's a high output type building. And frankly, we don't have the parking to accommodate it, and that's not within the business plan, so no.

Okay, and then can I clarify, because when I heard you, when you were giving your first presentation, you touched on that quiet zone. My initial interpretation of that was that quiet zone would only exist in that corner that was closest to the homes in the meadows?

That is correct, that northern driveway that curves around next to the wall there.

So outside of the, outside of... 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., trucks can travel right now in your plan. Trucks can travel back on that backside that's closest to the homes on the meadows.

I would need to look at a site plan to make sure I'm understanding what you're asking, but if you're picturing going north on Enterprise Way, there's the first driveway where you can turn right. That is the driveway that is not restricted to the quiet zone. If you continue north and come up around the building... Near the meadows, that's where the quiet zone would be in effect from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Got it.

But outside of those hours, the trucks could go up and around that backside. Jennifer, is it possible to put the map up?

Outside of the hours, yes.

Okay.

Correct.

So I know we talked a little bit about the truck route that was in the plan, the site development plan, Alicia, right, is access off of Enterprise Way and that way. and then exit off of that same way that they came in, why would they ever go up and around that backside that's closest to the residence?

Well, the natural ingress and egress will come through Enterprise Way. That's correct. There's two driveways to access that. And ultimately, as I mentioned, there you go. Thank you. So let's just say we're looking at the left side and the right side. So you've got driveways servicing either drive. both servicing the enterprise way, which goes out to dimension and ultimately bake. So what this accommodates by having these multiple driveways and points of access is the flexibility I mentioned earlier. So we're designing this to accommodate a wide variety of tenants and uses and ultimately how they align their business. So they may prefer to have material handling equipment. I'm just saying, for instance, they could prefer to have that on the left-hand side and ultimately load finished product on the right hand side and have trucks drive out the right or vice versa it could make more sense for them to have the material handling systems right leaving left so this is really to just be as flexible as possible to attract the widest array of tenants against the competition would you have any consideration if you just did not ever travel on that right side with 18-wheeler trucks at any time so the challenge with that is it would really be a detriment to our building against the competing buildings that have two points of access. So that was one of the selling points with this business plan that we actually have the two points. Additionally, we are envisioning this is a single tenant building. However, there are a lot of tenants in the market. They're in the 50 to 80,000 square foot range. So we could demise this right down the middle. And in doing that, typically tenants want secured yards on either side. So tenants would need to have separate access on either side. If that were the case, The tenant on the right-hand side, we would have to make sure that they're abiding by the quiet zone of the drive, but the left side would not be holding by that.

I understand that, Chris. So one more question. So Enterprise, is it way? It goes across the whole top portion of that, correct? Correct. There is also an exit, which I drove today before I came to this for the tacos. Thank you. Those are hitting really well right now. But is there, I have concern that then some trucks would then continue and get off that get out that exit that exits onto bake Parkway. Direct exit only on the park rather than turning left and going down enterprise way and then back down that function.

So I would need to defer to the engineer whose model that but frankly I don't even know that it's physically possible for trucks to make that turn. But I'll tell you right now we would be willing to prohibit trucks from taking that exit direct on a bake. and ensure that they go straight on to Enterprise Way.

Okay. I know when there's a will, there's a way for truck drivers. So there's definitely a way, but that would be what I was looking to get to, especially as that's closest to the residents. And as you heard, I was one of the individuals that was there and was welcomed into a home to see what we're looking at, walk the neighborhood with them.

And I can understand their concern to some level of some of these things So I'm trying to come to some middle ground of some reasonableness They could be certainly understand and appreciate that in addition to committing to any type of signage I would say that I hear your point where there's a will there's a way no matter what restrictions you put in place Truck drivers could potentially go somewhere you tell them not to oftentimes what we've done in other scenarios where trucks might have the leniency to go somewhere else. We put in calming measures where you might put in some type of island to slow trucks down. I think that actually may already exist to my point earlier that trucks aren't physically able to get out there.

It's not very easy for sure to go through, but I also don't know if there's box trucks, there could be different vehicles. And I also know that truck drivers typically are not employed by the business that's there. And so they could be one time, visitors rather than frequent flyers that understand. So those rules are sometimes hard to enforce and ensure. So that's some concern there too. I think I just have general comments, but Chair, is this just for questions for the applicant or is this for comments? What would you like?

He's up here now.

So maybe we take advantage of him while he's there. Yeah, that's fine. I just have a few more things that I want to leave with, but I'll let the rest of the commission ask him any questions. Thank you.

Do you have questions, Commissioner Ludden, for the applicant?

Chair, if I may, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the applicant did mention the condition of approval that they shared with staff, and I would like to share it for the record and for the commission.

Wonderful, thank you. I'd like to carry on as well.

The applicant mentioned the hours of 10 to 7 a.m., Correct. The internal driveway adjacent to the Meadows shall be designated as a quiet zone between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. daily. Operations of commercial vehicles except electric trucks using this driveway between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. shall comply with the following. One, audible backup alarms or beepers are prohibited. Vehicles shall utilize approved silent or smart backup warning systems such as broadband white noise alarms or camera based detection systems in compliance with applicable Cal OSHA safety requirements. Number two, engine idling is prohibited while using the designated quiet zone driveway. Number three, the property owner shall install and maintain clearly visible signage at each end of the designated quiet zone driveway, notifying drivers of the nighttime noise restrictions prior to entering the zone. The property owner and or business park management shall notify all tenants, contractors, or vendors of these requirements in writing. prior to occupancy, and annually thereafter. Documentation shall be maintained on site and available to the city upon request.

Thank you. Commissioner Ludden.

I'm just curious, when you have a 90,000 square foot warehouse, why do you need 23 loading positions?

I'm sorry, your question about the loading positions relative to the building itself.

You're calling out in your presentation that you use about 90,000 square feet for the warehouse portion, but you have 23 loading docks. I mean, that seems like a lot of loading docks for 90,000 square feet.

It certainly would be. And there's no full intent to fully utilize them all. Going back to the earlier point of designing this building for as much flexibility as possible. just providing as much optionality for these tenants it's hard to commit what range these doors are what range of doors is used but i would imagine you know it's only a fraction of that that actually gets used it's just does the tenant choose to use the doors on the left side the right side the middle it's hard to uh hard to dictate where a tenant's going to want their doors it looks like from the design of the building that if you were to demise it you'd have to change the the office space on the left side of the building and if you were going to demise it would you make it like the right side or how would you deal with that and what do you deal with the parking ultimately we are parked for jennifer's 10 000 office so we would likely do 5 000 feet of office on the left and 5 000 feet of office on the right which can accommodate parking on either side so we would likely speculate office on the left hand side of the building around, you know, just as, like, probably around 3,000 feet. And if a tenant decided they needed more office, we could expand on that. But that's usually where we would start.

Well, I guess I'm curious, too. I mean, it's a 35-foot-high building. I mean, do you have plans to add a mezzanine to it or something like that to effectively increase this interior square footage?

We can accommodate mezzanine in this space. And Jennifer, I'm going to defer to you again. Do we have five or 10,000 feet of mezzanine?

So it's just second floor office at 10,000 square feet. Any additional square footage, including a mezzanine, would go back through the city for review because they would need to park that area and it would have to go through a review for the city.

So they'd have to do a conditional use permit for that.

It wouldn't necessarily be a conditional use permit it would be it depends on how much they're adding and such but it would go through a process and Probably a project like this would get bumped up to our Planning Commission Thanks, Jennifer.

They would have to come back and read we get re-approval for the parking and all that kind of thing Yeah, I thought was if they were adding that mezzanine space for manufacturing that now becomes a different issue

Well, yeah, and depending on how they add it, they wouldn't have enough parking at the site. But we do have, you know, typically we have buildings come and add mezzanine. They need to show they meet the parking and they go through a process through the city that can ultimately be taken to the planning commission at the director's discretion.

So right now we're designed for the most intensive use, which is office, which can accommodate up to that 10,000 feet of mezzanine for office.

Okay. I'm just curious, can you tell us a little bit more about the type of tenant that you're trying to attract for this building? I mean, we've had a lot of discussion about hazards and the different types of things. What type of tenant are you really looking for that say in the past you've been able to attract or how do you choose a tenant for this type of building since this is a big issue since we don't know who the tenants are?

Totally understood. It's difficult for me to name specific names out in the market on the public record, but I can discuss the types of tenants that we're looking to attract. First of all, I mentioned what this building is not. It's not a large Inland Empire style warehouse distribution center. It's not port centric. It's not close to a lot of infrastructure and freeways and everything else. Could be potentially a local distribution center, but it's really based around and a fluent community, educated workforce. It's going to attract those type of employees with a high-end corporate finish.

Amazing, because we are trying to hold and conduct this professional, regardless of that, ma'am,

chair standard this ma'am if if i may uh there are provisions in the brown act that uh discuss what is a disruption and that it has to be an actual disruption that would prevent the commission from delivering so the over talking and things like that would be at some point not right now but at some point i believe yes if i agree there are folks speaking over the commission that would be a disruption okay bottom line is signs are fine comments are not thank you

I won't look.

So the lighting that Panasonic used compared to the lighting that is proposed with the new development, what might the differences be?

I think the lighting and the height of the lighting is pretty similar. They do need to have it downlit, and they have shields that they will add to make sure it doesn't go over the property line. Also, they will be using LED lighting, which is easier, I think, to control.

Thank you. All right, that's all I have for now.

Thank you. Commissioner Villawalk. All right, a few questions for staff. Gail, are there any active code enforcement cases on this property?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Are you aware of any? No. Okay. Thank you. Another question. I heard Amy when you read exactly what he submitted as far as the new condition. Did it say except for EV trucks?

Yes.

Chris, would there be any concern that we remove that component, that it could be any trucks during that time?

so that's where we felt they could be excluded, but the staff felt it was needed and we're open to it.

Okay, I appreciate the willingness. I'm not sure what the commission will initially or at the end decide. Just a few questions or more comments that I have. Actually, the last question for you, Jennifer. This location zoning has been light industrial for as long as the city's been incorporated.

Yeah, since 1987 before the city was incorporated.

Okay and then before the Meadows was zoned as agriculture?

A1 general agriculture.

Okay and then it was in the the 2040 plan or the general plan at some point was changed to residential?

It went through a general plan update general plan amendment and zone change I believe directly right before the general plan update so it went through a separate procedure for that.

So when it became residential, it was then deemed that it was compatible and we see residential next to light industrial throughout the city.

Correct.

Okay. Um, you know, I, I did listen to a lot of the comments tonight. I do feel there's a lot of misinformation that was said that was out there. Um, definitely driven by emotion. Um, So I guess I wanted to start with that. There's some things I like, there's some things I don't like. Of course, the EIR, I think adding bike lanes with trucks is just not a mitigation. I think that's an additional problem, but I understand that could be smoke and mirrors and just part of the EIR process. I do feel strongly about that quiet zone and whatever we can do to try to implement that, that would be my opinion with my colleagues up here on the commission that I think there needs to be some middle ground. some residential. I appreciate Jolene's comments over there as well. I think we're on the same direction here, and it's a late night, so that's what I'll end with, and I hope we can end somewhere in that area. Thank you. Mr. Arland.

You mentioned in your report about EV charging. What type of EV trucks are you planning to accommodate for charging?

So the reference was primarily to just cars, to autos. Right now we have the infrastructure to accommodate electric cars.

So you're never going to have a Tesla super truck in there, huh?

Well, there's also a mitigation measure that requires the tenant when they move in to add some truck EV chargers as well.

So you have to have truck chargers as part of their?

Yeah, it's a mitigation measure.

It is a mitigation measure, correct. It's not just cars. Yes. Is there any restrictions on signage that they can put on the building that would create additional lighting issues?

It would just be per our sign code.

Do they have a sign program for that industrial center?

No, there's not one for the entire center. It would just be per our sign code.

So it would be per the sign code, that would be an administrative?

Yeah, as long as it meets the sign requirements, we do those over the counter.

Okay. I guess I'm curious, are there other mitigations that can be done with respect to the noise at the truck dock? And you said something before about five minute idling requirement. That applies at the truck dock or not? Who's gonna answer that one?

Hold on.

It's not a city requirement we think that maybe there's a carb or a QMD requirement that limits idling Can we put a condition on that no more truck idling longer than five minutes period I?

Chair and Commission, there is a restriction that comes from CARB's in-use off-road diesel vehicles regulations that limits idling to five minutes or less.

So they can't idle a truck more than five minutes at the loading dock no matter what?

That's according to CARB's regulations. Now whether or not that happens, I don't know, but CARB's regulation says that it's limited to five minutes.

Well, I guess the question is, is that a condition we can apply to this?

Is it one that we need to, because it's the law, correct?

It is the law, that's correct. And it would be difficult for the city to enforce that, if we were to impose that condition.

That's the thing I'm trying to figure out, is if we have a provision for the five minute idling, how do we enforce it? How do we protect the homeowners if the guy decides to sit there in an idler's truck for 20 minutes? I mean, I guess that's the question I'm asking. Okay, maybe the...

I'd just like to offer we'd be willing to put up signage if that would be something that staff would support.

That would be amazing. Thank you.

Thank you. My last question.

Okay, just a few observations and questions. questions of staff in between. So city planning process, putting together land use designations. I'll start with our director, Gail. City goes through a thoughtful planning process to set up a general plan, zoning ordinance for zoning designations, and then there's also a master EIR that goes into that as you're putting together what the city plan is. So this area that was been planned as light industrial going back to really the 1980s even before the cities incorporation and then we inherited those implemented those in the 90s when the when the actual structures started to be built through the 2000s so this has always been a light industrial area that's correct now the adjacent property for decades was utilized as a nursery that designation at that time was what? Do you remember?

I think it was, it had it in the city's general plan. It was a business park overlay zone because it never could have been residential or anything else. So the use was A1, the agriculture of the nursery, but its general plan designation had to be a non-residential use as well.

So that had to be changed in order for it to be residential?

I believe so. In the NACASA EIR, the general plan amendment zone change, yes.

that those in those entitlements to use those land uses came after the light industrial so the light industrial was there first the residential came second correct that's correct in the planning process when you put together the actual development standards you're creating setbacks building heights floor area ratios um and and as well as buffers for adjacent uses and such correct

Yes.

And so the light industrial park area has very set setbacks, buffers, height restrictions, all of that, correct?

Yes.

All of it is in statute through the municipal code?

It's in the planned community, yes.

Okay. So it's the law of the land, basically. So when the Meadows was approved, it also then changed its land use designation, it also had the same requirements of having setbacks, building heights, lot sizes, et cetera. So a resident of a residential property has the ability to build on their property within the standards of the zoning ordinance for setbacks, heights, et cetera, correct? So most of that is done ministerially. For example, someone puts a patio cover in their backyard. As long as it conforms, It's kind of over-the-counter building plan process. Correct. So this development plan, irrespective of already having an existing structure on the property, the property itself is basically ruled by what is allowed under the general plan in the zoning, which includes all the things I just mentioned. They're not asking for any deviations whatsoever from the general plan or zoning ordinance.

Correct.

In fact, under the floor area ratio calculation, they're actually almost 30% below what could be allowed.

Correct.

Actually 28.3% to be exact. Yet they're only increasing the square footage that they're asking for by 12.6%. So I guess there's an opportunity there that there could be a proposal that could be much greater than what the one is on the table. Is that correct?

Correct.

I mean, massively different. So I guess in some areas, it's kind of the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know at some point. Going on to the SQL process, the SQL process is To say that it's very confusing, even for very intelligent people, is probably still a understatement. Would you agree? Alicia, I'll defer to you, Alicia. You're the CEQA expert. So the CEQA process, in fact, I'll direct these questions to you, Alicia. So CEQA is a process in order to elicit information that we can use for making decisions.

That's correct.

but it is a resource document only, correct?

That's correct.

It is not a policy-making document, correct?

Correct.

So we're just using information that is put together with data, acceptable data that's been tried and true, for example, traffic counts. Traffic counts is a pretty easy thing to anticipate because we have lots and lots of data of specific land uses to project what counts might be. and what traffic movements would be, et cetera. It's a pretty defined science, correct?

Correct.

As would be many, many of the other areas. So, if you have a project that conforms to all of your general plans and zoning, it's scaled well below the maximum thresholds, well below the setback requirements, Under CEQA, that could have gone through an MND process. Could it not?

It could have gone through an MND process so long as there were no significant and unavoidable impacts, yes.

So in this case, we did have an unavoidable impact when it came to VMT and GHG?

Correct.

However, in that analysis, that analysis does not compare an existing use to the proposed use. It pretty much looks at just the proposed use in a bubble, correct?

That's right. It looks at the proposed use as compared to the existing on the ground condition. So what is there now? And it's the vacant Panasonic, formerly Panasonic building.

And if I read the data correctly, that the existing facility, if it opened up today, tomorrow, at full capacity, the actual VMT and GHG would actually be higher than the proposed development, is that correct?

That's correct.

So even though CEQA looks at the new development somewhat in a bubble or a microcosm and loosely compares it but not directly, now I'm directly comparing it. So what we have here is a use that exists now that if it were utilized at full capacity would have a more intense set of impacts than the proposed use, correct?

That's correct, with respect to VMT.

And GHG. Correct. So would it be fair to say that any development proposal, pretty much anywhere in the city, of scale, would trip the VMT and GHG requirements? Or not the requirements, but the thresholds, sorry. Of scale. In other meadows, for example.

yes it is possible and it's heavily dependent on which um zone which taz the project is in so if the taz is also comparable then yes okay okay thank you i'm gonna move on to i've got i've got more so the meadows again going back to the meadows um so i

knowing about new home construction and disclosures, there is a state disclosure requirement through the Department of Real Estate. Is that correct? Maybe I go to Hung Dao.

I assume so, Vice Chair. I assume you probably know more about the disclosures than I do.

So the Department of Real Estate has to approve a certain level of disclosure for a new housing development for it to go to sale.

Right.

In addition to that, Builders, as a standard practice, especially large production builders that are, you know, that's what they do, they're highly professional, they supply disclosures to customers that include the state disclosure, what's called the DRE Final Public Report, or called the White Report. And then there's another separate disclosure that builders typically provide, two homeowners saying here's what here's what's around the home that you're purchasing here's also some other things about the ground underneath it and the sky above it etc and in in usual practice that disclosure is given to a new home buyer that they have are signing they're basically certifying that they reviewed the information They're initialing almost every corner, if not every corner, and signing the document that they have done that. And within the document, there generally is disclosure language that says, by the way, next door is a light industrial zoned property. What may be there is this, but what may be coming might be something else. And from that standpoint, it's incumbent upon the purchaser of a property to do a fair due diligence if they're concerned and go to City Hall and find out what is the allowable uses of that property. Is that something that sounds familiar? Yes. Okay. So is it conceivable that the property owners in the Meadows have disclosure documents that say exactly that and may not remember that it said that?

That is conceivable.

So that's something that, since this process is a due process, it's a quasi-legal process. So I think we have to exhaust all the steps in that. And so I would really be curious if there would be anybody here that is in the Meadows development that would offer up the documents that they were given by their builder for disclosure purposes to see if it's something that was actually disclosed to them as far as the land use. that the new proposal's coming, because who knows what that might end up being, because you don't know until you get to the end of the entitlement to use process that we're here tonight doing. But in the meantime, you still are disclosing what could happen, and also too, what could happen in the zoning ordinance shows the maximum of what it could be, which this proposal is greatly downscaled from what the maximum could be. Is that correct?

Correct.

So, okay. Just to wrap up here, last comment is, I do appreciate all the speakers, and by the way, I know it takes a lot of courage for people who don't do this every single day, so I do appreciate everybody who stood up and spoke. I think there is a lot of misinformation out there, and with that, there's a lot of fear that may have been generated, and that's too bad that we end up in a situation where it's where it's highly charged and so forth so what we're doing is we're looking at data we're looking at at what did this what was the city's original goal for the city and clearly light industrial use is what the goal was for this site otherwise it wouldn't have been general planned for it and and a zoning ordinance a zoning designation for it to allow for it so when you as a as an applicant coming into a city if you're coming into doing your research and your due diligence and looking at a piece of property and saying, hey, if I conform to all of the development standards of what the city, what its vision was for this property, would it be reasonable for an applicant to assume that they could get at least somewhere close to that? And so the question in my mind is did this applicant do that? Is it reasonable for the applicant to assume that in their research, in their diligence, in where the city laid out all of the criteria, the policies, procedures, and process, did they follow it, without asking for anything more than that, in which case are they not implementing what the vision was for the city? So I guess when I cast my vote, I'm gonna be weighing very heavily on that, because I think it's important that we have a plan, and if we're going to stick to the plan, if we have someone coming in to implement us sticking to the plan, Why would we turn them away? And I understand that surrounding land uses have to be taken into account. That's what mitigation measures are for. So from the standpoint of mitigation, is there some additional buffering that can be done? Is there additional plantings that can be done? It looked to me that there's still opportunities to fill in some of the spaces with vegetation and trees. I know that in, well, this isn't necessarily scientific, there is a tendency that we hear what we can see, so the more buffering does reduce the noise, or at least the perception of it. So, that's something I would propose. I do agree with the comments of my colleagues here as far as additional requests for mitigation and and enhancements to the development. So I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, and turn it over to you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. A few questions. One is in regard to the EIR and possibly the VMT. And that is, there you go. and that is the applicant has put forth that there's going to be approximately during daytime hours there's going to be 15 trucks per hour is the maximum and that's what the study was done on and then on the nighttime hours, if I recall correctly, it was four. So those are automatically the caps of what can happen on that property from an operational standpoint because that's what the studies were done on and the numbers that we're relying on in order to make those impact ratings and such, correct? Is that part correct?

The numbers that you've identified as being in the study are correct. So the analysis did assume 15 trucks per hour during daytime hours, four trucks during the nighttime hours. And that was used to identify whether or not the impact would be significant.

Correct.

Now, there is not a mitigation measure or a condition of approval that was imposed limiting them to that number of trips. Okay. So if the site could accommodate more trips because of just the efficiency of how they get trucks in and out, how they load and unload, whatever the case may be, and they can just operate at a higher volume, that would be physically feasible. They would likely have to go through a process to evaluate what that change in impact would be in order to, you know, determine if there is, a significant impact that would occur with respect to the additional trips.

So a significant impact on top of a significant impact, is that correct?

On top of it, yes. So the question really will come down to whether staff would have a discretionary, or whether the city would have a discretionary process in place, whether it be at the staff level or a decision that comes up to the Planning Commission. that would essentially pick up on those additional trips so that that additional environmental review could be done. If not, if there isn't some process that we would attach that additional review to and you wanted to cap the number of trips, you would need to add a condition of approval to limit them to 15 and four in accordance with what was studied.

Okay, thank you. And that's something that we would be able, I'm gonna have a question hung down now if that's okay. That would be something that we'd be able to consider this evening and possibly modify the conditions of approval, is that correct?

Yes, Chair. As a reminder, this is a site development permit that's before the Planning Commission. That's a discretionary item, so yes.

So we could add it to the site development plan?

So yes, conditions may be imposed to the site development permit. There are a couple of considerations, right? Conditions have to have a linkage and nexus to the issue we're trying to address. It has to be proportional and it would be, you know, a relation to the findings in the SDP.

Okay. And do you think this would meet those criteria?

in terms of limiting the amount of trucks based on that are tied to the right that are generated from the eir yes and were used to create it that would be up to the planning commission to articulate it i understand that part yeah but yes if if there's a nexus in proportionality and given that the er eir studied those numbers that could be a potential consideration of a condition of approval

Perfect. I think I can see out of the corner of my eye that Commissioner Fuentes wants to say something.

So I have a question of the developer and staff. Why wasn't that included? And could you handle the condition?

Thank you.

Well, then we don't have to go through my staff to answer the question.

Thank you.

So, well, let's continue, because we need to come back to that. I want to see if there's anything else that needs to be modified, because we'll have to modify the conditions of approval, which will take us short, somewhat of a recess, you'll let us know. Correct. And then come back and handle that, is that correct? Yes. Okay, so I think in case there's anything else that comes up, we might want to just proceed before we have to redraft something twice.

Yes.

All right, perfect, thank you. Our OCFA gentlemen have been sitting there for quite a bit. I have a question, if you wouldn't mind addressing it. I don't want you to be here for naught. There's been a lot, and I know that the applicant has addressed this, but I just wanna have a quick understanding, because there was a lot of comments about it. is into hazardous materials, storage and use. And it seemed like in the comments that there was an understanding that things could just be decided one day that we're gonna handle hazardous materials including batteries and chemicals and things like that and I would say a higher volume. But there is a process behind this as well that involves the OCFA, is that correct?

Yes, there is.

Can you just speak to that quickly but thoroughly? Thank you.

So any process that would move into the warehouse, whether it's hazardous materials or racking or any use, would be reviewed concurrently through the building department as well as OCFA. When it comes to hazardous materials, the fire code and the building code limit the amount of material stored in a facility, and then it's also limited by the occupancy type. So a person cannot legally move hazardous material in without a thorough review, and then my team would go out and actually conduct the inspection and verify any chemicals, whether small, small quantities to large quantities, whatever it's used for, we would verify that and issue any permits. But again, that would be at the very end of the process after it had been reviewed by the building department and OCFA.

Understood. Thank you. One question because we focused about on that you focused in your response about material stored inside of the warehouse. The Garden Grove came up. And I believe that that was a tank outside. That would require similar steps?

Yes. Whether the chemical is stored inside the warehouse or outside the warehouse, it would be the same steps. The code has different requirements for each storage location and the type of chemical or process being reviewed.

Wonderful. Thank you. I think Commissioner Villawalk.

No, just for the public, because I know this is a touchy subject, and I'll get right to it. I don't think they could do anything outside without coming back for a conditional use permit, right, that would have to come in a public hearing before the commission. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you.

It's not allowed in the zone. What's that? What we're talking about isn't allowed in the zone, correct?

Well, it sounds like if they...

If they do, they have to come back. That's the process of going through if you're going to have those materials, but my understanding is those materials aren't even allowed in this particular.

So manufacturing is a permitted use, and so some manufacturers may use hazardous chemicals.

But in limited quantities?

Yeah, per OCFA requirements.

Thank you for the clarification. Of course.

I do recall, if I remember my chemical, you're required for each company that occupies, they have to supply you with a chemical inventory every year, right?

So the CUPA and CSRS requires that. We would inspect it annually if it's a building. The chemicals we look at, you know, we're looking at everything from a repair garage, gas station, all the way up to, you know, major manufacturing. So a lot of what people will do, you know, to give you an example, like hand sanitizer is actually a very dangerous chemical in large quantities and, you know, high alcohol content. Most people wouldn't think of that, but that is a flammable liquid that we would want to get eyes on every year.

If I remember also correctly, every company has to supply you with a management plan of how they handle spills or any type of emergency that comes up related to those chemicals?

That is correct. All those are supplied, and then they're available through the CUPA website.

Thank you.

Good, thank you. Excuse me, I have one more question in regard to traffic and improvements.

My understanding, I have my question right here, so give me a second here.

All right, it's going to be a little long intro. Can you confirm that all five intersection improvements were reviewed for how WB 67 trucks, the larger trucks that are going to be traveling the roads in higher volumes, presuming a higher volume based upon approval of this? and how they're actually expected to move through the intersections and not just whether the design meets the basic technical requirements on paper. For example, did the review look at whether trucks would need to swing into other lanes, cross over lanes, come close to medians or signal equipment, create conflicts with cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and those sorts. Those are the examples that I have.

I'm going to have our traffic engineer answer that question.

That is wonderful. We're going to give everybody something to do this evening.

Evening, commissioners. Scott Maul, Hartstock and Cribble, traffic engineering consultant for the city. And yes, as part of the analysis, they did truck turning templates overlays over the intersections and where there was potential conflicts or there were conflicts, we would have to widen the intersection of the curb returns, and also in some cases we had to lengthen the left turn pockets.

And those left hand turn pockets are lengthened to a, we'll call it a depth, interesting calling length a depth, but to the depth of to accept those trucks and not back up for the most part through traffic, is that correct?

Right. We prefer that the vehicles making left turn lanes that they do not back out into the through lane causing traffic in the through lanes, people who have to maneuver around them. So that's why as part of their project they did They are lengthening some of the left-term pockets.

Right. So overall, in the study, there was no need, because I didn't read it, there was no need to add lanes or take on new property in order to expand the roadways. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you. I had a question for the CEQA, is that correct? The lady? But you asked my question, so I think we're good. And you got an answer from somebody. So we come back to... the updated, we should ask here, in looking at putting the, the EIA was studying on 14 trucks during the day per hour, and five trucks, four trucks, thank you, four trucks in the nighttime hours, which hasn't been defined, other than the fact that the applicant has put in some nighttime hours already. So I think, are we good? So I think that the question is, at this point, can we just do a straw poll among the commission, and this Hang Dao, this is for you, can we do a straw poll here as to whether or not we want to add those in without going to a motion?

So thank you for that. First, what I would suggest is that the public hearing be closed. So if you could do that.

I will.

And then for an action to be taken So there would be a motion and a second, and that motion could be, as you're alluding to, Chair, a motion with conditions. And for the Commission to articulate what those conditions may be, and before there's a vote, to have a straw poll for our office to at least understand whether or not those conditions whether there's support for the conditions. Because what I'm getting at here is that it is a best practice for if there's a change to the motion, especially conditions of approval, that we would be allowed a 20-minute recess. I know it's the late hour, but we would want that time to go back, type it up, print it out, and provide it to everyone on the dais, the applicant, members of the public, So everyone understands, given the importance of this vote, what exactly is being proposed tonight and voted on. So if there, yes, again, if we could start with a motion and whatever that motion may be incorporating the proposed conditions.

Okay, so when we do the overall, you're gonna go away, assuming that we're doing this and it passes, that there are other conditions that were provided by the applicant tonight prior to the meeting, and there were also some that were agreed to by the applicant during the meeting, and all of those will be incorporated into the redraft, is that correct?

Yes, as long as the commission gives us a straw poll vote to incorporate those. The ones that I have just listed that have been discussed and somewhat have the concurrence by the applicant is there is putting up signage about idling. So that's one. Two is the condition that Ms. Stonich read regarding the quiet zone that was provided by the applicant excluding the mention of electric vehicles. The third is a condition limiting the number of truck trips to the numbers that were provided in the EIR. So those are the three items that I have written down unless I missed something.

I also had prohibiting trucks exiting and entering the shared drive aisle on the north corner of the property.

Thank you.

And I would also recommend for any of the ones that we are dealing with signage, that we also have a condition saying that that signage in the location needs to be approved prior to CFO and installed prior to CFO, and then we'll have one that says you need to maintain that signage.

Okay. Did you want to say something, Commissioner Villalobos, earlier?

Let's go. All right.

Well, before we go, sorry. If the applicant were to come back and say that the 14 isn't working for me, can that be changed at a later date?

So any condition of approval that's set on by the Planning Commission can only be changed by the Planning Commission. So it would come back, it would have to come back through a public hearing process, the same public hearing process, to change a condition of approval.

And you mentioned that traffic in and out, the last one, we haven't, we heard from the applicant that that doesn't work for him, correct?

No, he said that he agreed to not allowing it up that kind of shared drive aisle on the northern part of the property that goes out to Bake. He agreed to that.

Is that correct?

It was specific to that exit off to Bake. It still allowed them to go around the facility to the north side and just go down Enterprise Way rather than going out the Bake side.

Yes. You're good? Yes, correct. Thank you.

Okay, so we need to make a motion. Would anybody like, I'll entertain motions if somebody would like to introduce one.

I'll make a motion to do the four items, five items.

Five items. Is it five items? Thank you very much. It's five items.

It keeps changing, I gotta ask. I'll make a motion to move ahead with the five items.

And a second?

You want a second?

I would love a second, yes, if you'd like to give one.

I would second that.

Thank you.

Okay, and thank you. And so before formally voting on that, can we take a straw poll by the planning secretary getting ayes just in favor of that and noes against? And based on that, if the ayes are in, you know, the majority is in favor, we will go back and write that in in a revised resolution.

Absolutely. Madam Commission Secretary, you're talking it through. That's okay.

Chair, are we voting on the whole project over now?

This is the revised.

All in favor?

Just scrawl, so we're not pushing any buttons.

All right, I'm in favor.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, then I would ask for a 20, no, maybe 20 minutes too long, wait, 15 minute recess so that we can go back and write this in, print them out, print enough copies for everyone to see.

Okay, perfect. So we're in recess for somewhere between 15 to 20 minutes until we come back, is that correct? Thank you. Thank you.

We have to get 15 minutes.

I was asked to meet with the residents. Sure, you can disclose that. by the time they got back to me, I was on a trip. Yeah, yep, yeah. Thank you. I hate it when I have to confess to you. It's okay, it's not so bad.

It's okay.

Give us five Hail Marys and what is it you say?

More like some nachos and nachos. Okay, so. We are going to, I think, you know, ensure in this motion that we close the public hearing.

Yes, close the public hearing.

Okay. Hearing. Motion.

is to move staff recommendations with conditions for the table. 11.5.

See, you guys wish I was right. Hey, there were copies enough for the audience or no? We put some on the back table. OK. Yeah, just say their copies on the...

Okay.

John Withers. That's John Withers.

And copies were put on the where?

On the... Back table. Back table. Okay.

At least that was my understanding.

Okay.

Let me ask.

For the public?

Yes. I think... Oh, I have one. Okay. Jennifer, unless that's yours. And Jennifer's going to announce it, or Alicia? Okay, so Alicia's gonna announce it, or Jennifer gonna announce where they're at. I stole your script.

So what are we waiting for? Are we ready to go? We're ready. Okay. HD, are we ready? Yeah, we're ready.

Everyone's present and accounted for.

Laurel and Pam were so complimentary to how well thought out it was for us to have met with the commissioner. She's like, we've been to meetings where they're making sausage. And I said, no, that's one thing I've learned here is that you don't make sausage. And so the pre-meats were essential, I think, to get us where we are.

And I think the other thing is, I know I've showed you this before, but when they start doing things, like I think they're going to want to add things, then I start marking my notes. And then when Hung Dao read them, I'm like,

I will, but are we good?

Okay. Oh, I didn't even write that one. You're always so good at taking good notes. You go. All right.

Thank you, everybody. We are now coming back into session for the Planning Commission for this evening. And I want to thank you very much. all right and before we go to uh vote um or to make a motion we're going to i'm going to ask all of the commissioners if they have any comments based upon the updates that we've had or anything else that they'd like to like to comment on commissioner fuentes thank you

Well, I'd first like to say that I did meet with the developer and he was very informative for me. I also tried to meet with the property owners. I made myself available in the early part of May and unfortunately by the time they got back to me, I was out of the country. So I did not get a chance to meet personally, but I did spend a lot of time walking the area, both in the meadows and at the site itself. And I'd just like to also add that I think Commissioner Grable said it very well tonight about how we're looking at this project and applying rules. I think sometimes as commissioners, we want our property owners, both business and homeowners, to succeed and to live their dreams. But sometimes we don't always agree and sometimes we have to make decisions that follow the rules, particularly when a business is coming to us or even a property owner is coming to us and they do comply with the rules. and he says it much more eloquently, and he knows all the terms, but I looked at this, I looked at what we have before us, and they are complying with our law. And I did want to thank the developer for his time and for the years of thoughtful, patient participation with the City of Lake Forest and for the concessions that you have made far beyond the normal. So thank you. With that, I'll pass it.

Thank you. Commissioner Villawalk?

Thank you, Chair. I think what we're going to be discussing here shortly, if a motion is going to be moved for this, I think that this is a good middle point for both the business as well as the residents that are there, considering that the light industrial zoning was in place prior to the change in zoning for the residentials at the Meadows. It does fit within the laws as well. commissioner Jolene mentioned and I'm tired I'm sorry and the last thing that I want to say is I met with the residents only you guys welcomed me into your home I understood what you're looking at there I sat down and we chatted for several hours this was probably a year or two ago did not meet with the developer I did I refused to meet with the developer and I refused to meet with the lobbyist thank you commissioner

I would like to disclose I did meet with the developer along with the city staff to get a better idea of what the project was about. I did drive the project. I did drive through the meadows. I looked at it in detail multiple times, took pictures. I do think this is a very difficult one. It's probably the most difficult one I've ever done to try and balance the rights of the property owner, the developer, and his willingness to be compliant and to do what he needs to do. And I also have a lot of feeling for you as homeowners that I can understand your fear and your trepidation. I think there has been a lot of misinformation there. Hopefully, we've tried to eliminate some of that tonight. I think that the changes in conditions we've added tonight with this last document we're looking at will be beneficial and should give you some relief and some comfort, probably not as much as you would like. But this is not easy, and it's hard to balance everybody's needs sometimes. but I do think that the people that have worked on the EIR and with the city staff, I think they've worked very hard to try and make this work and get as much information as they can. I believe the information we have is factual At some point, I feel the need, I have to trust the staff and the consultants that we use that they've brought us the correct information and we have to make decisions based on that, even though sometimes they're not the decisions we'd always like to make or easy to make. So I do support these changes and that's kind of where I'll leave it.

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Chair Sanders. So we have a very difficult thing to do here. And again, I think everybody, especially those of you who are here at this hour, the bitter end, that takes a lot of dedication. I feel your emotion. I feel that you are passionate about positions and And I had the opportunity to read dozens and dozens and dozens of emails and other correspondence, including those in the EIR. There was a lot of information and, again, a lot of that passion that came through those correspondence pieces. And so we take that very seriously. Also, I did meet with the developer, made a request. He has a First Amendment right to do that, and in transparency, I think it's good to listen to both sides. Certainly with all the correspondence that came through, there was a lot of both sides to sift through information-wise. So it was good to get both sides before coming into the meeting. But we come into this open-minded, so that we can listen to everybody that is presenting here. I appreciate the labor being here to present their position as well, because obviously you guys are stakeholders in this process also from a job standpoint. However, for those that are living here, I get it. there are going to be impacts, but there's always going to be impacts. And I think it's just really important to sift through all the information and look through, when you hold up a sign that says health over profit, just know that the existing use does generate more unhealthful conditions than the proposed use. And the document clearly, the EIR clearly states that and why. And I know it's difficult, You know, in EIR, in the CEQA process, the EIR documents and all the information, you know, it's data, it's factual information. And sometimes those facts are hard to swallow, but it doesn't make, just because you don't like what the data says doesn't mean the data's wrong. And so we take that into consideration as well. But at the end of the day, we have to provide balance. And there is a balance that we do up here. We look at this as objectively as we can. On the one hand, being empathetic to people and what they're having how they're living now and what that change may be or may not be. Because really the proof won't be evident until this project is actually completed and operational. So right now we have to go on the faith of the data that is given to us to make an objective decision providing that balance. So I appreciate all the input from everybody, all the sources, staff, and our consultants have done just an absolute stellar job to give us the information that we hope will create the platform for the best decision possible. Not everyone will be happy about it. I understand that. That's what makes these positions up here very, very difficult because we do know and we do understand that our decisions do affect people's lives. So with that, thank you. All right.

Oh, we don't need that, but thank you. I JUST WANT TO START OUT BY SAYING THAT I'M GOING TO BE SHORT BECAUSE WE'VE ALL BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME. BUT I DO WANT TO COME BACK TO WHAT I MENTIONED AT THE START OF THE MEETING AND THAT WAS ABOUT THE BALANCE OF BALANCING PROPERTY RIGHTS OF RESIDENCES VERSUS THE BUSINESSES HERE. I THINK THE COMMISSION, THE STAFF, I think everybody here, I thank the applicant. We were able to advocate for the residents in order to make changes, and they were able to agree to those this evening. They're incorporated into the document that we're about to vote on, and I think that with having the residents here, think with having the tradesmen the tradesmen here that that is how this is process is supposed to work and everybody has a voice and they're able to speak into the issues and then we're able to take that process make changes as necessary and appropriate and then be able to come to final decision at least from this Commission so with that I thank everybody for being here this evening and I am going to ask if there is a motion on the updated um conditions and findings that were distributed to the planning commission up here as well as everybody in the office in the audience excuse me

Chair, if I can just quickly on the revised conditions of approval and the revised findings language. As you mentioned, there were copies that were provided at the back. There are two sheets so that the public is aware. One sheet has a first page that looks like what's up on the screen here.

Oh, so they don't have,

There were 10 copies. There weren't sufficient copies for everyone to take one home, but there are sufficient copies to share. And then we're also projecting the language up on the screen in case anyone wanted to see it there as well.

Okay. So there, you heard that the language of the document that we're voting on has been left available at the back front or of the table up at the front where you got your speaker cards from. That's correct. And where the agendas are. And where the agendas are. So you're welcome to take a look at those, share them amongst yourselves, and then we will, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the added conditions.

And is there a second?

And if I may, Chair, let's just go ahead and incorporate closing the public hearing. Oh, thank you very much. Moving staff's recommendation with the conditions and the findings, the revised findings and conditions. So we're going to close the public hearing.

Close the public hearing, please. Thank you.

And then the motion would be to move staff's recommendation with the revised conditions and findings.

One more time.

I'll make a motion to approve the added conditions to the... to this application.

Do you want to add staff recommendation to that?

Yeah, I'll add staff recommendation to that.

And the revised findings. And the revised findings. Thank you.

Thank you.

It's hard to get the wording right this time of night.